Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. I'd like to call to order the June 24th meeting of the Town of McCalla Zoning Hearing Board, called to order by myself, Chairman Quachek, at 7 p.m. We have Board Member Scott Metzger to my left, and Turn it member nuts back to my right through is filling in again tonight because he was at this hearing last month and we have 1 item on our agenda, which is a continuation of a hearing. So it was appropriate to attend rather than Mr. Okay, anybody that's going to present testimony tonight. Could you please stand to take the oath? Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you should provide tonight shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. All right, we'll jump right into our agenda. A nice break after last month where we had six items. First on the agenda is approval of some minutes that go way back to March. Those have been circulated and we didn't have people in attendance, so we kept... Pushing them back. We're finally back there. We're ready to approve those minutes. We have a motion to approve the March 25th meeting. I move to approve the March 25th meeting. Scott was not at that meeting, so I will second the motion. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So let the record show that those meeting minutes were approved unanimously. And the next item on the agenda is the approval of the May 27th meeting minutes, which was our last meeting. Those have been circulated in draft form for review and comment, which the people did. And do I have a motion to approve those meeting minutes? Yes, I move that we approve the May 27th. meeting minutes. Okay, thanks. Are there second?

Second.

All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. I hope that I could show those the March or the May 27th meeting minutes where the meeting ends. Okay, that leads us to the real substance of this evening's meeting, which is a continuation of a pure 2057. The applicant is might be easier if I put the cheaters on text. 10 X ventures LLC doing business as sign a rammer of Monroeville. The location of the property was 8633 old Perry highway. The person identification is 7 1, 4 dash hours and rather dash 208. it is located within a neighborhood center which is in michael and nancy zoning district the applicant is requesting a variance from section one three zero five one four zero subsection c charlie subsection five a apple which states pylon signs are not permitted in this zoning district To refresh everyone's memory. This is the frame of tender care. Childcare facility located on a very highway. And just to clarify that the town received no additional information since the last meeting. Okay. And you went on record as last month as the town had no position regarding this appeal.

That's correct.

okay all right uh so we're ready for additional testimony and just introduce yourself with name and address we don't have a courtroom photo tonight so just name and address will be fine thank you my name is dean phillips i'm an attorney representing early years child care center the owner of the property uh my address uh 706 rochester road pittsburgh pennsylvania 15237 okay

And I'm Josh Bergdahl .

Okay, thank you. So you're the owner of the facility. Okay, very good.

