HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2001 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
1 % W October 10, 2001
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hill, Sheffy, Richards, Lewis & Alternate Member Allison
MEMBERS ABSENT: Birdwell absent, Alternate Members Goss & Corley, not needed.
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planners Reeves & Hitchcock, Assistant City
Attorney Robinson.
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 Absence Request from meeting.
Mr. Birdwell submitted an application that was moved to approve by Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr.
Richards, and approved by a Board vote of (5 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of meeting minutes from September 12, 2001.
Mr. Sheffy made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Richards seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed (5 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 316 Holleman Drive, lot
2, block 2, McCulloch's Subdivision. Applicant is Habitat for Humanity. (01 -186).
Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told
the Board that the variance is to allow for construction of a new home. The subject property is
undeveloped. A house is planned for this lot that will encroach into the required rear setback. The back
of the house will extend approximately 8 feet over the rear building setback line. Thus, the applicant is
requesting a variance of 9 feet (or a 36% variance) to the rear setback to allow for the construction of
the house.
The Board could consider the depth of the lot as a special condition. Although the lot does exceed the
current width requirement of 50 feet, the lot does not meet the current depth requirements for an R -1
single - family residential lot. In this case, in addition to significantly restricting the building options on
the site, having less lot depth reduces the remaining buildable area of the lot to less than that of
surrounding properties.
Page 1
The McCullough Subdivision, where the subject property is located, is one of the original
neighborhoods in College Station and appears to have been platted prior to the City's adoption of
Subdivision Regulations. Subdivisions that have been platted in more recent years are planned to
�r accommodate the City's setback requirements. It also appears that a portion of the front of the
property may have been taken by the City for the expansion of Holleman, resulting in the depth of only
84 feet. Once the front and rear setbacks are applied to properties with the standard 100 -foot depth a
length of 50 feet remains for the builder to work within. For this property, with a depth of 84 feet, only
34 feet remain after the front and rear setbacks are applied, significantly restricting the building options
on the side and lessening the buildable area.
The Board must decide if having a lot depth of 84 feet, instead of the now required 100 feet, is a special
condition, or if the situation is a general condition.
If the ZBA considers the reduced lot depth as a special condition, then the resulting hardships would be
the significant reduction in buildable area and the significant restriction on the building options. The
applicant would be unable to build a house of comparable size to the others in the area.
The Board may not consider a financial hardship as the only hardship involved in a case, but it may
considered in addition to other hardships. The subject property was donated to Habitat for Humanity
by the City of College Station on September 13, 2001 for the purpose of building a house and selling it
to a resident that has been living in substandard housing. At Habitat for Humanity, volunteer - friendly
construction plans are not created for each project, but are used repeatedly by the organization on
different properties to reduce the costs of the homes. The additional cost of preparing a custom plan
for this lot would increase the overall cost of the project, therefor negating the ability to provide low -
income housing at a low cost on this lot.
�%W
Staff has identified the following alternatives to granting the nine -foot rear setback variance:
Grant a lesser variance — the applicant has stated that the plan for the house would encroach eight feet
into the required setback. A variance of nine feet would still allow for the construction of the home.
The additional foot would create room for a small margin of error.
Do not grant the variance — the structure is in the planning phase so, at this time, no physical
encroachments exist. A denial will require the applicant to design a house that meets the rear setback
required for the lot. If no house is built on the lot within eighteen months, ownership of the property
will revert back to the City of College Station.
Ms. Jimmerson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property.
The Board had no questions for city staff.
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
James Davis, Construction Coordinator for Habitat for Humanity, stepped before the Board and was
sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Davis told the Board that this particular lot is small. Mr. Davis
explained to the Board that since the road is considered a minor arterial, they have chosen to put in a
circular drive rather than backing out on to the street.
�%r ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 2 of 11
That decision has somewhat complicated the construction of the home. Mr. David ended by saying
other than these two items; there are no other considerations.
� Mr. Lewis asked if the home plan is the smallest plan that Habitat uses. Mr. Davis answered that it is
the shortest plan.
Mr. Hill questioned the home plan not having a garage. Mr. Davis replied that none of Habitat for
Humanity home plans has garages due to added costs.
Art Roach, Housing Development Coordinator for the City of College Station College Station
Community Development Office, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr.
Roach told the Board that the CD office is lending their support to the variance request.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the request, Chairman Hill closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Lewis made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: part of
the lot was taken for street widening, the lot was platted before the existing setback regulations and the
lot is not square; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: impossible to build on the lot due to its shallow depth
and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the
following special conditions: variance of 9 feet. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion.
Chairman Hill stated that he commends Habitat for Humanity for what they are doing in our
community.
Chairman Hill stated that he would like the motion to mention something about the shallow depth of the
lot.
Mr. Lewis amended his motion to add " due to its shallow depth ". Mr. Sheffy seconded the
motion to amend. The Board voted (5 -0) to amend the motion.
Chairman Hill called for a vote on Mr. Lewis's motion to authorize a variance and Mr. Shelly's
second. The Board voted (5 -0) to grant the variance.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a rear setback variance for 320 Holleman Drive, lot
4, block 2, McCulloch Subdivision. Applicant is Habitat for Humanity. (01 -187)
Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and stated that this case is similar to the last one and
therefore did not go through the complete staff report. Basically the difference between the two cases is
the amount of the variance being requested. The variance requested is 5 feet but only 4 feet is needed.
The additional foot would create room for a small margin of error.
Ms. Jimmerson ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property.
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 3 of 11
The Board had several minor questions of concern.
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
,%W James Davis stepped before the Board. Chairman Hill reminded Mr. Davis that he is still under oath.
Mr. Davis stated that on this home he was not able to extend the porch out into the front setback
because of the circle drive like he was able to do on the other home. The driveway for this home will be
off of Phoenix Street.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of this variance, Chairman Hill closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Richards made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of
this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
part of the lot previously taken for street widening, lot platted prior to current ordinances and it is a
square lot; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: impossible to build on the 85 foot lot depth; and such that
the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following
limitations: a variance of 5 feet. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5 -0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a front setback variance at 3325 Piccadilly, lot 14,
block 4, Westminster Subdivision. Applicant is Southern Estate Homes. (01 -199).
Staff Planner Reeves stepped before the Board and gave the staff report. Ms. Reeves told the Board
that a 10 -foot variance to the 50 front setback is requested. A front setback of 50 feet is required for
A -OR Rural Residential Subdivision. The subject property has a 50 -foot CITGO pipeline easement
running all the way across the front portion of the property. During preparation to build the house the
applicant discovered that he would not be able to meet the 50 -foot front setback requirement. To be
consistent with the neighboring homes the home at 3325 Piccadilly would have to be 40 feet from the
front property line; thus the applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 10 feet.
The applicant states as a special condition that the 50 -foot pipe line easement runs through the property,
reducing the buildable area of the front of the lot as compared to neighboring lots.
The applicant states that the hardship if this case is threefold. First, locating the house behind the
pipeline easement would result in the front of the house being behind the rear of the neighbor's house.
This is not desirable for either property. Second, by moving the house to the right would cause the
removal of the only large oak tree on the street and also place the house so close to the neighbor on the
right, it would be inconsistent with the other houses on the street which are all located in the center of
their lot. Third, the location of the pipeline in the easement is 15 feet from the front line easement. If
the house were to meet the front setback requirement, a corner of the house would be uncomfortably
close to the pipeline (even though this is a liquid petroleum line and supposedly not a hazard).
The staff has identified building towards the back of the property as an alternative. The house would be
out of the line with the neighboring houses, but the subject home could meet all of its setbacks.
Ms Reeves ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property.
,%.
ZBA Minutes
October 10, 2001
Page 4 of 11
The Board had no questions for staff.
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
Noble Handy, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Hill. Mr. Handy
told the Board that he got a signed agreement from all property owners on the street agreeing to the
variance request.
Mr. Lewis asked for the size of the home. Mr. Handy replied that it was 2500 sq. ft. Mr. Lewis asked
Mr. Handy if he considered any options of making the house wider and not so deep. Mr. Handy replied
that a plan like that would be spread out and narrow.
Mr. Hill stated that he had gone by to look at the property and noticed that the slab had been poured.
Mr. Hill asked if the slab is placed based on a 40 -foot setback. Mr. Handy replied that was correct.
Mr. Hill asked Mr. Handy when he set the forms and poured the slab if he was aware of the 50 -foot
setback requirement. Mr. Handy replied no that he was not aware of the requirement. Mr. Handy
added he was issued a permit and he felt that no one checked the zoning assuming that the subdivision
was a regular residential development, which has a 25 -foot setback. He stated that he knew it had a 50
foot architectural control requirement. He contacted the architectural control board and asked if there
would be a problem. The control board told him there would not be a problem. He then applied for his
building permit and started the slab. During a discussion with Carl Warren with the Building
department it was discovered the zoning was R -01. Mr. Handy stated that he thought it was a 25 -foot
setback and the 50 -foot setback was the architectural control requirement.
