Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Signs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board rejects 64 Ashford Ave. sign as noncompliant, urges smaller redesign or ZBA variance

Dobbs Ferry Architectural/Historic Review Board (AHRB) · July 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Dobbs Ferry AHRB rejected an application for an 18-by-4-foot sign at 64 Ashford Avenue, finding it out of compliance with local sign-size and lettering rules and advising the applicant to return with a smaller design or seek a zoning variance.

The Dobbs Ferry Architectural/Historic Review Board on motion denied the sign application for 64 Ashford Avenue after members concluded the proposal exceeded local size and lettering limits.

The application, described by the applicant’s representative as keeping the overall sign dimensions the same but reducing lettering size, prompted immediate concern from board members and staff about total square footage and letter heights. Staff warned that the board’s code limits top and bottom lettering to 22 inches and questioned whether the proposed layout — described in the application as roughly 18 feet long by 4 feet high — complied with the “as‑of‑right” limits.

Board members discussed two paths: the applicant could reduce the sign so it meets the code or pursue variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant acknowledged the noncompliance and said the client was willing to seek zoning relief.

“Right now the sign is too big; the square footage is not compliant,” the Chair said during the discussion. Staff added that if the ZBA grants variances, the AHRB would still need to review the project when it returned with the outcome.

On the motion to reject the application as submitted, the board voted in favor. The chair told the applicant to return with a smaller, code‑compliant sign or to pursue the variance process through the ZBA and then come back to the AHRB with the ZBA outcome or revised designs.

The denial was procedural: the board did not adopt alternative conditions or an approval, and staff reiterated that the applicant may either revise the design to meet code or obtain the variances and resubmit.