I just want to briefly thank the board for continuing this from the previous session. I appreciate giving us the opportunity to have Josh here and as well as myself to argue in favor of a variance here. And to start, I did want to clear up a few, I think, points of confusion maybe from the last time by the board. First and foremost, just to describe the variance we're seeking, we're looking to have a pylon sign at the property. The property is in an MN district where pylon signs are not permitted, but we believe due to a number of factors we'll get into, a variance is warranted in this situation. And, you know, basically just to describe the lot, I'm sure you may be familiar with the area, which is the former Tender Care Child Care Center. The lot itself is located on an angle right off of Route 19 on Old Perry Highway. The building is set back pretty far from the street itself. And due to the curvature of the road, whether you're coming either from Route 19 or from Old Perry Highway, whichever direction, you're facing a curve that blocks a clear line of sight to the building from either direction. And the lot itself is angled in such a way that it has limited frontage, to be honest, on the street level itself. And really, it's a visual concern is really the nature that this lot, the shape and topography and the, you know, that basically just makes it difficult to really clearly identify the lot, no matter which direction you're coming or going. another thing that i want to know for the zoning board is that i think as was discussed previously uh within just a stone's throw of this parcel there's numerous pylon signs i know a number of those were likely grandfathered in from the 2023 revisions to the zoning ordinance but uh just looking down the street there's uh valerie's hair design is a pylon sign there's the puff stuff that has a pole sign across the street there's sheets with a pylon sign with their gas prices um the canvas floral is right there at the corner on Route 19 that has a pylon sign. And the old tender care that used to be on this property also had a pylon sign. The building is a child care center. After tender care left earlier, child care centers moved in and is operating a child care center much in the same way that it was operated before. And due to the nature of that, there is a sensitivity towards being able to clearly identify the building in the event of any sort of emergency or any sort of urgent need to find the building. Because of what I just mentioned how it's difficult to see and because of the nature of how it's being used, there is a bona fide interest in it being easily identifiable and clearly marked and signed. Also, given where it's located, if you do drive past it, there is no safe turnaround for about if you're going down Perry Highway by about a half mile before you can make a legal turnaround to go back the other way. And due to the double yellow street there, it may lead to some rash driving decisions if someone were to. almost pass it and realize it at the last minute. Just further establishing that since the unique nature of this parcel really calls for it to be well-signed for safety reasons. With respect to the LED signage on the request, it is a pylon sign that has an LED portion of it. With respect to all the dimensions and LED signage itself is permitted in the MN zoning district. The requested sign meets all the size requirements of a digital display sign as it's referred to in the code. And the owner would recognize that I believe this is actually stated itself in the code, but the owner would make that LED sign available to the township for any sort of emergency notifications or any sort of public address purposes that the town may need for it. And lastly, the sign itself, the pylon nature of it also complies. If this building were in a location where pylon signs were permitted, this pylon sign would meet all the height and size requirements that pylon signs are subject to under the zoning codes. And as the board well knows, you know, the five elements to have a variance be granted under the first element, there needs to be some showing of a unique physical hardship. I already kind of talked about this, but just the location of the lot, the shape and angle of which it's located, and the curvature of the street which it is located, it makes it very difficult to identify. No matter which way you're coming or going, the building is... hard to see, if not impossible to see, until you're right up close to it. When you're coming from Perry Highway, if you make a turn onto the intersection, there's almost immediately a curve in the road after you turn onto Perry Highway, and the building or the lot essentially sneaks up on you once you round that curve. coming the other direction up Old Perry Highway to Route 19. It's almost completely covered by the topography, as well as trees and other natural features, so that you would not see the building until you were right up next to it, essentially. The second element is that there's no other reasonable use for the property. We believe that given the nature of it, a pylon sign, which is allowed to be taller than a monument sign or other building signage is necessary here for this property to have any reasonable use as a business location. As mentioned, it's very difficult to identify either coming or going on that street. And due to the slanted nature of the lot again, the limited frontage and the fact that you can't see the building clearly even from the street level. there's a significant hardship to any business that would operate at this location if they were not permitted to have a pylon sign or sign that could reach the limits of a pylon sign. And I think this can almost be inferred by the fact that one, the tender care previously had a pylon sign indicating that their business made a decision at that point that they needed a taller sign than a monument or a building sign. The neighboring properties, as mentioned, Valerie's Hair Salon, McCandless Floral, and then up onto the sheets and the puff stuff up there on 19 all have large signage. Now it's a little bit different. Obviously, as you get towards Route 19, it opens up a little bit more. There's less curvature in the road, but in the immediate vicinity, virtually all the business locations have a pylon sign. And I think that that's indicative of the fact that There is a, due to the topography, curvature of the road, all those elements, there's a need to have some large identifying sign that people can see in order to access these businesses. With respect to the third element, whether the applicant created the hardship, the applicant here purchased the property in December, 2025. He did not do anything to create this hardship. He bought the lot as is and has not made any real changes to the lot. So we don't believe that element is necessarily implicated here. uh the fourth element is whether the variance will disrupt the essential characteristic of the neighborhood as mentioned many of the businesses nearby have nylon signs um it's you know there is a residential location located near the parcel but it's not a neighborhood per se and it's not the type of signage that um is proposed is not facing any residential area it's facing back you know somewhat tilted but facing towards um Route 19 facing the one way on the other end, it essentially because the curvature of the road faces virtually nothing. We don't believe it would disrupt any characteristic of the neighborhood, given the other commercial buildings and commercial signage that are immediately nearby. And the fact that there used to be a pylon sign there as of December 2025, Tender Care had a pylon sign there as well. So the last element is whether this is the minimum relief necessary. And on that front, The request here is for a pylon sign, which is the next sign up from a monument sign in terms of size and features. We're not asking for a pole sign or a McDonald's M that's going to go 50 feet in the air. It's a pylon sign that's subject to height limits. um this this proposed sign meets those height limits it's not uh extremely large or or otherwise um obtrusive in my opinion as far as what it is going to look like and we believe it is the minimum relief necessary to allow the business to have a larger sign than what they are currently zoned for um in the minimum necessary. It's the only other next step up. It's not asking for something beyond the pale in terms of the size and scope of what we're looking for. So under those elements, yeah, we believe there's evidence to support all five elements here and that they've all been met. And we asked the board to consider this variance application for the pile on sign at this property. And if there are any specific questions, Josh is here, Josh Bergdahl from Early Years Childcare Center, he'll be able to answer.

Okay. Thank you, Dean, for your additional testimony. We'll start with Scott tonight. Questions for the applicant and his counsel?

