Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board declines rooftop sign concept for Joey’s, asks applicant to resubmit monument sign details
Summary
The Planning Board reviewed Joey’s Restaurant sign plans and told the applicant to remove the proposed rooftop ‘Joey’s’ letters as the board found they would not meet the town’s flush‑mounted, parallel sign standard; the board indicated the monument sign could proceed with modifications to numerals and materials.
The Town of De Witt Planning Board reviewed a sign package for Joey’s Restaurant on April 24 and declined to approve proposed rooftop mounted letters that would sit on a cupola-like roof element, citing the town’s requirement that building signs be flush‑mounted and parallel to the building wall.
Applicant presentation and board response: The applicant presented backlit, standoff letters for a rooftop location and a companion monument sign design. Board members described concerns with the rooftop letters’ readability, shadowing and parallel‑to‑building requirement. Planning staff pointed to code language that limits projecting signs to one foot and that requires signs to be mounted parallel to the building wall and not to extend above the eave in the manner proposed.
Monument sign: Board members were generally receptive to the monument sign concept but asked the applicant to simplify the detailing where numbers would sit and to submit a flat inset panel or stone band for the numerals to improve balance and material quality. The board requested color and material samples and suggested 3‑D renderings to show nighttime appearance of backlit elements.
Outcome and next steps: The board asked the applicant to remove the rooftop letters from the plan set and to resubmit the monument sign with clarified materials for the numerals and a simplified column treatment. No approvals were granted for the rooftop building sign; the monument sign may be reconsidered once the applicant provides revised details that comply with the code’s flush‑mounted and parallel requirements.
Board commentary emphasized precedent and code consistency: Several board members noted prior cases in which the board denied signage that effectively extended building faces for the purpose of increasing visibility and cautioned against creating a precedent that would encourage similar rooftop treatments without parallel backing surfaces.
