|
Approved 8/9/2010
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 5/10/2010 Page 3 of 6
<br />1
<br />2
<br />3
<br />4
<br />5
<br />6
<br />7
<br />8
<br />9
<br />10
<br />11
<br />12
<br />13
<br />14
<br />15
<br />16
<br />17
<br />18
<br />19
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22
<br />23
<br />24
<br />25
<br />26
<br />27
<br />28
<br />29
<br />30
<br />31
<br />32
<br />33
<br />34
<br />35
<br />36
<br />37
<br />38
<br />39
<br />40
<br />41
<br />42
<br />43
<br />44
<br />45
<br />46
<br />47
<br />48
<br />49
<br />50
<br />51
<br />52
<br />53
<br />54
<br />55
<br />
<br />Debra Graham: You want to take that out?
<br />
<br />Dawn Brezina: Yes.
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: Okay, page 9, line 40, ‘gun shy because we had an appeal’ strike ‘against us because’ and insert ‘associated
<br />with’ ‘the sign’ then strike ‘of notification’ and then in line 41 strike the word ‘said’ and insert ‘saying that’. I’m trying to put this
<br />in here, I’m about to put this great grammar here. So, it’s going to read ‘I am kind of gun shy because we had an appeal
<br />associated with the sign notification on the case we just continued saying that there was not enough information on the
<br />notification for all the surrounding properties.’ That’s the way that will read. Ten, eleven.
<br />
<br />Mark Micol: Page ten, line 13, strike ‘existing’ for ‘the existence’ ‘the mere existence of the lights...not altered’
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: Page eleven.
<br />
<br />Tom Brown: Eleven, line 5 “In 2007, the accessory use ‘was the’ ball field.” and strike ‘or ball field was lights’ which makes no
<br />sense.
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: Any other changes and modifications? With the intended changes we have made here, do I hear a motion for
<br />approval of the minutes from February 8, 2010.
<br />
<br />MOTION made by Dawn Brezina to approve the minutes of February 8, 2010 with the noted corrections.
<br />Mark Micol seconded.
<br />VOTE: Unanimous
<br />
<br />b. March 8, 2010
<br />Case Number A-8-09
<br />Canine College – Class II Kennel at 719 New Hope Church Road
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: Second set of minutes, the very extensive minutes beginning on page 15 from the Case A-08-09 Kennel on
<br />1719 New Hope Church Road. We’ll go through page by page if someone has a comment. Line 48, page 15, ‘and then the
<br />Board will’ Debra, insert ‘also’ ‘the Board will also have the opportunity to ask the witness questions’ and strike ‘at that in time
<br />also’. So then it reads ‘to ask the witness questions before we go any further’. Line 52, at the end it says ‘which we talk’
<br />‘which we will talk about’ insert will. Page 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
<br />
<br />Tom Brown: 25, line 39, ‘My name is’ ‘Rob’.
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: 26, 27, 28.
<br />
<br />David Blankfard: Page 28, line 28, ‘I believe the landscaping’ strike the word ‘the’ and replace it with ‘that’.
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: 29, 30, 31
<br />
<br />Tom Brown: 31, line 50 should be ‘opinion’ just strike the ‘s’ on the end, and line 52 “Your statement that you think it will ‘be’
<br />in harmony”.
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: 31, 32, 33
<br />
<br />Tom Brown: Page 33, line fourteen, ‘one’
<br />
<br />Jeff Schmitt: 34, 35, 36, 37 line 18, put a period at the end of ‘fence’ and strike ‘just for my edification’. Don’t put a period
<br />there because there’s a semi-colon later, ‘both sides of this fence’ I guess the semi-colon needs to come out and put a
<br />comma there. So it reads ‘on both sides of the fence, you are not going back to the regulations’ and then on 27, middle of the
<br />sentence there is the word ‘that’ ‘one could construct ‘that’ strike ‘that’ and insert ‘a’ and then on line 28, ‘of distance from’
<br />insert ‘the’ ‘property line’
|