19 MARCH 1996

7:30 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Barry Tiffany.


MEMBERS PRESENT: James Squires, Councilwoman Kathy McNear

and Marge Boice, Barbara Ewing and Chairman

Barry Tiffany

MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Schecker and William Mitchell

(Mr. Schecker arrived at 8:17 p.m. and Mr.

Mitchell arrived at 7:40 p.m.)

Mr. Tiffany reported that Mr. Schecker informed us last month that he would be

working at the polls and would be here as soon as he can.


Mrs. Boice moved for adoption and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. All

present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.


A. Memo from Bill McErlane to Members with The Riggins Rules

B. Zoning Bulletin, Volume 44 No. 2A February 15, 1996

C. Zoning Bulletin, Volume 44 No. 3 March 1996

D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9 January 1996

E. Springdale Directory - January 1996


A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice - no report

B. Report on Planning Commission - Barry Tiffany - no report


A. Lykins Companies requests variance to allow the replacement of the pole sign at 11444 Springfield Pike (Friends) with a ground sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "A ground sign shall be not less than..10 feet from a street right-of-way line..."

(tabled 2/20/96)

Sheila Berger, Manager of the Friends Convenience Store stated I am representing the company because Sue Cummins couldnít be here tonight. We want to take down the existing pole sign and go with a monument sign.

Mr. McErlane reported that the location is approximately where the existing pole sign is, and this variance is required due to the setback.

Mr. Mitchell arrived at 7:40 p.m.

Mrs. Boice asked Mr. McErlane how we stand footage wise on this. Mr. McErlane reported that the square footage and height meet code. In the past, we have tried to encourage ground signs in the Route 4 Corridor, Everything else meets code; they just need the setback variance.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Two


Mrs. Boice asked how far away this is from the right of way line? Mr. McErlane reported that they are showing it approximately one foot from the right of way line, which is the back of the sidewalk. Mr. Tiffany said they show six inches on this, and it is probably closer to three inches. Mr. McErlane added that really is from the foundation and not the posts.

Mrs. Boice stated in view of the fact that we have an opportunity to replace a pole sign with a ground sign, and we are looking at six inches, I would move that this variance be granted. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.


A. Valentine Shuster, 672 Park Avenue requests variance to allow the installation of a satellite dish on her chimney. Said variance is requested from Section 153.053(B)(5) "It does not project into front or side yards." (3) "It does not exceed 12 feet in height." and (7) "It shall be located not less than 20 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent residential lot."

Mr. Tiffany said this dish is already installed. Mrs. Boice commented I have to assume that your installer did not get a permit. So we are faced with a contractor coming in, doing their bit and the resident is stuck with cleaning up what does not fit in the code. In driving by, it is not an 18 inch dish. Mr. Mitchell commented that it looked like it is about a 30 inch dish. Addressing Ms. Shuster, Mrs. Boice wondered if the contractor advised that this was the only place that the dish could be installed, and Ms. Shuster confirmed this, adding it is for one channel, Moscow. We sent you the signatures of my neighbors, and they do not mind. Mrs. Boice responded I understand this, but we have to deal with precedent setting. If everyone in Springdale decided they wanted to hang an antenna on a chimney, this could cause problems. That is why I asked the question if this were the only place, and I would question that it could not be placed someplace else on the property and still serve the purpose.

Mr. Tiffany commented I am amazed at how low it was placed. Mr. Mitchell added the antenna is aimed directly at the ground, too. Mr. Tiffany wondered if it picked up well, and Ms. Shuster answered that it did.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. McErlane how far out of code this dish is? I drove by twice and it is midway up the chimney. That is not an issue, is it? Mr. McErlane reported that there is a maximum height limitation of 12 feet, so that could be one issue; it appears to be more than 12 feet. The other issues are that it is in the side yard, and it is not ground mounted. Mr. Tiffany asked if there were a limitation on the size of the dish, and Mr. McErlane stated if it were 18 inches or under, it would be exempt from Zoning Code requirements altogether. Mrs. Ewing asked when this was installed and Ms. Shuster said I would say a year; I am not sure.

