• City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
Print this page

BZA Minutes

March 26, 2013

Board of Zoning Appeals
March 26th, 2013

The Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Cambridge met at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26th, 2013 in the City Council Chambers located at 305 Gay Street, Cambridge, Maryland.

Board Members in Attendance: Rufus Sampson, Chairman; Brian Manning; Jane Devlin, Vice Chair; Frank Cooke; Wendell Foxwell; Ted Brooks, alternate

Other representatives in Attendance: Dan Brandewie, City Planner II; Rob Collison, City Attorney

Mr. Rufus Sampson called the meeting to order. He took the roll call of officers.

Mr. Rob Collison administered the oath to those wanting to testify.

Mr. Sampson said the Findings of Facts will be at the end of the meeting for time purposes.


BZA# 06 FY 12/13, 606 William Street, Tax Map 301, Parcel 39, Ann Damianos homeowner/applicant requests a variance to construct an accessory building in excess of 15 feet in height as required per Section 232 (1) (d). In addition, to request for Special Exception (SE) to construct an accessory dwelling unit per Section 231 of the City of Cambridge, Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned NC-3.

Mr. Brandewie said this came before the Planning Commission (PC) on March 19th for a Special Exception and was recommended for approval. Ms. Damianos is requesting to replace a dilapidated garage on her property. Space is needed while renovation is done on the main body of her current home. She intends to care for an aging family member in the future. She sought HPC (Historic Preservation Commission) approval on June 16, 2011. This was approved, however, that has since expired and she is required to re-submit to the HPC for review and approval.

One recommendation as part of the accessory dwelling standards is that the applicant file a deed and record it in order to certify the accessory dwelling unit (or the main unit) will be occupied by a family member at all times. The proposed height is 20 ft. 6 inches. However, Ms. Damianos intends to raise it 2 or 3 additional concrete blocks in height due to wet drainage conditions; that would raise it to 22 feet. The variance is about 7 feet above the 15 feet limitation. The new zoning ordinance is recommended to go to 18 feet; however, staff is supporting the new height limit be set at 22 feet with other considerations. If you put a 1 l/2 stories together and combine the building code requirements you need at least 21 feet to make it work if you lift the building up for additional drainage. Staff is supportive of the request for the Special Exception and the variance.

Ms. Devlin said for clarification- the deed restriction requires the owner occupy one of the two units. The other unit doesn't have to be a family member, but the owner must occupy one unit. If the owner isn't in one of the two units, it becomes multi-family. It's in Section 231 Item 7A.

Mr. Brandewie said one reason to support accessory buildings is an expanded tax base. Mr. Cooke doesn't think tax assessment will change based on whether or not there are two units on the property. Mr. Brandewie said it could; upon installation of a kitchen they install a separate water meter so it'll be assessed as a separate dwelling unit. Mr. Cooke said there are many multi-unit units in town taxed as single family.

Mr. Brandewie is concerned with the City's ability to monitor deed restrictions on an annual basis and also is in favor of dropping the annual renewal requirement. If the owner doesn't file required paperwork once a year and the City doesn't monitor it, it becomes problematic. Once the deed restriction is recorded against the property, staff believes that is sufficient to enforce its use as an accessory dwelling unit.

Mr. Brandewie stated that before an occupancy permit is issued, she is required to file the deed restriction. If she only applies for a building permit for a garage, she would not be required to file for a deed restriction.

Ann Damianos, 606 William Street, stated that she plans to build a structure to store her business equipment and building materials due to ongoing construction at her house. She wants to build out the interior for an apartment for her father possibly later on. To get a second story and a 12/12 pitch roof she needs height. There is a drainage problem from the cemetery in her backyard; she thinks it prudent to raise the building. A City drainage pipe runs through her property; to get 600 sq. ft. on one floor she can't extend the building over the pipe.

Mr. Cooke said this is the first time he heard this; no evidence is given to support her claim.

Mr. Brandewie said it came up in a previous Special Exception application to the Board that was heard two years ago; they discussed it at the HPC. It is not a City maintained storm pipe. Ms. Damianos stated that improvements were made to a section of the overall storm pipe, but not the part running through her property. Ms. Damianos showed photos. Her time line doing the accessory dwelling is now. Mr. Foxwell said if the Board approves 22 feet it is acceptable.

Discussion followed on the possibility of reducing the roof pitch; if she reduced the pitch, it would reduce the height. Ms. Damianos said it would change the look of the structure. Drawings were approved by HPC based on the height variance.

Board members expressed an interest in more information on the pipes location. Damianos said the hardship is 90% related to the pipe and drainage issues. Her contention is she has to go up; she cannot go out.

Mr. Sampson asked if any one wished to speak for or against this variance.
Mr. Cooke asked who will enforce deed restrictions years from now. Mr. Brandewie said it stays with the deed; staff relies primarily on complaints and the zoning enforcement program. They also rely on Municipal Utility Commission records for rental registrations.

Marion Thomas, 603 William Street thinks the garage will be a huge improvement. She lives adjacent to the property on High Street.

David Adams, 600 William Street supports her plan; when it rains, William Street is like a mini Choptank River.

Ms. Devlin asked Ms. Damianos what her construction plans are at this time if the Board were to approve tonight. Ms. Damianos said she will not start until sometime this summer.

Ms. Devlin moved to close the discussion. Mr. Cooke seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Devlin said they have nothing tangible on the drainage issue in their packet. Ms. Damianos' drainage issue is relevant, unique. She recommends Ms. Damianos put it in writing to support the variance. She requests tabling this until next month.

Mr. Sampson said DPW could document the pipe across Ms. Damianos' property.

Mr. Manning said if there's a good reason to go up with the building because of the water pipe and drainage issue then the Board has reasons to support the variance.

Mr. Foxwell said many times a variance is better than the City code; he's in favor of her request.

Mr. Brooks said she should speak on issues allowing variances. The pipe is a significant issue. He's in favor of tabling it for a month so they understand it and move forward.

The Board requested she document the pipe and drainage issues so they can review it. If she doesn't get the variance, she'll have to wait a year before she can come back. If she provides documentation she can come back in one month. If the pipe makes her situation unique, the variance can be granted.

Mr. Cooke said people have spoken in favor of Ms. Damianos' design, but the statute does not match what she and supporters would like. The Board is constrained by the City ordinance.

Ms. Devlin moved to defer the case until the next meeting with more information coming in specifically pertaining to the drainage and water issues. Mr. Manning seconded the motion. Mr. Cooke voted-aye, Ms. Devlin-aye, Mr. Manning-aye, Mr. Foxwell-no, Mr. Sampson-aye. Motion carries.

BZA# 07 FY 12/13, Jamie Richardson, 705 Church Street, Tax Map 301, Parcel 259; appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to allow the reuse of a non-conforming three (3) unit apartment in accordance with Section 103 (1-3) of the City of Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned NC-3.

Ms. Devlin stated due to ethics regulations she filled out a potential conflict of interest form and submitted it to the Ethics Commission. She is a board member of West End Citizens Association that has taken in interest and position on this case. She removed herself from any deliberations which were verified by Mr. Brandewie.

Mr. Frank Cooke also disclosed that he asked the Ethics Commission for advice as he had some interest in buying the property. But he decided not to buy it and therefore has no ethics issue. He was aware of potential problems with the use. He alerted staff about the possible expiration of the non-conforming use. He told this to Ethics Commission; he doesn't need to recuse himself.

Mr. Sampson stated for the record that Ms. Jane Devlin and Mr. Frank Cooke have made statements regarding the case coming up and they will be seated.

Mr. Brandewie said the applicant is Jamie Richardson, 1629 Taylors Island Road, Woolford, Maryland. In the packet the Staff included a letter dated March 4th to David H. Leonard explaining the concerns over the zoning issue, a copy of the applicable zoning regulations as Exhibit 1B, a copy of the application filed by Mr. Richardson, a letter of explanation that was part of the application itself and an email that explains Mr. Richardson's rationale for his appeal. Staff also provided Exhibit 3 as a zoning map showing the NC-3 zoning on the property, a copy of the tax map from the State Department of Taxation (Exhibit 6). Exhibit 7 shows the tax print out on the property; Exhibit 8-the NC-3 permitted use table which identifies the multi-family apartments not being permitted as a (SE) Special Exception or (PC) permitted with condition type use.

In February 2013 Staff was contacted by a resident who reported the property being advertised as a 5 unit apartment. The Staff confirmed with the Municipal Utilities Commission (MUC) that the property had a valid up-to-date rental registration for a 3 unit apartment. The Staff was contacted by a prospective buyer, Mr. Richardson, as well as a Hebron Bank representative as to both the HPC design requirements and other zoning related matters. Mr. Richardson was informed there was a question about the re-use of property as a 3 unit versus 5 unit apartments and the possibility it could be considered a non-conforming use; additional zoning procedures could apply. Based on further research and internal Staff discussions, Staff, concluded that Article 8 Non-Conforming situations Section 94 Intent and particularly Section 103 Abandonment and Discontinuance of Non-Conforming situations Subsection 1-4 were applicable. Staff sent a letter (Exhibit 1A and 1B) on March 4 to Hebron Savings Bank and Mr. Richardson notified them of the decision to classify the property as non-conforming use and based on time limits as to its abandonment and discontinuance the property would not be permitted as a 3 unit apartment. They were notified of their right to appeal this decision to the BZA. Mr. Richardson filed the appeal on March 4th with attachments.

Staff's findings are: A description of the NC-3 zoning district can be found under Section 110. At the bottom of the paragraph it says the neighborhood conservation districts are also designed to remove or minimize non-conforming uses to the extent possible, however any new proposed dwellings within these districts shall be a single family detached or single family semi-detached unit to meet all of the requirements of the chapter. The other relevant finding under Item 5 came from the MUC per conversation with Jane Dorman approximately on March 20th; the rental registrations for the 3 units are registered with the MUC and are valid to June 30, 2013. They were renewed in 2012 by the previous owner. The property currently has one water meter, but three water bills had been billed to the property in the past. They combine both trash pick-up, sewer service, water consumption and a Chesapeake Bay restoration fee and that is based on the number of units in an apartment so they bill it separately. The last water record of any water consumption for the property was in January of 2012. Water bills were sent to the previous owner, Mr. Maloney. Prior to January 2012 they became delinquent and the water meter was removed on January 3, 2012. Water bills were then paid from August-February of 2013 and were kept current. The water bills since February have been paid by Mr. Richardson who became the purchaser of the property in January or February.

Jamie Richardson, 1629 Taylors Island Road, Woolford, Maryland is contesting the decision because of Section 103 of the ordinance. It was a foreclosure; the property was rented up until that point. Once the bank got the foreclosure process cleared up they continued to register the property as a 3 unit, the water company considered it a 3 unit, they were billed for 3 units and they paid the water bill with 3 units for a consecutive period. They marketed this property as 3 units for multi-family. It has been a 3 unit building for at least 30 years.

Mr. Frank Cooke said he has been on the property. There were 5 units in the property. He believes there were two illegal units in there. It was not just a question of 5 electric meters.

Mr. Cooke said property owners not taking care of their property when converting big old houses into multiple units are troublesome. In the code you can keep it as long as you continue to do so; once you stop, within 90 days the idea is to get rid of these uses. Section 103 is the crux of the issue. There are two conditions: 1) when a non-conforming use like a multi-apartment building first built as a single family dwelling, if it is discontinued for a 90 day period or discontinued for any period of time; 2) It hasn't been rented in more than one year. His situation falls under this category.

Mr. Richardson said it isn't clear the house wasn't rented for at least one year. He had the power turned on to the property. The power company stated if the power was turned off for one year it would need to be re-inspected before power is turned on, but it did not need to be because the power was on until April 2012. An e-mail from Mr. Brandewie stated a decision had been made regarding the use of the property, that he had drafted a letter and once he got it reviewed by his supervisor, they would have no issue. However, once it was reviewed by his supervisor it changed. How did they go from "they have no issue with it" to now?

Mr. Richardson said he would not have bought the property if he knew he could only have a single living dwelling. There is no benefit of a single family unit for him.

Mr. Foxwell said Mr. Richardson fixed up houses on Byrn Street and now the street is a gem. He feels if the Board doesn't grant Mr. Richardson's request, it could go to a slumlord.

Mr. Sampson asked if there was any one who wished to speak for or against this.

John Ondrick, 205 Mill Street: Mr. Richardson has not done his due diligence. If he had read the rules that are in place he would have concluded he maybe need legal advice.

Barbara Harp, Board of Directors of the West End Citizens' Association (WECA), lives at 309 Glenburn Avenue: The WECA Inc., 501 C3 non-profit organization urges the BZA to reject the applicant's proposal to resume the non-conforming 3-unit use of 705 Church Street. The building is a late nineteenth century dwelling that was built to be a single family residence. The lot is 50 feet wide and fronts on Church Street. The residences at 701, 703 and 707 Church Street are also built on 50 ft. wide lots. 705 Church Street is separated from its neighbors at 703 and 707 Church Street by only about 10 feet. These facts lead to concerns the Association has with the proposed multi-family use of 705 Church Street:

1) Safety - houses built during the late 19th century and early 20th century had a balloon framed construction which permits fires to spread rapidly through a structure. The probability of a fire spreading in a dwelling is proportional to the number of residents present.
2) Parking - the 50 foot street frontage of 705 Church Street would allow only 2 automobiles to be parked in front of that address without a portion of an additional automobile extending in front of a neighboring residence
3) Property Values - the neighborhood property values would suffer from allowing the resumption of a multi-family use of 705 Church Street.
4) Precedent - allowing the multi-family use of 705 Church Street would be a precedent that would encourage other proposals to resume abandoned non-conforming uses in the City.

Andrew Pasden, 312 Mill Street: we have rules; we need to follow the rules. If we don't follow the rules, there is no sense in having them. The Board had a case similar to this a couple of years ago at 308 Mill Street and the Board rejected that appeal; they have a precedent.

Judd Vickers is a resident of 206 Belvedere Avenue. He read a statement from the RUDAT report on the City's website commissioned for the City in 2006. It comments on the rental versus homeownership situation: of the occupied housing units in Cambridge, 55% are rental households and only 45% are homeowners. According to the 2000 U.S. Census this is a stark contrast to the National average where 66% of homes are owner occupied. Within particular areas of the City especially in distressed neighborhoods, he would consider Church Street a distressed neighborhood, homeownership rates dropped to as low as 16%. This has serious implications for the long term community's stability and investment. He researched property tax assessments and the assessments are lower in multi-family rental neighborhoods than the assessments in owner-occupied neighborhoods.

Marge Hull, 1301 Hambrooks Boulevard: she is on the Board for West End Citizen's Association (WECA) which has great concern for the West End which has expanded to the entire City of Cambridge. She suggests Mr. Richardson go back to the agent who led him into this quandary and give him "what for" because they have had it before and they are going to have it again. This historic district property is more difficult to work with to satisfy all of the codes. Realtors mislead prospective buyers who come here to buy property because they don't know any better. Every City registered agent needs to know what is happening; they have the ability to stop it.

Mr. Sampson asked if any one wished to speak for or against the appeal. No one spoke.

Mr. Manning moved to close the discussion. Ms. Devlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Manning said the rules are explicit; it was an illegal apartment grandfathered in. The Board has to uphold what the City wants and get rid of non-conforming situations by the rules laid out. His vote is the non-conforming use goes away following or meeting the criteria laid out.
Ms. Devlin agrees with Mr. Manning; there were clear delineations of how they would stop existing non-conforming uses from continuing. She feels they need to uphold the existing code.

Mr. Cooke said buyers exploit property by getting maximum bucks out of it by spending little or no money on it. Many old single family residences have old wiring and don't comply with modern fire codes. Often multi-unit buildings catch on fire. Applicant has no evidence of tenants living there in a 90 day period. Mr. Cooke said no one has lived there in a long time.

Mr. Foxwell knows this house is in bad shape and will take a lot of money to heat it and fix it up.

Mr. Brandewie stated that he hopes when moving forward they look closely at the new zoning ordinance and better enforcement mechanisms to help monitor the situations.

Mr. Cooke said the City should notify the Board of Realtors of this requirement; many foreclosures go beyond 90 days; it's improper to advertise the property use when the code doesn't support it.

Mr. Brandewie said unless they are aware of the rental that has been no longer occupied, there would be absolutely no way they would find out if that owner now started moving in tenants.

Ms. Devlin moved to close discussion. Mr. Manning seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Cooke moved the appellant's appeal be denied. Mr. Manning seconded the motion.

Mr. Brandewie said the Board is being asked to uphold the Staff's decision in terms of code interpretation. He recommends the Board recite their rationale or reasons behind their motion as part of their deliberations.

Mr. Cooke withdraws his motion. Mr. Manning removed his second to the motion.

Mr. Cooke moved to support the Zoning Official's decision regarding 705 Church Street the basis for which is described in Staff notes; in particular the 90 day limit has expired in terms of discontinuance of the non-conforming condition. Mr. Manning seconded the motion. Vote - Mr. Cooke aye, Ms. Devlin aye, Mr. Manning aye, Mr. Foxwell no, Chairman Sampson aye. Motion was carried.

Ms. Devlin moved to break for 5 minutes. Mr. Manning seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

BZA# 05 FY 12/13, Stella & Jordon Kulukurgiotis, 802 Woods Road, Tax Map 0305, Parcel 5692, Lot 1 (aka Spicer's Restaurant) an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to remove a freestanding pole sign for a business that has ceased or is terminated per Section 310 (6) of the City of Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial.

Ms. Devlin moved to re-open the meeting. Mr. Foxwell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Brandewie said the appeal is filed by applicants, Sella and Jordon Kulukurgiotis, 6 Hatsawap Road. A list of adjacent property owners were notified of the hearing tonight and a copy of the BZA posted on the property; it was properly advertised in newspapers and posted on property.

This business originally located at this facility has not operated at a minimum of 5 years. The applicant was sent two letters in November and January to remove the obsolete sign. The PC has given clear direction to the Zoning Official to actively enforce the code beginning with violations along the Rt. 50 corridor. Since given this directive, numerous signs and violations have been removed. It is Staff's recommendation this is an enforceable regulation that clearly applies in this application.

Board members asked what documentation is there on this effort by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Brandewie stated that there is no written memo; however, the PC has given clear direction to the Zoning Official to enforce the code beginning with the violations along the Rt. 50 corridor. This Commission has requested Staff to evaluate these business signs at several PC meetings; this directive is in the minutes.

Mr. Cooke asked why the focus on Spicer's sign when there are other Rt. 50 signs such as Dayton's, Williamson Real Estate, the green gas station, former Burger King, Hysers, Breyers Ice Cream, Super Stop, future home of Zion Baptist Church and Western Auto.

Mr. Brandewie said letters have been sent to the Burger King site including the gas station, but Dayton's Restaurant has not received a letter. Removal of the Hyser's and Breyer's Ice Cream sign is in the historic district and would need HPC approval. He knows there are sign problems on other street corridors, but the U.S. Rt. 50 Corridor has been identified as a priority in terms of sign enforcement.

Mr. Brandewie further stated that the P&Z Staff successfully implemented this section of the code at the former Popeye's site in the Sunburst Shopping Center. They were asked to remove two dilapidated freestanding signs; they were removed. Across from Burger King, a freestanding sign used as an off-premise sign was removed 8 months ago. A former Wendy's sign at Popeyes' new place was removed recently.

Ms. Devlin agrees they are here to address Section 310 with the realization the P&Z is trying to work with ongoing planning issues tied in with gateways, tied in with a number of projects they are leading into. When you start a program to eradicate signs pertaining to businesses that no longer exist, you have to have a starting point. We are looking at a program the P&Z has initiated; that City Staff is attempting to carry it out. Their focus is the Rt. 50 Corridor and the Gateways.

Stella Kulukurgiotis, 6 Hatsawap Road read a letter she wrote to BZA-they've been Cambridge residents and business owners for 23 years. The 30 year sign is in good condition. They have had a hard time renting/selling the property listed with Wayne Johnson for 7 years with mortgage payments, taxes, not mentioning the sign removal expense. They want the Board to allow the sign's use; she thought it was grandfathered in; if the sign is removed they may not sell restaurant.

Iordanis Kulukurgiotis, 6 Hatsawap Road, said they bought the property in December 2004. They ran the restaurant as Spicer's until April/May 2009. The sign went with the purchase of the property. It would cost approximately $10,000.00 to take it down.

Mr. Brandewie responded by stating that Spicer's hasn't been in business for at least four years; there were other signs on the site and building requested to be removed by applicants; they complied with it. Spicer's sign is in the same category as other Rt. 50 signs that staff has directed their enforcement abilities to and were removed. Staff believes this sign is an eyesore and a detriment to the image it presents along Rt. 50.

Mr. Sampson asked if any one wished to speak for or against the project.

Marge Hull, 1301 Hambrooks, said if there is a proven hardship, it is not detrimental at this point. That sign probably is a good advertisement for people looking to purchase or to rent.

Mr. Sampson asked if any one wished to speak for or against the project. No one did.

Mr. Cooke moved to close the discussion. Ms. Devlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Cooke said the Board should reject the City's code interpretation demanded of the applicants because: 1) it is an active business; 2) the original property condition had the sign; 3) in the code was financial consideration. The cost of sign removal and loss of property value could cost $100,000.00. Why do that to applicants investing their money in the City?

Mr. Sampson said the business is semi-active. This property was a very active spot years ago.

Ms. Devlin said Spicer's restaurant has ceased; using the property for storage doesn't make the restaurant function. Rt. 50 is the major corridor; they must keep a level of quality interest and attraction down the main corridors. She doubts it costs $100,000.00 to remove it.

Mr. Manning said Spicer's Seafood is non-existent. It has nothing to do with Pizza Palace except the Pizza Palace owners own this property.

Mr. Foxwell said the advertisement for Spicer's is not there and they are fooling the public and that is against the law. If the code says to get rid of the sign, then get rid of the sign.

Mr. Cooke said this business has not ceased; it is being used for storage. If this sign helps them sell their property he thinks there should be some leniency with the applicants.

Ms. Kulukurgiotis asked if they could paint over the sign so there would be no advertising. They could get more visibility if they put "for sale" on it instead of the little sign that says for sale.

Mr. Kulukurgiotis said the only reason he bought the building was the nice location and the sign. If the sign goes down, he goes down. He is asking the Board to help him.

Mr. Brandewie said since the Board opened it up again for testimony, he reminded the Board that it may be appropriate to ask if anyone else wants to respond with testimony.

Mr. Sampson asked if anyone else would like to make a statement.

Mr. Cooke asked the Board not go directly to a motion, but rather have additional discussion.
Ms. Devlin said yes, if there's a time limit. Mr. Manning said 5 minutes, but no more.

Ms. Devlin moved to close discussion among Board members after 5 minutes. Mr. Cooke seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Cooke said the applicants are undergoing a tremendous hardship. The Board should find a reason in the code to help them. They are the "walking and talking American Dream".

Ms. Devlin has empathy, but can't see anything in the code to defend a decision he's suggesting.
Mr. Manning said he does not see anything in the code that gives the Board any wiggle room.

Mr. Foxwell said the applicants need financial help, but he is still in favor of removing the sign.

Mr. Cooke said the only relief they could give them is to exempt them from removing the sign.

Mr. Brandewie said the Board has the authority to offer an extension of time before the enforcement order would have to be complied with. Staff however is not in favor of that.

Ms. Devlin moves to close discussion. Mr. Manning seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Cooke moved to nullify the City's demand that the sign be taken down on the basis of financial hardship and possible misinterpretations of the ordinance. Motion died for lack of second.

Mr. Manning moved that the City's determination based on Section 10 paragraph 6 that states where a business has been terminated it shall be responsible for the removal of all signs, posts and standards; and grounds be restored to the original condition by the owner of the property. Mr. Foxwell seconded the motion. The vote was counted by signifying raising their hands; it was a tie. Mr. Foxwell-yes, Mr. Manning-yes, Ms. Devlin-no, Mr. Cooke-no, Mr. Sampson-no. Motion failed.

Ms. Devlin applauds the P&Z and the City's efforts, but she recognizes difficult situations.

Ms. Devlin moved that the sign be able to remain until November of 2013 so there is a strong attempt through the purchasing season of real estate to try and sell the property. When they get to the date of November 20th, 2013 the sign will be removed. Mr. Manning seconded the motion. Mr. Cooke-aye, Ms. Devlin-aye, Mr. Manning-aye, Mr. Foxwell-aye. Rufus Sampson abstained. Motion carried.

Correction: under conclusions of law page 3 it should be "comprehensive plan"; not "comprehensive". It was suggested they send by-law comments digitally to Mr. Brandewie.

Ms. Devlin moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:23 p.m. Mr. Cooke seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Trudi R. Jones Daniel L. Brandewie
Secretary I City Planner II

Signature: ____________________ Date: _________________
Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals

Note: These minutes were approved at the BZA meeting conducted on June 25th, 2013.