HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1988 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Zoning Board of Adjustment
July 19, 1988
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Gentry, Gilmore,
Alternate Member Garrett and Mayor Pro Tem
(Acting Alternate Member} Brown
MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Henry, Thompson and Alternate Member
Baker
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner/Zoning Official Kee, Assistant
City Attorney Banks, Director of Community
Development Fette, Housing Program Coordinator
Wales and Planning Technician Volk
AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and
limitations of the Board.
Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order, opened the public hearing and explained
the functions and limitations of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 2: Administration of Oath of Office for
reappointed chairman of the Board, David 8uesink.
• Mayor Pro Tem Brown presented a plaque to Mr. Ruesink for his service on the ZBA for
the past two years and expressed the gratitude of the City and the Council for the
time and effort put forth during that time. He then administered the Oath of Office
to Mr. Ruesink for his reappointment to the Board for the next Z year term of office.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of sinutes - meeting of July 5, 1988.
Mr. Gentry made a motion to adopt the minutes as drafted. Mr. Gilmore seconded the
motion which carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Hear visitors.
No one spoke.
Chairman Ruesink announced that an unusual situation has arisen
for this Board, and explained that there are only 4 members
present at this meeting, but one of those members has a Conflict
of Interest under Agenda Items 5 & 8, therefore would not be able
to participate in the discussion or take part in the voting. He
went on to explain that for positive action to be taken by this
Board, a vote of 4 of the 5 voting members is required, thus items
5 & 8 will have to be delayed until the next meeting. An
applicant from Dallas who was in the audience asked if the items
could be delayed until later in the meeting, with the hope that
another member would arrive at the meeting late. The Board agreed
I, ~ that this could be done, and Chairman Ruesink announced that the
order of the agenda would be changed, and the next item of
business to be considered would be Agenda Item #6.
AGBNDA ITBM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a variance to
• the sign regulations {Section 12, Ordinance No. 1638} to erect a
sign in a R-1 zoning district at the entrance to a large tract of
land located on the north aide of FM 2818 approxi'ately 900 feet
east of the intersection of Holleran Drive & FM 2818. Owners}
of the property are J.D., T.L. and S.N. Ssith. Applicant is O.D.
Butler.
Mrs. Kee explained the request is for a variance or a special exception to erect a
sign advertising a non-conforming commercial venture at the entrance drive to a large
unplatted tract of land located on the north side of FM 2818 approximately 900 feet
east of the intersection of Holleman & FM2818. She explained that the property has
been used to raise and sell bulls since its annexation in 1970, when R-1 single family
zoning was placed on it, thus making its use non-conforming. She described the
physical characteristics of the property and stated that there is only 1 property
owner within 200 feet of this proposed 4x8 sign, that notification had been made and
that she had received no response to date.
Mr. Gentry asked what the difference would be between granting a variance for this
sign or making a special exception for it. Mrs. Kee explained that in this case,
there would be no difference.
No one in the audience came forward to address this item. Chairman Ruesink said that
he had heard that Dr. Butler had recently entered the hospital for open heart surgery
which would probably explain why no one was here to address the issue.
Mr. Gentry made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the
• terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the
following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: existing
non-conforming use has been in place since annexation in 1970, and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to
this applicant being the inability to advertise (the) use in any manner, and further
that it will not continue and expand the non-conforming use beyond its present life,
and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the
general interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the following
limitations: that a sign no larger than 4 ft. x 8 ft. be erected at the
requested location, with the sign to be no higher than 8 feet in elevation from
the grade (the top of the sign}. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (4-0).
AGBNDA ITBM N0. 7: Consideration of a request for a variance to
rear setback requirements (Table A, Ordinance No. 1638) to allow
renovation of the existing residence at (for,erly) 506 Holleran,
(now) 1100 Georgia. Applicant/owner of the property is the City
of College Station.
Mrs. Kee explained that the City is requesting a variance to the rear setback at 1100
Georgia, a structure which formerly faced Holleman and has been moved on the lot to
face Georgia. She continued by explaining that the City owns the property and will be
selling it to an individual under the Urban Homesteading Program which is under the
direction of the Community Development Division. She stated that the existing zoning
is R-1 Single Family, that the property is surrounded by single family residences, and
then described the physical characteristics of the property. She pointed out that the
• lot had originally been 50x100 feet in size, but at the time Holleman Drive was
widened, this lot lost approximately 20 feet, and is now approximately 80 feet in
depth.
