Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

If anybody's going to testify this evening, you need to please sign in with your name and address, please. And then when you do come up and present testimony, just indicate your name, spell your name, and your address. Okay, we're ready to go. Recording's underway. I gaveled a night.

Okay, let me call it to an end.

May 27th meeting of the Town of McCandless Zoning Hearing Board, called to order at 7 p.m. by myself, Chairman Greg Kowalczyk. We have Board Member Scott Metzger present, and thanks, Art, for pinch hitting. Art is our first alternate. Mr. McGraw was unable to be here this evening, so Arthur Nussbaum is our first alternate on the Zoning Hearing Board, so he's stepping into the action tonight. Before we get started, a little bit of housekeeping. Anybody that's going to present testimony tonight, please rise and raise your right hand. Okay, do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you shall give tonight shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I hope you God. Okay, thank you. Okay. In addition to the zoning hearing board, we have Matthew Innes, who's the zoning and planning director for the town of McCann, who's present. Alan Shuckrow is our solicitor for this board, and he has an assistant this evening, Elizabeth, learning the ropes. And we also have our secretary taking care of the minutes, and these meetings are recorded as well. Okay. We have a pretty full agenda. In fact, one of the fuller agendas I've seen in all my time on the zoning hearing board. We have six appeals, but we'll start off with approval of the March 25th meeting minutes. Those have been previously circulated, right? Because we did not meet in April. Correct. Correct. And comments were made and incorporated. Art, I know you weren't there. Scott, do you have a motion to approve those meeting minutes?

I also was not. I think Art subbed for me at the point. I need to table these for the next meeting.

You're right. Thanks, Scott. You're not here as well. So we will hold those meeting minutes of approval until the June meeting. Okay. So let me write into the first appeal. The first appeal is 2056. The applicant is Paul M. and Heather J. Nass. That's K-N-A-P-P. The location of property is 412 Acadia Drive. The parcel identification is 826-A as in Apple-291. It is located within an which is low density neighborhood zoning district. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 1304.230 subsection A is an offer which states pools with a low height of less than four feet should be enclosed with a fence. Before we turn it over to Mr. Now. Matt's tied up here for a second. Matt, does the town have any perspective or any issues with this appeal?

The town has no comment on this appeal.

Okay, so again, introduce your name and your address and then the floor is yours.

Very good. Good evening. My name is Paul Knapp, K-N-A-P-P. I own the lot at 412 Arcadia Drive with my wife, Heather. We purchased the roughly five-acre plot in late 2003 and have since built our forever home on it. And we're currently in the process of property improvement and significant cleanup as there was quite a bit of farm debris and invasive species on the lot. Rather than going through the whole application that I'm sure you guys have already reviewed and doing a long PowerPoint, I've asked that we put up this simple survey. As you can tell, I am neither an engineer or an artist, so please forgive me with the markup. But the survey is the most current one that I have. It shows the location of our new home, the proposed location of the swimming pool directly behind it. And I've also placed my neighbor's house at the lower southeast corner of our lot as well for reference. I just want to use this map as a reference point to make for Points about my request and then we'll let you guys get on to the rest of your business. The 1st point I want to make is that a pool cover is not really an option for us again. 5 acres, it's mostly heavily wooded property. We are surrounded by multiple large lots that are also wooded. So we've got deer, we have turkeys, we have Fox. All the animals all the time in our backyard, looking in the back window. So we've been told by experts that the minimum fence height to exclude deer from an area is 6 feet. However, because we are very limited as to where we can put our pool. There's only 1 flat spot behind the house. The pool will have to go immediately up against a pretty steep hillside. which would give the deer a jumping off point, making a fence height to exclude them even higher than six feet, eight, nine feet, something like that. So clearly not reasonable. So the option is to have a security cover, whether we put a fence in or not to keep deer from falling in, prevent drownings, damage, et cetera. Additional benefits of the cover are energy efficiency and cleanliness and all of that, but that's not really relevant to this hearing. The second point I want to make is that there really is no good way for us to put a fence around this pool. Again, because the pool and its concrete and associated drainage infrastructure has to go immediately up against a steep hill in order to fit in the spot available, we would have to put a fence on a steep hill. And putting a fence on a steep hill requires extra deep footing or anchors for the posts. We would also likely have to clear some shrub and trees off of that hillside in order to facilitate the installation of the fence. And we have a bit of an erosion problem on that hill, so we really don't want to do that. It would also interfere with us being able to replant and add native species to the hillside again to mitigate some of our erosion issues. The rest of the site around the pool is problematic as well. If you look at the blue rectangle, it is the pool immediately to its north. The hill just drops off and it heads right down towards the creek where there is a 35-foot exclusion zone, I believe. There's just no good way to put a fence on that kind of a hilly property and we're a little bit limited by space. We have discussed the options with our builder, however, just in case we have to do this. None of them are cheap and they will all end up looking a little bit wonky from the back of the house and will destroy the views, quite frankly, of the woods that we enjoy so much through the barge windows facing out the back of the house. The third issue that I want to point out is that access to our property is extremely limited. So the only way for anybody to actually get to the house and subsequently around back to the swimming pool would be to walk up the driveway. And our driveway is in excess of 475 feet long. All of the other approaches are blocked from reasonable access, either by waterways, steep hills, woods, or all three. As you can see on the map, To the north, we have a creek that runs 365 that is in a very deep gully and places it's as deep as 25 feet. I couldn't get across that if I wanted to. There is also a creek that runs across the front just outside of our property line between us and Arcadia that is quite deep too. It comes off of a large sewer culvert that goes under the road collecting water from a creek that comes from another hillside. The entire property is in a valley. So on all sides, whether we own it or not, we are surrounded by very steep hills. And the entirety of our property in the rear and on the sides and the majority of the surrounding lots are very heavily wooded, including thick brush, a lot of invasive species, honeysuckle and all that kind of stuff. Walking to the rear of our lot is nearly impossible without tools. And so A child that is small enough to be stopped by a four-foot fence, I doubt would be able to get through any of these obstacles at all. Quite frankly, I don't think most adults would be able to reasonably get through them without tools and making a heck of a lot of noise. With that said, the driveway is fully visible from the front of our house. It's not a large house and it's got an open 1st, 4 concept and we have a lot of windows. We built our house with class so that we could see the woods. You can see clearly out the front of our house all the way to the street. You can also, by the way, see clearly out the back of the house to the pool site, which is immediately off our patio. it's pretty unlikely that anybody would be able to get up onto our property without us seeing it or anywhere around the pool. However, it's a shared road as well. So anybody that wanted to come up to our property via the driveway would have to pass directly in front of my neighbor's house. And then finally, If you've been on Arcadia before, you can tell it's a little bit hazardous as a walking area. There are no sidewalks on Arcadia. There's a lot of blind hills and curves and people do not obey the speed limit back there. I can say for a fact after meeting most of my neighbors that if a child was walking on that street, any number of grandmothers would come pouring out to grab him off of the road, if not the folks from the MTSA who also are next door. The fourth and final point I'd like to make is that pool security covers are recognized as appropriate alternatives to security fences around pools. An appropriately certified cover meets or exceeds the security provided by a four-foot security fence. The Pennsylvania Building Code provides a specific exemption from fencing requirements when applicable certified criteria are met. Several surrounding communities provide similar exemptions, examples being Franklin Park and Cranberry, although I've been told by my pool and cellar there's more. And our homeowner's insurance provider doesn't require offenses, assuming one of these certified pool covers is used. The cover that we have chosen is the automatic pool cover APC 365. It's not only URL rated, but it meets the applicable ASTM standards for the Pennsylvania exemption. It's secured by either a locking key switch or a combination pad. We haven't decided on which one of those we're going to use yet, but those are the only two options available. And it will support 485 pumping. So the hardships I'm attempting to avoid primarily are financial. A four-foot fence is redundant when an acceptable alternative is already in place for practical reasons like deer protection. The cover that we have chosen will cost in excess of $15,000 to install, and it's not least $10,000 to the project while providing no additional benefit. A secondary hardship is the impact that the fence will have on the property itself. The hill, as discussed to the south of the pool site, will be disrupted and will have limited replanting options as a function of a fence being installed there. And then there's really just no good way to route a fence around the hilly property behind our house. And all possible solutions will result in an eyesore that might get me divorced. So, in conclusion, A pole security cover is mandatory in our situation due to deer. A hilly pool site makes the installation of a fence difficult, expensive, and ugly. Access to the pool site is severely limited by natural obstacles and driveway access is easily observed. And an appropriate pool security cover is an acceptable alternative to a fence, is accepted by the state of Pennsylvania, multiple surrounding communities, and our insurance provider. So I therefore respectfully request that you grant us this variance and I thank you all for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Knapp. Before I ask for questions from the other members, the real, in my opinion, the real issue here is is the equivalency of allowing this type of a cover in lieu of fence. We have the next appeal is the same exact appeal and that applicant went into great detail and I confirmed that with some research myself today that the newly enacted Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code passed in January 1st of 2026 Incorporates what was the former code relative to swimming pool safety and that was the 2021 Pennsylvania swimming pool and spa code, which identifies requirements pretty comprehensive requirements. And it's very clear in that code. which was then adopted by the uniform construction code this year that if you put this type of cover on that mr knapp is referenced and is included in his information that that actually negates the need to provide fencing so one question i had matt is when we went through the update of our zoning code did we do any and i realized it was before your time but do you know if recall if we did anything relative to swimming pools was anything changed was anything

Um, off the top of my head, I don't know the answer. Um, I know that, um, you know, when it comes to swimming pools, zoning versus building and building code changes, um, that, you know, there is an avenue, uh, in the building code, as we've stated, and as Paul stated, that allows for, um, what maybe previously the building code didn't permit, um, because the technology wasn't there. Now that there's different technology, the building code has permitted Um, that, and I don't think that that was discussed or thought out about in 2003, uh, cause they were under the previous code.

