Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1995 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES . Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS June 6, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Birdwell, Members Poston and Sawtelle and Alternate Members Ochoa and Blackwelder. MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Hollas and Rife and Alternate Member Alexander. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Kee, Senior Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, Assistant City Engineer Morgan and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of Apri118, 1995. • Mr. Sawtelle moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 18, 1995 as written. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a special exception request to expand the existing non conforming use located at 501 Graham Road, lot 1, block 2 of the Brown Subdivision. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and informed the Board that the subject property is non conforming in terms of current parking and landscaping standards. A portion of the parking and driveway surfaces consists of gravel without curbing, striping or landscaping. The property was annexed into the City in 1992, at which time the existing conditions and standards retained non conforming status, or were "grandfathered" until further expansion or changes were proposed. The existing building is approximately 7,036 square feet and the applicant is proposing to add two file storage buildings totaling 1,280 square feet for a total expansion of 18.2%. The Zoning Board has the authority to grant a special exception to allow the expansion of a non conforming use or structure when the Board finds that the expansion is necessary and does not exceed 25% of the existing area of non conformity. Special conditions and hardships need not be found to grant a special exception. Six surrounding property owners were notified with no response. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the special exception request, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern with the proposed expansion and stated that he would prefer that the applicant bring the property into compliance with current City standards. The applicant should bring the landscaping and parking lot up to current code requirements. Landscaping is • needed along Graham Road and single family neighborhoods are moving towards this area. Mr. Sawtelle stated that an industrial and residential area can blend well together; however, the Board should take an active position in making this transition. He stated that he is not opposed to adding the needed building space as long as the property is brought up to current standards. Chairman Birdwell stated that the area was recently annexed against the oppositions of the property owners primarily because they did not want to comply with City standards. The • businesses in this area will eventually come into compliance, especially once Graham Road is improved with curb and gutter. Under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, there is no basis to deny the special exception request. Mr. Sawtelle moved to deny the special exception request to expand the existing non conforming use located at 501 Graham Road, lot 1, block 2 of the Brown Subdivision since it will be contrary to the public interest. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Ms. Poston moved to authorize the enlargement of a building devoted to a non conforming use where such enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non conforming use more than 25% and does not prolong the life of the non conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming use. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion. Mr. Sawtelle stated that he thinks that the special exception will extend the life of that property by not bringing it into compliance. Mr. Ochoa stated that the special exception may delay the property but will not prevent it from eventually coming into compliance. The motion to grant the special exception request passed (4 - 1); Mr. Sawtelle voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request to the minimum lot size, lot depth and setback requirements for the construction of a new home at 824 Nimitz, lot 10, block 6 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision. ~~ ~ • Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and informed a Board that the subject lot is located within an older, unplatted subdivision of thirteen singl amily lots fronting Nimrtz Street. All thirteen lots including the subject lot have a lot depth of In addition approximately five existing houses encroach into the required front, rear an side setbacks ~ The applicant is proposing to construction a new two bedroom house on lot ten. The applicant is proposing a 56' lot depth (for a variance of 44'), a front setback of 16' (for a variance of 9') and a rear setback of 7.5' (for a variance of 17.5'). The applicant claims that the primary special condition in this case is the small size of the existing lot, due to physical constraints as a result of the historical development of the neighborhood. The 56' lot depth makes the property impossible to develop as residential under current ordinance standards. Further, the buildable area relative to required setbacks is 210 square feet, which is also prohibitive of residential development. Staff has determined that the only realistic alternative available to the applicant is to replat several of the lots in the area according to current minimum lot size standards of 50' width and 100' depth. In the past, the Board has granted variances to minimum lot sizes and building setbacks with respect to older, non conforming neighborhoods that were platted prior to current ordinance standards. Fourteen surrounding property owners were notified with one inquiry. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Charles Szabuniewicz of 3801 Fifth Street in Bryan approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that he has an option to buy the subject property if the variance request is approved. Mr. Szabuniewicz stated that it would be almost impossible to replat that property in the area because the lots do not line up and they are all under different ownership. The lot depth of the subject property was 66 ; however, additional right-of- way was purchased for the expansion of Nimitz Street. • Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes June 6, 1995 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Sawtelle moved to authorize a variance to the lot depth (Table A) and the minimum front and rear setbacks from the terms of this ordinance ~~ it will not be contrary to the public interest, due • to the following special conditions: extreme small lot size which was platted prior to current ordinance standards; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: inability to develop the property for a reasonable living space; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done with the following limitations: the variance is based on the dimensions presented in the application. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Ochoa voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a variance request to the sign regulations to allow an existing subdivision sign to remain within an island in the right-of--way of Lake Forest Court North and South at the Woodcreek Drive intersection in the Woodcreek Subdivision. Senior Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and informed the Board that the signage in question was installed last year without the necessary building permits. The signs are currently involved in code enforcement due to the fact that they were not permitted as required and they do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has had several discussions with staff regarding this matter. One option that would not involve Board action is to pursue abandonment of the medians. Such an action would render the medians private property, and the signs would then meet the 10' setback requirements. However, such action would involve obtaining signatures from each City department, and the applicant will have difficulty obtaining the signature from the head of the Public Services department. That department is responsible for maintaining all of the City's property such as utility lines and roadways. Representatives from that department have expressed an unwillingness to accept such a proposal. However, in reality, the medians are currently maintained by the subdivision developers and homeowners association, which have an interest in the continued maintenance of the medians. The City's policy is to not • accept small private islands in the center of public owned property. On September 3, 1993, the Board granted a variance for Emerald Forest subdivision to locate its sign within the City right-of- way. The special condition cited was "existing sign is not visible due to the entrance road to the subdivision" and the hardship cited was "the existing sign is not visible". On May 3, 1994, the Board denied a variance request to allow the Devonshire subdivision sign to be located within the Victoria right-of--way due to the fact that the Board found no special conditions. Four surrounding property owners were notified with two inquiries. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Applicant Paul Darmitzel, Senior Vice President of TAC Realty, Inc. approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that because of the overall width of the entry ways, the existing monument signs are in the best location for aesthetics and visibility purposes. The subdivision signs are a focal point for the subdivision and will be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners association. The existing homeowners association document recorded at the Brazos County Clerk's office states that the association will maintain the medians. The final plat document also references the association's maintenance responsibility of those medians. From a visibility and identification standpoint, it is not feasible to relocate the signs because they will reduce the lot sizes further. Mr. Darmitzel stated that they will install a sprinkler system in the medians to keep the landscaping watered. He also stated that they would be willing to apply for the abandonment of those medians; however, this is against City policy. Keith Kuttler, Executive Vice President of TAC Realty, approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that if the variance is granted, the required landscaping and irrigation system will be installed. Once they discovered that they were not in compliance with the ordinance, the landscaping was put on hold until the situation was resolved. • Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. ZBA Minutes June 6, 1995 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Sawtelle moved 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: unusually wide streets, and that the islands were shown on the plat; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: adequately marking of the subdivision; and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion. Mr. Ochoa moved to amend the motion subject to the requirement that all other ordinance requirements be met. Mr. Sawtelle seconded the motion. The motion as amended passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of an appeal of an interpretation by the Zoning Official of Section 7.22 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definition