[0:05] I guess that's close enough to four to
[0:07] call it a thing.
[0:10] Uh,
[0:11] >> wait a couple seconds.
[0:12] >> Okay, nitpicker.
[0:14] >> Shelly might show up.
[0:15] >> That's true.
[0:27] Okay, you're probably good.
[0:30] Thanks.
[0:33] We call to order the Monday, April 27th,
[0:36] 2026,
[0:38] Manaste City Zoning Board of Appeals
[0:41] meeting. We have a couple of variances
[0:44] on the agenda today.
[0:46] Uh going to call the meeting to order
[0:49] and ask the clerk to take role, please.
[0:53] >> Board member Johnson,
[0:54] >> yes.
[0:55] >> Board member Dworth,
[0:56] >> here. Uh, Vice Chair Drain
[0:59] >> here
[1:00] >> and Chair Spalding
[1:01] >> speaking here. Present,
[1:05] >> one absence.
[1:07] >> And one absence. Uh, board member member
[1:10] two.
[1:11] >> Correct.
[1:15] » Next on our agenda is the election of
[1:17] officers.
[1:19] There are there any nominations?
[1:22] In what order do you want to take them?
[1:24] Vice chair and then chair or chair?
[1:25] I'll Jackie take nominations for
[1:28] chair and then the chair will take
[1:29] nominations for vice chair.
[1:31] >> I would nominate party for chair.
[1:33] >> Support.
[1:36] >> That was like water going downhill,
[1:37] wasn't it?
[1:39] >> Any other nominations?
[1:42] >> No.
[1:45] >> Thanks, guys.
[1:45] >> You're welcome.
[1:47] >> Uh clerk can take role.
[1:51] >> Board member Johnson.
[1:52] >> Yes.
[1:53] >> Board member Dworth.
[1:54] >> Yes.
[1:56] Vice Chair Duang.
[1:58] >> Yes.
[1:58] >> And chair member Spalding.
[2:00] >> Yes.
[2:04] » And for Vice Chair, do we have
[2:05] nominations?
[2:10] » Like to nominee.
[2:12] >> Hold the frame.
[2:13] >> Yep.
[2:14] >> Any other nominations?
[2:17] >> We'll close that and they can take
[2:22] the roll call on that.
[2:23] >> Okay. Board member Johnson. Yes.
[2:25] >> Uh, board member Dworth.
[2:27] >> Yes.
[2:28] >> Vice Chair Defrain.
[2:29] >> Yes.
[2:30] >> And Chair Spalding.
[2:31] >> Yes.
[2:35] » All right. Back in the saddle for
[2:37] another year. Approval of the agenda. We
[2:38] had our last meeting.
[2:41] >> Oh. Uh, secretary to not, uh, elect
[2:45] Jackie as your recording secretary.
[2:48] >> We need a nomination.
[2:50] Would you like to nominate our
[2:53] secretary?
[2:55] >> Well, technically I think it's a one of
[2:57] us is elected secretary and then
[3:00] >> and then you'll nominate
[3:01] >> and then we
[3:04] staff
[3:04] >> like to nominate Bunny for secretary.
[3:07] >> Dan, would you forget? You're too slow.
[3:11] >> I would second that.
[3:15] » Okay.
[3:16] >> Vote, please.
[3:16] >> Um, okay. Board member Johnson.
[3:20] Board member Dworth.
[3:22] >> Yes.
[3:22] >> Vice Chair Defrain.
[3:24] >> Yes.
[3:24] >> And Cher Spalding.
[3:25] >> Yes.
[3:33] » Nominate Jackie to be the recording
[3:35] secretary.
[3:37] >> So moved.
[3:38] >> Second.
[3:42] >> Board member. Um and I accept. Uh board
[3:45] member Johnson.
[3:46] >> Yes.
[3:47] >> Uh board member Dworth.
[3:49] >> Yes. Vice Chair Drain,
[3:50] >> yes.
[3:51] >> And Chair Spalding,
[3:52] >> yes.
[3:55] Now, on to the approval of the agenda.
[3:59] We had a meeting in April 7th of 2025.
[4:04] >> Well, this is today's agenda.
[4:06] >> Oh, approve. Yes, correct. Approval of
[4:09] today's agenda.
[4:11] >> So moved. Second.
[4:14] Any discussion?
[4:18] I didn't take the call for that.
[4:21] >> Board member Johnson,
[4:22] >> yes.
[4:23] >> Board member Dillard,
[4:24] >> yes.
[4:25] >> Vice Chair Drain,
[4:26] >> yes.
[4:26] >> Chair Spalding,
[4:27] >> yes.
[4:29] Does any member have any conflicts of
[4:31] interest with anything on the agenda
[4:33] today?
[4:34] >> Nope.
[4:35] >> No. No. Not that I'm aware of. Now, for
[4:40] the third time, we'll try to get the
[4:41] minutes of the last meeting approved.
[4:43] Our last meeting, believe it or not, was
[4:46] April 7th of 2025.
[4:49] That's how active the zoning board of
[4:50] appeals is.
[4:52] So, we have a
[4:56] uh compilation of the proceedings of
[4:59] that hearing in front of us that we need
[5:02] to approve unless there is modification
[5:04] or correction to it.
[5:06] >> Motion to approve as presented.
[5:08] >> Second.
[5:09] >> Support.
[5:10] >> Any discussion?
[5:14] Board member. Board member Johnson.
[5:17] >> Yes.
[5:17] >> Board member Dworth.
[5:18] >> Yes.
[5:19] >> Vice Chair Defrain.
[5:20] >> Yes.
[5:20] >> And Cher Spalding.
[5:21] >> Yes.
[5:23] We are going to wave the site
[5:25] inspection. Everybody uh for purposes of
[5:28] the two variances before us today has
[5:30] had uh lots of opportunity on their own
[5:33] to do their own reconnaissance on this
[5:35] and study the issues.
[5:38] Uh next on our agenda is public hearing.
[5:41] We have two variances
[5:43] proposed before us today for a parcel at
[5:48] 91 Arthur Street in Manaste.
[5:51] Variances to sections 1814,
[5:54] section subsection C paragraph 4 and
[5:58] section 1814, subsection C paragraph 5.
[6:04] So we have a public hearing that we're
[6:06] going to open. Are we going to open
[6:08] these one at a time or are we going to
[6:09] open Okay, first we're going to open
[6:11] public hearing
[6:12] uh on the first of the variances which
[6:16] is subsection C paragraph 4 and the
[6:20] variance under consideration is that no
[6:22] billboard will be located within 660 ft
[6:26] of another billboard abutdding either
[6:28] side of the same highway which is US 31.
[6:32] If any member of the public would like
[6:34] to make a comment regarding uh that
[6:38] variance proposal, we're willing to hear
[6:41] that now.
[6:44] » Not seeing any.
[6:47] We'll move on to the public hearing.
[6:50] >> Do we need to address this?
[6:52] >> Yes.
[6:53] >> Okay.
[6:54] >> Hi, I'm Bridget.
[6:57] I own Wanderin along with my brother and
[6:59] Carrie. Um, and um, I just want to talk
[7:03] a second about this billboard. I don't
[7:06] have a dog in the fight about what this
[7:08] billboard ends up looking like. We when
[7:11] I bought this property way back when,
[7:14] um, I just want to give you a little
[7:15] history about this because we've had
[7:17] some public comments on social media
[7:19] about didn't you see the billboard? Yes,
[7:21] I saw the billboard. I know it was
[7:23] there. That's not that's not the the
[7:25] issue. What we didn't foresee was
[7:28] wandering growing and being as busy as
[7:30] it is. Um we're to a point now where if
[7:34] we don't do something to expand our
[7:37] dining area down the road or at least
[7:40] get where we can um enclose our patio,
[7:44] we're just running out of space. People
[7:46] are waiting two, three hours to get a
[7:48] spot to sit. Um, and it's becoming, you
[7:52] know, an issue for us with even at
[7:54] Christmas time having Christmas parties,
[7:56] letting families host um, events there,
[7:59] which we would like to do because it
[8:00] helps the um, helps the restaurant stay
[8:02] viable. Um, with this billboard, when I
[8:07] bought it, when it was the old Little
[8:08] Caesars um, building, when I initially
[8:11] spoke with Lamar, they said, "Yeah,
[8:13] we'll work with you to get whatever's
[8:15] done, get it moved, whatever."
[8:18] me. I've never dealt with a billboard
[8:20] before. Didn't have any clue that it had
[8:22] to go to this kind of, you know, extent
[8:24] to try to move a billboard. So, fast
[8:27] forward, we're sitting here. Um, we
[8:29] would love to enclose our patio
[8:31] eventually. Can't do that with the
[8:33] billboard there. I'm not even sure that
[8:35] their billboard is
[8:37] where it's supposed to be on our own
[8:39] property. Um, and whether it hangs over,
[8:41] there's some question about that. And I
[8:43] don't really care. What I care about is
[8:45] being able to operate the restaurant. um
[8:47] and make sure that it's sustainable. And
[8:49] it's not sustainable with people backing
[8:52] out the door, you know, um
[8:55] waiting two or three hours to get a
[8:57] seat. And the other part of this is I
[8:59] don't care that it says marijuana above
[9:01] it. People have made a comment, oh, it's
[9:03] because it says marijuana. We don't
[9:05] care. They go get their marijuana and
[9:06] come to us for cheese curds. I don't
[9:07] really care. I don't have a dog in that
[9:09] fight either. I'm not I don't do
[9:10] marijuana, but um I do cheese curds. Um,
[9:13] so, um, but the thing is is we are
[9:16] willing to give up parking spots, a
[9:18] couple of them, which cost us to get
[9:20] that billboard moved. Um, and I
[9:23] couldn't, the other question that was
[9:25] asked of me is why did you build the
[9:26] restaurant in that space knowing the
[9:28] billboard was there? I had to because it
[9:31] came with an Oprah to be able to build
[9:33] the restaurant there. So, it had to be
[9:35] built on the base of the Little Caesar's
[9:38] restaurant. Otherwise, I would have put
[9:39] the restaurant on the other end of the
[9:41] property. couldn't do that because of
[9:42] wetlands. So, there was a lot of, you
[9:45] know, discussion around this billboard
[9:47] beforehand and we just decided to build
[9:48] it. They'll come, we'll see what
[9:51] happens. And so, here we are with this
[9:52] is what happens. And so, we are asking
[9:55] to move it. Um, and we are asking to
[9:57] move it. Right now, it's 150 ft from a
[10:00] current billboard, so it doesn't meet.
[10:02] It's 660. Um, if we move it, it'll get a
[10:05] lot closer to that number. It will still
[10:07] not meet quite 660, but it'll be way
[10:10] closer to that 660 number. I think it'
[10:11] be closer to 500, so 480 something. So,
[10:16] we are helping get it, you know, closer
[10:18] to not having two big billboards right
[10:20] across from each other. Um, so I guess
[10:23] that's all I have to say if if um unless
[10:25] somebody has a question for me about
[10:27] what's happening here.
[10:28] >> In um the documents you filed, you
[10:31] indicated you have had conversations
[10:33] with Lamar about the move. Yes, we have.
[10:37] >> And they're agreeable. Apparently,
[10:39] >> they said we have to start with number
[10:41] one, getting you guys agreeable. And
[10:43] then they tried to make me pay for it.
[10:45] So, that's where it's going to be. A
[10:46] question is like, I'm giving you the
[10:48] property.
[10:50] And so, we need to come to terms with
[10:52] who's going to pay for it. I don't mind
[10:53] chipping some in if that's what I have
[10:55] to do to get it out of the roof of my
[10:57] restaurant. Um, but I don't know how
[11:00] that will work. We just need to get step
[11:02] one done. Is the current billboard, the
[11:05] space itself, the property that it sits
[11:07] on, leased by Lamar?
[11:09] >> Yes, it's leased by the Lamar, and I
[11:10] don't own I they that was already leased
[11:13] before I bought the property. So, it
[11:14] came with a 99-year lease when I brought
[11:16] the property. All right. I was not a
[11:18] recipient of that money to lease to
[11:21] them.
[11:23] >> Well, the they currently aren't paying
[11:25] you for that lease.
[11:26] >> No. No.
[11:26] >> No.
[11:27] >> Okay.
[11:27] >> What are they paying?
[11:29] >> It's it's actually it's actually an
[11:31] easement. It's not a lease and it's
[11:34] perpetual.
[11:34] >> Perpetual easement. Trust me, I tried to
[11:37] get around that every way possible with
[11:38] my attorneys
[11:39] >> as easement. That means it's city
[11:41] property.
[11:42] >> No, it belonged to I think whoever
[11:45] started the Little Caesars
[11:47] way way long time ago did this easement
[11:50] to them for some silly amount of money.
[11:52] I think it was like $2,000. I mean, it's
[11:54] a really really small amount.
[11:56] >> It was 22,000.
[11:57] >> 22,000. Okay.
[11:58] >> Onetime payment. onetime payment,
[12:00] >> which I'm sure they got back in a couple
[12:02] of years.
[12:03] >> Oh, yeah.
