The City of Cortland Planning, Zoning & Building Commission met on Monday, April 9, 2012 at 7:00 P. M. at the City Administration Building, 400 N. High Street, Cortland, Ohio. In attendance were the following board members: Chairman, Scott Daffron, Vice-Chairman, Bill Sasse, and Sally Lane; absent were Charles Peck and Jim Chubb.Also present were Mayor Curt Moll, Service Director Don Wittman, Law Director Patrick Wilson and the following individuals:

 

††††††††††† Darrlene Skaggs††††††† 2425 Northfield Ave NW††††† Warren, Ohio

††††††††††† Douglas Skaggs†††††††† 2425 Northfield Ave NW††††† Warren, Ohio

††††††††††† Melissa Miller††††††††††† 3822 Flory Ave††††††††††††††††††††† Warren, Ohio

††††††††††† Rob Platt††††††††††††††††††† 332 Old Oak†††††††††††††††††††††††††† Cortland, Ohio

††††††††††† Mary Ann McEowen272 Wae Trail††††††††††††††††††††††† Cortland, Ohio

††††††††††† Andrea Berecek††††††† 4116 York St NE†††††††††††††††††† Farmdale, Ohio

††††††††††† Fred Berecek†††††††††††† 4116 York St NE†††††††††††††††††† Farmdale, Ohio

††††††††††† Tom Fye†††††††††††††††††††† 348 Stahl Ave†††††††††††††††††††††††† Cortland, Ohio (Wollams)

††††††††††† Lee Mellott†††††††††††††††† 156 Diamond Way††† ††††††††††† Cortland, Ohio

††††††††††† David Rhea††††††††††††††† 194 Lattin St††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Cortland, Ohio (Fire Dept.)

††††††††††† †††††††††††

Scott Daffron:Today is Monday, April 9, 2012.Iíd like to call to order the Cortland Planning, Zoning & Building Commission. Can we have roll?

Roll Call: Bill Sasse, here; Sally Lane, here; Scott Daffron, here; Charles Peck, absent; Jim Chubb, absent.

 

Scott Daffron:Can I have a motion for approval of commission minutes for the Regular Meeting held March 12th, 2012?

 

Bill Sasse made a motion to approve March 12th, 2012 Regular Meeting minutes, seconded by Sally Lane.

Roll Call:Scott Daffron, yes; Charles Peck, absent; Sally Lane, yes; Jim Chubb, absent; Bill Sasse, yes.MOTION APPROVED.

 

Scott Daffron:No old business on our agenda. Onto new business, I need a motion for approval of 07-12 Re-Plat of Lots 1 & 2 Ė Copperlake Plat No. 1 Ė New lot now known as Lot 1A Ė Frederick & Andrea Berecek.

 

Bill Sasse made a motion for approval of 07-12, seconded by Sally Lane.

 

Scott Daffron: Who do we have to represent this tonight?

 

Scott Daffron:Don, do you want to give us an idea of what we are doing.We just have a small sketch.

 

Don Wittman:Okay. Since you skipped over their nameÖHow do you pronounce your last name?

 

Frederick Berecek:Berecek

 

Don Wittman:You are Mr. & Mrs. Berecek Iím presuming. You purchased the two lots or are in the process of purchasing the two lots?

 

Frederick Berecek:We are in the process on approval of making the two lots one.

 

Don Wittman:Okay.Cortland Banks currently owns the lots.Their purchase agreement is subject to combing the two lots.There is an easement on the north and south property line which makes each of those lots kind of tight to build on. Combing the two lots together they will be able to build a dwelling on the newly combined parcel and have adequate room.

 

Scott Daffron:Whatís the total frontage on 1A?I see 80 on theÖ

 

Don Wittman:Well thatís 80, the other one is a curvature.

 

Scott Daffron:It wasnít written down.

 

Don Wittman:Yeah.It meets and exceeds our subdivision regulations.

 

Scott Daffron:Itís probably about 150 total now?

