BZA July 28, 2009 O'Reilly

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Ray Fidel, Chairman at 7:30 p.m. on July 28, 2009 with Mary Lee Brezina, Tezeon Wong and Ken Blair (sitting for Dean Epley) present.  Ms. Endres showed projections of the site for board and audience review.

 

All who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in.  Mr. Fidel read the applicant's request.

 

Kevin O’Reilly Jr., agent for Little Ireland Feeds, LLC, is requesting a dual area variance:  Var.#1) to add a front porch approx. 8’ x 70’ to an existing commercial building (formerly Newbury Hardware) that would be 70 ft. from the Kinsman Rd. right-of-way and 11 ft. from the east side line (vs. Art. VI, Sec. 6.07A,B&E req’d 150 ft. front setback and 25 ft. side setback) at 11030 Kinsman Rd. in the B-1 commercial district; this is an extension of a non-conforming structure and use requiring relief from Art. XIV, Sec. 14.04 A&B & 14.05; and Var.#2) to erect one 55 sq. ft. wall sign and a 2nd 35 sq. ft. bulletin board sign (vs. Art. XII, Sec. 12.07A maximum of one 25 sq. ft. wall sign per lot)

 

Mr. Fidel asked that the board consider the porch addition first. He then asked the applicant to state his case.

 

Mr. O’Reilly introduced his daughter Amanda as one of the owners of Daughters Three LLC.  He then displayed a large front view of the building showing the full-width covered porch extension that would provide a rain shield for customer loading as well as an improvement to make the front of the building more attractive.  He said his wife said “it must be inviting.”

 

Mr. Fidel asked if he intended to use the porch to display merchandise outside; Kevin said “not at this time”.  Mr. Fidel reminded him that outside display was not permitted without a variance.

 

Kevin said he had many inquiries whether he would be opening a hardware store as well.  He acknowledged he might have some hardware items associated with the animal and feed business but their studies indicated difficulties with small hardware stores competing with big box stores.  He said an existing woodworker tenant would remain in the rear of the store.  The building remodel consisted of removing the front and office walls leaving the entire area open for product display.  The side door remains for truck loading/unloading; the front west window is closed in for the bulletin style sign.  Discussion continued regarding existing parking spaces in front, side and rear areas, customer safety and busiest hours - between 12 noon and 2 pm, maximum 4 or 5 customers at any one time.

 

 

 

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions.  There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion to approve the variance for the porch addition as requested stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.

 

Ken Blair moved to grant the area variance for the 8ft. x 70 ft. porch addition as requested for this existing commercial building, Tezeon Wong seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

 

Ken Blair                                             yes

Mary Lou Brezina                               yes

Tezeon Wong                                      yes

Ray Fidel                                            yes

 

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant the porch area variance was approved.

 

Mr. Fidel said the board would now consider the dual sign variance request.

 

Mr. O’Reilly said he would not reuse the existing Newbury Hardware Sign (on temporary mounts in the parking area) as the building mounted signs would better serve his business needs.  Discussion continued regarding the measurement of the upper building sign consisting of individual letters, not an integral area sign.  Kevin said the large letters would be more visible against the cedar wall background above the green metal porch roof.  The bulletin board sidewall sign would consist of (manual) moveable letters to advertise specials.

 

Karen Endres said the lot coverage was measured to be 51% but she did not include this item for variance as the new construction is being built over the parking lot that is already lot coverage of this legal non-conforming use; the zoning variance now pending will allow 50% lot coverage.  Mr. Fidel asked about the septic system now on lot.  Kevin explained that Munn Septic has pumped and maintained a history for this unit, that the EPA governs commercial structures and that he has only two employees with minimum water usage.  He is rebuilding the bathrooms using the existing plumbing connections.  He hopes to open by Oct. 1st - the date his present lease expires.

 

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. 

 

Ms. Brezina said she likes both signs; that they were better for traffic flow.  Kevin said the building was hidden from west-bound traffic on Kinsman Rd. and the larger signs were more visible.

 

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion to approve the variance for the dual signs as requested stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.

 

 

Mary Lou Brezina moved to grant the sign variances as requested for this existing commercial building; Ken Blair seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

 

Mary Lou Brezina                               yes

Ken Blair                                             yes

Tezeon Wong                                      yes

Ray Fidel                                            yes

 

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant the sign variances were approved.

 

Mr. Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The required permit can be issued once all requirements regarding this application are satisfied, although if you plan construction it is recommended you wait the 30 days before proceeding.  The challenge could reverse or negate our decision.  At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”. 

 

Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes.  They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant.  All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes.

 

Ms. Endres explained that she would need 3 large scale drawings for zoning approval stamps for Kevin to take to the building department for his permit.

 

The board members wished the applicant good luck with the project.

 

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:15 p.m.

 

Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant the area variance #1) as requested for the 8 ft. x 70 ft. porch addition for the existing commercial building:

 

1)      The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the porch addition is a logical extension for customer convenience.

 

2)      The area variance is not substantial and is reasonable for commercial use.

 

3)   The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered and the adjoining property owners would suffer no substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

 

4)                  The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.

 

5)                  The owner was aware of the B-1 zoning restrictions when the lot was purchased.

 

6)      The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than a variance for this logical porch extension to accommodate business needs and improve the building aesthetics.

 

7)      The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable: there were no neighbors in attendance to object and the board was unanimous for this business friendly improvement.

 

Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant the area variance #2) as requested for the 55 sq.ft. wall sign and a 2nd 35 sq. ft. bulletin board sign:

 

1)      The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the larger wall sign is essential for location visibility.

 

2)      The area variance is substantial but is reasonable considering the bulletin board sign replaces the existing parking lot sign.

 

      3)   The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered and the adjoining property owners would suffer no substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

 

3)      The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.

 

4)      The owner was aware of the B-1 commercial zoning restrictions when the lot was purchased.

 

5)      The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than a variance for these signs to accommodate customer needs and business visibility at this location.

 

6)      The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable: there were no neighbors in attendance to object.

 

Discussion continued regarding scheduled and future BZA hearings.

Mr. Fidel  adjourned the BZA meeting at 8:45 p.m.

 

 

Marge Hrabak, Secretary