Okay. Um, Just some comments. I did visit the site. I can, for the record, indicate that the property was properly posted. Mr. Knapp correctly characterized. I was actually very familiar with the property. I was familiar with the farmhouse that was there before they purchased the property and tore that down. It is a unique piece of property. It is extremely topographically challenged. Your point about deer jumping over a fence on the high side is a valid point. But it is a very unique piece of property with, as you indicate, 476 foot long driveway. It's pretty secluded. When I drove up there, Mr. Knapp heard me and saw me coming. but i couldn't talk about the case tonight but i was just here to check out the property that she was gracious to allow me to do that so um so i think that's what the board i think needs to consider and i don't know obviously matt i can't ask you to speak for council and we do for the audience's benefit um he came in a little bit late but joseph wall is here he is the liaison to this board for town council that's councilman joe wall so and ironically joe well lives on arcadia drive So anyway, I'm wondering that and maybe Joe, you could address this. I mean, would the town be receptive to potentially revising? And again, this doesn't address what we're here for tonight, but do you think The fact that we have two appeals, I've been on this board for almost 15 years, and I've never had one of these appeals. Now we've got two in the same night. So it's obvious your point was a valid one. Technology changes, in my mind, this type of a cover is a much safer, better installation than a four-foot fence.

I can just comment just from a professional standpoint. I'm a member of the CBO in PennBock and we go to these regional quarterly meetings and they discuss a lot of these items and pools are typically an item that um they would discuss and and this you know this is actively discussed in the building community um building code community has been discussed over the last few years so this is definitely something that the town this year was going to consider um looking at in the zoning update if it's um you know it can whenever we do consider it uh at the planning commission this year i mean i don't want to interrupt but i mean honestly when you're when you look at this and you have a

provision in the building code that is on all floors here, you can argue that we shouldn't even have a provision like this in the zoning. The zoning ordinance should say it must comply with the building code. You follow what I'm saying? It's almost like it's inconsistent here and it's on top of, and safety issues are, zoning ordinances can have safety issues

know and they do but something like this is best in the building code if it's dressing it okay thank you um scott any questions for mr knapp um no i mean i think just the the one comment that i feel sometimes i feel like i say this a lot when i'm on the zoning board like To protect the board, I feel like I need to state for the record, wanting to put in a pool, like there's a way to avoid this hardship by not putting in a pool. We've had a lot of people say like, well, I need a backyard for my dogs. Well, having a dog is not technically a hardship under the law. So just stating that, like, I think that's one aspect that needs to be considered. To me, I think the fact that this is such a large lot with such steep topography gives me some, like, this is not, this is not a lot behind McIntyre Square, where the houses are packed in. We've got very, very unique circumstances, probably one of the larger lots in the campus, I would think, just from the size here. I think your point that you would, if you were to put up a fence, you'd have to come back before us almost, to request the height variance to try to stop the deer. So either way, the purpose of the code here in your situation isn't going to meet what you have. I guess the only question I have, Alan, for you is, are we, we're operating in a quasi-judicial manner here. Are we legislating by granting variances that are in this, and it sounds like Matt and the town may have already talked about this.

Sure, somebody could argue that. I think it's mitigated here by the actual facts, as you've just described. I mean, Mr. Knapp didn't just come up here and say, I don't feel like putting a fence up. I mean, he had, you know, he put substantial evidence in the record of actual hardships. But yeah, I mean, our role is not to change the code. That's not our role. And we did have one example that I can think of. was in a use context that we had within the last couple of years was when the folks came and wanted to put the tattoo parlor in and i think we all thought that was you know could have been a good idea but i think i think at the time we might have turned that down but then town council then amended the ordinance quickly um here i'm thinking that you know the an amendment to the code here um will take some time and you know, these folks. Okay, summer is coming.

Any questions? Just one question. With the topography, if your neighbors wanted to put in a pool, would they face the same problem with steep hills as you describe?

So we're in the valley. On one side is the Venango subdivision. So they're regular suburban lots. I don't think they would suffer the same access issues. The neighbor that I share the driveway with is immediately next to Arcadia Drive. So he doesn't have the same topography issues either. All of my other neighbors are or a guy way up on a hill 6 acres away, and I can't even see his house. So, yeah.

Okay. Okay. Is anybody would like to comment on this appeal? Yes, just 1 1 housekeeping point before I will obtain a motion. Mr. Knack, on the closing paragraph, there's just an incorrect reference. It says, with all the above considerations in mind, we respectfully ask the town of McAnlis to grant us an exception from Section 715.32 to allow us to install a pool with a certified. That's the wrong reference.

I don't know where it's from. I never thought that in the application form, and I provided an updated form to Matt, so it's correct there. It's just a letter that has the address.

That's part of the record, so you're showing me. Okay. So I think what we're hearing from our solicitor is, I think, good, sound advice. I think it makes the technology has changed. I think these types of covers are a better solution for safety, and in particular, when you look at the nuances of your lot. So I'm ready for a motion on this appeal.

And for appeal 2056 for the property located at 412 Arcadia Drive, I move that the applicant be granted a variance to section 1304 to allow him to install a pool without a fence, without being enclosed by a fence, subject to his application here tonight and installation of the certified safety cover.

Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? Second. Okay, so moved. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. The threat that showed this appeal was approved unanimously 3-0. Thank you, Mr. Knapp. Thank you, gentlemen.

And I'll just comment that I think because of the nuances and the evidence that was put in, I think we should write a decision that has some findings in it so we can not open this up, as Scott was mentioning, to, like, it's not like we're legislating. We're granting this based on the hardships that were described.

Very good, Alan. Thank you. Okay. Second appears at 2-0-6-1. Did you purposely put these so they went back to that?

Yeah.

Very nice. Thanks so much. knows the number sequence of that. Good job, Matt. The applicant is Sean A. Graham, G-R-A-H-A-M. The location of this property is 1042 Printers Place. That has a parcel ID of 713-E as in Edward-145. This is also located in the Low Density Neighborhood Residential Zone District. And this is the applicant is requesting the same variance. It's from section 1, 3, 0, 4, 2, 3, 0, subsection. 0, which states close for the rest and 4 feet shall be enclosed with the fence. And Matt, I'm assuming that the town has no comment or perspective on this application.

Sure.

Okay. Mr. Graham?

Thank you. Sean Graham, S-H-A-W-N-G-R-A-H-A-M. 1042 Printers Place. So, yeah, I'll try to keep this, I guess, more brief since we've kind of hashed through a lot of what I'll be presenting. But we're requesting a dimensional variance to Section 1304. like 230 to emit a powered ASTM-rated automatic safety cover in lieu of the perimeter fence. Being a structural engineer, I deal a lot with public safety. And having two kids, ages 10 and 12, when we discussed getting a first thing was, well, safety. And a lot of research is these auto safety covers just exceed safety. for that, for child safety, for animals, for everything, more so than a fence that can easily be crawled over. So we're not asking to eliminate safety measures. We're asking the board just to recognize an auto safety cover satisfies the intent of the ordinance. So I live in Franklin Town off of Rochester Road. It's one neighborhood with one entrance, and there's about 122 homes in the neighborhood. The municipal boundary divides that neighborhood right down the middle. So the front half of the neighborhood is Franklin Parkway with 55 houses, and the back half where we live is McCandless Township and 67 homes. Franklin Park does not require the fence when the powered auto cover is installed. There's neighbors in the front half of our neighborhood that have in-ground pools installed with the auto covers without fences. Specifically 2209 Ben Franklin, I put in the report an aerial photo of that property. Our property is at the very end back of the neighborhood. It's on a dead end called a set. There's steep wooded terrain on all 3 sides and the real yard is functionally inaccessible from. You know, the general public, so the back of our, we have 2 and a quarter acres, which is a unique lot for. For that that neighborhood and it's wooded hillside called a sack. So the back half of our yard is 3 tier. And it goes down to wall park where. sloop and rochester meet and we're going to put the pool on the the middle tier of the yard which is really the only place to put it and to do that we have to build a four foot high retaining wall we have to build grade up so the back side of the pool will have a four foot high retaining wall with a a guard rail on it The front side of the pool will have a planter bed and a seat wall. So there's going to be two sets of stairs that go to the pool. The rest is kind of enclosed with either the retaining wall, the guard rail, the planners, all that stuff. So we have kind of a layered barrier system. And we're going to hopefully do, either way, we're going to do the auto full cover, which is keypad access or locking keys. And it's continuously secured. It's low graded. Secondary is the retaining wall with the guard rail, the banners, the seat wall with two points of access. And then just talking about the code, being a structural engineer, I read a lot of code. The PA swimming pool and spa code 2021 section 305.1 effective January 1st, 2026 allows for the powered ASTM rated F1346 cover that it eliminates the barrier requirement for in-ground pools. And McCandless section 3204.230 requires compliance with the PA construction code, which incorporates that PA swimming code by reference. We've also spoke with our insurance company, your insurance, and they said, you know. As long as you meet the building code. Auto covers is perfectly fine. So, we're, we're just respectfully asking for. You know, approval of this variance. given the unique lots, the newer safety covers, and we think it's just a better fit for our property as well. We have two and a quarter acres. It's hilly. Putting a fence would really cut it up, and we wouldn't be able to really use that whole yard as much. A dog wouldn't be able to roam. All that stuff. So, yeah, any questions willing to answer.

