Town Of Plainfield

The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, July 19, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Monnett, Mr. Blevins, Mr. Haase, Mr. Cavanaugh and Mr. Matrana.

ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Mr. Higbee administered the roll call.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Blevins made a motion to approve the June 21, 2004 minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals as submitted. Second by Mr. Monnett. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase abstained from voting on the minutes because he was not present at that meeting.

OATH OF TESTIMONY

Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first public hearing before the board tonight is BZA-04-017, Western Yearly Meeting.

Mr. Higbee said this is a Special Exception and Variance Request for a ground sign on East Main Street in front of the Western Yearly Meeting. You will recall in 2002 there was a sign request nearby just to the west for the Friends Church site. That new sign has since been installed. That particular sign was an illuminated sign that I would call an oversized ground sign. This sign, as I understand it, is not supposed to be illuminated but would be in the same place as a sign that has been there for years. That sign sits to the west to what I think used to be the parsonage of the facility but now is an insurance office and to the east of the other sign that was recently installed there. As you note in your report, it is relatively small in square footage. I calculated 27.7 square feet and six feet in height. So, it is probably comparable to or smaller possibly than the existing sign that is out there and put in relatively the same location.

They provided a sign base landscape so I think there has been no landscaping there before but this would include the addition of landscaping when the new sign goes in.

Back in 2002 when the Board of Zoning Appeals heard the other sign just to the east, this sign was brought up. They knew someday they would be in here for this sign. The Board of Zoning Appeals placed a condition on the site at that point saying that when the additional sign went in, that no further illumination should be applied. And that there should be no further use of portable signs at this site. From time to time we have seen a reader board sign pop up along Main Street at that site. So, I think that is probably where that condition came from.

I didn’t tell you specifically what the variance was for but it is just to allow for multiple signs along the street frontage. When you are in a Residential District and you have a non-residential use, it only allows one sign per street frontage and there is already one existing for the Friends’ facility. So, this would be a second sign. The one that is there is legal non-conforming. So, that wasn’t required to be taken down as long as it wasn’t taken out of the ground. But in order to put a new one in that does require a variance to allow for that additional sign.

I think my report says “allow a third freestanding sign for a lot.” What it should say is “allow a second freestanding sign for a street frontage.” I thought I had changed that and now I see on my report that somehow that didn’t get changed. So, it really should say on page one of report on the top, “allow a second freestanding sign for a street frontage.” I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Mr. Matrana asked, will the sign be illuminated?

Mr. Higbee aid there is nothing in the packet that indicates that it would be. We have a representative back here and they can confirm that.

Mr. Francis Graves said I’m the chairman of the property trustees for the Western Yearly Meeting. I have come with this request because our sign now is getting to the place where it needs to be replaced because of its age. So, we came with a request for a new sign. If you do not already have copies of the proposed sign, I have that for you. It will be a sign created by Plainfield Signs mounted on two large cedar posts. It will not be a swinging sign like we have now but it will be firmly mounted. That is our request.

Mr. Matrana asked, will the sign be illuminated?

Mr. Graves said the sign will not be illuminated.

Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who has anything to say about the sign for the Friends Church? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of the meeting and open this petition up to the board for discussion and a possible motion.

Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-04-017 requesting a Special Exception to allow an identification sign for a church in a R-4 Zoning District and a Variance of Development Standards for the number of freestanding signs on Main Street subject to the following conditions:

Subject to substantial compliance with the site plan, sign base landscape plan and sign elevations file dated June 10, 2004 thru June 14, 2004.
That the sign is to be installed in the same location as the existing sign and no further illumination shall be applied to it.

Second by Mr. Blevins. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Matrana said the next petition before the board is BZA-04-019, Guilford Public Library.

Mr. Higbee said if you will recall from the last BZA, this request was up before for the Special Exception. It is for a sign at the public library, which is also in a Residential Zoning District. However, unbeknownst to us it was an LED sign and we didn’t find that out until after the legal notice went out for the Special Exception necessitating them coming back. They decided to go ahead and meet with you the last time and the Special Exception request was approved. We carried the variances forwarded to this meeting. Unfortunately when I was going through the files for delivery of these packets I didn’t find an additional copy of that in the file to deliver to you. But I hope you remember what it looks like. Maybe Mr. Beam can bring a copy up to show you when he comes up, but it is just a large brick base with a panel, which would be the LED panel that I’m talking about. That brick base is larger than the 32 square feet that would be permitted in a Residential District. In addition the LED being a light emitting type of sign it is not permitted. Our ordinance specifically prohibits light emitting signs with the exception of a time and temperature type of sign like we have at a couple of banks in Town. So, both of those items require a variance but again the Special Exception piece of this was already granted by this board at the last meeting.