[12:03] >> Oh, they've multiplied that. I don't
[12:06] love billboards. If it was my city, I
[12:08] would vote them all out of here. Um I I
[12:10] don't love them. And I certainly don't
[12:12] love it above the restaurant. Um you
[12:15] know, for a for a multitude of reasons.
[12:16] People do get confused. Are you a
[12:18] Culver's? We've had people come in think
[12:20] we're culvers and then they come in
[12:21] asking where the marijuana is and you
[12:24] know, so whatever's up above us, that's
[12:26] what they think we are. Um, and I feel
[12:29] like Wanderin has added a lot to this
[12:31] community. We've put a lot of money into
[12:34] that property. I'm almost $2.5 million
[12:38] into rehabbing that property. Um,
[12:41] including, you know, the redo the um,
[12:43] redoing the seaw wall, working with
[12:45] Eagle, um, beautifying the property from
[12:48] what it was. As you all know, it was
[12:50] really a ramshackle kind of mess down
[12:53] there. And so we're $2.5 million in and
[12:57] the restaurant is is doing well. It's
[13:00] doing very well for a small community,
[13:02] but we really need to seat more people
[13:04] in order to make it long-term
[13:06] sustainable.
[13:07] >> Just one other quick question. Um are
[13:10] the current um folks being advertised on
[13:13] it in any way involved with discussions
[13:16] between you and Lamar um or will they be
[13:20] concerned about the move?
[13:22] >> I don't know. They can rent or not rent
[13:24] because it's a monthly rental.
[13:25] >> It's a monthly.
[13:26] >> Yeah, it's a monthly rental.
[13:28] >> Standing.
[13:28] >> They don't have a standing or I mean
[13:31] they're going to rent whatever. Like we
[13:32] rent billboards on the outside of both
[13:34] sides of town.
[13:35] >> I've seen them. Yeah.
[13:36] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I don't think that has
[13:39] any bearing on it moving or not. As a
[13:42] matter of fact, I think if it moves to
[13:45] where we're talking, I think as you come
[13:47] around that curve once the new road is
[13:48] done, it will have better better
[13:50] visibility and you won't be looking at
[13:52] sign sign. You know, when you're
[13:54] driving, your eyes are trying to look at
[13:56] both signs. And if you've got, you know,
[13:58] a sign further away, I think it's it's
[14:00] safer in some ways. And I think it does
[14:04] look better to not have two signs on top
[14:05] of each other.
[14:11] Now, will there be any um issue around
[14:14] the permanent lease or long-standing
[14:18] lease if the billboard is moved? Will
[14:21] that would that be impacted in any way?
[14:23] >> That might be a discussion outside of
[14:25] what we're here to look at today. I
[14:28] mean, we have we have two variances in
[14:31] front of us.
[14:31] >> Yeah, I see that. And from my
[14:35] review of this, there's a myriad of
[14:40] tangents here
[14:41] >> of issues that could arise.
[14:42] >> Well, yeah. And the the concern I have
[14:44] is as a as a board, we would want to um
[14:48] at least take those things into
[14:50] consideration to make our
[14:53] agreement to or disagreement to a
[14:54] variance um workable for the parties
[14:57] involved. Well, from what I understand,
[14:59] if you This is me talking to Lamar and
[15:02] their attorney. From what I understand
[15:03] is if you approve for us to move it, the
[15:06] next step that we have is we have to
[15:07] give them an easement to the space where
[15:10] we're going to move it to, which is our
[15:12] property, we can do that. And then they
[15:14] have to release the easement that we
[15:16] have on ours. That would be done
[15:17] simultaneously at one closing. And that
[15:20] would just be a simple easement that we
[15:22] file any other way. And that was talking
[15:25] to their attorney today. So, we would
[15:27] just swap easement spaces
[15:29] >> and it would be the same size. It would
[15:31] not be an increase in size.
[15:32] >> The proposed location, to my
[15:34] understanding, is on an adjacent
[15:36] property that was not part of the
[15:39] original Little Caesar's property.
[15:42] >> That is one piece of property now. I
[15:44] combined Yeah, I combined the parcels.
[15:46] >> It wasn't in 2006 when the zoning orders
[15:49] was
[15:49] >> No. And they didn't they couldn't have
[15:51] gotten I mean, they couldn't have put
[15:53] the sign there then. Um, I don't know
[15:56] why how they ended up with two signs
[15:58] close to each other when the rule is 660
[16:00] feet and they get it 150 feet. That's
[16:03] kind of there must have been a variance
[16:04] for that to begin with or there wasn't a
[16:07] rule at that time. I don't know.
[16:09] >> More than likely the the rule wasn't
[16:11] >> wasn't in place. Yeah. But um yeah, I
[16:14] combined those parcels for a lot of
[16:16] reasons just to make it easy and um make
[16:19] it seamless for a lot of things. So uh
[16:22] partially being the um tip funding.
[16:26] >> So
[16:28] you have any other comments for us based
[16:31] on the separation issue. We have to have
[16:33] a another hearing on the setback.
[16:37] >> Yeah, I'm not sure about the setback
[16:40] thing.
[16:42] >> Rob, you might have to fill in on that.
[16:44] >> Well, as far as I
[16:46] >> didn't think we needed a setback, but
[16:47] >> Okay. Well, we do.
[16:50] >> Could you come up and need you to, you
[16:52] know,
[16:52] >> do you want to close the
[16:55] >> Are you speaking on this issue or on the
[16:57] setback?
[16:58] >> Okay. So, if there are any other
[17:00] comments from the public on the spacing
[17:04] issue.
[17:06] Okay. I will close that public hearing
[17:08] and open another one regarding
[17:11] subsection C paragraph 5 about the
[17:15] setback
[17:17] in article 18 standards and requirements
[17:20] for special uses
[17:22] or sideyard setbacks
[17:25] um for other billboard applications.
[17:30] Well, from my understanding from deep
[17:32] >> need your name and address.
[17:34] >> Rob Vanderhoff from Wanderin. Um I spoke
[17:37] with DTW. Mattie was down there with us.
[17:41] Um we know the water line runs close to
[17:44] where we wanted to put it. Um we worked
[17:47] with him. We marked a 10-ft set back
[17:50] from the water line. I think it was 10
[17:52] ft 10 or 12 feet somewhere in that
[17:54] vicinity. And he said that would be fine
[17:56] with them as long as it was that
[17:58] distance back. It is set back from the
[18:01] Milwaukee property as well because their
[18:04] property line is close to where we
[18:05] wanted to put it on that last parking
[18:07] spot. So, I'm not exactly sure on what
[18:11] that distance is because we would have
[18:13] to look at a plat map to exactly see
[18:16] what that setback would be, but I don't
[18:18] know what the city setback is on the
[18:21] property line for something like that
[18:23] >> on the side.
[18:24] >> Yeah.
[18:26] >> 10 probably. Oh, we're well over that.
[18:29] >> Yeah, we're we're well over where we
[18:31] wanted to put it. I
[18:32] >> Hey, I I have a question.
[18:34] >> Okay.
[18:34] >> Um
[18:36] the setback math um I assume that you're
[18:40] kind of um addressing setback from where
[18:43] the post is placed.
[18:45] >> Yes.
[18:46] >> So on top of the post you have the
[18:47] actual billboard which can be moved all
[18:51] the way to one side, all the way to the
[18:52] other side or can be right in the middle
[18:54] of the post.
[18:54] >> Yes. And we have to consider setback
[18:56] from the two furthest points.
[18:58] >> Okay.
[18:59] >> Where they are.
[19:00] >> So which way is it? Is the is the sign
[19:03] going to be straight up on the post or
[19:05] is it going to hang all because I think
[19:07] right now you have kind of considered a
[19:09] flag sign.
[19:10] >> Yeah, it's it's hanging this way and
[19:11] that's the way Lamar would like to
[19:13] continue it.
[19:14] >> So we have to measure from that side of
[19:16] the sign.
[19:17] >> Okay.
[19:18] >> Where do you know how wide the sign is?
[19:22] No, I do not know that because it's got
[19:24] a V on it
[19:27] >> V's out and I
[19:28] >> measurement in application.
[19:31] >> R did not give me that information.
[19:33] >> If if I might, there hasn't been um any
[19:36] application to actually move yet. We're
[19:38] talking about a variance before an
[19:41] application to to locate that would take
[19:44] place. And such an application would
[19:47] have to be reviewed by
[19:49] >> Yeah. We would look at the dimensions.
[19:50] >> Right. Right.
[19:51] >> And we may we are all aware that that's
[19:54] your job and you'll do that. What you're
[19:57] asking for now is sort of a preemptive
[20:00] uh agreement that we would allow the
[20:02] variance.
[20:03] >> Yes.
[20:04] >> For that setback.
[20:05] >> All right.
[20:05] >> Okay. Because I I noticed in the
[20:07] application for the variance that it
[20:09] says 240 square ft, which kind of seems
[20:12] like maybe 10 by 24 or something.
[20:14] >> Yeah.
[20:15] >> Um
[20:16] >> Mr. Chairman, can I interject?
[20:18] >> Sure.
[20:19] the board needs to approve a specific
[20:21] variance. So you need to approve a
[20:23] variance of for example 10 feet or 5
[20:25] feet or 15 feet. Uh you can approve a
[20:28] general variance from your setback
[20:30] requirements.
[20:31] >> Okay.
[20:31] >> So it's a little bit tricky since we're
[20:33] not certain what specific variance is
[20:35] being requested.
[20:36] >> All right. Would it be reasonable then
[20:38] to ask them to come back when the plan
[20:40] and application for that takes place so
[20:43] that we can actually make a variance
[20:45] that is in agreement with what the city
[20:47] needs? I think we could make a variance
[20:51] that they have to work within
[20:54] based on what the final they would have
[20:56] to know that their final plan that the
[20:58] furthest outside measurement of the sign
[21:01] has to meet that requirement. Would that
[21:04] be correct?
[21:04] >> Cir.
[21:05] >> If the applicant can select a variance
[21:07] that they would find acceptable, the
[21:09] board can approve that. But you have to
[21:10] approve a specific variance.
[21:12] >> Okay.
[21:13] And I that was my sense that we may be
[21:16] just a little premature
[21:18] for that particular variance um because
[21:22] we don't have a plan. You don't have a
[21:23] plan and we can't describe exactly what
[21:26] is expected.
[21:28] >> Um although I suppose we could
[21:31] we're we're empowered to require certain
[21:36] specific things happen. Um but we don't
[21:39] have the information to make that um
[21:41] that detailed of of a request at this
[21:44] point.
[21:44] >> My question would be what's wrong with
[21:45] the current uh requirement? Not you know
[21:48] located no closer than required front
[21:50] yard setback. Is there a problem with
[21:52] that?
[21:54] >> No.
[21:55] >> You're requesting a change to that?
[21:57] >> No.
[21:57] I don't think we deal with it then.
[22:00] You just have to follow it.
[22:02] >> Yeah. I that's that was kind of what I'm
[22:05] just sitting here thinking. And I'm
[22:06] thinking, you know, we already have
[22:07] those setbacks in place as long as we
[22:09] follow those and we continue on. Um,
[22:13] >> well, what you're proposing is is
[22:15] relocating it.
[22:15] >> Relocating the
[22:16] >> different setback.
[22:17] >> Yes. It would have well whatever the
[22:20] same setback is for whatever honor that honor that setback.
[22:26] >> So that's where it would be.
[22:27] >> Closer than existing
[22:29] >> existing. Well, unless that's in
[22:31] variance, just like it's a variance from
[22:33] the current requirement for proximity to
[22:35] the closest sign.
[22:36] >> Yeah,
[22:37] >> I would say our our agreement ought I
[22:40] would recommend it be honor the current
[22:43] requirement.
[22:45] >> However, this gets replaced except for
[22:47] obviously distance because that sounds
[22:49] to me like that's the one variance. Yes.
[22:51] >> Do we know if it encroaches in the
[22:53] setback at present?
[22:56] >> No. Oh, I mean the applicant can
[22:57] withdraw its request for a variance. If
[22:59] you're complying with the zoning
[23:00] ordinance setback standards, you don't
[23:02] need a variance for setback.
[23:04] >> Exactly.
[23:04] >> So, the applicant can withdraw their
[23:06] variance request on the record.
[23:08] >> Let's just draw.
[23:10] >> Okay, we'll withdraw.
[23:11] >> So, now we're down to spacing.
[23:12] >> Yep.
[23:16] » Do we need any formal acceptance of that
[23:19] being withdrawn at the meeting or just
[23:22] stating it on the record?
[23:23] >> That was sufficient. It was stated on
[23:24] the record.
[23:25] >> Okay. So now then we're only dealing
[23:28] >> now there's one
[23:28] >> with section um 1814 subsection C
[23:34] >> C4
[23:37] >> right
[23:37] >> all right so that public hearing is now
[23:39] closed and to some degree a moot point.
[23:43] Uh so we can strike
[23:48] from our agenda.
[23:50] >> Item two,
[23:51] >> item number business session item two
[23:57] » which is the variance from section 1814
[24:00] C
[24:02] >> five
[24:15] In order for us to entertain
[24:19] consideration of a variance,
[24:22] uh the ordinance is pretty clear that
[24:26] there are eight things, eight steps,
[24:28] eight conditions that we have to find by
[24:32] majority vote have been achieved.
