16 NOVEMBER 2004

7:00 P.M.


I.                     CALL MEETING TO ORDER


The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.


II.                   ROLL CALL


Members Present:             Fred Borden, Robert Emerson, Marge Pollitt,

                                             James Squires, Robert Weidlich, Jane Huber

                                             And Chairman Okum


Others Present:                  Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor


III.                  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE





Mrs. Huber moved for adoption and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.


V.                 CORRESPONDENCE


A.          Zoning Bulletin – October 10, 2004

B.          Zoning Bulletin – October 25, 2004

C.          Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2004


VI.               REPORTS


A.          Report on Council Activities – no report

B.          Report on Planning Commission


Mr. Okum reported on the November 9th meeting.  The landscape plan for Staples was tabled to the December meeting.  There was a concept discussion of the proposed Pregnancy Care Center at 309 West Kemper Road.  They give pregnancy counseling, nothing to do with abortion, to help with pregnancy issues.  We also had a concept discussion of a proposed dental office to be located at 311 West Kemper.   Two Springdale doctors need to expand their business in a 6-7,500 s.f. facility.  Planning is looking at this area to put a transitional overlay in there to give control but flexibility for any development.  The underlying zoning stays the same.


Mrs. Pollitt asked about the house to the east, and Mr. Okum indicated that it would stay the same zoning.  The beautiful brick home will be for the Pregnancy Care.  If they moved out in five or 10 years, what would happen?  Mr. Okum answered the underlying zoning still applies.  Mrs. Pollitt asked if a business would be able to locate there and Mr. Okum said not necessarily.  The covenants would be very specific as to use, hours of operation, etc., so there would be protection for the adjoining landowners.







16 NOVEMBER 2004






IX.               NEW BUSINESS


A.          Emkenn Home requests variance to allow the construction of a 1,760 s.f. residence at 449 Dimmick Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 15.075 “single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f.


Holly Todd of Emkenn Homes said I am requesting one of two things, either 1,760 s.f. home on the blueprint as submitted, or a five-foot variance on either the back yard or front yard, we can build the 2,000 s.f. home.


Ms. Todd added on the actual setbacks on this street, the house to the right of this house 453 has a 30-foot setback.  The house across the street has a 25-foot setback, so the houses are not all 35 feet as required. 


Mr. Okum said so you are asking for an adjustment to the front-yard setback?  Ms. Todd answered I only measured the front yards, but we could use either the front yard or the back yard.  The back yard is right now at 40 feet.  We could go to a 35-foot setback for the back yard if you prefer.  We need five more feet to make a ranch work for this couple. Or, we could go with a variance for a 1,760 s.f. home instead of the 2,000 required.


Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting that they be permitted to build a new residence with dwelling unit area of 1,760 s.f.   Section 153.075 requires the dwelling unit area to be 2,000 s.f.  The owner of this property obtained a variance on April 20, 2004 to consolidate four properties and create two new parcels.  This parcel was formed with a lot width of 67 feet.  Because the proposed footprint of the building is located at the minimum setbacks for all four sides,  the only way to build a 2,000 square foot dwelling area is to build multiple floors.  Should the Board of zoning Appeals agree that a variance is warranted, conditions can be placed  on the variance requiring specific architectural style and exterior finish materials.


Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.  No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.


Mr. Weidlich moved to approve a variance for 1,760 s.f. home and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.


Mr. Squires said the third paragraph of our Building Department report states, “Because the proposed footprint of the building is located at the minimum setbacks on all four sides, the only way to build a 2,000 s.f. dwelling area is to build multiple floors.”  Is that true; you said you could do this with a setback.




16 NOVEMBER 2004





Ms. Todd responded we would have to get a variance for a setback.  We are at what Springdale requires right now, a 35 foot front yard and a 40 foot back yard.   Mr. Squires asked if the owner wanted a 2,000 s.f. house.  Ms. Todd answered they would do it whatever way the City mandates.    They really love the property and want to be in Springdale, and if that is the way it needs to be done, that is what we will do.


