The Town of Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) considered two variance petitions submitted by Michael Clement, President, M&B Flix, LLC, Lancaster, to:

1) erect an additional pole sign at the Flix Theater William Street access (driveway)

2) increase the permitted face area of the sign from 32 feet to 48 feet

The applicant’s attorney claimed the sign was necessary to drawn more attention to the William Street access; informing theater attendees such access existed when planning to attend a movie.

Writer comments at the ZBA

First off, let me be clear as to standing on this matter. I live in a subdivision that is but a few hundred feet from the Flix Theater access and travel William Street daily.

This de ja vue all over again!

A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) of the Town of Lancaster was held on January 12, 2012 at 8:00 P.M., in the Town Board Chambers, in the Lancaster Town Hall, 21 Central Avenue, Lancaster, New York to consider a petition by Michael Clement of M&B Flix, LLC for two [2] variances for the purpose of erecting an additional pole sign on premises owned by the petitioner at 4901 Transit Road, Lancaster, New York 14086. The same variance petitions were denied.

Whereas the town ordinance allows a business one pole sign and that sign should only be 32 square feet in size, the petitioner, 5+ years later is once again before this board requesting a 100% variance to erect a second pole sign (not permitted by town code) at the William Street access and a second variance of 50% to enlarge the signage area from 32 square feet to 48 square feet.

According to the Zoning Board of Appeals own criteria, before making a determination it must consider five items to weigh; the benefit to the applicant vs. the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community.

A) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.

Where the applicant stated the installation of a second pole sign would not set precedence, it would indeed set precedence as the proposal for a like pole sign at Aldi was denied by this same board. And, there is no Wal-Mart pole sign on William Street as well. If I remember correctly, Aldi was granted permission to erect ground signage (monument) and has not done so. Flix was granted approval for ground signage as well in 2012.

Now as then, the applicant claims that a pole sign is needed to identify their entrance on William Street as vast improvements have been made to their theater and proper identification is needed. In 2012, the theater was already in operation for 15 years and no pole sign was allowed at the William Street access, and/or required. If memory serves me right, the access was demanded to primarily handle emergency needs.

There are currently three ground signs in place at the Flix William Street driveway. The one is a lighted mobile sign; a lighted sign that stays on all night and is already considered An intrusive nuisance to residents impacted by the light..

This is another blatant attempt by the applicant to redirect overburdened Transit Road traffic onto William Street; itself an already overburdened road with five major driveways within a distance of 700 feet from Transit Road to the Flix driveways and utilized by Flix, Wal-Mart, Orville’s Aldi, Rite Aid and the Sunoco gas station. Orville’s does have a pole sign because it is its only sign identifying the business location on William Street.

C) Whether the requested area variance is substantial.

For the applicant to claim that the addition of one pole sign (not allowed by code), where the signage increase is 50% of that permitted is not substantial is ludicrous in my opinion – especially considering a second pole sign is not permitted by town code..

D) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

The applicant claims that there would be no adverse effects; that the variances will help alleviate traffic backups on Transit Road, which otherwise could create traffic pattern problems without William Street entrance.

The applicant’s variance request becomes clear. By locating a pole sign on William Street he wants to redirect traffic from the conflicted Transit Road access and move it onto an already overburdened William Street and signalization nearby.

When exiting the William Street theater driveway and wanting to make a left turn to head in a westerly direction, it was near impossible to do so in 2012 without great risk. Today with the Orville’s addition that same individual now finds an even greater traffic conflict and hazard because he is immediately entering a turning lane into the signalized Orville’s driveway; and to continue west he has to cross traffic often backed up on William Street east of the Flix driveway.

So the applicant now wants to move that traffic over to his William Street driveway where there is no traffic signal, a two-lane county road immediately to the east and several large commercial businesses nested along William Street and only 700 feet east of Transit Road.
In the meantime, and since the theater got busier, William Street motorists are being subjected to more lane traffic (15,000 daily vehicles travel William Street in this area), more queuing and the increased risk of accident from motorists making left turns out of the Flix driveway and seven hundred feet of road with five retail businesses and four other driveways. This area is a hell-hole already and the applicant wants a pole sign and variances that will draw even more traffic for his benefit.

E) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

In 2012, the applicant declared as new owners and with Wal-Mart and much more businesses in the immediate area a pole sign will shorten vehicular traffic in a congested area by having our customers use this entrance, especially those not from the immediate area.

It is indeed a self-created hardship in that the Flix Theater complex has been in operation for 20 years now. How could the applicant not know of the Transit Road traffic and traffic safety issue – especially for vehicles exiting onto Transit Road and attempting to make a left turn where no signalization is available?
He did know in 2012 about the traffic conflict at the Transit Road theater main entrance and wants to resolve some of that by pushing traffic to William Street and onto to the signalization at Transit Road.

When the Transit Road Access Management Ordinance was in the discussion stage, the Town Board was advocating for there being only two signalized driveways on William Street to handles all the traffic coming from the businesses already in operation and at the planning stages. There are still 5 driveways all within 700 feet from Transit and William. Despite the road restriping designs, signalization synchronization changes, et al, queuing issues under the Transit Road / William Street intersection light and resulting hazardous conflict situations still exit. And the applicant wants to place more traffic here.

Consider also that there are at least another 200 subdivision homes in the pipeline (Windsor Ridge South and Summerfield Farms) where owners could potentially utilize William Street and a future 42 acre Town Park proposed at William & Lake Avenue (with 6 playing fields, a track, a playground and other amenities) that will further increase traffic counts on this already overburdened two lane county road.

Lastly, a property owner has to show that the benefit he or she receives from the variance would outweigh "any burden to health, safety and welfare" for the community. It is my opinion that the applicant doesn’t come close to fulfilling this requirement and should once again be denied his petitioned variances.