Well, again, these are the same arguments, the same information that we just discussed. I just had a couple points of clarification. And 1st of all, I want to thank you as well as Mr nap for the comprehensive nature of what you submitted. In fact, nevermind, I'm not gonna say that. But those comprehensive information, correct? You have three-dimensional renderings, you know, Mr. Nat, the drawings, the floodplain drawings, the topography, you did the same thing, Mr. Graham, so we very much appreciate that. Just one point of clarification, and again, it doesn't change the context of what we just discussed, But I took a little exception because you really kind of hammered home the fact that, you know, this is a split jurisdictional development. Yeah. That's not really a hardship. You're at your home. There's 67 lots in McAlice. There's 55. I mean, there may be other parts of zoning in Franklin Park that are different than McAlice. So that's not really a hardship. And you really kind of hammered that. That's the number one hardship. And it was like... That's not bad. It is what it is. You brought it up in the class, and I think the bigger issue is we've acknowledged with the previous applicant that we need to address that issue. So I think it's important to make that point. But again, nice package of information. The other question I had is, you indicated that there's two access points to the pool. It looks like there's four. on your drawings. There's stairs coming. Let me get a drawing that I can reference. I kind of feel access points. Yeah. There's stairs that are coming in from, I guess, I don't have a North Arrow on here.

It was meant to say two stair access points without gates. Okay. One of the stair access will have a locked gate down to the pool equipment. The other will have a locked gate to the lower. Because that's what I didn't notice. Okay.

So access points. Two unsecured access points. And again, just so we're clear, and I, again, can confirm the property was properly posted. I didn't go wandering into your backyard. First of all, there was a dog in your front yard. Sadly, you know, the information you submitted was excellent because, I mean, your app is unique. It's, what did you say, 2.0? Yeah, it's a very unique terrace lot, so I think this is actually a pretty... a very a very prudent design and it's not going to be a cheap design with the foot high wall that's probably anchored in as well so it is not an entire engineer's ass yeah um okay so again that that's just the points i wanted to make uh art will stay with you any further questions for mr if the neighbor on each side of you wanted to build a pool would they have the same problems and you know topographically

The neighbor to the right I don't think would be able to build a pool without significant retaining walls because it just drops off so steep. So he would have the same. I don't even think. He'd face the same issues. Right. Yeah, that back cul-de-sac is very unique in how just the park kind of falls off very steeply down to Rochester and Sloop. I was just kind of unique. I think the original builders kind of leveled out 3 tiers and they're. Playing to put a tennis court or something in the lower tier and they never did. So it's really unique. We have a big flat spot, like, but way in our lower yard in the woods, but.

Yeah, to address to address Mr. comment, looking at your image that you provided both the house to your right in the house to your right. I don't know how I would put it. No, no. They'd have to be suspended from the slopes. I mean, it's only cow, but okay. Good point. Anything for you, Scott?

Just in your exhibit, Here's your photo the photos of your backyard exhibit. See. So, there's, there's an existing, it looks. I'm referencing this 1 that's looking down. Yes. Yes, this is the area where you're, you're putting the pool.

Playground is currently that is being moved. Oh, that's like a second tier. So there's an upper tier. The second tier is that there's a two foot high seat wall.

So this is going to be the seat.

That's the seat with a big planner bed at the top. So then another retaining. That's on the backside is the big four foot wall with a three foot guardrail. Just because for safety, I mean, you can't you got to put a guardrail on top of a four foot wall.

Right, especially if you're going to be jumping in and out with children.

There would be some barriers, like fence barriers, that would sort of meet the fence in your primary, but not the whole way around.

Yeah. Yeah. But there isn't in your proposed plan any well, I guess. Yeah, I mean, you could add a fencing kind of on the back end of a seat wall probably and understand it would mess up the view, but. I think the question before us here is really more like the 1st applicant, right? The biography and and fencing. it's dependent upon whether we accept this alternative method. So, you know, I just was a little bit unsure of the layout of your lot as to what you were looking to do, but that clears it up for me. I don't have any other further.

Yeah. We looked at fencing options. Like we wouldn't necessarily put it on that seat. Well, we would probably kind of wrap it all the way around and try to tie into the house versus put it on that, that the seat wall.

And again, as, as per the honest applicant, this is just a much, in my opinion, a much safer alternative, um, just particularly when you consider the unique nature of this slide. Okay, is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this appeal? Okay, hearing no further comments, I'm ready for a motion on this appeal.

For appeal 2061 for the property at 1042 printers place. I move that the applicant be granted a variance from section 1304. To install a pool without a 4 foot fence. As discussed and laid out to the board this evening upon the provision of a. Of the installation of a certified safety pool cover.

Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. That records show this appeal was approved unanimously 3-0. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Again, your comprehensive information. Thank you. Next is appeal 2057. The applicant is 10X Ventures, LLC, doing business as Sinorama, Monroeville. The location of property is 8633 Old Perry Highway. The post identification is 714-R as in Robert-208. This is located within M. Michael and Nancy Neighborhood Center Zoning District. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 1305 and 140, subsection C as in Charlie, 5 subsection O as in Apple, which states that pylon signs are not permitted. Again, for the record, I visited the property. It was properly posted. For the board's background, this particular building was a daycare. It was operated by Tender Care. If you remember, we granted a variance. Tender Care moved down the street when they purchased the Howard Hanna building on Route 19. We had another daycare going into this existing building. Matt, was the founder of any comments or perspective on this appeal?

No, I'll just add that the town has recently adopted an updated ordinance regarding the sign update that was passed in April of this year. So just wanted to add that to the record to state that the sign ordinance has been recently updated, but the town does not have any comment on this specific application.

With the update to the sign ordinance, Does that address this particular appeal?

It does not address this particular appeal, but I comment it because it did address the general regulations to digital display signs and some general regulations to the sign code. But I believe that in regard to this application, none of the changes actually changed. It was just re-reviewed. okay um and i'm i haven't seen that yet so i'm just curious did it address the pylon sign issue with the definition of guidelines change with this sign regulations okay um just general regulations um for some of the usages usages of types of signs but nothing that's directly related to this okay thanks thank you very much

Thank you.

Are you representing the notary or the sign company?

The sign company. My name is Tina Stump. I'm with 10X Ventures doing bit of the site in a room. S-T-U-M-E-F.

Okay. So nothing about that. I don't know what was submitted.

Resubmitted.

Okay.

It's going to be another daycare center. So safety is their concern. Having a sign that can be seen.

Okay. And I, again, can, for the record, show that this is the property. The property was properly posted. There is an exhibit that's actually a site for the tender care site dated 90, looks like 98, but it shows where the new sign location is. One question then for you, and if you know the answer, the first page of your exhibit says, here, we see the name of the daycare, early years. What is the black underneath that?

Is that... Changeable copy sign.

I'm sorry?

Changeable copy sign.

Okay. Digital?

Yes.

Okay. And Matt, does the size of this sign imply with...

The requirements size requirements, the new ones, the requirements did not change for the sizing or anything with the zoning ordinance. My comment regarding the update to the sign ordinance was just in relation. To the fact that the town recently adopted a new sign ordinance. And review that at a public meeting and just for context of. uh the town has recently reviewed that in terms of on-premise um regulations um in the mn district it allows for a 32 square foot sign with a eight maximum height of eight feet and pylon signs are not permitted okay that's that's the big issue here is pylon um

You know the size, this drawing shows the total height, if I'm reading this correctly, is 150 inches. Correct. Do you know, the white portion was signed, it's early years, child development centers. Do you know, I see it's 75 inches wide. Do you know the height of that? I guess I could figure it out. There's 150 minus 48.25.

No, that would give them both, yeah.

So it looks like... Four feet five inches for each. So it appears that they're going to be okay on the size of the sign, but it's the issue of the pile.

Well, the size is from the height to the ground. It's the whole thing. There's a max sign area, which is the... Gotcha. The area assigned by the height is the same as if you had a McDonald's sign post in the big M. Everything's in the bottom of the top.

And the other information that was provided with the application actually showed the tender care of previous business on this site, and it utilized the following sign.

Yeah, pylon signs were in the 2023 update to the town's code, because when pylon signs were adjusted to be not permitted in the MN district, because the MN district was created in the 2023 zoning code.

And similar, there's some other businesses on that immediate vicinity of this property that have pylon signs, but these, again, are pre-existing conditions. Correct. Okay. Okay, that's questions start with you this time.

Matt, can you clarify what's the height of what's the height that's allowed for a sign? For a monument sign in the district, the permitted height is eight feet.

Oh, but that's for a monument sign. Yeah, power signs are not limited. Right, right. Okay. Yeah, we've got like three different pieces of information here. I mean, Matt, would they be, what would be the town's position on, I mean, there was, I don't know if that sign is still there. I apologize. I did not have a chance to drive by this property due to a health issue. But the sign that was there, the tender care sign, it's there and it's in their exhibit. They could repurpose that existing sign under kind of grandfathered, for lack of a better term.