Mr. Weidlich said there are two big trees in the front yard.  With the current footprint, would those trees be staying?  Ms. Todd answered the little poplar in the center does have to come down, and the large pine would stay.  Mr. Weidlich continued if you got a variance for a five-foot front yard setback, would that affect that tree in any way?  Ms. Todd answered not the pine, but the poplar would come down.  


Mr. Okum said you have brick veneer on the two fronts and the rest of the house would be vinyl siding.  There are some homes in the neighborhood where we have granted size variances and they have been all masonry. 


Mr. Squires said on the application question #2 said “Would denial of your request prevent you from reasonable use of your property such as your neighbors are able to enjoy?  Please explain.”  You say, “It is presold.  The buyer needs an ADA ranch.”  Ms. Todd said that is ADA.  A disabled person is going to live there so we need to go with a ranch.  That is why we did not propose a two-story. 


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if you were able to reduce the square footage size down to this size, would it be possible to do an all masonry with vinyl sided gables?

Ms. Todd answered we could but we are trying to stay within their price range.  Adding five feet to the house is less expensive than going all masonry.


Mr. Squires said is 2,000 s.f. out of their price range?  Ms. Todd answered 2,000 s.f. is not, but if you go all masonry exterior, it probably would be something that they would need to go back to the bank and try to work out.  It would add about $12,000.


Mr. Weidlich wondered if the applicant wanted to pursue the 1,760 s.f. or the five-foot setback.  Doesn’t the applicant need to make a decision which one of these we should consider? 


Ms. Todd said I would prefer to have the 1,760 s.f. as we have it; we already have our surveys done and blueprint.  I know that some things work better for you than others, and that’s why I brought up the setback option.





16 NOVEMBER 2004





Addressing the board, Mr. Squires said haven’t we okayed houses in that area for that square footage?  Mr. Okum said in a number of cases where there have been separation of land and utilizing space on lots, we have reduced the size, and by allowing that reduction in square footage we’ve been able to work with the applicants to have all brick homes with high pitched roofs.


Mr. Squires added one of the criterion we used was pricing themselves out of the neighborhood.  Mr. Okum answered price is not an issue for a variance.


Mrs. Huber said on the plan, the driveway width was 16 feet and I know last month we determined that the driveway should be 18 feet.    Mr. Lohbeck said we take care of that in the Building Department.  We’ll note on the permit that the driveway has to be 18 feet.


Mr. Okum said Ms. Todd has indicated that they would like to build the 1,760 s.f. home.  Where we have allowed a reduction in square footage in other instances, we have required the all masonry exterior except for the gables and high pitched roof.  Based on that, I would be supporting a variance for the 1,760 s.f. residence conditioned on an all masonry exterior and high pitched roof. 


Mr. Squires said speaking as a councilmember as much as anything else, I don’t want to put an unnecessary hardship on the owner of this property.  With a five-foot rear yard setback, we could get a 2,000 s.f. house, and at the moment, that is the way I am leaning.


Ms. Pollitt added I also feel the same way.  That extra $12,000 for the brick would require them to go back to the bank and I would rather look at another alternative for them and give them a setback.


Mr. Okum commented if I understand this if you hold to the 2,000 s.f., gave them the setback variance and wanted a brick home, it would cost them $12,000 more. .  I don’t think she stated that an all brick 1760 s.f. home would cost an extra $12,000.  Ms. Todd reported that the cost per square foot is cheaper than the brick exterior would be.


Mrs. Pollitt said I would rather they go to the 2,000 s.f. and request a rear yard variance and meet the code that way. 

Mr. Okum said so you are saying a 35-foot rear yard setback variance would be preferable.


Mr. Emerson said I would almost rather see the house moved closer to the road by five feet because it is a three-bedroom home.  If a family moves in there, they will want their kids to play in the back yard.  Also if you go up to 2,000 s.f. you will have more siding than brick.



