Loading...
2009-12-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes Appaifil REGULAR MEETING AS S0-t6ty\cue), BUFFALO GROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS a-I R 0 i v DECEMBER 15, 2009 Chairman Entman called the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 in the Council Chambers of the Village Hall, 50 Raupp Boulevard. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Stein Commissioner Windecker Commissioner Shapiro Chairman Entman Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Dunn Commissioner Lesser Commissioner Au Also Present: Brian Sheehan, Deputy Building Commissioner William Raysa, Village Attorney Lisa Stone, Village Trustee APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 2009 minutes: Corn. Windecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting held on Tuesday, November 17, 2009. Com. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY —None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Minutes approved as submitted. BUSINESS 1200 SCOTTISH PINE COURT, MICHAEL AND KAREN CUTLER — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ADDITION ON THE REAR OF THE HOME THAT WOULD ENCROACH A DISTANCE OF 13.2 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK Mr. Michael Cutler, 2900 Scottish Pine Court, and Mr. Andrew Venamore, Airoom, Inc., 6825 N. Lincoln, Lincolnwood, Illinois 60172, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 20, 2009 was read. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 1 of 11 — DECEMBER 15, 2009 LA 441.i Mr. Venamore explained that the project is two-fold. There are proposed additions at the front of the home and an addition in the rear. The additions at the front of the home comply with zoning regulations. The addition onto the rear requires a variation for setback. The main focus of the project is interior remodeling that then necessitated some changes to the footprint of the home. The current mud room off of the garage is rather small. As shown on Sheet 3 of the submittal (existing floor plan) the room that contains the washer, dryer and slop sink is directly off the kitchen. Not only is that an awkward place for it but there is no pantry available to the kitchen. The existing office adjacent to the garage and the front foyer is going to become the mud room. The existing office space will be relocated on the first floor to the proposed addition onto the rear of the home. The homeowner does a lot of work out of his home. He is in medical device sales. He is required to store the medical equipment in a warm environment and cannot be located in the garage. There is a necessity to maintain a home office. The best location for the new office was off the back of the home. The homeowners are also proposing to redesign the master bathroom. The existing bathroom layout as shown on Sheet 5 of the submittal is an inefficient and awkward layout. The toilet, tub and shower are enclosed in a rather tiny little room. There are two sinks on either side and two closets off to the side. They are proposing to relocate the master bath to the second story portion of the addition and to add two walk in closets. The homeowners took into consideration matching the existing style of the home in both architectural and a finished material nature. They will add brick to the front of the home where the garage addition is going. They are creating a new roofed-over entry. The materials will also match the existing construction for the addition on the rear of the home. The plan has been reviewed by the Appearance Review Team (ART). The hardship behind the request is in the irregular nature of the lot. As seen on the Plat of Survey, the home is located on the edge of a cul de sac. So as the west side of the property curves to accommodate the circular nature of the cul de sac, the home is pushed further back on the lot which is a-typical compared to the interior lots. Mr. Venamore presented exhibits from the neighbors that were accepted and marked as Group Exhibit "F". Group Exhibit "F" are signatures of surrounding property owners that would be directly affected by the proposed addition indicating they have no objection to the proposal. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated December 1, 2009 which states: I have no comments on the proposal except that the existing sump pump discharge and service line are in the project area and need to be relocated." Mr. Venamore is aware of this report. Ch. Entman reviewed the ART minutes from December 1, 2009. Corn. Windecker asked if they have already started work on the project as there is a large tarp covering something in the rear yard. Mr. Venamore explained that they are anticipating that they will be able to begin work in February or March. At that point, there could be a couple of feet of snow on the ground. They put straw down, then heavy visqueen and plastic over the area to keep the area from freezing. Ch. Entman asked how the existing office compares to the proposed office. Is it larger? Mr. Venamore stated that the proposed office will be a bit larger but close to the same size. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 of 11 — DECEMBER 15, 2009 There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no L.J questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Airoom, Inc., 6825 N. Lincoln, Lincolnwood, Illinois on behalf of Michael and Karen Cutler, 2900 Scottish Pine Court, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.20.040, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a two-story addition on the rear of the home that would encroach a distance of 13.2 feet into the required 40 foot rear yard setback. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated December 1, 2009 and the ART minutes dated December 1, 2009. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed two-story addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Com. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — December 31, 2009. 730 JOEL LANE, JACK AND JULIE BROWN — ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 17.40.020, TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON ROOM ON THE REAR OF THE HOME THAT WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK BY A DISTANCE OF 9.75 FEET AT THE SOUTH END OF THE THREE- SEASON ROOM AND A DISTANCE OF 10.25 FEET AT THE NORTH END Mr. Jack and Julie Brown, 730 Joel Lane, were present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 20,2009 was read. Mrs. Brown explained they live on a corner lot. The lot is not fenced in and they do not have a lot of privacy being On a corner. They would like to construct a three-season room coming off the back of the house. The three-season room will be constructed of materials to match the existing construction of the house. They will be using a contractor that has worked in Buffalo Grove and is familiar with the regulations. They have spoken to and received signatures from three (3) of the five (5) neighbors that would be directly affected by the three-season room. Two (2) of the neighbors were not home. Mrs. Brown submitted the signatures which were marked as Exhibit «F,, Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated November 30, 2009 which states: "I have no comments on the proposal except that the existing sump pump discharge and service line are in the project area and may need to be relocated." ZONING BOARD OF.APPEALS PAGE 3 of 11 —DECEMBER 15, 2009 Ch. Entman reviewed the ART minutes dated December 1, 2009. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Stein made the following motion: I move we grant the request made by Jack and Julie Brown, 730 Joel Lane, for variance of Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.40.020, pertaining to Area, Height, Bulk and Placement Regulations, for the purpose of constructing a three-season room on the rear of the home that would encroach into the required 40 foot rear yard setback by a distance of 9.75 feet.at the south end of the three-season room and a distance of 10.25 feet at the north end. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated November 30, 2009 and the ART minutes dated December 1, 2009. Materials to match the existing construction in like kind and quality. The Petitioner has demonstrated hardship and unique circumstances. The proposed three-season room will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Corn. Shapiro seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Findings of Fact attached. Permit may be issued in fifteen (15) days — December 31, 2009. 1700 LEIDER LANE, PEERLESS BRIDGE, LLC — SIGN CODE, SECTIONS 14.20.050 AND 14.20.070, TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE GROUND SIGN ON THE DEVELOPED PARCEL; TO ALLOW THE CORPORATE PARK IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FEET OF THE TENANT IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON THE SAME PARCEL; AND TO ALLOW THE CORPORATE PARK IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN AND THE TENANT IDENTIFICATION GROUND SIGN TO BE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FEET OF THE TWO EXISTING GROUND SIGNS LOCATED ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AT 1701 LEIDER LANE Mr. Mark Christensen, Peerless Bridge, LLC, 700 Commerce Court, Suite 160, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523,was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 20, 2009 was read. Mr. Christensen explained that he had been previously before Board a couple months ago for the Sign Code variations for 1650 Leider Lane and 1701 Leider Lane. Previous variations for these signs were approved but permits were not applied for within the six (6) month period and the variations expired. This request is for two (2) ground signs on this parcel, both of which would ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 of 11 —DECEMBER 15,2009 be within two hundred fifty (250) feet of each other and the ground signs at 1701 Leider Lane. The signs are the same as what was previously approved. Ch. Entman read the Village Engineer's memorandum addressed to Brian Sheehan dated November 30, 2009 which states: "The is a Village watermain in the vicinity of the Park Ground Sign which needs to be taken into account when siting this sign." Mr. Christensen has seen this report. Ch. Entman reviewed the ART minutes dated December 1, 2009. Ch. Entman asked about the intended use of the tenant panels. Mr. Christensen stated that the intended use is more likely multi-tenancy. The building is designed for multi-tenants. Currently the building is occupied approximately thirty (30) to forty (40) percent by one (1) tenant on a short term basis. The building can be divided or could be occupied by one (1) single user. The multi-tenant panel sign would give them the flexibility to identify multiple tenants. Ch. Entman asked about the proposed landscaping. Mr. Christensen stated that the landscaping would be similar to the landscaping provided for the other ground signs at 1701 Leider Lane. Corn. Shapiro stated that the multi-tenant sign makes sense. The corporate park ground sign is shown on the color rendering to have a tenant panel. Mr. Christensen stated that the tenant panel on the corporate park ground sign is intended for a full building user. Com. Shapiro asked what would then be listed on the multi-tenant identification ground sign. Mr. Christensen replied that the tenant identification ground sign would be a building directory sign. The tenant identification ground sign would not be seen from the road. It is not intended to be seen from the road. Visitors would enter the property and come across the tenant identification ground sign. It would be located near the front entry as