 

Don Wittman:Approximately. Those were approved as R10 lots or R12 lots when that was originally submitted about five years ago.So obviously our dimensions havenít changed since then.

 

Bill Sasse:Theyíre fine.

 

Scott Daffron:Yeah.Theyíre fine. I was just curious (inaudible).

 

Patrick Wilson:†† Is it in foreclosure from Walnut Run?

 

Don Wittman:I believe it was a deed in lieu of foreclosure. I believe they gave them back to the bank.

 

Scott Daffron:Any other questions? Seeing none can we have a vote on 07-12?

Roll Call:Jim Chubb, absent; Sally Lane, yes; Bill Sasse yes; Scott Daffron, yes; Charles Peck, absent.MOTION APPROVED.

Scott Daffron: That approves your Re-plat.

 

Don Wittman:If I may, before you go on, that will go before council at its next meeting at which point that will be the final point of approval.Iíll get with the surveyor and get a signed copy of the re-plat.

 

Frederick Berecek:When is the council meeting?

 

Patrick Wilson: Next Monday night the 16th.

 

Andrea Berecek:Do we have to attend that?

 

Don Wittman:No. That is not mandatory.

 

Frederick Berecek:Okay. But it has passed here.

 

Don Wittman:Yes.†† You are free to go if you would like.

 

Mary Ann McEowen:We intended to go ahead and close this week as soon as we got an approval from you.

 

Patrick Wilson: The final approval is from the City Council.I would think the bank would want to wait till Tuesday as well.Itís a recommendation from this board to City Council.They typically approve it, but we canít say forÖ

 

Frederick Berecek:What is the address going to be there? Is it going to be Copperlake?

 

Don Wittman: Youíll have to get with me after this.I believe itís going to be Gleneagle and Iím not sure of the number.

 

Frederick Berecek:Okay.

 

Scott Daffron:Moving on.Can I have a motion for approval of 08-12A Ė New Business Ė Tatter Tails Needleworks Ė 134 N High St Ė Steve Miller and Darrlene Skaggs Ė craft business, open 5 days a week, Tues-Sat 10 am to 5 pm, 2 employees, using existing building.

Bill Sasse made a motion for approval of 08-12A, seconded by Sally Lane.

 

Scott Daffron: Who do we have to represent this tonight?

 

Darrlene Skaggs:All three of us.

 

Scott Daffron: Tell us a little bit about your business if you would.

 

Darrlene Skaggs:Itís going to be a crocheting, knitting, and cut work.

 

Rhonda Horn:I know you are Darrlene Skaggs.

 

Darrlene Skaggs:This is my husband, Douglas.And this is Melissa Miller.

 

Rhonda Horn:Thank you.

 

Darrlene Skaggs: Iím going to teach crocheting, knitting, tatting and the merchandise that goes with that.

 

Douglas Skaggs:Can I say something?

 

Scott Daffron:Sure.

 

Douglas Skaggs:Itís going to be essentially the same as the previous business that was there, the Lacemakers -almost the same thing.

 

Scott Daffron:Okay.

 

Bill Sasse:Knox Box?

 

David Rhea:On that building?

 

Bill Sasse:I donít know if there is one or not.

 

David Rhea:Off the top of my head I canít tell you.

 

Bill Sasse:Don, do you know off the top of your head if there is a fire box there?

 

Don Wittman:Iíd have to defer to the Fire Department since that falls under their jurisdiction.

 

Bill Sasse:A Knox-BoxÖ Do you want to explain it to her?

 

David Rhea:A Knox-Box is a locked key box that is attached to your(inaudible) business so if thereís an emergency like someone driving down the street and thinks they see smoke coming from your window. We donít come over and knock your door over we go over and unlock the Knox-Box and go in and take a look around and lock it back up.

 

Melissa Miller:Is it (inaudible)?

 

Bill Sasse: Yes.It is necessary to have that.

 

Melissa Miller:Okay.