So, I, my, my struggle with this applications that we're asking for a lot. So, we're not asking just for a pile on sign and I 1st question for Matt Matt. I don't believe the digital display is permitted in the district by code. Is that correct? Okay. Internal elimination is permitted. Internal elimination, but not the digital display. Correct. Right. So my concern is that there's a type of sign variance. There's a digital display variance kind of wrapped up in this as presented. There's also the There's also a sizing issue to me. Like I understand pylon sign versus monument sign, but yeah, pylon signs aren't permitted at all. Max sign height of a monument sign is eight feet. We're going up over 10 feet here. There's a lot wrapped up in, can we have a pylon sign? That's not just a pylon sign. And so we're being asked to grant A very nice, very business-friendly, and if we're being honest, this would be a great sign for your business to have. But we're being asked to grant a lot of variance wrapped up in, well, just let us go up to a pilot sign. I'm not accusing you of trying to do anything underhanded. That's my concern. I'm wondering, can we... would you be open to a redesign because i i do understand your point of it would be nice to have a sign and i do understand tender care had a sign there before so i'm not opposed to working with you in a rather unique district to get signage where it's visible But is there any opportunity to lower the amount that we're asking for here? Could we lower it at eight feet? Could we remove the digital display? Things like that to keep us closer to the intent of the coding.

Yeah, I mean, I think if you're looking to get to eight feet, that's definitely something we can get to. I mean, the purpose of the pile on sign is, I mean, as Dean pointed out, the visibility. And there's also the popping stuff is right in front of sign. So if you're coming down 19, we're trying to clear that and also eliminate the safety issue of people, you know, not being able to see the sign at the last second and then slamming their brakes because they have to make that bend before they get to that light right before sheeps. But I mean, that's the issue with the 10 feet. We're trying to be more visible to people. We're trying to find it. So it's like a safety thing also, but we might be able to get there at eight feet. I haven't done the state analysis on it.

Sorry, Art. Do you know, and I understand tender care, my understanding is tender care removed the sign before you bought the property. Correct. Yeah. We wouldn't be here if they probably just left the sign out there. But do you know how high that sign was? I mean, it was a completely different design than what you have here. It couldn't have been more than...

Looking at the photo that was included in the exhibit, yeah, four to five feet maximum is what I would guesstimate the height. It's just above the height of the cars that are parked next to it, so...

I would note it was significantly, I mean, not significantly, but wider than the proposed signage, I think, that we're asking for, at least from what I can tell. But I would agree it is shorter, certainly. Yeah, I don't have an issue with your total sign area.

I think that's justifiable given the nature of the road. Okay. Art has his hand raised. So let me go to Art and then I reserve the right to ask more.

I was just looking at the picture here, and I guess that's a pretty accurate representation of what it really looks like. And I'm looking at the mailboxes here, and I'm just wondering, you know, you are permitted to have a monument sign in that district. You can actually have two of them. And the maximum height that you're allowed, an eight foot, it can be as high as eight foot. So if you put a monument sign facing in two different directions there, that would solve the problem, and you would not need the variance for that.

Yeah, I'd like to follow up on that point. Just to clarify a couple of things, and Dean, I appreciate the testimony, but all those signs that are out there, whatever I follow, clear on that, that's why they're there. The signs that are immediately contiguous to you, the hair salon and the other, I forget the other establishment, the flower shop. I mean, they're technically piling signs the way, but you can see we're very modest in dimension and scale, versus the Puffin staff and the other businesses out on Route 19, so they have the monuments, they have the pole signs. I guess what really bothered me is when we're, signage is somewhat controversial in the campus. We're out of some advances and there's good work to some of them and there's this one that had me concerned is with the discussion of safety. In one of your exhibits, you have a great street view looking down towards your property, would be looking to the east. you know, the way the sign is proposed, I agree with Scott's concerns about it, but it's also positioned, it's positioned that that sign is going to get greater visibility from Perry Highway than old Perry Highway. You're not you know if you had a monument sign which is permitted in this district you'll have other sides on that and it would be you can have it it only has to be set back the height for the sign so if you look at the monument sign it's eight feet tall it could be set back eight feet and then i look at your photos and if that sign was perpendicular to the road you would have better visibility than even you'd have similar visibility to what the tender care sign was, but I think you'd actually have improved visibility following the monument sign requirements. So I'm really struggling with this one because, as Scott said, you're asking for a whole lot, and quite honestly, it's not your fault that they tore the sign down, but you could have really used the tender care sign, and I think it would serve the same purpose. But when we have variances like this, it really gives us a chance to kind of I hate to say clean up the neighborhood, but clean up the neighborhood. I mean, and comply with the new requirements of signage. So, you know, I'm somewhat disagreeing with the hardships presented. I don't think we'll change the character of the area just because these were grandfathered in and they're there. But I think you guys could do a monument sign in compliance with the code that would be four by eight, It's 32 square feet. It could be eight feet tall. And I think when you set back eight feet from the popular eye, you're going to get really good visibility. And I question, you know, I think when parents, and I never had to make this decision, but when parents are choosing child care, I mean, they pick the facility for a qualified, et cetera. They're not drawing a model up for child care. Oh, let's stop in and see. Let's see where we can put, you know, Aaron and Richie. I think once they know where you are, they're going to be there with respect to, the question of safety. So that's what I'm really struggling. I think there was a lot to what Scott's point was. There's a lot here. And it's like, wow, this is kind of what we're trying with this kind of situation. I think the monument sign in the neighborhood center district is an appropriate signage use. Aaron, do you have any perspective from the legal end of things?

Yeah, I mean, I I don't know, but first of all, I live close to there too. So I'm very familiar with the, with the signs and stuff. And this side seems different than what, again, the Valerie's and the McCann's floral, I think are probably the ones that are the closest comparables here in terms of the properties on that side of the road there. And, you know, to have a, HAB-Jacques Juilland, You know, a message board there. I mean, that's mean there are there was there is a we said there are there's residents right behind this right HAB-Jacques Juilland, Correct that we, if you remember we had a variance for one of the properties.

Yes.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, That's quite a case. Yes. HAB-Jacques Juilland, But It's not like the code doesn't allow any signs there. I think it's a hard case for what is being asked for.

I appreciate that input. Dean, any reaction?

I appreciate all the comments. I would just note, I know, Gregory, you mentioned now and I think you were on a similar vein that the signage for Valerie's immediate adjacent property is a little bit different. I would know Valerie's hair salon that the building is much closer to the road. So, and part of this is to where the building is located. I mean, and if you could see, I think in one of the images here, you see, it's kind of sits up on the hill a little bit, but it is relatively far back. And, you know, I would say, especially less so coming from Route 19 of coming up Old Perry Highway towards Route 19 because of the trees and the topography of it. The building itself is really not visible until you get right up close. So I think that, you know, I understand the signage at those other locations is much more for lack of a better word, modest than what we're looking for. I think that the difference in the characteristics of the lot maybe speak to that a little bit. And I understand, Scott, your point as well, that it seems like we're asking for a lot here with what we're looking for. and this may be a misunderstanding on my part about the led portion of it and matt please correct if i'm wrong i was i was under the understanding that a digital display sign would be permitted so for example it's not okay so they're in the in the mn specifically it's permitted to have non-illuminated and illuminated and then in the other commercial districts they permit

non-illuminated, illuminated, and digital display. But I think what might have occurred was there could have been a misunderstanding between what the application was, because I was even looking here, and I was uncertain of whether it was just an internal illuminated sign, because it did note on the application that it was illuminated, versus a digital display sign. So I think that might have been maybe where that hiccup was.

Understood. And is that, I mean, I just said to educate myself a little bit. Is that the recent ordinance from, I think, April 2026? That was an existing restriction and amendment.

Let me double check once, please. Yeah, there was nothing that adjusted the digital displays within the MN district in that adoption. And the, you know, since the December of 25, the town has had a, the term is escaping me, but a new ordinance to cover like while we were updating the ordinance. So none of the updated changes have any effect to this particular application. Okay.

I guess my misunderstanding is, I mean, my reading at 1305.1308A is that digital display signs are permitted as long as they comply with the height and limit restrictions in 1305.1308A.

If you go to 1305 under 1, illumination, under MN, it states that A, external illumination is permitted, B, internal illumination is permitted.

Digital display.

Digital display is in B, under MC, MUTC, and SD, where it allows internal illumination or digital display.

Okay. Understood. Then I see where you're coming from then. I understand that there is multiple requests incorporated and that – I do understand that monument sign that is facing both ways would maybe better accomplish the visibility concern. I think the application, and maybe it's not the best drawing in the world, or I guess display of what it would look like. My understanding is it would be two-sided, this pylon sign that we're requesting. And as far as the sort of angular nature of it, that I think, Greg, you mentioned that it is more angled towards Route 19 than Old Perry Highway. I think that that orientation, It does look like that does appear the way to me. I don't know how accurate the dimensions are in the photo. It would be maybe more of a perpendicular to the street or more tilted in that way. But I definitely understand that concern as well. But I understand the momentum may be heading towards a different variance request, but I would ask that there'd be some consideration to few of the arguments we presented with respect to the visibility and with respect to the unique nature of this lot and the need for some signage beyond what's permitted under the current zoning.