A lot of the times under Staff Comments, Questions and Concerns I put in the last Staff Report too so they should look pretty familiar to you. But some of the things that I mentioned were that even though there are a couple of LED signs in Plainfield today at banks those are the only ones that I’m aware of for time or temperature. I haven’t seen any go in in the new Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in 1998. In addition, LED signs, depending on where they are located and the variability of display by some who have analyzed that can be considered dangerous. But depending on how you control that display and where it is located they may not be. So, that has been seen to be an issue by people who have studied signs.

The same issue of illumination exists. Anytime you are in a residential neighborhood there is the requirement of our ordinance that the sign not be illuminated between midnight and 6:00 a.m. It is our assumption that it is not their intention to do that. If it was, another variance would be required.

There were some entry and exit signs that were in the packet when you got the Special exception last week. Those aren’t part of this request but I can approve those as long as they comply with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, which would be no more than six square feet in size and four feet tall. That is all that I have.

Mr. Haase asked, what are we exactly approving? I was not at the meeting in June.

Mr. Higbee said when you have a sign in a Residential District, and the library is in a Residential Zoning District, you are limited to a 32 square foot sign, which is smaller than if you were in a Commercial District, for instance. So, you are approving an increase in the size of the sign.

Mr. Haase asked, is that the size of the sign or the sign plus all of the bricks?

Mr. Higbee said the sign plus all of the brick because our ordinance even though we are talking about liberalizing our ordinance to allow larger bases and exclude certain areas, etc. that is not adopted. That is the last part of the Zoning Ordinance amendments that we haven’t gotten to yet. So, we still have the old language in there that says 32 square feet and if your base is wider than 18 inches, you have to include the whole base.

Mr. Haase said the size of the bricks, etc. is what has created it to be larger.

Mr. Higbee said that is correct because the panel itself would fit but then the second variance is that the panel is an LED. It is not just a sign panel. It is not just individual letters on that brick base. It is an actual LED sign so it is going to be lit and that is specifically prohibited in that section of our ordinance, the prohibited sign section.

Mr. Haase asked, within the residential area?

Mr. Higbee said anywhere except for time and temperature signs such as you see at a bank.

Mr. John Beam said I’m an architect with BC Architecture Concepts in Noblesville, Indiana. I’m the architect here representing the owner on this issue. As Mr. Higbee described, if you don’t have a copy of the sign in your packet, that is a black and white line drawing of the sign. It is a very tasteful sign. The top part of which would be sort of a metal shroud with fixed lettering indicating the name of the library, Plainfield/Guilford Township Public Library and the blank rectangular in the middle is what defines the LED portion of the sign.

Looking through the Plainfield BZA list of Comments, Questions and Concerns the real benefit of this product is what is displayed on the sign is completely controlled by a computer program and controlled by a user in the library. So, if the sign is too bright, you can decrease the luminosity. Turning it off between midnight and 6:00 a.m. is a non-issue. You can set it up to shut off at midnight and turn back on at 6:00 a.m. The real issue and the concern the library is requesting this variance is the amount of programs and events that occur both in the library and in the community that they wish to advertise. That is really prohibited by the system that they currently use, which is an internally illuminated changeable type sign on a regular basis. They run out of room on the sign. There are events they just can’t put up there.

When addressing public safety concerns, there is currently a four-way stop located here in this location and there is an existing sign located in the proposed location. It is more difficult to read and as far as the library knows has caused no accidents. So, as far as traffic concerns, I’m not sure that should be much of an issue.

This is obviously a unique situation where this is a public library, which is for public use and it is for the public’s welfare and it is serving the community. As far as setting any precedence as far as anyone else wanting one as long as no more libraries want an LED sign, couldn’t argue that as your precedent. You just have allowed the library an LED sign. If you want to allow other libraries LED signs, I guess you could consider it.