Yeah, if it's a non-conforming sign, someone that has a non-conforming sign is permitted to submit a sign permit utilizing that sign. And then there's a caveat that they're able to make an adjustment to non-conforming signs up to 25% depending. But that's dependent on submitting a permit that doesn't change the structure of that sign. Right.

So the issue here is that they're looking to go to a different shape sign, a different style of sign, updated technology sign, all of that.

Once you change the nonconformity, it's now considered a new sign.

I don't believe that tender care sign is still there.

No, I don't think it is.

It looks like you're going in roughly the same location if I'm comparing the two photos, but switching the orientation of the sign.

Correct. This is because the rate of poverty is they want traffic to be able to see it for safety reasons because it's a daycare center. It will be a daycare center.

In a district where pylon signs are permitted, is this consistent with the statute there? I mean...

in districts where the, it'd be permitted, pylon signs are permitted in the MCMUTCSD up to 64 square feet maximum area. Maximum sign height is allowed 35 feet. But I would add though that when it comes to sign codes, I mean, you're talking about a lot of different types of signs that you could build and things like that. So the different zoning districts have very different sign regulations.

The MN district that this property is located in. You said monument signs are permitted, are permitted use?

Monument signs are permitted.

And digital displays on monument signs? Not permitted.

Okay. Okay.

This is a little bit unique because it's at pre-existing conditions, but unfortunately, it tore the sign down. So you can't work with what's there. And this clearly, I'm struggling with this one because what's the hardship? We had existing properties around that were grandfathered in, but they are certainly much smaller. I mean, this sign is pretty big, pretty tall, 150 inches. And it's got a digital board on it. And none of the other businesses around it have digital boards on it until we get across the highway where Sheetz is. Okay.

I believe that's a different zoning district as well.

Yeah, it is a different zoning district. I do have to say, though, I mean, I've tried, I saw the property, too, and coming down Old Perry Highway towards that, I mean, I had a hard time finding it. There is a single sign there that kind of didn't, by the trees. I didn't see that. And of course, then there's the issue of the one-way driveway. Which way do you go? For someone unfamiliar with that area, that was pretty confusing.

And I guess you're representing the sound company, so you can't speak for the owner of this business.

No, other than just talking to him. And again, I've said it like three times, I'm sorry, but being a daycare center, they're concerned with safety. So they want to be able to, somebody to identify that business should there be an emergency.

Well, I think. I'm not being coy about it, but you could have a monument sign.

Right. That's what they're saying.

It can't be seen. Closer to the road will provide better visibility. I'm planning to want to either take over this the next month and have the owner present to address those issues or I don't think that I'm just speaking for myself. You have no hardship here.

Then let's have the owner for next month.

I think if you take questions back to the owner, I think there's a lot of things going on here. So I think if we could see some level of working with like pylon signs aren't permitted, but also digital displays aren't permitted. Also the height's not permitted. So is there a way that we can work to not essentially be granting three or four variances for one sign. I think at least for me personally, I'm not speaking for the others, for me personally, that would be something that I would be more inclined to hear more about.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you for your time. I'll be ready for a motion then to continue this to, I'm assuming, do we have a June meeting?

I mean, we have no items on the agenda, but we have anything that goes to next meeting. So yes, sir.

All right. Has someone like to make a motion?

I'd like to move that we continue appeal number 257 to the next meeting of the zoning hearing board.

Okay. Is there a motion? Do I have a second? Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion? Aaron, you okay?

Yeah, definitely.

Okay. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Let the record show that unanimously this appeal was tabled or continued until the next zoning hearing board meeting. Okay, next appeal is 2058. The applicant is LaRoche Universities and the Sisters of Divine Providence. The location of the property is 9000 Babcock Boulevard. The parcel identification is 827-N as in Nancy-338. It is located in the SD, which is special district zoning. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 1302.270, subsection B as in boy, subsection C as in child 3, which states setbacks must be a minimum of 50%. For the record, they visit this property as well. It was properly posted. This is a rather unique opportunity where the Sisters of Divine Providence are selling off a significant portion of their property and therefore need to create a lot. And you have the challenge of creating a lot amongst a whole host of existing buildings. And there was an exhibit provided with the application that is actually a surveyed engineering drawing. I think they did a pretty darn good job of doing it with the unique characteristics of all the buildings that were there. But with that little bit of background, not any perspective from the town.

The town doesn't have an official. Point on this item, I will add that for Roche has submitted previously to the planning commission for a subdivision. And through that review, it was discovered that. Essentially, there was a discussion of parking. uh requirements versus setback requirement um and that that's kind of what has led us to this um this variance request um so the town doesn't have a position but i just wanted to provide that context that the town and more which have been um working together through the uh the subdivision line development process okay thank you um

Yes, Mr. McKeegan.

Good evening. I've not been sworn in. I don't know if the board cares to do that or not, but my name is Kevin McKeegan. I'm an attorney with Meyer, Arkevic, and Scott at Pittsburgh. We represent the Sisters of Divine Providence. I just want to make one correction to your introductory remarks on this project. The Sisters are not selling this property. They are donating it to La Roche-Posay. This is a... The sisters, of course, founded the university 16 plus years ago. This is an opportunity for these buildings, particularly the mother house, which is very underutilized at this point, to be put back to a productive educational use consistent with the sisters' mission. So this is not in any way to be taken as a commercial transaction. This is being done purely to support the university and to maintain the relationship between the congregation and the university. Thanks, Kevin.

Yeah, thanks for correcting me. I didn't remember it was a donation, which is quite... Quite interesting. It's really kind of pretty impressive. And it'll fit really nice with the campus next door. Go ahead. I'm assuming you're a total engineer.

I am. Introduce yourself. My name is James Wilkinson, J-A-M-E-S-W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N, 8 Allegheny Center, Pittsburgh, New York. So as you mentioned, this is part of a subdivision that we have applied for. And our main hardship that we're claiming is that these buildings were here long before the zoning ordinance and They come to foreseen that this could potentially be part of university much, much later. And with 50 foot setbacks on either side of the proposed line, that basically makes it impossible to ever separate these buildings. Or, uh, you know, use them in a, in a better way as we're prepared to do. And, um. We strongly believe that the benefits of this expansion of the college are far outweigh the strict enforcement of those setback lines. So we're asking for a 19.66 foot reduction in the rear setback. That would leave 30.34 feet behind the Alpha Gym. So the building that's not in conformance is the Alpha Gym. Behind it and between the commons, that residential building, there's an existing driveway, which is to stay in place. So reducing the setback will not alter the function of either building or the lot in any way. It won't affect the character because the buildings have been here for so long. We really think this is an exciting thing for the town and for the college. If you have any questions, I'd love to field them.

One question, and again, I can see a unique challenge you had to fit property lines around existing, but would you also need a variance for the one storey brick and block garage?

That's considered an accessory building. There was a comment made by someone from the time that we should show the accessory. Setback line as well, which it does meet so we will add that on.

So, Matt, just confirm that that is true is an accessory building and therefore it doesn't have the 50 foot setback.

Correct. And it was commented in a gateway response either to the submitted subdivision application.

Okay, good. Thank you. Scott, questions for Mr. Wilkinson?

This is an impressive question. Well, one of my initiatives being undertaken here, both from an engineering perspective, trying to draw what is a highly irregular lot now, but also just for what I'm sure will mean for the university and for the sisters probably as well. And my one question. Well, a couple of questions. But first question, you referenced this two-story brick building, which would be the non-conforming building where the variance is being sought. You referred to that as the Alpha Gym. I'm assuming that was from the now-closed Providence Heights Alpha School? Correct. And was it used as a gymnasium?

It was formerly the Kettler Center, and I think it is right now considered a gym. I'm not sure how it's functioning currently. I think we have some representatives here that could speak more to the proposed future use.

Okay, maybe if we have a representative from the university maybe needs to answer this. My only thought is the setbacks are designed for you know, privacy and space, especially where there are residential concerns. Obviously, the sisters are in support of this. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. But is that going to be turned into dormitories or cafeteria-type function for the university, or is this being left for...

I don't believe so. Yeah. Extracurricular. And the motherhouse, actually, they want to use that. They're considering using one of the top floors as dormitories possibly in the future.

But that's at the motherhouse, which is well away from what we're talking about.

Yeah. So this, yeah, the 30 feet behind this, we believe that's more than enough for this building to continue functioning as either higher learning or as a gym, if they want to connect. Extracurriculars, clubs, that kind of stuff. Okay.

No, I don't think I have any other questions.

Okay. Mr. Nussbaum? No, no questions. No questions. Okay. Relative to the Planning Commission, when they were in for subdivision, Matt, you mentioned they were up the issues. Were those resolved or that required them to redraw the lines into the preferences? Yes.

Essentially, in their discussion of how to make this type of development function, they had to look at a few different. Point development features, like the orientation of where the parking was for each lot. The frontage and things like that, all of those items have been discussed between Tate and gateway and have been. Hashed out to the point where the only essentially variants that they would be required for the application that they have submitted to the planning commission. For a future meeting date would be this variance. Submission.

Yeah, very good question.

That brings up a point though. Does this at all impact. I cannot remember the placement. We had a parking issue with the sisters of divine providence related to the eco village. and the lot that they were going to be using, but that's not either of the two lots shown here, is it? No, no.

Okay, that was well over, okay. Well, I know it's under construction, but just a lot. Yeah, yep. In fact, they're using that lot as a staging area right now for construction. Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this appeal? Okay. Hearing none, I'm ready for a motion.

for appeal number 2058 for the property located at 9000 Babcock Boulevard. I move that the applicant be granted a variance, a 19.66 foot variance to the side setback requirement of section 1302. Okay.

