My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/20/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
11/20/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:16:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/20/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
View images
View plain text
NOV 2 0 1985 <br />BOOK ti.)2 FAGE 802 <br />building is intended to act as an advertisement for ice cream in <br />that structure as he did not feel it had been answered. <br />Attorney Vocelle felt that is part of it,* and Chairman Lyons <br />noted that he would construe that as a "yes" for the record. <br />Attorney Vocelle stated that while that may be for the <br />record, he does not feel it addresses the point that they are <br />here on today. He read the following quote from a court <br />decision: "All persons similarly situated should be able to <br />obtain plat approval upon meeting uniform standards; otherwise, <br />the official approval of a plat application would depend upon the <br />whim or caprice of the public body involved." He believed that <br />is exactly what we have here with Mr. Keating's determination <br />that this may or may not constitute a sign when in his prior <br />memo, he said the ordinance was not specific. <br />Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that Director Keating does <br />not have a vote; he only makes recommendations that the Board <br />considers. The Board makes the decision and votes the issue. <br />Attorney Vocelle argued that when it comes to aesthetic zon- <br />ing, you must key it into the public health, safety and welfare. <br />Chairman Lyons did not feel we are talking about aesthetic <br />zoning; the issue is whether this is a sign or not a sign. <br />Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating, in spite of his <br />present memo, whether he believed that, under the existing code, <br />this building is a sign or not. <br />Director Keating confirmed that he does and the reason he <br />structured the memo like that is that our current ordinance does <br />not have a general definition of sign; instead it defines <br />particular types of signs. On commercial property, there are <br />only two types of on-site signs you can have - a business sign or. <br />an outdoor sign. He believed the definitions of each particular <br />type of sign are specific and do include structures such as this, <br />plus the maximum square footage requirement. <br />Attorney Vitunac explained for the record, since there is a <br />court reporter present, that all the Board has to do today is <br />36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).