Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.517 W Bleeker St.003-84 . ,~;~;:;,,~,Ji.;,:~..;~i~:~!D:'.J.~;.:;;,i.J,;L.~::;{)~iLj;,;c~; ,;:::f\ ;,;~,it).;E~i2~}~I~.:T.;$~~i~0i:il:~;'!i{;i~:ii~:2!~~.;2ki;.:;::~;;~:;~":~;:!:(~:,,;..,.31 , .- ~ r.. ..~~-: :'. .'~"i-' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 84-3 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state. yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: Time: FeDruary 23, 1984 4.:00 p.m. Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Address: Welton Anderson, appellant P.O. Box 9946 Aspen, Colorado 81612 I Location or description of property: Location: 517 W. Bleeker Rick Head, Owner Descriotion: Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Lot D, " Lot E, Block 3.0 Variance Requested: Applicant appears to be requesting that the rear yard set- bdCK or l~' De reauced to 12.7' to permit building a second story. The struc- ture currently encroaches into rear yard setback. section 24-13.3 (a) no. such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. Applicant appears to want to expand over existing encroachment by 2.~' in the ~ear setback. Property is located in the R-6 zoning category, Durat~on of Var~ance: (Please cross out one) 15' rear setback, 5' side yard setback required. T~j'(x Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Lavaqnino, Chairman Barbara L. Norris, Deputy City Clerk (l! f '...(1'.. I U LJI.'i '.1".! ..J! 1-''::1,: /.':) nr;',J(i~.., I i :1..j~: 2-7-'11 f{",[N.j /)-It li "'. J!, II.- CHI' OF "SPErl . DATE -; Fe.bIQe4- ,. I , - APPHlMlT j)JEL..T#J AIo.:)'VEIZt;'dJJ . " , .,' .. 'f ';'.."..,. . . 0'. , '0' "..' "...., . . , CAse lID. CLC IL- HEAD ADDRESS 5~ q Cf4f:" lt5P~ ' , PHOtlE 92')-1).7(;. ADDRESS r:;"K 4'2M OWII[R - . .. L(1CfITION .-: OF PUJPERTY 5/7 W. BL&EtC-W, /fS).E.tJ . W,~. fit-- ~r e I ~c;e 3tI '~PN lStree." ~iumber of/Subdivision 8lk.. & Lot No.) . . .. Building Permit'Application and prints or any other pertinent ~ data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. . . , . . THE BGAIO Will RETURN THIS,APP(ICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN Al[ THE FACTS IN QUESTION. . DESCRIPTIOn >CF PROPOSED EXCEPTION Slim-WIG JUSTIFICATInfJS: . . . .. . ?t:$ ';7/l1t:#€'P HeM' J)AreP .;$/ viM.) 84-, . . . . , . . R" " ~ . . " 'Will you be Tepresented by couqsel ? Yes No X . ..,. . . SIGNED: ('(;JJJ-~ . Appellant . PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR 'TO 'ORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ANDREASON FOR NOT GRANTING:~ ~-k'~~~~~JUc~^.~c(7 ~lo~ \>~. ~ ~ -k \:l..7~.~ ~ ~~~. .~... . ..... .. ..\t..-~~~~~..M,~~h~. .. ~~ "'i-I?'.,3(~.}vc) ~~~ .~~~~_ ifl~~(A~w-U~~~f~' ~.L.~~~ ~~~~.2.54+. 'f '.. -.L (). . n ._ _ - (ll. a.' . .'.. _ ~.~"'~~"'~. . . .', ~ .~~C; ~ .~.-+L tR-r.. "'~:L .~ISYt-:,;. . j\.e.cuI. ~ .\e.~) Sf'\- ~ ".J -:.J- hctdz~ ~ ~ . ~"~ 0 -. . ~ 2...1t/~(' 'Status ," Signed. . " . . ',' , PERHIT REJECTED, DATE -L\1.\. y~ DECISION APPLICATION .FIlEO 2.l1:L~ DllTE IF HEMING ,. . ~O^TE HAIlEO .' - . . SECIlETMlY . . ,I I " II i!l- ~ ~ I fOskot ..ft,~ fJO-ff ~ 1 v~~ 7'"11/\ {:v-..J1u- flJvbfic- ""earl; ?cJ,edtJ~ 1- 3 pJ /184 ~ flu- VGh;~ Py 1117 h~ /r;- d~ ~ 1 y,.o-./ ..J.o ~ ~b~ cdcd-c ~~ ~z~fi ,erck.: ~ do.l~ Ii It ,r.;;',,-~CZLLc/ tUv/ ,>:Uuan FIe 4.f~I(, ~ :Y1L. ,:231-<1' ~ or \114-' /if1 'I 4J~ ~ ~ ~ jL !dtfl-t. '-/Jlr &7nM1.,t:5 S I 0"'- ~ .. cf. I p. d' t( I,n~ riy~~~ II &J-- 1/7'- f /2;~A~ ~ J/h/Z-- J " ,. /13 C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects TO: Aspee Board of Adjustments DATE: 31 January 1984 RE: Variance of rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12.7 feet for the Rick Head residence, 517 W. Bleeker The applicant would like to build a new 400 sf second floor over the front section of what was the original 1880,s building and use the existinq north and south bearing walls. There is an old shed roof addition tacked on to the south wall which comes to within 3.1 feet of the alley property line which will not be built over. Unfortunately, the south wall of the original house which we want to use for a bearing wall for the new second story south gable wall is 12.7 feet from this line and the rear yard in R-6 is 15 feet. In terms of "practical difficulty~ meeting the full 15 foot rear setback would render the new room being built upstairs