Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment June 1, 2004 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Rodger Lewis, Graham Sheffy & Ward Wells MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternates Jay Goss & John Fedora (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Staff Planner's Jennifer Prochazka, Molly Hitchcock, Jennifer Reeves & Sven Griffin, City Attorney Carla Robinson, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. No requests were submitted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from May 4, 2004. Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve variances for block 2, Richards Subdivision (corner of Sterling Street and Crest Street). Applicant is Shabeer Jaffar. (04 -77). Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock presented the staff report and told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variances for the construction of a new single - family home. The requested variances are a 3.5 -ft side setback and a 9 -ft side street setback. Because of the right -of -way acquisition for Crest Street in 1981, the property does not meet the minimum lot width of 50 -feet for an R -1 Single Family lot; but is allowed to pursue single family development: Any lot made non - conforming solely by means of area dedicated, condemned, sold, or otherwise conveyed for public right -of -way shall be allowed use as if such area were a part of the remaining lot, except that all applicable setbacks shall be adhered to. As is true for any property in the City, variances based upon a special condition and resulting in a hardship may be requested and considered for the property. • The applicant is requesting a variance of 4 -feet to the side setback and 6 -feet to the side street setback • to allow for the construction of the new single family home. The applicant offers a small lot size as a special condition. The property was platted in Richards Subdivision in 1948. It was replatted in 1977, establishing the southwest property line. In 1981, the northeast property line was pushed back when the new right -of -way line for Crest Street was set; thus reducing the width of the lot. With the reduced buildable area, the applicant has stated that it is too small for a house to be built with current setback requirements. An alternative to the setback variances is to build a house that would be 17.54- 19.08 -feet wide. Ms. Hitchcock ended by telling the Board that owner of the surrounding properties is in opposition to granting the variances. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the variances. Shabeer Jaffar, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Jaffar spoke in favor of the variances. Mr. Jaffar explained that the narrow lot width makes it very difficult to build a reasonable size home. He explained that this property was foreclosed for taxes and that is how he came to purchase it. At the time he purchased the property he did not know what the dimensions of the lot were. If he had known at the time of purchase that the lot was so small he would have reconsidered buying it. He later found out the dimensions when he received the deed. Greg Taggert, Municipal Development Group, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Taggert spoke in favor of the variance. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor of the variance requests, Chairman Hill called for anyone wanting to speak in opposition to the requests. Doug Peterson, Owner of Twin City Properties, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Peterson handed the Board a plat showing all the properties he owned around the lot in question. He explained that he bought the neighborhood and he thought that the lot in question came with the purchase. He went on to tell the Board that he served on the Ad Hoc Committee concerning rental registration, unrelated occupants and in fill development. The one thing that the 28 members agreed on was that in -fill was a sensitive subject. Lots like this that were not big enough to build on were being inundated by builders. Mr. Peterson stated that after all the years of him thinking he owned the lot, if he felt it was appropriate to build on he would have built on it. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes June 1, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Sheffy made the motion to deny a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Mr. Lewis stated that he does feel that there may be a little special condition with the city taking some of the lot for Crest Street, but it does not warrant what a variance would do to the neighborhood. Mr. Wells stated that he disagreed. He described the area as being fairly high density. He added that he does believe the lot size is too small, but he also believes it can be designed so it is an attribute to the neighborhood. There is no reason why with a minimal setback you can not get the same 1000 to 1100 sq ft house that would match the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Wells ended by saying that it does not serve the property owner or the neighborhood any benefit by leaving it vacant. Mr. Sheffy stated that the lot looks like a pretty playable park and to cram a house in that small of an area it is going to look like a crammed in house. Mr. Richards stated that it will create an in -fill problem. This is a problem through out the city. Chairman Hill stated that it is a risk you take when you buy something site unseen. He ended by saying he does not support granting the variances. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (4 -1). The variances were denied. Mr. Wells voting to grant the variances. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance for 2100 Texas Avenue South, lot 2, Kapchinski Hill Subdivision. Applicant is Wakefield Sign Service for Target Corporation. (04 -105) Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the proposed attached "Target" sign to extend 5 -feet away from the building facade, thus the applicant is requesting a 4 -foot variance. There is also a 1 -foot 8" variance in height for the "Target" letters to exceed more than one foot above the top of the structure. The applicant did not state a special condition. The applicant states as a hardship: due to architectural elements on the building, the "Target" letters project more than 12- inches from the building. As an alternative the applicant states that the sign can be placed on an alternative location on the wall. Chairman Hill asked what the intent of the ordinance is. Ms. Reeves responded for signs not to stick out more than a foot away from the structure above it, to prevent clutter and to project a more uniform look. ZBA Minutes June 1, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the variance. Zachary McFarland, Wakefield Sign Services, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. McFarland spoke in favor of the variance. Chairman Hill asked Mr. McFarland if the variance is not granted what would they do with the sign. Mr. McFarland responded that it would be placed back on to the actual surface or placed on the side of the bull's eye. Mr. Wells made clarification for the Board members that the Target letters are setting on top of the I- beam and the I -beam sets on top of structural members that are coming out from the porch cover, but recess back from the front surface of the edge of the canopy. Mr. Wells asked if the letters were not on top of the I -beam, but were setting actually in front of the canopy, would that meet the ordinance. Ms. Reeves stated that it would come a lot closer to meeting the ordinance. Ms. Reeves went on the explain that right now the I -beam is making the sign stick up 2 -feet 8" above that structure which is not allowed. However, if they do put the sign on the front curbed surface they may could take 8" off of it and attach it to the front and it may meet the ordinance. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance request, Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Mr. Lewis made the motion to deny a variance to the sign regulations from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest, due to the lack of unique special conditions not generally found within the City: and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not result in substantial hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and the applicant served. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion. Chairman Hill stated that he opposed the variance. He explained that basically you have a canopy and they want to put the sign on the canopy. This is what the sign ordinance is trying to prevent. The letters can be moved back against the main building or they can be placed on the front edge of the canopy. Either one of the solutions would work and comply with the ordinance. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed and there are other workable options. Mr. Wells stated that he agreed as well. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (5 -0). The variance is denied. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. No adjustments given. ZBA Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 4 of 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. There were no items discussed. Mr. Richards wanted to Thank Mr. Lewis for his service to the Board. Chairman Hill thanked Mr. Lewis for his service and stated that his in put will be missed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. APP 1 i D: / r /; , i Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: ��rr1__�.r • Deborah Grace, Staff ssistant ZBA Minutes June I, 2003 Page 5 of 5 MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment July 6, 2004 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Leslie Hill, John Richards, Graham Sheffy, Ward Wells & John Fedora. MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Jay Goss (not needed). STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Stacey Smith, Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. No requests were submitted. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes from June 1, 2004. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wells seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion and possible action to rehear the variance for 2100 Texas Avenue South, lot 2, Kapchinski Hill Subdivision. Applicant is Boyd Hippenstiel, Federal Heath Sign Company for Target Corporation. If the Board votes to rehear the case it will be reheard at the Board's regular meeting August 3, 2004. (04 -105) Mr. Wells stated that as he read the information requesting a rehear, there were two items that he found. First, the proposed sign is a national trend to re -brand Target. Therefore, in essence we would not be allowing them to properly display the new trademark for the corporation. Second, it is implied that the image was not of significant clarification for the Board to understand. Mr. Richards made the motion to approve the request for rehear. Mr. Fedora seconded the motion. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2005 Page 1 of 7 Chairman Hill asked Mr. Wells in his opinion what new evidence is being presented. Mr. Wells stated that he does not think it was stressed at the previous meeting that what they were dealing with was a change of a national trade -mark. On that basis he is willing to say that is new information. Chairman Hill stated that he concurred with Mr. Wells. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (5 -0) to rehear the variance request. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing, consideration, discussion and possible action to approve a variance to the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13 Flood Hazard Protection, Section 5- G., Special Provisions for Floodways. The variance request affects the following two properties: 1501 Emerald Parkway and 1501 Emerald Plaza, being lot 1, block 1, and lot 5, block 1, Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision. Applicant is Joe Schultz, P.E., with TXCON, as agent for the property owner. (04 -139) Spencer Thompson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Mr. Thompson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow encroachment into the floodway as depicted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The applicant is contending that the FIRM is incorrect as to floodplain and floodway location. Information has been provided to the City to support the Applicant's premise. The subject tracts are currently undeveloped. The tract adjacent to Lot 1 has developed as a professional building. The tract adjacent to Lot 2 is currently being developed as a dental office and future professional building. TxDOT secured a drainage easement on Lot 2 during construction of State Highway 6 Bypass. A drainage channel was constructed in the easement. Lot 2 was issued a Development Permit by the City for fill in the floodplain per the 1992 FIRM. Fill was placed on the lot. Lot 2 is mostly grass land along the front and heavily wooded to the rear. The City of College Station has adopted floodplain ordinances and associated regulations as required by FEMA in order for its citizens to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Enforcement of adopted ordinances is a requirement of participation in the insurance program. The above referenced ordinance prohibits encroachment into the floodway. The ordinance defines these two floodplain related terms as follows: Floodplain: any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodway: the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Section G.5 further describes the floodway and prohibits encroachment as follows: ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 2 of 7 G. • SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5 -B are areas designated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements of existing construction, structures, manufactured homes, or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. The Applicant has provided to the City a flood study for this area of Bee Creek. The study was initially produced to submit to FEMA as a request for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). City staff reviewed the study and felt it was not comprehensive enough to warrant an actual change to the adopted map without looking at the floodplain more extensively upstream and down stream. It must first be noted that this area of Bee Creek includes several hydraulic irregularities. The subject area is the point of confluence for Bee Creek Main and Bee Creek Tributary A. Just before the two streams converge, Bee Creek Main "proper" passes through a single - barrel culvert under Earl Rudder Freeway while additional flow passes through a 3 -acre pond and then through an eleven - barrel culvert under the freeway. Trib. A winds behind Crystal Park Plaza and flows through a four - barrel culvert "catty corner" under the intersection of the freeway, Emerald Parkway and Harvey Mitchell Parkway. During flooding events, floodwaters back up behind the aforementioned culverts. During such flooding events flow also passes over Harvey Mitchell Pkwy and under the freeway overpass. It is my understanding that flooding events have not caused water to pass over the freeway, itself. As mentioned previously, the Applicant submitted a flood study addressing the subject property and the floodplain/ floodway locations. Due to the hydraulic complexities associated with this area of the floodplain, the City retained the professional services of Mitchell and Morgan, LLP to further evaluate the submitted flood study. Several key issues were identified in the review of the flood study and are enumerated below. (1) A map revision was issued in 2000 that changed the floodplain on the subject property. The floodplain changes depicted on the map were a direct result of the construction of both Appomattox across Bee Creek and the associated overflow channel for development of the Emerald Forest Subdivision. (2) The revised FIRM dated 2/9/00 and floodplain data provided in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) also dated 2/09/00 do not correspond to on- the - ground information. This includes river stations, floodplain and floodway widths, cross sections, etc. (3) Fill was placed on the subject property that was not considered in the map revision. The placement of said fill occurred before the map was revised to show the subject area as floodway. (4) In order for the City to approve a revision to the FIRM a study of the creek will need to be performed that incorporates additional topographic information and extends the model further upstream and downstream. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 3 of 7 (5) • The City plans a study of Bee Creek in this area in the near future. (6) The flood study was sufficient information to present to the ZBA to consider a variance request to the ordinance. A few additional items: • Please note, "development" does not necessarily refer to a building or structure but to "any man made change ". • The TxDOT Drainage Easement preserves the easement area for the drainage channel. Any encroachment into the area will have to be permitted by TxDOT. Any encroachment into the area is subject to future channel needs. • Approval of a variance does not make the floodplain/ floodway "go away ". Development and insurance requirements are all still applicable. • FEMA and City regulations both allow minor encroachments and fill of the flood fringe. • Fill in the floodplain is required to be performed according to Technical Bulletin 10 -01 Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe from Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. • Should the variance be granted and the fill be placed on the lots, the new topo information may be included in the study when the floodplain is re- studied and possibly re- mapped. As a special condition the applicant states that the FIRM depicts the floodway as being located on the subject properties. Per the flood study provided by the applicant, the floodway is still being preserved if requested encroachment is approved. As a hardship the applicant states that the Development of the subject property in areas shown as floodway is precluded by City ordinance. It is the Applicant's opinion that the FIRM is in error and that there is no floodway on the subject site. Possible alternative options to requested encroachment: • Option 1: Prohibit encroachment into the floodway as shown on the adopted FIRM. Fill/ development will be limited to the flood fringe boundary. • Option 2: Allow encroachment into the floodway except not into TxDOT Drainage Easement. • Option 3: Allow encroachment as requested but Owner agrees to preserve forested areas or a portion thereof. As an inclusion to the Boards packets by Mr. Chuck Ellison he states: In 1992, the City of College Station issued a development for Allen and Patty Swoboda to fill a portion of the floodplain on lots 1 and 5 of Emerald Park Plaza, which they did. In 2000, the FEMA reissued the FIRM that covers that land. The FIRM widely expanded the floodway and failed to consider the fill that was added following the 1992 development permit. Allen and Patty contracted with Joe Harle, RPE and Joe Schultz, RPE to perform an engineering study in accordance with the City's Drainage Policy and Design Standards as required by the Code. The study was performed and submitted to the City for review which clearly indicates that the portion of the land to be developed in not the floodway. Mr. Wells stated that he is used to the idea that floodplains are designated by elevations. Mr. Thompson explained that when you do a flood study you get elevations and then you map those on a working map. That is then turned into FEMA. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 4 of 7 What 'your doing is producing a map showing the elevation of the floodplain, showing where that elevation goes on a working map and then a map is produced form that. Mr. Thompson ended by saying the map is the legal document that says where the floodplain and floodway are. Mr. Wells stated from a current survey we know where the elevation that designates the floodplain is. Mr. Thompson replied yes. Again, if it was just floodplain it would not be much an issue. You're allowed to fill -in the floodplain today in the fringe. The big issue is the floodway. Chairman Hill stated for clarification that the current map shows the designated floodway is incorrect and that the property in question really is not within the floodway. Mr. Thompson replied that some of the property is but the area that they are wishing to encroach into is not. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Chuck Ellison, attorney for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Ellison was speaking if favor of the variance request. A.D. Patton, Vice President of the Emerald Forest Home Owners Association, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Patton spoke in favor of the variance request. Joe Schultz, agent for the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Schultz spoke in favor of the variance request. Chairman Hill asked why did they just not go to FEMA and submit a LOMR and get the map corrected. Mr. Schultz responded that that is a very lengthy process and the City is also doing their own study of the complete Bee Creek Basin which is a huge undertaking. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Thompson if there was anyway to shorten the process and have FEMA correct the map. Mr. Thompson replied no. That is a lengthy process to get the map fully changed. Joe Harle, P.E., stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Harle spoke in favor of the variance request. Mr. Harle stated that in his professional opinion when the city progresses with it's LOMR they will not have any trouble convincing FEMA that there is an error in the map. Dennis Cole stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Cole stated he was not necessarily speaking in opposition to the variance. He would like to see some concerns addressed before it moves forward. His parents own property on the North side of the creek and his concern is what is re- designating of the map going to do to the North side. With no one else stepping forward to speak Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Thompson to step back before the Board. Chairman Hill asked him to share any comments concerning Mr. Cole's concerns that he has expressed. Mr. Thompson replied that the map is not being changed at this time so it is still the official map. It looks to be that the creek channel is the property line separating his parent's property from the city property so the floodway is applicable today on that property. If the floodplain changes then everyone would be notified and they would be able to see what the changes are. ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 5 of 7 , Joe Harle stepped back before the Board and stated that the current floodway boundary on the north side of the creek is near the north bank of Bee Creek. That is as far south that that boundary can move. By definition the floodway includes the stream channel and adjacent over bank areas that are needed to pass the 100 year flood without more than 1 -foot rise. You can not encroach into the stream channel. Mr. Harle referred to the map showing that the floodway boundary is very close to the stream channel line for Bee Creek. The floodway boundary is at or near the north bank of Bee Creek. Mr. Harle stated that in his model he did not change that. There has been no shifting of the line. It is still as far south as it can be. He expected that would be what would be eventually approved in a LMOR to FEMA. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Harle based on his knowledge of that area did he see much likelihood that would shift northward. Mr. Harle replied he did not think it would. By definition the floodway allows to what is referred to as "equal convenience reduction" on both sides of the stream channel. That means if there are two different property owners you are treating both the same. Mr. Wells made the motion to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to wit: the floodway area limit bisects lot 1 and lot 5 and the portion not within the floodway is not developable due to its shape and size. The floodway area requested for encroachment was approved for fill placement in the mid 1990's. Fill material was placed so the area could be developed. Approval of this variance request would allow development on property that was previously approved for development by the City of College Station; and because either of the following criteria are met: special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit: enforcement into the FEMA FIRM designated floodway area with fill material and new construction, such as parking lots and buildings. The encroachment into the floodway area is proposed for 1.68 acres of lot 5, block 1 and 0.43 acres of lot 1, block 1, Emerald Park Plaza Subdivision. The property for which the variance is requested is shown on the attached Exhibits A & B. Exhibit B (attached) the dimensions of the proposed floodway encroachment areas. (Exhibit A can be reviewed upon request through the Development Services Office); the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Mr. Fedora seconded the motion. Chairman Hill noted a discrepancy. In the application it states .42 acres of lot 1, block 1 and exhibit B states .43 acres. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Thompson for clarification. Mr. Thompson replied that what he is looking at is the exhibit. It was suggested to the applicant to do a metes and bounds of the area of what they are requesting to encroach into and that is what they would be held to when development cames in. Chairman Hill stated personally that this is not the body for this to be dealt with. He feels the proper way it should be handled would be to go to FEMA and get the map corrected. He added that he feels they are being asked to give a variance to incorrect data. Chairman Hill did state that the time it would take for the applicant to go to FEMA is an undue hardship and therefore the reality is this is where it needs to be dealt with at this time. He ended by saying he would be in favor of granting the variance. Chairman Hill told Mr. Cole that he does not feel that they are putting his parents at risk by granting the variance. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The Board voted (5 -0). The variance was approved. ( ** *See amendment to this motion on agenda item No. 8) ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 6 of 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion of Administrative Adjustments approved by City Staff. — 2420 Texas Avenue South There were no discussions. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration and possible action on future agenda items — A Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned. * ** The meeting was reopened. The motion for agenda item no 5 had a discrepancy concerning the acreage on the application and the acreage on the exhibit. Mr. Wells made an amendment to his motion to approve. The acreage should read 0.43 acres of lot 1, block 1. Mr. Richards seconded the motion to amend. The Board voted (5 -0). The motion was approved to amend APPROVED: Leslie Hill, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant ZBA Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 7 of 7