11/12/1986 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 12, 1986 PAGE 6 King Corporation b ased on the main entrance being set at the west side of the building and figuring the allowable total, this variance shall include the directional signs also in conformity with 1221.06 (E) and that all signs must meet code with the exception of the "drive through" directional sign on the pole sign, seconded by R. Bugala, and unanimously approved. Mr. Remmel sug- gested that the lower directional sign be located so that they do not interfer with the visibility of the drivers. Variance granted. 11. Mark and Laura Weldon, 4591 Martin Dr. Request for variance (1133.13). Request variance to add in law suite (with a proposed exterior entrance in garage) to a single family dwelling. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1151.01. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Weldon. Members had no problem with the request for an in-law suite. C. Remmel moved to grant this variance with one stipulation that whenever it is vacated by the in-law it cannot be used as rental property, seconded by B. Grace, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. At this point Mr. Mandilakis approached the Board and asked if they would- consider an overhang on his shed in order to protect'some"of his outside equipment. He was advised that he would need an additional variance. He also question why he could not have a 6 inch variance for the height when a 6 inch variance had previously been approved on June 12, 1985. Mr. Remmel responded that the code calls for an 8 foot height and there was no reason, in the Board's judgement, to grant this variance and reminded him that each canse is unique. Chairman Remmel called for a short recess prior to some further discussion. Mr. Remmel has some questions regarding the re-hearing of cases after they have been denied. Law Director Gareau stated that if an apvellant is unh appy with the Boards decision, that coming back with a slightly reduced variance without changing the concept of the proposal is unacceptab le and this should be treated as the same proposaland be disallowed. He suggested that some so.rt of regu- lation be stipulated as to what size reduction would be accepted as a new proposal. After some discussion, it was decided that a 25% reduction should be the standard. This should not include someone coming back with a proposal + which conforms to suggestions made by the Board, b ut it was decided that in that case the appellant should be given the opportunity to continue his request. C. Remmel moved that an appellant must wait the twelve months to resubmit a request unless the new request represents a 25% gross change from the original application, seconded by B. Grace, and unanimously approved. Board then discussed cases in which the appellant fails to appear at the meeting. R. Bugala moved that if the appellant fails to appear before the Board during the meeting without notifying the Board that hew will not appear, the variance request is to be dismissed and the appellant must re-apply, seconded by B. Grace, and unanimously approved. R. Bugala moved to excuse the absence of J. Helon, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. C. Remmel,Chairman B, Oring, Clerk of Com?issions