Motion. Second? Second. Second. Any further discussions? Okay. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Let the record show the appeal is approved unanimously. Thanks, sir, for the animation. Good to see you, Kevin. You're very welcome.

Kevin.

Hey, Mr. Peel. 2059. The applicant is Wen Yao. Are you?

I apologize.

035 Broad Lawn Drive. That is a personal identification of 610-E at Edwards-166. This property is located in the RL, which is low density residential neighborhood district. The applicant is we're seeking is requesting a variance from section 1, 3, 0, 3.2, 2, 0, subsection B as in boy, 11 sub subsection B wasn't very one, which states coups must be located 50 feet from any lot line. Again, for the record, I visited the property. It was properly posted. Matt was the pound of any perspective town does not. I had a question. Do you know when the town enacted the trip in ordinance?

I don't know, but I could probably easily find that.

Okay. Was it prior to the redo of the zoning ordinance?

Yes. There's already been some regulation. Correct.

Okay. Fair enough. That's how I just wanted to know. Okay. Okay. And how would you pronounce your last name?

How? How?

How? Okay. Thanks, Sarah, for that. It's... Then this is this is how from a 0, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,

Good evening, everyone. Thanks to the parent board for giving me this chance. Sorry. My name is Wen He. I was oncologist for 10 years in China before I came here. I did cancer research over 20 years in PET, Human Cancer Center. I resigned my job two years ago. It isn't because I did bad work. Actually, I did very good work. I have a first-order paper that was published in 2016. We decided of 1987 now, close to 2000. I resigned because I want to a different lifestyle and learn from nature. Now I tell everyone why I need this virus. Number one, I start to grow the organic non-GMO vegetable in my backyard when I finally knew the organic non-GMO food is the best for our body. Eating organic, non-GMO food is the best way to prevent cancer and other diseases. Human body was created so good by God. Immune system and autology was being established perfectly to protect our body. immune system for killing the bad thing that invaded our body, autophagy for clean our body. If these two systems are good, human body shouldn't have cancer and other disease. To keep these two systems in good hardly depended on what we are eat every day. In the past 20 years, the cure rate on cancer didn't significantly improve, but the incidence rate was increased too much, especially in China. The city that I lived in China only had oncology in the hospital 20 years ago. Ten years later, two cancer hospitals with more than 10 floors building were built. I know that cancer can be caused by many reasons, but the food has a main impact on healthy. The organic non-GMO food has been totally replaced by the food with the chemical fertilizer and some of GMO food in China in past decades. In fact, actually, the U.S. is worse than China. That is the reason Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has his MAHA project. After I had grilled vegetables several years, I found chicken's manure is a good fertilizer. Then I read... Raising chickens crossed my mind. Also, I can eat the best egg too. The good thing is in my backyard, in the middle of the lawn, had a big tree with some plants around. It is a good place for raising chickens. Then I built a fence that is six feet higher, 50 feet long. The fence is perfect for this place. Then I made a very safety and a big enough coop for chickens. Now I needed to say sorry about this. I didn't get the permit before I started raising chickens. Also, I want to say thanks to my neighbor who reported this to the town office because I had learned a lot from the past 50 days. I was a simple and a shy person. Now I am growing. I even can stand here. Number two, I want to say raising chicken is not a easy thing to do because it has a lot of work, especially to clean the chicken's manure. But what I have got and learned from the raising chicken is much more than from dogs and cats that I have. Hard work pays off. Number three, last year, my oldest son who finished his master's degree on nutrition and he found a job in his food company and worked on my heart project. He told me he made new food with organic non-GMO ingredient. I believe many organic non-GMO fruits will appear in the store next year because I knew Maha project had been started in many big fruit company in last year. I also want to join Maha. What I'm doing now is for myself and my family. Meanwhile, I'm preparing myself. My dream is to own a farmer to grow organic food. Finally, I find the best way to against cancer. So, and I needed to learn more now. And number four, my backyard has become more teeming with life after I grew vegetables, especially after raising chickens. More birds and other animals come. Neighbors' kids come to see chickens too. Number five. the place didn't change other things because the only thing I do is replace the plants with chickens. It didn't alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor permanently impaired the appropriate use, nor be detrimental to the public welfare. On the contrary, it has improved public welfare. I had shared vegetables and eggs with some of my neighbors. I will share more when I have more. Number six, I couldn't change my last site. I couldn't raise chicken just because so in code. So I need this. Number seven, I'd like to see the least modification possible of the regulation in issue. Then more person can raise chickens and join Maha project. In the end, I want to say thanks to Matthew. He guided me step by step with so many passion. He gave me hope. Though he told me in the beginning this process would be hard and expensive. Indeed. But I'm growing. I have learned much more. Thanks, everyone, for listening to my presentation. Thanks to the hearing board again. Okay. It had been done last week, but I didn't get the certificate now. When I get it, I'll send it to you.

Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hao. How long have you had the chickens?

Almost a year.

I'm sorry. I'll tell you yours.

Yeah, it's almost yet years. There's no years.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, I can provide just for context where we're at in this application. The town was notified that there was a on 8035 bra long drive that there was a coup constructed and chickens located on the property. without any permitting. We then sent a letter to Ms. Howell. She then responded to that and worked through the variance to submit this application. Just wanted to provide that a little bit of context.

So was there a complaint from the neighborhood? Correct. Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, Ms. Howell, I appreciate... your passion for organic foods and wanting to find cures for helping fight cancer. Believe me, I'm supportive. Unfortunately, you know, this isn't... We don't have a lot of discretion here. You have a lot that's only 85 feet. And the ordinance says that you need to have the chicken coop a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line. So basically, with that... And I realize the way you're looking at me, you're not understanding, but it's... I think the Rubens was crafted for that reason, because they wanted to have chicken coops on bigger size lots. Because let's face it, chickens are noisy. You may love them. Some people don't love them. And then having a lot that's only 85 feet. you can't have a chicken coop. It's just impossible by this, by the way the code was written. So, and, and again, I think the intent of that was they didn't run chicken coops in very small, tight lots. I drove in the neighborhood. I mean, it's a tight little neighborhood. Everybody has very small lots. And that's, I think was the premise why the ordinance was written that way, because they did not run chicken coops on small lots, just because that you got neighbors that are too close and they're very noisy. Um, And for us to approve a variance like this, and believe me, I appreciate your intent and your belief in organic foods and wanting to fight cancer. But we have a series of five criteria that we have to go through. And you don't need any of them. I mean, you need to have a bigger lot to have a chicken coop. And unfortunately, that's just the way the ordinance is written. Again, I appreciate your passion, but there's no way we can approve this variance.

But there's also another one that if you're going to, on your application, you talked about a place for storing the manure. And the ordinance says for manure storage, your storage has to be 200 feet from your property line. So I think that's another problem. and also if your chicken coop is going to be visible from from your neighbor's backyards it needs to be surrounded by shrubbery so they're you know it's more than more at stake than just the 50 foot uh you know 50. no no i what i was going to say was first of all just just like mr kwachek from a personal standpoint like i agree with a lot of the things that you said i i heard what you said but

In the town of McCandless, there's a law here about chicken coops and the proper place to get the law changed is to go to the town council with the elected officials who put this ordinance in place in the first place and to say to them, times have changed, lots of people are growing, have chickens now, and I think the law should be changed. We can't change the law here at this board. We can give exceptions in um extenuating cases like you heard earlier with the uh pool thing where it's a five acre lot and you know people there's partial fences around it and it's way out in the middle of nowhere as mr kwachick said this ordinance clearly applies and if you were able to have the chickens in your neighborhood, then every single person in your neighborhood could do the same thing. And this ordinance would basically be wiped off the books. So if you want to get the law changed, you're going to need to go to see the town council. And I have no idea what their view on this is at this point, but that's where this would have to go as far as what I believe.

Thank you, Alan. That's where I was headed next. I would suggest that you have, at the end of this meeting, you discuss with Mr. Warren, who's on town council, and is here to report to council on these kind of issues. So Mr. Shuckrode described it exactly right. I mean, we cannot approve this. You have to get the urbans changed to allow chicken coops on smaller pieces of property. And if town council decides to do that, the zoning code could be changed to allow 25-foot setback, maybe, whatever they come up. But I can tell you that there's good reason for that because chickens are noisy. And, again, I shop at Whole Foods as well. I don't know if you appreciate it or not. We cannot grant this variance. You don't meet any of the criteria. Like Mr. Shotlow said, the best thing you could do would be to see if town council is receptive to looking at those ordinance relative to the setback requirements from property line. Because clearly with 85 feet of width in your property, you can't do it. You can't meet it.

Yeah, I know that I can meet. That's why I need this variance.

Right. And we know you understand, but To get a variance, there has to be something unique about your property as opposed to other properties. I know Brook Park very well. I grew up in the area. I live pretty close. All the lots are about the same. There's nothing unique about your property. You heard us here earlier when they were talking about the pool area. the both of those gentlemen were talking about what was unique about their property and what made it different and made the situation different there isn't anything that you can point to you have a typical brook park line being just like everybody else does and if we allow this for you we would have to allow it for everybody and town council would say well then you're not you've basically rewritten the ordinance and your you zoning board are not elected by the people of mccandless to do that we're not elected to change what the law is so that's that's where it is uh oh i see um

I can understand what it means if I need to continue?

