The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.600 S Original St.004-82 ,- CITY OF ASPEN. MEMO FROM KATHRYN KOCH May 18, 1982 Telegram called in this a.m. Remo Lavagnino Houston TX RE: Case No. 82-4 Mary Ann Hyde, 600 S. Original I strongly contest issuance of a variance regarding Mary Ann Hyde. This structural change would obliterate view plane of Independence Pass and southeast view of Aspen mountain. Damaging views this way would be detrimental to property values of my condominium. R. Vernon Colpitts, M.D. #115 \),,,-'<- 1\ l. ""/}~ 1),,-, V. llJ "'/~v t.71'O"'\ f('l.l 1~,'f.2 'l'l - ,( >J\;) ~ (:) ~...... ." .....-' ./ . CITY OlF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 20, 1982 City Council Chambers . 4:00 P.M. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS Case #82-2 Dale Potvin Case #82-3 Yusem Corp. III. NEW BUSINESS Case #82-4 Mary Ann Hyde IV. COMMITTEE COlmENTS V. ADJOURN Ir~, .",." ''-<..-/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 'Case No. 1<?-I. 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 f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are irivited 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: May 20, 1982 Time: 4:00 PM / Name and address of Apnlicant for Variance: . .Name: Mary Ann Hyde Address: 600 S. Original Location or description of property: Location: 60a South Original. Patts of Lots 34 35 d 39 , '. an Ute Subdivision, City and Townsite Description: See attached of Aspen Variance Requested. P '" . roposed addltlon lS for a residential (pre-existing) use in the Ll zone. No additions are allowed. 24-3.2 Ll Zone. building which is non-conforming See conditions in Section Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) -!z.,er~~__---- Permanent Applicant will be represented by Council THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo tavaQ"nino r.h::drm~n VirgiQia M. Beall Deputy City Clerk ..... ,~rr'Ei\L 'TO nOi\fW or lotll r:G I~D.JL!(' r;:i:iiT CITY or ASPEfj DATE i\nril 28. 1982 CASE NO. APPELLArlT A.C.M.E., INC. and ADDRESS PHONE Post Office Box 4483 '/f ;>:;''''~>I' Aspen, Colorado 81612 1/)"1'-:;4)' 925-86"72 , Mary Ann Hyde OWNER Mary ,Ann Hyde ADDRESS 600 South Original A,spen, Colorado 81611 lOCATION OF PROPERTY 600 South Original, Part of Lots 34; 35 and 39, Ute Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen .-: 1 S t r e e t. & N u m b e r 0 f Sub d i vis ion B 1 k. & Lot No.) BUilding Permit' Application, and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this app'lication, arid ~,ill be made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS,APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN All THE FACTS IN QUESTION., DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHom NG JUSTI FI CATImlS: ., See attached WilT you be represented by counsel , tif.mf; ,Q~l- ~. '6); ;C)~ ?' ?(t~A ? Yes X No ' SIG;;; ///l/h1t1~~"ee~ Appel hInt . , PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE FOR NOT GRANTING: REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON Proposed addition is for a residential building which is a 'non-conforming (pre-existing) use in the Ll zone. ' No additions are allowed. See conditions in Section 24-3.2 LI Zone " : rJe~.(t' Status PER~IIT REJECTED " DATE~<-.& .2/ APPLICATION FILED ).tAILED $ . DECISION DATE IF HEARING . 'I SECRETA~Y ,/ "\ ,-", "'......' APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN APPELLANT: A.C.M.E., INC. and MARY ANN HYDE OWNER: MARY ANN HYDE Appellant-owner Mary Ann Hyde owns a single family residence at 600 South Original, adjacent to the Aspen Alps. This dwelling was purchased from George and Cynthia Mitchell in 1971, subject to a deed restriction which provides that: "Said property and abode thereon shall be utilized only as a single family dwelling". At the time of purchase said prop- erty was within the AR-l zone district in which a "one family dwelling" was a use permitted of right. By Ordinance 11, Series of 1975 (the City-wide rezoning), the zoning on this property was. changed to L-l. Permitted uses in the L-l district include lodges, boarding houses and hotels but not single family residences. Thus, the property, by virtue of the 1975 rezoning became a nonconforming use which according to the Code may not be expanded. Mrs. Hyde who has been a permanent resi- dent of Aspen for the past 12 years desires to renovate the approximately 20 year old house, adding a significant amount of insulation and thermopane windows, replacing the anti- quated kitchen and to enlarge the house by approximately 1,400 square feet, in part by adding a garage which she feels would be an increased security factor. Mrs. Hyde has been put in a hardship position by virtue of the interaction of the covenant preventing her from using the property for other than a single family residence and the zoning law which while permitting her to build a hotel on her property does not permit her to make the changes to her single family residence which she feels are necessary for her safety and comfort. If she were not granted a variance from the zoning law, she would thus be deprived of the enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right enjoyed by the other properties in the same vicinity and zone. It should be mentioned that it is imperative that the applicants receive prompt consideration of this matter because a building permit application for the construction desired by Mrs. Hyde was submitted on April 2, 1982. The Building Department processed the application and in fact issued an excavation permit to the appellant on April 16, 1982. During that period a great deal of interaction took place with the Building Department with respect to technical aspects of the application, mostly dealing with the proposed F.A.R. It was not until April 21, 1982, that the Building Department finally ascertained that the zone did not permit the construction for which the permit was applied for. By that time Mrs. Hyde had moved out of the house, rented another home temporarily for the period she anticipated the construction to last, and the contractor, A.C.M.E., Inc., had begun work by demolishing the interior of the structure. Based on the facts and circumstances outlined above, it is respectfully requested that the Board grant the appellant a variance so that the renovation and addition of Mrs. Hyde's single family residence can be completed. ~~""'... iC ".. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C, F. ,....,rr.~n. 8, 8. 1\ \.. ~,). -- .-.------ Regular Meeting Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment May 6, 1982 The Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment held a regular meeting on May 6, 1982 at 4:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Remo Lavagnino, Josephine Mann and John Herz. . Remo tables the minutes of February 11, 1982 until all of the members of the Board of Adjustment are present or at least until there is a quorum of members. Josephine so moves. John seconds. All in favor motion carried. Case #82-2 Dale Potvin. The variance. requested is in an area zoned R-6. back requires five feet lots are conforming in size, balcony extends into set-back(See section 24-8.13) Dale Potvin asked if the board had seen the improvement survey which shows the location of the house. Potvin shows the survey and some photographs of the house. Josephine asked when the house was built. Potvin said that it was built in 1962. Dale mentioned that he has complied with all of the posting requirements. Dale has the application posting and an affidavit that the sign was posted. Dale Potvin continues to present the case to the Board. He said that the deck presents no problem to the adjacent property owners, which is John Doremus. Potvin feels that the deck will not create increased density and has been in existence for a long time. Potvin said that there are presently only three houses on that side of the street. John Doremus is the adjacent property ow~er on the East side but has no prublem .,ith the existence of the deck. The Potvins feel that the deck is important to them and that it provides a substantial property right in terms of enjoyment uf the outside. Dale said that to remove the deck would cause a total redesigning of the house in that there are doors that access on to it and t!1e flow of traffice to it is logical now but to take it down would be a problem. It would still be ten feet between houses if John were to build on the East side. The existing house is within the set back requirement, not the deck but the house. Remo Lavagnino said that the deck is not in compliance so it wouldn't be ten feet away and still be conforming with the ordinance set back requirements. Remo said that we are dealingwith the deck being an infringement. John Herz asked what would happen if John Doremus sold and that the next property owner objects. Remo Lavagnino said that was a very good point and that obviously John Doremus built his own house with the intent of staying for.a considerable amount of time, so whatever you do in a lot split you are bound at one time in the future to sell it again and whatever condition prevail will prevail against the new owner. Remo's feeling about this whole thing is that he would allocthis variance if a covenant were put on the new lot to allow ten feet between the deck and any construction between the new building The reason for the 10 foot set back has to do with safety; fire, air and light etc. Remo said he thought the applicant could still maintain that 10 feet and allow you your variance but the new building would have to be ten feet from the existing deck. John Doremus said that "off-hand" he would be a little reluctant to agree to that and he thinks a deck problem is in the spirit of the agreement or the spirit of the set-back John looks at their balcony as a slightly raised patio. Remo Lavagnino said that if the City Fathers felt this way they would have directed the ordinance to speak to that question. J._'sephine Mann said that she would ,':-,dlling tJ- "'2 are special conditions here j' . ,1'~t the :t,i:.... "t.:;.": years, the deck is an ini..~;;:..r.:i..:._L."~rt of else is in conformance. Juhri rr-2J:"z is in favor of gran1.ing th~ variance. Remo Lavagnino remi.nds the Conu!dssion me,mbers that this is just open tfllk because there is not a quorum of meffi~ers so there for they cannot vote at this meeting. Remo Lavagnino said that Vivian Jones phoned and said that she was in favor of the varta:lce.. John Dore.mus said that this is !,ecoming a real hardship to the applicant in that appli- cation was made March 8, 1982. Remo Lavagnino tried to explain that the Board is one mem~er short in that they lost an altern:1tf' nl(~n..ber whOlf-. has never 'j~en rep13cerJ. The secretary told the Board members that she was instructed to schedule another meeting Sideyard set- the required to grant this variance, she feels that .building has been in existence for a num- the house and she feels that everything for May 20, 1982. . Remo Lavagnino sai,l tC\.'~' wlll be out of town at tl",~jme, along with two other .. Board members Dnd that we will not have a quorum on that date either. Remo said that we will have to table these cases until Nay 20, 1982 hI hopes that there will be a quorum and if not it will be scheduled for the following week Nay 27, 1982. John Herz asked about the plan to prepare some sort of a phamlet to instruct the applicant what is needed by the Commission to grant a variance in regard to a practical difficulty or hardship. Remo Lavagnino said that it is held up in tile City Attorneys office but that it is being worked on in a legal form and will be put together for .the applicant. Josephine Mann would like to remind the applicant that it is not the Board of Adjustment, responsibility to hunt for the applicants hardship or practical difficulty. Remo Lavagnino thanks the applicant for their time and said that he really regrets that there is not a quorum. Case #82-3 Jeffrey S. Yusem Remo Lavagnino said that the applicant is requesting the corner of deck to protrude into the side yard set-back, 2 feet no inches. Article 8 Sec. 24-8.13. Zoning is ~~ setback required minimum front yard, principal building 10 feet. Accessory Building 15 feet. Minimum side yard i.s 5 feet. Minimum rear yard Principal Building is 10 feet, Accessory Building is five feet. Jeffrey S. Yusem said that he has the notice, the affadavit and the pictures. Yusem points out what was an existing building that was rennovated which the owner, James Mollica bought out of a forclosure. The building was constructed originally on an angle on the property; because of the design changes and change from the stairway from the front of the building to the change to the side of the building and being on an angle, the stairway gets to the second floor and meets with the second floor deck if that were constructed it would protrude into the sideyard two feet. The members look at the blueprints and the original approved plans. Josephine Mann commented that the building is very attractive. Remo asked if he is required to have two exits? Jeffrey Ysem said no you are not but that would be the hardship necessary. There are four units and for fire hazard reasons another exit is desireable. Remo Lavagnino's feelingon this is that even though tt is not required, he feels that it is a safety factor in case of fire. Remo thinks it would be beneficial to the town from a safety standpoint to allow this variance. Remo LavaRnino said that he would like a message relayed to the building department that th ere are alot of public complaints about filingapplications and that someone sould get them on the ball about processing these applications sooner. Remo Lavagnino entertains a motion to table Case # 82-3 to Thurs. May 20, 1982 Josephine Mann so moves. John Herz seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. John Herz makes a motion to adjour. Josephine Mann seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. .'4l/L'/ - ::R~],:...s: S '3Ut:?C:-{ 26~5 SPRING HILL L~ i::f)JU .",; 1 7)25 II! ii ~fl~l! If III :,A 1'1 :1 '.::1 111.vJ '~"'l ~I ~ 'fl.. ' ! ;':1.:-. ""/ .',,; ,. 4-06J61IS1S7 05/17/32 ICS I?M~TZZ C' 7177,3?IS90 "..ir'l IS'lT H!\RRIS3!.JRG 0\ it .'~ ;J -, ) '. .J , t · r:ITY OF ,\SPSN "'O!\'lD OF !\DJUSTMENT "EM) L;V;GNINO CH;IRM!\N l~a SOUTH G;LENZ ST ;so2:N co ,,1611 !\S 'Jl-!E O'oIiNER O/-' .!\SPEN ALPS 112 SINC~: 1967 I OPPOSE THe: iiR\tlTItb OF ,\ V!\RIANCE TO "iRS HYDE. THE PROPKSED V!\RI!\NCE 'oIiOULD ELIMINAL:: aUR VI::.oIi D/-' INGi:PJ::NDi::NCE P,!\SS !\~JD TH2 MOUNTAINS TO THE SOUTHEAST. THH vn.. WAS THL !":YOT IMPOKT!\NT CONSIDER!\TION IN OUR ACQUIRING THAT P!\RTICULIlR UNIT. THIS VIE;! '-illS SEEN PRESERVED THROUGH THE YE!\RS BY YOUR B04RD'S M4INTAINING '\ VIE. PL!\N2 TO THE EAST OF THE ASPEN ALPS BY CHiONG OTHc.R THING:;) R!:.""1UIKlNG THE i::ST!\9LISHMENT OF GLORY HOL:;: PARI{ ,!\ND BY OTHl::R Rc.OUIRd1ENTS TO THS EAST TH E:R EOF. I UNDERSTAND THS PRl::DICIMENT IN '.HICH THi:: 90!\RD fIND.3 ITSELF BUT SlJ8MIT THAT RECTIFYING A HARDSHIP TO aNi:: DOES NOT JuSTIFy IM?O';IN'j K!\RDS!-1IP ON OTHERS. ELSIE BURCH IS LAME, NO LONlJER;BLE TO SKI On '..J!\LK EXTENSIVELY, ANlJ THE VIE'. OF INDEPSNDl::NCE P!\SS IS ONt: OF HEr: PRINCIPAL JOYS IN ASPEN. KO~EV2R, SHOULD YOU FIND THAT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE IS NECESSAHy FO" 20UITABLE REASONS, IT SHOULD BE RESTRICT!::D IN H,,-IGHTH SO AS TO _ PERSERVE THE!\IR AND SIGHT PL.!\NE WHICH THIS BO.!\RlJ HAS SO FERVStHLY oReJECTED. Tel co OTHERWISE WOULD CAUSE PERSON"L INJURy TO OWNERS AND S!\USE IRREPARABLE MONETARY DA~AGE THROUGH THE REDUCTION IN PROPERTY V!\LU2 TO 112 .ASPEN ALPS. ERN2ST S 'lURCH, TRUSTEE FOR ELSIE: L BURCH 1957 EST r'GMCOMP MGM ii) ~ , '!'. :;; N "' TO REPLY BY MAilGRAM. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOll. FREE PHONE NUMBERS ".., -'-~' .... '"-'" TELEGRAM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENTION: Remo Lavagnino May 19, 1982 10:48 a.m. Gentlemen: I have just received your notice of public hearing case # 82-4 as it pertains to the request for a variance allowing the Hyde residence at 600 South Original to be remodeled including a second story addition. As an owner of apartment #111 in the adjoining Aspen Alps, I am very much opposed to the granting of such variance since (1) the additional heighth of the residence can only obscure present views toward Independence Pass and (2) the overall proximity of the enlarged residence to the Alps #100 building. Very truly yours DON M. SIMECHECK ~ Ms. ROSE M. 1(1 S Real Estate Broker May 17, 1982 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Remo Lavagnino Chairman 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 82-4, 600 S. Original Dear Remo: The purpose of this letter is to register a strong protest with the board over this variance. I am a member of the Glory Hole Condominium Association. Several years ago the board allowed Han Cantrup to build on every piece of dirt for the woodstonp. LOdge without setbacks as required by law. To have ingress & egress to the property and to have some greenspace he unloaded about 5 feet thick of dirt on our property, timbers, and treesblocking our exit from our building and taking up three of our parking places. (The board should make a field trip to look at this unlawful siezing of our property). We have sought legal assistance all to no avail, and must continue to sue Mr. Cantrup to get redress. This should be the Board who gave him the approvals chore. Therefore, the area is in bad need of parking. Mr. Cantrup also owns the green house next to this property on an undersized 3,000 foot lot and I am sure will try to put some huge duplex on it. His present tenants use our couple remaining parking spaces and also block the entrance to our building. They have at least two cars with no off-street parking. If there should be a fire in the neighborhood the access to the lodges and condominiums is usually blocked. The City of Aspen would be liable. The only crowding like this can be found in Hong Kong, and they have an ocean to be crowded into! 'lSincerelY, O~..I~ R.M. Krans Box t 592. Aspen, Colorado 8 t 6 t t USA. 303/925-8 t 82 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 1<7-1. 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 f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are irivited 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: May 20, 1982 Time: 4:00 PM Name and address of Applicant for Variance: .Name: Mary Ann Hyde Address: 600 S. Original Location or description of property: Location: 60a South Original. Description: ~ d uee attache Patts of Lots 34, ,35 and 39 Ute Subdivision, City and Townsite .-' of Aspen Variance Reques ted: P d dd' . f _ ropose a1t1on is or a residential building which is non-conformin~ (pre-existing) use in the Ll zone. No additions are allowed. See conditions in Section 24-3.2 Ll Zone. / Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) _ !il"wJ;'e"~__---- Permanent Applicant will be represented by Council THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Rema T:RVrlp."n;no r.h::l;rm::ln VirgiQia M. Beall Deputy City Clerk -'. ~;.'''' r".... - - . -- -- - -- , I TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I hereby certify that Mary Ann Hyde, 600 S. uriginal, Aspen, Colorado did post a sign on her property on May 10, 1982 complying with the requirements of Ordinance 12 and did ln fact check at various times to see that said sign was in place, visible and readable throughout a period of ten days. Dated this 19th day of May 1982. /Of,' ~<--<~ ~). ~~.-./ ~"~<;/r:..... Doris C. Stuches 123 Herron Hollow Aspen, Colorado . . o APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN APPELLANT: A.C.M.E., INC. and MARY ANN HYDE OWNER: MARY ANN HYDE Appellant-owner Mary Ann Hyde owns a single family residence at 600 South Original, adjacent to the Aspen Alps. This dwelling was purchased from George and Cynthia Mitchell in 1971, subject to a deed restriction which provides that: "Said property and abode thereon shall be utilized only as a single family dwelling". At the time of purchase said prop- erty was within the AR-l zone district in which a "one family dwelling" was a use permitted of right. By Ordinance 11, Series of 1975 (the City-wide rezoning), the zoning on this property was changed to L-l. Permitted uses in the L-l district include lodges, boarding houses and hotels but not single family residences. Thus, the property, by virtue of the 1975 rezoning became a nonconforming use which according to the Code may not be expanded. Mrs. Hyde who has been a permanent resi- dent of Aspen for the past 12 years desires to renovate the approximately 20 year old house, adding a significant amount of insulation and thermopane windows, replacing the anti- quated kitchen and to enlarge the house by approximately 1,400 square feet, in part by adding a garage which she feels would be an increased security factor. Mrs. Hyde has been put in a hardship position by virtue of the interaction of the covenant preventing her from using the property for other than a single family residence and the zoning law which while permitting her to build a hotel on her property does not permit her to make the changes to her single family residence which she feels are necessary for her safety and comfort. If she were not granted a variance from the zoning law, she would thus be deprived of the enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right enjoyed by the other properties in the same vicinity and zone. It should be mentioned that it is imperative that the applicants receive prompt consideration of this matter because a building permit application for the construction desired by Mrs. Hyde was submitted on April 2, 1982. The Building Department processed the application and in fact issued an excavation permit to the appellant on April 16, 1982. During that period a great deal of interaction took place with the Building Department with respect to technical aspects of the application, mostly dealing with the proposed F.A.R. It was not until April 21, 1982, that the Building Department finally ascertained that the zone did not permit the construction for which the permit was applied for. By that time Mrs. Hyde had moved out of the house, rented another home temporarily for the period she anticipated the construction to last, and the contractor, A.C.M.E., Inc., had begun work by demolishing the interior of the structure. Based on the facts and circumstances outlined above, it is respectfully requested that the Board grant the appellant a variance so that the renovation and addition of Mrs. Hyde's single family residence can be completed. ,.... - . ,- ^PPEfIL TO BOARD Of zorn NG ADJUSTflErIT CITY OF ASPEfJ DATE Aoril 28. 1982 CASE NO. Mary Ann Hyde ADDRESS PHONE Post Office Box Aspen, Colorado 925-86"72 4483 '/6 -:;;4'ff~~ 81612 1,l5~~ APPEllANT A.C.M.E., INC. and OWNER Mary .Ann Hyde ADDRESS 600 South Original Aspen, Colorado 81611 LOCATION bF PROPERTY 600 South Original, Part of Lots 34; 35 and 39, Ute Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen ~ {Stree~ & Number of Subdivision Blk. & lot No.) Building Permit. Application' and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, arid will be made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD Will RETURN THIS.APPlICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN All THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHING JUSTIFICATIOnS: See attached Will you be represented by counsel . ti.(l.mfj J);"7.'~' ~ 'bi; ; O~~. t0Lh ? Yes x No ' SIGNED: /~ti~1~~ Appell it . PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ANO REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: Proposed addition is for a residential building which is a non-conforming (pre-existing) use in the Ll zone. . No additions are allowed. See conditions in Section 24-3.2 Ll Zone " t!d Status IT REJECTED " DATE~.2 / :CATION FILED "D - . DECISION DATE IF HEARING . SECRETARY ,,,'<>.. .., -- ;",..J ~0cC (02. -+ L<ftC L- I "?Ce.~ 107 ?+'r> 'i 1.75 Ii - PC) (1\ } ,r' Lon E -7 I ~~ -'"r t: 'j:~~ (I"> Cv-t- (I - ]) ~ ___ __.~'...... ~"""""''''''''.__._L'_'_ ~ N::"jJ .--J Sk I' ~'f" G0~ /2 '('6" U) 1Is;;-.- c"'G, S"l" 12.. !I")"u:S {N~"f-;0~ I?o\< S' 6D A/-,- C" G. 8/ (" I!. G C;{ o.-(e4<-- C f<.u........- f- /Io~ C><v.~ ~ As; c>c . ,~. 7"51 C ?\-'/"4-v't' S'r 16fL'---' ~ ?-/r;, /7c /' ft> Le C f.cq', U<<v><, ~.0k !Iz,~o~~ /~>o~. % s:T ' !' II ~ Tir 'j (TO~~.'" GDU~. /J~ Clc ()((,/2 {or Ir:t./h /It-rbW~ C~ 4'OL 11 : I}(~r ;(v.0 '6'-"'Y- S 8 i C{<-<-TeAv p<J~~r !Ic~ b.-~" 4--.>=<. It ~ /5 I (; j)<Jr4-~ >' S'~ Ul jJ>~~ C~L ~(c'IZ 9,,25' "'II~{) E '0' ~"Q /c;~, r (1."- (~~""- 1,b ~ - / AJ. ~ -1 c., /J/ G 5,,- e. ~~ q;S/ ;; ~ L 0')7 fI.) 0 CA.. &-( ~ 12. 1Ii" S. O(.u<r ~/" forte.. @ ~ S:'/1 ') - /'~~'-'5 r9V~ 5''-17 S. Ae....k'-'-'> f),n. AIlfJ1wu-,v f]~ Co q02r; (... '1$&0,,/.. II) LeA- rQ . u,___ 4fcf, ~ ~5d. .~" l"~ 'C,." 12 - 13 Ii.{ f I') /.I fog /",t;> I' '7 Cd-., Irs {"I Zo 'J~-:?J ~ ,.~.. ~.. .",.." .., UGi-<- / FI.ed .. /Jyk ;/7iJ>s", 0'5 C"k ~(JJ ~A '920. ) 1"1 ~ C:>~""t.Q ~L-c;L S::"-t4--J G.~ 'B-4,~rr I ~re;:.Qdll'H. #(f) .ftl ~o,'S I 7"",{"" ,/>1. Y' 'tb)<. ZC >-7 LrrL ~<-L A--k. '12"20:> I Sccc...( s (J;<nu~, J'- / c-'-f ~ L/ S". CV,4 6/l.l{ /lue r Y c~c~ r II t!eoC,I(. /I{; />d4-o-A !Io'--'~c-e J 13 (10 /k;rer Sr- . r-I Cf.(~J'" 7- / / Coc, /. &. ",/v f.J f...u c: c-.> e.- I 7 r;, '2?, IV /21,d -9'-u (< " d:C/o, :J/( #' (.oc,r v~ 75.ff1rys 00'X. 2-'75 A~ C"L. ~/' 12 L71-<- 7), Re<~"-r g""f'. L(yS"i kp-- C Cs, . 1-() ~ >'\~ J# .,y -{ ~7'~:;\ ~~ ']31/7$ 1./00, eno ~fl(l /l-$j'- IXt j '& :TIc ('2- '2-0- ~-rU~. 6((,/2- , .' q:'4d- L.( 0 '17-4<:~ <{ u /71:.( {a~ Gw~ % ~'f"-5 12.-,:;;. LuvU~~ , ? le) t:, fAr ~ AfL-- GG, ?;! & {( L,~L,-- AN-I.J ~~_ ~-'c_<- % S'T<~(J ~~'" s (;00 E!. ,/h.,',.., s;>-, \ Ihr c. L... 8;-/ b / I ~ ~,.o<_ c# 14~; '}b I\P.tY /1 i)1 v 71{/ ~ ..- 1/ ...... n ~t,/'( Ih~ ~~ 0 (){,~(~ , pL;./,p u 50';- '-1 me) S'.,,~~ 8""N<V"J'Z L"J k~. C,Cc6 %"0/10 N/+^Js, Gt:rG.-l,d S . kJ ~ ~ , /fNtU- t.ft' -<-- L r ('1 'i3 <.._ / s-c1 <- ~~ ~ '){I (. / L- I (-I uK~ 0, !C,,--.. /11. II 'I u {)L~+'>> C,- . , /<V,' 1i)2'-1 C .~A50A,)c...t\ ~ I: Lo/(€.AJ fC~j c , ' LI 0('-( ~. /)J.cLu ~u "- cL'c.Jh (~1 /(. C,a-;;;rL , \ o W~~D...j Gs~d;--o,0 , 't<"--/: '{ '7 '-f c( Ih G(o r ( 9;1(; 2-- k IB.N~-r:- CO~."~ ~'- K. ~ L u~ AfO u.; [l,;<, L.~ Z~2 I 0"" -I '!;..ra t ~ 0...., v"-' "- r,;; e. CcC{ 0 f, '/ , , - ., 72(,1') -