19 DECEMBER 1995

7:30 P.M.



The Meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Acting Chairman Marge Boice,

who stated we have an unusual circumstance this evening. The Chairman, Vice

Chairman and Secretary are no longer members of the Board. As what you

might call a senior member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I will sit in the

chair’s seat until we have elected a chairman.


Members Present: Barry Tiffany, Barbara Ewing, Thomas Schecker,

Councilwoman Marge, Boice, William Mitchell, and

Councilwoman Kathy McNear

Members Absent: James Squires


A. Chairman

Mrs. McNear nominated Barry Tiffany. There were no other

nominations, and Mr. Tiffany was elected by acclamation. Mrs. Boice

said before I leave the chair’s seat, I would like to welcome the new

members, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany, and hopefully Mr. Squires will

arrive. Mr. Tiffany took over the chair.

B. Vice Chairman

Mrs. Boice nominated William Mitchell. There were no other

nominations, and Mr. Mitchell was elected by acclamation.

C. Secretary

Mrs. McNear nominated Barbara Ewing. There were no other

nominations, and Mrs. Ewing was elected by acclamation.


Mrs. Boice moved for adoption and Mr. Schecker seconded the

motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes

were approved by six affirmative votes.


A. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 11 A - November 15, 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 12 - December 1995

C. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

D. Report on Planning Commission - Barry Tiffany

E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 14 November 1995



A. Sam & Eleanor Burns requests variance to allow use of house at 11631 Walnut Street as residence. (zoned GB). Said variance is requested from Section 153.083(A) "The main buildings and uses permitted in GB Districts"

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 December 1995

Page Two


Mr. Tiffany reported it is my understanding that Mr. Carl Baker was to be here this evening to speak on this. Mrs. McNear commented I put my light on because we didn’t have a report on Council Activities or the Planning Commission. Since we don’t have a representative for Mr. Burns, I would like to drop this from the agenda, but maybe tabling it is more appropriate.

Mr. Tiffany responded personally I’m with you; I’d like to drop it from the agenda. We have gone round and round on this. Mr. McErlane has put together two pages of history on this property.

Mr. Tiffany reported he came in originally and was not heard; he dropped it, that is how he got back so quickly. Mrs. Boice added we encouraged him to withdraw, and there was a misunderstanding there. I felt when you withdrew his request was considered null and void. I think there was a little difference of opinion between this Board and the Building Department on that approach. This has been an ongoing problem, and I would ask who Carl Baker is. Mr. McErlane answered he is the tenant in the TV-VCR repair business on Mr. Burns’ property.

Mrs. McNear commented hearing that, I would like to suggest that we drop this from the agenda. Mrs. Boice added before we do that, and we’re all weary of dealing with this, but dropping it will not solve our situation.

Mrs. Boice asked what position is the city in to evict? Mr. McErlane reported currently the building is unoccupied, so we are not in the same position we were in last time. Mrs. Boice continued is there a way that a barrier could be put across the door of that property to say it cannot be occupied? Mr. McErlane responded no, I don’t think there is any way we can do that legally. Mrs. Boice commented so we are at a standstill. Mr. McErlane stated at this point as long as it is not occupied. Mrs. Boice asked what we would do if it were occupied again, and Mr. McErlane reported we would issue a notice again. He has the opportunity to come back into this Board. Mrs. Boice commented on the basis of that, I would concur with Mrs. McNear to drop it from the agenda.

Mr. Tiffany asked how many times this property has been illegally occupied over the past 10 years? Mr. McErlane reported four or five times. Mr. Tiffany continued and if I am not mistaken, his own daughter was in there at one point. Mr. McErlane added Mr. Baker was in there at one time, as well as Mr. Baker’s daughter. Mr. Tiffany stated this continues, and unfortunately Mr. Burns knows as long as he is under appeal, nothing can be done to stop him. I am inclined to drop it from the agenda also, and I am also inclined to send him a letter stating that we dropped it. Four years ago when I was on this Board, we had a legal opinion from the city solicitor stating that this was not the direction that the city wanted to go and it was not the thing to do. Mrs. McNear commented should we even bother to send him a letter? He had notice of the meeting. Mr. McErlane reported I think it would be worthwhile to tell him the status and allow him to reapply if he decides to go further with it. Mrs. Boice added I also think that somewhere in that letter it must be made clear to him that he can’t put anybody else in that building. I don’t want to hear the excuse that these people moved in and he didn’t know about it. How do we stop this? And what’s going to happen eventually? I don’ t know the shape of the property, but somebody is going to move in, we’ll have a disaster and the city is going to be faulted for it.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 December 1995

Page Three


Mr. Tiffany asked the maximum fine that can be levied for occupying as a residence? Mr. McErlane reported if we go under the Zoning Code it is a minor misdemeanor and it is $100 maximum. Mr. Tiffany continued let’s put it in the letter. We have to hit him where it hurts. We put in the letter that in the future if it happens, with or without his knowledge, it will be a $100 fine. Mr. Tiffany asked if there were a consensus on the Board and the members agreed.

Report on Council Activities

Mrs. Boice reported there were a lot of appointments at the last meeting, and I think the Boards are shaping up to be loaded with a lot of talent and expertise. It’s a very nice time with everything trying to mesh and getting things going.

Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Tiffany stated Planning considered changes to O’Charley’s parking lot. When Cooker came in, they leased a portion of O’Charley’s property for their parking lot. They gave us to believe that they were purchasing that property, and did not. Now, they are not paying O’Charley’s for the least of that property, so there has to be some modification there, and Cookers will have to come in also. Roberds Furniture requested final plan approval, which was given by a vote of 6-1. I voted against it because I had a problem with the zoning. To me it was putting retail in the middle of some industry and business, and I don’t think we would ever have approved a PUD like that in the first place.

B. CB Commercial requests variance to allow the construction of an additional 7’-8" ground sign in front of Princeton Hill, 30 Merchant Street. Variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "ground sign shall be limited to 1 sign for each group." "The height of a ground sign shall not exceed 7 feet.."

Marie Ellis of CB Commercial stated right now the development has a sign at the corner of S.R. 747 and Merchant Street Originally when Linclay developed that area which now has O’Charley’s, The Sheakley Building and Princeton Hill, the whole development was going to be called Princeton Hill, with buildings Princeton Hill I, Princeton Hill II and Princeton Hill III as part of the development. Linclay didn’t do that and sold the land off, and now we manage Princeton Hill I and everything else has developed around us. GE has pulled out a lot of their places in the Merchant Street office building, and Princeton Hill was one of those buildings last July, when 85% of our building became vacant. We have been struggling to try and lease that space back up. A lot of the tenants coming to the Merchant Street address, especially ours, want to have a sign with their name on it. Right now the only signage we have on the property is this sign which I mentioned before, and two signs like this (indicated picture), directional signs. One is located at the main entrance off Merchant Street, and the other one is off Tri-County Parkway, by the Sheakley building, which leads them into 30 Merchant Street, which is Princeton Hill. We do not have anywhere to offer them that amenity to our building, and we have found that everyone who has come to our building has wanted that so people can find the building. We get a lot of people at our building trying to find 100 Merchant Street, the Sheakley Building, and Sheakley have people coming in looking for 30 Merchant Street.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 December 1995

Page Four


Ms. Ellis continued we want to go with the copper roof, the same quality and design as we presently have, an interior lit sign providing four panels which would give us the ability to provide the tenants’ signage off the road so they can be found by their clients. When I originally talked with Bill about this, he indicated that we were eight inches over the Code requirement, which was seven feet. The other item we need to discuss was the requirement as to how many signs we are allowed to have per group of buildings or one building.

Mr. Tiffany said on your map, can you show us where the other three signs are located. Ms. Ellis indicated one is at the corner of Princeton Pike and Merchant Street, at the main entrance off Merchant Street, and one at Tri-County Parkway. All of our signs are directional in nature. The proposed sign is on Merchant Street in the middle of what fronts on the south side of the building. Now there is a CCR Leasing sign approximately where that sign would go.

Mr. Tiffany commented the existing Sign A on your exhibit is in the O’Charley’s parcel? Ms. Ellis answered I believe so; it is not on our property. Mr. Tiffany continued the one at that end and the one on Tri-County Parkway would be on O’Charley’s also. The other one is on Tumbleweed’s actually. Is that right?

Mr. McErlane reported the one on Tri-County Parkway is on O’Charley’s parcel, and the one on Princeton Pike and Merchant Street is on a separate parcel still owned by Pancero, I believe.

Mr. Tiffany stated I believe you actually need two variances. The sign can only be seven feet high, and the Code also states that you are allowed two signs per business; you are at three right now, and this would make four. Ms. Ellis commented the large sign is 19 feet long and 8’-2" high. Mr. Tiffany asked if a variance had been issued for that, and Mr. McErlane reported that it had not, adding that at the time the ground sign limitation was 12 feet in height. Mr. Tiffany asked about the square footage, and Mr. McErlane responded a lot of that is not copy. If this is under six square feet for copy, we call it a directional sign and it is not included in total signage. Mr. Tiffany commented but we don’t know on that one. Ms. Ellis stated to the copper top it is about seven feet or above, depending on whether you are counting from ground level or shrub level.

Mrs. Boice asked if we have the total square footage. Ms. Ellis answered we do not know the actual square footage of those two signs, but we can get that.

Mrs. Ewing asked if the businesses were listed on the directional signs? Ms. Ellis answered no, both say 30 Merchant Street with an arrow and there is a plaque above that says Princeton Hill. Mrs. Boice commented we really need to know the total, and we don’t have that. Mr. Mitchell asked the width of the sign and Ms. Ellis answered it is less than three feet. Mr. Mitchell continued if that is less than three feet, I would say it is under eight square feet.

Mr. Tiffany commented I don’t know about anybody else, but I am not comfortable guesstimating from the picture. Mrs. Boice said I am not either. I want to know how much we are going to be going g over if we grant another sign, and that information is not available to us.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 December 1995

Page Five


Mrs. Boice moved to table until we have those figures in front of us. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the matter was tabled until the January meeting.

Mrs. Boice stated the young lady who just came in is Mr. Squires’ daughter. They were in another part of Ohio visiting another daughter, and are caught in Lima and could not get any further. He extends his sincere apologies.


Mrs. Boice stated she will not be at the January meeting. Mr. Tiffany asked if anyone else would not be able to attend the meeting, and Mr. Schecker stated that he would not be here either.


Mrs. McNear moved to adjourn and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:08 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1996 _________________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman



______________________,1996 __________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary