21 JULY 1998

7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman James Squires.


Members Present: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, Thomas Schecker,

James squires and Dave Whitaker

Members Absent: Councilman Robert Wilson, Barbara Ewing and David


Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

Dick Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

Addressing the audience, Mr. Squires stated that there are seven members of this board. Four of us constitute a quorum. In the voting, a simple majority will be necessary to grant the variance. If you feel you would rattler come back when all members are present, that is your option, and donít mind saying so. I think you will find that the four of us will be as objective as we can.


Mrs. McNear moved to adopt and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.


Mrs. McNear moved to adopt and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were ad opted with four affirmative votes.


    1. Zoning Bulletin Ė June 10, 1998
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė July 10, 1998
    3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ė June 9, 1998


    1. Report on Council Activities Ė no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission Ė no report


    1. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of ix months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.

If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal ix months after the denial.

B. Chairmanís Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board are to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium, and state his name, address and the nature of the variance. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.


21 JULY 1998




    1. Randy Zugg, 404 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the removal of garage. Aid variance is requested from Section 153.023(F) "..Each ..shall have 2 or more car garage..not less than 400 .f. and not more than 600 s.f."
    2. Mr. Zugg of 404 West Kemper Road said there was an old garage, but I did not consider it one since there was no access to it. It was 60 to 70 years old and was falling down, so I removed it. I donít have an access; there used to be an alley by the gas station, but I had it surveyed and it is the gas stationís property.

      Mr. Squires wondered if he were aware that since he took the garage down, he is under the new Code which requires a garage of 400 to 600 square feet? Mr. Zugg answered I am now. I didnít even consider it a garage. It had not been used as one. There wasnít a driveway that went back to it. I considered it a hazard to anybody around it.

      Mr. Schecker asked how many vehicles could be accommodated in the driveway? Mr. Zugg said I donít have one. I own the property at 410 Wet Kemper, and Iím going to try to make that a common driveway.

      Mr. Squires said variances go with the property, so if a variance is granted that you donít have to have a garage, when this property is sold, it goes to the next owner and he wouldnít have to have one either.

      Mr. Zugg commented Iím going with first things first; Iím trying to get a driveway in there.

      Mr. Squires wondered if he had any commitment to building a garage on either of the properties and Mr. Zugg answered that he did not.

      Mr. Squires said I noticed that 410 West Kemper had an improved surface that cars were parked on but it only goes back so far. Isnít it possible or desirable to extend that back to where you could have a garage for both 404 and 410?

      Mr. Zugg answered that driveway runs close to the property line, and I donít know how I would situate one back there.

      Mr. Schecker asked where the vehicles from the 404 building being parked and Mr. Zugg answered in the 410 driveway. Mr. Schecker asked his plan for the common driveway and Mr. Zugg answered to make it a common driveway and extend it over into the front yard of the property at 404 from the 410 property. I have looked at that, and I canít find a good way to bring a driveway in there with the big trees. I donít have any property on the right. There is not enough space there unless you take out a couple of big trees and the hedge row. Mr. Schecker asked the timing for the planned driveway improvement? Mr. Zugg answered I have to come back before the board for that, and I would say by the next board meeting.

      Mr. McErlane stated I am not sure if it is necessary to come before the board. What I had discussed with Mr. Zugg is that it would be necessary to at least write an easement to 404 to use the driveway on 410 in case the properties were sold so that 404 would have legal rights to use that driveway. It is not readily apparent that he would necessarily need a variance to accomplish that.



      21 JULY 1998



      Mr. Squires wondered if it were feasible to erect a garage on that property? Mr. McErlane responded there is enough land to do that but it till would take either a new driveway or accommodations through an easement to gain access to it.

      Mr. Schecker commented I would assume that the driveway you are planning would accommodate at least two vehicles for each property. Is that your plan? Mr. Zugg answered yes, two for each property. They will accommodate that now and we want to accommodate two more for the 404 property. Right now they are both rental properties and both people use the 410 driveway.

      Addressing the board, Mr. Schecker asked if they saw any reason to make a stipulation to maintain the capability of parking four vehicles on these two sites?

      Mr. Squires said Iíll get back to you on that. Mr. McNear commented from memory, it seems like the first three or four houses donít have garages. These houses are older and I donít have a problem with this. Iím sure it was a dangerous situation with a building that was that old and overgrown. I think we should grant the variance on that and see if we can help you get through your other problems with your easement so you can have parking for both houses.

      Mr. Squires said is that in the form of a motion? Mrs. McNear said I will move to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak concerning this. No one came forward.

      Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Squires. Variance as granted with four affirmative votes.

      B. Bert Huffer, 808 Yorkhaven Road requests variance to allow him to park his boat on an unimproved surface next to his privacy fence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(2) "..not closer than 5 feet to the nearest lot line.. and (b)"..must be placed on an improved surfaceÖ"

      Mr. Huffer said I am requesting a variance so I can park my boat adjacent to my driveway, which currently would be in my front yard. I have some photographs of the boat and where it is currently parked. The drawing on Sketch 1 is what I am asking for. Currently there is not enough space between our side lot and the garage to physically put the boat on the side yard. Where the boat is right now is below the window level of the house next door. The top of the windshield of the boat is about 6í-1", and the windows of the house next door are above the top of the boat. I also talked to my neighbor on that side prior top asking the boat there, and he had no objection to it. The split rail fence actually belongs to my neighbor; the hedge is what is on my property.

      Because of the depth of my driveway, I could put the boat in the driveway and meet the code. Mr. Squires said your statement says "I do not want to park my boat in the driveway" Can you give us a reason why? Mr. Huffer responded by the pictures, it appears much better in the neighborhood having it parked where I have it. It is kind of concealed by the house next door. It is away from the street and much less objectionable to the neighborhood. Having it parked out in the driveway would obstruct me from getting vehicles in and out of our driveway. This allows friends or people visiting to park in our driveway. I currently put both cars in the garage at all times, so normally our driveway is always clear. I also didnít want to pave that area.


      21 JULY 1998


    3. BERT HUFFER, 808 YORKHAVEN - PARK BOAT Ė continued
    4. Mr. Huffer continued If I paved it, I would have to cut up the roots of the oak tree and Iím afraid it would kill it. Putting the pavers in there as I have still allows the water to get into the root system and not disturb it.

      Mrs. McNear wondered if he left the boat there year round. Mr. Huffer said I plan on housing it off site in the wintertime, probably in November December January and February. I would put it in my garage, but my garage is only 7í-10" and the boat is 8 foot wide.

      Mr. Whitaker asked how much room is between the side of the garage and the split rail fence? Mr. Huffer answered it is about 11 feet. Mr. Whitaker wondered if he could get it to the side of the house and back further? Mr. Huffer said the trailer is 8í-3" and you still need to have l7 feet from the property line. If I did that I couldnít use the sidewalk to get around the side of the house. That is actually built up and I have a flower bed between the sidewalk and the house next door.

      Mr. Schecker commented I appreciate your squeeze on the side but on the other hand, the way your boat is situated, I personally donít t think it adds to the aesthetics of the property in any way. Short of your being able to get it to the side or back in that area, I donít think it should be jutting out and setting askew as it is right now.

      Mr. Squires commented if you were to park that boat on your driveway, that would comply with the code requirement. Did you state earlier that you would have some difficulty about using both vehicles? Mr. Huffer said we would use both vehicles. It is just that if I had the boat in the driveway, I could still maneuver around and park both vehicles in the garage. It is just the boat would end up out towards the sidewalk completely in front of the house versus where it is now where from the street or sidewalk, it is almost behind both the neighborís house and our house. My garage is set back close to 20 feet from the front of the house, so it is almost like the boat is beside the houses. As you can see in the pictures, it only projects in front of the neighborís house about three feet. I got it back toward my garage as far as I could, because I think having it out towards the street causes more objection. If I donít have a choice, then I will put it in the driveway, but I really donít want to do that. I think that does detract from the neighborhood.

      Mr. Squires said if that boat were stored on your driveway, how close to the sidewalk would it be? Mr. Huffer answered it allows you to put it within 5 feet. Mr. squires wondered how much of a slope the driveway has, and Mr. Huffer answered very little. It has a slight pitch toward the street and very slight toward the front yard, but not much at all.

      Mr. Schecker asked what situation would you encounter if you would park it off site as many people have to do? Mr. Huffer answered it is the convenience of being able to get to the boat when you need to. When the boat is there, I can maintain it, hook it up and go to whatever lake we were going to.