16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Okum said we have a motion to approve the 1,760 s.f. home.  Mr. Squires moved to amend the original motion to allow a 35-foot rear yard setback, to enable a 2,000 s.f. home to be built at 449 Dimmick Avenue.  Mrs. Pollitt seconded the amendment.


On the amendment to the motion, all except Mr. Okum voted aye, and the amendment was passed with six affirmative and one negative votes.


On the motion for a 35-foot rear yard setback and a 2,000 s.f. home, Mr. Squires, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Emerson and Mrs. Pollitt voted aye.  Mrs. Huber, Mr. Okum and Mr. Borden voted no, and the variance as granted 4 to 3.


B.          Lucille and Ronald Bross, 11979 Marwood Lane request variance to allow their utility building to remain on the property line.  Said variance is requested from Section 153.067(B) “..must not be less than five feet from any rear or side lot lines.”


Mr. Bross said concerning this variance, I feel that Springdale should bear some responsibility for the situation I am in.  The building next to my house was existing when I purchased the property.  The Building Department came over and had seen that building and issued me a permit to build the barn.  They came out and measured the step back from the front to the side yard, and there were some things done improperly.  I respect Springdale’s laws and the zoning, but I feel this has put me in a situation where I have to remove one building and move the other building.  I am applying for a variance so I will not have to move the other building.


I look across the street, go on up Pilgrim and see a barn that is leaning and ready to fall over.    I go further up the street, and see other people parked in their garages and doing exactly what Springdale told me I couldn’t do.  I tried to have my garage door removed and a window put in and was told I couldn’t do that because I might not have a garage.  I wonder how these people are doing all this and nothing is done about it.  I come down Terrytown and a man has tool boxes in his front yard, bicycles and lots of junk around.  It disturbs me that I try to abide by the law and do everything properly, and I am being made to do this and some of these other people don’t seem to have to do it.  It doesn’t seem quite right.


I can understand my situation with the barn; it was a mistake made and the barn is too close to the property line, but I did not know that until last meeting when I applied for a variance for an oversized garage.  These are two separate distinct issues, and it was tied together and put me in a precarious situation. 




16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Bross said I do not understand why the existing building next to my house and which I improved, has to be removed when another person has the same violation that I have, two sheds.  I’m not trying to cause trouble but I am wondering about this.  I don’t want to affect this variance;  I need this variance.  These are just my feelings about the matter.


Mr. Okum said I want everyone to understand that the requested variance is strictly for the 10’ x 12’ utility building.  It has nothing to do with the second accessory building on the property, or the garage expansion.  We are hearing a variance request which is totally different from the original variance request to allow the 10’ x 12’ utility building to remain at 0 inches on the south property line.


Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting that the 10’ x 12’ utility building remain 0 feet from the south property line.  Section 153.067(B) requires that a utility building be not less than five feet from the property line.


The utility building was constructed with a permit issued in May of 1981.  The utility building was constructed five feet from a hedgerow at the applicant’s south property line.  Unfortunately the hedgerow had been planted five feet over on the Chamberlain Park property.  When the building inspector inspected the installation of the building, he approved it, assuming also that the hedgerow was the property line.  IT is the property owner’s responsibility to establish setbacks as they relate to his property line.


The Board of Zoning Appeals at their October 19, 2004 meeting granted a variance for an oversized garage with the condition that the utility building be brought into compliance with the code. 


The applicant is requesting a variance from the board in lieu of this condition.  The applicant gave no reason for the necessity of the variance on the Description of Request and Reasons for Variance Form. 


Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.  No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.


Mr. Squires moved to approve the variance to allow the accessory building to remain with a 0 foot setback in the rear yard (south property line).  Mr. Borden seconded the motion. 


Mr. Borden asked the applicant if he had removed any sheds.  Mr. Bross answered thus far I have not.  I am not saying that I will not comply.  The building next to my house is not falling down or unattractive.





16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Weidlich asked if there had been a survey of the property to know exactly if it is on the line or inside your property?


Mr. Bross answered no, but when we applied for a second mortgage years ago, it does look like it is pretty close. 