[24:36] Uh if you fail those, we're not really
[24:40] even allowed to give you the variance.
[24:43] So, um
[24:45] I will uh go through really quickly what
[24:48] those eight items are and then we're
[24:51] going to have our own little discussion
[24:53] here and if we need clarification I
[24:56] think we're allowed to come to you and
[24:57] ask for it.
[25:01] So, we will
[25:04] start by outlining what those eight
[25:06] conditions are.
[25:07] >> Got them right on the screen for you.
[25:09] >> Oh, how about that? Technology
[25:12] So we've have to find first of all that
[25:14] the requested variance is not contrary
[25:16] to the public interest
[25:19] uh or to the intent and purpose of the
[25:21] ordinance.
[25:23] We have to determine that the variance
[25:24] does not establish a use that is not
[25:27] permitted already by right or by special
[25:30] use in that zoning district. You're in
[25:33] the uh you're in the waterfront zoning
[25:35] district uh which is not part of the C1
[25:39] district.
[25:40] Uh the requested variance does not
[25:42] create an adverse ad effect upon
[25:45] properties within the immediate vicinity
[25:46] or in that district.
[25:49] The variance is not of recurrent nature.
[25:52] It's not something that is so common
[25:54] that it should be addressed by the
[25:55] ordinance itself.
[25:58] The requested variance is for property
[26:00] that is under your control.
[26:03] The requested variance was not
[26:05] self-created by you
[26:08] um or by another party related to your
[26:11] ownership of the property. There's not
[26:14] an alternative
[26:16] solution here that would allow you to
[26:19] make your improvements without the
[26:21] variance. And finally, that the
[26:24] requested variance is the minimum amount
[26:26] necessary to still allow you uh the
[26:30] reasonable use of your land. So we have
[26:32] to find that all eight of those
[26:33] conditions exist. And if um if if they
[26:38] don't
[26:40] uh or if they do we then we also have to
[26:43] consider some uh other
[26:46] requirements
[26:49] here.
[26:51] If we can satisfy all eight of those,
[26:54] then we can grant you the variance if
[26:58] either one of two other things occurs.
[27:02] One of which is that there are practical
[27:04] difficulties which prevent you from full
[27:07] compliance with the ordinance.
[27:10] Uh and there are some uh terms of for us
[27:13] to use in evaluating that for particular
[27:17] parcels of land and that where there are
[27:19] exceptional uses uh or circumstances or
[27:22] physical conditions
[27:25] uh that they do not generally apply to
[27:28] other property in your district. They're
[27:30] somewhat unique to your piece of land.
[27:34] So, the first thing that we have to do
[27:35] is we have to go down our list of of the
[27:39] eight basic conditions that we're
[27:41] required to find in your favor uh in
[27:45] order for us to even have the ability to
[27:47] grant the variance. Um, I've kind of
[27:51] looked through these myself and some of
[27:53] them are givens. Some of them are things
[27:55] that I think you easily uh can uh can
[27:59] assert apply to your position. Other
[28:01] ones we may have to have discussion here
[28:05] and and do our own little
[28:06] interpretation.
[28:08] Uh the first one is that the requested
[28:10] variance shall not be contrary to the
[28:12] public interest or to the intent and
[28:14] purpose of the ordinance. I'm a little
[28:17] bit in a gray area on that one myself.
[28:20] Um
[28:23] there are references
[28:26] in the ordinance
[28:30] pretty specifically regarding billboards
[28:32] and with this one obviously because of
[28:34] the variance request one of them is
[28:36] spacing. Uh there's also uh another um
[28:40] discussion about uh the number of
[28:43] billboards that are permitted in the
[28:44] city. Um, and
[28:49] I think there could be some limited
[28:51] conflict there depending on whether this
[28:54] is considered a an existing or a
[28:58] modified or uh relocated or new
[29:02] billboard if another one is put up. And
[29:05] I realize there's a discussion about
[29:07] cancelling and creating easements at the
[29:10] same time. Um, it's it's a little
[29:13] complicated. It's not quite that simple.
[29:15] Um, but I'm a little bit in the black on
[29:17] that one. Does anybody else have any any
[29:20] comments on the first?
[29:24] >> Where are these listed while we talk
[29:26] these? Cuz like you mentioned, there's a
[29:28] little gray on this one. I'd just like
[29:30] to be looking at the wording of
[29:31] >> You're looking for This is This is the
[29:34] same thing that's in the book. I just
[29:35] took all the other pages out.
[29:37] >> Yep. And you were referring to what
[29:38] piece of this? Well, under section for
[29:41] uh 1814, billboards, uh
[29:44] >> basic conditions.
[29:45] >> Okay. Basic conditions
[29:46] >> B uh section B
[29:48] >> contrary
[29:49] >> describes the content the the intent.
[29:52] >> Um and I'm again I read those closely.
[29:55] They're plain English language reasons
[29:57] for why this section was written. And um
[30:01] none of them is at at this point in my
[30:05] opinion um
[30:07] beyond what uh would would cause us not
[30:12] to continue to consider this variance. I
[30:15] don't I don't think the intent um is
[30:19] such that it would prevent us from
[30:21] reasonably discussing the rest of these
[30:23] issues so that we can get to the point
[30:24] where we agree on a possible variance. I agree to some degree that this is kind
[30:30] of an on the fence one.
[30:33] >> The second one is that the variance
[30:36] would not permit the establishment
[30:40] within this district of any use which is
[30:42] not permitted by right
[30:45] or any use or dimensional variance for
[30:47] which a special land use permit is
[30:49] required.
[30:50] Uh
[30:52] first it is worthy of note that in this
[30:56] district which is the waterfront
[30:58] district uh billboards are not permitted
[31:02] um by special land use permit. That's
[31:04] correct.
[31:05] >> Mhm.
[31:06] So
[31:08] we also though do need to consider the
[31:10] fact that the the second the the B
[31:14] paragraph here uh refers to it as being
[31:18] permitting the establishment and this is
[31:20] to some degree not permitting the
[31:22] establishment. It's continuing an
[31:25] existing use. Um, so in and of itself, I
[31:30] think that you're fairly okay on section
[31:35] B as well. Any other discussion on that?
[31:38] Concurrence
[31:39] >> disagreement.
[31:46] » Again though, there's some splitting the
[31:48] hair though on whether or not this is
[31:51] considered a if if relocating the sign
[31:56] is is a continuation or whether it is a
[32:00] reestablishment. So that's that's
[32:03] unclear.
[32:06] Uh C is that the requested variance
[32:08] shall not cause substantial adverse
[32:11] effect upon properties in the immediate
[32:14] vicinity. Uh that is
[32:19] pretty subjective.
[32:21] Do we have any kind of a rule for for
[32:24] that? I mean we had a special hearing.
[32:27] Nobody showed up. So nobody's on fire
[32:30] about you know moving that billboard's
[32:32] gonna you know cause their house to
[32:33] collapse or something gonna block the
[32:35] sun. So if you know in my mind if there
[32:40] was a substantial adverse effect we have
[32:43] notified everybody within 200 feet
[32:45] >> 300 ft here they are standing in line
[32:49] chanting. So um I don't see where that
[32:53] is a deal breakaker. I just a question
[32:55] there. You said that the movement of the
[32:57] sign is towards the Milwaukee towards
[32:59] the boat. So it's to the north so to
[33:02] speak.
[33:02] >> Yes.
[33:03] >> And there's no problem with for them.
[33:05] >> No. No. We spoke with Robbie at the
[33:07] shift. He's help
[33:10] during go time. They may want to write.
[33:12] >> Yeah. They're not here to express
[33:15] anything different.
[33:16] >> No problem.
[33:17] >> Just as a point, did we were we like
[33:20] extremely restrictive in that distance
[33:23] of notice? Did we notice a little
[33:25] farther on either side? Uh
[33:27] >> 300's what's required by the ordinance.
[33:29] >> Yeah. So we picked right in the middle
[33:30] of the parcel and then I will say we
[33:33] also notified back in December the
[33:35] meeting that we ultimately cancelled. We
[33:37] did send out notices for that and the
[33:40] only one person came in asking what it
[33:43] was for and we didn't hear anything
[33:44] else. Um we canled it ultimately and
[33:47] resent letters but at that time no one
[33:50] else came forward with any. there's been
[33:51] no contact, no letters, no phone calls.
[33:56] Uh, subsection D that the conditions or
[34:00] situations
[34:01] which necessitate you to require the
[34:04] request the variance is not so general
[34:07] or of such recurrent nature. Uh,
[34:11] essentially this isn't such a common
[34:12] request that it that it should already
[34:14] be addressed by existing ordinance by
[34:17] general regulation. Um,
[34:21] is that an appropriate interpretation of
[34:22] that?
[34:23] >> That's spot on.
[34:26] E, the requested variance shall only
[34:28] relate to property that is under control
[34:30] of the applicant. I think we've
[34:32] established that you own the property.
[34:36] The next three are a little bit more
[34:39] troublesome in my opinion.
[34:42] F is that the requested variance shall
[34:44] not be necessitated by any self-created
[34:46] condition or action taken by the
[34:49] applicant or the property owner. Um
[34:54] there is a section of the ordinance
[34:58] which refers kind of specifically to
[35:01] something very similar to what is going
[35:05] on here and that is
[35:16] Section 401
[35:20] of the ordinance
[35:22] says that no nonconforming use of the
[35:25] land, which is what this is,
[35:28] shall be moved or in whole or in part to
[35:30] any other portion of the land, or to a
[35:34] different parcel
[35:36] not occupied on the effective date of
[35:39] this ordinance except as provided in the
[35:42] article.
[35:44] So what you're proposing under your
[35:47] variance
[35:49] is is kind of spot is almost directly
[35:52] this and
[35:53] >> explain that a little bit further.
[35:55] >> Um understanding
[35:57] >> you are
[35:59] requesting
[36:02] you have two pieces of property that
[36:04] you've made into one.
[36:06] What the ordinance kind of sort of says
[36:09] is that um
[36:12] if those weren't together, if they
[36:14] weren't already a piece of property, a
[36:17] single piece of actually you've got
[36:18] three, I think, that are merged into
[36:20] one.
[36:21] >> If you don't have um
[36:26] uh
[36:26] >> Oh,
[36:28] >> fun. areas.
[36:30] >> If if those weren't a piece of property
[36:32] when the zoning ordinance was put into
[36:34] place, which was 2006,
[36:37] you can't move a non-conforming use,
[36:40] which is what the sign is, to something
[36:42] other than the piece of property where
[36:45] it was when the ordinance was put. You
[36:47] I'll put it, let me paint a different
[36:49] picture. Let's say that you bought a
[36:52] piece of property um that that was a a
[36:56] 200 by 200 foot lot and it had a multif
[36:58] family house on it. You can't buy the 20
[37:01] acres behind it and throw up 100 more
[37:03] houses on it because that wasn't part of
[37:06] the property when the ordinance was put
[37:08] into place. It would have to meet the
[37:10] current ordinance now
[37:13] um which a billboard there would not.
[37:18] So, I'm having a little difficulty
[37:20] getting over that hump. My reading of it
[37:23] would be that if we allowed you to
[37:24] relocate it, it would have to be on
[37:27] somewhere on the property that existed
[37:30] as of 2006
[37:33] >> or not at all or removed and comply
[37:35] >> or remove which I think in a perfect
[37:37] world that sign just disappeared one
[37:39] night. It showed up in the scrapyard.
[37:41] >> That would be great.
[37:43] >> That's not up to us.
[37:44] >> No, but isn't it up to you if to some
[37:48] extent to say all signs in the city now
[37:50] have to comply with
[37:53] >> that was done in 2006.
[37:55] >> Well, why did they have to comply?
[37:57] >> Because it hasn't been moved
[37:59] >> like grandfather
[38:00] >> grandfathered grandfather.
[38:02] >> I wish you guys could just get rid
[38:05] >> a lot of things.
[38:06] >> That's what's interesting to me in this situation and that it's it's you're
[38:09] asking for a variance
[38:12] of something that's very out of
[38:14] compliance. Yes. that's more so out of
[38:16] but you could read where this says if
[38:18] we're going to alter it then remove it
[38:21] if it can't I mean that's to me what
[38:23] question here
[38:23] >> it's it's kind of a common thread in
[38:26] ordinances in general that if something
[38:29] existed before the rule it gets to stay
[38:32] but if you want to if you want to change
[38:34] something and it usually defines how far
[38:37] you can change things before it has to
[38:39] meet the ordinance now
[38:41] >> but isn't that why we're asking for
[38:42] variance to begin
[38:46] Uh, yes. But what I'm saying is that the
[38:47] ordinance says that that that is not
[38:50] allowed. That that's a specific thing
[38:53] that isn't allowed to be granted a
[38:55] variance.
[38:57] Um, it it says
[38:59] under non-conforming uses in 401, it
[39:03] says under no conditions shall the
[39:05] parcel be expanded and the use be
[39:08] expanded to a contiguous parcel, which
[39:11] is what has taken place here. continue.
[39:16] » It wasn't in 2006.
[39:19] >> Well, we can't go backwards no more than
[39:21] you guys can go backwards and make them
[39:22] >> correct.
[39:25] >> And it's not an expansion of use.
[39:28] That's something I'm reading in this.
[39:30] Right.
[39:30] >> It is a change. Um,
[39:33] >> it's a change.
[39:34] >> That's what I'm saying. This is not a
[39:35] this is not at all a simple thing.
[39:38] >> No, I get that.
[39:39] >> Yeah. Again, we have to meet all eight
[39:41] of these points and we got through five
[39:44] of them pretty well. The last couple
[39:45] have have an issue.
[39:47] >> Um,
[39:50] so to some degree there's a
[39:51] self-created,
[39:53] you know, and the other thing that kind
[39:55] of sort of makes this a self-created
[39:57] situation is um if somebody else wanted
[40:02] to buy that and make it into a tattoo
[40:04] parlor, they might not have any problem
[40:07] with that sign being there at all.
[40:09] It's it's kind of a self-created
[40:12] situation because you have different
[40:14] plans than somebody else might have. You
[40:16] want to put up an additional story. You
[40:18] want to expand out. And um those are to
[40:23] some degree discretionary
[40:26] um decisions that that you want to make
[40:29] more than that you have to make. They're sound business decisions. I get
[40:34] that. Well, we have to make it if we
[40:36] want this to be
[40:38] >> um
[40:38] >> successful long term and we want to be,
[40:43] >> you know, we want to do something that's
[40:44] great for the community
[40:45] >> and I think that we have
[40:47] >> and so um
[40:49] >> I've I've been in your very position in
[40:51] this room on this kind of topic.
[40:53] >> So I know
[40:55] >> could I just another comment? Yeah. And
[40:57] you brought up an example which would
[40:59] seem to make sense. you've been this
[41:01] something's been agreed to based on the
[41:03] current curtain zoning and it makes
[41:05] sense but you've done something that now
[41:08] you could see a person trying to take
[41:09] advantage of that whereas you're not
[41:12] trying to take advantage of this it's
[41:15] where I'm saying I get sort of where
[41:17] this is going and I don't see how it
[41:20] applies here
[41:22] >> the um any other
[41:24] >> No I'm still contemplating the things
[41:27] that you guys have already discussed Um,
[41:30] it suggests that
[41:33] on one hand that the the code is so
[41:36] strict as to say to a new owner of a
[41:39] piece of property that they um should
[41:42] have had
[41:47] should have known something that would
[41:49] be beyond their ability to know before
[41:52] they began making decisions about a
[41:55] piece of property and its use. um which
[41:59] to me goes back to the intent and
[42:02] purpose of the the code when we describe
[42:05] it. It's um intended
[42:08] to assist the city in allowing
[42:10] businesses and and economic activity um
[42:14] not to tell them that we're we're not
[42:18] going to allow that. So there there to
[42:21] my mind, yes, a pooling of three or
[42:25] four, whatever pieces of property there
[42:27] were so that this business could exist
[42:30] seems to suggest that they're then not
[42:33] allowed to move this sign.
[42:36] But yet without the ability to do this
[42:40] then their ability to actually do what
[42:43] the intent is improve the commercial
[42:46] structure of the city is u is prohibited
[42:50] and I I don't think that's what it I
[42:52] don't think that's consistent with the
[42:54] intent and the very first one that we
[42:56] went through and just said it does meet
[42:58] that condition. I think they're at least
[43:00] in this instance at odds.
[43:05] um you can't you're telling these people
[43:07] they can't meet condition one
[43:12] because they can't meet a condition
[43:15] farther down that is in conflict. That's
[43:18] my sense
[43:21] and I I would I would suggest that
[43:24] um
[43:27] from my point of view I would be more
[43:29] concerned with meeting the intent and
[43:31] the and the purpose of the of the um
[43:36] of the billboard positions rather than
[43:40] trying to find reasons um not to meet
[43:43] that intent.
[43:44] >> Right. I thought you were going to say
[43:46] and the intent of paragraph F. Again, I
[43:50] think paragraph F is more about trying
[43:52] to take advantage
[43:54] >> of a city zoning
[43:56] process by going and changing something
[44:01] that manipulates their property to then
[44:04] say, but I get to be able to change
[44:06] this, which is not the case. Anyway,
[44:08] it's a question of what what F really is
[44:10] intended, which is in line with where
[44:12] you're going.
[44:14] I I don't see where what's coming up
[44:16] here has to do with creating a worse
[44:20] situation for the city
[44:22] or or is really there trying to take
[44:25] advantage
[44:26] and manipulate what would be restricted
[44:29] by F.
[44:32] Uh, paragraph G speaks to there being no
[44:34] reasonable alternative location
[44:38] where uh, such a location would
[44:41] eliminate the need for the variance
[44:43] or reduce the extent of the conditions
[44:46] necessitating that. Uh we know that
[44:50] relocation
[44:51] would reduce the separation
[44:55] uh deficiency but it wouldn't eliminate
[44:58] it and it's not practical to eliminate
[45:01] it given the size of the property.
[45:07] Any comments on that?
[45:11] I I think there does need to be a
[45:13] recognition that if it stayed as it is
[45:17] that there's no need for necessitating a
[45:19] variance at all.
[45:23] >> But the the condition here is like the
[45:25] 75 more years on some sort of lease to
[45:28] somebody that says
[45:28] >> that's forever.
[45:29] >> It's a forever lease on this piece of
[45:32] property.
[45:34] That sounds like something that was in
[45:36] it
[45:38] created before this zoning intent was
[45:42] put together. That is nuts. Pardon my
[45:47] lack of proper definition, but yeah,
[45:49] what was the point of this forever thing
[45:50] on a billboard?
[45:53] That almost seems like something we
[45:55] should be able to bypass.
[45:56] >> If you own the billboard, it's very
[45:58] apparent why they want it that way.
[46:01] >> Mr. Chairman, can I offer some context
[46:03] to this condition? Maybe.
[46:05] >> So,
[46:06] the condition is intending to get at is
[46:08] there a location on the property that
[46:10] would meet the separation requirements?
[46:14] That's probably something the applicant
[46:15] can answer for you. So, is there a
[46:17] location on the property that would meet
[46:18] the 660 ft separation?
[46:21] >> No, we don't own it far enough. We would
[46:23] be into the ship's property,
[46:26] >> right? There is there is no alternate
[46:28] location
[46:30] >> and not in the other direction.
[46:34] >> If if they if they move it an inch from
[46:37] where it is now, it is it is less
[46:41] permissible than what they're proposing.
[46:43] The only the only equally permissible
[46:48] relocation is leaving it where it is
[46:50] because then it's not really moved at
[46:52] all.
[46:54] they would, you know, if if they
[46:56] withdrew the the second variance
[46:58] requirement,
[47:00] then they would remain in compliance as
[47:03] a non-conforming pre-existing structure.
[47:09] » And is it's also a case where this is
[47:11] restricted to your property because
[47:13] that's where the perpetual lease is
[47:16] attached. Otherwise, this wouldn't be
[47:18] this problem.
[47:21] finally that the requested variance is
[47:24] the minimum variance that would make
[47:25] possible the reasonable use of the land.
[47:28] I don't think there's a lot of debate on
[47:31] that particular point
[47:34] uh as far as spacing goes because it is
[47:36] an increase in the spacing although it's
[47:39] not
[47:40] in compliance. How far from the north
[47:43] property line
[47:46] toward the Milwaukee is this proposed to
[47:49] be?
[47:49] >> 15 ft.
[47:51] >> Could be farther. I I don't I wasn't
[47:54] exactly sure where their property line
[47:56] was. I don't He's got a sign up there.
[47:58] So, I measured from where his sign is
[48:01] above the parking and I think that's
[48:03] moving close to the property line. So, I
[48:05] measured from that back and where we
[48:07] wanted to put it was 15 ft.
[48:14] So I think that we need to determine
[48:17] first whether we find their variance
[48:19] application meets all eight of these
[48:21] points or if there is reservation
[48:26] or hesitation about them
[48:30] about any of this being applicable to to
[48:32] this situation.
[48:34] So we agree that G doesn't matter here.
[48:37] There is no So it does meet G.
[48:41] >> That could certainly be your vote.
[48:43] >> Yeah. Okay. I'm just Well, we haven't
[48:45] decided that yet.
[48:47] >> Okay.
[48:48] >> Is there discussion on anybody having a
[48:50] particular issue with any of the eight
[48:52] points?
[48:54] >> Just H. I question the requested
[48:56] variance is a minimum variance.
[48:59] >> I'm still drawn back to F.
[49:02] Yeah, I I agree. That's the only one
[49:04] that seems to be an issue that there's a
[49:07] self-created condition. Moving the sign
[49:09] is a voluntary minimum
[49:11] >> to desire.
[49:13] Um it is something that's
[49:16] requested
[49:19] uh because they have plans for the
[49:21] property uh that that cannot
[49:24] both be met and satisfy the ordinance at
[49:27] the same time.
[49:29] >> Speak to why we combine those properties
[49:31] a second. Sure.
[49:32] >> We combined them because consumers
[49:33] energy sort of demanded.
[49:36] We couldn't keep them separate. I'm just
[49:38] talking about I remember going through
[49:39] this. We couldn't keep them separate
[49:42] because they would have required us to
[49:44] have three separate polls down there.
[49:47] So, you would have had three telephone
[49:49] poles go down the line versus us
[49:53] combining the property at our expense
[49:55] and coming to you guys to just put one
[49:57] pole in because we were aesthetically
[49:58] trying to make this. I mean, if you got
[50:00] three poles going down the road, that's
[50:02] just it's ridiculous. They won't bury
[50:04] the line,
[50:05] >> right?
[50:05] >> And so they said, "Well, the only way we
[50:07] can get around you guys doing this is to
[50:09] combine the property,
[50:10] >> right?
[50:10] >> We can build one place. You can have one
[50:12] pole. This is what you can do, right?
[50:15] >> And they're still giving us a little bit
[50:18] is still giving us a little bit of
[50:19] runaround about enough power down there
[50:21] with one pole.
[50:22] >> I I understand your position where I'm I
[50:26] have a project. It took me two years to
[50:28] get three-phase power in. Yeah. Yeah.
[50:30] >> They just didn't want to do it.
[50:31] >> So, when you're talking about intent, it
[50:33] wasn't our intent to combine the
[50:35] properties to move a sign because we had
[50:37] no idea we were going to I had no clue
[50:39] that weren't going to be as successful
[50:41] as I'm really happy that it has been and
[50:44] the city loves it, but we had no clue
[50:46] that we better add on to this thing or
[50:51] that. So, um the intent was nothing to
[50:54] do with this,
[50:55] >> right?
[50:57] Um, we still though have to dot eight
[51:00] I's
[51:02] >> and and I keep going back to F,
[51:06] which is that is that consolidating the
[51:08] properties and moving the sign to begin
[51:11] with is is voluntary. That somebody else
[51:14] that was using the property for a
[51:16] different purpose might not even care or
[51:18] even notice that sign is there. Um, is that
[51:25] is my definition of self-created in that
[51:28] aspect
[51:29] uh legitimate
[51:31] or am I stretching a definition? Well,
[51:34] obviously the board is is responsible
[51:35] for finding the facts, but I'll add some
[51:37] context to self-created. It it's it's
[51:40] trying to to flesh out variance requests
[51:42] that are based on conditions that are
[51:44] inherent in the land or something that's
[51:48] outside of the applicant's control.
[51:54] Okay.
[51:56] >> And and I'm again inclined to think that
[51:59] um
[52:01] the applicants have
[52:04] made an effort to consolidate some
[52:06] properties to build a business. Business
[52:09] is very consistent with the intent of
[52:11] the ordinance. Um if anyone
[52:16] would have been responsible for this um
[52:21] this particular section you're finding
[52:23] difficult, it would have been a previous
[52:25] owner who um made decisions on a small
[52:28] piece of property to allow a a lease
[52:31] that lasts forever. And that that
[52:34] decision is not one you have control
[52:36] over. Um,
[52:39] I I'm I'm inclined to think that this
[52:42] would not prevent me from voting that
[52:44] these aid are met,
[52:47] then we still have special use or
[52:49] special conditions to consider. But if
[52:52] it's if that is not consistent with
[52:54] everyone else's thinking, we're at a
[52:56] point now where we probably need to make
[52:58] some take some actions to vote.
[53:04] And I think we would be we would be
[53:06] calling the question on each of these uh
[53:08] basic conditions one by one to see what
[53:11] the will of the organization is.
[53:17] Now, if that requires someone to call
[53:18] that question, I would I would so call
[53:22] that that we
[53:24] vote on each of these basic conditions
[53:27] individually to see if we all agree that
[53:30] they're met
[53:31] >> in the form of a straw poll
[53:33] >> in and we can do that as a straw poll.
[53:35] That's fine.
[53:38] That would that would allow us then to
[53:40] continue some serious discussion. I
[53:42] agree.
[53:43] So you want them you want them uh pulled
[53:46] one by one?
[53:47] >> Yeah, let us pull them one by one and
[53:48] see what the will of the four votes are.