      Mrs. McNear wandered how close the back end of the boat was to the neighborís fence, and Mr. Huffer answered probably within 2 Ĺ to 3 feet, so even if I paved it I still would need a variance because there is not enough room in the side yard to meet the code.

      Mrs. McNear commented when I drove by your house I thought it was really close and didnít look very good but then I drove through the rest of Beacon Hill and noticed all the boats in the driveways.




      21 JULY 1998


      B. BERT HUFFER, 808 YORKHAVEN - PARK BOAT Ė continued

      Mrs. McNear added saying that, I probably wouldnít have too much of a problem having your boat on the side, but it is so close to your neighbor. It really will infringe on your neighbor. I donít see any way to screen it from the street either, although the outside of your house is very very nice.

      Mr. Huffer added as I said I did talk to the neighbor any problem at all with that. He even wondered why I had to come to the board tonight. Mrs. McNear commented if that person would move, the new person might have a problem with it.

      Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against the variance, and no one did.

      No one voted aye and Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Squires voted no. Variance was denied by four votes.

      C. Nita Sharma, 127 Silverwood Circle requests variance to allow the construction of a shed 2 feet from the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.024(C) "..must not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot line."

      Mrs. Sharma said I want to use my garage for my cars and there is a lot of stuff in the garage and I want to use the shed for this. On the left-hand side there is a slope. I got all the neighbors to sign; they said they didnít have a problem with this.

      Mr. Squires said as I looked at your property from the street, one side of your house had clothelines and playground equipment and one side looked like it sloped a little bit. Mrs. Sharma added there is a big tree in the back yard and in that corner there is a big slope. I cannot put my shed on that side. I need to put it on this side, and if I go 5 feet further, that shed will come very close to the tree. That is why we want to put it 2 feet from the fence.

      Mr. Whitaker asked the size of the shed and Mrs. Sharma said 12í long and 8í wide and 10 feet high. Mr. Whitaker added looking at the pictures, it appears that you have at least 20 feet between that tree and the back fence. I drove past the property, and I donít see that much of a problem with the slope. Mrs. Sharma answered there is on the left-hand side. I got a stump out and all the roots, and there is a slope there. I got all the neighbors and they said they didnít have any problem. We have a nice neighborhood.

      Mr. Squires asked where the shed would be located, and Mrs. Sharma answered it would be in the back yard on the left-hand side of my patio door. I have two new cars, and people throw raw eggs so I would like to put them in the garage.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said we have a staff bulletin, and it says, "Grades donít appear to be excessive on your lot". From what I can tell from the street, they donít appear to be that excessive either. Is there no way that you can construct it within the code five feet from the property line? Mrs. Sharma answered no. There is a big tree and if you go too much further, there would be too much hassle.





      21 JULY 1998

      PAGE SIX


      Mr. Schecker asked about the comment from the neighbor at 128 Rosetta Court. Mrs. Sharma answered he came from Vietnam and he said it is okay with us. I donít know why he refused to sign his name and wrote his telephone number. If you have any questions, you can ask him. The other neighbors didnít have any problem. Reading from the paper, "As it is Ė up to code and regulations to the City of Springdale and has permit permitted by the City, fine, and inspected".

      Mr. Schecker said so it really isnít an objection. Mrs. Sharma said in the end he said fine, which means itís fine with me.

      Mr. Schecker commented there seem to be quite a few of the small storage sheds out along that line of houses there. I donít know if they are all five feet away or not, but there is quite a number of them. From my viewpoint, in view of the fact that there are trees in that back yard and ingress and egress may be a problem if you get a little too far away from the fence, I have no objection to the two feet from the property line.

      Mr. Squires asked if this were to be constructed professionally, and Mrs. Sharma answered that it was. Mr. Squires wondered if she had considered constructing up to code and landscaping around it? The grades are not a problem to a professional constructor. Mrs. Sharma said they arenít going to do anything but construct it. Mr. Squires said if it was constructed 5 feet from the property line in this location,..Mrs. Sharma said but there is a big tree there. We are very simple people.

      Mr. Schecker said now that I have seen the pictures of the lot with the tree in it, there really is quite a bit of building space between the tree and the rear property line.