The library in November of 2002 did a telephone survey of Plainfield residents and one of the questions they asked them is what is their main source of library information for their public library? Third on the list was the sign outside the library so people do read the events on the sign. The only thing that beats that was library staff and the Hendricks County Flyer. It served a greater purpose than the library newsletter, the Indianapolis Star, the library website, brochures, local schools and word of mouth. So, it is used by the public and it is looked at by the public. Based on that we would request that you approve the LED panels of the sign.

We were talking about studies and studies have been done by automobile insurers about what causes accidents and of the top 10 items distractions outside the vehicle don’t even make the list. It is distractions inside the vehicle, which is the closest related one, which is third on the list. But that is children inside the car, spilling coffee, dropping something on the floor, etc. Distractions outside the car don’t even make the top 10. Based on that we request your consideration of this variance.

Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak about the proposed library sign?

Ms. Dana Johnson said I’m a member of the board of trustees for the library. Mr. Beam has certainly explained many of the concerns that the board has brought up. I just wanted to reassure you that we on the board discussed this ourselves. It is very, very important to us. We want to be a good neighbor. We certainly have one of the crown jewels in Plainfield. Much like this building and the recreation center we take our stewardship of that building and our neighborhood very, very seriously. The LED was quite a bit of conversation before we decided to go forward with it. We decided on the LED for a variety of reasons. First because it can convey a larger amount of information than we currently can do. We offer programs for children, for seniors, education and cultural that we would like to be able to let the community know that they are available to them. This is a very easy way to do it but it is also a very clean way to do it. We intend to use it in a very tasteful manner. You are not going to see any large, garish light kind of things. We certainly want to keep it toned down. There would be no lights between midnight and 6:00 a.m. so for us it is a very clean way to do it and a very tasteful way to do it and it is also a very safe way to do it. The current sign that we have is difficult to read. This one being larger and being more clear certainly doesn’t even cause a distraction like it stands now. So, that is what our thinking was when we came forward with this LED and we would encourage you to approve it.

Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone else in the audience who would care to speak on this petition?

Mr. Mike Eaton, President of the trustees of the library said I just wanted to make a point that we try to be a good neighbor to all of the folks around us. We sent letters out to everybody and we haven’t received any response back or any negative response. I just wanted to let you all know that our objective is to be a responsible neighbor. And also to communicate different programs about the library and the community and kind of be a team player with the rest of the community on this sign. We would really appreciate your serious consideration.

Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone else who would care to speak on this sign? Being no one coming forward I would like to close the public portion of the meeting and open this petition up to the board for discussion and a possible motion on the library sign in Plainfield.

Mr. Cavanaugh said I have a couple of thoughts on this particular request and two concerns. One I think it is an excellent opportunity for the library as a public institution to be able to serve the public with the information that they need to display. That is a very valid concern but I’m also concerned about the precedent that we might set for further use for a type of sign that would require a variance in every location. That if we were to allow this sign here, which maybe could be controlled in a more reasonable fashion, that it also opens up the door for more business entities to request this particular type of sign. So, I have actually a few questions for the petitioner regarding the use of the sign and what you might be willing to do or perhaps not do in its operation. Obviously you have heard the flashing nature of this type of sign is something that we would be concerned with. But I really view it as a more modern changeable copy readable sign. I think your intent is to use it for the same purpose that the existing sign fills, however, not have to go out there and lift the cover up and change the letters and hope the letters stay and keep track of the letters and hope you have the right letters to deliver the message that you want. So, I really see it as a temporary reader board in this usage but I have some familiarity with the technology and know that they can do a lot of different things. Do you have a unit that is capable of doing motion graphics?

Ms. Johnson said it is capable of that but we don’t see that as something that we would use. The person that is going to be in charge of actually programming the sign would be Ms. Skirvin, our director and her professional staff. We are not going to have flashing dancing cars racing around, etc. Like I said for us it is very important to have this done tastefully as well. What goes on that sign will reflect on us and silly dancing and flashing graphics is not what we are all about. We have much more information that we need to get out of there as well.

If I may address that one question that you had about setting a precedent with other businesses wanting a variance as well, we do fit two very narrow exceptions. The fact is that we are a non-profit community. We certainly are not a business or for profit or that sort of thing. We are educational in nature. We are community in nature and that certainly sets apart from a lot of the businesses. So, there is very good grounds to distinguish us there.

Mr. Cavanaugh said about the duration of your messages I know with this technology you can have many sequential messages. Is that something that you would like to be able to do?

Ms. Johnson said I think we would like to do sequential messages but a reasonable number of them. It is not going to do us any good to flash the graphics past so fast that it becomes a distraction or that nobody can read them. We would have to certainly work with Mr. Beam and work with the technology to make sure that everything is up for a reasonable and readable amount of time so that it is not a distraction but that the message does get across.

Mr. Cavanaugh asked, would you consider 60 seconds a reasonable amount of time per message?

Mr. Beam said we will have to do a little more research on that. I’m not sure a minute would be sufficient.

Ms. Johnson said they would be very short messages. It’s going to be this particular program with this particular date and time. It is not going to be a very long paragraph that somebody is going to have to sit there and read as it scrolls.

Mr. Cavanaugh said what I’m considering is the fact that if it changes every eight to 10 seconds, it becomes a little bit like it is flashing.

Ms. Johnson said we would not want that to happen.

Mr. Beam said we are looking more at the range of 20-30 seconds per message.

Mr. Haase said the only question that I have on that is your question is very valid and these folks don’t think that is what they want to do at the sign. But two years from now, three years from now, we have a change in members, we have a change in board members, we have a change in management, if you will, who knows what their thought on usage is going to be. We either have to accept this sign for what it can or cannot do as it is and then it will be up there to do whatever it is to do. I don’t think it is worth the board’s time to place restrictions on it. I think they are not enforceable and I don’t think we want to do that because we don’t even know what those restrictions are whether it is 20 seconds or 60 seconds. So, I think you have to look at the sign as it can do everything and some days it may do everything. Under their guidance it may do everything. I think that is how we have to look at it. It is kind of like a wall switch. It is either on or it’s off. So, that is how I have to look at it.

Mr. Higbee said I would like to mention that what Mr. Cavanaugh is bringing up is exactly the kind of things in my research that I have been reading. It has to do with the speed with which the message scrolls. Whether or not it flashes or has animation involved. So, those are the kind of things that have caused concern by those who study this about being a potential distraction. So, a static sign doesn’t necessarily cause that concern, an LED sign that has a static message. Or an LED that has a message that has a controlled speed, however, I don’t know what that speed is unfortunately. We don’t have a standard that says it should have a minimum 60 second or two minute or whatever duration to be safe. So, that would be pretty difficult to do unless you know of such a standard. I didn’t get far enough in my research to come up with that but it was identified as an issue. The scrolling speed everywhere I looked was identified as an issue. I just want to point out that you were right on track with the research that I read.

Ms. Johnson said I don’t know if this helps or not but at least look at it from our prospective as well. It is not to our benefit whether it be the current board in place now or somebody five years down the road. It is not to the library’s benefit to be flashing graphics and scrolling that fast because we are not going to get the information out that we want to get out. It is to our advantage to keep things a lot calmer and a lot more readable. So, that is certainly not a given by any means but we are working against ourselves if we turn it into a dancing/flashing board.

Mr. Monnett asked, what color is the lettering?

Ms. Johnson said red. We looked at both red and amber and the red is actually easier on the eyes. The amber was a little harsh. We thought the red was a softer light.

Mr. Cavanaugh said I will have to say that even though I’m asking these questions about the capability I really agree with Mr. Haase in the fact that if we are going to allow it to be used, we should allow it to be used. And the fact that if we were trying to place restrictions on it, it would become an administrative nightmare and a time waster for Staff because maybe one day something happens and it flashes at 35 seconds and not at 30. I really don’t think we want to expect the Town Staff to have to be the flashing sign manager. Frankly I’m in favor of approving this and I would move to approve BZA-04-019 requesting variances of development standards subject to the following conditions.

Subject to substantial compliance with the site plan, sign base landscape plan and sign elevation file dated June 18, 2004.
That the sign not be operated between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m.

Second by Mr. Monnett. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Matrana said the next petition before the board is BZA-04-020, concerning the Chimney Institute.

Mr. Higbee said these are Variances of Development Standards for the Chimney Institute, which is located out near Perry and Reeves Road. It is off of a street called Commercial Drive sort of on the far deep interior of the industrial park. This facility has been there for at least two or three years or longer. I have forgotten exactly when it got built. One thing that I would point out about the facility that is a little different than many places is that it was built pursuant to the approval of an Improvement Location Permit. Because it was located more than 600 feet from a Gateway Corridor it did not have to go to the Plan Commission for its approval to build that facility. They were able to pull an Improvement Location Permit and provide compliance with our ordinances and go ahead and build. The only other condition that kicks them into a more involved review would be a tax abatement, which I don’t think they had at this site either. So, it hasn’t had to have been seen by other boards and committees before. But the Improvement Location Permit was approved by myself a few years ago. We noted over time additional structures starting to pop up on the site that were not part of the original approval. I listed them on page two of my Staff Report. I mention a storage area, mini barn, dumpster enclosure, wood shed, LP tank and a chimney on the primary building.