unuseable{it is uncomfortably narrow as is even for its intended use as a nursery). Also, the "practical difficulties" of building any new construction over any 100 year old wall are real enough; but would be so severely compounded by having to devise a structure for the new south wall to "float" 2'-21" inside of the existing south bearing wall as to make it impractical if not impossible. The applicant feels that considering that the western part of the existing roof which also encroaches into its setback will remain as is with no need to increase its non-conformity; and because the entire second floor addition falls within the footprint of the existing house; and because the new south wall is proposed to be located as far back from the alley as is structurally and practically realistic, attempting to honor the intent if not able to honor the letter of the zoning code; we feel it would constitute a genuine and "unnecessary hardship" to meet the strict letter of the code. I will address each of the items listed as valid reasons for the grantina of a variance under section 2-22{d) of the code at the public hearing. In conclusion, I'll summerize their intent. The wall most logical for bearing upon was there before any of us and not the aoplicants' choice, and that locating the new second floor gable wall 12'-91" rather than 15' from the alley will affect neither the general alan nor the neighbors. Your consideration of this request is appreciated, and I have attached copies of the minutes of the meetings where two orevious variances were granted by the board to this applicant for your information, Architect Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946/ Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925-4576 ~ ./- /' ("'; --.:' C Welton Anderson & Associates Architects TO: Aspen Board of Adjustments DATE: 8 February 1984 RE: Addendum to variance request dated 31 January 1984 for Rick Head residence, 517 W. Bleeker The minutes which I included in the initial application of the 1977 and 1980 Board of Adjustments meetings concerning the history and previous variances granted for this lot, prompted the Zoning Enforcement Officer to suggest we ammend the variance application to include a request (as before) to be allowed to make modifications on a house on a non-conforming lot not-of-record. The lot (lot 0, ! lot E) was conveyed 24 years ago by the Marolts to a relative, 4 years after the 1956 code changed the minimum lot size in R-6 to 6000 square feet. As noted in the minutes, the property was sold to this applicant without knowledge of its non-conformity, and because of the legal doctrine of equity called "latches", so much time has elapsed with knowledge of the City, that the City would not allow the Board to challenge the illegal sale. We request that the Board find as it did in 1977 and 1980, that the applicant is not at fault for this situation and should be allowed the opoortunity to modify and enlarge his house, "a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but denied the subject property because of the special conditions or extraordinary circumstances." Again, your consideration of this request is appreciated. Planning / Architecture / Interior Design Box 9946/ Aspen ,Colorado 81612/(303) 925~4576 f//-3 Elizabeth Fergus Box 1515 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot A, Band C, Block 30 Sara Louise Petreguin 24500 Community Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44101 East ~ of Lot E, F and G, Block 30 Clark W. Ilgen 518 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 East ~ of Lot 0, P and Q, Block 30 Ullr Lodge, Inc. A Colorado Corp. 520 W. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots, K, L, M and N, West" of Lot 0, Block 30 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado Hillyard Park Street 81611 ~...,'- "",' /', -1-' ,Y;../-", [r ,/ ~ I\C v J-/ ;i <'/.fLj Box ?7I,R, _511 ','/8 s t Aspen, 'leekeT' ~jt., Co., Pl"l? ChairY'lan, Cl ty of ,~spen Eoard of Ad ,iu "tment !')ear S~_r: itay ':'e reouest th8.t lUck Head wieo m"ms the nronerty atS17 ',rest Bleeker St., be granted a variance on this piece of nro- perty so that he may add a second story, . Rick has bAen a neighbor and a tAnnant jn our s tuelia house for Ih he ars and :i s a ver~l reliahle .qnd tr1Jst'worthv indl,vidual. In no way would this addition he ohjeccion- able to us - in fact lt would increase the value of th~ rroperty -n hoth sides of his r.ronel'ty to bave a more attractive strllcture. The need for this request :is also due to the fact th.l.t an infant is exnected i.n June. Please R3ve tl!is reQuest a favorahJ.s c~)nS~_deI'at: -)n. ..ChanT.:: :',r0U, v,gry trul',Y- youps, :; ,', [(). .. () -d"~ ~--t.A-ll<._ E~-c:'<"'/~ fJu~ ;.e-~ / U;IYYlj ~. .