Mr. Weidlich asked if the kennel portion was over the line and into the park?  It looks like that on the drawing that we have.  Mr. Bross answered  I talked to the mayor regarding this, and he did not have a problem with the kennel.  It’s my son’s dog, and as long s the dog lives it will be there.  Mr. Weidlich commented so it is still an active kennel.  Mr. Bross added that the mayor said he didn’t have a problem with that but I would have to remove it after the pet passes on.   The dog is 14 or 15 years old.


Mr. Okum said based on the evidence that has been presented, we are charged with findings of fact and conclusions regarding this issue.


Mr. Squires said due to mitigating circumstances as outlined in the Building Department report to this board, it is my opinion that we can relieve Mr. Bross of any unnecessary financial hardship that would require him to move this shed.   That is the purpose of that motion, and I hope the board will support it.


Mr. Okum commented I certainly can understand the situation that occurred regarding the property.  I do not find that the board was in any way out of its charge when they deliberated on the last issue.  I want to make that strongly clear, because when you are dealing with additional space on property and land mass issues and additional storage space, it is not inappropriate for the board to look at all storage. 


This is very unique, because the City based its inspection on a visual observation, which is very common for any residential variance that goes through the City.  Most of the requested variances are based on visual observation of where that property line is.  In this case it is unique, because the creek line which has the Gambian wall system that was placed about 15 years ago allowed some changes to the properties. 


Mr. Bross was not party to the Gambion wall system but you can identify what occurred where the wall system was placed along all the properties.  There has been basically an inclusion and responsibility of those owners of the land between the wall and their back yards.  The fences do vary all the way across those properties, so I can understand why you visually would not know where the property line is.






16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Okum added that staff comments are absolutely accurate.  It is not the Building Department’s responsibility to survey and prove where a property line is.  In this case, I would believe this is an unusual topography issue and you certainly would assume by looking at it that Mr. Bross’ property goes to the creek, and it really doesn’t. 


By the evidence presented to us in staff reports and Mr. Bross’ testimony, clearly his property line is much further into his grassy area.  I’m not saying that Mr. Bross doesn’t take care of the grassy area, but it is a part of the City property, and probably has been all these years.


Based on that, I certainly would support your request for a variance for this shed to be allowed to stay at a 0 setback, considering that it would not affect the adjoining property owners and there is topography that is unique to his property and the others that run along there.


Mrs. Pollitt said I also will be supporting this variance.  It is a very unique situation and we didn’t have all the facts last month.  The whole situation relates back to 1981 and that is something out of our hands.  I would suggest that when someone comes in for a building permit, we have them fill out something that would indicate that this would be the only shed on their property since they are only allowed one, or some communication to them so we don’t run into this again.  Mrs. Webb reported we always ask them that when they apply for a permit.


On the motion to grant the variance, all voted aye, and it was granted unanimously. 


Mr. Okum said since this has been approved, because there is an inconsistency in the motion passed last month, it is inconsistent with the variance was just approved, we will need a motion to reconsider Variance 19-2004 concerning the one item that is inconsistent with what was approved last month.


Mr. Borden moved to reconsider and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. 


Mr. Okum asked Mr. Bross if he wished to make any other comments.  Mr. Bross asked if he still had to tear down the second building, the one next to my house.  Mr. Okum said yes.  The only item inconsistent with the variance just granted is the barn on your property line, and that is the  only item being brought forward for reconsideration.  The rest of the variance stays as it is.   Because it is one item, the law director recommended that we consider it and amend the variance to reflect it.  So that item has to be stricken from the original variance, Variance 19-2004.





16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Okum added that it is a parliamentary requirement.  There have been two variances granted for the property, and now we have an inconsistency   At the last meeting, the 10’ x 12’ shed was required to be moved five feet off the property line.  That is inconsistent with what we have just approved, and we now have to remove that from Variance 19-2004.  The applicant still will be able to build his garage, and still will have to remove the smaller building. 


