BZA September 22, 2009 Sunrise Springs

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Ray Fidel, Chairman at 8:05 p.m. on September 22, 2009 with Mary Lee Brezina, Glen Quigley and Ken Blair (sitting for Dean Eppley) present.  Ms. Endres presented photos 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.


George Lanesky, owner of Sunrise Springs Water Co., requests area variances to construct an electronic ground sign, 33 sq.ft. per face on a vacant lot in front of Sunrise Springs Water Co. at 10729 Kinsman Rd. (vs. Art. XII, Sec. 12.07A&B disallowing signs with rotating, flashing, scrolling or intermittent lights & Sec.12.07C allowed 1 sign 25 sq. ft. per face per lot & a sign on a vacant lot becomes a principal use vs. Art. VI, signs as accessory structures in the B-1 zoning district.)


Mr. Fidel asked the applicant why he was requesting an electronic sign.  Mr. Lanesky said his old sign was worn out, rusted, lights missing, a newer more modern sign was needed and the placement of the sign on the vacant lot was merely a technicality.


Ms. Endres gave a brief history of the ¼ acre lot, now vacant when the old house was torn down and too small to build on in today’s zoning.  The sign is considered an accessory on a lot with no primary structure.


Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Lanesky if he had considered consolidating the lots?  George said he preferred to keep the lot and frontage as is.  He further explained that the new sign was only 33 sq.ft. replacing t he old 50 sq.ft. one, the electronic sign was the same as that used by Western Reserve Coop with (no color) changeable messages either 1 line with 12 inch letters or 2 lines with 5-1/2 inch letters programmable (remote/wireless) from his office.


Ms. Endres invited the BZA board to attend the Zoning Commission meeting 9/23/09 to view the electronic sign demo capabilities.  Discussion continued regarding the Panzica sign that was “too busy, too fast scrolling” to read in the allotted time.


Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions.  There being no more questions Mr. Fidel called for a motion.


Glen Quigley moved to grant the variance for the electronic sign as requested, with Ken Blair seconding the motion.  Mr. Lanesky agreed to use the sign only to advertise the primary business at this location.


There being no further discussion, Mr. Fidel called for a roll call vote stating that a yes vote would grant the permit.


            Glen Quigley                                         yes

            Ken Blair                                              yes

            Mary Lee Brezina                                 yes

            Ray Fidel                                              yes


Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his variance request was granted.


Mr. Lanesky invited all to attend his new building Open House, Saturday 9/26/2009.


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.


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


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


Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant the area variance as requested for the 33 sq. ft electronic sign (replacement for a 50 sq.ft. sign) as accessory structure on lot without a primary structure.


1)      The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the electronicn sign replacement is a good utilization of an otherwise un-buildable lot.


2)      The area variance is not substantial considering the variances are all within the owner’s lot lines.


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 not aware of the zoning restrictions when the property was purchased.


6)   The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than a variance for this electronic sign replacement; however the sign could have been replaced with a sign permitted by the NZM.


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 variances were all from the owner’s lot lines.


Mr. Fidel and Ms. Brezina said they would not be able to attend the upcoming BZA hearing on Sep. 29, 2009 and asked either Dean Eppley or Glen Quigley to act as Chairman in their stead.