Peters Township board approves conversion to third wall sign for new East McMurray restaurant, denies large rear parking sign; sidewalk question tabled

The Peters Township Zoning Hearing Board on Wednesday approved a limited variance allowing a restaurant at 615 East McMurray Road to add a third wall sign, but denied the applicant’s request to enlarge a rear, interior parking-lot-facing sign to 75 square feet. The board also agreed to table the request to waive the town-center 6-foot sidewalk requirement until staff and the applicant can provide further engineering details.

Assistant Planning Director Garrett King told the board the application was a “multi-layered request” covering signage and sidewalks and described a conflict in the zoning ordinance: a town-center provision limits individual sign faces to 20 square feet while a separate calculation allows two square feet of sign area per linear foot of frontage. King said the applicant proposes two front wall signs of 44 square feet each, a converted monument-to-wall sign of about 27 square feet, and a rear (interior parking) wall sign proposed at 75 square feet. King said, “the sign in the rear is proposed at 75 square feet.”

Applicant Brian Vetere said the small, 20-square-foot limit for the rear sign would be “just out of place” for customers parked behind the building and that moving the monument sign onto the wall improves sight lines. Vetere said the converted wall sign is intended to reduce sight-line conflicts for drivers exiting the site.

Board members and staff spent substantial time on the sidewalk request. Staff and the applicant’s representatives reported unmarked underground electrical lines and a telephone pole positioned within the existing 4-foot sidewalk, complicating a straightforward widening to the 6-foot town-center standard. Staff estimated utility depth at about “18 to 24 inches” and said in some cases concrete may be poured over utilities depending on depth and engineering review. The board agreed to table the sidewalk issue to allow the township and applicant to coordinate on engineering drawings and to determine whether a partial solution (narrowing around the pole) would meet ADA and site-plan requirements.

On the signage motions, the chair moved to approve the variance for the third wall sign with the condition that no monument sign remain on site and that the wall signage not exceed the total area calculated by the linear-frontage method; the motion was seconded and received a roll-call vote of Yes from Mr. Jones, Ms. Clark and Mr. Higgins (the alternate did not vote). Later the board moved to deny the request to enlarge the rear interior parking sign from 20 square feet to 75 square feet; the board voted to deny with the same three voting members in favor of denial. The chair said a written decision will follow within 45 days; anyone adversely affected has 30 days from the date of decision to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County.

The board’s action leaves the applicant able to display a third wall sign under the board’s conditions but without the larger rear parking-lot sign; the sidewalk relief remains under active consideration and will return to staff-applicant discussions before any final board determination.