---- " .. ". \ 0 -ffLQ- CVt<1l'tllldM. j dbtl\G /?)C0-Ad 6~ I~ J ~M-m(QlltJ ()Jt tUl^\.f ha.JJ- ~(C)(1( (;I.Qt'sc~bcru) C~ Ri d~, ~(l? (~i[ UL{ dAUcf W(1U~! ll~ ~1AOJ luWc Q \tt\<c\ lOCO cd .. AsrJeuxtc CU;tc\ 6tL.~1 (~JtC)}eJ~ 06 bk ~4t ~ld ClL<-d --Eke ~d1iWlafLd:J Ct'-t G~,;-(ld d uJ<.c <(Q 0:Q~ )Ui}V\ /U '- m~'f {he UQ\'~aL02 W [(eLf) At ~ tfJ iJJJ:;tQ cJ Jc~yY\:tlu Bcu:~ d - ~v~c.-0{../ 'Le-lc\ , RLttr Ct~u1 :J lty) r}( a { 2;61'( (JJ J ~: ?;j;~';l '"~" -"'''' I . I - ll(JlfJje .:;' / C/ 55 if- MRS. JAMES F. MacDONALD . 15 BLACKMER ROAD, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO BOliO -{(II D 2. ;:. fftj ~ '- , --, . ., . . :ttN~J I j j . - ) . . , ,fc 11.1) .z-Zhf'l Box 27lt8, 513 West Sleeker st., Aspen, Co., 81A12 Chairman, City of Aspen Board of AdJustment Dear Sir: May we request that Rick Head who owns the oronerty at 517 West Bleeker St., be granted a variance on th~s piece of 01'0- perty ~o that he may add a second story, Rick h~q been a nei~hbor and a tennant in our studio house for 16 hears and is a very reliable and trustworthy individual. In no way would this addition he objection- able to us - in fact it would increase the value of the nroperty on both sides of his oroperty to have a more attractive structure. The need for this request is also due to the fact that an infant is expected in June. Please give this request a favorable considerat~ .::m. 'I'hank you, very truly yours, S~ ~~ &~ f.RJ!U r- CJ;~/ :MJjI9Y'l ,.....-.,_..~~----..-~. '~- - ~-_..~._,..--_.- -----.,..---..:--- ~- '.~~-- .~....~_..~------._.~., I ,-"..... ,~ -- \ .I ) p/-5 8RADf"O'lD PUBLISHJNG CO., DENYER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Board of Adjustments February 14, 1980 that the applicant's lawyer, Pete Cravin, had called and said the applicant would not be in attendan~e; also, that Mr. Cravin himself would be unable to. attend due to the fact that he was in court in Eagle on this afternoon. Mr. Cravin wanted the case tabled to a later date. John Stanford also felt that the case should be open to public comment, so that the public could be heard. Two persons representing the public and living on Sneaky Lane, Bill Jordan and Tom Starodoj, were present and asked by Remo if they wanted to make any comment concerning the case. Mr. Jordan stated that he preferred to respond when applicant was also there to present his case. The Board agreed that they should set the date for the case to be heard. Another new case also needed to be scheduled. However, the new case would be required to have a sign posted for at least 10 days prior to the meeting in addition to surrounding property owners to be notified that same period of time. Remo questioned whether Valley's sign should remain until the meeting; he felt that it should and that should be changed to reflect the new meeting date. cant and lawyer should. be notified to do so. posted the dat Appli- Fred mentioned the possibility of dropping the case if the applicant did not attend the second meeting. Remo said he did not know if the Board could drop the case if this happened; he would have to talk to Ron about it as it is .a leg~l question. Francis Whitaker made the motion to table the Valley case until February 28, at 4 PM. Charlie seconded the motion. All in favor, motion granted. Case No. 80-2 Rick Head Remo again introduced the case stating its location at 517 West Bleeker in Aspen. The variance requested is for a building permit to build an addition on an existing one-family dwelling. The existing dwelling is on a 4,500 square foot lot. The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet for a one f""~~ly dwelling. Sec. 24-3.4 Area and Bulk requirements and Sec. 24.12.7 Lot Reduction. Rick Head was present to make his variance request. He stated that about three years he had been granted this variance and had plans drawn for the addition but had difficulty in Obtaining financing. In the interim the building