Laserfiche WebLink
CI'I'Y OF 1VOR7CH OLMSTED <br />"TOGETHER WE CAN NIAKE A DIFFERENCE°" <br />BOARD OF ZONING APPEESLS <br />1VIINUTES -1)ECEMBER 2, 1999 <br />1. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman, Gomersall called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. <br />PRESENT: Chairman, Goinersall, Board Members, T. Koberna, J. Maloney and J. Konold. <br />ALSO PRESENT: Law Director, M. Gareau, Assistant Building Commissioner, T. Rymarczyk, Clerk of <br />Cominissions, D. Rote and Assistant Clerk of Commissions, K. Fallon. <br />ABSENT: Board Member, W. Kremzar. <br />Chairman Gomersall advised that each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to <br />itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judDment affecting <br />properties and like situations elsewhere. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF NIINUTES: The Board of Zoning Appeals minutes of November 4; <br />1999 have been submitted for review. Mr. Maloney motioned to approve the ininutes after the following changes were made: Page 7 line 3, the <br />board went into executive session, not consecutive session and paragraph 2 line 2; should read eYisting not <br />exiting. The motion was seconded by J. Konold and Unanimously approved. <br />Mr. Gomersall indicated there would be three cases involving pole signs and wanted everyone to understand <br />the following information: 1. If variances are granted, this variance is granted only as to the specific relief <br />requested. The City is currently involved in a federal lawsuit and has agreed not to enforce its prolubition <br />against pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. Should the lawsuit resolve in favor of the city, your pole sign <br />will be unlawfiilly non-conforming under City law and will have to be removed unless you obtain another <br />variance at that time. 2. The denial of this variance was based on factors other than the fact that your sign is <br />a pole sign. The City is currently involved in a federal lawsuit and you are pernutted to retain your pole sign <br />because of the City's agreement not to enforce its prohibition on pole signs until the lawsuit is resolved. <br />Therefore, you may keep your existing pole sign, without altering it in any way; or you can bruig your sign <br />into compliance with all other requirements of the Sign Code, such as maximum size, maximum lot signage, <br />and so forth, without any further need for a variance from this Board. He indicated that he would refer back <br />to this statement for each sign proposal. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />Kurt Dunlap: 29275 Hastinfzs Dr. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a shed. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />A variance to build a shed in the side-yard, (code prohibits sheds in side-yard). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.03 dl). <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variance requested. Mr. <br />Dunlap, the owner came forward to review his request. Mr. Gomersall questioned if there were <br />Board Members or audience members who had any comments or concerns they would like <br />addressed. No further comments were made.