      Mrs. Sharma said this side has a slope; it is not level, so we want to put it on this side. Mr. Schecker said if in fact we grant this variance, it will stay forever in that location, and while you are happy with it and the current neighbors are, new neighbors might not be

      Mrs. Sharma said all the neighbors donít mind it. Mr. Schecker said I understand that, but the next neighbor may object to it. Mrs. Sharma said no neighbor is going anywhere. Mr. Schecker responded not today or tomorrow, but I suspect in 30 years the neighbor will go somewhere. The point is if we grant the variance the building can be there forever and ever. Mrs. Sharma said you are talking about 30 years; this is a piece of wood. I am living there since 1986; I have no problem with the neighbors. If a new neighbor moves in and has an objection, I would tear it up.

      Mr. Squires said what Mr. Schecker is saying is that the responsibility we have as a board is to try to maintain the codes we have within our City. If it is possible for that shed to be constructed on your lot and still remain in code that is what we want to do. I know many of these neighbors signed this, and that is fine, but it doesnít mean that it is okay. Itís okay right now, but it may not be okay a few years from now.

      Mrs. Sharma said I am a very nice lady, and we never go into court or this kind of conference, and you can go with me and see other peopleís sheds and how close they are to their fences. So if other new neighbor would come to that neighborhood, do you think they would tear them down or keep them?

      Mr. Squires answered that may very well be, but we are going to deal with your variance as we see it and be as objective and fair to you as we possibly can. That is the function of this board. We donít want to put any hardship on anyone, you or anyone else.


      21 JULY 1998



      Mr. Squires continued the feeling I am getting from the board members is that there is room on your lot to construct this shed and remain within our code. My personal opinion is if that shed can be constructed on your lot and still remain within our covenants, that is how I want it to be. If your request is turned down, that means the shed can be constructed. We are willing to work with you through our Building Department to make sure your needs are satisfied within the covenants. If the vote is negative, donít leave thinking anything other than that.

      Mrs. Sharma said I would appreciate it if you would give me the permission. We are very nice people in the neighborhood; we have no complaints, only the things thrown on our brand new cars. I want to keep my cars in the garage.

      Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak either for or against the variance.

      David Tarwater of 11779 Rose Lane said for clarification, early in the conversation I believe I heard that you do have a shed on your property. Mrs. Sharma said no I donít; I am going to put a new one there. Where did you get this idea Ė I didnít have one and I donít have one.

      No one voted aye, and Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Squires voted no. Variance was denied with four negative votes.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said that means the board feels that this shed can be constructed on your lot and still be within the covenants of the City of Springdale. The Building Department will be more than anxious to work with you on this and I think youíll find they are very cooperative and professional in what they do. We are anxious for you to get your shed constructed and be within the Covenants.

      Mrs. Sharma said so you mean we cannot put the shed at 2 feet? Mr. Squires said that is correct; you can resubmit your request in six months, but in the interim it would be my suggestion that you work with our Building Department. It can be done. Mrs. Sharma said my husband is out of town and we did not know you had to get permission from the City of Springdale to build a shed. My husband and I came here to ask the process. Mr. Squires said your contractor should meet with the Building Department and establish where the shed will be. It must be five feet from the property line to maintain the covenants of the City of Springdale. Mrs. Sharma said what is the difference between two feet and five feet. I can show you my neighborís shed which is very close to the property line. Mr. Squires responded I realize that, but the boardís decision is that we think this can be constructed within the covenants, and we urge you to have the person doing it for you to work with the Building Department. The boardís decision is for the shed to be within five feet. It can be appealed. Mrs. Sharma said I donít have the time. I might put the house on sale and move somewhere else. Mr. Squires said we donít want you to do that; we are happy to have you as a neighbor. I think you will find this can be done. Iím sorry the variance was turned down, but we do have other business before the board. If you want to stay after the meeting and discuss this with me, I will certainly be glad to. You also have the right to be represented by an attorney if you care to come back. Mrs. Sharma said I donít have the time.





      21 JULY 1998



      Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane stated your contractor can construct the shed as long as it is at least 5 feet from the property line. We can mark on the plan already submitted that the shed needs to be a minimum of 5 feet from the property lines and we can issue the permit that way.

      Mrs. Sharma said who passed the law in Springdale? Did they survey all of Springdale? Mr. Squires answered that comes from our Planning Commission and they worked very hard to establish this. I donít want to be rude, but I must move on. I will personally talk with you after the meeting if you wish to talk about it.

