No evidence was presented as to why or how the two calculations were made separately for the two signs in the Permit. If the two segments of the building are treated separately, then the facade area must be calculated separately for each sign. Using those numbers, the available sign area for the central portico segment would be five percent of 924 square feet, or a total of 46.2 square feet. The available sign area for the side segment would be five percent of 964.35 square feet, or a total of 48.2 square feet. However, the Court cannot reach that conclusion on the present motions for summary judgment, as necessary material facts are in dispute.
Material facts are in dispute which are necessary to determine each of the four cases.
Without such evidence, it is not possible finally to determine how to calculate the facade area under the regulations, either to determine if the sign which was the subject of the enforcement action violates the ordinance, or to determine whether the more recent application should be approved or modified. While the applicant is bound by the permit as issued, as it was not appealed, the Court cannot determine which document is the permit as issued. Further, no agreed facts or affidavits were submitted addressing the criteria relevant to determining whether a variance should be issued. This matter will be set for a hearing on the merits of the remaining facts, unless the parties prefer to supplement their motions for summary judgment, or to enter into discussions towards resolving this dispute along the lines suggested by this decision. If they wish a hearing, they should state their estimates of the amount of time necessary, and any unavailable dates in June, July or August.