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
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).
View images
View plain text
James Sullivan, Springlake Court, Vista Royale, spoke in <br />opposition to the proposed sign. He informed the Board that his <br />unit is located on the second floor; his Florida Room overlooks <br />Royal Garden Village; and he felt this particular type of sign <br />certainly would be considered an eyesore. <br />Developer John Lyon believed what people are really <br />objecting to is the ice cream cone and no one cares whether it is <br />a sign or a building. He emphasized that when this building is <br />erected, it will have to have an electrical inspector, plumbing <br />inspector, etc., and it is a building. <br />Don Driscoll, 20 Vista Gardens Trail, believed that he re- <br />flected the feeling of many County residents, who don't oppose <br />apple pie, motherhood, or ice cream, but they do oppose tasteless <br />structures that violate the County Ordinance. Mr. Driscoll felt <br />that approval of this ice cream cone type structure would open <br />the door to many more similar structures throughout the County <br />and next we would have something shaped like a hot dog or a <br />pizza. He urged the Commissioners not to approve this touch of <br />Coney Island. <br />ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed <br />the public hearing. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal of the <br />Royal Garden Village Site Plan Approval because the <br />structure as proposed would be a violation of our <br />ordinance and because the attorney for the appli- <br />cant indicated there was an intent to use the build - <br />Ing in some part as advertising. <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked if Attorney Vitunac was saying <br />that the proposed structure is in violation of our present <br />39 <br />OV 20 1985 BOOK 62 F -AU -E � � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.