Ms. Reeves told the Board that the city building department made an error in issuing the permit. The
i% permit was issued during a time when the entire city was experiencing computer problems. Mr. Hill
asked Ms. Reeves if the builder was operating in good faith. Ms. Reeves replied yes.
Mr. Hill asked Mr. Handy if he lays out the slabs or if a surveyor does it. Mr. Handy replied that
usually he does the lying out of the slabs but he does have surveyors who work on some. Mr. Hill
stated that he is a little bothered that the forms would be set and the slab poured not checking the
ordinances. Mr. Handy replied that he has been building in the City of College Station for 15 years and
he was totally unaware of an R -01 subdivision and that requirement being larger. Mr. Hill asked Mr.
Handy at what point was the error discovered and how was it discovered. Mr. Handy replied at the
time the slab was poured. The city was in the process of getting their computers up and processing
permits, his permit was already issued and he was in the process of building. Chairman Hill asked who
discovered the error. Ms. Reeves replied that it was an inspector in the field.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Hill closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Richards stated that the hardships stated are logical. The property with a pipeline going through it
is not a piece of property that you could build under normal conditions. If the home were placed behind
the easement the house would be out of line from the rest of the houses on the block. Chairman Hill
stated that he would agree with that.
, % W
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 5 of 11
Mr. Lewis agreed that the pipeline is a special condition and also the fact that an error was made in
issuing the permit. Mr. Lewis stated that he could also understand the confusion for the setback.
Chairman Hill agreed that there was confusion but he is less willing to grant that point because it is the
builder's responsibility to check the requirements for where he is building.
Mr. Sheffy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions the
city made a mistake in builder complying with ordinance and thus was issued a permit; and because a
strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this
applicant being: that the house slab has already been reported to city staff and had been approved; and
such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the
following limitation allowing a 5 foot variance. Mr. Richards seconded the motion.
Mr. Lewis made an amendment to Mr. Sheffy's motion to add another special conditions: the 50
foot pipeline easement and change the limitation from a 5 foot variance to a 10 foot variance Mr.
Allison seconded the amendment, which was approved (5 -0).
Chairman Hill called for the vote on Mr. Sheffy's motion and Mr. Richards second. The Board
voted (5 -0) to grant the variance.
AGENDA ITEM NO 7: Consideration of a front setback variance at 316 Pronghorn Loop,
lot 2, block 4, Steeplechase Subdivision Phase VI. Applicant is Oakwood Homes. (01 -208).
Staff Planner Hitchcock stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Hitchcock told
the Board that the request is to receive a variance for an error made during construction. During
construction, the builder estimated that if he placed the house 27 feet back from the front of the
property, he would be able to stay outside of the front setback area. Front setbacks on cul -de -sacs or
curving streets curve with the arc of the property line. The house was not placed far enough back on
the lot to keep the structure outside of the setback; thus the applicant is requesting a front setback
variance of 0.68 feet for the home and 1.11 feet for the garage (as measured diagonal).
For a special condition, the applicant would like for the Board to consider the fact that the curving
street made it difficult to measure the setback. For hardships, the applicants states that the home is
complete and ready to close.
Staff has identified that removal of the encroachment is the only alternative to a variance for the house
to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Hitchcock ended her staff report by showing the Board pictures of the property.
The Board discussed items presented in the staff report for clarification.
Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the request
to step forward.
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 6 of 11
Alton Ofczarzak, President of Oakwood Homes, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by
Chairman Hill. Mr. Ofczarzak told the Board that he built all the homes on that row and all the homes
are all built 27 feet off of the property line. Mr. Ofczarzak stated that it is difficult to layout homes on a
Iftw curve. Mr. Ofczarzak ended by saying that no one in that area is opposed to the variance due to the fact
that all the houses are in alignment.
Mr. Shelly stated that if a builder knows what the minimum setbacks are, and should be, what is the
reason for going over the setbacks. Mr. Ofczarzak replied that it is a human error. The curve makes it
more difficult to check the points. Mr. Ofczarzak stated that the field supervisor wanted to align the
houses on that street across the front so they all would be lined up down the street and he must not have
checked the corner points.
Chairman Hill asked if the field supervisor is a qualified surveyor. Mr. Ofczarzak replied no he is not
but he has been in the construction business for about 30 years. Chairman Hill asked if there was a
qualified surveyor with his company. Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that usually they do all their field platting
and most builders do. Mr. Ofzcarzak stated that he has been strict on making sure all the points are
done on the property so when the inspector makes his inspection there is not a problem. Mr. Ofzcarzak
stated that he did not feel the inspectors checked them.
Mr. Richards asked Mr. Ofzcarzak how long he has been in business. Mr. Ofzcarzak replied he has
been building for 24 years and this is the second variance he has requested. Mr. Richards stated that the
site plan submitted to the city was within all regulations and the house turns out not to be. Mr.
Richards asked where is the breakdown. Mr. Ofzcarzak replied that we are all human and we would
not have this Board if there were not special conditions. Mr. Ofzcarzak stated he is asking for a
hardship in this case. Mr. Richards asked based on what. Mr. Ofzcarzak replied based on the fact that
the house is already built. The conforming of the subdivision is not taking away from the value of the
property and it is not making the other homes look ugly by one house sticking out further than the other
one. Mr. Richards stated that the hardship was created by not following the site plan. Mr. Ofzcarzak
replied that was correct. Mr. Richards stated that the home is occupied now. Mr. Ofzcarzak replied
that was correct. The buyers are waiting to close on the house, waiting on the decision of this Board.
Mr. Lewis stated that he and the Board are very sympathetic to human errors but for them to grant a
variance there are two things the Board looks at and that is a special condition and hardship. Mr. Lewis
stated that it is a challenge to build on a cul -de -sac but that is not a special condition. Mr. Ofzcarzak
replied that the special condition would be, if they had to cut off the corner of the house the house
would look ugly. Mr. Lewis stated that might be a hardship but it is not anything special or unique to
the lot. Mr. Ofzcarzak questioned the two cases on Holleman presented earlier that the Board
approved variances for. The homes could have been redesigned. Mr. Lewis replied there were special
conditions presented. The home at 3325 Piccadilly had a pipeline easement and that makes the lot very
different.
There were continued discussions on the previous cases.
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 7 of 11
Chairman Hill stated that the previous cases have nothing to do with this case.
Mr. Lewis stated the point he was making is there is no special condition for this case.
,%W Mr. Shelly stated that he agreed with Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Ofzcarzak asked if it was written somewhere that unusual cul -de -sacs have different setbacks.
Chairman Hill asked staff if there was anything in the ordinances. Ms. Hitchcock replied no. Mr.
Ofzcarzak asked if the corners of the home were cut off if that would look good to the neighborhood.
Mr. Sheffy stated that should have been looked at before the house was built.
The Board continued discussions with Mr. Ofzcarzak.
Chairman Hill stated that each case has to stand on its own merits and you can not reference another
case. Chairman Hill explained that the Board has very specific legal requirements that have to be met to
grant a variance. One of the requirements is the hardship can not be solely financial.
Mr. Ofzcarzak ended by stating that the home is in alignment with the other homes in the area. It is two
small corners encroaching. Mr. Ofzcarzak stated he made a mistake and he is there to ask for a
variance.
Mr. Richards stated that if he accepted the variance based on the report that a supervisor miss- guessed
the placement of the home, he did not think that adds to the value of the industry in the city.
Mr. Lewis stated that there appears to be plenty of room in the rear where the house could have been
4 W pushed back.
The Board continued discussions concerning the lot.
With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition to the variance, Chairman Hill closed
the public hearing.
Chairman Hill stated that he has trouble with this type of case. In this particular case there are two very
small corners of the slab that are extending into the setback. It is so minimal. The affect of granting the
variance would not be a large impact.
Mr. Richards stated his concern is not with the size of the variance but how it happened. Mr. Richards
stated that is the way it happened and he can not condone it.
Mr. Allison made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions:
variance is deminimus; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result
in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: causes encroachment; and such that the spirit of this
ordinance shall observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: variance be
limited to the existing structure, and a front setback variance of 0.68 feet for the home and 1.11 feet for
the garage be granted. Mr. Sheffy seconded the motion.
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 8 of 11
Chairman Hill asked since the variance runs with the land, can a restriction be placed that the variance is
for the current existing structure. Ms. Robinson replied that because the variance runs with the land
that restriction would not be enforceable. Chairman Hill stated that the variance would have to be
granted like a single setback variance of 1.11 feet for the entire setback line across the front of the
property. Ms. Hitchcock replied that when this was discussed at staff level, it was understood that
when a variance like this is granted it is tied to the site plan, and to the areas, and it would not legitimize
a shorter setback for the whole property line. There would need to be two separate variances.
