Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> Pianning& 1999 <br /> The Commission e�lained the neighboring property owner was granted a variance due to <br /> th�fact tliatth�ere was no - oirsite. - �+Stso; - otherpr+opertyowners enjoyrigMs that <br /> are not shared by the neighboring property. <br /> 'F1� E�ssion discussed: <br /> Ehc�iria�tce #4 Section: 65:93-Y �pecia�caa�itior�s circumstances <br /> are peculiar to the land, struciwe, or building involved and do not result from the <br /> a�tions petiticmner. <br /> The Commission discussed: <br /> * Possible�safetyhazards <br /> *- Diiapidated buildings be recently <br /> code. � <br /> lbis: Lirrc�Broussazd �ickers e:x�pressed a.nd�the <br /> tabling of similar types of items. Ms. Broussa.rd �ckers suggested to table until after <br /> f )rdinance <br /> Mvtiuir secomd�e�b� to ta�bfe <br /> until the Commission completes the research on Ordinance #4. Motion carried ` <br /> umammou�ly. <br /> �entenzriad �rhrn�� District= �ariarttc� , o allation <br /> The Commission discussed, in great depth, any way to gant the variance in conjunction <br /> �rith Ordinanee Secti�on: <br /> 65.03-1 <br /> 65�.0_�-2 <br /> 65.03-3 <br /> 6-� 03-4 <br /> 1bh-Paizersuggested wherrthe eomrrrissiorrrewrites6rdirtarnce #4: Sig�ns, ti�at <br /> the provision should be considered for properties contiguous to County Roads. <br /> �11e easemerrt '�he <br /> Commission felt safer ha.ving the sign installed closer to Main Street. Furthermore, the <br /> sign�ordinance will need to beupc�atec� cortceFns. <br /> Motion by Linda Broussard Vickers, seconded by Brain Hanson to tabie the <br /> Centennial School District's variance base� <br /> it does not conform to the variance standards, and to update the sign ordinance in <br /> an attempt to�re-addresrthe reqnest the firture Motion carried umammou�ly. <br /> DISCUSSION TTEMS: � <br /> 4 <br />