And then in addition in the landscape yards even though they didn’t have to go in front of the board they still have to provide all of the basic standards that other developments do. The landscape yard was part of that. They replaced a major portion of their landscape yard with riprap rock. They have some trees in there so some of the landscaping was planted in that yard and as far as I know that is in compliance. But they have taken out grass, or if the grass was ever there I’m not sure, but they put in riprap rock in lieu of that. In addition they are flying a commercial flag, which is a prohibited type of sign in our Zoning Ordinance. We only permit governmental flags, U.S., Indiana flag, etc. to be flown and they have a Chimney Institute type of logo flag flying on the site.

So, some of these items don’t require variances. They just require them to amend an Improvement Location Permit for me to evaluate and possibly approve because they were done without permits. The two that require a variance are the riprap rock and the landscape yard as well as the commercial flag being a prohibited type of flag. I know that the riprap was put there, from what I understand from verbal discussions or information that was given by the petitioner, that there was a drainage easement and there were some concerns about that, about water flow or sheet flow or something off the site and that is why they put riprap there. Actually you have a color-coded document in your file that shows the location of some of the riprap in orange and then it shows some of the structures. I believe some of the structures actually encroach into a drainage easement as well. That is not a variance issue per se because they don’t encroach into setbacks. They just encroach in the easement. However, just for the benefit of the petitioner they need to get the Town Council’s permission to be able to have those structures encroaching into the drainage easement. From discussion with the Town Engineer it is my understanding that he doesn’t have a problem with where they are located from the drainage standpoint. So, it is likely, if I understood him correctly, that if he were to proceed with an encroachment request at the Town Council, that part of it could be dealt with favorable probably. I can’t speak for them but that is an assumption based on what the Town Engineer told me. But we still have the variance issues with the riprap rock and the commercial flag. I would answer any questions that you have.

Mr. Haase asked, what size is that flag?

Mr. Higbee said I don’t know. They can probably tell you.

Mr. Monnett said it looks like a 3’ x 5’.

Mr. Haase said it is either a 3’ x 5’ or a 4’ x 6’.

Mr. Matrana asked, does this picture indicate where the riprap rock is?

Mr. Higbee said I don’t know that it does but there is a color aerial sitting right in front of you and you can see the rock along two sides of the perimeter there, kind of the gray and white type of coloring. It is probably in the same area that I have in orange on your site plan. You might want to pass that color aerial around so that people can get a better idea of what I’m talking about.

Ms. Melissa Heeke said I’m here on behalf of the Chimney Institute. Mark McSweeney our Executive Director was not able to make it this evening. I’m hoping I can answer any questions that you might have. We do respectfully request approval for variance on our commercial flag and also to maintain the riprap rock in the easement.

Mr. Haase said it says under condition number two in the motion that the rock shall be minimized and replaced with grass subject to approval. What do you mean by that?

Mr. Higbee said that was just a suggestion. I felt that possibly subject to discussion tonight and then informing us why they thought that riprap rock was a necessity there. You may choose to consider allowing them to have some of it in the yard but not necessarily allowing them to have it everywhere that it is today. I didn’t know if you wanted to consider that but I sort of wrote that flexibly so that you could consider whether you wanted them to allow any riprap in those yards.

Mr. Haase said there are times that you need some sort of alternative landscaping other than grass because certain conditions just won’t hold. But that was always after you tried to grow grass three or four times and you just can’t get it to take and then you have to go to an alternative.

Mr. Higbee said I had discussion with the Town Engineer about it and he wasn’t aware that there was an unusual problem being able to consider planting grass there. But I thought the petitioner might bring more information so that is why I wrote it that way.

Mr. Haase asked, are those additional structures that they have there? Are they allowed to have those without getting your approval? I know you said the encroachment has to go before the Town Council.

Mr. Higbee said no they require an Improvement Location Permit. The erection of any structure on the site requires an Improvement Location Permit and those placed without that after the original approval.