I'm happy to explain after this meeting what that process would look like. That they're explaining that going to town council. But that's totally separate from what this board does. So that's kind of a separate...

Town Council creates the ordinances, laws per se, and we are asked to interpret them relative to five criteria that are defined by state planning code. And as Mr. Sheckler said, you don't meet any of those criteria. We cannot grant this variance. There's no basis for it. There's no basis for it. You need to go back and see if you can get the law changed that will allow chicken coops on smaller pieces of property. And Matt explained he will be glad to talk you through that process. And as I mentioned, Councilman Ware is here. He's on town council. He's heard it. So he knows what we're talking about. And I will talk to him about how you start that process. And if you're passionate about it, which I believe you are, you'll probably give it a shot. And you may not need a variance because you may get the ordinance changed. Okay? Okay.

Okay, I will.

If you follow up with the applicant, that'd be great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. You're very welcome.

Okay, next appeal is. We're going to make a motion. That's right. Yeah, so we've heard the discussion. Scott, I'm sorry I didn't give you any chance, but there's nothing new to it. So I am ready for a motion on this appeal. Thanks for correcting me.

I'm going to, are you okay if I word this in the negative to avoid any confusion? You can. Okay. That's fine. So for appeal 2059 for the property at 8035 Broadlawn Drive, I move that the applicant's request for a variance be denied.

Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Let the record show unanimous disapproval of the field.

So, yeah, we'll have to write it. When the variance is denied, you have to write a decision with bindings of factors. We'll do that.

Very good. You have a lot to write about tonight. 73, right?

Two or similar. I was going to say you are going to write them on both pools. Yes. Yes.

Okay, lastly on our agenda is appeal number 2060, and the applicant is Sabine Shee. And I've been butchering that, I apologize. The location of the property is 1701 Duncan Avenue. This is the Duncan Manor Shopping Center. It's a personal identification 717-A as in apple-236. It is located again in the M. Michael N. Nancy Neighborhood Center Zoning District. The applicant is requesting variances from sections 1305 and 140, subsection C as in Charlie, to subsection C as in Charlie, and Section 1305.130, subsection C as in Charlie, subsection A, which states properties are permitted one freestanding sign and pylon signs are not permitted. Matt, any perspective from the time on this?

No, the town does not have a position on this item. I can just state that there is on this property, there is an existing freestanding sign that is for the dollar store.

Okay. Again, for the record, I did visit the property. It was properly posted. The farm market was thriving that we granted use for. And I did note, and honestly, the one thing that caught my eye, and I see that we have two gentlemen here, the restaurant owner, but are you associated with the shopping center?

No.

Okay. One point, well, you know what, let me turn it over to you and present your testimony. Go ahead, sir.

Yeah, actually, this is to aggregate my restaurant and robots, a building company, but I prepared this material. That's why I just saw my name on it. Yes.

That answers my first question. I saw Yo-Yo Panda, traditional Asian tea, and an illusion burger. Yeah, next door. This way. I'll see where I can find each other in the stress center.

Yes. Okay. Okay, yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Good evening, members of the board. Thanks for your time. My business is a restaurant, the Yo-Yo Panda. And this restaurant originally opened at JJ Panda. And it's in... After the two previous owners we took over last May and fully renovated the space, JJ Pendai focused on takeout and American-style Chinese food. And then we totally updated the concept from American-style Chinese food to traditional Chinese food and some Southeast Asian food. We have Indonesia food. Thai food and Vietnamese food. We just pick up some of the classic food from Southeast Asian countries. So we are an Asian fusion restaurant. After we took it, we opened it in last July, and in the last 10 months, our business increased indeed, but the growth is very slow. This slow growth plays the big challenge for our business. So, we are respectfully requesting a sign balance for a modest payment sign along the Duncan Avenue. This request is driven by unique sign conditions, not by our actions. Our restaurant and robos, the brewing company, located in the Duncan Avenue, the plaza named Manor Shopping Center. And it has a very deep parking lot, more than 110 yards. So this condition set my business far from the Duncan Avenue. So the drivers on the Duncan Avenue, it's almost impossible to see our business. So it's a very low visibility locations. And now the plaza, two-fifths of the business location are empty. Before the COVID, the plaza is busy, but now not very busy. That's why the previous two owners, they give up. But for me, I try my best to make my business good. Yes. But this hardship was not created by us as a new tenant. We had no roads in the Plaza's layout or the landlord's signage policy. But granting this violence will not alter the characters of the end-to-end neighborhood central districts and negatively impact neighboring property. The proposed site is modest in size and professional design and will fully comply with all other standards for material, lining, safety, and maintenance. It will simply help identify an active business in the plaza. So this approval is essential for the continued success of our restaurant in this low visibility location. So now, Robert, he had, I think, yes, for application.

I wanted to add to the name and address. Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. Robert, the address of the business, yes. Robert Buchanan, B-U-C-H-A-N-A-N. This is 1701 Duncan Avenue Suite. Depends on who you're asking. Please say two. To add to the ultimate hardship is that what Ben said is very true, that the plaza angles very much away from the intersection. When you're in the intersection, the view of half of the plaza is blocked by the get-go and trees. And when I initially signed my lease with the property owner, I inquired about why we were a strip mall. that did not have a pylon sign with every business on it as every, almost every other strip mall does in existence. And I was told by the owner that that was in the process and then COVID happened. After the fact and talking, I don't believe that was ever in the process with McCandless to install that at all. So the heartache that Ben and I are up against is that we are on our own as far as visibility, as far as trying to keep our businesses alive. There are two existing pylon signs for the plaza already. They are unfortunately privately owned by Dollar Tree. So we can't add, they won't allow us to add, despite the fact that these pylon signs for Dollar Tree are in excess of your regulations, I understand that Grandfather did. They are very tall. They are 30, 40 feet tall signs. They're huge. And they won't even allow us to put a sign near the bottom. It's already there. We're just adding to it. And so in lieu of the fact that we have very little visibility to our signs, the owner is not helping us in any way to file on signs. Ben and I are on our own. We're trying our best to keep our businesses open and visibility to the intersection of Duncan and Thompson Run, which is very high traffic, we feel would allow us to give us a fighting chance to stay in business.

Usually, almost every plaza has a sale and public sign and then all the business name on the side. But no, we don't have it. And then I talked to the manager, the landlord hired a manager to manage this plaza. Actually, the landlord has many plazas. And then I talked to the manager. He said, they don't have the plan to build a public sign. And I tried to talk to the manager of the Dollar Tree in the plaza. Every time she said, no, because he's trouble for her to do that. He had to report to the headquarter of the Dollar Tree. The Dollar Tree is a franchise. So we don't have any opportunity to put our sign on there. And even I put a banner on the Dollar Tree. They allow us to put a banner. And then it was took off by the government and so on and so forth.

yeah so that right there shows you that the owner contradict himself told Ben that there was never a plan no plan but on sign with all the businesses and that's contrary to what they told me when I signed my things do I ever you know can I potentially have a case against the owner sure do I want to go to that route new no um so I mean the easiest thing was to approach the zoning board to see if it's okay for us to put up a sign

This wasn't what I thought it was going to be. This is a very unique one. Because when I first went out to the property, I thought, why aren't they just putting up with Dollar Tree? You know, what was interesting is in the material you concluded when I guess Mr. Sismore was with Viola Food Stores, S-I-S-M-U-M-O-U-R. And when you inquired about putting a sign up, he said, would that be... Replying to your request to apply to the township for a monument sign, I would like to inform you and McCandless Township that we are on board and you have our permission to move forward. With that being said, we would request that you use one or both of the existing sign locations for your new sign. Sincerely, Kevin Sismore, Director of Operations for Viara Food Stores. So, clearly, GetGo has a very nice digital pylon sign. Yes. Grandfathered, obviously. And there are two pylon signs, both with nothing on them but dollar signs.

Yes.

And I appreciate your testimony. Matt, the town can't force any of this, right? I mean, you can't go to...

We don't really have a multi-tenant panel sign written into our ordinance. Something that we considered looking at. When you're talking about a property owner and a sign, it's on the property owner to say they want to

If they were able to obtain, if what you're presenting is true and you have every reason to believe it is, but if Dollar Tree does own the signs and they would grant approval, would they be allowed to put Illusion Brewing and Yo-Yo Panda on that Dollar Tree pylon?

My interpretation of our code, because it doesn't specifically state anything regarding tenant signs, is I look at the sign structure. So there's nothing, I would say that it'd be permitted to have a multi-tenant sign. The code intent was for the number of signs. So if it's multi-tenants on one sign, as long as they're applying for it, it meets the code for each individual sign for the sizing, I would say that it'd be permissible.

Okay. because I truly think you have a unique hardship here with the depth of that, the fact that PennDOT operates their facility in the front. I didn't know you were there until I was over there today. I didn't know you were there. And it's, you know, you really are in a tough spot there. And if you've got people that do not want to cooperate with you, unfortunately, the town can't force them to.

I'll even comment too, just from like a planning perspective, looking at this lot. We're in the MN district for a use that's not supposed to be in the MN district. I mean, it's a neighborhood center that has a large shopping center that doesn't mean any setbacks doesn't mean any of the new zoning. So it's a very unique and difficult lot with the zoning at host the 2023 zoning update.

Okay, um, Alan, help me out here. The fact that these guys are really stuck between a rock and a hard place. The town cannot force the owner of the shopping center or force Dollar Tree to allow them onto their sign.

Yeah, I don't think we can do that, but... I mean, you're right. I was reading the same thing earlier and I didn't understand the. Why don't you use the existing locations thing? I. I understand that. Do you know what they meant when they wrote that back to you? Why did they say that? Why did the viola person say to you. use one of the existing sign locations.

Use one or both of the existing sign locations. Kevin Sizemore is the same gentleman who told me that they were in the process of putting up a multi-business pylon sign, and that was not true. That was never...

however a factor he is the property manager he just was representing the owner so his response to trying to keep my time well the one thing i mean i'm not i'm not necessarily suggesting this okay because i i don't know that we want to get ourselves embroiled in a potentially private dispute but the zoning board does have the power to issue subpoenas okay Then we could subpoena Mr. Sizemore and have him come here next month and tell us what the deal is. But, I mean, I don't know that we want to do it on our own. I think they would have to ask for it, and then they may not want to do that. And I'm just, you know, because we don't know. I don't know what the guy meant by that.

Do you mind if I ask, do you know if that comment that Kevin had sent was in relation to the existing signs, or did you show him a mock-up of where you wanted to put it? The new sign was that relation to. What you sent him or was that prior was he saying, because I think the context of that, that the letter that was submitted essentially states that, you know, to utilize the 2 existing locations. From my understanding, I think of our previous conversations, and you can clarify this, is that you had shown, Kevin, options for each side of Duncan Avenue where you could put a sign. And that's what that comment was in relation to. Not in relation to him saying, hey, you need to put this on the Dollar Tree sign. He said... you sent him because i remember talking to you about the approval um because i stated to you that we needed um essentially verification from the property owner that you were permitted to do this um i recall that so i guess if you could just clarify if that was for in relation to what you had presented him for the sign that you are now presenting to us

Did that confuse me?

No, can I?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I can tell you from dealing with Mr. Sizemore for three years that if they don't have to pay for it, they'll give you the phone. That's his stance. So whether we could add on to the Dollar Tree sign, which I don't think we could. or add a sign similar location to it which the height that ben has uh you know made plans for will not even remotely close come close to inner you know covering that dollar tree sign that is that is up there so you know assign a much more reasonable sign within your guidelines yeah but yeah mr sizemore him saying that yes we approve and putting up a sign is because we're paying for it

Yeah, we pay up there. The size 70 inches high and then between 20 to 100 inches wide. It's not a big deal.

Just have one question for Matt. I mean, this is the sign that you want to put up. So this is a pylon sign. If you just put a solid base, can you just make that a monument sign? And then you're allowed one monument sign.

The issue is that the question is the number of signs, right? So that's the issue.

If we turn this into a monument sign, you know,

It would be closer to overall compliance because a monument sign is allowed, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, my personal opinion was after hearing this frustration and the fact that it's actually another unique hardship is the way this ownership of this center is working and operating. The other thing is, this is not an ugly sign. The business right down below, it's even shown in the picture, has the same kind of sign. We could simply approve. I mean, I'm just speaking for myself. We could simply approve this or we could ask them to go to a monument sign, which really wouldn't even need a variance.

Well, they would still need a variance for the number of signs. It would just be, well, they said 231. Yeah.

This would be the third sign on the property, correct? Because Dollar Tree has two.

Yeah, there's a separate piece on my end.

Yeah, freestanding, correct. There's wall signs also, but those are permitted.

Yeah, right.

Sorry, can I?

No, it's time for you to lay in.

So I... Most of the variances that we hear at the zoning hearing board are up Greg's alley because Greg is a civil engineer and he can read all these topography maps. So my background is commercial real estate, property management, lease administration. So I read your application the first time and I thought, there's no way I'm voting yes on this. Like, this is crazy. I'm not, you know, this is not going to happen. i feel deeply for you and i understand very much how difficult this would be and i've worked for property managers in the past that followed a similar line of management maybe and i was stuck in very awkward positions so i i understand that where i'm here here are my thoughts and this is for the rest of the board as well my first thought is that um The variance, if we were to grant this sign, the variance goes with the property. So, if we grant you. As much as I would love to support your businesses, and I hope that you thrive in McCandless township. But if we granted variance to allow another sign here, and then either of you chooses to find a new location and leave. The shopping center now has an additional freestanding pylon sign that they can now advertise to any tenant they want. And it's, you know, that would stay permanently with this lot of land. The variance isn't given to you and your businesses. It's given to this lot of land. And I don't think in this case that I'm seeing a hardship from the owner of the land that deems that there are there's a need for an additional sign on his property as a. shopping center owner owner and property manager so that's my first thought my second thought alan correct me if i'm wrong i think i think you have other avenues to pursue with your attorneys or your brokers if you so choose to try to force the landlord to put a little pressure in other places maybe to try to find a solution that works here um thirdly while i understand and i i sympathize greatly sympathize with your point about the lack of visibility and how difficult it is um that should be part of the negotiation as to the market value of the suites that you least So if you were to go find a comparable size space on McKnight Road where you would get on a pylon sign, all things being equal in the market, you should be paying more in rent for the higher visibility on a higher traffic road. So I think that's a concern for me because we're trying to write... And believe me, this is harder on me than I thought it was because I came in here ready to vote no right away. But we're trying to write an economic situation between a landlord and a tenant here. that should, I feel like, better be handled through lease compliance and market rent negotiations, not through hardship of the law itself.

I have one question. So this brings up the issue, do rental tenants have standing, actually, to a appeal before a zoning board.

They do if, you know, they're given, you know, they can be considered a landowner for purposes of this if they're a tenant and they're given permission by the owner.

And the other question is that Mr. Viola, Mr. Sizemore were to come here and request the variance. Would that change the picture? Then that would go with the land that he owns, is that correct?

I would, so speaking personally, I would be more inclined to hear it from him if he was able to present evidence as to how Dollar Tree owned the sign. Like, do they have a ground lease? Is he not permitted to make any changes? Right now, yeah, I mean, I agree with you. Of course, yeah, go forward with the variance. If you get me another sign, this is great news for me as the property owner. I would be a little bit more inclined to it, but I still think that there are some considerations here. But I'm still not sure I could vote yes just from a lease compliance aspect here. But like I said, this is my part of it. I thought it was going to be for me. Can I use something for clarification?

Absolutely.

This is not, if you don't feel that this variance is approvable with the sign being both of our businesses, if Ben would put up a sign that was just his business with the solid base and monument, he's good. No variance required. Is that what I'm hearing from Matt?

Size requirements, right?

It would be, you need a variance for another freestanding sign.

Oh, that's right, because I've already signed them.

You do need the variance. I miscarried you, I thought. I think we have the equation, let me do monument.

I appreciate your morals on that.

To clarify, just to explain like what you requested, you requested two variances. Variance one, the number of freestanding signs. Variance two, the type of sign being a pylon sign. So if like, let's say that you change that sign to be a monument sign, so it didn't have the, it was based from the bottom, then you would only be replying for the number of signs. So would it change whether your allusions on there or not? Doesn't really change the number of freestanding signs on the property because you already have dollar trees, you're permitted one. And so now you would be asking for two.

Well, darn it. I thought I was about to do a good deed.

Yeah, it's nice try. Alan, I think I know the answer to this, but in granting a variance, could we attach a condition that the variance expired with the change in ownership of the tenant?

I don't know that that would ultimately be upheld. I mean, we could do it, but I'm not sure that Mr. Sizemore wouldn't, you know, be able to come in and say that that's not really now non-conforming sign. Right.

I mean, ideally, what I'd love to do is get this guy in here to do it and get a variance to put in a pylon sign for a strip center. That's what he should be with all the tenants have an equal billing. Would they have to pay the zoning fee to come do that?

Yeah.

I mean, they're on the property. I mean, you can tell they don't, they don't put a lot of care into the property. I'm not a tenant. Yeah. Yeah.

The code doesn't really specifically state the number of signs per tenant thing. I kind of look at it from the sense of if you have a structure and you're approving that structure, you're permitted to have the size of that sign. So if there's a monument sign that meets the height regulation and there's two or three different businesses on there. It doesn't really change anything as long as the size of the text, which is the max sign height that we have in our code, as long as that's met and the height of the structure is met, whether there's Yo-Yo Panda and Illusion Burner, just Yo-Yo Panda doesn't really change in my interpretation of what our zoning intends.

So they would be able to put, if they wanted to, you could put up one monument sign, you know, and there would be no issue just to put one, you know, redesign this as a monument. The number of signs. But for one sign, you would not need a variance. Is that correct?

Well, they already have the dollar. If it was putting it on the dollar tree, because they already have an existing sign, no variances. New sign, two different signs, freestanding signs, you need a variance.

I guess I would like a little bit of feedback from you two gentlemen from all this discussion, which was very good. Hopefully, you appreciate where we're coming from in terms of precedent setting and all the other stuff that goes with these kind of variances. I'm a cooperative landlord. We could... We go the route that Alan suggested and subpoena Mr. Sizemore to be here next month to answer our questions about the sign. And he has to show up. Or the gentleman in the back will make sure he shows up. And that would be a month at least. And who knows what he's going to do. He may be totally uncooperative. The town has no way to force him to do anything. or we could make a motion to approve what you presented and I'm not sure

will what it'll be if it'll be approved or not but we could try that if you would you know i'd like your feedback uh because we're kind of in a stuck in a limbo here i understand the right as as are we and i can tell you that you're my i can't speak for him but i don't know not you i mean kevin yeah i can't like directly keep speak for kevin but i've interacted enough with him to know that i don't want to interact with him anymore I actually call the office and speak to Mr. Biela's children when I have issues or need to deal with anything. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that. I can't even say that whether Kevin would even know that Eller treated it since privately owned signs.