 

David Rhea:What you need to do is come down to the Fire Dept. and weíll give you a sheet to send in.You send it in to the Knox Co. and they will send it back.You attach a Knox-Box to your building and then call us up and weíll come and lock it.

 

Melissa Miller:Okay.Thatís perfect.

 

Bill Sasse:Do we do approval on contingent of that?

 

Don Wittman:I donít think so Bill since this is zoning and not the building code.

 

Patrick Wilson:You donít have the legal right to make it contingent upon.Typically weíve always asked and 99% have always complied.

 

Melissa Miller:(inaudible)

 

Bill Sasse:Iím just making sure.The other alternative to them getting in is pretty nasty.They have this giant hatchet.

 

David Rhea:Fortunately some businesses donítshare your (inaudible) for that but the cost of a Knox-Box is the cost of us replacing one door.Which would you rather haveÖus damage the door and frame and everything else?Thatís the cost of the door.Thatísnot counting any carpentry work.

 

Melissa Miller:(inaudible) get in anyway.

 

David Rhea:So it really reduces the cost.

 

Scott Daffron:If you do own it you can take it with you if you move.Some landlords will buy them. Itís on the building and they need it for the next tenant. So that might be something to discuss with them. Any other questions?Seeing none, can we have a vote on 08-12A?

Roll Call: Scott Daffron, yes; Jim Chubb, absent; Sally Lane, yes; Charles Peck, absent; Bill Sasse, yes.MOTION PASSED.

 

Scott Daffron: That approves your business.

 

Douglas Skaggs:Thank you.

 

Scott Daffron:Next, can I have motion for approval of 08-12B Ė New Sign Ė Tatter Tails Needleworks Ė 134 N High Ė Steve Miller and Darrlene Skaggs Ė 3íx8í wall mounted sign Ė located on the front of the store over the door.

Bill Sasse made a motion for approval of 08-12B, seconded by Sally Lane.

 

Melissa Miller:So that means we can go get the sign made, right?

Scott Daffron:Well, we have not voted on it.We are close. I was just seeing if anyone had any questions on your sign.

 

Bill Sasse:Who is making your sign?

 

Melissa Miller:Weíre not sure yet.

 

Bill Sasse:Weíre sticklers on not sloppy signs.I like the one you have a picture of here though and it does fit into our size requirements.

 

Darrlene Skaggs:Exactly the way I wanted it.

 

Scott Daffron:What materials are you looking to use there?

 

Melissa Miller:Probably whatís already up on the building is plywood and they have it mounted and itís painted.

 

Scott Daffron:Thereís nothing there now.

 

Melissa Miller:The other location right beside there.Thatís what they have (inaudible).

 

Douglas Skaggs:What about the sign out by the road?The one thatís a little board about 4í long.

 

Don Wittman:The wall mounted sign on the building is something that this board would have approval over. The nameplate on the sign out front is something that does not require a permit and is there for advertising businesses within that complex. So, those are viewed as nameplate signs.

 

Scott Daffron:The actual sign was already approved out there so you can change nameplates.

 

Douglas Skaggs:Okay.

 

Scott Daffron:Do you have any questions?Seeing none can we have a vote on 08-12B?

Roll Call: Sally Lane, yes; Bill Sasse, yes; Jim Chubb, absent; Scott Daffron, yes; Charles Peck, absent.MOTION PASSED.

 

Bill Sasse:You are all set.

 

Douglas Skaggs:Thank you.Thank you very much.

 

Bill Sasse:You can go now if you want.

 

Melissa Miller:What about the $25.00 fee?

 

Bill Sasse:Youíll have to see Don later.

 

Scott Daffron:Next, can I have motion for approval of 09-12 Ė New Sign Ė Great Improvements Ė 218A S High Ė Lee Mellott Ė 3í6Ē x 7í illuminated wall mounted sign located on the front of the building.

Bill Sasse made a motion for approval of 09-12, seconded by Sally Lane.

 

Scott Daffron:Who do we have to represent this tonight?

 

Lee Mellott:Lee Mellott

 

Scott Daffron:Any questions?Seeing none can we have a vote on 09-12?

