Laserfiche WebLink
- - <br />Ir-NOV 2 n 1985 <br />BOOK C19., FAGE Soo <br />Attorney Louis B. "Buck" Vocelle, Jr., came before the Board <br />representing the Twistee Treat Corporation, which has appealed <br />both the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the <br />Technical Review Committee (TRC). He informed the Board that <br />when the developers of Royal Garden Village went to Planning for <br />site plan modification, the only thing the TRC found wrong <br />originally was a problem with the traffic flow pattern, and they <br />made some suggestions. When this went back to TRC, they then <br />said that they had a new ordinance that may or may not be <br />adopted, and this would constitute a sign under that ordinance. <br />Attorney Vocelle noted that Mr. Keating has just told the Board <br />that the existing ordinance is very specific and prohibits this <br />type of structure, but Mr. Keating in his memo to Planning & <br />Zoning, said that: "The TRC determined that the design of the <br />proposed building would constitute a sign under the definition of <br />sign included in the new draft County Ordinance." In other <br />words, it should be prohibited under the new ordinance which <br />hadn't yet been adopted. Attorney Vocelle further quoted <br />Director Keating as saying in his memo of October 18th that: <br />"Although not specific, the present sign ordinance also prohibits <br />designing a structure larger than 150 sq, ft, functioning as a <br />sign." He emphasized that, as Mr. Keating correctly stated, the <br />existing sign ordinance is not specific, and that really is the <br />basis of their appeal. He further pointed out that the TRC <br />determined that the building itself met all Code requirements <br />and, in fact, exceeds many of the design standards. <br />Attorney Vocelle advised that if the County is concerned <br />about the possibility of the company going bankrupt or moving out <br />in the future and leaving the building, Twistee Treat Corporation <br />will agree to remove the structure at their own expense at any <br />time they should ever vacate. He further contended that while <br />many may not like this type of structure, it does meet all Code <br />requirements, and unless there is an ordinance that specifically <br />prevents it, the Board actually has no discretion to deny it. <br />34 <br />