Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3238 40 Whites Path411 TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: SEP 2 8 1995 PETITION NO: #3238 HEARING DATE: September 14, 1995 PETITIONER: Discount Performance 40 Whites Path South Yarmouth MA, 02664 PROPERTY: 40 Whites Path, South Yarmouth MA Assessor's Map 86 Parcel T7 '95 SEP 28 P12:00 IOWN CLERK 3 IREASL'F.f.�r MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING: Fritz Lindquist, Vice Chairman, David S. Reid, John Richards, James Robertson, Joseph Samosky It appearing that notice of the hearing has been given by sending notice to the petitioners and all of those owners of property deemed to be affected thereby, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and published in The Register, the hearing was opened and held on the date stated above. The petition was presented by Mr. Don Long, Jonathan Long, and Kevin Silva. The petitioners request a Sign Variance, so as to allow them to place at this site a free-standing sign which exceeds the dimensional requirements of the by-law. The site is an existing multi -unit commercial building, which is allowed one free standing sign, not to exceed 18 square feet in area. The petitioners ordered and purchased a sign measuring Yx 6'. They secured a sign permit and began to install the sign, when it came to their attention that the 3'x 6 was the measurement of the sign panel, and did not include the aluminum sign frame. The exterior dimension of the sign and frame is 37 1/4" x 73 5/16", or 1 1/4" too tall and 1 5/16" too long. The Board finds that the petitioners made a genuine and good faith effort to comply with the Sign Code. They have presented evidence to the Board that they actually ordered and believed they had purchased a conforming 18 square foot sign. They further applied for and were granted a sign permit for this same sign. Neither they nor the Sign Inspector realized that the sign had been measured by its manufacturer only in its interior dimensions.. No enforcement action has been taken by the Town. Rather, the petitioners and their contractor took it upon themselves to bring the 0 PM discrepancy to the attention of the town officials. The Board finds that this is more thanjust an inadvertent or inattentive non-compliance with the Sign Code's requirements. This is a situation where the petitioners actually sought to comply and believed that they had complied. These circumstances, coupled with the nominal degree of non-compliance, convinces the Board that it would be unduly burdensome upon the petitioners to prohibit the installation of this sign. Furthermore, the- Board finds that the allowance of such relief would not significantly derogate from the intent and purpose of the by-law, nor would it cause any detectable harm to the character of this neighborhood. Accordingly, a Motion was made to grant the requested dimensional Variance, to allow the installation of this non -conforming sign, on the condition that this Variance is limited to this sign, and to this use and to these users, so that the next time the sign is changed, it will have to be brought into compliance with the code. The members voted unanimously in favor of the Motion. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to § 17 c40A and must be filed within 20 days after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. If the rights authorized by a Variance are not exercised within one year of the date of grant of such variance, such rights shall lapse; provided, however, that the permit granting authority in its discretion and upon written application by the grantee of such rights may extend the time for exercise of such rights for a period not to exceed six months; and provided, further, that the application for such extension is filed with such permit granting authority prior to the expiration of such one year period. David S. Reid, Clerk Board of Appeals