Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: William Street signage variance application should be denied

  1. #16
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) tabled this variance hearing at the January Meeting and will be reviewing the application tonight (Thursday, February 6, 2020).

    The petition of Benderson Development Company LLC, 570 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202 for three [3] variances for the purpose of erecting a sign on premises owned by the applicant at 4733 William Street, Lancaster, New York, to wit:

    A. A variance from the requirements of Chapter 50, Zoning, Section 30D.(1) of the Code of the Town of Lancaster to install a sign advertising Rachel’s Mediterranean located at 4931 Transit Road on an existing pole sign at 4733 William Street.

    Chapter 50, Zoning, Section 30D. (1) of the Code of the Town of Lancaster requires no sign shall be used to attract attention to a business not available or located on the premises where the sign is located. The petitioner, therefore, requests a variance to allow offsite advertising to be placed on a parcel.


    Since (and before) that meeting the Orville’s pole sign has a Rachel’s Mediterranean Restaurant lit sign operating on its premises. Since that date there have accidents in this location, one of them in the Orville’s driveway entrance.

    The colocation of the Rachel’s sign is illegal, and this overburdened area does not need any more attention / traffic drawn to it.

    Public safety is supposed to be the town's number one priority, right?
    What was the result of last night's meeting? The recording isn't posted yet.


    EDIT_ Ooops it wasn't last night it's scheduled for 2/13

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    What was the result of last night's meeting? The recording isn't posted yet.


    EDIT_ Ooops it wasn't last night it's scheduled for 2/13
    Thanks, Gorga.

    My bad! It was posted on the town website as January 6th agenda - posted on the 6th and where the agenda language clearly states the meeting was to take place on the 13th.


  3. #18
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Thanks, Gorga.

    My bad! It was posted on the town website as January 6th agenda - posted on the 6th and where the agenda language clearly states the meeting was to take place on the 13th.

    I did the same thing. I saw Feb 6. Then i saw the calendar said Feb 13. So I opened the Feb 6 and saw it was the posting date not the meeting date

    I didn't go last night because I knew the opera house had the village public meeting on the roundabouts there.
    I would have went for nothing anyway

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #19
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    The Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals considered the petition by Benderson Development for three variances last night for the purpose of erecting a sign on premises not owned by the developer.

    The first variance to locate a sign advertising Rachel’s Mediterranean Restaurant on property not owned by the developer at 4733 William Street was tabled. Chapter 50, Zoning, Section 30D. (1) of the Code of the Town of Lancaster requires no sign shall be used to attract attention to a business not available or located on the premises where the sign is located. The petitioner, therefore, requests a variance to allow offsite advertising to be placed on a parcel of land not owned by the business.

    Former Town Clerk and ZBA member Robert Thill appeared before the board to advise them that the variance sought is an area variance and that town law established in 1989 is specific on what an area variance implies and the restriction placed on its approval thereon. “What the applicant is requesting is a change in land use and where billboards are no longer allowed,” declared Thill. “He can’t have it, period,” stressed Thill.

    Thill advised such action taken by the town to approve such variance could result in an Article 78 legal suit and where the town could be sued. The matter was tabled to allow for the petitioner and town to research and return with legal arguments as to why the area variance should or should not be approved.

    The other two variance applications regarding sign dimensional changes were approved based on findings declaring that their approval had little impact on the character of the neighborhood, environment, etc.

    Comment

    The applicant’s attorney declared that the Rachel’s sign collocated on the William Street pole sign would have little impact on the traffic in the area. Really?

    The traffic in this William Street area is already overburdened, is plagued with conflict points and experiencing frequent traffic accidents and vehicular backups extending onto Transit Road.

    The intent of this sign variance is to bring attention to an alternate Rachel’s access driveway; one with signalization, unlike the Transit Road access driveway and where making left-hand turns into the Aldi plaza is near impossible.

    For individuals who travel William Street regularly or reside in the area, the traffic and traffic safety issues that will increase are as important as all other reasons why this variance should not be approved. Public safety is supposed to be the town's highest priority, right?

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    It will be very interesting to see what Benderson and its legal representation come up with to circumvent a town code that was established in 1989 that disallows signs on property not owned by the applicant. It is my understanding that ‘use’ or area variances are not permitted.

    Unlike past code enforcement department’s the current department is enforcing signage codes in place. Drive down Transit Road and you will see numerous sign violations – violations committed at site plan approvals where signage applications were not sought.

    No one is above the law, or so I keep hearing!

