NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD

MUNICIPAL BUILDING - 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE

NEWTOWN, PA 18940

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002

7:30 PM


Approval of the Minutes: Mr. Ragan corrected page 11, paragraph 6 to read: "Mr. Ragan said that he and Mr. Lenihan had visited the site. He confirmed that the signs in question were mounted on the side walls and rear wall of the store, about 50 feet from the front windows, and visible from the street; and that, in addition, non-illuminated directional signs were mounted from the ceiling to inform customers of the products in each aisle."


The Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board met on Thursday, March 7, 2002 in the Newtown Township Building. In attendance and voting were: Mario Lionetti, chairman; Thomas Ragan, Vice-Chairman; John Lenihan, Secretary; Franklin Carver, member and Michael Leone, member. Also in attendance were James J. Auchinleck, Jr., Esq., Solicitor; Thomas Harwood, Zoning Officer and Ann Pratt, Stenographer.

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Lionetti called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM

THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

THE AGENDA WAS REVIEWED:

Approval of Minutes of February 7, 2002

Continued and Amended Application of Douglas and Kathleen Campbell

Application of Troy and Lisa Campanelli

Continued Application of Keller Williams Preferred Real Estate

Application of Daniel Doorley/Mill Race Office Campus

Application of Bill Marsh Ford

Application of Beautyland, Inc.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2002

Mr. Ragan moved to accept the minutes of February 7, 2002. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED AND AMENDED APPLICATION OF DOUGLAS AND KATHLEEN CAMPBELL

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the continued and amended application of Douglas and Kathleen Campbell requesting a Special Exception under section 1208(C)(2) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit a second story addition to the existing house and an attached garage addition on a non-conforming lot and variances as previously advertised. The property is located at 51 Richboro Road.

Mr. Lionetti reminded Douglas and Kathleen Campbell that they had been sworn in at the February meeting and were still under oath.

Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone wished to be a party to this application. There was no response.

Mr. Auchinleck reminded the Board that at the February meeting it was discovered that the original application and advertisement had failed to include the second story addition. At that meeting, testimony had been taken and it was agreed that the Board would defer its decision until the application could be amended.

Mr. Campbell stated that he had nothing further to add to his original testimony.

Mr. Harwood had no comment in this matter.

Mr. Leone stated that he had reviewed this application and the minutes of the last meeting and would participate in the voting.

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a Special Exception under section 1208(C)(2) of the Joint Municipal Ordinance of 1983 to permit a second story addition to the existing house and an attached garage on a non-conforming lot; and a variance from section 405(B) to permit an attached garage addition which will result in a 10 foot side yard setback and a 28 foot 11 inch aggregate side yard setback instead of the required 30 foot side yard and 70 foot aggregate side yard setback. Mr. Ragan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

APPLICATION OF TROY AND LISA CAMPANELLI

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Troy and Lisa Campanelli requesting a variance from section 401(B) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 and a Special Exception under section 1208(C)(2) to permit a 49 foot by 35 foot residential addition including a 22 foot by 25 foot two story family room and bedroom addition and a 24 foot by 35 foot two car garage which will provide more living space and a garage with a 47.5 foot side yard setback instead of the required 50 feet and which will be constructed on a non-conforming lot. The property is located at 17 Stoopville Road in the CM Conservation Management Zoning District.

Mr. Troy Campanelli was sworn in.

Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone else wished to be a party to this application. There was no response.

Mr. Campanelli stated that he wished to put an addition on his house, which is on a 1.64 acre lot. He needs a Special Exception to build the addition on the non-conforming lot.

Mr. Lenihan stated that he and Mr. Ragan had visited the site and that the addition would encroach 2.5 feet into the 50 foot required side yard setback for only a small section of the garage, and that he did not see any problem with this.

Mr. Harwood had no comment in this matter

Mr. Ragan moved to grant a variance from section of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 and a Special Exception under section 1208(C)(2) to permit an addition of 22X25 feet and a garage of 24X35 feet on a non-conforming lot with a side yard setback of 47.5 feet instead of the required minimum side yard setback of 50 feet. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED APPLICATION OF KELLER-WILLIAMS PREFERRED REAL ESTATE

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the continued application of Keller Williams Preferred Real Estate, lessee (William Tanner, owner) requesting an additional variance from section 1106.G.5 of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983, to permit a free standing directory sign to have a height of ten feet instead of the maximum permissible height of five feet. The property is located at 36 Newtown Richboro Road in the CC Convenience Commercial district.