Roll Call:Bill Sasse, yes; Sally Lane, yes; Charles Peck, absent; Jim Chubb, absent; Scott Daffron, yes; MOTION APPROVED.

 

Scott Daffron:That approves your sign.Itís a nice looking sign too.Next on our agenda...What do we want to do, open this up for discussion Don?I donít know if these last two items we can actually vote on.

 

Don Wittman:I would have to defer to your legal counsel.

 

Scott Daffron:We can bring them up for discussion.They are on the agenda.I donít know if we have anything we can vote on.We canít change the ordinance as we sit here.

 

Patrick Wilson:Don has made a decision.The business owners donít approve of it.They want to question it and want you to overrule Donís decision.If you want the board to entertain that appeal we can talk with the business owners tonight and schedule it for the May meeting.With the understanding that pending the appeal we wouldnít expect the business owners to take any action pursuant to Donís order until youíve had a chance to entertain their (inaudible).

 

Don Wittman:I guess I was going to go to this procedural rights of appeal under the sign ordinance.It says any decision made by me may be appealed to the City Planning and Zoning Commission.So, I guess you need to Ö

 

Scott Daffron: We need a motion to open up 10-12 Ė 1321.20 - Appeal of Service Directorís requirement to remove banner signs from light poles at Greenwood Auto, Inc. Basically the motion at this time is to open it for discussion.

Bill Sasse made a motion open up 10-12 for discussion, seconded by Sally Lane.

 

Scott Daffron:Who do we have to represent this issue for Greenwoods tonight?

 

Rob Platt:Yes, Attorney Rob Platt for Greenwoods.Before I start I guess I need some clarification with respect to your Service Directorís decision as to which signs you are talking about.

 

Don Wittman:The banners signs that are affixed to the light poles.

 

Rob Platt:Okay.Where the dealership is on the east side or the west side or both sides?

 

Don Wittman:I was not aware of any on the west side of Rt 5.

 

Bill Sasse:It would be all of them.

 

Rob Platt:All right.If we can do it from that stand point because I believe what you have is clearly a non-conforming use of 1321.21(a) and (b) of the cityís ordinances. 1321.21 (a) allows non-conforming uses including these types of signs.Greenwoods has been in business since the 60ís at this location and the (inaudible) lot across the street from Rite-Aid. Theyíve had these signs in place for better than 10 years.These signs have not been removed and have not been discontinued. 1321.21(b) says they must not be expanded or removed.Theses have always been at the same location.Theyíve been the same sizes. Theyíve never been discontinued. A classic form of non-conforming use.That would be our argument tonight to the board and it would be our argument to the appeals and subsequently that Don and the court decides (inaudible).

 

Bill Sasse:I have a question.Was there ever a sign permit issued for these?

 

Rob Platt:I think youíll find that these signs existed before there was a sign ordinance.†† 2009 is the passage of this ordinance.

 

Bill Sasse:Iím talking about the ordinance that defines what a sign is.Anything to entice a client into their business is considered a sign by our ordinances.

 

Rob Platt:Again, as I said, I think itís a non-conforming use.These predate the ordinance.By virtue of predating the ordinance, they are not subject toÖ

 

Bill Sasse:They predate our sign ordinance.

 

Rob Platt:Exactly.

 

Bill Sasse:Iím not sure of the dates on the sign ordinance.

 

Patrick Wilson:There are several versions of it.

 

Rob Platt:May 18, 2009 is the notation in here talking about sign ordinances.

 

Rob Platt:How long have you served?

 

Patrick Wilson:Since í01.

 

Rob Platt:Okay.

 

Patrick Wilson:Weíve amended the sign ordinances.

 

Rob Platt:That sign ordinance, the original, is sometime subsequent to 2001 and to 2009.

 

Patrick Wilson:I think your saying they were even there beforeÖ

 

Rob Platt:Absolutely.There is no question.That dealership has been there since the late to early 70ís.

 

Bill Sasse:And they have never been removed.