Well, what we could do, I mean, I think what might be better than to if we were to do this, I mean, we could there could be a subpoena issued to the property owner to appear with the person most knowledgeable to discuss the ownership and status of any signage on the property or something like that. Maybe it's Mr. Sizemore. Maybe it's somebody else. I don't know.

Could it be somebody else? Just to clarify what I'm hearing, if they would know and we would somehow find permission, even if they were knowledgeable to know that the Dollar Tree pylon is privately owned by Dollar Tree, whether Dollar Tree whether that was included in Dollar Tree's lease because they're they're the hub of the entire strip mall so whether that sign is privately owned by Dollar Tree or it was included as as an agreement they're paid they paid extra for their lease to to viola is there a separate parcel for Dollar Tree

I don't know how a sign could be owned by Dollar Tree.

I'm suspecting that they have a ground lease and they're paying an additional fee, but they're responsible to build and maintain the sign.

Yeah, there's no separate property parcel. Right.

But I mean, that's what we would need to see. Do either of your leases address signage? Do you have a section of, usually there's a section in the commercial release that refers to signage?

The only lease, the signage that any sign on the building had to meet your township guidelines.

Okay, so the signage rights in your lease say you have the rights for your square footage above your front door.

Yeah.

And put up your own sign. But it has to be with the canvas code. So there isn't anything in there about... other signs. Right. Which I mean, would it be dumb of them to put that in if they didn't have another sign to give you?

I mean, Scott, I appreciate what you made. I mean, your background in commercial leasing is very valid input. It's really good input. I'm just trying to come up with a way to address the situation that these guys have at hand here. And like you said, Alan, I think they would probably send somebody. But if indeed it's a lease issue with Dollar Tree, they're not going to be able to help. So we would have wasted a month. And we won't get permission from Dollar Tree anyway.

It would be if we subpoena their records and see what that lease actually states. Right. Who owns it? Who has the rights to maintain it? Is it stuck in that fashion forever? Can the landlord add to it? What happens if Dollar Tree leaves the center? Do they then inherit the rights to the site? There could be a lot of stuff in there, but this property manager is not going to do anything to upset Dollar Tree. That's the sway that anchor tenants have, especially in smaller shopping centers. They get They got to write the rules. It's unfortunate in this case, because I think this would help everybody. They would still have top billing and it would probably drive more traffic to the Senate. I just, to me, this is a lease issue. I just, I don't think that the zoning board Okay, I'll, I'll say it right out of the zone. If you guys put it to a vote today, I will unfortunately, I will be voting no on this. Not because I don't agree with you. But because I don't think my place on the zoning board is to step into landlord tenant. And inherent qualities of a property. I don't know your terms. You don't have to tell me your terms. I'm guessing that your per square foot rent rate in the center is lower than most of the other properties, comparable properties in the North Hills, partially because of the reasons that you're now seeing. So that, unfortunately, I can't necessarily see a hardship in this. Again, for the lot, I understand you have a business hardship, and I wish... I wish there was a way that I could help you, but for the hardship for the property, there are other ways to solve this in my mind. And they're not your solutions. It's the landlord. Can I ask you a question, Matt?

With the Dollar Tree sign, the pylon sign already being on the property, would that mean that even Biola would have to get a variance to put up a pylon?

Anybody, any of the tenants on there, the property owner, anyone that does a sign has to get a new permit and it would be under the same criteria that we're holding this permit under. So any of those businesses on there, even if the property owner just wanted to put up another on-premise sign for a new business that came in, like he wouldn't be able to without doing the same thing that... you're doing here.

Which is why we have the code, right? Because we don't want landlords to just put up 20 signs across the front of the driveway, which is why he's saying, yeah, great, go get the variance.

Exactly right. Your signs are completely valid because you're right. If something happens to our businesses, then the landlord, he's like, bonus, I got another sign, which is very similar to their policies as far as our build outs where they contribute nothing.

And all of those are at least negotiation issue, not a zoning matter, unfortunately, in my opinion. I agree. I wouldn't mind.

If you want to go, you're welcome. I'm going to make a motion to grant this variance subject to the condition that if either of the businesses on the sign cease to operate the variance is gone. In other words, we're not granting, and I appreciate what you're saying, Alan, it wouldn't hold up. If the buyer, if people wanted to sue to say, I've got a new tenant, they had a sign, I have the right, they would probably win. But I don't think that's going to happen. And I would respect, and if it's turned down, it's fine. But I just think these guys are in a tough spot, not in their own making. That, in my mind, is unique partnership.

Well, technically, if that does end up being the decision of the board, the owners of the property will receive notice of this decision. They could feel it. If they don't, then it might be harder for them later to do anything.

Can I ask a question to your point? Yes. Could we put something in there to protect if something would happen to one of our businesses, the other would have the option to correct the sign or make it...

I can't add that. Our code does, in the new sign code update, part of that general regulation was that after a business ceases operation, after 30 days or 60, I can't remember off the top of my head, but basically we added a removal clause for tenant signs after they cease operation.

Okay, so that was.

So there is a requirement for at least the faces to be removed once the business ends. I don't know if that doesn't really answer the question, but I just wanted to add that for context.

I think it does answer the question. My concern was that if something happens to one of our businesses, the sign has to come down. Right.

And it apparently wouldn't, but you're saying, which is the illusion, then that I would just say that that fortunately have to be removed.

Okay. Right. Can I. I'm going to ask 1 other question. Have you talked to your other neighbors in the shopping center? Like, the 2 of you are here and are obviously working together very well to see what you can do. Have you talked. take the DMV out of it.

They don't need a sign. They don't need to advertise.

But what about the other tenants across that?

Like Cow Wash. That's the Japanese restaurant. How do they feel? Do they have an opinion on this?

I didn't talk to Cow, but I talked to my next door, the hair saloon. She doesn't need that because the hair salon already in the plaza long time, more than 10 years. And now you already have a loyal customer. They usually make an appointment with the name. So they don't need that. Yeah, actually, when I come there, I talk to them.

But I didn't talk to- I have talked to the other, most of the complex comes to the brewery. So I've talked to almost all of the businesses and There is frustration that we do not have a communal island sign with all of our businesses, but none of the others that I've talked to have wanted to do what Ben and I are doing. This is a difficult time for breweries, restaurants, bars.

If we were to grant the variance, say, what would Cowboy do? Hey, you guys got a sign. Now you've got a variance. I want one too. I mean, that's sort of... the slippery slope that we create it's a concern yeah so so yeah in terms of precedent setting so you know yeah that's good i think we're correct it is a concern because that might be perceived as favoritism how you get you know in that yep yeah what are we going to say would you know i mean first running out of space on the property i don't know where you put them but like um i think uh my personal opinion again would be to just they become the third

That's what I'm thinking is I think we're on the record here, but I think you have other avenues to maybe increase pressure. and your negotiating stance to see if there's a better solution for the plaza as a whole.

Yeah, and we're not going to get involved in that.

Yeah, we can't. We can't get involved. I was asking if you would talk to the other tenants. Right.

And the other tenants, that right there, as far as the tenants gathering together to approach Viola and get them to go through this process and put up a pilot sign with all of our businesses on us, we know that's a lost cause. It wasn't put in the leases. That's our own fault. So I understand that. But yeah, you're. You know, again, your points are legit about if you granted this. With the other businesses look at favoritism, but on the flip side. You put the notices up at 2 entrances of the property and.

Someone who's here. I hope you appreciate this board really tries to look at the problems and figure out solutions within the context of what we can do. So I'm going to make a motion. Chairman never makes motions, but I'm going to make a motion. And if it's defeated, that's fine. But I think this is just crazy. So I will move to approve appeal 2060. for the property located at 1701 Duncan Avenue, parcel ID 717-A Apple-236 to approve the two variants requested from sections 1305.140C, Charlie 2, sub sub C and 1035.140, section C, Charlie 5, sub sub A. which permits an additional freestanding sign, I-RUN sign, in accordance with what was submitted with the application and the appeal number, subject to the condition that if either of the two proposed businesses, Yolo Panda and Erosion Brewing Company, cease to operate, then that the request for that sign, the request for that variance be removed. Does that make sense, Alan?

I think we're saying, I think the request was that both of the businesses cease to operate.

Right. Both of the businesses cease to operate. Right. And the fact that you, this isn't part of the motion, but the fact that the move thing that you guys just did would address if one of you guys ceases to operate. Okay. So that's, that's my motion. Do I have a second? I'll second it. I'll second. Any favor discussion? Okay. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

Okay. Let the record show that the motion was approved by a two-to-one vote. And I appreciate that, Scott. I have no problem with that. Regrettably. Thanks. Thank you for your patience. Thank you so much. And Alan's a good point. They'll get a record of findings. And if they don't appeal it, I mean, what's so frustrating is right from your own picture, down the street, there's a sign saying, But I understand though, I mean, you can't have signs all over the frontage, but it's just, it is a hardship. And there's a big sign. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes, I do need a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved by Mr. Nussbaum, seconded.

Second.

Mr. Metzger, motion to adjourn is approved at 9.03. Thank you, officer. You too.