ZBA Minutes 7-19-88 Page 2
Mrs. Kee briefly explained that when the house was situated on the lot to face
• Holleman, it encroached both front and side street setbacks, but since that time, the
house has been relocated on the lot to face Georgia Street, but still has a rear
setback encroachment. She added that one purpose for changing the location of the
house was to rectify the encroachments, but the Building Department does not require
permit for moving a house being relocated on the same lot, so the house was set in a
location which encroached one of the required setbacks. She additionally explained
that this setback encroachment was detected at the time the remodeling permit was
applied for.
Mrs. Kee stated that 21 area property owners had been sent notification of this
request, and of that number she had received only 1 inquiry.
Mr. Gentry asked for clarification as to where the rear of the structure is and Mrs.
Kee explained that although the house has been situated to face Georgia, the rear of
the lot where the encroachment has occurred is the southerly property line which runs
parallel to Holleman Drive, and perpendicular to Georgia Street. She added that the
house now sits in a line with other houses on the street. In answer to a question
from Mr. Gentry, Mrs. Kee replied there is a single family residence and an unused
Masonic lodge to the rear of this house.
a
Charissa Wales, Housing Program Coordinator for the Community Development Division was
sworn in and added to Mrs. Kee's explanation that although the front of the house
faces Georgia, the rear of the house now faces Holleman Drive. She said that even if
the house were facing Holleman Drive, driveway access to the lot would have to be from
Georgia, and the way the house is built, a sidewalk from the off-street parking pad
• for 2 cars which is provided would have to be built all the way around the house to
the door facing Holleman. She added that there are 2 existing trees on the lot that
they have made an effort to save, which added to the problem of the substandard size
lot when the house was relocated.
There were no other questions or issues addressed, and Mr. Gilmore stated that he was
in the process of preparing a positive motion. Mr. Gentry mentioned that the safety
factor which was addressed by moving the house back from Holleman would be
justification for granting this variance.
Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback (Table
A) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest,
due to the following special conditions: The size of the lot was reduced due to the
widening project on Holleman Street, rendering the property unusable with the existing
structure, also the improved safety aspect with the entrance being from Georgia
Street, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would
result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the inability to utilize this
property for a single family dwelling. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion which carried
unanimously (4-0).
Chairman Ruesink announced that the time of the delay in
considering the next 2 items was well used, and in the interim
Mayor Pro Tem Brown has received permission from enough Council
members to allow him to serve as an Alternate Member of the Board
with voting privileges. He welcomed Mr. Brown to the Board, and
reminded all present that any positive action by this Board
• requires a positive vote of ro less than 4 members.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to
ZBA Minutes 7-19-88 Page 3
the sign regulations (Section 12, Ordinance No. 1638) at 410
• Texas Avenue (site of IIniversity Inn, for,erly Ra'ada Inn) to
allow the addition of a wall sign to an non-conforsing sign.
Owner of the property is F.D.I.C. Applicant is Mrs. Dick Schwab
of Western Union.
Mrs. Kee explained this request is for a variance to the sign regulations to allow the
addition of a 2 ft. x 4 ft. {8 sq.ft.) sign to the existing non-conforming
freestanding sign at the University Inn on Texas Avenue 8; University Drive. She
reminded the Board that this hotel was formerly the Ramada Inn. She described the
physical characteristics of the lot and identified area land uses.
Mrs. Kee explained that the existing non-conforming sign on this lot has a setback of
25 feet from Texas Avenue, has a total area of 232 sq. ft., and is 38 feet in height.
She stated the maximum height of a conforming sign at this location would be 14 feet,
so the height is what makes the existing sign non-conforming. She added that the
maximum area for a sign with a 25 ft. setback would be 250 square feet, and since the
existing sign is 232 square feet, the addition of 8 square feet would still be less
than the maximum allowable area.
Mrs. Kee also mentioned previous action taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on
property which covered other items, and one item which was withdrawn by the
application prior to any action which was for a variance for the height limit far the
existing sign.
Mr. Gilmore asked why this Board is being asked to consider 2 requests for the same
sign at this meeting. Mrs. Kee stated that there are 2 separate requests from 2
• different applicants. Mr. Brown stated that if one request is approved, it would be
very difficult to deny the other. Mrs. Kee explained the 2 requests are very
different in nature.