 

Patrick Wilson:They have always used that kind of banner sign.

 

Rob Platt:Exactly.

 

Bill Sasse:I have to refer to the legal counsel.

 

Rob Platt:Thatís fine.I just didnít know if you had another question.

 

Bill Sasse:No. Iím still thinking.

 

Don Wittman:Well I did do a little bit of a search for the 659 address Ė the new car showroom portion.If you pull up the auditor photo for that property the flag signs that are mounted to the light poles were there June 22, 2009.They are clearly visible in that photograph.By way of review, our sign ordinance in 2009 was updated and specifically prohibited the flag signs. Mainly it was to deal with the LED issue.That was in 2005Ö the electronic sign.In 2009 we made some changes with respect to size.There were some things I had difficulty administering so we expressly prohibited a number of signs.The flag signs would fall within in that.The trailer mounted signs had been expressly prohibited in 2005.

 

Tom Fye:(inaudible) were grandfathered.

 

Don Wittman:Excuse me. Iím addressing the board here so Iím just going by some review.So in 2005, the portable signs.

 

Bill Sasse:You are arguing they should be grandfathered in?

 

Don Wittman:This person isnít speaking on behalf of Greenwood at this time.I believe itís the next appeal.

 

Scott Daffron:I have no way of knowing.

 

Rob Platt:Anyone who has lived in this community for any length of time know those signs have been there a long time. (Inaudible) other than change the sign that wears out by virtue of the wind.

 

Patrick Wilson:If you wanted to look into it any further what youíd be looking for is any discontinued use for any period of time.I have no reason to doubt what theyíre saying.

 

Scott Daffron:We have no legal documentation that would document that.We have nothing that said that was inactive for 30 days.

 

Bill Sasse:What is your feeling on this Patrick?

 

Patrick Wilson:I donít know that the City would be able to prove that there was a period of time in which the use of the sign was discontinued.Lacking that, I donít see that you have a lot to stand on but it might be worth taking a look at.The City would not expect the dealership to remove anything pending your further investigation and a decision in May.

 

Bill Sasse:We did this ordinance or law and...

 

Patrick Wilson:Ordinance.

 

Bill Sasse:Thank you. We did this for the looks of the City.And we were trying to make a certain look.

 

Rob Platt:With all due respect and since youíre not a lawyer, the constitution provides for zoning to be strictly construed so if itís a non-conforming useÖ

 

Bill Sasse:I understand what youíre saying.Iím just trying to get my thoughts out.Because as a Zoning, Planning Commission, we have been trying to look at what is the City is going to look like today, tomorrow and 100 years from now.And any rules made today are geared toward 100 years from now also.And trying to enforce what we have on the books is sometimes hard.We hearÖ Why?Itís just a banner.You know what Iím saying.

 

Rob Platt:I understand. I hope you understand what Iím saying.

 

Bill Sasse:†† I understand.Youíve been around long enough that I understand what youíre saying, Sir.So, I donít know what to say at this point.Thatís where I stand Scott.

 

Scott Daffron:Well, legally we donít have any documentation to support what weíve said.Don has simply written a letter of our current ordinances and theyíre challenging that with basically that thatís been there the whole time predating that ordinance.So, without any facts to back us up as a City, I really donít see how they canít continue to use the signs.

 

Bill Sasse:I agree with you. Iím not happy about it, but I agree with you.

 

Scott Daffron:We donít have any documentation.

 

Bill Sasse:Right.

 

Patrick Wilson:Your option is to take a vote on the motion tonight based on whatís been presented or table it and put it on the agenda for May.Then you make a decision in May. In the meantime, nothing would be done differently at the dealership.

 

Bill Sasse:Maybe we can do some research.

 

Patrick Wilson:It would be your opportunity to do that.

 

Scott Daffron:If it would satisfy everybody, Iíd like to table this motion 10-12 until the next meeting so we have time to research it and then take a vote on it at that point.

 

Bill Sasse:I agree.

