Business Owner Racked with Expense of Correcting Signage
Error Caused by Misinformation from Permits Officials

Richard Shin will have to pay $10,000 extra just because officials misguided him; Board of Appeals Sits on their Hands

By Ahmar Khan

ST. MARY’S TODAY

LEONARDTOWN — It is like a David and Goliath struggle, the small businessman said. “It’s unfair and unjust,” said Richard Shin, 48, operator of World Trading Company on 22599 Macarthur Boulevard in California.

A bitter lesson Shin learnt is whenever St. Mary’s County officials tell you something, take it in writing.

“The county misguided and misinformed me,” a dejected Shin said Monday. “I wish I should have taken it in writing. I wish I could go back in time.”

Board of Appeals chair George Allan Hayden also asked the Land Use and Growth Management that when it instructs a citizen about any permits or laws, it should do in black-and-white, in writing. The Board of Appeals, however, declined Shin’s request, though the staff report tacitly admits their fault.

Shin told the Board of Appeals his problem began when he went to the Land Use and Growth Management Department on February 17 to apply for the building and sign permit for a new business World Trading Company.

He was told by the Permits Coordinator Harry Knight that a permit was not necessary since it qualified under “Refacing” or pre-existing signage condition.

“The Permit Coordinator was aware that this is a new business with a new name because I just applied for thebuilding/remodeling permit for that location,” his written presentation before the Board of Appeals reads.

But on June 6 he was shell-shocked when the LUGM inspection department contacted him and told him he was in violation for having installed the signage without a sign permit.

“I immediately contacted the original Permits Coordinator, Harry Knight, and he informed me that I should not worry as he will speak with the inspector and resolve the matter,” Shin said.

He said the two branches of the LUGM then got together and notified him that he would need to apply for a permit.

“Due to being provided wrong information originally, I was told I could apply for “after-the-fact” permit application and did so hoping this should resolve the matter,” Shin said.

He was then contacted by the Zoning Administration and was notified that his application will be denied as his signage exceeded that total allowable area of 99 square feet on his business.

He said then he applied for after-the-fact variance appeal as he was told this was his best bet.

Zoning Administrator Yvonne Chaillet’s account corroborated most of what Shin had to say, but still held him responsible.

She wrote, “The applicant received a Change of Use and Occupancy Certificate on May 15, 2006 to operate the Decorator’s Trading Company in the San Souci Shopping Center. At this time, the applicant asked whether or not he would need a sign permit. The Permits Coordinator (Harry Knight) with the Land Use and Growth Management told the applicant that he would not need a permit if he was replacing and existing sign. A one on one replacement of an existing sign does not require a permit; that is, if the sign structure does not change in size or shape and the square footage of the sign area does not change, then a permit is not required. Unfortunately, CVS Pharmacy, the previous long-term occupant, had moved its sign several years ago. A temporary retail shop opened briefly after CVS vacated the premises, but this tenant did not leave a sign.”

The staff report of Yvonne Chaillet, Zoning Administrator further reads,

“On May 23, 2006 staff submitted an inquiry to inspections after noticing the new sign for Decorator’s Trading Co. and realizing that a permit had not been issued. As a result of the inspection, the applicant was told to file for an after-the-fact sign permit. The applicant applied for this permit on June 14, 2006. A review of his application determined that his wall sign was in violation of Section 65.3 of the Ordinance.”

Chaillet’s report said Shin was allowed 99 square feet of signage but it actually totals 175 square feet or 76 percent larger.

Incredibly though indirectly admitting its mistake, the onus was put on the taxpayer.

“It is he applicant’s responsibility to inform this department if there is an existing sign on the property, building or storefront. The applicant failed to do this and installed his sign without a permit,” Chaillet said in her report.

She further reports, “The applicant has created the alleged difficulty by failing to first determine what the regulations were for placing a sign on the storefront before ordering and installing the sign.”

Only one reason cited by Chaillet seemed justifiable and that was if Shin was allowed his signage it will substantially diminish or impair other retail establishments within the shopping center by giving a competitive advantage to the Decorator’s Trading Company.

He recalled even a discussion took place between him and Knight about the location being the old CVS in San Souci Shopping Center. “But I do not like blame Knight entirely. I am let down by the Land Use director and board of appeals,” he said.

Shin of Korean descent said he was learning by his mistake a lesson that would now cost him 10 grand.

“I feel an injustice had been done as the liability for this misguidance has been put entirely on me,” Shin said.

Shin said he spent something like $13,000 on the signage. “Actually, it was almost $14,000.” But now he will be spending another $4,685 to come into compliance.

“The county government’s attitude has been ‘Too bad we made a mistake, but now you pay’,” he regretted.

Interestingly, St. Mary’s County Commissioners have often repeated they support small businesses.

Shin, who was just 12 when he arrived from Seoul, Korea, and who worked at the base for 20 years before his retirement last week, has second thoughts whether St. Mary’s County is the best place to chase his American dream.

Christy Holt Chesser, was present on both days when Shin narrated his ordeal but as was expected did not side with the citizen.

In the July meeting 13, Land Use and Growth Management Director Denis Canavan recommended that the Board leave the record open and continue the case at their next meeting to allow staff to meet with the Applicant and obtain more information from the sign company. But nothing changed for Shin a month later, when the board of appeals shot down his petition.

However, the board gave Shin 120 days to come into compliance.

Shin requests better coordination between the different sections of the Land Use and Growth Management and proper guidance to the public.

“I have lost faith in the honesty and integrity of the Land Use and Growth Management Department,” Shin said. “I have also lost faith in the fairness of our appeal process.”

An appeals board member declined comments on Shin’s misfortune. “No comment,” said Greg Callaway, adding he was not present at the August meetings.

Shin thought about hiring a lawyer, but then decided against it as it would have cost him $350 per hour.