Mr. Gilmore stated that he thinks the height of the sign should be addressed before
this area request is considered. Mr. Gilmore then made a motion to table this item
until item #8 is resolved. Mr. Brown seconded the motion which carried unanimously
{4-0) and item #5 was tabled until item #8 is resolved.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 8: Consideration of a request for a variance to
the sign regulations (Section 12, Ordinance No. 1638) for the
existing sign at 410 Texas Avenue (site of University Inn,
forserly Ramada Inn). Owner of the property is F.D.I.C.
Applicant is Chandler Signs Inc.
Mrs. Kee briefly explained this request is being made to allow the sign company and
owner of the property to remove the existing top of the sign (Ramada Inn display) and
replace the entire display with a new display exhibiting the new name of the facility,
"University Inn". She explained a variance would be required to allow this since this
exchange would not simply be replacing the plastic face of the top portion of the
sign, but rather the entire cabinet would be removed and then replaced with a slightly
smaller sign, which would reduce the overall area of the total sign by approximately
15 square feet.
Jim Paullus of Chandler Signs, Inc., 9129 Directors Row in Dallas, TX came forward and
was sworn in and explained the subject property is currently under the ownership of
• the F.D.I.C., but the existing "Ramada Inn" display is owned by Heath Sign Company,
and is leased to the property owners under a lease agreement. He continued by
explaining that the current owners have been unsuccessful in reaching a fair and
ZBA Minutes 7-19-88 Page 4
equitable agreement with that sign company to replace the "Ramada Inn" display with a
• "University Inn" display, so they have determined the best thing to do would be to
terminate that lease and purchase a new display from another company to make the
replacement.
Mr. Paullus said this property is now being advertised for sale for $4.6 million, that
occupancy during the month of June for the facility was approximately 79K, and that a
7Q9K occupancy rate is required for financial success. He stated that by making some
changes and improvements on the property it is hopeful that the property will become a
viable and attractive business, and every effort, including the addition of a new
identification sign, is being made to keep this facility from being boarded up.
Mr. Paullus went on to explain that if the owner of the property also owned the sign
face, he could replace the face without any type of permit, but because the current
owners do not own the sign face, they cannot replace it without a variance to do so
because of the height restrictions in the ordinance. He added that he is having some
difficulty in understanding why in one case the face can be replaced without a
variance, but in another case, a variance is necessary.
Mr. Paullus explained that if the sign is reduced in height, due to the elevation and
topography around the property, the visibility of the sign would be greatly reduced,
and signage is very important in attracting business to the facility. He said that no
other location on the property would be acceptable for the location of the sign
because of the same restrictions. He stated the building signs will be changed to
reflect the new name of the hotel, but those signs are so high, they are not visible
to motorists who are approaching the property.
• Mr. Gilmore explained that the sign ordinance was written so at some point in time the
City would have more uniformity in sigl~age, and the new businesses coming to town now
to develop property must comply with the new ordinance, and it is hoped that the older
signs will in time be replaced with lower signs. He asked Mr. Paullus if there is
some height which is lower than the 38 feet, which would be acceptable to him. Mr.
Paullus replied that he is actually having trouble with the existing 38 foot sign, and
would prefer a taller sign due to the elevation of the property and the other things
which partially obscure the vision of it. He referred to the canopy of the Gulf
station adjacent to this and some trees further to the north which also
interfere with visibility of this sign.
Mr. Ruesink said that an alternative would be to put signs facing north and south on
the building. Mr. Paullus pointed out that although that would be a great help for
vision from a great distance, it would not be visible to motorists rapidly approaching
the property. He also pointed out that a sign which would comply with the ordinance
would not be visible over some of the vehicular traffic which passes on this highway
along this property.
Mr. Paullus passed around several photos taken while approaching this property from
different locations, and explained the various things which impeded visibility of the
sign. He stressed repeatedly in his presentation, the importance of good, visible
signage for a successful business.
Mr. Gilmore stated that he does not question the value of signage, but he does
question the necessity of a 38 foot sign when other motels just down the street have
lower signs which comply with ordinance regulations.
• Mr. Paullus said those businesses do not have the financial burdens of this 15 story
high rise hotel, and effective signage on this property will help ensure that people
ZBA Minutes 7-19-88 Page 5
will see the sign. He added that the canopy on the Gulf station is a definite
• obstruction to even this sign, and would completely block a lower sign.
The Hilton sign was discussed, with Mrs. Kee pointing out it is in compliance with
ordinance regulations.
Mr. Ruesink stated the problem this Board is having is following the intent of the
ordinance. Mr. Paullus stated he understands that, and the only other option is to
pay the other sign company and simply replace the face of the sign. Mr. Brown stated
that is what he is having a problem with, that is, if they can buy the sign and
replace the face without a variance, why can they not remove the cabinet and simply
replace it also without a variance. He would like to help this business by granting
this variance, adding that anything to help keep this highly visible property open and
operating should be considered. He reminded everyone that if the owner of the
property also owned the sign, the replacement of the face could be done without a
variance.
Mr. Gilmore stated that he understands that, but if that were the case, this Board
would also not be granting a variance to a large, non-conforming sign when other
businesses have to comply with the ordinance. He pointed out that the City has the
opportunity now to improve a situation, and that is why he would be willing to
consider a compromise to the 14 foot sign which would comply with the ordinance, with
something somewhat taller, but lower than the existing 38 foot sign.
Mr. Brown said again that he cannot understand why this Board cannot allow the
continued use of this sign since the alternative is for the property owner to buy the
sign and simply replace it, which would be a great expense. A variance would be a
• great help to this struggling business.
Mr. Paullus replied that the signage on top is wonderful for visibility from great
distances, but as the property is approached by the motorist, tall signs like that
cannot be seen because they are too tall.
Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Ruesink both stated that this Board is charged with the duty to
uphold the ordinance, and there are certain limitations in which the Board must act.
Mr. Ruesink went on to explain that this Board must consider hardships other than
financial only, and the problem is that there is the opportunity for the applicant to
put signage on top of the building facing directions which would make the business
very visible.
Mr. Ruesink said that he is still bothered by the intent of the ordinance, although he
realizes the canopy at the Gulf station is a problem. The Board and Mr. Paullus had a
private discussion while looking at photos about the location of the reader board and
whether it is visible and how far a sign sitting directly on top of it would be
visible.
Mr. Garrett said there appears to be a contradiction in the ordinance, i.e., if the
owner of the cabinet of the sign wants to remove the face he can without a variance,
but if the property owner does not own the face and cabinet of the sign and wants it
removed, he cannot replace it without a variance. Mr. Ruesink said there is no
contradiction because the ordinance was written with the purpose of eliminating all
the large, tall signs in time. Mr. Gilmore said that this Board must find a hardship
other than financial. Mr. Brown reminded everyone that if the facility is boarded up,
• it will be detrimental to the entire city.
Mr. Paullus said that one hardship would be that this owner inherited the ownership of
ZBA Minutes ?-19-88 Page 6
this non-conforming sign, i.e., ownership was inherited through default and the
current owners are simply trying to make the most of a not very good situation.
• Alternatives which represented compromises were discussed, with Mr. Ruesink stating
again that one hardship to be considered is the existing canopy on the Gulf station
which would block visibility of a lower sign.
Following the discussion of some possible compromises, it was determined that none of
them would be very satisfactory to the owner because of the location of the canopy,
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the
following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: The sign
must extend above the adjacent property canopy and the elevation of the property in
relation to the street access renders this height necessary for adequate visibility;
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
substantial hardship to this applicant being: that signage would not support the
promotion of the existing business, and such that the spirit and intent of this
ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant
served. Fred Brown seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Gentry
abstained from any discussion of or voting on this item).
AGENDA ITEM N0. 5: Consideration of a request for a variance to
the sign regulations (Section 12, Ordinance No. 1638} at 410
Texas Avenue (site of IIniveraity Inn, foraerly Raaada Inn) to
allow the addition of a saall sign to an non-conforming sign.
Owner of the property is F.D.I.C. Applicant is Mrs. Dick Schwab
of Western IInion.
• Mr. Brown made a motion to remove this item from its tabled position. Mr. Gilmore
seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Mr. Gentry abstained).
Mr. Ruesink reminded everyone that staff had previously given its report on this item,
so anyone in the audience who wished to address this issue was invited forward. Cleo
Schwab, the applicant was sworn in and stated that the variance request is to allow
her to place her 2 ft. x 4 ft. sign under the reader board which had been discussed
earlier. She explained that when the old Saber Inn was torn down, she was forced to
move her business and now she wanted to display the same sign she had previously used
on her old site. Mrs. Kee explained that the addition of a 2 ft. x 4 ft. sign under
the reader board would not make the total area of the sign exceed the allowable area.
Mr. Gilmore made a motion to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest due to the
following unique special conditions not generally found within the City: Placing the
2' x 4' sign on another location would not provide adequate signage due to the size
and location of the property, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of
the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: Inability
to provide adequate signage for the referenced business, and such that the spirit and
intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public
and applicant served. Mr. Garrett seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-
1 {Gentry abstained}.
AGBNDA ITEM N0. 9: Other business.
• Mr. Brown explained to the audience that this Board has perhaps the most difficult job
of any board in the city because it has to interpret the ordinance and the intent of
the ordinance, and can take action only if the issue falls within certain specific
ZBA Minutes 7-19-88 Page 7
guidelines set down by State statutes. He said the Council appreciates these citizens
who volunteer their time to a most difficult job.
Mrs. Kee announced the next meeting will be held on August 2nd.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 10: Adjourn.
Mr. Gentry made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gilmore seconded the motion which carried
unanimously {5-O).
APPROVED:
~ nn ~
~O~ C
------------- ------------------
Chairman, David Ruesink
ATTEST:
----------------------------
City Secretary, Dian Jones
•
•
ZBA Minutes 7-19-88 Page 8
~'11r=-SiE~.t~ ~~Nr onl
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
~~
FORMAT FOR P03ITIVB MOTION
Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638
-~ -- `-----------~ =--------_.~_..._~~~ 111`_`14-~-!~'~ --`GX_~ r' ?1f 4c.>
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant
being:
and such that the spirit aad intent of this ordinance shall be
preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant
served, ,
Motion made by: ~~ ~! , -- ='t~.d.~-~=-----------------------
Motion seconded by: ~.~~ r._________________
Voting results: _ _--
- -d -----------------------
--~-a~?--c'-- _ ~'--____-- _~11~~~~ ---____--
Chair signatur date
•
I move to authorize s variance to the sign regulations from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest due to the following unique special conditions not
generally found within the City:
•
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION
Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest due to the following unique special conditions not
generally found within the City:
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in substantial ha dship to this applicant
being: ~
.~ -
!~ s rig L/ ~!. 1.~" ~ <-"=°"'~ r(- G^t_c..,--~.'!/ :~ $ ('c~S /~O
and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be
preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant~`°r~~'~~`"
served, subject to the following limitations: t~ ~,E=
r -------
~r
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motion made by: ___~_ ~-c~C_
----~
Motion seconded by: ~ ~ _ ~ ----------
Voting result __ ~/.-_[Z_
----------------------
Chair signature date ~'
•
Cow r~ v /tl ~ i ~1 ~ rJc .[~~jy~ ,~,~
//GO ~CV~'~~iR
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- - -
• FORMAT FOR POSITIVB MOTION
Variances from Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the
________yard (Section 8.7)
________lot width (Table A)
________lot depth (Table A)
____ minimum setback (Table A)
________parking requirements
(Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the
public interest, due to the following special conditions:
-~. ~Z~` ~'Y' -~-~--I a~'--wA~--~ ~~lA.f1"t~ QU!E'_T_ u.e _~ ~.1~`'~!`-'"~
f(' ~~ l~ _r~711-~•~,e ~` _11~V r~~T_ r ~/~q _7`~~~[~',~C~
- ~- -- - - - - - ---~~` ----1 --''`!- - ----
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
p-
d such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
stantial justice done subject to the following limitations:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------- -------------------------------------------
/~ ~ g
Motion made b ~?' ~..~_. _________ Date ~"`9'"9 ________
y - --- -~=--- ~--~
Seconded by _ ~ ~,~._~~_______ _________ Voting Results __ ~ -Q_
Chair signature ~Q_ ~~_ f
LJ
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT
FORMAT FOR P03ITIVB MOTION
// _ _. .
V•~V~VC~ ~/ % ~ ~'VN
~~~ ~.r~5 ~/z:
~~
Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12 Ordinance 1638
I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the
terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public
interest due to the following unique special conditions not
generally found within the City:
- ~{'' --
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant
being:
------ - ----- ~~'`-t~.-~~%~~ ~__G~1.~ ~~t~_1~-1~ _ rZ ~ ~~ .la's/ ~'
~.x` ~
and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be
preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant
served s:
Motion made by: ---- ~L= '---==~=`-'.~ =-------------------
Motion seconded by __,~~ _ ~ ~ ____
Vonting result -____l~ -~---------------------
~o--~- - -- ---- ------------ - ~~~ 1~~~-~--------
Chair signs ure date
C7
r ~
LJ
:7
r~
LJ
NAME ,~Q,~
1. ~/v.".~-"~
2.
w~~.
~ ~
3 , ~ ~~ « ~.. '"'"
w,
~-
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
/ _
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23•
24.
25.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GUEST REGISTER
~~
DATE July 19, 1988
ADDRESS