The Canton Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 14 voted to postpone consideration of a variance request for a ground sign at 42438 Warren Road, a Shell-branded gas station undergoing a rebrand from Marathon.

The applicant, Chris Corati of Aver Signs Company, asked the board for a variance to allow ground-sign lettering below the township's minimum text-height standards; staff recommended denial based on the materials submitted but said the application could be revised and resubmitted. The board approved a motion to postpone so the applicant can work with staff and the building division's sign official on a revised design.

The application (007ZBA8716) concerns a monument ground sign that staff said measures just over 39 square feet, larger than the zoning district's 24-square-foot maximum for new signs; the existing sign's size is a nonconformity allowed to continue. Staff told the board the ordinance requires primary text on a ground sign to be at least 10 inches high, with secondary text permitted at 5 inches if it occupies not more than 25% of the sign. Patrick, a community planner for Canton Township, told the board that "based on the material submitted, our recommendation would be to deny that requested variance from the zoning ordinance to allow the lettering that's smaller." He added staff could work with the sign official and recommended postponement to allow revisions.

Applicant Chris Corati said the site is being rebranded from Marathon to Shell and that the proposal is intended as a reface of the existing sign rather than replacement. "We're here to ask for a variance for this sign," Corati said, and he handed out revised renderings showing some panels increased to about 5 inches. Corati said certain Shell brand panels, including a red panel labeled "Shell V-Power," are brand standards and "they didn't allow us to adjust" the text size.

Aliyah Bridal, manager at the Warren and Lily station, spoke from the public and clarified the brand label: "Power is actually the detergent they use in the gas," she said.

Board members questioned the application's explanation of practical difficulty. Member Tarek (Zoning Board of Appeals) said the materials did not clearly articulate why the applicant could not redesign the sign to meet ordinance standards and asked staff to provide clearer guidance before the board revisits the case. Tarek asked staff to explain "what is nonconforming, what is conforming, and what the variance specifically" would cover when the application returns.

Members noted the technical complexity created when an existing, larger sign is refaced: some illuminated panels can continue as a continuing nonconformity if left in place, but removing or altering panels can end the grandfathered status and require full compliance or a variance. Patrick told the board he would consult the building division's sign official about how much rework can be done while preserving nonconforming status.

After discussion, the board moved to table the application using the model postponement motion provided in the staff report. The motion passed with an affirmative vote and no opposition; the board directed the applicant to work with township planning staff and the sign official and asked staff to include in the next staff report a clear summary of which elements would remain grandfathered, which would be subject to the ordinance, and a clearer statement of any claimed practical difficulty.

The board did not take a final vote on the variance application; the item will return to a future Zoning Board of Appeals meeting after the applicant submits revised sign plans and staff prepares an updated report.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to postpone consideration of variance application 007ZBA8716 (applicant to revise sign design and consult township sign official): moved by Member Greg, second by Member Clarence; result: passed (unanimous).