 

Bill Sasse made a motion to table 10-12 to the next Planning and Zoning Meeting, seconded by Sally Lane.

Roll Call:Scott Daffron, yes; Charles Peck, absent; Sally Lane, yes; Jim Chubb, absent; Bill Sasse, yes; MOTION TABLED.

 

Scott Daffron:Next, I need a motion to open up discussion on Ė 11-12 Ė 1321.20 - Appeal of Service Directorís requirement to remove banner signs from light poles Ė Wollam Chevrolet Ė 488 S High St

Bill Sasse made a motion open up 11-12 for discussion, seconded by Sally Lane.

 

Scott Daffron:Who do we have to represent this?

 

Tom Fye:My name is Tom Fye, Sales Manager at Wollam Chevrolet 488 S High St.Weíve been there since 1965.Youíll see us with a row of cars that you plow snow and stones on every week.We have one sign thatís been grandfathered. Weíve always had flags on the poles.We did something different in September 2010.Because they were tattered we took them down.We werenít sure with the renovation what GM was going to put on us for our light poles.Once we knew that the light poles were not changing we put new back up.There was period that they were not there, but they were there during your changes.

 

Scott Daffron:You have to understand, it isnít just these two dealerships.Weíve gone through this with Rite Aid and Walgreens.Traditionally, they like to decorate their light poles with signs as well.So it isnít like weíve just gone and picked just two businesses.We send out I donít know how many letters a year to non-conforming signs.

 

Tom Fye:Is that a public complaint or from the board itself?

 

Patrick Wilson:It can be from the board itself.It could be both, either or.

 

Tom Fye:I could either be someone says these flags are up and they are not supposed to be there or it could be within?

 

Patrick Wilson:That is correct.

 

Scott Daffron:Most of our stuff is complaint driven.Signs weíve been fairly active on to eliminate or just get more of a conforming sign usage within the City.

 

Don Wittman:For example, to the further discussion so weíre not just picking on car dealershipsÖDollar General has a Rug Doctor flag sign they put out in the right of way.These have been shown to be a hazard.Either if itís placed to where people are pulling in and out or they are a distraction, so I sent them a letter to have them removed and they complied.They put the price panel 2 liter pop and affixed it to their actual store sign, that also creates some sight hazards of people coming in and out of that building as well.I believe you guys have that oil change sign that you guys put occasionally on those.That comes and goes. I donít think Iíve ever gotten to the point that Iíve sent a letter.But that is something that is an illegal temporary sign.

 

Tom Fye:What Bill was saying pretty honestly was this is mostly over aesthetics.

 

Bill Sasse:Iím sorry?

 

Tom Fye:This is mostly over aesthetics.You wanted your town to look a certain way.

 

Bill Sasse:Well itís not what I want it.We are trying to make it attractive for everybody. And itís working.Businesses want to come to Cortland.People like Cortland the way it is. Itís one of our ordinances thatís all I can say.

 

Tom Fye:Thereís no empty business buildings in Cortland?

 

Bill Sasse:Not any more than most of the other areas.I think we are in pretty good shape to be honest with you.Thereís probably of 4 or 5, thatís it.We donít have a lot of empty space here in Cortland either.

 

Tom Fye:You want us to stop doing what weíve always done becauseÖ

 

Bill Sasse:Itís not that I wanted it.

 

Tom Fye:When I say I, Iím speaking to everyone.

 

Bill Sasse:Yes.

 

Tom Fye:I just saying you were the gentlemen that said aesthetics.I heard this before in 2005.

 

Bill Sasse:To answer your question, yes.

 

Tom Fye:Okay.Safety is the number one issue.Would that be right?

 

Scott Daffron:The issue is that we have to follow the ordinances set before us.Really doesnít matter what I like or what anyone else likes. Itís what the ordinances says.Theyíve been developed over time by multiple people. This is what weíve agreed to follow within the City.It doesnít have anything to do with what I like or what you like.Itís really about whatís in here.

 

Tom Fye:Safety is normally the number one concern.

