Laserfiche WebLink
BOA MINUTES 9/19/02 <br /> PAGE 5 <br /> fiW Finding of fact: <br /> 1). Of the (3)wall signs permitted as follows: "Capital City Harley Davidson" on North <br /> facade and on the South façade as well as "service" sign on the South facade. <br /> 2). The tower signage shall consist of(4) logos only, 1 each in each of the (4) triangular <br /> pediments. <br /> 3). Applicant is constructing a new motor cycle dealership on vacant lands and desires <br /> signage over and above ordinance requirements. <br /> 4). Additional signage needed to be visible to passing cyclists on the Interstate. <br /> 5). Building is 254 feet long and visible from visible from I-90, US 12-18 and Millpond <br /> Road. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to <br /> applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried. 3-2. (Sayles &Ross, no). <br /> Appeals from Previous Hearings: <br /> #3171. Babiarz—Albion— 1/24/02 P.H. <br /> Appear: S. Babiarz <br /> KLOPP/LONG to re-open. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Sayles, no—Kay, abstain) <br /> too ROSS/LONG to grant,with condition, a variance of 3.5 ± feet from required right <br /> sideyard to permit residential addition as constructed. <br /> Condition: <br /> Subject to Zoning Staff inspection of property to verify inconsistancies, claimed by <br /> applicant, between testimony and site plan provided by architect. <br /> Finding of fact: <br /> 1). Applicant is seeking an overturn of previous denial by Board based upon site plan not <br /> accurately reflecting limited alternative buildable area. <br /> 2). Encroachment needed to accommodate stairway chair lift to disabled mother of <br /> applicant. <br /> 3). Foundation of encroaching addition was site of former porch. <br /> 4). Board previously granted variances from minimum elevation of 1st floor above flood <br /> elevation and variance to exceed 50%of assessed value of non-conforming structure. <br /> (Board of Adjustment decision 3/21/02). <br /> 5). Property is in an area of numerous non-conforming structures with numerous <br /> variances granted. <br /> Conclusion: <br /> 1). Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to <br /> applicant. <br /> 2). Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. <br /> Motion carried. 3-2. (Sayles & Kay,no). <br /> thy <br />