BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? September 1, 2010
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, September
1, 2010, at 2:00 P.M., on the First Floor of the Columbus Consolidated
Government Annex Building located at 420 10th Street.
Members Present: Mr. Wright Wade
Mr. Perry Borom
Mr. Ray Brinegar, III
Mr. Bill Hart
Mr. Tom Moore
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Mark McCollum (Representing
Uptown Fa?ade Board)
Also present representing the Inspections and Code Enforcement Department were
Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, and Ms. Jacqueline Goodwin, Acting
Recording Secretary.
Call To Order:
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Mr. Wright Wade, Chairperson.
VARIANCE APPEALS:
CASE NO. BZA-8-10-4783?DENIED
Mr. Shaun Weinstock, Southeast Gold Buyers, appeared before the Board to
appeal the Decision of the Building Official for 5415 Veterans Parkway, that
sign walker signs are not authorized as exempt from permitting or otherwise
specifically authorized by Section 4.4.5 Prohibited Signs. The property is
zoned GC.
Mr. Weinstock stated that all we do is buy gold from the general public and
sell it to a finery. We don?t sell anything nor are we classified as a pawn
shop. We have forty-two locations in Georgia. We are here for a variance for
a sign spinner, which in essence, is an individual holding a 3 foot cardboard
sign which states, ?We Buy Gold? with an arrow pointing to our location. If
you notice on the pictures, we are a four-sided brick building, which makes it
difficult to know when we are open, specifically on the weekends, because there
is no glass except for the front door. My understanding is that a variance can
be granted for extraordinary hardships, which I don?t think we fall under for
practical difficulties. It is certainly difficult trying to succeed during
this economy. It is a proven trend across our 42 stores, that when we have
sign spinners in place, we actually generate 65 percent more business. We did
not know that sign spinners were not allowed. To give you an idea before we
were notified by the sign inspector, in the sixteen days that we were open
without a sign spinner we did $2400, and the fifteen days that we had a sign
spinner, we generated $9,946.00. There is an awesome significance there. It is
a proven formula, and we don?t do it every day. The amount of business without
a sign spinner probably would be inadequate to cover the expense of employee
cost and advertising, etc. When we looked into having a sign spinner,
apparently just the way it was termed, and hiring the individual that we have
who handles our business licenses and sign ordinances, which we call them sign
locations for our sign spinners, misinterpreted the situation.
Mr. Wade pointed out that the City of Columbus does need the additional revenue.
Mr. Cargill expressed that for the Board?s information, the words ?sign
spinner? is a relative new term in the sign industry. What brought the
attention to this sign was not the fact that he was on his property holding the
sign, but he was out in the median on Veterans Parkway. This Board can not
approve a sign on the right of way. He already has an existing ground sign on
this site. He is not allowed two signs.
Mr. Weinstock stated that our premises end at that line where B. F. Goodrich is
next to us.
Mr. Cargill stated that the median in road, and also the property in front of
your property from Veterans Parkway to your building is also right of way.
That sign is most likely on the right of way. That right of way can be
anywhere, on an average, from 9 ? feet to 14 ? feet behind the curve line.
That is city right of way, and you are not allowed to advertise on that piece
of property. Again, being that ?spin spinner? is a new term in the sign
industry, it is not identified in the sign ordinance. Based on the sign
ordinance, it is a prohibited sign.
Mr. Wade asked that from what has been stated, he can have one sign on property.
Mr. Cargill replied that is correct for one ground sign.
Mr. Borom asked that because it is a sign spinner, it is not covered.
Mr. Cargill replied that is correct, and because it is not identified, it is
prohibited.
Mr. Wade asked if he could take down the existing sign now and place it in the
back of the building, and then have the sign spinner.
Mr. Cargill replied that he is still only allowed one ground sign. The sign
spinner could be considered a ground sign.
Mr. Hart stated that he presently has four signs. Two of them on the building.
Mr. Cargill pointed out that the two signs on the building do not count,
because we do not require a permit for wall signs. He has a power line sign
and a sign spinner.
Mr. Moore stated that he could take the sign down, and do this legally.
Mr. Cargill expressed that he could, if he fell within the guidelines of what
the sign ordinance allows for GC property.
There was no opposition present for this appeal.
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Borom moved to deny the appeal request, and
uphold the Decision of the Building Official, that a sign spinner is not
covered in the sign ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brinegar, and
carried unanimously.
Attachments
No attachments for this document.