Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 1163.31 states pole signs shall not be permitted in any zoning district. Therefore there is <br />no authority to grant a permit to install a pole sign once there is no pole sign at the site. If the <br />required permit was applied for prior to work being done which is required by law there would <br />be no hardship or pole sign installed. The problem exists because the applicant failed to apply for <br />a permit or obtaiii required approvals prior to doing any work. They have placed themselves in <br />this position of their own free will by voluntarily removing the pole sign. His ruling is based on <br />chapter 1163.31 not 1163.10. The intent of the ordinance is to allow owners to have useful life <br />out of their pole sign, the city doesn't want to create a hardship. They are allowed to perform <br />reasonable maintenance on a pole sign but once its useful life is up it needs to be removed and <br />replaced with a sign that meets code. By the applicant's own actions they have indicated that <br />time had come to replace the sign, by the very pictures Mr. Haddad presented which shows the <br />extent of the damage of the pole sign which is past the sign's use, hence the removal and <br />installation of a new sign. Regarding the foundation which remained, if a structure or building is <br />removed to the foundation, the foundation is then considered part of the earth, it doesn't grant the <br />owner the right to reconstruct a building upon that foundation simply because the foundation is <br />there. Based on these reasons he made his ruling. <br />Ms. Rudolph asked how long the site was without a sign and Mr. Haddad said no more than six <br />hours. Workers were on site from 9:00am unti15:00pm, all work was done within the same day. <br />Mr. Raig aslced if there was electrical work performed. Mr. Haddad said the electric was <br />disconnected at the base of the pole which is common for any type of sign service. Mr. Raig <br />aslced if permits are required if someone is maintaining or refurbishing a sign or for changing out <br />sign panels and Mr. Grusenmeyer said yes and the applicant was aware a permit was required as <br />he stated he spolce to Mr. Peltz about it in June. There were no permits submitted to remove it or <br />do any work or he would have been advised there were issues. Mr. Raig aslced how would the <br />board lcnow what this worlc cost. Mr., Gareau said using section 1163.10 it is the position of the <br />city that you can't put up a pole sign, once the pole sign was removed, it no longer enjoys any <br />status as it once had as a valid non-conforming sign. Mr. Grusenmeyer said it wasn't a matter of <br />where the work was done it's a matter of the structure was deteriorated to the point when loolcing <br />at photos and the applicant's own judgment the structure was no longer salvageable. The <br />structure had out lived its life. The entire structure was removed, there was no pole sign there. <br />The worlc cannot be classified as maintenance, as the only thing remaining of the original sign is <br />the aluminum cabinet and light tubes. Mr. Haddad said he didn't replace the entire structure. He <br />is not disputing pole signs are not perinitted. He is saying they didn't put up a new pole sign, <br />rather they were maintaining an existing sign. <br />Mr. Haddad submitted sign sales agreements between himself and a client in Canton to purchase <br />a 6'x 8' or 48 sq. ft. free standing pole sign for $6,200. The second page of the document shows <br />the excavated hole for the project which was not included in the cost. The cost for this project <br />would be more if he was doing the foundation for the sign. Ms. Rudolph said information was <br />not complete to determine cost. Mr. Allain asked Mr. Grusenmeyer when this was submitted <br />originally for a determination did it include costs that substantiated the non-conforming sign <br />issue. Mr. Grusenmeyer said there were no applications or documents submitted. He pulled from <br />the files in the building department for cost listed on a permit a number of years ago claiming to <br />be the entire sign. Adjusting for inflation and the amount of money he supplied on his <br />application was substantially in excess of 50% of the value to replace. Mr. Haddad said he had a <br />4