 

Bill Sasse:Itís always a concern.

 

Tom Fye:This road was elevated on us in 2005.You can only see the front grills of our cars now.Somewhere between the state and the City that was engineered. We have had those on there and I am admitting to you we did take them down one time.Is there any consideration whatsoever of the business itself?

 

Bill Sasse:Yes.Iím going to be honest with you, yes.When I drive down the street it does attract my attention.That is what those are made to do.Our ordinance says anything that is put up to attract outside attention to the public is considered a sign.Thatís right in the ordinances.Thatís the first thing, the definition of a sign.Also, you have the banners.If we allow banners here then why canít we have them here and why canít we have them here, etc.Walgreens will come in, other people will come in and say why canít we put up a banner because they have a banner.Well, theirs might have been grandfathered in, yours wasnít because you took it down and then you put it back up.That changes the rules right there.Okay?

 

Bill Sasse:Thatís basically where we stand.

 

Scott Daffron:Thatís where we stand.

 

Bill Sasse:We went through electric signs. We put in a lot of time.

 

Tom Fye:We have a beautiful sign that we have that was grandfathered that will stay that way until it falls apart.It will never be changed and updated; itís an eye sore.

 

Bill Sasse:Because itís been grandfathered in.

 

Tom Fye:It will not go down because of your sign ordinance.We could have a permanent nice sign.It wonít come down and sometimesÖ

 

Scott Daffron:If you want to go that route, you always have an option for a variance. If you want to make that portable sign into a permanent sign in a respectable position we have variances for that.

 

Bill Sasse:You can come to us for a variance.

 

Tom Fye:I understand that. But Iím saying, from the ownerís point of view, it will be there till doomsday.It really isnít beautifying Cortland.

 

Bill Sasse:Thatís the ownerís option.

 

Scott Daffron:That doesnít have anything to do with the ordinances because you can apply for a variance.

 

Don Wittman:The ordinance itself is preventing new temporary trailer mounted signs from coming in and remaining.If the owner, out of spite, is allowing his to remain in disrepair thatís not the ordinance fault thatís the fault of the individual making that decision to not remove that sign.

 

Tom Fye:Itís also a part of what youíve established.When I came here 19 years ago we were told this was a business unfriendly town.And you with that question are unfriending the business. To take something that is normally used in the auto industry. Youíve bought cars from places that have flags; I donít know if thatís why you did, but you have. And to put that on us is not being very business friendly.

 

Scott Daffron:Again itís simply an ordinance issue.We have variances and thereís also the appeals process.We havenít voted on anything. I would make the suggestion we do the same thing that weíve just done with Greenwoods in the same respect as we table this until next month to give us an opportunity after talking with the two of you to review this.We really didnít know what was coming towards us.

Don Wittman:I donít agree with the assessment that weíre business unfriendly.

 

Scott Daffron:No.I would not at all.

 

Bill Sasse:Iím kinda offended by that.

 

Don Wittman:Iíve been contacted by a sign company asking to change out the Chevy logo on the pole mounted sign.I treat that as a maintenance item and not an alteration which would require that sign to come down to 14 feet and meet the new sign requirements. So thereís a lot of things we do that you donít see that help businesses on a day to day level.

 

Tom Fye: Would you agree thereís thing you do (inaudible) be it not intentionable?

 

Don Wittman:I donít see how a bright line compliance with no flag signs is going to hinder sales at a location.

 

Tom Fye: Weíre going down through Cortland and we go down Elm Rd and every dealership on Elm Rd has flags and banners.

 

Don Wittman:Has there been a giant increase in sales since the flag signs have been put back on those light poles?

 

Tom Fye:Weíve had the best used car sales month weíve had in two years.Thatís why theyíre there.