    5. The Book Market, Inc., 485 East Kemper Road (former Steinbergís) requests variance to allow the hanging of a banner for a period of three months. Said variance is requested from Section 153.16j0(C)(2) "..shall not exceed 2 consecutive weeks" or "4 such events during any calendar yearÖ"

Mr. Jeff Wilson said we want to hang a banner for three months. We are a temporary book liquidation store. We come into various market areas and have a temporary store that usually lasts 12 to 15 weeks. It is a test market store, and if we want to sign a more permanent lease, we would put up a permanent sign at that time.

Mr. Squires asked if his company had inquired about the Steinbergís sign not being down? Not only is it there, it was lit. Mr. Wilson answered they talked to the landlords about it, and I believe somebody is coming out to take it down. I donít know for sure when, but I do know the landlords were contacted about it.

Mr. Squires said I would feel more comfortable granting you a temporary variance if the Steinberg sign were not there. I would like to have something more concrete from the landlord that it is coming down and a date when it is coming down.

Mr. Squires asked when they plan to test this market, and Mr. Wilson answered we are supposed to open July 23rd. I have a copy of the lease and a letter from the landlord stating that we have their permission to use the banner. He passed this around to the members.

Mr. Whitaker asked the size of the banner, and Mr. Wilson answered the standard is 4í x 40í. Mr. Whitaker indicated that the material I have says the banner is 6í x 45í. Mr. McErlane reported when I spoke with the lady who applied for it she said they were initially considering that size to cover the Steinberg sign, but she was trying to get the Steinberg sign removed. When she came in, she stated that the request was for a 4í x 40í banner. We will be ordering the Steinberg sign down.

Mrs. McNear said we have made exceptions and taken the 8 weeks you are permitted throughout the year and combined them. I would be willing to give you 8 consecutive weeks.

Mr. Schecker commented I share Mrs. McNearís feeling about that. I would be willing to go 8 weeks, but not any more, and there be no more banners in this calendar year. What is your feeling about a two month period for the banner?

Mr. Wilson answered Iíll take whatever you give me. I will tell the corporate office that it could affect how long we stay open, depending on our sales.



21 JULY 1998



Mrs. McNear asked if there are any signs from another location that might be used here, that would take care of the banner problem. Mr. Wilson answered they have a company in Knoxville that makes them, so I am not sure how long it takes to make them. I can check and see what they have at the warehouse.

Mr. Schecker wondered if the applicant wished to withdraw his request and go back to corporate office concerning the two months instead of three months. Mr. Wilson responded I would rather you vote on the two month now if you could. Mr. Schecker said I would like to move that the variance be granted for two months starting July 23rd and ending September 23rd, and it will not be renewed beyond September 23rd.

Mrs. McNear commented I was thinking of eight weeks rather than two months. Mr. Schecker said I will change my motion to state the period of eight weeks from July 23rd to September 16th. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone in attendance wished to speak for or against the variance. No one did.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with four affirmative votes.

E. Mary Tabeling, 12093 Benadir Road requests variance to allow the placement of an air conditioning unit in her side yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.052 "On corner lot, they shall be set back from the side street not less than the required setback for the adjacent main building on the butt lot plus an additional 5 feet."

Mrs. Tabeling approached Planning Commission. Mr. Squires said the unit is in place, and you are retired and are stating that to move this unit would create a drastic hardship. You have one of those corner lots.

Mrs. McNear said I have been by your house and even if the unit was moved into the back yard, you still would see it from the street. Would you be willing to put up some shrubbery around the unit to help shield it? Mrs. Tabeling said she would. Mrs. McNear said then I would like to move to grant the variance as requested adding that evergreen shrubbery would be added to block the view from the street. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak and no one did.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with four affirmative votes.

F. Mr. & Mrs. Branum, 186 Balsam Court requests variance to allow the construction of a driveway in an eight foot area. Variance is requested from Section 153.038(E) "Driveways shall be permitted in any yard that is not less than 10 feet wide."

Bill and Donna Branum said we are asking for a variance for a driveway to our garage in the rear. There was a permit granted for the two and one half garage and we canít get to the garage to use it other than for storage. We currently have the house on the market, and we canít sell it until we get the driveway paved back to the garage.

Mrs. Branum added this garage was put in two owners back. It obviously affected resale for both these previous owners. It is unsightly, and we plan to make it a bit more attractive for the whole neighborhood.


21 JULY 1998



Mr. Squires said we have two sketches, one by you and one by Mr. McErlane. Iíll mark the applicantís copy A and the other one B.

Mr. McErlane reviewed Sketch B with Mr. & Mrs. Branum. Mr. Schecker said in view of the fact that Mr. McErlane has given you this slightly revised sketch, would you be agreeable to a proposal like this? Mr. Branum answered mine was a mistake. Mrs. Branum added this is what we had in mind to do.

Mr. Squires wondered if they would be able to swing around that? It looked narrow to me. Mrs. Branum answered people have been doing it all along. You just wouldnít be able to drive anything real big.

Mr. McErlane reported going back through the history, we found an existing attached garage received a variance to enclose it and turn it into living space, which leads me to believe that since they had to acquire a variance for that, the garage wasnít in place at that point of time. Prior to 1978, you could have to an 800 square foot garage, so I assume it was constructed between those periods of time. At this point, the only variance would be for the 10 foot side yard width to accommodate the driveway. One of the things we were trying to do by cutting back some of the pavement is there is a 35% land coverage issue that it is fairly close to.

Mrs. Branum said if we get this variance, we want to make sure when we have this paved that we make sure we have it poured to those dimensions. It nips in a little bit where it is 12.58. You are saying stay 10 feet from the house. Mr. Squires said it would be a variance that would be amended to allow the minimum 10 foot side yard dimension that actually reached 12 feet back in the frontage of the building, Sketch B.

Mr. Whitaker said I would be inclined to go along with the driveway you are proposing it if some of the existing driveway in front of the previous garage would be removed so it would curve around to the back and it would force the cars to be at the back of the house.

Mr. Branum stated the existing driveway is rough and looks bad. They will go over that with the asphalt and widen it so it is the same and consistent. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Whitaker responded what I am saying is with the garage being at the back and your wanting to utilize it, I would rather see the driveway come in and curve around to the back and have some of that concrete removed in the front. That brings up another question. I personally would like to see it in concrete and not blacktop. Mrs. Branum commented so would we, but the costs are prohibitive. We are both realtors so we know. To do it with the blacktop is $3,000. The neighbor next door just widened his blacktop driveway, and it looks okay.

Mr. Whitaker moved to grant the variance with the stipulation that the drawing marked SKF 7-98 be followed, which includes the triangular portion of the existing concrete driveway to be removed and seed straw and necessary topsoil be provided to make the yard come over to the proposed blacktop driveway going back to the rear of the existing oversized two car garage.

Mr. Squires asked the applicants if they understand and have the drawing in front of you and Mr. Branum indicated they did. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak.



21 JULY 1998


Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Squires. Variance granted with four affirmative votes.

From the audience, Mr. David Tarwater of 11779 Rose Lane, Apt. A asked to have a copy of the Minutes when they are available. The secretary will mail them after they are approved at the next meeting.


Mr. McErlane said you may have noticed this handsome gentleman next to me. Most of you know Dick Lohbeck, and at the end of May he was promoted to Inspection Supervisor in the Building Department. One of his responsibilities will be to attend these meetings. We still will review what comes before the board together before the packets go out for continuity. I thought I would attend with him tonight and introduce him.

Mr. Schecker said on the banner proposal, the sign looks rather large and gaudy; do we have to tolerate that as a temporary sign if it meets the size requirement? Mr. Squires answered I guess until the Steinberg sign comes down, and as I understand it they vacated that building, and we can have that sign come down.

Mr. McErlane asked if his concern more the installation over the Steinberg sign or the actual sign itself? Mr. Schecker answered the sign itself. Mr. McErlane commented I guess you could have considered that in your vote on the sign. Just like anything else, you have the opportunity to take a look at what is being placed somewhere in consideration of your variance.

Mr. Squires said I would like to call the boardís attention to the staff notes. I really appreciated them this time; they were a big big help. Please make sure you have read the general recommendation from the law director, that if we are going to approve a temporary variance we have to have a statement in that variance that we will not renew it beyond a certain date. That is one of the reasons we did that for that banner request. Any drawings and sketches that have been changed should be so noted before the vote is taken, and we did that with the Barnumsí request.


Mrs. McNear moved to adjourn and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,1998 __________________________

James Squires, Chairman



________________________,1998 ___________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary