`BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
I.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at
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
IV.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF
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 –
B.
Zoning Bulletin –
C.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes –
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
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.
VII.
CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
TWO
VIII.
OLD BUSINESS
IX.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
Emkenn Home requests variance to allow the construction of a
1,760 s.f. residence at
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
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
THREE
IX
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1,760 S.F.
RESIDENCE AT 449 DIMMICK
Ms. Todd responded we would have to get
a variance for a setback. We are at what
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
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE FOUR
IX
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1,760 S.F.
RESIDENCE AT 449 DIMMICK
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE FIVE
IX
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1,760 S.F.
RESIDENCE AT 449 DIMMICK
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
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
B.
Lucille and Ronald Bross,
Mr. Bross said concerning this
variance, I feel that
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
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE SIX
C.
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
The Board of Zoning Appeals at their
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE SEVEN
D.
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE EIGHT
E.
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE NINE
F.
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.
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
TEN
IX
C 11813
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
ELEVEN
IX
D TEMP BANNER & PORTABLE SIGN SNOOKERS
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
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
TWELVE
IX
D TEMP BANNER & PORTABLE SIGN SNOOKERS
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
THIRTEEN
IX
D TEMP BANNER & PORTABLE SIGN SNOOKERS
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
FOURTEEN
IX
D TEMP BANNER & PORTABLE SIGN SNOOKERS
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.
BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
PAGE
FIFTEEN
IX
D TEMP BANNER & PORTABLE SIGN SNOOKERS
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
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
Respectfully
submitted,
____________________,2004 _____________________
David
Okum, Chairman
____________________,2004 _____________________
Jane
Huber, Secretary