After go-round regarding 30-year-old zoning code typo, Wayne business owner out thousands

When David Mackey decided to move his store from one site on Lancaster Avenue in Wayne to another he had no idea the problems it would create.

Mackey was moving his store, the Philadelphia Print Shop, to a site formerly occupied by Antiquities Etc., which had just closed.

But what he didn’t know when he decided to move his business was that due to the township staff’s last-minute change in how a section of the township’s zoning code would be interpreted, he’d end up with a $7,000 bill.

The issue was over his sign, the same sign that had hung over his business at its last two Wayne locations. Under the new interpretation, the sign was now too big.

His only change to the sign was to put it on a black panel. But even with the slight change, he thought the sign was still legal under the township’s sign code.

Among the things he needed to do to make the move was to get various approvals from the township.

In October, Mackey had to go before the Radnor Design Review Board. Their task was to review the sign and recommend whether it should be approved.

According to Mackey’s comments before the design review board, his sign was slightly smaller than the one that had been on the Antiquities store.

Mackey told the review board that he decided to put his existing sign on the black panel. Since it was slightly smaller than the Antiquities sign, he thought it could cover up any flaws on the building’s facade that would have been left by the removal of the former sign. He also thought it just looked nicer.

But even with the black panel, he believed the sign should still have been within the township’s allowable size under the previous interpretation of Radnor’s sign code. At the same time, his sign was still smaller than the Antiquities sign that had been on the building for the previous 22 years.

Since this was the same sign they had already approved at his other locations, Mackey didn’t anticipate any issues.

But he was wrong.

The problems began during the meeting, when Mackey was told that although the township’s 30-year-old sign code hadn’t changed, the township’s staff suddenly had a new interpretation of the ordinance. Under the new interpretation, his sign was now too big for the space he was moving into.

The news was a bit of a shock to Mackey.

All three members of the Design Review Board still liked the sign, and since they had previously approved it at his other location, no one saw much of a reason to deny it. But now, under the staff’s new interpretation, the design board had to abide by what information they were given by the staff.

So, following Mackey’s presentation, Robert P. D’Amicantonio, chair of the design review board, told him about the staff’s new interpretation.

During the past 30 years, the staff’s interpretation of the sign ordinance made Mackey’s sign perfectly legal. However, late last summer, the design board had been informed that the township staff had reinterpreted its sign ordinance that suddenly made Mackey’s sign too big for his new space.

During the October design board meeting, D’Amicantonio described the reason for the township’s new interpretation of its sign code was due to a typo in the original ordinance.

Essentially, under the township staff’s new interpretation of its sign ordinance, the design board could only approve it conditionally, meaning Mackey would have to go before Radnor’s Zoning Hearing Board.

Going before the zoning board meant added expenses.

Besides having to pay a fee to go before the zoning board, Mackey also had to hire an attorney. There were other expenses totaling around $7,000 to move the previously approved sign from one location to another.

At the October commissioners meeting, Mackey spoke about the issue, explaining that he had bought the business five years earlier and moved it from Chestnut Hill to Wayne. His first location was at 209 W. Lancaster Ave., where he had signed a temporary lease. Nine months later, he moved to 106 E. Lancaster Ave.

Last year, he decided to close his store and move to an online-only model. However, after learning about the space occupied by the soon-to-be-closing Antiquities Etc., he decided to move there instead.

After the commissioners heard about the issue, Mackey caught a break when the board of commissioners, who also appeared to like the sign, voted at their November meeting to waive the fee he’d have to pay for going before the zoning board.

But despite saving a few hundred dollars on the zoning board fee, he still had to pay a considerable sum in legal and related fees.

At the zoning board meeting, Mackey’s attorney, George W. Broseman, said they had received support from the board of commissioners, along with letters of support from the Wayne Business Association. Just like at the design board meeting, members of the zoning board also liked the sign and approved it.

For Mackey, the damage was done. Despite the commissioners waiving the $900 zoning board fee, he had to shell out additional money to go before the zoning board in hiring a lawyer and other costs to present his case.

“So, with a 45-day delay and a legal cost of a 44-page application to the zoning hearing board by land use counsel with addendums and site plans and so forth, I now have a $6,000 legal bill and a $900 architectural bill for the certified site plan. And I’m proud that I’ve got this business that’s been around for 45 years, which I relocated from Chestnut Hill. But I am insulted by the fact that I’ve been here five years. I’ve struggled my heart, soul, and half of my IRA to keep this business going. Now I’ve got a glorious gallery down the road prominent with signage, parking, and it’s next to At The Table. And now I have a $7,000 bill,” Mackey told the commissioners at the January board meeting.

As a final postscript to the issue, Mackey went on to point out at the January commissioners meeting that they had a zoning issue on its agenda that night. Once approved, it would fix the wording in its zoning code and essentially nullify the typo that caused the new interpretation.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 6.0px 0.0px; font: 16.0px Helvetica; background-color: #ffffff} span.s1 {font-kerning: none} span.s2 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: #2f2f5d} span.s3 {font: 16.0px ‘Helvetica Neue’; font-kerning: none; color: #191c1f} span.s4 {font: 16.0px Helvetica; text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: #2f2f5d}

This article appears courtesy of a content share agreement between Fideri News Network and The Media News Group. To read more stories like this, visit www.mainlinemedianews.com/  or https://www.delcotimes.com/.