Take care when approving variances
The Mattoon Planning Commission recently approved a variance to the City Sign Ordinance. The variance was to allow for a 30-foot sign at KC Summers Buick. The ordinance limits the height to 25 feet in town.
The sign ordinance was passed several years ago after several large billboards were placed throughout town. The ordinance was patterned from one from another town. And most of the restrictions came from the pattern ordinance.
When considering variance, the review boards should be considering if the characteristics of the subject property differ from others in the area. Do the restrictions in the ordinance place a hardship on that property that is different than the other properties in the area?
Does the restriction interfere with the use of the property? Or will business not be affected by the restriction? Is the restriction on the property necessary in order to satisfy the purpose of the ordinance, or can relief be granted to this property without frustrating the purpose of the ordinance? Would the granting of the variance create a private or public nuisance?
If all of these conditions are met, then the variance can be granted. The board should be considering if the property meets the criteria for the variance, not if no harm would be done if the variance were granted.
They also should consider their argument if the variance gets challenged. Can their reasons for choosing not to follow the approved code stand up in court? And who bears the cost of correcting matters if it doesn’t? More than likely, the taxpayers.
In August of 2002, a sign variance was granted to Home Depot for increased surface area on their sign near Interstate 57. In December of 2003, a sign variance was granted to Comer Mazda for distance and height restrictions. In November of 2004, a sign variance was granted to American Financial Choice along Lake Land Boulevard. In August of 2005 a sign variance was granted to Dannie Gordon for a business at 520 N. 19th Street. Now a variance to KC Summers has been approved for additional height in Midtown Mattoon.
To my knowledge, no variance to the Mattoon Sign Ordinance applied for has ever been denied. The only people affected by the ordinance are those who don’t apply for a variance.
I don’t have much of a problem with any of the variances granted above. But with so many inconsistencies with the ordinance approved, one must question if the ordinance is achieving its goals. The ordinance should be followed, repealed, or amended to standards that the City feels is fair to its citizens.
The sign ordinance was passed several years ago after several large billboards were placed throughout town. The ordinance was patterned from one from another town. And most of the restrictions came from the pattern ordinance.
When considering variance, the review boards should be considering if the characteristics of the subject property differ from others in the area. Do the restrictions in the ordinance place a hardship on that property that is different than the other properties in the area?
Does the restriction interfere with the use of the property? Or will business not be affected by the restriction? Is the restriction on the property necessary in order to satisfy the purpose of the ordinance, or can relief be granted to this property without frustrating the purpose of the ordinance? Would the granting of the variance create a private or public nuisance?
If all of these conditions are met, then the variance can be granted. The board should be considering if the property meets the criteria for the variance, not if no harm would be done if the variance were granted.
They also should consider their argument if the variance gets challenged. Can their reasons for choosing not to follow the approved code stand up in court? And who bears the cost of correcting matters if it doesn’t? More than likely, the taxpayers.
In August of 2002, a sign variance was granted to Home Depot for increased surface area on their sign near Interstate 57. In December of 2003, a sign variance was granted to Comer Mazda for distance and height restrictions. In November of 2004, a sign variance was granted to American Financial Choice along Lake Land Boulevard. In August of 2005 a sign variance was granted to Dannie Gordon for a business at 520 N. 19th Street. Now a variance to KC Summers has been approved for additional height in Midtown Mattoon.
To my knowledge, no variance to the Mattoon Sign Ordinance applied for has ever been denied. The only people affected by the ordinance are those who don’t apply for a variance.
I don’t have much of a problem with any of the variances granted above. But with so many inconsistencies with the ordinance approved, one must question if the ordinance is achieving its goals. The ordinance should be followed, repealed, or amended to standards that the City feels is fair to its citizens.