Okay, well, and again, Dean, I appreciate the fact that this building does sit back further, but again, we have to act on what is submitted and it's clear to me that this sign is almost parallel to the building. Not quite parallel to the street versus again, I think for address safety. Expand visibility and approaching you this site, this property from old Perry Highway, either direction east or west. If you have a monument sign, it's eight feet back from the property on two sided 32 square feet. I think that accomplishes the purpose.

I think also the purpose, Greg, if I may talk is trying to get more traffic and we are trying, you would agree most people do travel Route 19 there and If they're not going to go down Old Perry unless they actually have to get to the fire hall or the church down there. I mean, it's not a thorough way that a lot of people travel. So, I mean, it is, it's above, it's going to be above, above the parking stuff. You can see it from the intersection by sheets there. It's going to alleviate people, you know, trying to drive 45 down there, slamming their brakes and to get, you know, they pass and they see it over the corner of their shoulder when they're looking for the building. So, yeah, it's a monument sign would be better for old parent highway, but we're not just trying to get old parent highway. We are trying to get. You know, the customers and people looking for us from the 19th, just like the sheets is, or the company that's right up right at the street from us.

I appreciate that Josh, but again, when you think about. The neighborhood center district, and what we're trying to do, it's to be. Not obtrusive. So you're seeing the sign from an adjoining verbally, which is a highway. So, okay. We could probably sit here and go back and forth. And again, this board, we really try to work with folks. I think everybody will attest to that, but this one's a little, and again, I'm speaking from the set, these other two gentlemen, but Scott, did you want to add something else?

Do you know, or do they have any. I mean, I'm looking at this is a, it would not surprise me if this is a stormwater easement or anything of that sort. Would they have any restrictions with building eight feet away from the property? I'm not seeing anything on the survey. Do we know if there'd be any other restrictions that would keep them from doing a monument sign eight feet off of the road there?

You know, one second, I can check. Yeah.

Yeah, there's nothing.

This isn't really a survey, but yeah, it looks like the from what my GIS system is showing me, it looks like all municipal stormwater and infrastructure is located on the other side of the street from this property.

Okay.

Any further questions out, Scott?

I guess my question would be And this is more a question, well, I guess it would be a question for both. We do try to work with applicants to a certain degree. And I think the largest part of your request here was the misunderstanding on digital displays versus eliminated signs as to how you wanted to approach that. So I guess my question for the applicant is, do you have any thoughts as to how this could be redesigned to either lower the number of variances being requested or to eliminate the need altogether if you prefer to go monument sign?

Gareth J. Well, we could do the monuments on that, thank you, but we already purchased led sign because of the confusion, so the redesign it from the only sign to something different it's going to cost a lot of money for us there, I mean we could probably pop it on to a monument sign and still accomplish the goal. Gareth J. So if we could get the various blb and we can confirm to the in the request and alignment Center.

I think we'd have to have a new variance.

That's a different animal. I don't know how the neighbors would feel about that. They may want to come and participate in that hearing.

You know, if I may just say, I mean, this is just a question of personal taste, but if I'm a working parent looking for a daycare center for my for my child, I, you know, in terms of signage, you know, to me, to me, the, the proposed pylon sign just looks like any other business sign along the strip. And just like you're competing with businesses. And if I'm looking for an institution to take care of my child, I'd like something that looks more like a venerable educational institution, like, you know, when you drive into a college campus or something like that. So, I mean, just a matter of personal taste, you know, I think a more subdued monument sign would be more appropriate. And if I interpret this correctly, you can actually have two monument signs. So you can have one facing the old Perry Highway and one on another frontage that faces regular Perry Highway.

Makes sense.

And so, you know, that would accomplish both your goals and you would not need the variances.

Okay.

Okay. And again, we appreciate the discussion. We appreciate your frankness on it. Hopefully you appreciate what we're trying to do as well. I'm ready for a motion on this variance.

So, I will. Yeah, okay. So, for appeal 2057. I move that the Apple can be granted the variance. Since rewarding and the affirmative that you have to be granted the variance. To allow a pile on sign in the district.

Okay, and that clarify fire on sign with digital display, digital display. Okay. And do I have a segment of that motion? 2nd, okay. All those in favor indicate by saying, I. All those not in favor indicate by saying, no, no. I would recommend that rethink it. And if you really firmly believe in the digital element being essential for you, come back with another application and, you know, with a little more modesty to it. And again, we will try to work with applicants, but this one was just a little overbearing. So appreciate your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening.

Okay, that's the only business we have. I'm ready for a motion for adjournment. I move we adjourn. Moved by Art. Seconded. Second. All those in favor, look at that by saying aye. Aye. The record show we're adjourned at 7.33 unanimously.

I think this is a record for one of the shortest meetings.