Mr. Thomas J. Smith appeared in place of Mr. VanLuvanee for Keller Williams.

Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone else wished to be a party to this application.

Mr. John Wuerstle stated that he represents Newtown Township and wished to be heard against the variance.

Mr. John D'Aprile of Newtown stated that he wished to be a party in this matter. Mr. D'Aprile was sworn in.

Mr. Smith stated that he did not have any additional testimony in this matter, but wished to enter a Brief prepared by Mr. VanLuvanee. Mr. Smith said that he wanted to add a supplemental brief and also wished to read into the record Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute § 3334. Turning movements and required signals, Exhibit A-14.

Mr. Wuerstle stated that he had only received Mr. VanLuvanee's first Memo of Law on Wednesday, and had not anticipated an additional Memo being submitted tonight. Mr. Wuerstle stated that he was not prepared to answer the supplemental memo, and that he objected to its submission. Mr. Wuerstle asked that the Board either refuse the supplemental memo and proceed to closing arguments or if they accept the Memo, to allow an additional continuance so that Mr. Wuerstle can prepare a Memo in response.

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that they can accept the Memo, and defer their decision, although the memo being submitted is not a memo of law but of fact. Mr. Auchinleck then overruled Mr. Wuerstle's objections.

Mr.. Smith read into the record Pennsylvania Consolidated Statute § 3334. subsection (b), "Signals on turning and starting.—At speeds of less than 35 miles per hour, an appropriate signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. The signal shall be given during not less than the last 300 feet at speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour. The signal shall also be given prior to entry of the vehicle into traffic stream from a parked position."

Mr. Smith stated that this ties into the expert testimony heard last month regarding adequate reaction time for drivers seeing the Keller Williams sign.

Mr. Lionetti asked Mr. D'Aprile if he wanted to address the Board or question the parties at this time.

Mr. D'Aprile stated that he had heard the expert testimony and felt that the applicant's request for a variance because the location is hard to find was not valid. He said that he feels it is up to the business owner to provide his customers with detailed directions. He said that he felt that the large and garish sign proposed by Keller Williams would only detract from the appearance of the Township.

Mr. Lionetti asked the Board if they wished to continue the matter to allow Mr. Wuerstle time to respond to the Memo.

Mr. Ragan stated that the matter had been continued repeatedly for six months and that he had heard and reviewed all of the testimony that had already been presented. He said that he would like to hear closing remarks from both parties and make a decision tonight.

Mr. Lenihan agreed with Mr. Ragan that he was prepared to make a decision tonight.

Mr. Carver stated that he was not willing to continue the matter any longer.

Mr. Smith said that he had not prepared a closing argument.

Mr. Wuerstle asked that the Board consider a case, Beecham/Motel 6, whose facts are similar to the Keller Williams case. This case was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, reversing the Zoning Hearing Board variance. In this case, Motel 6 argued that their business depended on drive-by customers and that the sign must be recognized from a distance. Mr. Wuerstle pointed out that while Keller Williams made a similar argument, all but one of the customers who had been unable to find their location did in fact find them. The one customer that did not find them was driving at night, and the Ordinance does allow for lighting on the sign. In addition, real estate is not what could be called an impulse purchase. Keller Williams customers generally have planned their visit, and have ascertained the location in advance.

Mr. Wuerstle repeated that the reason Keller Williams gave for applying for a variance is hardship, and that is not the case here. A 4000 square foot building, even though set back 100 feet from the road, is visible from the road. The applicant knew, or as real estate professionals should have known, that there would be sign limitations on the property. These are self-induced hardships; unless Keller Williams suffers financially to a degree that the property is worthless, a variance should not be granted.