  7. #22
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    It will be very interesting to see what Benderson and its legal representation come up with to circumvent a town code that was established in 1989 that disallows signs on property not owned by the applicant. It is my understanding that ‘use’ or area variances are not permitted.

    Unlike past code enforcement department’s the current department is enforcing signage codes in place. Drive down Transit Road and you will see numerous sign violations – violations committed at site plan approvals where signage applications were not sought.

    No one is above the law, or so I keep hearing!

    And Mr Thill explains it perfectly at this point of the meeting recording
    https://soundcloud.com/user-32929237...13-zba#t=20:25

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #23
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Here we go again. on the agenda of the March 5th ZBA meeting

    2.) The petition of Benderson Development Company LLC, 570 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo,
    New York 14202 for one [1] variance for the purpose of erecting a sign on premises owned by
    the applicant at 4733 William Street, Lancaster, New York, to wit:

    A variance from the requirements of Chapter 50, Zoning, Section 30D.(1) of the
    Code of the Town of Lancaster to install a sign advertising Rachel’s
    Mediterranean located at 4931 Transit Road on an existing pole sign at 4733
    William Street.

    Chapter 50, Zoning, Section 30D.(1) of the Code of the Town of Lancaster
    requires no sign shall be used to attract attention to a business not available or
    located on the premises where the sign is located. The petitioner, therefore,
    requests a variance to allow offsite advertising to be placed on a parcel.

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Thanks for posting, Gorga.

    In so many words, the request is still seeking a variance that flies in the face of town code and should be denied.

    It will be interesting to hear Benderson’s attorney speak on necessity to have this sign located other than on its property.

    The town board has a resolution Monday evening proposing Natale Builders to Draft an Environmental Impact Statement to respond to the town’s issuing a SEQR positive declaration for the Stutzman Road 24 home proposed development.

    One of the cited significant potential impacts concerned traffic: There will be an increase in traffic that will exceed the capacity of the existing road network.

    The declaration also added that the traffic study submitted by the applicant was performed at a time when a waterline project was taking place limiting traffic and the nearby Lancaster High School was out of session.

    Here the applicant acknowledges the intent of the sign is to draw attention to the signalized William Street access (Orville’s), adding more traffic to an already overburdened two-lane county road and at a 500-foot single east lane for vehicles entering William Street from Transit Road.

    It is time the ZBA takes into consideration ‘road capacity’, area hazard / conflict points, traffic safety and accidents taking place when granting variances

    Individuals who do not travel William Street are apt to declare, “What’s another sign, a few more cars.” This overburdened road, and this 500-foot location in particular don’t need any more vehicular traffic and in dire need of an updated traffic study. How many SEQR small-to-moderate traffic impacts lead to an overburdened and dangerous road network?

    Why didn’t Benderson apply for a sign variance during Rachel’s site plan application and approval? The applicant already received a significant parking space variance.

    Enough is enough!

  10. #25
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,151
    Originally posted by gorja:
    Here we go again. on the agenda of the March 5th ZBA meeting
    Oooops!!! I did it again The posted date is March 5 but the meeting is March 12.
    The way it's posted on the website makes one assume that it is March 5 or at least this person did.

    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    March 3, 2020

    Zoning Board of Appeals
    Town of Lancaster
    21 Central Avenue
    Lancaster, NY 14086


    Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing – March 12, 2020
    Petition of Benderson Development Company, LLC
    Request for an area variance:
    Rachael's Mediterranean sign “billboard” at 4733 William St, Lancaster NY


    Dear Zoning Board members:

    I presented to you evidence and testimony in opposition to the granting of the above referenced area variance on February 13, 2020 at the last zoning board meeting. The hearing on this matter was adjourned to allow for the taking of further evidence and testimony at the March 12, 2020 meeting of the zoning board.

    I will not be in attendance at the March 12th meeting to present testimony and evidence in furtherance of my opposition to the granting of this area variance. Unfortunately my wife and I will be out of state the week of the March 12th on a preciously purchased ski vacation in Vermont.