 

Scott Daffron:We have to establish this uniform across every business in the city. If I was to give you an opinion, one business has flags, the next needs it, and the next one needs it.You all want to stand out.You all stand out the same whether you have them or not. Over the years, thatís the direction it has taken including flashing signs and everything else weíve got away from.Thatís just putting my opinion into it. As far as what we vote on and what are guidelines are is strictly the ordinance.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky:I would argue that I agree with Atty. Plattís position.I would also argue on behalf of Wollams that when they removed the signs he did say they were tattered.You could consider that a maintenance issue and both will be non-conforming use that would be grandfathered in.

 

Scott Daffron:Thatís not true because portable signsÖ

 

Dee Dee Petrosky:No, weíre talking about the banner signs weíre not talking aboutÖ

 

Scott Daffron:Banner signs are portable signs as defined in our ordinance.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky:Okay.

 

Scott Daffron:We donít allow that replacement of non-conforming signs.They are actually a sign.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky:Okay, but think about what youíre saying.Follow the thought process.If you are going to have those banner signs, theyíre just to leave them up in disrepair because they canít take them down and replace them.

 

Scott Daffron:Thatís the rock in the hard place.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: Then I would propose if you guys canít move forward on a non-conforming use or a variance then as a council person then I would propose legislation to narrowly tailor an exception for these two car dealerships.These signs are something thatís widely used within the car industry.I think you can very much differentiate them between Walgreens and Dollar General.

 

Scott Daffron:Why is one retail business an exception to another retail business?

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: Both of these businesses have been in our community forÖ

 

Scott Daffron:Based on what you just said, why do we favor one retail business over another?

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: Because these are businesses that are community partners that have been formed in this communityÖ

 

Scott Daffron:So are the other businesses.First Place Bank could want banners and stuff like that.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: They donít have them now.

 

Scott Daffron:Maybe they want them.Maybe they feel the same way that you do.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: They have them now.

 

Scott Daffron:Why can you tell one retail business yes and one retail business no.What weíve tried to do is be uniform across the board.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: I understand that but youíre not listening to what Iím saying.

 

Scott Daffron:No.I listened to what you said.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: They have them now.Walgreens doesnít.Rite-Aid doesnít.

 

Scott Daffron:They would have them if we wouldnít have itÖ

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: Everybody would have themÖ

 

Scott Daffron:Exactly, right there is what you said; everybody would have them if we let them.Youíre right.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: That is what a nonconforming use is.They have them now. Then you change the legislation so people who come in after the legislation donít have the benefit of a non-conforming use.

 

Scott Daffron:I agree.But itís still the same issue. Even though your business has been here for 50 years you canít put a non-conforming sign.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: Not now but if you had one up, it can stay up.

 

Scott Daffron:No.

 

Dee Dee Petrosky: Yes.

 

Bill Sasse:Scott, can I make a motion we can table this until the next meeting.

 

Scott Daffron:Weíll do the same thing we did with Greenwoods to give it some more thought and a little bit of research within ourselves. Then, next meeting weíll approach this with a vote.Like I said, you still have an appeals process at that point.

 

Patrick Wilson:It would be an opportunity if you feel like you forgot to say something tonight.There would be a little further discussion before they vote.It will be on the agenda to invite you back for that purpose if youíd like to come.

 

Rob Platt:Mr. Chairman, if I may, will we be notified of the next meeting?Should we calendar that now?

 

Don Wittman:The second Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m.

 

Bill Sasse made a motion to table 11-12 to the next Planning and Zoning Meeting, seconded by Sally Lane.

Roll Call:Scott Daffron, yes; Jim Chubb, absent; Sally Lane, yes; Charles Peck, absent; Bill Sasse, yes; MOTION TABLED.

 

Scott Daffron:Anything else for discussion?Can I have a motion for adjournment?

 

Bill Sasse made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Sally Lane.

Roll Call: Sally Lane, yes; Bill Sasse, yes; Jim Chubb, absent; Scott Daffron, yes; Charles Peck, absent; MOTION APPROVED.

 

Meeting Adjourned: 7:48pm.

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† _ ††††††††††† ____††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† ___________________

Scott Daffron, Chairman †††††††††††††††††† Date††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Rhonda Horn, Secretary