Mr. Wuerstle also stated that the evidence presented by Mr. VanLuvanee is "meaningless in a zoning context". In Exhibit A-4, Mr. Crawford had not ascertained whether the signs shown are legal, or are in the same zoning area. Exhibit A-5, the letter from the sign company signed by the landlord is not valid. Exhibit A-6 is a company wish list; what the parent company wants is not a concern of Zoning Hearing Boards.

Mr. Wuerstle pointed out that Dr. Pietrucha stated that fewer words or letters take less time to read, and yet Keller Williams has a line for the phone number on the sign, which is not a requirement of the parent organization. In addition, Dr. Pietrucha had stated that street name signs are not compliant with the LI Legibility Index, and yet that are legible. Dr. Pietrucha also had stated that smaller signs are dangerous and can cause erratic driving, however he had not ascertained that there had been any accidents on the street in front of Keller Williams.

In conclusion, Mr. Wuerstle stated that Keller Williams' desire to attract more customers does not constitute a hardship. If the Board accepts this, then every business along Richboro Road could make the same argument.

Mr. Smith stated that the laws have changed since the Beecham decision. One no longer has to prove that the physical characteristics of the property create a hardship. The Board can consider allowing for the 5.5 second reaction time needed to read a sign. Regarding Exhibit A-4, Keller Williams is not asking for the variance because other businesses have big signs, but pointing out that the proposed Keller Williams sign will not change the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Mr. Harwood had no comment.

Mr. Ragan stated that he has been reviewing this matter for six months. He has seen the applicants before the Zoning Hearing Board and before the Board of Supervisors. At no time has Keller Williams offered to compromise on the sign; they are always appearing with the same proposal. Mr. Ragan stated that he believed that there should have been some give and take, either with the Supervisors or with this Board. At this time Mr. Ragan stated he is prepared to move to deny a variance.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Crawford to address the matter of compromise.

Mr. Lionetti reminded Mr. Crawford that he had already been sworn in.

Mr. Crawford said that when he appeared before the Board of Supervisors, they had refused a compromise.

Mr. Ragan said that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors had advised Keller Williams that the sign variance could only be decided by the Zoning Hearing Board; that any compromise had to be made with the Zoning Hearing Board; and that a compromise with the Board of Supervisors did not guarantee a zoning variance. That is different from refusing to compromise.

Mr. Lionetti stated that the Board had an application for a 72 square foot, ten foot high sign, and that is what they have been asked to rule on.

Mr. Lenihan stated that he agreed with Mr. Ragan that a compromise is appropriate. He said that he and Mr. Ragan had visited the site and had measured the temporary sign. It is 7 feet high, with only one panel for the Keller Williams name. He and Mr. Ragan thought that a similarly placed sign, with the currently open area beneath the Keller Williams panel filled in with the other tenants' names would be a fair compromise.

Mr. Auchinleck reminded the Board that they must rule on only one multiple tenant sign for the property.

Mr. Lionetti stated that it is not the Board's position to remedy Keller Williams poor business decision in leasing a property set back too far from the road, discouraging drive-by business.

Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from section 1006(G)(4)(a) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit one 36 square foot free standing directory sign where only one twenty square foot free standing sign is permitted; and additionally to permit a free standing directory sign to have a height of 6 feet instead of the maximum permissible height of 5 feet. Mr. Lenihan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

APPLICATION OF DANIEL DOORLEY

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Daniel Doorley, partner, Mill Race Office Campus LLP., owner, for a variance from section 501(B)(2) of the Joint Municipal Zoning Ordinance of 1983 to permit construction of an 8,840 square foot 2-story office building with a 10 foot side yard setback instead of the required 120 foot minimum side yard setback; and a Special Exception under section 903(B)(1) in relation to Section 905(IV)(B)(1) to allow parking and utilities to be placed in the 100 year flood plain where such are not allowed and a Special Exception under Section 1208(C)(2) to permit such building to be erected on a non-conforming lot. The subject property is located at 1051 Lindenhurst Road in the OR Office Research Zoning District.

Mr. Don Marshall represented Mr. Doorley in this matter.

Mr. Daniel Doorley was sworn in.

Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone wished to be a party to this matter. There was no response.

Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-1 a map showing 1051 Lindenhurst Road, a 5.494 acre parcel located next to Brandywine Office Complex.

Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-2 the title report from the time of purchase of the property by Mr. Doorley from James C. Baldwin. Mr. Marshall pointed out that Mr. Baldwin has purchased the 5.494 acres in 1974, thereby predating the ordinance requiring that lots in the OR district be 15 acres, making this a non-conforming lot.

Mr. Marshall pointed out that Mr. Doorley also owns the property adjoining this property. It contains a farmhouse converted to office space, two garage structures and six parking spaces used by Mr. Doorley's design business. The garages are to be removed. The property currently has direct access to Lindenhurst Road.

Mr. Marshall stated that all of the existing buildings meet the setback requirements; only the proposed building will have the 10 foot setback.

Mr. Marshall also stated that most of the parcel is within the 100 year flood plain. The area for the proposed office building is not in the flood plain.

Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-3 a Site Utilization Study showing the side yard setback as 24 feet, which maintains the existing non-conformity. Mr. Marshall explained that when this plan had been presented to the Township Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors, both were interested in eliminating a curb cut on Lindenhurst Road and had suggested that the plan be re-designed to share access to the property through the Brandywine property entrance. In order to accommodate this request the building would be placed to align with the Brandywine property internal roadways. With this design, all access to both of Mr. Doorley's properties would be through the Brandywine property. Brandywine and its tenant, ICT Group, have agreed to this arrangement.

Mr. Marshall entered as Exhibit A-4, Brandywine's letter of agreement to this arrangement. The letter also states that Brandywine does not object to the 10 foot side yard setback or to building on a non-conforming lot.

Mr. Marshall said that the parking in the flood plain would probably be pervious parking, which is permitted, but that the Special Exception sought is to install lighting, utilities and drainage. Nothing would be stored in the flood plain. There is no other area on the property that can be used for parking.

Mr. Lenihan asked what tenants would be using the new building.

Mr. Doorley said that his own company would use some of the office space and that his hope was to attract tenants in similar businesses to his own; graphic designers, architects. He said that there would be some visitors, but not many.

Mr. Lenihan asked if the access through Brandywine would be clear to motorists looking for Mr. Doorley's property.

Mr. Doorley said that Brandywine had installed slow down lanes for traffic and that it was clearly visible as the only entrance to all offices within the area.

Mr. Auchinleck asked what the elevation of the flood plain is in the proposed parking area.

Mr. Marshall said it is 144 feet. The proposed parking would be placed at the existing elevation, as would the building. It is a flat property and the elevations would not be changed.

Mr. Auchinleck asked what storm drainage plans had been made.

Mr. Marshall said that they were considering a cistern or possibly hooking up with the Brandywine system.

Mr. Auchinleck pointed out that the proposed parking lot is at a bend in the stream and he is concerned that installation of curbs in the parking area could cause flooding upstream of the property.

Mr. Marshall said that if they are given approval to park in a flood plain, then they would work with the Township engineers to comply with the drainage requirements of the property.

Mr. Ragan said that he had done a site inspection. He said that the ordinance requires 44 parking spaces for an 8,800 square foot building. He asked if Mr. Marshall would be back to the Zoning Hearing Board asking for smaller parking spaces.

Mr. Marshall said that the plan before them shows 44 spaces that are 10X20 feet, as required.

Mr. Ragan stated that the side yard setback requirements are designed to allow firefighters access to all sides of the buildings. He asked if the property owned by Brandywine would have a setback wide enough to accommodate firefighting equipment on the Doorley property.

Mr. Marshall said that the Township jogging trail is in this section and that the area had already been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, who thought access was adequate.

Mr. Lionetti asked the Board if they wanted to leave the question of the flood plain open until the plans were made definite for the parking lot.

Mr. Auchinleck stated that it is the job of the Zoning Hearing Board to protect the flood plain. He said that Mr. Doorley could not move ahead with his plans until he knew whether he could use the flood plain for parking. The Zoning Hearing Board should address this issue in a way that protects the flood plain and does not tie the Township's hands in dealing with the project.

Mr. Harwood stated that this applicant had been advised that subsequent variances may be necessary as plans proceed.

Mr. Auchinleck suggested that the Board consider voting on the plans as submitted, and that a change in grade would require the applicant to return to the Zoning Hearing Board.

Mr. Marshall said that he is asking for an exception for lighting and drainage only; that pervious parking is permitted. This is a limited exception.

Mr. Harwood said that the Board should consider that this parking could be impervious.

Mr. Auchinleck said that the Zoning Hearing Board must base a decision on protecting the flood plain; that what is built does not slow the flow of water causing flooding further up-stream.

Mr. Lenihan asked why such a large side yard setback is required by the Ordinance.

Mr. Auchinleck said that the Office Research District has 15 acre lot requirements. The lots are usually large, and the buildings are usually large. This is a smaller building in a non-conforming lot.

Mr. Harwood said that the Ordinance allows for residential building in the OR district, and the side yard setbacks are smaller for residential use.

Mr. Lionetti moved to grant a variance from Section 501(B)(2) to permit construction of an 8,840 square foot office building with a 10 foot side yard setback instead of the required 120 foot setback; and a Special Exception under Section 1208(C)(2) to permit such building to be erected on a non-conforming lot; and a Special Exception under Section 903(B)(1) in relation to Section 905(IV)(B)(1) to allow parking and utilities to be placed in the 100 year flood plain where such are not allowed, with the condition that the parking lot be as described in Exhibit A-1, a schematic dated 1/31/02, and that the parking lot not alter the existing elevation and that it be designed with surface flow drainage. If any of these conditions are altered, it must be brought before this Zoning Hearing Board as an amended application. Mr. Ragan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

APPLICATION OF BILL MARSH FORD

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Bill Marsh Ford, Joseph S. Merjeski, owner, for a variance from Section 1106(F)(2) of the Joint Municipal Ordinance of 1983 to permit the erection of two free standing signs on a property that fronts on only one street and where a wall sign which identifies the use of the property already exists; a variance from Section 1106(F)(4)(a) to allow two signs with the sizes of 33 square feet and 130 square feet where the maximum size permitted is 12 square feet; and a variance from Section 1106(F)(5)(a) to permit two signs with a height of 19.6 feet and 42.08 feet where the maximum permissible sign height is 5 feet. The property is located at 10 N.Sycamore Street in the TC/HIS Town Commercial/Historic District.

Mr. Ragan advised the Board that the property in this matter is in the TC Town Commercial District, but not in the Historic District, as advertised.

Mr. Auchinleck said that this does not present a problem and does not need to be re-advertised.

Mr. Lionetti asked if anyone wished to be a party to this application. There was no response.

Ms. Brenda Ceterowski, a representative of the sign company, was sworn in.

Ms. Ceterowski explained that Mr. Merjeski had been called away on a family emergency, and that she would be appearing on his behalf.

Ms. Ceterowski stated that she is a local sign contractor working with Ford in Tennessee to replace the Bill Marsh Ford signs with new signs that Ford requires its franchisees to use. She said that the new signs would replace signs that are already in place, but that she had been informed that if the old signs are removed, rather than refaced, new variances were required. She further explained that to remove the old signs a portion of each pole would be cut away, so each replacement sign would be a few inches lower that the old signs. The poles will have new cladding. These poles have a circumference of 54 inches.

Mr. Harwood stated that the existing "pre-owned" sign is 32 square feet and the replacement would be 33 square feet, and that the existing "Ford" signs are 114 square feet, and the replacements requested are 130 square feet. The heights are about the same as the existing signs.

Mr. Ragan asked how many signs are visible on the property.

Ms. Ceterowski said that there are 6 signs, one saying "service" and 5 identifying "Bill Marsh Ford" or "Ford".

Mr. Auchinleck confirmed that Bill Marsh Ford is entitled to one sign per building plus one free standing sign.

Ms. Ceterowski explained that Ford requires these signs on the dealerships.

Mr. Ragan stated that the property is well identified and that he was reluctant to increase the size of the signs.

Ms. Ceterowski said that Ford does have a smaller sign that measures 114 square feet. It could be used instead of the 130 square foot sign.

Mr. Lenihan suggested that the Board agree to the increase of one square foot for the 33 square foot sign, but to only approve the 114 square foot sign, rather than the 130 square foot sign requested, which will make the replacements the same size as the existing signs.

Mr. Lenihan moved to grant a variance from section 1106(F)(2) of the Joint Municipal Ordinance of 1983 to permit the erection of two free standing signs on a property that fronts only one street and where a wall sign which identifies the property already exists; a variance from Section1106(F)(4)(a) to allow two signs with sizes of 33 square feet and 114 square where the maximum size permitted is 12 feet; and a variance from Section 1106(F)(5)(a) to permit two signs with a height of 19.6 feet and 42.08 feet where the maximum permissible sign height is 5feet. Mr. Carver seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

APPLICATION OF BEAUTYLAND, INC.

Mr. Lenihan read into the record the application of Beautyland, Inc., lessee, J.Loew & Associates, owners for a variance from Section 1103(C) (4) to permit four signs to be located within 1000 feet of the Bypass and a variance from Section 1104(B)(3) to permit four signs illuminated by the use of inert gas or exposed tubes where such signs are prohibited. Applicant also appeals from the action of the Zoning Officer in determining that what the applicant proposes to install are signs. Applicant proposes interior boxed neon letters which applicant asserts are not signs or in the alternative requests variances to permit them. The property is located at 48 West Road, Units H-K, Newtown Shopping Center.

Mr. David Truelove represented Mr. Michael Kaplan in this matter.

Mr. Michael Kaplan, owner Beautyland, Inc., was sworn in.

Mr. Truelove stated that he wished to amend his application to read "is consistent with other stores". He said that the boxed lettering is not a sign, but is a customer directory within the store. He said that the street is not dedicated and is not a public right-of-way, and that the boxed letters are not in the windows, but are mounted on the rear wall and toward the rear of the side walls. They are not meant to attract the public to come into the store, but to direct the customers already inside to locations of various products.

Mr. Truelove further stated that there are other stores in the area using similar boxed letters and neon tubes. He offered as Exhibit A-1 a photograph of Blockbuster; A-2 and A-3, photographs of Patio World; A-4, a photograph of Glasses Galore and A-5, A-6 and A-7 photographs of Applebee's. All show night views of what appear to be neon signs, both inside and in the windows of the businesses.

Mr. Ragan said that he and Mr. Lenihan had visited the site. He confirmed that the signs were hanging from the ceiling to the rear of the store, about 50 feet from the front windows.

Mr. Lenihan said that the signs are clearly visible from the Bypass at night and that they are neon.

Mr. Kaplan said that he owns three Beautyland stores in the area, that he has conformed with the exterior sign requirements, for which the owner of the shopping center had already been given variances, but that these signs are inside the store, not in the windows or on the exterior of the building.

Mr. Harwood stated that while West Road may not be a dedicated road, it is a public thoroughfare, and that Section 266 of the Zoning Code deals with "any letter, symbol….which can be seen in the public right of way", and that Section 1004(A)(10) prohibits signs illuminated by inert gas or exposed tubes. He said that Patio World and Blockbuster have had civil complaints filed against them with Judge Nasshorn, and that the ribbon around Applebee's is LED, an electric light. He said that this is a loophole in the Ordinance. Mr. Harwood entered as Exhibit T-1 a listing of the wording and measurements of the signs; and T-2, T-3, T-4, and T-5, photographs of the signs, taken on February 15, 2002, in the evening from West Road.

Mr. Michael Iappalucci was sworn in.

Mr. Iappalucci said that all of the signs mentioned in Applebee's, Blockbuster and Beautyland are visible from the Bypass, and are eyesores. He understood that the LED lighting on Applebee's has slipped through a loophole in the ordinance, but he hoped that the Zoning Board would not grant this variance.

Mr. Auchinleck advised the Board that they consider that the signs are, in fact, signs, that they are neon, and that they are visible from the street; and that the violation is not their visibility from the Bypass.

Mr. Ragan moved to deny the variance from Section 1104(B)(3) to allow four signs illuminated by the use of inert gas or exposed tubes where such signs are prohibited. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Lenihan moved to adjourn at 11:15 PM. Mr. Leone seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

 

Respectfully Submitted

 

______________________________
Mary Donaldson Recording Secretary