    Since I cannot be present to give verbal testimony please consider in your findings and in making your determination the following documentation, making it a part of the official record of the proceedings:

    An area variance request to erect a sign off-premises advertising Rachael's Mediterranean at 4733 William St. drastically changes the character of the proposed sign from an accessory use sign in the (GB) General Business District to a “BILLBOARD SIGN” as defined in section 50-30 B. “Definitions: SIGN, BILLBOARD, Any sign that attracts attention to an object, product, service, place, activity, institution, organization or business not available or located on the lot where the sign is located.” (bold emphasis added)

    On May 5, 1989 when the town board adopted Chapter 50 Zoning they removed billboards as a permitted use in all use districts.“50-30D. General regulations. The prohibitions contained in this subsection shall apply to all sign and use districts. (1) no sign shall be used to attract attention to an object, product, place, activity, institution, organization or business, not available or located on the premises where the sign is located” (bold emphasis added)

    The relief sought by the petitioner for an off premises “BILLBOARD SIGN” should not have been submitted as an “area variance.” Nothing in the variance request mentions any dimensional or measurement attributes that qualify it for consideration as an “area variance.” The area variance requested should be denied with a direction to the petitioner to return to the zoning board with a proper application for a “use variance.”

    The relief sought by the applicant is a land use matter not a dimensional or measurement matter. This relief is called a “use variance,” that is, a petition to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking authorization from the board for the use of land for a purpose which is otherwise not allowed or is prohibited by the applicable zoning regulations. (Note: BILLBOARDS are not a permitted use in any zoning district of the town of Lancaster, not even industrialist districts or the adult entertainment districts.)

    I captured and downloaded from the internet the attached

    “Town Law 267 Zoning Board of Appeals”
    1. Definitions. As used in this section:
    (a) “Use variance” shall mean …................................................. ........................
    (b) “Area variance” shall mean …................................................. ......................

    I ask that you confer closely with board counsel Kevin Loftus on this matter. Please seek his assistance in the preparation of bullet-proof findings to sustain your decision. The probability is high that this matter may result in an Article 78 court proceeding.

    Yours truly,

    Robert P. Thill

  12. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    March 5, 2020

    Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals
    RE: Rachel’s signage (pole) variance application


    Honorable ZBA members:


    I am writing to request Board denial of Rachel’s Mediterranean Restaurant application for a variance to co-locate a pole sign on property not owned by the petitioner – albeit seeking authorization from the board for an ‘area variance’ or the use of land for a purpose which is otherwise not allowed or is prohibited by the applicable zoning regulations.

    I would like to draw your attention to Town Code and the conditions to be met before a variance appeal is granted:

    50-45(c)(2)(a)(4) - That such practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship are not self-created.


    Benderson is aware that by town code two pole signs on its own property is not allowed. Benderson owns William Street frontage property and allowed to erect ground / monument signage – but chooses not to because it would not have the effect of visibility / attention and would be distant from the Orville’s signalized driveway.

    The official Benderson development address is 4931Transit Road, at where there is an access driveway and appropriate signage.

    Why now Rachel’s? To draw attention to a William Street signalized access road that leads to Rachel’s. What follows should this appeal be granted – just because Orville’s agrees to the sign co-location - more agreements and signs at the location? More traffic and traffic safety issues at this location; and along William Street?

    50-45(c)(2)©(3) - Will not create a hazard to health, safety or general welfare.

    Bringing attention and added traffic to an already overburdened two-lane county road, and especially to 600-ft General Business area with access driveways to 13 businesses does adversely impact the safety and wellbeing of the community – conflict / hazard points, accidents, traffic queuing that impacts the Transit Road / William intersection as well.

    The town board has a resolution Monday evening proposing Natale Builders to Draft an Environmental Impact Statement to respond to the town’s issuing a SEQR positive declaration for the Stutzman Road 24 home proposed development.

    One of the cited significant potential impacts concerned traffic: There will be an increase in traffic that will exceed the capacity of the existing road network.
    Here the applicant acknowledges the intent of the sign is to draw attention to the signalized William Street access (Orville’s), adding more traffic to an already overburdened two-lane county road – as well as the Transit Road / William Street intersection.

    Likewise, the ZBA should take a ‘hard look’ at road capacity, area hazard / conflict points, traffic safety and accidents taking place when considering granting this variance.

    Lee Chowaniec

    cc:
    ZBA members
    Kevin Loftus – Town Attorney
    Matt Fischione – Building Inspector

  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    The applicant appealing to get a variance from the requirements of Chapter 50, Zoning, Section 30D.(1) of the Code of the Town of Lancaster to install a sign advertising Rachel’s Mediterranean located at 4931 Transit Road on an existing pole sign at 4733 William Street failed to garner the necessary 4 votes required to approve the application.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Widening William Street between Transit Road and Aurora Street status
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 20th, 2015, 12:53 PM
  2. William Street pole sign variance should be denied
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 18th, 2012, 10:50 AM
  3. Walmart William Street drive
    By Santo23 in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 13th, 2011, 08:30 PM
  4. William Street, the good, bad and the ugly
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 11th, 2010, 07:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •