HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930902 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 2, 1993
4:00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
A G E N D A
I. CASE #93-10
CHARIF SOURI
(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 1993)
II. CASE #93-13
THOMAS AND SUSAN HILB
III. CASE #93-14
DIANE HEDDON
IV. MINUTES
JULY 15, 1993
AUGUST 5, 1993
V. ADJOURN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 1993
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00 P.M.
Answering roll call were Howard DeLuca, Bill Martin, Ron Erickson,
Rick Head, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino.
CASE #93-10
CHARIF SOUKI
Remo read request for variance . (attached in record)
The recording tape was totally inaudible to--
? : Given the nature of the property that is the physical--the
trees and this home will be separated physically by a great enough
distance that those people will be protected from the visual impact
that they are concerned about while at the same time allowing us
to stay out of the avalanche path.
Remo : So you are within the side yard setbacks which would affect
them. So whether they were 100 feet or 70 feet or 20 feet, the
side yard setbacks have been maintained.
? : That ' s correct .
Howard: When he purchased the property he was assuming the
variance was going to go through?
? : No. We have an option to purchase the property. If the
variance doesn' t go through then we have to re-evaluate what can
be done with the property. But given everything we have looked at
in terms of the engineers and in terms of the design of the home
for anybody to buy this property they are going to want to get it
as far from the avalanche path as possible .
Remo : Do you have anything that the engineers--a statement from
the engineers?
? : I have with me the report which I am happy to submit to you
that was prepared by our engineers regarding the avalanche dangers
on the property. This was done for Mr. Barker when he owned the
property. I have spoken to Mr. Meers recently and he told me there
isn' t any reason that that report would be any different at the
present time .
The engineering reports are all part of the public record and I can
submit those with respect to the 8040 Greenline application. But
I felt Mr. Meers ' s report was what was dealing with this particular
area that we were concerned about as the potential for avalanche .
BAM 9-. 2 . 9 3
(report attached in record)
Remo asked for comment from the public .
Bob Hughes : I represent Thomas Coleman who owns the other half of
the condominium on Lot #4 Hoag Subdivision. In addition to the
things that have been read into the record, which we endorse as
well, I guess the one thing I have difficulty with is you folks
need to make 3 separate findings not the least of which is the one
that says the variance granted has to be a minimum variance that
allows for the reasonable use of the land.
What is going on here is you have got a house that is massively
sized. And I am not convinced that this is a minimum variance that
is being requested. one that will accommodate a very, very large
home . And I think we need to face the realities of this particular
site . I don' t disagree that it has got some real constraints . But
I think given those constraints you have to have a house that is
sized accordingly, not one that does violence to the setbacks and
things that are established for valid planning purposes .
When Brooke responded to the issue of the side yard setbacks the
fact of the matter is this will slide the home east . Which is
considerably 170 feet further east which is 70 feet closer although
on an up and down level it is the same thing but does slide 70 feet
closer to my client ' s property. And will have a negative effect
to that extent .
And I think what also may be going on here is the fact that moving
the house this much further east while you may be moving it as far
away from the avalanche path as possible, you are also for the
convenience of the property owner if you will, making a road cut
far longer. And that is sort of an economic thing. I don' t think
that has ever been the kind of consideration you folks determine
as basis for granting a variance . But I think where the
application is deficient is I haven' t seen any kind of evidence
that this is the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable
use of the property. I think the reasonable use of this property
is a much smaller home .
Remo: You have to remember that the minimum variance is applicable
only to the setback. His FAR is his by right and I don' t think-
-they are not coming before us to get a variance from their FAR.
They are coming to us for a front yard setback variance .
Hughes : What they are asking to do--he has a certain FAR that he
is entitled to. But in order to avail himself of that he has to
get a considerable variance from the front yard setback. I don' t
think there is anything that is etched in stone that gives a guy
a constitutional right to have massive FAR when to do so is the
2
BAM9 . 2 . 93
violence to setbacks .
John Worcester, City Attorney: Your determination initially is
what is consistent with the code and what is consistent with the
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Remo: So what you are telling us that we can modify his FAR in
granting him this variance if we thought that it was--
Worcester: You can place conditions on it, yes .
Rick: I can help from a historical perspective on this .
Notwithstanding the fact that I am not hearing this thing I have
been following this with some interest for years . The Planning
Office--
Remo : For the record Rick has a conflict of interest and he won' t
be voting on this particular case . So his comments are with that
in mind.
Rick: This property is zoned Conservation. There is no FAR
calculation in that zone . They could build as large a house as
they would want--15, 000 , 20, 000 square feet if they so chose .
Barker and Zaluba voluntarily limited the size of the house to
approximately 5, 000 square feet which they felt was modest .
With respect to the access road there is already an access road cut
in there that actually circumvents the whole property. They are
trying to minimize the road cut and the destruction of vegetation
in there by keeping the property sited where it is presently in
their request for a variance .
Huges : Isn' t that road cut the one that is the continuation of the
Nordic Trail?
Rick: No . It is not . It actually goes up and switches back,
comes around to the back of the property above . And they were
going to use that for construction purposes and have agreed to re-
vegetate that road when the house is finished.
Hughes : I think it is commendable that they have an FAR as big as
all outdoors . But one man' s modest size is another man' s excess
size and I think this is too big a house for this site .
Rick: This Board is not hearing a request for variance--
Hughes : But it is entitled to consider a minimum ratio.
Remo : I would use that as a consideration and possibly if the
Board feels that this should be granted that we set limits as to
the house as it exists or as it is being presented to us so that
3
BAM9 . 2 . 93
if it is 5, 000 square feet that we put a condition on it that it
not grow beyond that for reasons of safety, welfare, avalanche,
tree cutting, neighbors viewplane--all of those reasons . Is your
client ' s property observing 100 foot setback?
Hughes : I don' t know.
Remo: The reason I am asking is that you said by lowering this
property below the 100 foot setback it would be impacting your
client ' s property more .
Hughes : What I am say is the effect of granting this request is
going to move the Souki house 71 feet that much further to the east
and my client ' s property lies to the east of Lot #3 so it would be
moving it that much closer.
Remo: The setback is maintained so I don' t understand--I know the
setback between your properties are the same . They have not
violated the setback between the properties .
Hughes : Not between the setbacks . They want to move the whole
house 70 feet closer to my client ' s property.
(discussion over map)
Rick: We have one lot which is the Souki lot in the City. The
Newfoundland lot is in the County. The two joint Planning Offices
determined that the best way to handle these two lots was to keep
them clustered as close together as possible so that there was as
little vegetation disruption as possible and with a mutual driveway
and access so that there was as little impact on visual vegetation
disruption with that as possible .
Hughes : How do we know that?
Rick: The County Planning Office has already approved the building
envelope which is no more than 30 feet from this property line .
They decided that the best place that these people were going to
have 2 lots they wanted to have them as close together as possible .
Hughes : Do we have evidence of that?
Rick: You can get Stan Shappart in here who is one of the owners
of the Newfoundland lot and he will explain to you very clearly.
I think Augie may have some knowledge as to this as well . Their
building envelope is immediately adjacent to this property.
Peterson: If one goes out and looks at the site right now which
I did this morning you will see the story poles for the
Newfoundland log house . And you will see how close it is to the
4
BAM9 . 2 . 93
proposed site which is also it ' s flag for this home . They are
clustered in effect to try to reduce #1 how far up the hill they
go . And secondly to reduce the impacts on the neighbors . They do
share a driveway. And they share a common responsibility for
maintaining and keeping that driveway clean and not interfering
with the Nordic easement .
Rick: They even share half of the bond that is being asked to be
put up.
Peterson: I think the Board needs to recognize that if there is
anybody that hasn' t gone out to the site at least recognize the
vertical distance between these proposed homes as well as with the
existing homes that are there . The vertical distance between
probably the Rappaports and the Coleman' s roof is probably 50 or
60 feet . In fact you are really--on the road level--you are at the
roof line of the Rappaport Is home . And I think you are fairly close
to the roofline of the Coleman' s home and the Frazier' s home .
So from a visual impact standpoint I am not sure what they are
going to see . Because their view is out across Ute Avenue . it is
not back into the side of the hill .
Remo asked if there were further comments from the public . There
were none and he closed the public portio of the hearing.
BOARD COMMENTS
Howard: Well, as sorry as I feel for anyone in the area as far as
the impact it does seem to me that this is a minimum variance that
we could give them to get them out of the avalanche path. If this
is true which I assume somebody has checked that this avalanche
path really does run where it shows here on the map.
I would feel bad if we force them to build in the avalanche path
and then there was an avalanche . I have been up there and, yes,
the visual impact from the people down below is about minimum.
Brooke is right . The rooflines of those houses is about at the
base of the house above them so looking out the back window they
are not going to see a whole lot . So I would have to lean towards
giving them the variance .
Bill : I have the same sentiment that Howard has . I hate to leave
the house in the avalanche path and have it wiped out .
Charlie : I think this party has a practical difficulty that needs
to be solved. And since he has property rights that are pretty
obvious I feel that it is the only way we can really go with good
conscience . I would be in favor of granting the variance .
5
BAM9 . 2 . 93
Ron: This is a legally deeded single family lot of record in a
legal subdivision. I think to deny a variance to allow a man to
build on his lot is denying him a right shared by his neighbors .
I share the concerns expressed in the Rappaport letter concerning
property damage to their property as a result of what happened the
last time a variance was granted. However the applicant has said
the only way we are going to mitigate these damages is by allowing
him to do something. Otherwise it is going to stay this way. I
would agree with that . So I would be willing to grant this
variance .
Remo : My only concern which is brought to my attention--I really
agree with Bob Hughes that especially that the FAR is so enormous
that they could build beyond this envelope, I would be in favor of
granting this variance if they kept it to the footprint that they
now have and not expand it . I think if they do the more trees you
cut down and once they get this variance then everything else is
almost by right I would assume . It may come under a P&Z review but
if it didn' t I would be very concerned about this house ballooning
to the point where it no longer functions as a avalanche protection
but maybe because of trees being cut down it would create that
problem instead of mitigating it .
Remo re-opened the public portion of the hearing to hear from
Peterson.
Peterson: The comment that I would make with respect to what you
said, Remo, is that we have applied for a variance for the setback
for this -ho-me- which is that footprint . So I think that addresses
your conen . If we submit a different - set- of -plans - to the
Building Dept that variance is not applicable .
Remo : I don' t know about that . We are giving you a variance for
a front yard setback. We are not addressing the footprint at all .
In ordinary circumstances . I don' t know about your 8040 Greenline .
Once we give you a variance you could change this footprint by
right . So we want to make sure that it doesn' t change . At least
I do . I want it on the record that this footprint not be expanded.
Peterson: Without coming back to you.
Remo : You can come back to us . That is true . But you don' t have
it by right .
MOTION
Ron: I make a motion that we approve a 70 foot front yard variance
to the front yard setback in Case #93-10 based on the footprint
presented at this meeting. As a matter of public record the site
6
BAM9 . 2 . 93
plan (attached in record) is being offered as the footprint for the
property and it not be expanded.
Bill seconded the motion.
Roll call vote :
Howard, yes, Ron, yes, Bill, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes .
Variance granted.
CASE #93-13
THOMAS & SUSAN HILB
Remo read variance request . (attached in record)
Sven Alstrom, architect for applicant, presented affidavit of
posting and mailing. (attached in record)
The applicants bought this house on McSkimming Road. Showed
photos . This was the triangular side that was annexed into the
City. And so the house was non-conforming when it was brought in
under annexation. We have a lot of FAR left . That is not what we
are trying to do here . The existing stairway is only 30 inches
wide and it has a beam located above the lowest riser that has only
6 foot 5 clearance . So Susan came to me with the thought that the
best thing to do with the house is move the stair to the side of
the building and that way she could have a better stairs .
That is what this presentation is based on. The home is on a
triangular site and has non-conforming existing setbacks on 2
sides . We chose a place for the stair on the side toward
McSkimming Road because it works better for internal placement .
If she does any future expansion she will have to come back to this
Board again.
At this time it is really a safety issue and something that will
make her home a lot easier to use .
Remo: Where is the existing stairway?
Discussion over plans .
Susan Hilb: My husband and I are very short . When we bought the
house we unfortunately--we saw it once for maybe 10 minutes--and
then when we got into the house the risers are different heights
even. I don' t know how it was allowed to be built that way. We
had a guest who hit his head. And if we were to have a fire and
to think of trying to evacuate the second floor it is a real safety
issue . And because of the way the beams are placed in the house
it is impossible to come up from anywhere within the current floor
plan because it has the big beams that are there .
7
BAM9 . 2 . 93
Remo : Are you saying that you can' t widen it?
Hilb: No. You can' t eliminate the 2 beams that support this .
Alstrom: Also if you were to widen it she would have less than a
36 inch hallway from the master bedroom. So if she widened the
stairs she couldn' t get to the master bedroom.
More discussion over plans .
Rick: There may be another area .
Alstrom: Well, there is not another area. We have studied that
out . This side we would also have to come to the Board.
Hilb: And it has a lot more visual impact .
Remo: You should have a plan showing where the site--
Alstrom: I have never presented an alternative solution to this
Board.
Remo: It is not an alternative solution. We just want to know
where the setbacks are in relationship to the house so we know what
we are dealing with and see if we could find alternatives .
Ron: You don' t know if the staircase is illegal or anything else .
Drueding: I am not qualified to say if it is illegal . That is the
Building Department ' s issue .
Charlie : If they do any remodeling to this house other than the
stairway they have to do something to get that stair up to code?
Howard: I would say 99% of the time they would be required to
bring this stairway up to code .
I just went through it today. We only did a 20% remodel on a house
and we had to bring the entire hosue up to electrical code . This
would happen if they did any work on this .
Ron: The applicant came before us asking for a variance based on
an unsafe condition. I don' t know that that condition is unsafe .
I don' t know that that stairway is not up to code or anything else .
If that could be shown then maybe I could agree that there is a
hardship or practical difficulty in this case . But I haven' t seen
anything that this is illegal .
Howard: To establish a hardship you have to establish the fact
that if you did build the stairs back out this way you would also
8
BAM9 . 2 . 93
be inside of the setback. So that you are forced to go one way or
the other. And this would be more visually pleasing etc . But
without a site plan we really don' t know that .
Hilb: We are within the already impacted area. And if we go the
other way the house is on the edge of the green belt .
Remo : See we don' t know that . That is what we are telling you.
We don' t have a site plan showing where the house is on your land.
Charlie then read into the record a letter from Don Fleischer from
the Aspen Grove Homeowner' s Association stating their approval of
this project . (attached in record)
After further discussion over plans--
Ron: Right now I am not ready to grant a variance . My problems
of site plans are real important to me . I don' t know what is going
on here and I think this is a severely restricted lot . It was one
of record when the applicant purchased it . So she purchased it
with those deficiencies knowing there were deficiencies . This is
a minimal variance but I haven' t seen a hardship or practical
difficulty. They haven' t shown me why this has to be the way it
is . And I can' t tell them what I need to see that is the proof .
Remo : In other words you would want verification that they can' t
use the interior stairwell and therefore they can' t get up to the
second story and how else would you--
Ron: I just don' t understand this at all .
Rick: That stairway has been servicing the upstairs for 25 years .
This was a duplex at one time . I understand that the lower level
was one unit and the upper stair was another unit . But they put
this stairway in here probably no more than 7 or 8 years ago.
Maybe 10 years ago . But it seems to have served the purpose--
It was legal . It was a non-conforming not only to size but as to
use . It was a duplex that should have been a single family. And
they re-converted it to a single family, put this stairway in--
Howard: As far as the Building Dept is concerned it is illegal .
The stairway is not a legal 30 inches wide . And the risers have
to be a certain rise and in a situation of liabilities I would say
that there might be a hardship. If somebody went in there and it
was a fire and they got knocked out and the person died because
they didn' t see the beam, there is a possibility of a hardship
there . And a practical difficulty. They did not create the
problem. The stairway is illegal .
9
BAM9 . 2 . 93
Ron: But is a variance the only solution?
More discussion over plans .
Ron: Bill, did you inspect the inside of this house?
Drueding: No.
Howard: If Sven is actually accurate about what he is talking
about the 30 inch wide stairway is illegal . The headroom at 6 foot
5 is also illegal . It has got to be 7 feet . And if they have to
bring it up to code with a beam that is a structural beam then we
are going to a position where they have to restructure the house
around the stairway.
(discussion over plans)
Ron: My problem is I am being asked to grant a variance based on
unsubstantiated information. I feel very unhappy about doing
something like that . I think Rick does too . He has asked if it
was possible to satisfy our concerns and table this motion for a
week.
Howard: I would like to do that myself . I would like to have
someone that is of authority like the Building Dept walk in there
and say "This stairway is illegal and--
Ron: If I had the assurance that there is a safety condition that
exists there that by granting a variance we would solve that safety
problem, bring the building up to code, there was no other place
to put that then I would have no problem.
Remo : But it is part of the record. What they have said is part
of the record. The variance would be based on what they say and
it is part of the record.
Rick : For Ron and I this variance is not going to happen unless
we are satisfied as to the information that we have . And I think
the only way to satisfy our concerns is to table to give the
applicant time to get us the information we need.
Howard: I do agree that I think we should table it and I think
that you should consider that at this point . In the meantime if
you can get someone from the Building Dept or a contractor or
whatever to sign a piece of paper that says this is an illegal
stairway and a safety issue from an insurance point of view.
Alstrom: Whose authority do you want certified? Do you want
another licensed architect to look at it?
10
BAM9 . 2 . 93
Members : The Building Dept because they are the people that are
going to come in and tell you. They will do that . For $30 you can
have them come over and inspect the stairway and give you a piece
of paper that they have rejected it . The other thing that might
help is to have an insurance person look at it .
Rick: I think we are all in agreement that if we discovered that
the stairway is a non-conforming and out of code and that it would
require lifting the whole second floor up another foot or two then
I could see--
Alstrom: It does .
Rick : But I haven' t in my mind been satisfied to that . I would
prefer tabling.
Charlie : We also should have drawings and elevation or section
through of that stairway.
Rick: I would really like to get over there on site .
Alstrom: It is just an interesting set of circumstances where a
non-licensed person is going to make it more authoritative
statement than a licensed one .
Charlie : But you haven' t done anything with drawings . You are
only telling us verbally. If you had given us an elevation or a
section of this difficulty right here, we could have looked at
something. That is where the Board is having difficulty.
It was then discussed about having a site inspection and meeting
at 3 : 30 at the site .
Alstrom: Do you still want the Building Dept statement?
Remo: Oh yes . Yes, we want something in writing from them.
MOTION
Rick: I move to continue Case #93-13 to date certain of September
9 , 1993 with a site visit at 3 : 30 P.M. and regular meeting at 4 : 00
P .M. here at City Hall .
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #93-14
DIANE HEDDON
Remo read request for variance . (attached in record)
11
BAM9 . 2 . 93
Gene Claussen, contractor for applicant : I have been involved with
this pretty much from the beginning.
She has learned she has an additional 7 inches on this footprint
to the east . She could go another 7 inches--it is . 7 feet that she
could extend to the east which would change that part of it but not
the variance difference .
I have the 1975 prints on the addition that was made and at that
time it was a 5 foot setback off this back yard which she was
complying with. From that same corner she wants to continue that
line which is encroaching on that 10 foot setback that same amount-
-that 5 feet all the way to her east side yard setback and then
continue it back to the corner of the existing house .
This whole backyard area is still within her fence which is also
on the City property. The views will not change very much if at
all as far as what can be seen from the alley side . There is a
large area there that is basically open space . If she was to
change it a location of her bedroom or build another bedroom on it
would have to be in the front area . As everybody knows the cost
of building would--she would have to go for a bigger bedroom area.
She would probably do a 2 story--and this is one of the things she
wants to keep from doing is changing this neighborhood. And in
particular her property basically trying to keep it within the
general appearances as it is now.
It would mean an additional bathroom for that master bedroom if she
was to move it towards the front entry. And that is as much of a
hardship as I can plead.
Remo: There are two things that we can' t consider.
Rick: She says here that she has owned this for 18 years . If that
is the case--if this fence has been openly used for 18 years she
could probably get that by adverse possession.
Remo : Not with the City.
Rick: This is the alley. And I don' t think she encroaches into
the alley.
Remo: She would have to go to court anyway to establish the
adverse possession.
Claussen: We looked at doing a vacation of the City property but
we would have--the whole alley would have to be vacated. Everybody
on that same side of the street which is a major undertaking.
12
BAM9 . 2 . 93
Ron: What size is the lot?
6 , 500 was the conclusion.
Ron: How big is the house?
Claussen: I have never measured out the square footage .
Ron: I am trying to find out what kind of FAR do you have vs what
you are allowed and how much you are allowed to build on to it .
It seems there is a lot of room in the front of this building to
do something with.
Claussen: There is . And there are also trees that exceed 6
inches .
Ron: So you are saying if we don' t grant you the variance that the
only way you could do it would be to build a second story on this
building which would probably be a larger. But you could do that
anyway.
Claussen: That ' s true . It is financial--it would be added cost .
Ron: But if we grant you the variance you could do it next year.
Charlie : I don' t have a feel as to the bedroom that is in question
here . You mention in your application that she got married and
therefore she has to have a bigger bedroom. It was OK for a single
person but now for 2 people it is not . I can' t see that on this
plan. What is existing right now in that bedroom in question. I
want to see the back end of this building. Do you have something
we could take a look at?
Claussen: This is the 1975 plan and addition--
(discussion over plans)
Nick McGrath, Attorney: I represent the Gant Condominium Assoc-
iation. I am here with Molly Campbell . We are not here to object
to this application. The Gant does have some concerns . The Gant
has been active with improvement districts in the area. Initially
there is a proposal for a large lodge improvement district that got
changed slightly. In any event the Ute Avenue Improvement District
was done with Ute Place and the Gant ' s co-operation. The Gant has
also been working on plans for a West End Avenue Improvement
District . And that is the function of concern here .
We are concerned that the fence is outside the property line in the
City' s ROW. It is in a very dilapidated condition and there is a
lot of trash outside the fence on the Gant ' s side . Now to the
extent that you can encourage the applicant when she remodels to
13
BAM9 . 2 . 93
improve those conditions, that would be appreciated.
What we are concerned about is whether any variance would allow an
encroachment in areas that might be affected by the District . As
long as the applicant realizes that her fence is well outside the
property line and that if a district is formed it is highly likely
that the City would request removal of that fence . If she builds
closer to her fence we don' t want her to argue "Well in the
District, don' t make me remove my fence because look how close it
is to my house" . But we will all know that the house is close to
the fence because it is the product of a variance .
So as long as some of those things are clear I don' t think we have
a problem.
(discussion over plans)
Remo : Is that fence on the City property on both sides?
Claussen and McGrath: Yes .
Claussen: I was instructed to take everything out of there . It
was the neighbors east of the applicant that placed it there . It
was their own debris and it has been there for a while . She wants
it off of her fence but they just completed a lawsuit with the
neighbors and there is a period of time that they can try and get
out of the agreement with the court--an appeal . And I was waiting
to remove all of that until that point . It is on City property.
It is not on her property so I assume they have a right to remove
it whenever they want to . We will do it if it is not done in that
period of time .
Charlie : Would you rebuild the fence on your property line if this
fence is removed?
Claussen: Wherever you are allowed to build the fence . Probably
on the property line . And Bill has already instructed me in order
to get the building permit there is a form--
Drueding: - When we give building permits like this and we see an
encroachment we require them to correct the encroachment .
Remo asked for public comment . There was no more public comment
and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
Howard: He is considering that is where they are going to put the
sidewalk right there and so if we grant a variance he is going to
be sitting on the sidewalk.
Claussen: You could put a sidewalk in there or even a street . But
14
BAM9 . 2 . 93
at that level it is raised probably 4 to 5 feet off the alleyway.
Rick: Notwithstanding the fence and the Improvement District I
have not heard a practical difficulty or a hardship that I could
even commence to consider in this . By the applicant ' s own
admission it is purely financial and a convenience to the
applicant . And I would be denying this variance .
Charlie : I have a similar problem. I didn' t see a practical
difficulty or a hardship. It is a convenience . That is about it .
And I don' t think I would be in favor of this variance .
Ron: I agree .
Bill : I agree .
Remo : I have nothing more to say. It is that our guidelines--
you are giving us reasons that are pertinent to everybody in the
same vicinity and zone . And you have to make a presentation to us
that somehow--you know, everyone in 1975 or whenever the changes
were made were in setbacks and things of that nature . Everyone in
that district came under the same problem that you used for us to
grant you a variance . At one time it was 5 feet, now it is 10 .
Everyone in that same vicinity and zone has the same problem. So
unless you have something that is so different, so unique to this
particular property then it is very difficult for us to grant you
a variance .
Claussen: I couldn' t come up with a different one .
MOTION
Rick: I move to deny the variance in Case #93-14 .
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Ron: I move to table minutes of July 15 and August 5 , 1993 .
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5 : 55 P.M.
Janice . Carney, C117 eputy Clerk
15