Mr. Haase asked, so with this motion and their requested variance tonight will they be getting permission to have those structures on there?

Mr. Higbee said my guess is probably or at least the majority the answer would be yes but I don’t really know the answer to that until I receive something to evaluate. I have driven by a few times but my analysis is more of a plan review type of analysis. I haven’t received a lot of information about what is there and what it is being used for and so on and so forth. But because of the location of this site on the deep interior, so to speak, of the center and not requiring the Gateway Corridor type of analysis it is more than likely most or all of those would wind up getting approved as long as the drainage easement issue was agreeable to the Town Council.

Mr. Cavanaugh said the business that you have there I understand is for training where you don’t have retail/commercial aspect of the services that you have there.

Ms. Heeke said we do not. We are a 501C3 educational foundation.

Mr. Cavanaugh said so any participants that you have would be on a scheduled basis.

Ms. Heeke said yes.

Mr. Cavanaugh said it is really not a public use facility.

Ms. Heeke said there is office space. We have nine current staff members in the building.

Mr. Cavanaugh said basically you are in the business of education.

Ms. Heeke said exactly.

Mr. Cavanaugh said I don’t particularly have an issue with the flag being a notification really of the institution. It is there. It is not an advertising flag per se. With this location I don’t particularly have an issue with that. It is not an usual height. But I do think we might want to take the opportunity to revise that riprap a little bit. I don’t know how we could do that. I’m presuming that the riprap is in place because there is perhaps a problem with the drainage control or the runoff control.

Mr. Higbee said I was just reviewing the petitioner’s letter. He does talk a little bit about that and simply says that grass never went in there because at the time of construction he was advised that standing water was a potential problem. So, we really don’t know from what he wrote whether it is a problem. Somebody said it might be a potential problem and when I discussed it very briefly with the Town Engineer, he said he wasn’t aware that there was a problem there. That doesn’t mean there isn’t. To his knowledge from knowing that site he didn’t know there was a problem and this letter doesn’t really document that there was either. So, there may or may not be is kind of where I am on it.

Mr. Haase said I don’t think there was grass ever planted there.

Mr. Higbee said that is right.

Mr. Haase said riprap just went in as an alternative.

Mr. Cavanaugh said the way that the suggested motion is written it seems whatever motion we make is subject to compliance with the other items that are in here. That this motion would not be in full effect unless the other items were complied with.

Mr. Higbee said right because you would have to do two things. If you agreed to all of the variances, you would still have to get the Improvement Location Permit for the structures and you would still have to get Town Council approval for the structures to be in a drainage easement.

Mr. Cavanaugh said so if we were to move toward approval for part of that, what happens if no action is taken on the other issues? We still have at least two zoning violation infractions to my way of thinking and the ILP compliance requirements.

Mr. Higbee asked, which two zoning violations?

Mr. Cavanaugh said the riprap rock and the flag.

Mr. Higbee said if you do grant variances for this tonight, those would no longer be violations and if you don’t, then they would proceed as violations.

Mr. Cavanaugh said it is subject to the other items in here. It is my understanding that if we were to grant the variances, they would not be in effect until the other items were fulfilled.

Mr. Higbee said I’m not sure I follow you completely.

Mr. Cavanaugh said when we make a motion and it is subject to some of these other items in here, “structures shown that are in the drainage easements shall be taken to the Town Council for consideration of approval of any encroachments,” my understanding is that if we were to make a positive recommendation, that it would not be actionable until these other steps were taken.

Mr. Higbee said that is right.

Mr. Daniel said what you said earlier is correct. In the event these other actions were never taken they are in violation of zoning because a variance is being granted subject to those other items.

Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve BZA-04-020 requesting variances of development standards, and I am approving only the request for the flag to be allowed to remain, I am not approving the request for the riprap rock to be able to remain. That should be replaced with grass. Subject to the following conditions:

Subject to substantial compliance with the site plan file dated June 18, 2004.
The riprap rock shall be replaced with grass.
Structures shown that are in drainage easements shall be taken to the Town Council for consideration of approval of any encroachments.
An Improvement Location Permit shall be submitted for Staff review and approval of all structures or improvements not approved as part of the original permit.

Second by Mr. Haase. Roll call vote called.

Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes

5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.

Mr. Haase asked, do you understand that you have more work to do?

Ms. Heeke said yes.

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned.

_____________________________________ Mr. Rick Matrana, President