of "business activity" in the C-B Commercial Business zoning district for the property located on the northwest corner of State Highway 6 and University Drive. • Senior Planner Kuenzel informed the Board that the subject request is an important one with regard to the City Council directed goal of maintaining a City entrance district along University Drive. To meet this goal, Council requested staff to conduct the University Drive Study five years ago. That study, which was formally adopted in 1991, recommended not only rezomng all of the existing C-1 to C-B but also that an Overlay district be implemented. The C-B district limits uses to those that tend to benefit directly from attractive site design and the Overlay district includes aesthetic controls relating to colors, landscaping, storage, etc. Both districts were created and then applied to the area based on Council's desire to maintain an aesthetic balance within the University Drive Corridor. The entire property under consideration for a Lowe's development is currently zoned C-B and the front portion lies within the Overlay district. The current request for a Lowe's development at the most visible point along the corridor necessitated a rezoning because most of the site was zoned R-1. The Planning staff has had numerous discussions with Lowe's representatives regarding the zoning they would need in order to be allowed to place their proposed new building on the northwest corner of University and the East Bypass. Staffs original assessment was that it needed C-1 zoning and were fairly sure that we would recommend denial based on the University Drive Study recommendations. The main difference between C-1 and C-B is that several uses that tend to include intense commercial activity and advertising are not included in C-B (gas stations and convenience stores, etc.) and C- Bdistract states that "no business activity shall be visible to the street". In addition, the Overlay district, among other aesthetic controls, states that "outside storage or display shall be screened from the right-of-way". Upon further discussions regarding the intent of the regulations as well as the restrictions themselves, Lowe's representatives demonstrated that it will be possible for the site to fit within the district. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the belief that, given certain controls, the proposal would be able to meet the intent of the C-B and Overlay districts. After the zoning went through, we met again with a Lowe's representative, who expressed concern with the fact that we are maintaining the position that any activity that is visible to University, such as sidewalk display and parking lot sales, would not be permitted. They feel that unless money is changing hands outdoors, that display should be permitted. Staff maintains that such an interpretation is too narrow. In support of a more broad interpretation of "business" staff has looked through development definitions and has found nothing that gets too detailed. When definitions handbooks that are used in development do not address certain terms, we typically turn to Webster's. The 1984 New Riverside edition contains one definition for: "business": "Commercial...dealings" and further defines "dealings": "transaction with others" and further defines "transact": "to do, perform, carry out, manage or conduct" ZBA Mimrtes June 6, 1995 Page 4 of 7 __ Senior Planner Kuenzel maintained that the interpretation of "business activity should remain broad, especially in light of the fact that this location is a key entrance point into the City and the • protection of this area has been directed by City Council through adoption of the Study. Chairman Birdwell stated that he was at the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meetings in which the rezoning was discussed. He stated that staff specifically made the point that outside display would not be allowed as part of the rezoning since rt is not allowed in the C-B zoning district. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Representative of the owner Cully Lipsey of 1021 University Drive East approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He explained that when the property was rezoned, it was zoned for a list uses allowed in the C-B district and not specifically a Lowe's store. Mr. Lipsey explained that in determining a definition of business activities, he tried to do what the court would do in this situation. In looking at the ordinance itself, there is no clear definition of business activity; however, the Overlay district specifically allows outside storage as long as it is adequately screened from the roadway. The Overlay district does not prohibit outside storage or display. It seems logical that if outside storage is allowed in the Overlay district that's located within the first 500' of the subject property, then it should be allowed in the less restrictive C-B zoning district. Mr. Lipsey stated that Lowe's is a home improvement center similar to that of Builders Square and Home Depot. It is an enclosed facility except for the garden center located at one end of the building. Representative of the Lowe's company, Brett Jarrett approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that tillers, lawn mowers, storage buildings and swing sets are examples of items that will be displayed under the canopy at the front of the store. In the garden on the side of the store, display items will include trees, shrubs, potting soil, etc. All display areas will be adequately screened from University Drive with the extensive landscaping required in the Overlay district. • Michael Hall of 32 Forest Drive approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that the proposed request is in violation of the entire intent of the University Drive Corridor and the Overlay district. Even though the applicant has stated that the storage areas will be adequately screened, the schematics presented at the Commission and Council meetings clearly show that the front of the building will be visible from University Drive and in those drawings, the parking lot is very close to University Drive. Mr. Hall explained that the Overlay district was designed to further restrict a particular zoning district such as A-P, C-B, C-1, etc. If outside display is prohibited in a particular zoning distract, such as the case with the C-B district, then outside storage would not be allowed in the Overlay district. The section in the Overlay district that pertains to outside storage is to address those zoning districts that allow outside storage. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Kuenzel explained that the Overlay district and C-B zoning district are two separate districts. While the C-B district can exist on its own, the Overlay district cannot. The C- Bzoning district is to control the actual intensity of the land use and that is why it requires business activity to be enclosed in a building. The Overlay district is primarily for aesthetic purposes. Assistant City Attorney Shively informed the Board that the Overlay district applies to several zoning districts from residential to commercial. There is not a conflict between the two districts and in this case, the outside storage is not proposed in the Overlay district so there is definitely not a conflict between the regulations outlined in each district. Mr. Blackwelder questioned staff as to where you draw the line on an enclosure. Who determines • if an area is enclosed such as with a canopy? ZBA Minutes June 6, 1995 Page S of 7 Senior Planner Kuenzel stated that staff would consider an area only covered by a canopy to be outside since it is not enclosed. • Mr. Sawtelle moved to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 7.22 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Mr. Ochoa seconded the motion. Chairman Birdwell stated that he was at both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meetings in which the rezoning was discussed. He stated that the applicant may have disagreed with staff on the outside display issue; however, the applicant never let the Commission or Council know that they disagreed. Staff made it clear that the reason it qualified for the C-B zoning district is because it would not allow outside business activities. The motion passed (3 - 2); Ms. Poston and Mr. Blackwelder voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a variance request to the "Conditional Letter of Map Amendment" section of the Drainage Ordinance for the vacant property located on the northeast corner of State Highway 30 and State Highway 6. Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the proposed variance request to allow the developer to continue with their development process in an expeditious manner. The current drainage ordinance requires that "if modification of any watercourse is involved, an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMA) shall be on file with the Administrator prior to any development". The applicant is proposing, with the development of the property, to enclose the open channel in a subsurface drainage structure (box culverts/pipes). In FEMA's process, the conditional letter is processed prior to any constnaction. In our contact with FEMA regarding this variance request, they have responded that most communities do not require CLOMA's, but rather allow the processing through FEMA to occur during the design/construction phase of the project. Staff would concur and support this • variance, since it is the minimum necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with their development plans. This variance does not grant them the ability to waiver from the Letter of Map Amendment process, but rather shifts the time frame of such submittal. As in all drainage submittals to FEMA, the staff will review the report thoroughly to assure that the applicant has met or exceeded all drainage ordinance requirements before allowing any construction to occur. After the staff review, the report will be sent to FEMA for their review and comment. The applicant has submitted information to the staff regarding their expertise in this type of work and they have shown that they are knowledgeable in this area. The hardship in this case is the project's critical time frame. The applicant fears that the potential partners will pull out of the project if the CLOMA is required up front. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Engineering Representative of the applicant Kenny Rhodey of Ennis, Texas approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that the proposed drainage improvements will be an improvement to the overall area. The existing drainage channel will be enclosed in a box culvert that is bigger than the existing channel. Mr. Rhodey stated that FEMA informed him that it could take up to ninety days to get their initial response on the CLOMA. The owner of the property would like to bypass that ninety day period and begin construction. All necessary information will be submitted to staff and to FEMA throughout the project. Sherry Ellison of 2705 Brookway Drive in the Windwood Subdivision approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. She expressed concern with the variance request because there is an existing drainage problem in the adjacent Windwood neighborhood. She stated that necessary information for the CLOMA should be submitted as required by the ordinance to insure that all requirements are met prior to development. Ms. Ellison also stated that she is concerned • with the underground storage tanks being located in the flood plain and the sizing of the storm sewer system. Ms. Ellison stated that the property owners have been working on developing this property for months; so, it appears that the extra ninety days is not as critical as they say. ZBA Minutes June 6, 1995 Page 6 of 7 John Ellison of 2705 Brookway Drive in the VVindwood Subdivision approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that his main concern is allowing development in the flood plain, where existing drainage problems occur, without the benefit of approved plans and full compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Ellison stated that if one of the underground gasoline storage tanks leak, then the drainage will carry that gasoline behind the existing subdivision. • Engineering Representative of the applicant William Moms of 1616 West Loop South #303 in Houston approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He stated that his firm specializes in the design and permitting of petroleum marketing facilities. The proposed storage tanks are completely out of the flood plain on the subject property. Mr. Morris stated that since the mid 1980's, Texas has regulated underground storage tanks and implemented a monitoring process to prevent leakage from occurring. He stated that there will also be an electronic monitoring system on the tanks to further guard against leakage. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Ochoa moved to authorize a variance to the "Conditional Letter of Map Amendment" section of the City of College Station Drainage Ordinance from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the intent of the Drainage Ordinance is maintained while not depriving the applicant of a reasonable use of the land; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: an unfavorable time frame for the project development; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: all other ordinance provisions remain in effect and that Windwood Estates drainage needs be addressed according to the guidance of the City Engineer. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Other business. There was no other business. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Adjourn. Mr. Sawtelle moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0). A la g ec i an, a alie omas APPROVED: ~ ~ Chairman, Dick Birdwell ZBA Minutes June 6, 1995 Page 7 of 7 • ZONII~iG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR MOTIONS APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S IIvTERPRETATION -From Section 15.5, Ordinance Number 1638 I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of Section 7.2?i of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done. Motion made by S ~4•ti'Y'4.~ ~~ Date ~ ~' Seconded by ~ C.r LL ~ 7- Voting Results J Z~'~ Chair Signature 4VI~T RULING NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECL'SION OR IIvTERPRETATION MADE BY THE ZONIIJG OFFICIAL, USE THE FOLLO~PII~iG FORM: I move to interpret Section of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner: Motion made by Date Seconded b Voting Results ~~ ~~ Y „ Chair Signature APINTERP DOC ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'P FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 8.T) lot width (Table A) `~ lot depth (Table A) ~ ~ R-- minimum setback 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: ~ • ~ --~ ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: I ; e ~. ~. H t..a t 0 h ~ ~ ! <- ~ El y t ~ P L~ c..~e-- --~. and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: Motion made by h ~ ~ S~~~e~ ~ ~ -~ - • Seconded by Chair Signatw Date S~ ~T~finn RAC11~fC ~l r' l VARP1638.DOC • ZONING BOARD OF~ADJUSTMENP , FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 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: l U„ V t va+~~ / 1.U' ~ dl ~ _ ~-r/~~~- T~J ~ ~ T ~l ~` -/ ~ lyrc " ; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship /to this applicant being: ~ / !' Tel,-c._ c' •~J (., ~~1. c dt S ! D ~ ; • and such that the spirit and intent of this ordinance shall be preserved and the general interests of the public and applicant served, the following limitations: Motion made by S „Q, aV 7-{, ~ 1.e._. Motion Seconded by Voting Results Chair Signature Date • s~~ssa.~oc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 18, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the / ~~, "/, fi`o.~~~t L e FF~ ~~/ M `~'° ,QM~~ M`,.t „ P1µ / `PI'!. ` /`i 1~O..• ~I'r'1 /Ih f~ ~'r~'y~r`~ZSection 8.T) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) minimum setback parking requirements (Section 9) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the follLow/ing speciLal conditio/ns: / /~ ~~ C, h G //1 / +~n ~ o f ~ h ~ / J r'~ ~+~ .-+ a-f -t Y~' tl n c n ` •~ r s and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: /1 Ll ~+ / ~ .~' 17.x! ah ~~ ~/ m t 1 irN^^ c.., ~ >^ ~~.c~ ~r01 G .r t" C~~ ,~ ~ ~ n ~ :,.. L~'f' and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to th/e following limitations: _ Q ~l r7T /~ t,r Jr~, n c... w o r.i i Jt c ,) /`~G...f~ ~.n~ C 1 Tr~./~' / L / / _ ~Jf",cficr Ct...{ ~~n..!j V/I n~ G~~~w L~ ~ /)G~c~l -h ~ Cl~~c+~-/Ld1C-t tiCCo ^e~~..~ / i • Motion made by ~,u,-/ ~c:.~ ~~~ Date Seconded by ~ Voting Results Chair Signature YARP1838.DOC Zoning Board of Adjustment r~ • Name ., t I ~ (~ 1. 2. 4. ,~ O s. ~~n~l ~oiN,~ 6. ~o~ oo... ~~~ <~~ so._.. 7. C- d 8. 9. ~cee~ ~ Z ~~U K1 t~ „~ t~z 10. 11. ~~ 12 ~C'~ _ ~5~1 nrv~ 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Guest Register Date ~~~ Address ~~z./ C~h, v ~,.~ ~ , C s ~ I ~-~~ ~- f r- 77 .S7.5 5~~ ~~ ,~:~.. TIC ~~l l 027 E w / /S~y ~_ ~ G' ~4 .9.~. 77P~ 2 v n27 05 ~" ~ ~?`7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ld~ ks Or C ,~ . ~ ~~uD