TOWN OF CARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
January 14, 2002
|
CASE: |
01-V-019 |
|
STAFF CONTACT: |
Suzanne Prince |
|
APPLICANT(S): |
Dennis D. Smith, AIA |
|
OWNER(S): |
Curt Hammontree, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. |
|
LOCATION: |
1105 Walnut Street, Cary Towne Center Mall |
|
PRESENT ZONING: |
Business-2 Conditional Use (B2-CU) |
|
REQUEST: |
The applicant is requesting a variance to install wall signs at the four entrances of Cary Towne Mall. The proposed signs are larger than what is allowed under the Town of Cary Sign Ordinance. |
|
BACKGROUND: |
There are four proposed entry signs. The first proposed sign is 337 square feet, the second proposed sign is 259 square feet, the third proposed sign is 431 square feet and the fourth proposed sign is 471 square feet. At the first entry, the signage allowed per the Town’s ordinance is 58 square feet, the second entrance is allowed 60 square feet, the third entrance is allowed 56 square feet and the fourth entrance is permitted 60 square feet. The applicant is requesting that a variance be granted to allow the installation of the proposed larger signs at the four entrances to Cary Towne Mall. |
| STANDARDS OF REVIEW: |
Section 13.2.15 of The Cary Unified
Development Ordinance states that:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it concludes that strict enforcement of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships for the applicant. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, in granting a variance, shall ensure that the spirit of this Ordinance is maintained, public welfare and safety ensured, and substantial justice done. The Board may reach these conclusions if it makes the following findings: a. Strict application of the Ordinance would restrict the signage of the subject property to a greater degree than it restricts other properties; b. Granting the variance is necessary to ensure reasonable view of the site from adjoining roadways; c. Granting the variance is necessary to relieve a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that is suffered by the applicant alone; d. Granting the variance will not confer a special privilege on the applicant that would normally be denied under this Ordinance to another applicant. e. The applicant’s situation is unique and is not one that is shared by other properties; f. Granting the variance will not deter from the original intent of the uniform sign plan or the Ordinance for uniformity and aesthetic appeal between signs on the same property.
|
|
SUGGESTED MOTION: |
MOTION TO GRANT APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS
I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT APPLICATION NO. 01-V-019 HAS SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CARY ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. ________________________________________. 2. ________________________________________ MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT APPLICATION NO. 01-V-019 HAS
FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CARY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
APPLICATION IS DENIED DUE TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 2. _______________________________________
|
|
SMALL VICINITY MAP: |
![]() |
| LARGE VICINITY MAP: |
|