depicted on the site plan. The sign would designate tenant #1, tenant #2, etc. Com. Shapiro asked if the building was occupied by a single tenant, what would be the purpose of the tenant identification ground sign. Mr. Christensen stated that if that were the case, there probably would not be a need to use it. They currently are planning on installing these signs in anticipation of multi-tenant leases. They are fortunate that they currently have a tenant in the building but it is for a short term. This tenant could relocate; they are not sure at this time. They need the multi-tenant panel sign in place so if they put a tenant in there they need to provide them identification signage. One of the reasons he is here is because no one followed through and applied for the permits after these signs were previously approved. Corn. Shapiro stated that he can understand the need for the corporate park ground sign now as the building is there. He believes that the multi-tenant identification ground sign is premature to approve. If there were multiple tenants in the building already, then the sign would make sense. He can not support the tenant identification ground sign not knowing how it will be used. Mr. Christensen stated that the same tenant identification ground sign has been approved at the 1701 Leider Lane building. Com. Windecker confirmed that the signs at both 1700 and 1701 Leider Lane would match each other. The corporate park ground is to identify the park as a whole. So on the corporate park ground sign, why would only one (1) tenant be identified and not the entire corporate park. Mr. Christensen replied that if they were to have a tenant on the corporate park ground sign it would ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 of 11 —DECEMBER 15, 2009 be the tenant in the 1700 Leider Lane building. The Leider Greenhouse sign is located on the east parcel already. Corn. Windecker asked how does the 1700 Leider Lane building differ from the 1701 Leider Lane building. Mr. Christensen stated that the buildings are virtually the same. Corn. Windecker stated that he realizes that and that is why is he is asking if the Petitioner will come back and ask for a ground sign on the 1701 Leider Lane parcel. The corporate park ground sign is supposed to identify the entire complex as opposed to identifying just the one building. Mr. Christensen replied that their expectation is that signage is allowed on the buildings and if a tenant comes in and wants real visible signage they can pursue a wall sign on the building. That would go through the normal permitting process. If a tenant were to come along for the 1701 Leider Lane building and ask for their name on a ground sign along the frontage, then they will pursue another variation. Corn. Windecker again stated that he believed that the corporate park ground sign would cover both properties. Mr. Christensen stated that the primary intent is to identify the entire project. It is remote in his mind that if a tenant wanted their name on a ground sign, the corporate park ground sign could accommodate that. Mr. Christensen asked if the Board could make the variation conditional upon having the Petitioner come back if they ever wanted to add a tenant onto the ground sign. They have no immediate plans to put any tenants name on the corporate park ground sign. Corn. Windecker believes that they should be identifying the industrial park on the corporate park ground sign only and have any tenants identified on the tenant identification signs. The original intent was for one (1) corporate park ground sign and two (2)tenant identifications ground signs to identify the tenants in the building. Mr. Christensen stated that they are not hung up and having a tenants name on the corporate park ground sign. Corn. Windecker stated that he would recommend not having any tenants identified on the corporate park ground sign. Ch. Entman stated that it is not unique to have proposed to the Board signage that is speculative. Building owners would like to have signage up when they are starting to lease or trying to attract tenants. The corporate park ground sign should be the one to identify the corporate park. They need identification for tenants as the come in. That is understandable. Whether it is one (1)tenant per building or multiple tenants seems to be the question. There is no question that the Petitioner will want signage. It seems that at this stage the Board is being asked to approve signage not knowing what the use of the building will be. He believes that was the concern of the ART. The Zoning Board wants to grant signage that meets the needs as they exist and not the need that might arise. The Board knows that there is corporate park there. A monument sign to identify that makes sense. Then as tenants are obtained, the Petitioner can come back and address those needs. The Petitioner was advised that he can proceed with his request as submitted or he can amend his petition. Mr. Christensen stated that he was confused. Ch. Entman stated that the Petitioner has two (2) signs that are being proposed; one (1) for the corporate park ground sign and one (1) for the tenant identification sign. The Zoning Board is suggesting that the request for the tenant identification sign is premature. Mr. Christensen asked even though the tenant identification sign was already approved at the other building and this sign was previously approved for this building. Ch. Entman responded yes. He added that the Petitioner can ask the Board to vote on it as submitted. Mr. Christensen asked if the Board could vote on each sign separately. Ch. Entman stated that they would vote on them separately. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 of 11 —DECEMBER 15, 2009 The Petitioner amended his request to remove tenant identification on the corporate park ground sign. He did not amend any other part of his request. Corn. Shapiro asked Mr. Sheehan when the tenant identification sign was approved for the other building was there a standard set concerning the size of the lettering for the tenant panels. Mr. Sheehan stated that the sign was the same as the proposed tenant identification ground sign. There were no stipulations as to the lettering or anything else. As they lease to tenants, a tenant panel will be added to the sign. Ch. Entman stated that the corporate park ground sign as previously proposed did not contain any tenant identification. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Shapiro made the following single motion that will be voted on separately for each of the two signs: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the amended request made by Peerless Bridge, LLC, 700 Commerce Drive, Suite 160, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523 for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.20.050, pertaining to Industrial Districts; and Section 14.20.070, pertaining to Ground Signs, for the purpose of allowing more than one ground sign on the developed parcel; to allow the corporate park identification ground sign to be located within two hundred fifty feet of the tenant identification ground sign to be located on the same parcel; and to allow the corporate park identification ground sign and the tenant identification ground sign to be located within two hundred fifty feet of the two existing ground signs located on the same side of the street at 1701 Leider Lane. Subject to the Village Engineer's memorandum dated November 30, 2009 and the ART minutes dated December 1, 2009. Approval subject to the removal of any tenant identification on the corporate park ground sign. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Corn. Windecker seconded the motion. This is a vote on the motion for the Corporate Park Identification Ground Sign only. Corporate Park Identification Ground Sign Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY—None ABSTAIN—None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the January 4,2010 Village Board agenda. Before they move on to the second motion Corn. Windecker said he had a question about the sign at 1701 Leider Lane. Corn. Windecker asked if any of that building is currently rented. Mr. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 of 11 —DECEMBER 15,2009 Christensen stated that the building is fully leased at this time. Com. Windecker asked how many tenants are occupying that building. Mr. Christensen stated that one (1) tenant occupies that building. However it is a short term lease. Corn. Windecker asked about 1700 Leider Lane. Mr. Christensen stated that the same tenant that is occupying 1701 Leider Lane is also occupying some space at 1700 Leider Lane. Corn. Windecker confirmed that both buildings could have no tenants shortly. Mr. Christensen stated that they continue to actively market the buildings. The leases are on a month to month basis. The commissioners then moved on to the second portion of the motion. This is a vote on the motion for the Tenant Identification Ground Sign only. Tenant Identification Ground Sign Roll Call Vote: AYE—Stein NAY—Windecker, Shapiro, Entman ABSTAIN—None Motion Denied. 3 to 1. Petitioner advised of their right to appeal this decision to the Village Board. 195 W. DUNDEE ROAD, DENGEO'S RESTAURANT — SIGN CODE, SECTION 14.40.125, TO INSTALL A ROOF SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING Mr. Louis Atsaves, Dengeo's Restaurant, 195 W. Dundee Road, was present and sworn in. The public hearing notice published in the Daily Herald on November 25,2009 was read. Mr. Atsaves explained the he was originally approved for the sign. He was not approved for "Welcome to" and "Est. 1972". This is on all the signs at both locations. This was an oversight on his end and he apologized. He is asking for the Board to approve the additional language on the sign. Ch. Entman reviewed the ART minutes from December 1, 2009. Ch. Entman recalls that a variance was previously approved but what was actually installed was a roof sign that says "Welcome to Dengeo's Est. 1972". How did that sign get installed with the extra language on it if the one that was approved was just the name of the business? Mr. Atsaves does not know. Ch. Entman asked if it was the sign contractor, the Petitioner, who? Mr. Atsaves is not one hundred (100) percent sure. They have had a very sick member of their family who passed away the Saturday before last. For the last six (6)months he has been running around like a chicken with his head cut off. He stated that it was probably his fault. Com. Windecker stated that there were two (2) ART meetings with the architect and the Petitioner and nothing was mentioned about the additional language. Then there was testimony at the previous public hearing that did not include the additional language. But the additional language was being used in the local advertising. Then the sign goes up on the building in defiance of the approved sign. This now puts the Board in a position where they have to legislate ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 of 11 —DECEMBER 15, 2009 approval for the new sign. If everyone decides to make a mistake, then they expect the Board to �.J approve it after the fact. The draw back here is that on the two (2) other signs, the west wall sign and the ground sign the additional language is shown. Mr. Atsaves stated that he understands and that nothing was done intentionally. Corn. Windecker stated that he realizes that nothing is ever done intentionally. Mr. Atsaves stated that if he would have caught the mistake in time he would have taken it off the sign but by the time he caught it, it was too late. He is not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. He was just trying to rehab the building and the signage to make it better for the neighborhood. It was an honest mistake. Corn. Stein stated that when the sign previously went before the Board, he was in favor of the additional language on the ground sign even though the ground sign was not subject to the variation. In order to identify what Dengeo's is going down Dundee Road, you need to know what Dengeo's is; Gyros, etc. Had the proposal come to him up front, what would he have been looking at to approve. Not knowing that prior to five (5) minutes ago that the logo now reads "Welcome to Dengeo's Est. 1972". The Petitioner wants to identify a business. Dengeo's is definitely identifying a business and he can say that "Dengeo's Est. 1972" is identifying the business. The "Welcome to" he thinks goes nicely on a door. Is it so much of a problem that he would have voted in favor of it?He does not know. The problem he is looking at right now,if the Board was to approve the "Welcome to" and the changes after the fact, is the Board setting a precedence. If it is a national logo, the Board allows the sign, if it is not a national logo; the Board has a different standard for those types of signs. Corn. Stein asked Mr. Raysa that if this is a logo is the Board safer approving the change had it not been their logo. Mr. Raysa stated that each individual petition stands on its own. It does not set a precedent. Ch. Entman understands the Petitioner's situation. The Board has seen this type of situation a number of times. Whether it is done intentionally is not the issue. The issue is that when the Board gets something like this where the Petitioner has gone through the process for approval and then something is brought up after the fact it puts the Board in a weird position. Now the Board has to maintain its responsibility to the Village to do what they feel is best. Under normal circumstances if this sign would have been proposed with the actual language, the Board would have had the opportunity to discuss and decide if they liked it or not and voted accordingly. He does not like this situation. He has seen it too much. The rules are the rules and they should be enforced. If the Board wanted to, they could actually go deeper and find out exactly what happened. Because these things just don't happen without somebody doing something. This sign does not get extra language added for no reason. Somebody caused that extra language on that sign. Somebody had to prepare it. Somebody looked it over and signed off on it. Somebody watched the sign go up. There were a lot of things that went on that allowed the sign to be changed. So does the Board enforce the variance that was granted or does the Board have to sit here now and try and to determine if the Petitioner would be suffering a hardship to change the sign. Does this sign look bad, is it more cumbersome, is it larger? Of course not. But the question is how many times does the Board do this. His original opinion was too bad, take it down, replace it. But in this case, he does not see a major issue with the size or anything. He is not happy and he can guarantee that the rest of the Board is not happy. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 of 11 —DECEMBER 15, 2009 Mr. Atsaves replied that he did not notice the difference until the inspector told him that the sign did not match the rendering. He would not have put the sign up if he did not believe that is what was approved. He did not spend thirty-nine thousand ($39,000.00) dollars on brand new signs to have to go before the Board again and look like an idiot. Ch. Entman stated that he will not vote against the sign because of the cost involved and because of the economy involved and because of the effect it could have on the Petitioner and the business. Corn. Stein asked if the "Welcome to" can be removed from the sign without making the sign look bad. Mr. Atsaves stated that his sign contractor stated that the sign would look worse if they covered that up. Ch. Entman stated that the change is minimal based on the size of the sign. As long as it does not say something offensive or a violation of the other restrictions, he would suggest looking at it as a whole and not picking the sign apart. Corn. Stein stated that he will vote the way he will vote because this evidently is now the logo at both stores. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Corn. Windecker made the following motion: I move we recommend to the Village Board to grant the request made by Dengeo's Restaurant, 195 W. Dundee Road, for variance of Sign Code, Section 14.40.125, pertaining to Roof Signs, for the purpose of allowing the roof sign on the north elevation of the building as installed pursuant to Exhibit "E". Subject to the ART minutes December 1, 2009. Pursuant to Sign Code, Section 14.44.010, Sub-section B. Corn. Stein seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYE — Stein, Windecker, Shapiro, Entman NAY — None ABSTAIN — None Motion Passed 4 to 0. Item to appear on the January 4, 2010 Village Board agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Raysa wished everyone a Happy Holiday. Mr. Sheehan advised the Zoning Board that staff is moving along with reviewing the Sign Code. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 of 11 — DECEMBER 15, 2009 Corn. Windecker mentioned the banner at the corner of Weiland and Pauline that was up for three and one half(3-1/2) months without a permit. He suggests that they be advised to apply for a variation or remove the banner. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Corn. Stein and seconded by Corn. Windecker. Voice Vote—AYE was unanimous. Ch. Entman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Submitted by, idt JA),_ ._ )/n61410 - J e Kamka Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 of 11 —DECEMBER 15,2009