Chairman Hill stated that the motion offers the two variances but the Board was told they could not
necessarily enforce restriction to the existing structure. Chairman Hill stated to him the two issues are
going head to head. Ms. Jimmerson stated that during the discussions with Senior Staff, it was said that
the variance needs to be tied to the land and not to the structure. The variance request is being seen as
a variance to the small specific area that the encroachment exists.
Chairman Hill requested that the wording of the motion be modified so that the language does not tie
the motion to the existing structure, but rather ties it to the existing lot and reflects the two areas of
encroachment.
Mr. Allison made an amendment to his motion to add under limitations: "a front setback variance of
0.68 feet for the home and 1.11 feet for the garage be granted. Chairman Hill suggested adding some
wording to tie the motion to the particular area. Ms. Hitchcock stated that the 0.68 was for the garage
and the 1.11 was for the home. Mr. Allison added as an amendment "to the areas of the lot shown on
the survey presented to the Board."
Mr. Richards asked what is the hardship listed on the motion. Mr. Allison replied causes encroachment.
Mr. Lewis stated that the encroachments are so small but there is no hardship. Mr. Richards stated that
it is a self - imposed hardship. If the site plan had been followed the case would not be before the Board.
The Board continued discussions on the hardship.
Chairman Hill allowed Mr. Ofzcarzak to approach the Board again. Mr. Ofzcarzak told the Board that
a hardship could be that it would take away from the ordinary houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis
responded that at this time the city does not have a policy of enforcing encroachments. Mr. Ofzcarzak
replied that he did not know that. Ms. Jimmerson stated that right now that is not being enforced but
they also are not writing letters which is a problem with lenders.
Mr. Sheffy asked Mr. Ofzcarzak if the encroachment is keeping the buyers from getting a loan for the
home Mr. Ofzcarzak replied yes.
Mr. Allison offered again as an amendment under limitations " the limitations shall be to the
areas of the lot shown on the survey as presented the Board. Mr. Richards seconded the
amended motion. The Board voted (5 -0) to amend the motion.
Mr. Richards asked if there was any change to the hardship.
Chairman Hill had Mr. Allison re -read the motion with the amendment. Mr. Richards stated that he
does not see how they can accept the hardship under the rules of the Board.
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 9 of 11
The Board continued discussions on the hardship.
The Board discussed a previous case they approved that had a deminimus encroachment. Mr. Lewis
I%W stated that he did not remember what the Board accepted as a hardship. Chairman Hill replied that they
accepted that it caused an encroachment. Chairman Hill asked if anyone could offer a better hardship.
Mr. Shelly made the motion to accept Mr. Allison's motion and call for a vote.
Chairman Hill called for the vote on Mr. Allison's motion to grant the variance and Mr. Sheffy's
second. The Board voted (3 -2). Mr. Richards and Mr. Lewis voting against granting the
variance.
AGENDA ITEM NO 8 : Update on the Unified Development Code.
Ms. Hitchcock handed to the Board Members a timeline leading up to the approval of the Ordinance.
Once the draft copy is made available for public review, copies will be made available to this Board.
Ms. Hitchcock stated that she would get with Senior Staff and find out the sections that would involve
this Board and the items they would have control over. Ms. Hitchcock encouraged the Board that if
they would like to make a formal statement to the City Council or the Planning & Zoning Commission
about any concerns to do so.
Mr. Lewis asked if in the proposed ordinance does it give city staff the ability to approve such small
variance cases like they heard earlier. Ms. Hitchcock replied that Senior Staff is working with the
Consultant and the discussion is for staff to take those smaller cases and they would have separate
requirements. That has not been drafted yet but it has been discussed to allow city staff the ability to
handle 20% variances and that was agreeable. Ms. Hitchcock encouraged the Board to take a look at
that area and then they could make their recommendations on specific issues. Mr. Lewis asked if it
would be appropriate for this Board to put together a recommendation or a resolution of support to be
included in the ordinance. Chairman Hill replied that he thought it would be appropriate after such time
that they have had the opportunity to read the draft and discuss it.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Future agenda items.
Discussion and possible action pertaining to the Unified Development Code.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10: Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned.
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 10 of 11
APPROVED:
ATTEST: (�
Deborah Gra e, Staff' Assistant
Leslie Hill,,,Chairman
ZBA Minutes October 10, 2001 Page 11 of 11