CITY OF DOVER
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 16, 2007
The Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 1:00 PM with Vice Chairman Dr. Goate? presiding.? Members present were Dr. Goate?, Mr. Senato and Mr. Hufnal.? Mr. Sheth and Colonel Ericson were absent.
Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Ms. Cornwell, Mr. Albert and Mr. Pepper.? Also present were Mr. Mike Zimmerman, Mr. Doug Liberman, Mr. David Braun, Mr. Ben Snyder, Mr. Jim Flood, Jr., Mr. Peter Wieck, and Mr. Ed Ide.
Dr Goate? stated that the agenda would be amended to add one Old Business item agenda, Application V-07-12 Lands of Halpern Family Property, LP.
Mr. Senato moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.
APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2007
Mr. Senato moved to approve the regular Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of April 18, 2007, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.
OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Mrs. Townshend presented to the audience the policies and procedures that would be followed during these hearings.
OLD BUSINESS:
Applicant #V-06-17:?
201-205-207 West Division Street, Lands of South Smyrna Developers, LLC:? South Smyrna Developers, LLC., has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance from Article 3 ? 4.14 pertaining to the maximum floor area ratio.? The Applicant seeks a floor area ratio of 2.75; the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance is 2.0.
Subject property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and the Tax Parcel ID # is ED-05-076.08-05-56.00.? The owner of record is South Smyrna Developers, LLC.
Representatives:? Mr. Mike Zimmerman, Property Owner and Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering.
Mrs. Townshend stated that the legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on May 6, 2007 and the public was notified in accordance with the regulations.?
Mrs. Townshend further stated that there are two letters that were placed on your desks this morning.? One from Mr. Connie Malmberg dated May 9, 2007 and one from Eric Nelson from Wesley College dated May 11, 2007.? There is also a letter from a neighboring land owner that will be read into the record during public hearing.?
Dr. Goate? questioned if there were any members of the Board with a conflict of interest and there was none.?
Mr. Zimmerman stated that the project is complicated in that if they were strictly a piece of property that was all by itself, the rules and regulations would apply. ?We differ from that in that we have built two dormitories for Wesley College and the arrangement is that we buy the land and then donate that land to Wesley College and then build a building. ?At the end of 33 years, we give the building to Wesley College and the land would already be transferred to Wesley College.
Mr. Zimmerman further stated that this property will be deeded to Wesley College and will be made a part of Wesley College?s campus; therefore, we feel very strongly that it is a part of the total campus.? We have a letter from Wesley College stating that they have a piece of property in which they will lease to us for 33 years to tie in with the donation of the building and that at that time, they would have the land that we would build additional parking on. ?The building would all be in Wesley College?s name.? He does not think that showing a floor area ratio of 2.7 is correct because this does not give them any credit for the three lots that are on Wesley College?s property.?
Mr. Zimmerman further stated that Staff has received a letter from Mr. Eric Nelson of Wesley College with an agreement and letter from Mr. Connie Malmberg that states that they are entering into a management agreement for the facilities. ?We will build on Wesley College?s additional land for additional parking which is more than efficient to handle these buildings.? In addition to that, we are donating the athletic facilities for the Wesley College Football Program.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that this building will be very similar to what they built across the street and one of the comments that Staff made was that the building did not fit well in the neighborhood. ?This building will be the same height as the buildings that were built across the street for Wesley College.? Mr. Zimmerman passed out some photographs showing what the building would look like and the existing surrounding properties.? They are also working with Senator Carpenters Office and the Dover Housing Authority to develop further down the street on Governors Avenue for single family housing.? The neighborhood is in transition and you will be seeing changes happen and we are leading that change.? I do not think that you will find a building in Wesley College right now that would pass this floor ratio number.? If they do so, they have substantial number of parking around somewhere near the buildings.?
Mr. Senato questioned what Mr. Zimmerman?s main issue with the project is?? Is it basically increasing the floor area ratio to 2.75 which would give you more parking?? Responding to Mr. Senato, Mr. Zimmerman stated that they are at 2.75 because of the floor area ratio, Staff would like it to be 2.0.? What we are doing is some retail space that is tied in with the college so that they do not have to walk down to Loockerman Street and to build a four story building.?
