COM 0401.000 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Dominic Yagong July 14, 1997 Page Two those drawings. The photographs we assume remain in the hands of the Building Division. Please review very carefully the Addendum to the Sign Permit Application, being the second ~aEe of Exhibit "A". In large part it states International Motors' position and basis for a variance in this matter. A. Flags Could Be Considered Not To Be Signs. Section 3-24 does not refer to hanging fabric flags as signs at all. The Building Division's letter, Exhibit "B", appears to consider a pole and flag as a ground sign. Section 3-2(a)(8) defines the meaning of "sign". An easy solution would be to decide that flags on poles are not "signs". or are "Exempt Signs" as defined by Section 3-32, and set that precedent as to interpretation and enforcement of Chapter 3. B. If Flags Are Not Signs. The Limit On The Number Of Si ns Is Inapplicable. Section 3-25 combined with Section 3-29 limits International Motors' commercial property to one ground sign, one marquee sign, one projecting sign, one roof sign and one wall sign for each street on which the commercial property has frontage. International Motors already has one permitted wall sign. If the flags aren't such signs, there would be no limit to their number. C. International Motors Could Have Up to Ten Signs. International Motors adjoins Mamalahoa Highway and St. John's Road, at their intersection. Thus two ground signs, two marquee signs, two projecting signs, two roof signs and two wall signs could be allowed under sections 3-25 and 3-29. International Motors already has one permitted wall sign, thus leaving the possibility of nine more permitted signs of various kinds. Thus, if flags are signs under sctions 3-2(a)(8) and 3-29, the possibility is presented of giving International Motors permission (a variance) for nine of its flags provided any request for any other form of sign is waived. D. The Flags/Signs Should Be Allowed At Least Temporarily To Insure Equal Protection Of Law And Avoid Discrimination And Damages. The essence of this issue is that: (1) more than two signs and flags in large numbers are in place on innumerable business and properties throughout the Big Island; and (2) the County has not significantly enforced Chapter 3 as to numbers of signs and flags. Thus, for the County to try to prevent International Motors from using flags in almost exactly the same manner as other auto dealers throughout the Big Island have been doing for a long time without sign permits or variances and undisturbed by County enforcement action, creates a discriminating and unequal use of legal authority that not only could put all of Chapter 3 in jeopardy, but also could result in economic