Mr. Tiffany said for the record, she has the signatures of the residents, but this is not an approval form; this is an indication that they are aware that we are having a public hearing tonight and they are welcome to attend. Addressing the audience, he asked if anyone else was here concerning this matter? There was no one.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Three


Mr. Tiffany stated I share Mrs. Boiceís concern in setting a precedent with this. Mrs. Boice asked Mr. McErlane where this could be mounted and be within code. Mr. McErlane stated that it would need to be mounted in the back yard, and it could be as high as 12 feet off the ground. Mr. Tiffany commented I think one of the big issues is that it is in the side yard.

Mrs. Boice stated Iíll be very honest with you; if this goes to a vote, I will be inclined to vote against it because of the precedent it would set. I would like to hear from your installer. I would move to table and ask that the petitioner contact her installer, possibly have him at the next meeting or a representative or a letter indicating whether this couldnít be located at the 12 foot height in the back yard. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was tabled until the April 16th meeting. Mr. Tiffany told the applicant that there is no reason to do anything at this point other than supply the information that we have requested, go to the installer and ask them to show that it has to be there; that it canít be anywhere else.

B. Sharon Casselman, 1019 Tivoli Lane requests variance to allow the replacement of an existing 10í x 10í metal shed with an 8í x 10í wooden shed to be located on the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(C) "...must be not less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines."

Ms. Casselman said I want to replace the 10í x 10í metal shed with a 10í x 8í wooden shed about a foot away from the property line. Mr. Tiffany asked if there is a foundation under what is there, and Ms. Casselman confirmed that there was. Mrs. Boice wondered if when she purchased the property, the shed was where it is right now, and Ms. Casselman confirmed that it was. Mr. Mitchell commented I drove by today and looked at the shed and it was painted the same colors as the shutters and trim on the house. It looked very nice. Are you planning on painting your wood shed also? Ms. Casselman indicated that she was. Mr. Tiffany asked if anyone was here to speak in favor or against this, and there was no one. Mrs. Ewing moved to grant the variance and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

C. Pat & Joe Perin request a variance to modify an existing pylon sign @ 12000 Princeton Pike. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(3) "..any face of a pole sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area." (existing Variance 16-1982 allowed 160 square feet), and appeal to Mr. McErlaneís order of 22 January 1996 to remove sign.

Ms. Pat Perin stated we are owners of the property at 12000, 12010 and 12050 Princeton Pike. With us tonight is our attorney Rich Herndon. She passed out sign sketches to each of the members.

Mr. Joe Perin stated that 33 years ago Pat and I bought the site at 12000 Princeton Pike, seven acres which was more than we needed to make it a shopping center. We are the sole owners. Seven years ago Staples became a tenant, and they have been advertising the signage of Perin Plaza for the past seven years and even in todayís Enquirer. At one time we called it Perin Place, but because Staples kept calling it Perin Plaza, we thought we would make it simpler and make it Perins so thatís when it changed from Perin Place to Perins.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Four


Mr. Perin continued since Pat & Joeís are not longer a tenant, and Rhodes and Staples both want signage, we have no qualms about giving them signs on the panel. In their leases, they have permission to put signage on the panel of the pylon pole. Agreements in both leases call for them to have the same size signs, so we are requesting that the signs either be 4í x 14í, which Rhodes presented to us, or 4í x 10í which Staples presented. Both signs would be positioned under the present Perin Center Sign. Staples has three years left on the lease if they donít renew, we could have four or five different stores and have a small strip center there. In the past, we have had Baby World and Baby World USA, so it is nothing new; Perins is an identity of a center sign, rather than an identity of our business.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the Perin sign came about when it changed from Pat & Joeís to Perin Interiors, didnít it? Mr. Perin said no, the sign we are talking about always has been there. At one time it was Perin Place and then when Staples advertised as Perin Plaza, we put the sign up as Perins to catch everything.