Mr. Hufnal questioned if the idea was to keep these two buildings in conformity with the dormitories that are already there?? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Zimmerman stated that yes, it was.
Mr. Hufnal further stated that he is very familiar with these two parcels, could you clarify for these two parcels where the parking would be in the college lots?? Responding to Mr. Hufnal,? Mr. Zimmerman stated that one block down on Governors Avenue there is an existing parking lot with tennis courts, three houses, and an empty lot and those threes properties with the exception of one are all owned by Wesley College and we would place that into parking.?
Dr. Goate? stated that parking is not part of the variance request correct?? Responding to Dr. Goate?, Mr. Zimmerman stated that in reading Staff comments, parking becomes a problem when it goes to the Planning Commission as it is too far away.?
Mrs. Townshend stated that she would clarify some of the issues in the Staff report.? This property is zoned C-2, Wesley College itself is zoned I/O so there are different floor area ratio requirements.? To compare this with other buildings in another zone is not entirely accurate because C-2 has a floor area ratio requirement of 2.0.?
Mr. Zimmerman stated that Staff asked them to rezone it to this and we did it so that we could do this project.? Responding to Mr. Zimmerman, Mrs. Townshend stated that this was discussed over a year ago for possible zoning classifications.? We talked about both the C-2 and the I/O and the issue with I/O zoning is that you cannot do retail so that is why Staff laid out for you what your options where. ?Because a portion of the project is intended to be retail, you made the choice to go with the C-2 zoning so that you could have the retail component.?
Mrs. Townshend further stated that the other issue is that the Zoning Ordinance requires that you have parking within 150 feet so by having the parking further down the street, it is not within 150 feet.
Ms. Cornwell stated that the application stated that you were trying to use the proposed parking that is beyond the 150 feet as reasoning to reduce the floor area ratio which Staff does not believe can be actually done.?
Mr. Zimmerman questioned if the condition of getting the waiver is that the property be transferred to Wesley College so that there are not two property owners would this be acceptable to the Planning Staff?? Responding to Mr. Zimmerman, Mrs. Townshend stated that she did not know if it was an issue of variance and would say that if this is truly going to be developed as part of the college, this would not be an issue for the Board of Adjustment, this would be something that you would want to take to the Planning Commission.?
Mr. Senato stated that parking is not the issue, the floor area ratio of 2.0 is and is what the Board needs to discuss for what they are requesting.?
Mr. Liberman stated that the reason they are seeking a floor area ratio variance is the building size relative to the lot area being created with it.? Why we are tying the parking to this is that it is a total approach to what they are doing on the project.? We have dormitory and retail use proposed for the project which is going to require parking associated with the project.? We are providing parking within the area that will be reserved for the students that use these two uses.? In that thinking, we have the building and site area which will decrease the total number of the overall project below the 2.0 floor area ratio.?
Responding to Mr. Liberman, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Zoning Ordinance with the way that it is laid out, you have a floor area ratio for the lot that is being built and the Zoning Ordinance does not give us the flexibility to look at things down the street in offsetting that in calculation of the floor area ratio.?
Mr. Senato stated that this Board knows that the parking is not part of the variance and we also know what the request is by the applicant. ?Getting into speculation on what could and could not happen in the future he feels, is a waste of time of the Board at this time in that we do not know what the future holds other than what we have in front of us.?
Dr. Goate? stated that the Boards decision has to be based on that in which you are showing us here today and it is the growth factor as far as the number of stories that are being talked about which is the major factor.?
Dr Goate? opened a public hearing.
?
Dr. Goate? questioned if there was any correspondence received regarding this application??
Mrs. Townshend stated that there was a letter received from Mrs. Ether Parker located at 505 N. State Street, Dated November 20, 2006.? ?I own 118 W. Division Street and she has put $190,000 into this property to remodel it, Lambertson did the job.? She objects to this variance being given as she is sure they want to build up and around.? They need to learn to live with it.? She had one experience with some of their shenanigans and she owns the John Banning house and houses were demolished across the street from there so that Wesley College could build their new dorm.? I sold them a house on Governors Avenue.? She is not against new construction but not on top of her.? Thank you for your consideration, sincerely Ether F. Parker.??
Dr. Goate? closed the public hearing after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Mr. Senato moved to deny Application V-06-17 Lands of South Smyrna Developers, LLC in keeping with the area and not increasing the size of the building to four stories, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.?
Applicant #V-06-18:
122-128 West Division Street, Lands of South Smyrna Developers, LLC:? South Smyrna Developers, LLC., has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance from Article 3 ? 4.14 pertaining to the maximum floor area ratio.? The Applicant seeks a floor area ratio of 2.50; the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance is 2.0.
Subject property is zoned C-2 (Central Commercial Zone) and the Tax Parcel ID # is ED-05-077.05-03-59.00.? The owner of record is South Smyrna Developers, LLC.
Representatives:? Mr. Mike Zimmerman, Property Owner and Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering.
Mrs. Townshend stated that legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on May 6, 2007 and the public was notified in accordance with the regulations.?
Dr. Goate? questioned if there were any members of the Board who had a conflict of interest for this application and there was none.?
Mr. Zimmerman stated that this application is the same as the last application and that there would be no need for further discussion.?
Dr. Goate? opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.?
Dr. Goate? questioned if there was any correspondence received for this application and there was none.?
Mr. Senato moved to deny application V-06-18 Lands of South Smyrna Developers, LLC
in keeping with the area and not increasing the size of the building to four stories, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.
Application V-07-12:?
117 Wyoming Avenue, 967 & 975 S. Governors Avenue, Lands of Halpern Family Property Investment, LP:? Joel Halpern has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance to permit the proposed use of a parking lot on the properties in question.
Subject properties are zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone) and CPO (Commercial Professional Office Zone) and the Tax Parcel ID #s are:? ED-05-077.17-03-03.00-000, ED-05-077.17-03-05.00-000, and ED-05-077.17-03-06.00-000.? The owner of record is Halpern Family Properties Investment, LP.
Representatives:? Mr. David Braun, Braun Engineering and Surveying; and Mr. Ben Snyder, Attorney for Law Firm of Prickett, Jones, and Elliott.
Mr. Snyder requested that this application be tabled for an additional month.? He was just recently brought in on this project about a week ago. ?He could give a little bit of background on the problem that they are confronting. ?The place where Dr. Halpern?s office is located on South Governors Avenue has a crunch in terms of parking and out on the horizon is this specter that DelDOT is going to widen the road to allow a turning lane and as a result, take away some of the street side parking for Dr. Halpern's office.?
Mr. Snyder further stated that the problem with their application before the Board this afternoon is that they have not been able to confirm with DelDOT exactly what their plans are and when their plans are to take place.? We were waiting to hear from them today and have not so far and we would like some additional time to try and get up with them in order to find out how it is going to impact this property.?
Mrs. Townshend stated that this application was postponed from last months hearing and at that time, it was stated that it would be a one time postponement.? When we had this discussion before, it was because the City incurs costs for Board of Adjustment applications in terms of advertisement and public notification so you could state that there needs to be re-application and that the application fee would have to be paid again.?
Mrs. Townshend further stated that this was advertised in the Delaware State News on April 8, 2007 and was not re-advertised because it was tabled at the last meeting to a date certain and the public was notified in accordance with regulations.?
?Dr. Goate? questioned if the applicant understood that the cost of this postponement would be at your clients cost?? Responding to Dr. Goate?, Mr. Snyder stated that he would be agreeable to that with some understanding of what the costs would be.
Mr. Senato moved to postpone Application V-07-12 Lands of Halpern until next months meeting and for the applicant to incur all costs for re-submission, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.?
Application V-07-13
245 South Dupont Highway, Lands of Benher, LLC:? Benher, LLC has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 5 ?4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to non-conforming signs.