permit expired. He was present to re-instate the variance. Mr. Head said that he was not aware that the permit was only valid for one year from the time of issuance if it is not built upon. No one on the Board was able to recall exactly what had been granted in that variance during April of 1977. Remo asked of John Stanford why a residence could not be extended if setback requirements are met on a one-family residence, even when the lot is nonconforming. John re- plied that it was probably due to the zoning code and the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Rick presented his plans to the Board stating that no changes had been made. , ....... ) ) .!'y-} 8RADFORD PUal..lSHING co., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Board of Adjustments February 14, 1980 All Board members and Rick wanted a copy of the minutes from the meeting of April 1977 to see what the exact variance had been and under what cond~tions it had been granted. Rick said his hardship was the size of the house being 700 square feet.. Remo again brought up the question of why the dwelling could not be expanded if it met setback requirements. Francis remarked that it could be expanded if the lot had been subdivided before a certain date (1956). This lot had been subdivided in 1960. What seems to have happened is that Rick purchased the lot without knowledge that it could not legally be expanded, that he was unaware of its nonconforming status. Looking at it as a new case, Charlie asked if any of the neighbors objected. Remo produced the letters, but Franci objected to them being read as they were dated in 1977. Rick saiD that all the letters that had been submitted by surrounding property owners in 1977 were still owners and had been renotified. All were favorable. No one present to make any objections or comments. Francis commented that one thing in favor of the applicant was that the situation was not created by the applicant. Remo declined to agree stating that Rick did not have to purchase an illegal use of a piece of property. Francis . continued stating that the subdivision was created by the previous property owners. They should have notified Ric~ that it was an illegal subdivision. Remo agreed then, that it is a legal problem, that the purchaser (Rick) should have researched the property to find out if it has any encurr.berances or covenants or whatever. If this is not done, the Board cannot be held responsible. John Stanford added that he was not sure why this case was before B of A because,in his interpretation of the code, " . . . when there is a. .no'1'1conforming lot... the owner is entitled to a single family house providing that it meets area and bulk requirements...which is what this person is doing." Francis added though, that the statement from the code included the date of 1956. Stanford added, quot- ing the code, "...where, at the effective date of this, or any amendment hereto." This, from the latest zoning ordinance. John read more from the Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 24-12, page 15.15. All Board members agreed that the Code concerning non- conforming structures needed to have legal interpretation- specifically from Ron Stock, City Attorney. Francis then quoted from the Code Sec. 24-12.7, Lot Reduction. After the Board discussed this paragraph, it was again decided that it was an illegal transfer of prop- erty, and that Rick has legal recourse to the people that sold Rick the property. Francis points out to the appli- cant and Board members that the applicant must exhaust .RADFORD PUbLISHING CO.. DI!:NVI:R ,r" - ) f71-J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 14, 1980 Regular Meeting Case 80-3 Westerlind/Pielstick Aspen Board of Adjustments all his legal recourses. Francis interpreted this to mean that the applicant has the right to receive damages. Remo suggests tabliI}g the case and that Rick get the opinion of the City Attorney. Fred Smith made the motion to table the case until Febru- ary 28, seconded by Charlie. All in favor, motion grantee Sign should remain, just change the date to reflect new hearing date. Location of the property is at 728 E. Hopkins in Aspen, at the corner of Original. The variance requested is for a building permit to build a second story addition to an existing one story garage and shop. .The proposed addition will have a rear yard of 3.3 feet. The required rear yard is 15 feet. Sec. 24-3.4 Area and Bulk Require- ments, Minimum Rear Yard O-Office District. Don Westerlind, owner of the property, and David Gibson of Pielstick, Gibson & Assoc. represented the owner. Gibson presented the survey elevations for the proposed addition. Original garage built by Westerlind 9 years ago in conformance with existing building codes. Not proposing to change the footprints of the building in any way but to extend with a second story. The addition will function as a study and office space for Westerlind. Gibson said that Clayton Meyring does not find any probler as far as meeting area and bulk requirements. Already existing in the alley and adjacent to the property are three "0" setback buildings that do not conform with pre- sent setback requirements. Gibson then. submitted that the hardship is that at the time it was planned to become a two-story structure the original building was built in conformance with the build- ing code. The applicant would like to have relief from the more stringent setback requirements to extend the second story. Remo opened for discussion. According to Code, the appli- cant cannot extend a nonconforming use; therefore, the second story should be set back 15 feet--this stated by Remo. Remo also concerned with the height of the second story; Original corner is always icy but the new story would only affect the alley portion. Francis wanted to know if another parking space could be added and eliminate present parking on the sidewalk area. Francis stated that parking on sidewalks is in violation of city ordinances. Open discussion about sidewalk requirements of the city. It was not determined if the Westerlind property is in a designated sidewalk area or not. Fred suggested that if the variance were passed that the City building department be directed to require sidewalks or advise us (the Board) as to why sidewalks are not necessary. Not making it a condition of the motion. 1- , . r' \"" ~-. . !,Ct [7 7/-Ji ~/F,yrj- '> (71[5E RICK HEAD BOX 4204 925-HEAD ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 -~ 779 '~~~- ... . -. "",,"i\ ,~~~--' -i~?:4 ~(:: . ~. / /1156 11 'j'?/f., ./ .:. gp ~ F frbJ ::..<168.7 19<if 82'32.;,021 ~ $LLo.'~ J Dollars .."",, r,;:"" For~~~~ ':W2W:12~:1.':..of 8..2/1' 1.!;8? ~ Ao>c", Moun'.,n aooo No.. 8-1 ,..- rO"""<., ) f'J/3 -5- IIRADFORD ~UIIl.ISHINC;; co., DI!:NVI!:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regu],ar Meeting Board of Adjustment March 6, 1980 and then one of the first application concerned a city councilman who wanted to subdivide his lot, clearly understanding that it was to be a single family lot. However, within three months, he listed and sold it to someone who then wanted to build,a duplex. This done with no communication on the fact that this has a Growth Management Plan restrict ion as far as a duplex, and there was not legal recourse on the part of the applicant. Fred also questioned the total expenses due to Valley's ex- peditor. Remo concurred with Fred's comments and then opened it to further discussion from the applicant and/or Mr. Craven. No comments were made except that Mr. Craven thought the Board had been exceptional in the depth of their analysis. Fred made the motion that the action of the assist- ant building inspector, in revoking the building permit, be upheld. Francis seconded the motion. Ea9h member was polled for their decision: John Herz, not allowed to vote; Francis Whitaker,yes; Josephine Mann, yes; Remo Lavagnino, yes; Charles Paterson, yes; Fred Smith, yes. Unanimous decision that the request be denied. Case 80-2 Rick Head Having appeared before the Board on February 14, 198' the case had been table in order to get the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the legal status of ,the lot; whether it had been sold illegally. Ron Stock said he had reviewed the minutes of April 7, 1977 (for Board of Adjustment), when the variance had been granted originally, but that he was unaware of the fact that it had been sold illegally. The Board confirmed that it was an illegal sale evident in the minutes of thc meeting in 1977. The minutes indicated that Fred had stated, "It was illegal to convey a nonconforming piece of property. If it happens, you can have the sale set aside." The origianl