[53:50] >> Been called.
[53:51] >> All right.
[53:55] So basic condition one that the
[53:57] ordinance variance is not contrary to
[54:01] the public interest or intent and
[54:02] purpose of the ordinance. All those in
[54:04] favor?
[54:06] >> I.
[54:07] >> Any opposed?
[54:10] B. The requested variance shall not
[54:12] permit the establishment within a
[54:14] district of any use which is not
[54:16] permitted by right within that zone
[54:18] district
[54:20] or any use or dimensional variance for
[54:22] which a special land use permit is
[54:25] required. We allowed to have any
[54:26] discussion right in this point or not?
[54:28] >> Oh absolutely. Yep. The straw port is
[54:30] just an formal poll so you guys can kind
[54:32] of get an idea of where you're
[54:34] >> we do have to keep in mind that that
[54:37] this use is not permitted by right in
[54:41] that district.
[54:43] >> The billboard is not allowed at all in
[54:47] the waterfront district.
[54:49] >> And how many are in that district?
[54:51] >> Those are pre-existing.
[54:53] >> Yeah, but there's already how
[54:56] >> this particular billboard is
[54:57] pre-existing. it exists as as a as a
[55:01] grandfathered billboard.
[55:03] >> Yeah. Then we have the question of
[55:04] whether or not moving it
[55:09] retains its classification as
[55:12] grandfathered once it's moved and if
[55:16] they in fact come back with a a change
[55:20] of the type of the billboard, the size
[55:22] of the billboard,
[55:24] anything of that nature. If we do get
[55:26] into a new situation
[55:30] of of setback,
[55:32] um I guess what we would be doing at a
[55:34] certain point would be
[55:37] a conditional approval subject to the
[55:42] review or recommendation of the zoning
[55:45] administrator on those types of items as
[55:48] to whether or not once it is
[55:52] in addition to the to the I guess what
[55:54] I'm getting as in addition to the
[55:56] spacing issue, there's a whole gamut of
[56:00] issues
[56:01] that relate to use, moving it to a
[56:05] property that it wasn't part of prior to
[56:07] the effective date of the zoning
[56:09] ordinance and and potentially some or
[56:12] all of the sign being in the setback. um
[56:16] and the nature of the sign, its size,
[56:20] you know, whether there's an an effort
[56:23] made to change the character of the
[56:25] sign, things of that nature. So I I
[56:28] there's some issues in B
[56:34] that in my mind
[56:36] are going to prevent me from being able
[56:38] to give it a straight up or down without
[56:40] some kind of well then I'd refer you to
[56:43] the the the section that describes our
[56:46] duties and responsibilities and rules
[56:49] and under rules the board that is us may
[56:53] specify in writing such conditions
[56:55] regarding character location and other
[56:58] features that will in its judgment s
[57:00] secure the objectives and purpose of
[57:03] this ordinance and any breach of those
[57:05] conditions shall automatically
[57:08] invalidate any permitted uh use or any permitted grant any permit granted.
[57:14] In other words, we can say
[57:17] in granting the variance that it is
[57:20] >> subject to further review of the zoning.
[57:22] >> Well, and and within these specified
[57:25] conditions. That is one of our powers.
[57:27] We can do that. Um, Mr. Chairman, I
[57:30] apologize for interrupting again. You
[57:32] certainly can. Another option for the
[57:34] board is to table the application
[57:36] pending the zoning administrator's
[57:38] determination as to the use status.
[57:43] because that that unsettles me. Um
[57:46] >> I'm just presenting that as an option to
[57:48] you,
[57:48] >> right?
[57:50] Um I mean I realize you want to get on
[57:52] with plans.
[57:54] Um
[57:56] >> you also probably don't want to start
[57:57] tearing the roof off the building in the
[57:59] middle of tourist season either.
[58:00] >> No.
[58:01] >> Um
[58:04] but I I do have concerns about about use
[58:07] outside of this variance. Um
[58:11] but then again they still have to come
[58:13] back for an actual
[58:16] application for the sign itself.
[58:18] Correct.
[58:20] We would only be addressing the issue of
[58:21] the variance
[58:24] as it relates to the location and not
[58:26] the use.
[58:27] >> Correct. Yes. You can evaluate the
[58:29] variance application on its face.
[58:31] >> Okay.
[58:34] So then we we can we can we can address
[58:37] the ordinance separation issue only and
[58:40] for now not have to deal with uses past,
[58:43] present or future.
[58:49] Uh
[58:50] E
[58:53] I think back to C. I think we've already
[58:56] kind of come to an agreement that there
[58:59] was no public input on this. Nobody's
[59:01] upset about it. there there doesn't
[59:03] appear to be any kind of an adverse
[59:04] effect.
[59:06] D uh the conditions
[59:08] are not so general that uh that they
[59:12] should be controlled by another section
[59:13] of the ordinance which we've agreed to
[59:16] that it the property is clearly under
[59:18] your control. There isn't an issue
[59:21] there.
[59:22] Um I appear to be in the minority on
[59:26] whether this is self-created.
[59:28] Um
[59:30] although again in retrospect looking at
[59:33] it purely from the standpoint of the
[59:35] separation it is an improvement over the
[59:37] existing status quo
[59:39] >> exactly
[59:40] >> regardless of the use
[59:44] G that there's no reasonable
[59:45] alternative. This appears to be unless
[59:48] you've got a a property stretcher there
[59:51] isn't a way to to do that and H kind of
[59:54] ties into the same thing. So
[59:58] if we
[1:00:01] agree that those eight are covered,
[1:00:04] not a foregone conclusion, but if we're
[1:00:06] leaning that direction, then
[1:00:09] either one of the following two have to
[1:00:12] be met as well.
[1:00:13] >> Marty, there's three technically
[1:00:16] >> three technical
[1:00:17] >> three special conditions. These were the
[1:00:19] two that the applicant checked on the
[1:00:22] application.
[1:00:23] >> Okay.
[1:00:24] as um
[1:00:27] meeting that. But these are the
[1:00:29] >> Oh, okay. I see see here now. So,
[1:00:35] we have to agree that
[1:00:38] any one of the following three have to
[1:00:40] be met where there are practical
[1:00:43] difficulties which which prevent full
[1:00:45] compliance.
[1:00:47] that the difficulty shall be evaluated
[1:00:49] in terms of the use of a particular
[1:00:52] parcel of land.
[1:00:54] And and it it lays out a couple things.
[1:00:56] It says certain facts don't don't weigh
[1:01:00] or con contribute to that consideration.
[1:01:08] There are practical difficulties
[1:01:11] with
[1:01:13] uh
[1:01:15] preventful compliance just because there
[1:01:17] isn't enough land to get you 660 ft
[1:01:21] away.
[1:01:29] So
[1:01:30] we may be able if we were in agreement
[1:01:33] that the first eight apply, we may be
[1:01:36] able to use that section as as one of
[1:01:39] the three to get us over that hump.
[1:01:43] The second potential additional
[1:01:46] condition is that where there are
[1:01:48] exceptional or extraordinary
[1:01:50] circumstances or physical conditions and
[1:01:53] again this kind of fits in that box
[1:01:58] and see where the variation is necessary
[1:02:01] for the preservation of a substantial
[1:02:03] property right.
[1:02:07] That one I'm not sure applies because
[1:02:09] nobody else in that district has the
[1:02:12] right to put up a billboard under the
[1:02:14] current zoning ordinance.
[1:02:17] So if we come to the conclusion that it
[1:02:21] does meet the first eight
[1:02:24] and that either A or B of the following
[1:02:29] special conditions apply,
[1:02:32] we may be able to grant the variance
[1:02:36] on an interim basis
[1:02:41] subject to some further review.
[1:02:44] >> Well, an in application to actually do
[1:02:46] the work. We have not seen the
[1:02:48] application,
[1:02:48] >> right? So, if there are clear conditions
[1:02:52] like
[1:02:54] um conditioned on the applicant entering
[1:02:56] into a new lease, that would be
[1:02:58] appropriate.
[1:03:00] an interim decision with a lot of
[1:03:02] flexibility that you may later change
[1:03:03] it. It's probably not it's not
[1:03:06] advisable. Um it just leads to too much
[1:03:09] uncertainty. If there are outstanding
[1:03:12] items that the board wants additional
[1:03:13] information on, the best option is to
[1:03:15] table it.
[1:03:18] I I see a myriad of potential
[1:03:23] little side lanes here, you know, out
[1:03:26] they're outside of the of of the the the
[1:03:30] dimensional variance for separation,
[1:03:33] more more and more in use situations.
[1:03:37] Um,
[1:03:38] I'm concerned about the
[1:03:42] expansion of a non-conforming use to an adjacent piece of property because
[1:03:47] there appears to be pretty much a
[1:03:49] prohibition on that in the ordinance.
[1:03:51] Um,
[1:03:53] and it it makes it pretty clear in a
[1:03:55] couple of places to me to my reading.
[1:03:58] And I' I'd like to take Paul's read on
[1:04:01] it, but I I I have trouble with it.
[1:04:04] Well, I I think you've already told us
[1:04:07] this is now one parcel of land.
[1:04:09] >> It is.
[1:04:10] now. It is. Um and we are now
[1:04:15] discussing um
[1:04:19] the practical difficulties shall be
[1:04:21] evaluated in terms of the use of a
[1:04:23] particular parcel of land. That's pretty
[1:04:27] straightforward to me. I I feel that
[1:04:28] we're talking we're not talking about um
[1:04:32] what may constrict um three or four
[1:04:35] separate pieces of property. We're
[1:04:37] talking about a parcel of land that is
[1:04:39] now this particular business. Um, and
[1:04:44] I'm not sure that um
[1:04:49] that I find anything
[1:04:53] that that again would cause me to think
[1:04:55] that this isn't a reasonable variance if
[1:04:58] it meets the other conditions at the
[1:05:01] time that the work is done, the setback
[1:05:03] issues and all of the other things. And
[1:05:05] the only reason they say that is because
[1:05:07] they they have not yet applied to do the
[1:05:09] work and have it presented something for
[1:05:11] you to decide on as the administrator.
[1:05:15] Now would would that change if we were
[1:05:19] to table this and allow them the time to
[1:05:24] prepare and with you um their proposal
[1:05:29] so that you can evaluate it for its
[1:05:31] fitness for this? I wouldn't be able to
[1:05:34] grant anything,
[1:05:36] >> right?
[1:05:36] >> So, it would just be a
[1:05:38] >> it would be a review and it would come
[1:05:40] back.
[1:05:40] >> I could do a review. Yeah.
[1:05:42] >> But you would do a review at such point
[1:05:45] and provide us with a report of things
[1:05:47] that would Okay.
[1:05:51] >> And that's within your scope of
[1:05:53] authority, I think, as I read this. Um,
[1:05:56] >> did you read section 401?
[1:05:59] >> Section 401. Go ahead.
[1:06:04] Oh yeah,
[1:06:07] » me that's a pretty much a prohibition
[1:06:11] because it it specifies the the date of
[1:06:16] the ordinance as being
[1:06:31] in In my mind, if I read that
[1:06:33] charitably,
[1:06:35] the billboard could be moved on the
[1:06:38] property as it existed at that time
[1:06:41] without violating the intent of that
[1:06:44] section. Moving it to the adjacent
[1:06:46] property that was added to the parcel in
[1:06:48] the last two years. To me, that that
[1:06:51] gives me heartburn if we're supposed to
[1:06:54] be following the ordinance, including
[1:06:56] it's that's that's intent to me. And you
[1:06:59] see that the same way as the
[1:07:01] administrator?
[1:07:02] >> Um I would look at it separately and
[1:07:05] provide a recommendation. Probably this
[1:07:07] came forward before I started. I do want
[1:07:10] to express that also. The only reason um
[1:07:14] I think I'm still discussing this at
[1:07:17] this point is um we have a petitioner
[1:07:19] here who's
[1:07:21] >> wants to understand what can and can't
[1:07:23] be done with that piece of property. And
[1:07:26] if this is overriding any of our
[1:07:30] decisions about variance, uh we need to
[1:07:32] understand and know that and as the
[1:07:34] administrator, you would be at least in
[1:07:37] better position to give us that opinion
[1:07:41] at the time that you review.
[1:07:43] >> I do think it needs more review.
[1:07:48] Um it's this is far from being a a
[1:07:51] simple easy open and shut kind of thing.
[1:07:53] I think getting rid of the setback is a
[1:07:56] big step forward
[1:07:58] and I think there's a good case to be
[1:08:00] made that the separation distances have
[1:08:03] increased between billboards,
[1:08:06] but the the relocating part of it is is
[1:08:09] worrisome to me.
[1:08:11] And I think if we're go I think without
[1:08:13] knowing what what exactly is going to be
[1:08:16] moved, what the new thing is that
[1:08:19] creating a variance for it to be there
[1:08:22] is pre to use your word premature.
[1:08:24] >> Yeah. And what I'm concerned to know is
[1:08:28] although most of this section is
[1:08:29] referring to structures
[1:08:32] um
[1:08:34] and and I understand that why that would
[1:08:36] be a prohibition that a structure would
[1:08:38] be moved within a parcel and so on
[1:08:40] because we've all had that kind of
[1:08:42] discussion.
[1:08:43] >> Billboard is a structure
[1:08:45] >> is it? It has its own separate section
[1:08:48] of the code and its own separate rules
[1:08:52] >> as a use.
[1:08:53] >> As a as a use,
[1:08:57] >> it's it's defined as anything on the
[1:08:59] ground. Well, I understand that.
[1:09:10] » And yes, we do know that no matter what
[1:09:13] happens, that particular billboard would
[1:09:16] not be conforming no matter what what's
[1:09:18] agreed to,
[1:09:18] >> right? because the only way to bring it
[1:09:21] into
[1:09:23] conformance would be for it to disappear
[1:09:25] >> or to stay exactly where it is and we're
[1:09:27] back to this same dilemma that you're
[1:09:30] apparently faced with.
[1:09:36] So I I think that I for one need to see
[1:09:39] a little bit more from Lamar and what
[1:09:41] they would what they would be replacing
[1:09:43] it with
[1:09:44] >> exactly what's there.
[1:09:47] >> That's what they told me. That's what we
[1:09:49] were asking.
[1:09:49] >> We don't know the orientation.
[1:09:53] » There's some things we don't know.
[1:09:55] >> Well, you can you not um
[1:10:00] can you not do this variance in based on
[1:10:05] the fact that it would stay exactly the
[1:10:07] way it is? The orientation is stay the
[1:10:09] same. The sign size stay the same.
[1:10:13] >> I think you're right. We can in fact
[1:10:15] specify the the specific things that
[1:10:18] have to be met before it would be
[1:10:20] allowed to happen.
[1:10:21] >> The only reason we didn't apply for the
[1:10:23] permit is because that would be assuming
[1:10:26] to me I would be making the assumption
[1:10:28] that you would approve it. So I wouldn't
[1:10:30] apply for the permit before you gave the
[1:10:32] approval.
[1:10:33] >> Understood.
[1:10:35] >> So I thought I was following this
[1:10:37] sequentially what you would need me to
[1:10:38] do.
[1:10:41] >> Yeah.
[1:10:43] I'm I'm inclined to heir on the side of
[1:10:46] caution with council's advice to table
[1:10:49] it for them to review it.
[1:10:51] >> I wouldn't oppose that at all. I just um
[1:10:54] troubles me that
[1:10:57] a decision that was made to grant a
[1:11:01] extraordinary perpetual lease
[1:11:04] um is now this person's burden. Um, and
[1:11:11] I'm not sure how fair I feel that is,
[1:11:15] which is certainly one of the underlying
[1:11:17] things we're trying to accomplish, some
[1:11:18] fairness. Um, but yeah, you're right. We
[1:11:21] need probably a little better counsel on
[1:11:23] this, a little more um review and
[1:11:25] understanding on whether or not this
[1:11:29] non-conforming structure issue is going
[1:11:33] to bar them from making this move.
[1:11:36] And could I dovetail because that you
[1:11:38] touched on a concern I have and that's
[1:11:39] the notion of when the zoning ordinance
[1:11:41] becomes effective there's a a whole host
[1:11:43] of grandfathered property. Is there some
[1:11:46] administrative procedure about how that
[1:11:48] is dealt with?
[1:11:49] >> Because it would seem to me if something
[1:11:52] does not fit current ordinance the
[1:11:54] inclination would always be to correct
[1:11:57] it in this case would probably be remove
[1:12:00] it completely. But there's this the
[1:12:04] whole situation we've all talked about
[1:12:06] this is grandfathered in. It's an
[1:12:08] accepted piece of construction as it is.
[1:12:12] There's an interest to move it. Is there
[1:12:14] any procedures about how you deal with
[1:12:16] things that are grandfathered in that
[1:12:18] are express what is best for the comm or
[1:12:22] how we should direct this towards the
[1:12:23] community because I'm I'm just off a
[1:12:25] judgment. Get rid of it or move it. I
[1:12:28] >> I suspect that that's the reason there's
[1:12:30] a zoning board of appeals. Yes, make a
[1:12:32] judgment.
[1:12:34] >> There we are.
[1:12:35] >> There there is a a stated
[1:12:38] um
[1:12:40] section in the ordinance that basically
[1:12:45] the essence of it is billboards serve a
[1:12:48] limited public benefit.
[1:12:51] They they they can direct people to
[1:12:53] things. Uh they can give information.
[1:12:56] They're of value to motorists to a
[1:12:58] certain point. A few is fine. One on
[1:13:02] every street corner. Triple stack
[1:13:04] double-sided blinking maybe not so much
[1:13:07] because at a certain point they're
[1:13:08] distraction.
[1:13:09] >> And at this point that one doesn't
[1:13:11] comply with the intended positioning of
[1:13:14] >> So the ordinance itself
[1:13:16] in 2006 limited the number of billboards
[1:13:20] to 10.
[1:13:22] By my count we now have 15.
[1:13:25] So somehow some of them creeped in. Um,
[1:13:29] so to answer your question about
[1:13:33] what does the ordinance intend, what's
[1:13:36] the inference of the ordinance, etc., Um, we're already past the point of
[1:13:44] what the ordinance considers to be, you
[1:13:49] know, if if the ordinance would infer
[1:13:53] that it would be in the city's interest
[1:13:54] for this to be gone, it's in excess of
[1:13:56] the limit. It doesn't. Yeah.
[1:13:58] From Lamar's standpoint, that billboard
[1:14:01] ain't going anywhere unless it's
[1:14:03] replaced by similar, not even similar,
[1:14:06] better. Um, from your standpoint, you
[1:14:09] want it gone, too.
[1:14:11] >> So,
[1:14:12] >> Oh, I know. Um,
[1:14:15] >> if we can't have it gone, moving it at
[1:14:17] least allows us to build our business.
[1:14:19] >> Understood.
[1:14:21] >> So, we have several
[1:14:25] converging issues here. Okay.
[1:14:28] >> Um,
[1:14:30] >> one other that hasn't been discussed is
[1:14:32] that mot the movement down towards the
[1:14:34] Milwaukee. I mean, the whole point of
[1:14:35] that boat and that display, that sort of
[1:14:37] museum piece is you see it. I just
[1:14:40] wonder what happens when they suddenly
[1:14:42] they have a massive billboard down in
[1:14:44] front that isn't about their
[1:14:46] establishment.
[1:14:47] >> No, they're fine with it.
[1:14:48] >> They've said they're fine.
[1:14:49] >> I can get Robbie. We can get Robbie to
[1:14:52] come in here because we talked about
[1:14:53] trying to move it onto his property, me
[1:14:55] doing a donation of some sort to buy a
[1:14:58] chunk of his property to actually get it
[1:15:00] to 660 ft. But if we did that, then
[1:15:04] you're getting too close to those
[1:15:05] condos. You guys are really you really
[1:15:08] messed up here with the 660 ft because
[1:15:11] if you really get it 660 ft, you're in
[1:15:14] the you're you're getting so close to
[1:15:16] those condos that the condo owners
[1:15:17] aren't going to want that,
[1:15:18] >> right?
[1:15:19] So we we tried to get it as far away
[1:15:24] into close to 660. We were open we could
[1:15:26] get to 660. Come to you guys and say
[1:15:28] okay now we're making it because that
[1:15:30] would have made it easier for you.
[1:15:35] » How do we want to address this
[1:15:37] gentleman?
[1:15:38] >> Mr. Chair, can I add something?
[1:15:39] >> Absolutely.
[1:15:40] >> Prior to Maddie
[1:15:43] let me introduce myself. I'm the
[1:15:44] building official and community
[1:15:45] development director. I took the
[1:15:47] original application and um I want to
[1:15:51] address a couple things that didn't come
[1:15:54] up tonight that just popped in my head
[1:15:56] that may be relevant. One is I checked
[1:15:59] with the state of Michigan MDOT
[1:16:02] when this request came in to ask if they
[1:16:06] determine their distance. They have a
[1:16:08] distance as well. Is it on the same side
[1:16:10] of the street or adjacent to ours is we
[1:16:14] measure from the closest billboard
[1:16:16] either side of the road. They do not. If
[1:16:19] this billboard is granted to move, they
[1:16:22] will permit it. That's what the lady at
[1:16:25] whom told me on the phone. Whether
[1:16:28] that's relevant to you folks or not, I
[1:16:30] just remembered I didn't share that with
[1:16:33] anybody. Um the other question I asked
[1:16:37] her was exactly what the chairman
[1:16:40] struggling with. If it's moved, is it a
[1:16:43] new sign or an existing sign?
[1:16:46] That was the very first place that I
[1:16:48] went with this in my brain. And she
[1:16:51] said, "We don't care.
[1:16:54] We're going to write a new permit. If
[1:16:57] you allow this structure to be moved, if
[1:17:00] it's a new structure, if it's the same
[1:17:02] structure, irrelevant to them."
[1:17:04] >> So, their position was we need to make
[1:17:06] that determination locally.
[1:17:08] >> You need to decide if you're going to
[1:17:11] allow it to be moved. They're going to issue a permit. if it
[1:17:15] is
[1:17:17] >> um
[1:17:18] >> she didn't really have care one way or
[1:17:21] the other if it was
[1:17:25] different or saying
[1:17:27] >> do we know when that sign was was put
[1:17:29] up.
[1:17:30] Has anybody heard that number
[1:17:33] >> would have been it was when Little
[1:17:35] Caesars was there? So
[1:17:41] » remember the date
[1:17:42] >> because the the e the easement is dated
[1:17:44] 2006.
[1:17:46] >> I think that's
[1:17:47] >> but I'm not clear I'm not clear if they
[1:17:50] created the easement 20 years after the
[1:17:53] sign was built.
[1:17:54] >> No, it was created for that sign.
[1:17:56] >> For that sign? Yes.
[1:17:57] >> So I was going to say 2004, but it might
[1:18:00] be 2006
[1:18:02] >> because the easement has a date on it of
[1:18:07] You might want to make a note of this.
[1:18:10] The date on the easement is September of
[1:18:13] 2006.
[1:18:16] The ordinance
[1:18:18] >> was effective February of 2006.
[1:18:23] So it is
[1:18:28] » So hold on.
[1:18:29] >> Yes, that's what I just said. I'm not
[1:18:31] going to editorialize.
[1:18:33] >> Yeah.
[1:18:33] >> I just Okay. Yes.
[1:18:35] >> File that away.
[1:18:36] >> Yep.
[1:18:37] >> So, I don't know if you
[1:18:38] >> February of 2006. So, actually,
[1:18:45] » thank you, God.
[1:18:47] >> Um,
[1:18:48] >> thank you, sir, for those numbers.
[1:18:50] >> Yeah. And then the other thing I'm
[1:18:51] noticing is we we've got within the
[1:18:54] definitions um you know non-conforming
[1:18:58] building structures, non-conforming
[1:18:59] uses, setbacks, a specific paragraph on
[1:19:02] signs and then another specific
[1:19:05] paragraph on structures
[1:19:07] >> sign. It's not it was billboards were
[1:19:10] removed from the definition of signs
[1:19:13] specifically
[1:19:14] >> in the 2006 ordinance. They removed
[1:19:16] >> Okay. All right. That's that's that's
[1:19:19] good to know. So again, I I am
[1:19:23] not comfortable with all this exactly
[1:19:27] without some more review.
[1:19:29] >> I I think we need to turn the wizards
[1:19:31] loose on it. If they bring it back to
[1:19:33] us, if it goes to the planning
[1:19:34] commission, whatever happens happens.
[1:19:36] Scrappers show up and take it in the
[1:19:38] middle of the night.
[1:19:38] >> So a motion to table is in order. And I
[1:19:41] would make that.
[1:19:43] >> I would I'm sorry to interrupt again. I
[1:19:46] would suggest tableabling it to a date
[1:19:47] certain if possible or to a meeting to
[1:19:51] be held within 30 days.
[1:19:54] >> Your motion.
[1:19:54] >> Is that consistent with your needs as
[1:19:56] the administrator?
[1:19:57] >> Yeah, I would do within 30 days and then
[1:20:00] we can review the planning commission to
[1:20:02] review amendment. Could I offer just one
[1:20:04] other the idea and that is I think I've
[1:20:07] heard you guys reference this could be
[1:20:09] generate to the point that the council
[1:20:11] needs to look at this get some feedback
[1:20:14] from a greater body and for this that
[1:20:16] represents the whole city. The point you
[1:20:18] just bring up about the billboards
[1:20:21] having grown from wherever they are now
[1:20:24] you know from maybe where they first met
[1:20:27] the ordinance. This does seem a bit out
[1:20:30] of control
[1:20:32] and we're trying to control it but
[1:20:35] trying to it seems like we feel kind of
[1:20:38] hog tied by situation and and written
[1:20:41] rule when when we're very far out of a
[1:20:44] bit out of compliance at all with what
[1:20:47] the city intended with the ordinance and
[1:20:50] now we're we're addressing some
[1:20:52] significant investment that I'm just
[1:20:55] curious if the better alternative is no.
[1:20:57] you should just remove the billboard
[1:20:59] completely. Move it out of the city. I
[1:21:02] mean, it's a thought.
[1:21:04] >> That's not our choice.
[1:21:05] I'm wondering if
[1:21:06] we also say council, do you want to
[1:21:08] address this?
[1:21:09] >> I don't sure that it's a council issue.
[1:21:11] I think it
[1:21:12] >> doesn't have that choice either. So if
[1:21:15] the question to remove the billboard
[1:21:18] >> to remove it if it's out of compiance
[1:21:21] and if the ordinance was put in the
[1:21:24] easement was the ordinance was put in in
[1:21:27] February 26th and the easement was
[1:21:30] established in September of 20 of 2006
[1:21:35] then if they didn't get a special use
[1:21:37] permit and they didn't get
[1:21:38] >> there's no such thing allowed in that
[1:21:40] district.
[1:21:40] >> There's no such thing. So the way the to
[1:21:43] be completed.
[1:21:44] >> The ordinance reads would allude to
[1:21:47] maybe that the easement was put in place
[1:21:48] after the billboard was constructed.
[1:21:52] >> So the
[1:21:52] >> that's something that's why I asked the
[1:21:54] question about how old is the billboard
[1:21:57] because I don't know.
[1:21:58] >> So the the way that the the ordinance
[1:21:59] was amended in 2007 to include a list of
[1:22:04] billboards as existed in February of
[1:22:07] 2006, which was the 10 billboards on 31.
[1:22:11] But it does not site their locations. It
[1:22:13] says on US 31.
[1:22:16] >> So I would assume that China one of them
[1:22:19] >> most likely.
[1:22:20] >> It's not in the record.
[1:22:21] >> I I would assume based on my count that
[1:22:24] every existing billboard by Lamar is one
[1:22:27] of those 10 billboards.
[1:22:31] >> Mr.
[1:22:34] Any way that you guys could get
[1:22:36] billboards that are not compliant and
[1:22:39] you don't want in the waterfront
[1:22:41] district. Has the city exhausted their
[1:22:44] way of getting rid of those?
[1:22:46] >> I don't think it's even been addressed.
[1:22:49] >> I don't think until very recently until
[1:22:52] this came up that it's really been
[1:22:54] looked at. I think everything's
[1:22:56] >> terrible. You put a lot of money over $2
[1:22:58] million into that property.
[1:22:59] >> I feel for it.
[1:23:00] >> Yes, you did. Exactly. That's why we're
[1:23:03] struggling so long and hard on this.
[1:23:05] >> They're money pits. I got a few of my
[1:23:07] own.
[1:23:07] >> Yeah. So, um,
[1:23:10] but until this particular issue came up,
[1:23:14] all the those signs have all been there.
[1:23:16] I mean, if if if they had come in today
[1:23:19] and wanted to put up a new one where
[1:23:20] there wasn't one already, they they'd be
[1:23:22] told no. I think the ones, you know, the
[1:23:24] signs that have been there have been
[1:23:25] there long enough that nobody has gone
[1:23:28] back to second guess or relook or double
[1:23:31] check to see, you know, was there ever a
[1:23:32] building permit pulled for it? Was it
[1:23:34] built after the ordinance? You know,
[1:23:38] it's the list of the of the eight Lamar
[1:23:42] billboards that are on US 31. Is there
[1:23:45] such a list? You know, that's why I
[1:23:48] asked if you knew how long it had been
[1:23:50] there.
[1:23:51] >> How do we
[1:23:53] >> I don't know. That's why I asked.
[1:23:55] >> Okay. Well, I may speak to you. How do
[1:23:57] we
[1:23:58] >> the billboard may have been built before
[1:24:03] » but those part of the just legalities of
[1:24:06] the whole debate or the real details but
[1:24:09] I don't think anybody here would deny
[1:24:11] the fact that
[1:24:12] >> the city's not getting what they want
[1:24:14] with all those billboards.
[1:24:16] >> Well, this was written after those were
[1:24:18] placed strategically
[1:24:21] >> knowing that most were closer together
[1:24:23] than that.
[1:24:25] >> Well, some were there. You've brought
[1:24:26] the fact more have shown up.
[1:24:28] >> There are somehow there are roughly 15.
[1:24:30] >> The 10 Lamar large traditional
[1:24:33] billboards are what are quoted in this.
[1:24:37] >> Nine.
[1:24:37] >> It says nine.
[1:24:38] >> Nine. Okay. Nine with whatever faces.
[1:24:41] >> The ones Marty's referring to are the
[1:24:45] sort of wooden billboards. Mhm.
[1:24:49] >> Three of them have state numbers on them
[1:24:52] >> which indicates they've been
[1:24:53] >> that they're on the state register.
[1:24:55] >> Yeah. which puts some more billboards
[1:24:56] that that that gets you to 12 or 13
[1:25:00] >> and the best I can find there I guess
[1:25:02] unless I if the state has record of when
[1:25:05] those were put up is in Google Maps it
[1:25:07] takes you back to 2008 and those are
[1:25:09] there as well. So I would
[1:25:10] >> that's just my point is that there's a
[1:25:12] lot of moving parts here
[1:25:13] >> and I don't have all the answers and I
[1:25:15] don't necessarily want to charge full on
[1:25:18] into this without knowing the answer.
[1:25:19] >> Yeah. And if we're going to table it um
[1:25:21] to a date specific um we should probably
[1:25:26] >> call for your question.
[1:25:27] >> Well, I'm about to suggest that, but I
[1:25:29] see that 30 days from today is Memorial
[1:25:32] Day and we won't be meeting that date.
[1:25:34] >> So, we could at a date specific in May
[1:25:38] as set by the administrator
[1:25:41] >> when she can um
[1:25:42] >> within 30 days
[1:25:44] >> be determined.
[1:25:45] >> Yeah. Because she will be probably asked
[1:25:49] individually by one or more of us for
[1:25:53] additional information that may take
[1:25:54] some time for her to research. Um
[1:25:57] >> so
[1:25:59] restate your motion
[1:26:00] >> that we uh table this um application I
[1:26:05] think is what it's called now. um to within 30 days a date to be
[1:26:12] specified by the building administrator.
[1:26:15] >> Zoning administrator
[1:26:16] >> zoning excuse me zoning administrator.
[1:26:19] You're both though, aren't you?
[1:26:20] >> No.
[1:26:21] Jerry is the building back over
[1:26:23] there.
[1:26:24] >> All good.
[1:26:25] >> Um May 18th.
[1:26:28] >> What's post between now and then? I will
[1:26:31] >> there can be you can get in touch with
[1:26:33] us and find make sure everybody's
[1:26:34] available and
[1:26:36] >> well if you want to set a date today
[1:26:39] >> this just to continue discussion
[1:26:42] >> or gather should there be more
[1:26:43] >> take it off take it off the table and have our hopefully a decision we
[1:26:48] should be able to make one by then
[1:26:50] >> my understanding is you want the zoning
[1:26:51] administrator to make a determination as
[1:26:54] to the use status of that of the
[1:26:57] existing billboard
[1:26:58] >> and a proposed reloc
[1:27:01] Correct. That's my concern is use.
[1:27:03] >> Okay.
[1:27:04] >> Between All right.
[1:27:05] >> And we we'll table variance until we
[1:27:07] know use
[1:27:07] >> and we apologize for being here and and
[1:27:10] but it's going to take that long.
[1:27:12] >> It's okay.
[1:27:13] >> All right.
[1:27:13] >> I mean, we have a hard time determining
[1:27:15] variance before we know what the
[1:27:17] specific use is.
[1:27:19] >> Well, so moved.
[1:27:21] >> Is there a second? I guess
[1:27:23] >> any com any more conversation?
[1:27:27] All in favor? Do we need a roll call?
[1:27:30] Just a
[1:27:32] >> might as well.
[1:27:34] >> Okay. Board member Johnson.
[1:27:37] >> Yes.
[1:27:38] >> Board member Dworth.
[1:27:40] >> Yes.
[1:27:40] >> Vice Chair Drain.
[1:27:42] >> Yes.
[1:27:42] >> And Chair Spalding.
[1:27:43] >> Yes.
[1:27:46] >> Okay. Next on our agenda,
[1:27:50] Riveright buried that.
[1:27:52] >> Mine went blank, so I wish I could help.
[1:27:59] I think we're in a public comment zone.
[1:28:07] Are there any public comments on
[1:28:08] anything not on the agenda from
[1:28:10] everybody not here?
[1:28:15] Staff reports.
[1:28:16] >> Well, Jerry just walked out right before
[1:28:18] I was about to go through our new
[1:28:21] breakdown in the department. But for
[1:28:23] those I haven't met until today, my name
[1:28:25] is Maddie. Um, I started with the city
[1:28:27] back exactly 6 months ago today. The day
[1:28:31] that this application came in for the
[1:28:34] variance was October 27th. Um, this is
[1:28:38] Jackie. She's our administrative
[1:28:39] assistant in the office. And then Jerry
[1:28:42] has taken over the community development
[1:28:44] director title from Teresa and he's also
[1:28:47] serving as the building official. And so
[1:28:49] I do the planning and zoning, he does
[1:28:52] the building, we work together on big
[1:28:54] stuff like this. But if you ever need
[1:28:57] anything, uh, one of the three of us are
[1:29:00] always available. And
[1:29:03] maybe we'll meet twice this year. We're
[1:29:04] already meeting twice this year. Maybe
[1:29:06] we'll meet three times.
[1:29:08] >> Record breaker.
[1:29:09] >> So this was about staff. You guys are
[1:29:12] staff.
[1:29:13] >> Yes.
[1:29:14] >> And we are board. And I just like to
[1:29:16] make a statement. I've been to one board
[1:29:19] meeting and I was an alternative
[1:29:21] alternate and I didn't know I was
[1:29:24] actually a board member, but that's
[1:29:26] fine. So,
[1:29:28] >> I walk into this going, "Oh,
[1:29:30] >> you didn't get out of the way fast
[1:29:31] enough."
[1:29:33] >> So, we are we have a vacancy right now.
[1:29:35] So, as long as or in the case Shel's not
[1:29:38] here, so we just can't have a board of
[1:29:40] six.
[1:29:40] >> Okay. So, I'm filling a vacancy.
[1:29:42] >> Yeah. And any
[1:29:43] >> for the meeting's purpose. Okay. in any
[1:29:45] point someone's gone or we have a
[1:29:47] vacancy as we do now um an alternate can
[1:29:50] sit on the reg then that's what I'm
[1:29:52] doing at the moment okay I was going to
[1:29:53] say I didn't know I was on the board
[1:29:55] itself but okay good enough thank you
[1:29:58] just had to state it sooner or later
[1:29:59] where I was at
[1:30:01] >> any dis anybody else over there have any discussion from the members
[1:30:09] >> I have another question I would like to
[1:30:11] just talk a little bit more about this
[1:30:15] about alternatives that are possible
[1:30:18] that might be helpful is can we do that
[1:30:20] informally or is this always supposed to
[1:30:22] be like open you know in a public forum
[1:30:26] >> has to be in a public forum by law
[1:30:28] >> yeah okay
[1:30:29] >> it's called the open meetings act
[1:30:31] >> so so yes all right and and I'm aware of
[1:30:33] that and I was just curious so the
[1:30:35] alternative of the city deciding that
[1:30:38] maybe because they've begged the
[1:30:40] question with their request there needs
[1:30:42] to be better action taken about the
[1:30:45] management of billboards at all in the
[1:30:48] city. I mean, if the city intends to do
[1:30:51] what I think the ordinance is about,
[1:30:53] which is in, you know, encourage
[1:30:56] development, encourage, you know, what
[1:30:59] this town is probably going to be built
[1:31:00] on, which is tourism. um that this
[1:31:05] situation we make an action here that
[1:31:08] could sort of further cement something
[1:31:10] that the city we don't even want which
[1:31:14] is that many formal billboards along
[1:31:16] that road in town and
[1:31:18] >> I think you're you're correct in fact
[1:31:19] we're we're charged with not having that
[1:31:22] authority or power we we can't alter the
[1:31:26] u some substance of the zoning we can
[1:31:28] only make some variances and
[1:31:30] >> we can make recommendations
[1:31:32] planning commission or staff.
[1:31:34] >> Um
[1:31:35] >> because we've done that before in
[1:31:37] >> regards to the definition of a hotel and
[1:31:40] >> Yep.
[1:31:40] >> which means that this decisioning here
[1:31:43] if it were to be about some things need
[1:31:45] to be eliminated or should they be
[1:31:47] before we agree to this. That's beyond
[1:31:49] our our charge as a variance board.
[1:31:53] >> Yeah. We're the zoning board of appeals.
[1:31:56] >> Um and we're to some degree bound by the
[1:32:00] four walls of the zoning ordinance.
[1:32:02] >> Yes.
[1:32:03] >> Um we're given some latitude about
[1:32:04] making some decisions that are in
[1:32:07] fairness and and make reasonable sense.
[1:32:10] Um but no, if there's a need for a
[1:32:14] change in the actual ordinance that
[1:32:16] belongs to the planning
[1:32:19] >> planning and and zoning board
[1:32:20] >> or to take other action beyond what a
[1:32:23] variance would be to a zoning.
[1:32:26] >> Okay. Our our role is primarily
[1:32:31] interpretive of definition and actions.
[1:32:34] >> And I appreciate that. So just
[1:32:35] >> when when when staff does something and
[1:32:39] somebody agreed comes to us and says
[1:32:41] they disagree with how they viewed that
[1:32:44] >> phrase, it's up to us to decide.
[1:32:47] >> Yeah.
[1:32:48] >> Which to some degree is what we were
[1:32:50] doing today.
[1:32:51] >> And in in retrospect, the fact that we
[1:32:54] only meet very infrequently suggests
[1:32:57] that the system and the ordinances are working working well. People
[1:33:02] understand what has to happen, what they
[1:33:04] need to do and can
[1:33:08] navigate that without a lot of conflict.
[1:33:11] Um, I do feel that folks who have a
[1:33:15] piece of property and are well on their
[1:33:17] way to doing something with it and have
[1:33:19] a business and all the rest of that um
[1:33:22] may not be
[1:33:25] um well treated by decisions that
[1:33:30] happened before the ordinances may have
[1:33:32] been altered or by other property
[1:33:35] owners. Um, but I'm not sure from the
[1:33:39] things that you've kind of shown us that
[1:33:41] you're focusing on that we have the
[1:33:45] latitude.
[1:33:45] >> Yeah. Other question like this sign
[1:33:47] itself that's sitting there. I'd like to
[1:33:50] know exactly when that was constructed.
[1:33:52] If it was constructed after 2006 or
[1:33:56] prior is it was after 2006 if the
[1:33:59] origins
[1:34:00] >> probably needs to come down. Well, what
[1:34:02] probably happened back when I was on
[1:34:05] planning back in the in the 80s and
[1:34:08] early 90s,
[1:34:10] >> we had a we had a a zoning
[1:34:12] administrator, building inspector
[1:34:15] who said, "Well, that'll be okay. We we
[1:34:17] can do that."
[1:34:19] >> Never. It wasn't until I was on the
[1:34:21] board that we were doing site plan
[1:34:22] reviews. And uh before that, oh yeah, that's almost enough. And in the
[1:34:29] back of my mind, I'm almost willing to
[1:34:31] bet if that went up after that ordinance
[1:34:34] went in effect and if Jerry was still in
[1:34:36] office down there, he did one of his Oh,
[1:34:39] that's okay. That that won't matter. I'm
[1:34:42] almost willing to bet that that could
[1:34:43] have happened, but I I can't say for
[1:34:45] sure.
[1:34:45] >> Can we get a review of
[1:34:50] >> it was approved by the B by the building
[1:34:52] inspector at that time. So, it was
[1:34:54] >> it though is the question. What can we
[1:34:58] find out whether or not a the ordinance
[1:35:01] from 1999
[1:35:03] required a building permit for a
[1:35:05] billboard?
[1:35:06] >> It did for signs. You needed a sign
[1:35:09] permit.
[1:35:09] >> Was considered a sign.
[1:35:11] >> A sign at that time.
[1:35:12] >> So, can we determine whether or not a
[1:35:15] building permit was in fact pulled for
[1:35:18] it?
[1:35:20] Um,
[1:35:20] >> I can look if we have the records on.
[1:35:23] You may not be able to determine
[1:35:25] definitively whether or not there was
[1:35:27] one. The records may not exist. But if
[1:35:30] the records are good and if there was no
[1:35:34] sign permit or construction permit ever
[1:35:36] pulled for that thing and it's
[1:35:39] indeterminable when exactly it was put
[1:35:43] up.
[1:35:44] I mean granted it's 20 years after the
[1:35:47] date. Um, but perhaps I mean everything
[1:35:50] that I read in in the ordinance refers
[1:35:53] to legal nonconforming signs. If it's
[1:35:58] not legal, whether it's non-conforming
[1:36:01] or not is kind of a moot point because
[1:36:03] if it was put up illegally, it I don't
[1:36:06] know that there's a statute of
[1:36:08] limitations on something like that. Is
[1:36:10] there? Well, the issue would be whether
[1:36:12] we have standing to take exception to
[1:36:15] the mistake or whether that's uh the
[1:36:18] standing lies with the current property
[1:36:20] owner and that would be one for some
[1:36:22] legal advice to review.
[1:36:24] >> And I can see being Lamar like the
[1:36:26] situation we had looked at back in
[1:36:28] December where we were talking about
[1:36:30] those signs, the lighted sign,
[1:36:33] >> the lighted sign,
[1:36:34] >> the um
[1:36:35] >> they were willing to take the city to
[1:36:37] court.
[1:36:37] >> Oh, sure.
[1:36:38] >> So, they'd be willing to fight it
[1:36:39] anyway. There's there's assume that they
[1:36:41] have some concern about that. They're
[1:36:43] what do they bill about $2 billion a
[1:36:45] year in advertising and
[1:36:46] >> make a profit of half a bill on that.
[1:36:49] >> They're they're not going to be real.
[1:36:51] >> They're not they're not afraid.
[1:36:52] >> Yeah. They're not going to be real wild
[1:36:53] about losing a piece of property. But if
[1:36:55] it was improperly done, the they uh the
[1:36:59] person who has standing to complain
[1:37:01] about that could bring such an action.
[1:37:03] >> Right. I'm not saying that's the city.
[1:37:05] Uh, we don't know who that is because I
[1:37:07] don't know who I we don't know the
[1:37:09] underlying facts yet at this point.
[1:37:11] >> I'm just saying as part of your review,
[1:37:13] can you look for that
[1:37:15] >> just to see if it's if it is legally not
[1:37:17] performing.
[1:37:18] >> It wouldn't be imprudent to have someone
[1:37:20] from legal take a look at that very um
[1:37:23] theory, if you will, because uh it could
[1:37:26] come back from some people who just
[1:37:28] left.
[1:37:30] >> The city didn't have jurisdiction over
[1:37:32] building permits at that time. Was it
[1:37:34] the county?
[1:37:35] >> State of Michigan.
[1:37:36] >> Oh,
[1:37:37] >> they have records.
[1:37:39] >> If we could
[1:37:40] >> way back
[1:37:42] proper terms, we may be able to
[1:37:44] >> you'd have I don't know if you'd have to
[1:37:45] foyer the state for some for a building
[1:37:47] record in your jurisdiction, do you?
[1:37:51] >> Yeah. But it it would be a
[1:37:53] >> they would know. I mean, that would be a
[1:37:54] pretty demonstrable
[1:37:56] set of facts right there.
[1:37:58] >> Yeah. Essentially, I need a permit
[1:38:00] number
[1:38:02] or a builder's name record,
[1:38:07] >> not a property owner name.
[1:38:10] >> And did I understand again you're
[1:38:11] standing here for for whom?
[1:38:14] >> I'm the building official for the city.
[1:38:16] >> You're the building official. Well,
[1:38:17] there we go. Then you do have standing
[1:38:18] to go and look at those things.
[1:38:21] >> Have
[1:38:22] >> I've I've tried to get records from the
[1:38:24] state. If you don't get have a permit
[1:38:26] number
[1:38:28] or a builder's
[1:38:31] identification or name,
[1:38:34] >> what about asking Lamar?
[1:38:35] >> Yeah. Just thinking,
[1:38:36] >> well, I would I would suggest that if
[1:38:38] you said to Lamar, "Oh, by the way, we
[1:38:40] need the permit." Yes.
[1:38:41] >> For it to make this decision, they're probably not going to be real
[1:38:44] happy to do that.
[1:38:45] >> No.
[1:38:46] >> But if they don't provide it,
[1:38:48] >> then can't you state? And then now
[1:38:49] you're getting into litigation. But then
[1:38:52] none exists. So,
[1:38:53] >> we will gather whatever records we have
[1:38:55] for the report.
[1:38:58] >> And it wasn't Lamar that put it up.
[1:39:01] >> No, probably not.
[1:39:02] >> It was uh
[1:39:03] >> but there should be some reference to
[1:39:04] the the the
[1:39:07] piece of property itself that has been
[1:39:08] >> it was TLC Properties, a Louisiana
[1:39:11] Corporation.
[1:39:12] >> That's basically Lamar Lamar Louis
[1:39:16] Corporation. Okay.
[1:39:16] >> That's their subsidiary
[1:39:19] companies. Yeah. Yeah. They don't look
[1:39:21] at it that way.
[1:39:22] >> Yeah, they they
[1:39:23] >> But I I think it would be not improper
[1:39:27] for us to ask them to justify that they
[1:39:29] constructed it. When did you construct
[1:39:31] it and with what permit?
[1:39:34] >> But if there's an easement or some some
[1:39:37] long-term granting of right, there
[1:39:40] should be documents that underly that.
[1:39:43] And even if we have to ask Little
[1:39:45] Caesars or whoever it was that was there
[1:39:47] earlier, there should be some record, I
[1:39:48] think.
[1:39:50] And I'm just thinking as a city changes,
[1:39:52] >> well, yeah,
[1:39:53] >> a city gets different um leverage, so to
[1:39:56] speak, of of what can continue to exist,
[1:40:00] maybe was fine 20, 30 years ago and no
[1:40:03] longer applies.
[1:40:04] >> Well, and we we're obviously as a city
[1:40:07] very concerned about that whole stretch
[1:40:08] of waterfront because it is a key asset
[1:40:11] to the city and it's going to underly a
[1:40:13] lot of things that can happen
[1:40:15] in the city. My little anecdote when I
[1:40:17] drove through this town the first time
[1:40:19] ever, which was about 12 years ago, we
[1:40:22] came from the north. And my first
[1:40:24] impression of this town was what a dump.
[1:40:29] And I did not appreciate the town at all
[1:40:32] till I started looking more seriously
[1:40:35] for a place to move to buy property and
[1:40:37] move to. and that northern and as the
[1:40:41] cities and the states investing in that
[1:40:43] road that that is such a good effort for
[1:40:46] this town to beautify that whole
[1:40:50] way in from the north and the fact that
[1:40:52] those billboards now sit like they do is
[1:40:55] going to look even weirder in in the
[1:40:58] future. I mean something's going to I
[1:41:00] think it needs addressing. That's I
[1:41:02] guess what I'm getting at. It seems like
[1:41:03] it's bigger than the board uh zoning
[1:41:06] variance as to what's going on gone on
[1:41:09] with those build.
[1:41:10] >> So this the city has
[1:41:12] >> that sign is going to have to put a lot longer pole on it because if you use
[1:41:17] the pole it's on right now the top of
[1:41:19] the sign won't get above the edge of the
[1:41:21] curb.
[1:41:21] >> Oh depending because it's on the hill.
[1:41:23] >> It's on the bottom of the hill.
[1:41:24] >> It's supposed to be on the bottom of the
[1:41:25] hill.
[1:41:25] >> Yeah.
[1:41:25] Again, I don't know if the
[1:41:27] Milwaukee people understand how that
[1:41:29] could affect, you know,
[1:41:31] >> one one other consideration, too, in
[1:41:33] addition to checking for um for a
[1:41:36] building permit and or any kind of a
[1:41:38] zoning application from that time period
[1:41:41] to fix whether or not
[1:41:43] it it's it's a legal non-conforming
[1:41:46] sign. The other thing that that comes to
[1:41:48] my mind would be to try to find if there
[1:41:51] is a specific list of what those nine
[1:41:54] billboards are they were talking about
[1:41:57] >> that's all of it
[1:41:58] >> and
[1:41:59] >> so what what went okay sorry
[1:42:01] >> thing that I would that I just popping
[1:42:04] into my mind now
[1:42:06] >> has there been any annexation have there
[1:42:08] been any changes in the city's boundary
[1:42:12] since 2006 where they could be counting
[1:42:17] a sign that was in a different
[1:42:19] direction. Has the city annexed, I
[1:42:21] guess, is my point. Since 2006, did they
[1:42:24] count something in Filer or Manaste
[1:42:27] Township as a sign and that one didn't
[1:42:29] exist?
[1:42:30] >> You know,
[1:42:31] >> and the only annexation the city has had
[1:42:33] that my recollection, I'm not sure the
[1:42:35] date, is uh south of the golf course,
[1:42:39] >> south of 12th Street and uh west of of
[1:42:42] Cherry. That's the only thing that was
[1:42:45] been annexed out of Filer Township
[1:42:47] >> because that could affect that tally,
[1:42:49] too. But if there's no specific number
[1:42:51] list anywhere,
[1:42:53] >> you know, that's there's just a number
[1:42:55] of things that that come into play here
[1:42:57] that
[1:42:59] >> I would suggest we adjourn. We put a lot
[1:43:01] of things on the record because this is
[1:43:03] all being recorded.
[1:43:04] >> Um, which means you've got a ton of work
[1:43:06] to I don't know how you how you store
[1:43:08] that. You just keep the recording.
[1:43:11] >> Yeah.
[1:43:11] We'll have minutes but um most
[1:43:14] just action items for the most part
[1:43:16] we'll make up
[1:43:17] >> and um so I'd move we return
[1:43:20] >> support
[1:43:21] >> discussion
[1:43:23] all in favor
[1:43:24] >> I any opposed
[1:43:34] » we didn't drift too