PL MINUTES 04211992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 21 , 1992 0 PAGE 11 4 5 6 7. 2 ) A particular hardship to the applicant would 8 result if the strict letter of the regulations 9 are adhered to. 10 11 3) The conditions upon which the application for 12 a variance is based are unique to the parcel 13of land for which the variance is sought and ' 14 are not applicable, generally, to other 15 property within the same land-use 16 classifica.tion. 17 18 Madden felt the only action which could be taken by the 19 Planning Commission was to table the matter for thirty 20 days . 21 22 Faust felt the Planning Commission is in a position where 23 it could not make a recommendation based on the three 24 conditions to the City Council . 25 26 Motion by Franzese , second by Werenicz to deny the request for a sign variance for the Stop-N-Shop because the request does not meet the three conditions necessary 2 for a variance . 30 31 Franzese expressed her regret at having to deny the 32 request , noting that it may meet two of the conditions 33 but not all three . 34 35 Murphy felt the situation was created. by the oil 36 companies and not by the ordinance. Faust observed that 37 the request has not as yet been viewed by legal counsel 38 and after it is , the request may not have moved forward. 39 40 Madden felt tabling would have afforded staff and members 41 of the Planning Commission an opportunity to get 42 additional information . 43 44 Franzese observed that- the, City Council functions 45 independently and if the request were tabled it could 46 have been two months before it was reviewed. 47 48 Roll call : Franzese, Gondorchin, Murphy, Werenicz, 49 Madden, Faust - aye 50 51 Thompson - nay 52 The Chairperson felt it was painful forthe members of the Planning Commission to deny this request but the