TOWN OF CARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
January 10, 2000
|
CASE: |
99-24-A |
|
STAFF CONTACT: |
Matt Griffin |
|
APPLICANT(S): |
Ebert Sign Company |
|
OWNER(S): |
Motel 6 |
|
LOCATION: |
1401 Buck Jones Road (South Hills Plaza) |
|
PRESENT ZONING: |
B2 Commercial District |
|
REQUEST: |
The applicant, Ebert Sign Company, is appealing a staff decision to deny sign permits based on the failure of proposed signage to meet the requirements of the Town of Cary Unified Development Ordinance Section 17.14 Nonconforming Signs, and Section 13.2.8 Signs permitted in Non Residential Districts. |
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
The Motel 6 site located at 1401 Buck Jones Road, an outparcel of South Hills Shopping Center, currently has 5 nonconforming signs on premises (4 wall and 1 ground). The signs are nonconforming in the following ways: EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES 13.2.8. Signs Permitted in Non-Residential Districts (e) Shopping Centers (2) Wall signs. The project is allowed a maximum of one (1) wall sign per tenant. The surface area of an attached sign shall not exceed, in square feet, the number of lineal feet that is the horizontal length of the individual tenant space. Subtenants are allowed one (1) wall sign in addition to other wall signs already allowed by this Section, provided that the total allowable square footage for the main tenant is not exceeded. Outparcels are allowed two (2) wall signs, with each sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per each lineal foot of the width for the wall where the sign is attached.
REQUESTED CHANGES The applicant requested to change the faces out of 3 of these signs. The proposed faces were of different design than the existing faces.
Section 17.1.4.(b) of the Town of Cary Unified Development Ordinance states that a nonconforming sign, including its permanent message or its structure, shall not be extended, enlarged, moved, or otherwise altered unless the sign is made to conform to the applicable requirements of the Ordinance.
If the permanent message is altered, the signage must be made compliant.
The proposed signs are in violation of the Town of Cary Unified Development Ordinance in the following ways: PROPOSED SIGNAGE NONCONFORMATIES
|
|
|
STANDARDS OF REVIEW: |
Section 6.2.5 of the Cary Unified Development Ordinance regarding Administrative Appeals, states in part the following: c. In reversing, affirming, or modifying the contested action, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have all relevant powers of the administrative officer from whom the appeal is taken. d. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless it finds that the administrative officer erred in the application or interpretation of the terms of this Ordinance or related policies adopted by the Town. e. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not reverse or modify the contested action unless there is a concurring vote of at least eight members. |
|
|
SUGGESTED MOTION: |
MOTION TO REVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
MOTION TO AFFIRM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION
I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. ________________________________________________ 2. ________________________________________________ 3. ________________________________________________ MOTION TO MODIFY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION
I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION TO MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S DECISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
|
|
|
LIST OF EXHIBITS: |
|
|