ZBA continues Copsey sign appeal to allow further review of permit error and potential variance options

The St. Mary’s County Zoning Board of Appeals on March 24 continued the appeal filed by Leonard E. Copsey Sr. and Josephine A. Copsey of a county Land Use & Growth Management decision that a 2008 permit for a 64-square-foot freestanding sign (the Drift Inn) had been issued in error and that the installed sign did not comply with the county’s sign regulations for the rural-commercial-limited (RCL) zone.

Zoning staff told the board that the October 27, 2008 sign permit was issued in error because the department did not verify whether an existing nonconforming sign was present within the prior 12 months and therefore whether the 2008 installation was a replacement of an existing nonconforming sign (which can be refaced, but not reconstructed), or a new structure subject to current dimensional rules. Staff noted that a conforming off-site directional sign would be limited to 12 square feet and that a freestanding on-premise sign in the RCL, under today’s zoning rules, would be limited to 32 square feet.

The department’s August 30, 2010 and November 8, 2010 letters to the applicant informed the Copseys that records and aerial photos did not show an existing sign at the location at the time the new permit was issued and that staff concluded the permit had been issued in error. The staff report explained that when a nonconforming sign is moved or the structure replaced, the replacement must comply with current ordinance standards; staff characterized the installed sign as an off-site advertising sign (not a directional sign) and noted it also included advertising for a branded product that would be separately disallowed for off-premise advertising.

The Copseys’ representatives and family members told the board they relied on county staff guidance when applying for the permit and that the property had hosted a permit-authorized sign in the 1970s; the Copseys submitted photographs and a copy of a 1976 State Highway Administration permit and argued the 2008 permit should stand. The applicant said the new sign replaced an old sign and that he had followed the department’s direction when applying.

Board action and next steps: the chair moved to continue the appeal to the next hearing date, April 14, to allow county counsel (George Sparling) to research whether the department’s error creates legal estoppel or other relevant defenses and to give the applicant time to explore a variance route if desired. The board noted a variance process could require separate advertisement and months of processing; staff said a variance request would likely require multiple variance findings (to allow off-site advertising in RCL, to permit a non-directional off-site advertising sign, and to exceed the allowed square footage for directional signs).

Public testimony: a neighbor (Walter Birch) testified he did not see a sign in recent aerial photos, observed that portions of the sign included third-party advertising and mechanical animation (which county staff said is prohibited), and said the Drift Inn had more outdoor advertising than comparable waterfront restaurants. The applicant estimated out-of-pocket replacement costs at about $1,000 and said the sign helps patrons find a business set back from the road. The board voted to continue the appeal to April 14 and left the sign in place pending that hearing; staff will follow up with legal research and with instructions to the applicant if the Copseys decide to pursue variances.