Ben Rinzler, the current owner of 251 Allen Street, now being operated as a hotel called The Hudson Navigator, is determined to put an internally illuminated sign on the east side of the building.
This original proposal, presented to the Historic Preservation Commission in September 2024, was for a 7 x 7 foot sign.
In November 2024, after a public hearing, the HPC denied the sign a certificate of appropriateness. The opinion of the HPC was that sign of the size proposed was inappropriate in a historic district.
In January 2025, Rinzler returned to the HPC with a new proposal. Instead of being 7 feet in diameter, the sign would be 82 inches--a reduction of 2 inches.
Today, Rinzler was back with a new proposal. This time, the diameter of the sign would be 69.75 inches--a reduction of 12.25 inches.
Saying she was "not a fan of an internally illuminated sign," HPC member Kim Wood expressed concern about the quality and brightness of the light emanating from the sign. She seemed to be satisfied when it was agreed that the brightness of the light would not exceed 3,000 lumens.
Miranda Barry brought the discussion back to what should be of central importance to the Historic Preservation Commission: "The issue is not the brightness of the light," Barry told her colleagues, "it is whether it looks like something that belongs in a historic district and not in a shopping mall. The issue is historic appropriateness."
Defending the historic nature of the sign, Rinzler said it was in "a style from the 1950s." Barry countered, "But the building it's attached to is from the 1880s."
Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, said, "The issue is the degree to which [the sign] 'pollutes' the environment," concluding, "I can't see the problem." He went on the say, "I don't want to go another round on this," and called for a vote on granting a certificate of appropriateness. Of the five members present at the meeting, three--Wood, Forman, and Hugh Biber--voted to grant the certificate of appropriateness, and two--Barry and Paul Barrett--voted against it. Granting a certificate of appropriateness requires an affirmative vote from at least four members of the seven-member commission, so once again the attempt to get a certificate of appropriateness failed.
It was decided that the HPC will vote again on the proposal when the full board could be present. It was not clear exactly when that might be, since it was pointed out that the next HPC meeting is scheduled to take place on May 23, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend. Absent from today's meeting were John Schobel and Jeremy Stynes.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
I bet John would vote no, he’s a tough one to win over.
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t they just submit a hanging wooden sign with a small spotlight for illumination? It’s not a bodega on Green St.
Both John and Jeremy will have to oppose it to make this go away. Why this sign is needed escapes me. This house has been run successfully as a B&B since 2002 without needing a tacky sign.
DeleteIf the useless, disgraceful, unreadable, rusted out sign a few hundred feet away down the hill on 3rd street welcoming visitors is acceptable to the city, I don't know why this one wouldn't be.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that a big issue here is precedent. If we are going to allow an illuminated sign in a historic district, then what happens the next time someone submits an application for another one? I encourage the Board members to vote NO.
ReplyDeleteThe main takeaway here is that the question can be judged and decided on merit, precedent, and with due process.
ReplyDeleteImagine the Planning Board was this organized.
It turns out that the best Boards in towns are the ones with the least interest to Kamal.