11/02/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Mr. Burke voiced that that was his point on the last case the owners could and should be made to resize their signs to ensure each tenant is provided a sign within code and that can only take place if the Board of Zoning Appeals just says no to the variances being requested. Mr. O'Malley advised the board that variances 1& 2 are existing hardships caused by either prior non-conformities, variances, and or other tenants that have existing signs unrelated to the current tenant who only has within their control their own unit. Mr. Burke believed that granting variances 1& 2 added to the non-conformity of the lot and building as the proposed tenants sign requires a 6 sq ft variance which alters the existing non-conformity of sections A& B of the code. Although this tenant by removing the 6 sq ft request brings the non-conformity back to the original non-conformity square footage the last case didn't so the board had a right to require existing signage be resized and should have. Mrs. Sergi reviewed that the reason the Board of Zoning Appeals recommend Council change city codes to require owners be present at the tenants hearings and for all plazas to create sign packages was due to the current site. Mrs. Diver questioned where the owner was as he/she was not present nor did the applicant have a letter from the owners. Mr. Kalina did not think it fair or reasonable to expect Third Federal answer for things which have happened in the past. Mrs. Diver voiced that the board should table the issue until the owners are present. Mr. Kalina voiced a frustration that the last tenants were granted a variance for a larger sign then what they are asking for and didn't feel the . matter should be tabled. Mrs. Sergi stated again that the landlord was not present as required by code. Mr. Kalina stated that he had a letter approving the sign from the landlord. However no letter was shown or submitted for the record. Mr. O'Malley said there was a practical difficulty on the applicants' part and that it would be unreasonable to not grant the applicants request. He advised the board that substantial probative evidence under the standards and functions of practical difficulty standards would not support the denial of the variance. Mr. Burke voiced an objection to legal council's instruction as to how board members should vote on the proposal. T. Kelly moved to approve Third Federal of 26508 Lorain Road their request for variance (1123.12), vvhich consists of a new sign and the following variances are granted as amended and agreed to: 1. A 208.5 square foot variance for total signage on a lot, (code permits 491.7 sq ft, applicant shows 700.15 sq ft), section (1163.24 (a)). 2. A 213 square foot variance for total signage on a building, (code permits 285 sq ft, applicant show 498 sq ft, section (1163.24 (b)). Whicla is in violation of Oxd. 90-125 sections: (1163.24 (a)) and (1163.24 (b)). N. Sergi seconded the motion, roll call on the motion J. Maloney, M. Diver, T. Kelly, N. Sergi: yes, and J. Burke: no. Mrs. Diver advised that her vote was with reservations. Variances Granted Mr. Maloney requested Assistant Law Director O'Malley draft the findings for Joe & Vicki Mate case # 1 and Dale & Pamela Masola case # 2. V. COM1VIUNICATIONS: Building Department reports for September 2006 VI. ADJOURNIVIEN'I': With no further business pending Chairman Maloney adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm. foW Maloney, Chairman d-' Date: % Donna Rotd,'Clerk of Commissions 8