Mr. Bross responded in essence you are saying that the barn can remain where it is.  I am wondering about the building next to my house.  Mr. Okum answered that is not being considered.  It will have to be removed as required in Variance 19-2004.  If the Board decided to reconsider the whole issue, that would be fine but I think it would be inappropriate for us to reconsider that whole variance without a public hearing and an advertisement to the public so they would be aware of that variance.  We are only straightening out the 10’ x 12’ shed issue, which is inconsistent with the variance that we just granted.


Mr. Bross, I don’t want you to be misled in anyway.  We are just taking care of the paperwork. We are not imposing anything else on you.  Mr. Bross responded I wanted to make sure that I fully understood what you were doing. 


Mr. Okum asked those present if there were any questions on what we are discussing, and no one came forward.  He closed the public hearing.


Mrs. Pollitt moved to amend Variance 19-2004 to allow the 10’ x 12’ shed on the property line to remain at 0’ from the property line in accordance with tonight’s variance.  Mr. Borden seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the variance was amended with seven affirmative votes.


C.     Betty Brady, 11813 Neuss Avenue requests variance to       allow the construction of a patio room 2l7 feet from the rear   property line.  Said variance is requested from Section 153.087(A) “…minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.”


Mrs. Brady said I started out by putting my cement patio in, not realizing that when I constructed my patio room, I would be too close to the back line of my property.  My neighbor brought in a copy of his letter indicating his approval of this because he couldn’t be here tonight. 


Mrs. Brady said I need more living space now that my daughter and twin grandsons are living with me, and.  I selected something that I thought would improve the property. 






16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 14’ x 19.5’ patio room on the rear of her residence, with a rear yard setback of 27 feet.  Section 153.087(A) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.


The residence is currently 41 feet from the rear property line.  There is no other location on her property where the residence could be expanded without requiring a variance.


Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.  No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.


Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance for a 27 foot rear yard setback.  Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion. 


All voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.


William T. Nolan, Owner of Snookers, 12119 Princeton Pike requests variances to allow a temporary banner and portable sign to remain in place until completion of ramp construction (approximately 18 months).  Said variances are requested from Section 153.533(D) “..shall in no event exceed two consecutive weeks” and Section 153.534(D) “Signs  which are not securely affixed to the ground or otherwise affixed in a permanent manner to an approved supporting structure shall be prohibited.”


Bill Nolan, co-owner of Snookers said we need two variances, one for a banner and the other is to put a portable sign on the grass further toward the road, beyond where our current sign is.


The reason we need this variance is because of the construction with the railroad crossing.  Our business is off dramatically.  This is our 11th fall at that location, and we have had the worst September October and November in our history.  Our business is down at least 20%.  A lot of that is afternoon business. 


The road is much more congested due to the timing of the lights, and apparently they have to be the way they are because of the way the train crossing has been moved.  It is very hard to get through that area.  A lot of our customers are missing how to get through the barrels and are avoiding the road overall.


The worst part of it is for the people coming south.  We have a building that blocks the view of the building where we are located, and as you come down 747, the road takes a left hand turn and when you are driving south, you are looking more toward GE Park and you can’t see our building at all until you get around that corner and are almost past it.



16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Nolan stated what we are trying to do temporarily until this construction is over to get our business somewhat back on track, is attract more attention without causing any type of problem in terms of safety or bothering neighbors.


We want to put a sign closer to the existing temporary road.  The quickest and least expensive thing we could do would be to get one of those signs on a four-foot stand.  I believe you have a picture of this.  I understand that we couldn’t have it flashing, but it would give us more visibility with a yellow arrow and marquee below.  Coming south, you would be able to see that a little quicker than our current sign which is set back.  That would be gone as soon as the road gets back to normal.


The second variance is for a banner so that in the daytime people can see that we are still open.  I’m not quite sure what we would say exactly, whether Happy Hour or some type of construction specials, but something to entice people to come in or to at least see that we are still there.   


We are so far removed from the traffic now that none of our signs seem to be working.  I never would have dreamed that there would have been this type problem.  We had been expecting this for 11 years, and now that it has come to pass, I am shocked at how it has affected our business.  I don’t know what else to do from a sign standpoint.  We don’t want to do anything major or permanent.  We are looking for some relief to try to help us get our business back during this interim period, which probably will be another 18 months.   


We would most appreciate your help or any suggestions you might have beyond this to help us survive this. 


Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.533(D) to allow a banner to be placed on the building for an 18-month period.   This section allows for a maximum period of two weeks.  The banner is 3’ x 12’ and has text saying “Happy Hour 3 to 7 p.m. 


The applicant is also asking to place a 4’ x 8’ double faced illuminated portable sign on the property, also for a period of 18 months.  Section 153.533(F) does not permit trailer and mobile signs.


The applicant has indicated that he is requesting these variances because of the significant decrease in business and visibility with the ongoing construction for the grade separation on Princeton Pike. 


Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.  No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.




16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Squires moved to grant the variances for 18 months, and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.


Mr. Squires asked if the portable illuminated sign would say “Happy Hour 3 to 7” also, and Mr. Nolan answered that we may talk about our tournaments; it will change on a weekly or monthly basis.  There are three or four lines of copy that can be put on the marquee portion below the arrow.  It is more of an event type thing. 


Mr. Squires said for the record, I don’t know any of our businesses that advertise happy hours where they can be seen from the road.  Do any of you know of any?   Mr. Okum said content of the signage is something we probably should not go into.  Mr. Borden added we should not regulate content. 


Mr. Weidlich said I came from the north to look at your building, and I had difficulty seeing it around the corner. What percentage of the frontage of the building do you occupy?  Mr. Nolan answered it is 50%.  Mr. Weidlich asked if one of these signs, for example the lighted sign be sufficient since you could see it at daytime and at night?


Mr. Nolan responded I don’t think so because it would be kind of low.  With the barrels being there, you can hardly see a low sign coming north especially during the daytime.  We need to do something to get attention; we can’t do any type of flashing or strobe lights.  We need to do something to get a positive out of a very negative situation. It will be done professionally.  


As I understand it, the state has done all that they can do to help us with that situation.  For some reason they took the existing road totally out of there probably a year and a half before they had to, and it looks hazardous.   It is very difficult to see cars coming down from the north.  It would go up right next to our current sign. 


The building has a grid work of red iron that runs across the front with a tower at one end.  This would go right above that.  It would be made to fit in an area that would blend in with the existing sign.  We think that being up that high would give us some visibility from the street in the daytime especially.


The real issue is the way the road bends, especially coming from the north, and we need to be as visible as we possibly can, at least for these 18 months. We think this should help.


Mr. Borden asked Mr. Lohbeck if the City had similar requests for banners and signage from other businesses in that area, and Mr. Lohbeck indicated that the City had not. 




16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Borden wondered if the City could be sure that it will be 18 months before construction is complete.  He asked the applicant if the sign lighting was clear or colored.  Mr. Nolan answered that the top arrow part is yellow and the lower part is white.  It sets on a four-foot frame and the sign is on both sides so you can see it from the north and the south.  The fact that the arrow would be lit and sticking out another 20 or 30 feet from our existing sign in the grass will give us that additional visibility that we need.


Mr. Borden asked the color of the other bulbs and Mr. Nolan answered that the ones inside the marquee are probably white and the top part is yellow.  It shows up as a yellow arrow and will be approximately 50 to 70 feet from the road.   The road bends, and you will be able to see that coming south.  If it doesn’t work we can remove it; it is a temporary thing.


Mr. Okum said I am totally sympathetic with your situation but I also am concerned about a very strong precedent that could be established right here, because Naked Furniture and Amoco are in the same situation.  I’d like to see you get some help, but I couldn’t support the temporary portable sign.  I have a concern about its longevity and how it would appear over a period of 18 months.  You would have extension cords running out to power it. 


I would hope our economic development coordinator or someone within the city might be able to help.  I would like to see something unilaterally done for the businesses, Amoco, Naked Furniture and Gateway Mortgage, because all four businesses are adversely affected by this.  I would like to see something placed somewhere in the construction right of way area even closer that could bring the business in. 