Mr. Tiffany asked what they intended to do with the sign? Mr. Perin answered to leave it as always, to leave it as Perins. We want that identity and that name there. Mr. Tiffany asked if they were willing to add Perins Plaza or Perin Center, adding that there is no business that says Perin now. Mr. Perin responded we would rather not; it would be identity for those five stores if Staples would move out.

Mr. Squires asked if he wished to leave the sign as Perins rather than Perin Plaza or Center or Place? Mr. Perin answered yes, we think that tells the story better than Perin Place or Perin Plaza. We havenít advertised for a year. Mr. Squires continued wouldnít you agree that it would appear that there were three stores there rather than two? Mr. Perin answered no. Mrs. Perin added we would hope that if Staples would leave and we would develop five stores that those would be advertising The Ceramic Center at Perins.

Mrs. McNear commented anybody that knows the name Perin knows about the furniture store that you had for many many years, so I think it needs an identifier such as a Center Plaza or Shoppes of. Something should be added to that so we know it is an identifier of the center and not just a store that moved out.

Mr. Herndon commented if I am interpreting the Zoning Code correctly, identification signs identify the name, owner or manager of an existing project or building. Their point is they always have identified the center as Perins so I think it falls within the existing definition in your code.

Mrs. Boice said I do not disagree with what you are saying at all, but I am concerned if we just say Perins, people still will think you are there with the furniture. Shoppes of Perin sounds elegant to me; the name is still there but it indicates that it is a Perin center but we have other shops there. I am afraid with the long time you were there, people will still associate that you are there as Perin Interiors or Pat & Joeís. I think there is confusion there with just Perins. Mr. Perin said everyone I talk to has never asked me if we are still in business. Itís a pretty well known fact that we have retired.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Five


Mrs. Perin added itís not only Staples, but the furniture business as uncertain as it is nowadays, we certainly donít want to have it look like a Rhodes center. One of the plans we received indicated Staples Drive, and we want that correction as soon as possible. May I suggest superimposing Place over the top of the last letter? Mrs. Boice commented I think it would be a clarification. Mrs. Perin added we had it before, and it was probably one-third the size of these letters.

Mr. Squires commented it looks like Item C that you presented is the one Staples is happy about, that says Perins Center, is that correct? Mrs. Perin answered they always have been confused about this, even in their advertising, and thatís why we went to Perins, because they were calling it Plaza when we wanted it to be Perin Place. They acknowledged that it is a center. Mr. Perin added signing these leases, we spelled it right out that the center sign stays and they are below with their panel signs, so there is no deceit on our part.

Mr. Squires commented my question would be that as a business person, if I owned Staples, how would I advertise? Where would I indicate my address? Mr. Perin answered they have been doing it at Perins Plaza for seven years. Mr. Squires responded but your sign doesnít say Perins Plaza; it just says Perins. Mrs. Perin added there are no numbers there; if you advertise 12000 Princeton Pike, people can go up and down there forever and a day. Rhodes certainly has enough signage now.

Mrs. McNear commented I donít have a problem with your wanting to identify the name of the plaza. If you had asked me last week or six months ago what the name of the development was where Pat & Joeís and Staples were located, I would have had to say I didnít know. We are trying to assist you in making it more of an identifier. I donít think Perins identifies it that it is a full development, and that is why we would like to see something like plaza or shop.

Mrs. Boice I do like Mrs. Perinís idea of going with Perin Place, and I think if that would be the final solution to this problem, you need to advise Staples that this is the way it must be advertised. I think to have that Perin Place or Plaza, whichever you choose, is more of an identifier. Mrs. Perin said so we could take the Perins and superimpose a small Place over it? Mr. Tiffany asked how small, and Mr. Mitchell commented that we need to see it. Mrs. Perin responded the Place was roughly a foot to a foot and one-half high, and over the last full s and half the n.

Mr. Squires said I would like to see this drawn out in detail, and I would make a motion that this be tabled until we have appropriate designs from the Perins. Mr. Tiffany stated we have two items to look at tonight and before we table, we need to discuss the other item. Mr. Squires then withdrew his motion.

Mr. McErlane said if the direction is to table it for this particular issue, I would suggest that the Perins consider the structural aspects of adding the two additional signs. It may be that this sign cannot handle the additional wind loading, and it may have to come down anyway. You are increasing the applied loads to that sign by about 53% over what it currently has.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Six


Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane if they add Place or Plaza to the Perins sign, will that satisfy your concerns expressed in your January 22nd letter? Mr. McErlane indicated that it would, because the sign that used to say Perin Interiors and Pat & Joeís has been taken down.

Mrs. Perin suggested that we resolve the wind load issue tonight by approving up to something based on what the wind load would be. Mr. Mitchell responded I would think you would want to get a professional engineer to check and verify that. We just canít say what the wind load would be. Mrs. Perin said if someone in the engineering field would say it would take a 1 x 2 or 2 x 4 or whatever you say, and we would have to go by that.

Mr. Tiffany said I think what Mr. McErlane is saying is that it may be cost prohibitive. If it wonít substantiate the signs that you are proposing, something has to be done with the structure itself, and itís probably best to look at that first, rather than after the fact and have to come in again.

Mr. Perin commented there could be another solution. For 20 years, we have lived with the sign that you saw initially. All they would have to do is lower it to the level that we had it, and then the load would be the same or very similar. Mr. McErlane commented it still would need evaluation. Mr. Perin said we will do that, no problem.

Mr. Tiffany said restructuring the sign may be very cost prohibitive, and it might be less expensive to redo the entire sign and you may want to change the panel at the same time. There are a lot of ifs with this.

Mr. Schecker arrived at 8:17 p.m.

Mr. Perin commented that is what got us in a little bit of trouble initially. Rhodes came in with a nice new sign. Here are some examples. We thought we were going to be the leader still, after 33 years of owning the property, and you can see what they have submitted; none of those were approved. Mr. Tiffany responded to be honest with you, if you go over to just about any development, the development usually doesnít supersede the major tenants. A perfect example was when Gold Circle was on Colerain Avenue; people would advertise in the Gold Circle Mall, but the actual name was Englewood Mall.

Mr. Tiffany said if you are going to put Place on the sign, we have resolved that, but now we have to look at the total signage. They are proposing 212 square feet, 52 square feet more than what they are on a variance for now. They are allowed 160 square feet.

Mr. Tiffany continued we are talking about his possibly having to restructure the sign, and before he does that, we need to let him know whether this board would allow what he is proposing.

Mr. Perin asked if it would be possible to give us the approval for the 212 square feet, provided we are willing to beef it up to take it and have the engineer check this out?



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Seven


Mr. McErlane reported it is next to impossible to beef up a foundation,. You can beef up the poles if they are inadequate. If the foundation is inadequate, you are not going to be able to do anything with it unless you add another pole and another foundation. The point I was trying to make was if it turns out the structure is inadequate and the sign has to be redesigned, it can be done within its current variance. If it says Perins Place instead of Perins, it can be done within the current variance, and there is no need to apply for an additional variance.

Mr. Tiffany said with the possibility that the sign wonít handle the load and needs to be redesigned and restructured and basically come down and a new one go up, it may be possible to make that within your current variance, so that no additional variance would be needed.

Mr. Perin stated if it has to come down and we have to put a new one up, we would still like to have the 212 square feet, to have our 100 square foot Perin Place that weíve always had. Weíll beef it up if we have to, or put a new support in, and get engineers to advise us how that could be done.

Mr. Tiffany said I personally am not comfortable with granting a variance on something I havenít seen. We have nothing on paper here, so it is probably best to hold off. I donít think it will slow the process for you; either way, youíll have to come back.

Mr. Perin responded at the present time, we could put two 30ís up, so that would mean that Rhodes and Staples would have to go to a 30 square foot sign panel, and that would be within code and within our lease. Mr. Mitchell added you would be within the variance. Mrs. Perin added so that could be redistributed to two signs at 30 square feet total. Mr. Perin added and with the stress level, if it would have to go at the level we have it, they would have to live with it at that level. Neither Staples nor Rhodes are wanting for being visible, with the red and with the void of any other signage, there is no way you can go up or down on I-275, get off the street and not see them. Weíll get an engineer, and tell Rhodes and Staples that we have permission to put a 30 square foot sign up for them. Mr. Tiffany added you have 160 square feet that you can stay within under the existing variance.

Mrs. Boice moved to table the item and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present vote aye, and the item was tabled with seven affirmative votes.

D. George Douglas, 840 Ledro Street requests approval of variance to allow the conversion of his garage into family room. Said variance is requested from Section 153.026(F) "..shall have a one or more car garage..."

Mr. Douglas stated in 1976 when we moved in, the garage was a family room. Mr. Tiffany added this house burned, and since the amount of repairs exceeded a certain percentage of the value of the property, so he is required to bring it to code, so he is asking for a variance to go back to exactly what he had.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Eight


Mrs. Boice said when Mr. Douglas bought the property, he bought it with the idea that the garage was not a garage but a family room. Now he wants to restore the residence to what it was when he bought it. In all fairness, I do not feel there is anything to do but grant the variance. He bought it with the family room, and that is the way it has to remain. I would prefer because of the parking problems that these garages are not converted, but I donít think anyone has any right to take a family room away from him that he purchased originally. In that mode, I would move that this variance be granted. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Tiffany asked if anyone else here wished to speak to this is issue, and there were none. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

E. Dorothy Copenhaver requests variance to allow the construction of a deck at Bingís Bar & Grill, 11649 Springfield Pike. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(a) Rear yard setback required 50í

Mr. Tiffany reported that this item came before Planning last week. There was a lot of discussion on it, and the first and foremost contingency on this being approved through Planning was that everything out back goes. Mrs. Copenhaver is tearing down the house, and all the sheds and trailers and all the garbage back there are in process of being cleaned up. She offered 30 days to get that straightened out, and the next day they were out there cleaning up. Mr. Tiffany stated that Mr. Estep brought in drawings for you this evening. This sets 10 feet off the property line.

Mr. Estep stated that some of the items that will be incorporated into the new deck Ms. Copenhaver wanted to add to the side of the restaurant. Part of the discussion of the Commission last week had to do with the green space, lighting etc. She is willing to adhere to whatever requirements the Corridor Study and Building Code mandate. That is the summary on the first sheet. The next sheet is a plot plan of the property which shows the existing house and sheds that she will be demolishing to clear an area for parking. In order to make an area for parking, she is cleaning up the mess and providing sufficient space per your code. The third sheet is a blowup of the proposed deck she wants to add, showing a 10 foot setback. The back of the existing building is seven feet from the property line. Originally we had planned to make the deck a little wider and more square, but we are trying to achieve at least 10 feet away from the property line, so the deck is 19 feet wide and 40 feet long. The fourth sheet is my attempt to show what the place might look like with the parking added. Parking will be where the existing house and sheds are right now. There is a possible green space; I know there are requirements for trees. The last page is an elevation of a proposed view of the deck, standing on Route 4 and looking. It will be pretty much enclosed. One of the other issues that came up last week was the residences in back of the property and a concern about sound and lighting. The rear side would have screening and some sort of shadowbox type fence where you canít see through but it allows the air to flow through and pretty much hide everything going on in that deck area from the residences in the back. She also has agreed to have no music out there at all; that was another issue that was discussed. She wants to enclose the other three sides to lock at night and keep the furniture safe, so there would be some sort of lattice type enclosure.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Estep continued the request is for the 10 foot variance. The property is so oddly shaped; she wants to improve the site and make it a more attractive place, and this is pretty much the only place the deck could go.

Mr. Tiffany added there has been some discussion as to boxing the supports with brick or stone. Thereís really no way to get the 40% coverage called for in the Corridor Study, but as much as possible. They want to work with us on that. Mr. Estep said I didnít put that on there, but that is a possibility to do a brick facing on the front. Mr. Tiffany stated it was refreshing when she came in last week, because unlike most applicants, she is willing to do whatever it takes to get this to happen.

Mr. Mitchell commented I see youngsters walking up and down the street in front of Bingís, and I am a little concerned about the proximity of this deck to the street, people walking by looking in and seeing people on the deck drinking beer. I know you talked about screening towards the back to block it, but what about blocking off the view from the street?

Mr. Estep answered she will be enclosing the whole thing with some type of lattice which would restrict the view quite a bit. She wants to be able to lock up the deck so whatever furniture that is there cannot be stolen. If you look at that elevation view, the lower lattice is below the parking lot level. The back lot is a lower level so what you will see from the street is a lattice type screen. Mr. Mitchell commented if you have a person standing up, he would be visible. Mr. Estep responded the lattice work isnít drawn in, so it would be totally covered, and the rear side would be completely screened. Item #6 on the front sheet depicts the railing with lattice screening. She has to have something there.

Mr. Tiffany commented I am assure there are limitations as far as liquor control. If there is a motion made, I would ask that one of the contingencies of the approval would be that she meets all liquor control issues. What that does is protect us from something else going in there without the liquor control.

Mrs. Boice said on Item 6, possible lattice, I would certainly want to strike the possible. Also, if that were done, it could be done nicely with hanging plants on the lattice so from a visual it would look more decorative than anything else. From the standpoint of the noise factor, you said no music will be allowed out there, but we know crowds tend to get quite noisy. I think the noise factor is something that has to be controlled by the owner and the manager. I would like to imply very heavily that if such a variance were granted, they would have to make a strong mental note that the noise has to be controlled. I know we cannot put this in a variance, but it is something I would certainly like to impart.

Mr. Tiffany commented I had some discussion with Ms. Copenhaver about it, and we pretty much have an understanding that if there is noise, if the neighbors complain, it has to stop, and she is fine with that. Mrs. Boice added I do think the lattice work, especially with some greenery, also will have a tendency to absorb some sound. Mr. Tiffany added the shadow box screening in the back would allow the air to move through and also would deflect the sound sideways. It doesnít allow it to pass through. Lattice would allow some sound to penetrate, but shadowbox would knock it down much quicker.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Ten


Mrs. Boice said so what you are saying is that Mrs. Copenhaver is aware that this would be under very close observance. Mr. Mitchell said by adding the lattice, will that have to go before Planning again? Mr. Tiffany answered that they were at concept approval last week at planning, so it still have to come back to Planning for final approval.

Mrs. McNear asked if there would be any upgrade to the exterior of the Bings building. Mr. Estep answered if so, she hasnít discussed it with me. Mr. Tiffany added actually she talked about it at the meeting. She has started and will finish painting the exterior of the building. I donít know if you have been in there, but it like night and day, all new booths, new carpet - a big difference.

Mr. Schecker said if we are looking at the building about seven feet off the property line, where did the 10 foot setback come for the deck; why not seven feet where the building is? Mr. McErlane stated if they go closer than 10 feet to the property line, you have to have a one hour exterior fire rated wall. Mr. Tiffany added they originally came in at seven feet, and Mr. McErlane suggested that they move it back so they wouldnít have to worry about the wall.

Mrs. McNear commented there will be a new paved parking area, but what about the existing parking? It is right on the street. Will that remain a part of that? Mr. Tiffany answered she has to work out the parking. We are hoping that a green space can be put in with trees out in front, and get rid of the large curb cut across there. For this new deck, she has to add 15 spaces, and in order to get these, she will have to add quite a bit of parking. Hopefully it will work out to create a much better parking atmosphere so we donít have cars backing out onto Route 4.