Subject property is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone) and the Tax Parcel ID # is ED05-077.06-02-72.00-000. ?The owner of record is the Benher, LLC.
Mrs. Townshend stated that Staff just received word that the applicant would not be present.? The public hearing on this case was held and a decision was deferred to this month. ?You may want to table this application until next month when the applicant can be here.?
Mr. Senato moved to table Application V-07-13, Lands of Benjamin Herra until next month, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Application V-07-17:
1196 South Little Creek Road, Lands of Dover Post Properties, LLC at 1196 South Little Creek Road:? Dover Post Properties, LLC has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting an variance from the requirements of Article 5 ?11.13 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the construction of structures within twenty five (25) feet of the floodplain.
Subject property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone) and is subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone) APZ II and Noise Zones B & C.? The Tax Parcel ID #s is ED05-077.12-01-06.01-000.? The owner of record is Dover Post Properties, LLC.
Representatives:? Mr. Doug Liberman, Larson Engineering; and Mr. Jim Flood, Jr., Dover Post Company.
Mrs. Townshend stated that legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on May 6, 2007 and the public was notified in accordance with regulations.
Dr. Goate? questioned if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest and there was none.
Mr. Liberman stated that what they are looking at is an application to build within the flood plain.? He provided a couple of historical flood plain maps.? The site was constructed around 1988 and the flood plain map shows that the location of the flood plain in 1982 relative to the site is not located within the flood plain.? Subsequently, there were conditions of change for the site and an additional map was redone along with a detailed study of specific elevations for the flood plain in May of 2003 which list the flood plain elevation of 16 feet. ?What we have done is provide you with a flood plain map with existing conditions that shows a shaded area to the contour of a 16 feet elevation that shows the shaded area as being the existing flood plain with parking areas entering through the entry drive and the location of the flood plain adjacent to the building.? The building elevation is 18.25 feet so the first floor elevation is not in danger of being located within the flood plain.?
Mr. Liberman further stated that what they are proposing to do with the site is to add an office building with parking towards the front of the site and an addition manufacturing warehouse facility to the back of the site and this ties into the overall use of the existing building.? The map that shows the proposed location of the office and the manufacturing facility along with new parking proposed for it is relative to the new flood plain.?
Mr. Flood stated that the Dover Post Company is in its 33rd year and fourteen years ago they purchased the property that now houses their press units. ?At that time, they were not informed of any issues having to do with flood plains.? When we situated the equipment in the building, we put the equipment in the back and in the front there is a relatively small office area.? In the fourteen years we have grown quite a bit and we are now considering additional growth.? To grow we need to put our production areas together otherwise, it is very inefficient and even potentially dangerous.? In terms of looking ahead, we are looking to put the production areas in the back so that this is all together; however, we are also looking to the future in the terms that we would like to put office space in the front.? We have another property located on Division Street; however, there is very little opportunity to expand there.? Over the fourteen years I have had my office located here and we have had some pretty heavy rains and never had water get more than a couple of feet on their parking lot much less get anywhere near the building.?
Mr. Flood further stated that the waterway that is being discussed is a tax ditch and if you continue further down, it would appear that someone has dammed it up a little bit and may be the reason if there is water that backs up.
Dr. Goate? questioned if this was a necessity to ask for such a variance?? Responding to Dr. Goate?, Mr. Flood stated that in terms of their growth it is.? We have very little office space at the South Little Creek office now and if they would want to expand, he is not sure logistically what they would have to do.? While he does have another alternative for placing office space in the rear then production in the middle and office space in the front of the building with office space being divided by over 200 feet this would not work.? When running a printing operation you need to have a flow of work so that you go from stage to stage.?
Mr. Liberman showed a map and described how the flow of the building works.?
Mr. Flood stated that they get a truck of paper a day which is probably 40 to 50 rolls or 40,000 pounds a day which is circulating around and we need an efficient way to handle that and if you do not it gets expensive.?
Mr. Hufnal stated that basically our job is to make sure that no one infringes upon the 100 year flood plain and in looking at this, it looks like the proposed two story addition for the office the flood plain is only coming across one corner.? Could this proposed addition be re-designed so that this corner be moved over slightly or an L shaped addition be put on too eliminate you going into this flood zone which would then still give you enough space.
Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Liberman stated that he did not believe so.? When looking at the space that Mr. Flood is trying to add, we would end up going into a portion of the flood plain.? If you go back to the existing flood plain, there is only a small portion that is out of the flood plain which is in the front of the building.? We are trying not to infringe and impact the flood plain with what we are doing and we took that into to account with what we are trying to do with this site with some calculations.? If you look at the bottom of the site on the map, there is an area that is excavated out and what we did was calculate the area of what they are adding within the flood plain. ?We are off setting that area by doing excavation at the lower half of the site which will remain as open space.? The hardship that is being placed on their client was not caused by this, the flood plain has not existed previously and the revised flood plain map which is dated 2003 is long after he had owned the site.?
Mr. Albert stated that the stipulation in the Zoning Ordinance is that there are not to be structures built within twenty-five (25) feet of the flood plain.? It is not so much that we are strictly discussing construction within the flood plain although that will happen.? They are asking for the variance from the twenty-five (25) feet to begin with.? The existing building is a non-conforming structure and as a point of clarity, granting the variance would allow them to increase the non-conforming nature of the building.?
Mr. Liberman stated that the building when it was originally built was not identified as being located within the flood plain.? Why would it be a non-conforming situation now?? The flood plain has been re-delineated which is one thing.? Responding to Mr. Liberman, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is legal non-conforming in that it does not meet the current regulations at the current time; however, it is legal and not illegally built within the flood plain.
Mr. Hufnal stated to put the two story addition at the other end by the loading dock would be separating the existing office space which would put it at different ends of the building.? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Liberman stated that they have everything separated out where there is loading for trucks at the south end of the site, an employee parking area, and office parking area up at the front of the site.? If the office was flipped in the back half, and they would have to have office parking, loading areas would have to be re-configured because the office building would be at the south end of the site as opposed to the north end of the site that would create a potential problem for tractor trailers and office parking.?
Dr. Goate? opened a public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.
Dr. Goate? questioned if there were any correspondence for this matter and there was none.
Mr. Senato moved to deny Application V-07-17 Lands of Dover Post Properties, LLC so that a precedence is not being set in allowing building construction within the 100 year flood plain, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and the motion was unanimously carried.?
Application V-07-16:
650 South Bay Road, Lands of Robino Bay Court Plaza, LLC at 650 Bay Road:? Robino Bay Court Plaza, LLC has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting an variance from the requirements of Article 5 ?4.10 (B)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to non-conforming signs.
Subject property is zoned SC-2 (Community Shopping Center Zone) and C-4 (Highway Commercial Zone).? The Tax Parcel ID #s is ED05-077.00-01-16.00-000.? The owner of record is Robino Bay Court Plaza, LLC.
Representatives:? Mr. Peter Wieck, Fameco Management Services, Property Manager.
?Dr. Goate? questioned if there was any Board member that had a conflict of interest and there was none.?
Mrs. Townshend stated that legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on May 6, 2007 and the public was notified in accordance with the regulations.?
Mr. Wieck submitted some pictures to help understand what they are requesting.? The pictures were approaching from the north and what they have is a very long center with a lot of tenants.? When it was built, there was a pylon sign at either end and it was set up in such a way that the tenants were divided geographically with some in the north and some in the south.? Buffalo Wild Wings went in as a tenant and were given a pad site. ?The building was sited based on the requirements of the City of Dover and it turned out that it blocked the second pylon sign significantly coming in from the north.? Accordingly, not only did a number of our tenants lose visibility; however, we no longer have the room to put some of our new tenants on the pylon sign.?
Mr. Wieck further stated that what they would like to do is keep the pylon at the same size; however, move it approximately 60 feet to the south side of the exit/entrance road which would be set back within the setback lines which would make it visible from the north and the south.? We would also change the face of the sign; however, not increase the square footage in order to get all of our tenants placed on the pylon and give them exposure.? Currently, if you look at the existing main pylon which is located at the north of the center, those boards that are up there showing their smaller tenants are minimal in size for people driving down the road and they would have to slow down to see it.? Some of our tenants are national tenants, Tuesday Mornings, a case in point and they would like to have a bigger sign. ?We would like to accommodate them.? If the variance is not approved, we will leave the sign where it is and clean it up.
Mr. Senato questioned when the Buffalo Wild Wings building was built and this was an existing sign at the time, why was the consideration of this sign being in its present position not taken into consideration and that it could be blocked by a new building?? Responding to Mr. Senato, Mr. Wieck stated that at that time, ownership was not terribly sophisticated in what a prototypical Buffalo Wild Wings looked like.? They wanted to bring in a tenant that turned out to be an extremely popular tenant. ?The tenant had a prototypical building for the size of the building and the size of the site and the regulations that govern how it was placed within the pad site put it where it was and the sign became blocked.? We are not trying to hide from the fact that the ownership had a choice at that point between allowing the new tenant to come in with their prototype or losing them all together and protecting their sign.?
Mr. Hufnal questioned if they still have one sign located at the main entrance when you come into the site?? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Wieck stated that yes; however, it is maxed out in size and we have three more tenants coming in and there is no room on the pylon and we already have two existing tenants who are not on the pylon.?
Ms. Cornwell stated that Staff would like to inform the Board that if they do vote to approve this sign, Staff would like it taken into consideration that the pylon sign should at least be 150 feet away from any other pylon sign and the property next to them does have a pylon sign.? Responding to Ms. Cornwell, Mr. Wieck stated that they would agree to that pending the measurement and if they had to come back for an additional variance, they would re-apply and pay the appropriate fees.? What we would like to do now is get a theoretical agreement that they could move it to gain visibility.?
Ms. Cornwell stated that Staff would be agreeable to this if you are looking to approve this application.?
Mr. Hufnal questioned that if placing this pylon sign 150 feet away would put it in compliance?? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Ms. Cornwell stated that this sign will never be in compliance with the sign regulations because this is a legal non-conforming sign.? The site is only allowed one pylon sign and they have two which makes this one legal-non conforming and what they are trying to do is move the legal non-conforming sign. ?If you approve the movement, she would like to have the ability to enforce that it has to meet the other regulations for signage.?
Mr. Hufnal questioned if the applicant would be agreeable to this?? Responding to Mr. Hufnal, Mr. Week stated that they would be agreeable to any relief that they can get and if additional application needs to be made, they are perfectly agreeable to that as well.?
Dr. Goate? opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing.?
Mr. Hufnal moved to approve Application V-07-16 Lands of Robino Bay Court Plaza with the conditions that the applicant come into compliance with making it conforming within the distance required from the neighboring pylon sign and to come into compliance with what the City would require, seconded by Mr. Senato and the motion was unanimously carried.?
Ms. Cornwell stated that Staff would require some clarification as the pylon sign already exceeds the sign area. ?Are you going to make them come into compliance with the sign area requirement?
Mrs. Townshend stated that this pylon sign is not to be any closer than 150 feet of the neighboring sign and that they do not increase the sign area of what they have now because this is what the applicant stated.?
Mr. Hufnal stated that he would amend his motion to include Staff?s criteria and to keep it within the sign size that it is now 150 feet from the other sign that is the adjacent property and that it be in conformance for what the City requires regarding setbacks, seconded by Mr. Senato and the motion was unanimously carried.?
Application #V-07-15:
1298 McKee Road, Lands of Diakalp, LLC at 1298 McKee Road:? Diakalp, LLC has applied to the City of Dover Board of Adjustment requesting an variance from the requirements of Article 5 ?14.31 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the number of permitted children in a day care center.
Subject property is zoned R-8 (One Family Residence Zone), is subject to the COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone) and the Tax Parcel ID #s is ED05-076.00-01-30.00-000.? The owner of record is Diakalp, LLC.
Representative:? Mr. Ed Ide, Lighthouse Construction on behalf of Diakalp, LLC.