Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Sign topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves oversized monument sign for Shops at the Gates on Route 231

Town of Saint John Board of Zoning and Appeals · March 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Town of Saint John Board of Zoning and Appeals on March 4, 2025 approved a sign variance for the Shops at the Gates (owner: Suncrest Christian Church), allowing a larger and taller ground monument sign so tenant names remain legible from Route 231; the vote was 4-0 after a nearby resident’s location question was clarified.

On March 4, 2025 the Town of Saint John Board of Zoning and Appeals voted 4-0 to grant a sign variance for the Shops at the Gates development at 8750–72 West 109th Avenue, allowing a ground monument sign larger and taller than the dimensions in the town code.

Applicant Shops at the Gates (owner: Suncrest Christian Church) was represented by Britney Janese of Alright Sign, who told the board the plaza is expected to host roughly 9–11 tenants and that combining a subdivision identification sign with individual tenant identification requires a larger monument sign so tenant names remain legible to motorists on Route 231. Janese said sightlines and traffic safety at the plaza entrance factored into the request.

Town staff explained the application proposes to combine the subdivision identification and tenant signs and warned that reducing the sign’s size could make tenant spaces harder to see for drivers on the 45 mph stretch of Route 231. During public comment a nearby resident, Yan Chen of 10757 Violatea Way, asked whether the sign would be located close to their house. Staff used Google Earth during the meeting to show the sign will sit along Route 231 by the plaza curb cut, not next to the resident’s property.

After closing public comment, a Committee member moved to approve the variance, reciting the standard variance findings (no injury to public welfare, no substantial adverse effect to adjacent property values, and practical difficulty if the ordinance were strictly applied). The motion received a second and passed 4-0.

Staff and the applicant indicated required permitting and site‑plan details would be reviewed during the plan and permit process. The board recorded no additional conditions beyond the standard findings.