Temporary signs and banners are not good for 18 months.  They are not constructed to last that long.


Mr. Nolan asked how long that might take, and Mr. Okum answered I don’t know but we have two council people here and staff people that might work on something like that, but in all honesty, I will not be supporting the free standing sign.


If the banner is a vinyl banner, I don’t think it is an 18-month issue.  You were changing of changeable vinyl banners being placed there over that period, because you indicated that the copy might change.  I wouldn’t be supporting this, unless there was something to help all the businesses there, without having four portable freestanding signs.





16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Nolan said we are in a fight for our lives right now.  We may not be there in February if it keeps going at this rate.    We have been very good citizens and have a very good relationship with the police department and we need your help.  This is my life.  What if we rented the sign and put it out there and if there is a unilateral thing that can be done for everybody, we get rid of the sign?  I have to do something NOW.  I can’t believe how much our business has fallen off.


Mr. Okum said I understand.  It is the problem with the portable sign. 


Mr. Lohbeck said I do know that the City was trying to do something there with the signage, and the state would not allow it. 


Mr. Okum commented I was thinking of signage outside the state route, in that grassy area where there is a construction easement that used to be a part of GEEAA. 


Mr. Squires said I feel for you and I know that you are in trouble there, but I can’t permit those mobile signs.  I do report to Council on our business here, and I will pass your concern on to our economic development director and ask him to get in touch with you.  I think something can be worked out.  You need some help, and I am going to see to it that you get that help. 


Mr. Borden asked if there was a banner there now, and Mr. Nolan indicated that there was not. 


Mr. Okum said it appears that there would not be a favorable vote.  I see a person in the audience that would like to comment, but I don’t think you will get a majority vote on your request.  Instead of us carrying this forward and having the question called, we could break it down or you could withdraw it for tonight and we could revisit it next month.


Mr. Nolan commented I would like to do the banner; we need to do something.  Each day that goes by is another day of lost business.


Mr. Okum said so your request is for the placement of a banner on your building that you will be changing for maintenance purposes.  I would be very concerned about it being tethered.  Mr. Nolan added we would also like a temporary sign until something could be resolved for everybody in that area.  I could rent one on a monthly basis.   We could have something placed within a couple of days, and it could be removed immediately as soon as something else was done for everyone.


Mr. Okum responded the problem is that once we grant the variance it holds, unless we shorten the time line on it.


16 NOVEMBER 2004





Mr. Okum said I think I am hearing from the board members that giving you some relief as far as the banner is concerned for a limited period might help.  You are allowed two weeks under our Code and I know that is not enough.  If you were given six months on a banner, that would get the process started and you still would have the opportunity to come back on the other issue.  By voluntarily removing the mobile sign from your request, we can hear the question of the banner.  Would you like to amend your request?  Mr. Nolan indicated that he would.


Mr. Okum said let the record show that the applicant is amending his request for strictly a banner.  At this point do you want to keep it at 18 months?  Mr. Nolan answered if it is six months and we have to do this again, we can do that.  Mr. Okum said the applicant is agreeing to a requested variance for a temporary banner to be placed on the building for a period not to exceed six months. 


Mr. Borden moved to amend the motion to allow a temporary banner for six months at Snookers Billiards, 12109 Princeton Pike, and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. The amendment to the motion was passed by seven votes.


On the amended motion, all voted aye, and the variance for a temporary banner for six months was granted unanimously. 


Mr. Nolan asked who would be contacting him, and Mr. Okum answered that Jeff Tulloch is the Economic Development Director and we will ask him to call you. 


X.                 DISCUSSION


The board discussed making motions and amendments to      the motions, and suggested that the voting form be amended to better reflect amendments to motions. 


XI.               ADJOURNMENT


Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:47 p.m.


                                                         Respectfully submitted,




____________________,2004  _____________________

                                                         David Okum, Chairman




____________________,2004  _____________________

                                                         Jane Huber, Secretary