sale of the property happened 20 years ago (1960) when the Marolts subdivided the property and conveyed it to a relative. The ordinance con- cerning subdividing property less than 6000 square feet was adopted in 1956. Four years subsequent to that ordinance, the property was subdivided. ", Ruling upon this condition, Ron said that a doctrine of equity called "latches" meant that so much time had elapsed with knowledge of the City, that the City would not allow the Board to challenge the illegal sale. Josephine made the motion to grant a variance for an addition to an existing single family dwelling on a lot below minimum size because of the hardship that it was subdivided illegally 20 years ago. Fred seconded the motion; all in favor, motion granted. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 80-4 Murphx/Copeland, Hagman, Yaw Remo read the application for a variance from Aspen Municipal Code, Article VIII, Section 24-8.13 to allow the applicant (C.F. Murphy) to subdivide his property into two parcels. The subdivision wil] leave one of the parcels with a lot width of 59 feet. bRADFORD PUDLI9HING co., DENVER ,.,." - ) ) [ii/ .3 I.~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustments April 7, 1977 Regular Meeting continued Case 77-6 Rick Head Colestock seconded the motion. Mann, Colestock, Smith, Paterson and Lavignino passed the motion. Rick Head, 517 West Bleeker, Block 30 Lot D w ~ of Lot E wants to add 1 bedroom and 1 bath to a single family home. Lot. area is 4500 square feet. Therefore the house is nonconforming use. When purchased the lot Head did not realize the code was 6000 square feet. The 1960 subdivision of the land was an illegal act. He is asking for relief in the form of a variance. He wants to build an addition on his one family dwelling. Head produced a survey map. The present house sits almost on the alleyway. The new addition would go on the side. He has allocated two off street parking places. The alley is only twenty feet wide. The roof is sagging. Improvements are needed. Colestock asked if he had gotten legal advice. Head replied that no he had researched it back to 1949 and talked to Clayton Meyring. Lavignino introduced the following letters into the minutes. 1) Edna and Sarah Petrequin said they had seen the plans and since it is well within limits of the law they feel that the change will make the house much more attractive. No disadvantage to use. In fact will upgrade out street. We are in favor of this addition. 2) Betty and Jim McDonald are in favor of the addition. They feel it will enhance the neighborhood and will blend in well with the neighborhood. 3) Beth Furgus has no objections against the plans to expand. Head said that the present house is about 800 square feet. Smith stated that it is illegal to convey a nonconforming piece of property. If it happens, you can have the sale set aside. Paterson asked if he knew there was illegality involved when the property was purchased. Head said no. Paterson said that in not knowing this was a hardship. Head said that there is enough room if I add in the front. There is a park across the street and two. parking spaces in the rear. Lavignino asked if there were any more questions. He closed the public portion of the meeting. Opened for discussion by the board. Colestock said he would like to see this granted because he does not have commensurate living conditions with others at this time. Would like to hear from Head if he feels that his hardship is not enjoying property rights that other property owners enjoy. Neighbors seem to understand. Smith said that it is such a small house. The legality is not his problem. This seems to be a hardship which wes established by the transaction which took place 17 years ago. -- fi/-'3 Regular Meeting Continued Board of Adjustment April 7, 1977 Mann agreed with the hardship. It would not affect future plans of neighbors. Lavignino was objectively a9ainst the variance. Nuttall stated that when you buy a house you ought to know what hardships are involved. Mann moved to grant the variance as stated. There were no.objections. Smith seconded. It passed 4 to 1. The Board then agreed to meet on May 5, 1977. Paterson moved to adjourn. Colestock seconded. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 5:25. ~l(d{ ~ Elisabeth Sherrill, Deputy City Clerk \,