Mrs. Boice said if a variance is granted, I do not know if it is legal or proper, but I want to be absolutely sure - I would not even consider a variance unless all of these listed things, demolishing the house, the sheds, are included. Mr. Tiffany commented that was all contingent on the project in Planning. Mrs. Boice continued if all of this doesnít happen, forget it. Mr. Tiffany stated she is fully aware of this, and she was out the next day tearing things up back there.

Mr. Squires commented in light of what Mrs. Boice has said, is it possible that we could have drawings showing placement of trees and shrubs? Mr. Tiffany stated that would be a Planning issue. Mr. Estep added that would be the intent. I havenít discussed that with her, if she is going to have me do the drawings. At this point my involvement is the attempt to get the deck built and go through the zoning and planning steps. I do know one way or the other she will have the plan developed to show parking and trees and whatever is necessary. Mr. Squires I say that because I concur with my colleagues that unless we see all of this, I have a problem. Mr. Estep responded that would be coming, because with the added space, the parking has to be added. Originally the idea was to use the large area in the back which was gravel. During the discussion at last weekís meeting, the point came up that the only approved parking surfaces are asphalt and concrete.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Squires said you are asking for a motion, but I am a little confused as to what the motion should be. Mr. Tiffany responded the motion would be to grant the variance for the setback only. That is the issue for the variance. Everything else has to come back to Planning. Mrs. Boice commented which would be putting a very strong thumb on this one I would think. Mr. Tiffany said absolutely, as Mr. Estep can tell you, we already have.

Mr. Squires continued if we are considering only the setback, I would move that we allow the variance for the 10 foot setback. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

F. Tumbleweed Restaurant, 11305 Princeton Pike requests temporary variance to allow two satellite antennas on the roof. Said variance is requested from Section 153.097(A) "one "satellite dish-type antenna..may be permitted..."

Mr. Tiffany stated he was in before and was denied, and he is asking for an eight-month variance.

David Brown reported I have this faxed letter from Acoustical Audio Designs, and they are telling us that by November they will be able to have video channels and music service on the same receiving satellite antenna. Mr. Mitchell said if it doesnít happen, what would happen? Mr. Brown answered then we would have to remove one of the satellite antennas.

Mr. Squires said so within eight months one of them would have to be removed. If there is no more discussion, I would move that we allow this variance for a period not to exceed eight months from this date, or November 19, 1996. At that time the new technology should be available, and they can do it with one satellite dish rather than two. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Schecker asked how confident he was that this will happen by that date? Mr. Brown answered I am pretty confident that it will. As a matter of fact, I think we will have it sooner than eight months. The technology is there; it is a question of getting everything worked out.

Mrs. Boice said if the is variance is granted, would it be your intent to advise DMX that they are under the gun for eight months, that they need to get this? Mr. Brown said yes, I can notify them that I need to be their first customer. Mrs. Boice added and stress to them that you are dealing with a board that when they say eight months, they mean eight months. Mr. Brown responded that is no problem at all.

Mrs. McNear commented I will be voting no, and the reason is all these other restaurants in town will not know what happened in this meeting, but they are going to see that second satellite on the roof. I think we are opening ourselves up for trouble if we leave that up there.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 March 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. Schecker said I rather disagree with Mrs. McNear at this point, because I find it difficult to find even one satellite up there as you go by. I see one from an angle, but Iíll be darned if I can see two up there.

On the motion to grant the variance, voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Schecker, and Mrs. Ewing. Mrs. McNear and Mr. Tiffany voted no, and the variance was granted with five affirmative and two negative votes.


Mr. Mitchell apologized for being late this evening, adding that he was working with the school board.


Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,1996 _________________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman



_______________________,1996 __________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary