Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1997 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS November 18,1997 6:00 P.M. • U MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Hollas, Members Blackwelder, Warren, Hill Alexander MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Taggert STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Graduate Engineer I{aspar, Development Coordinator Volk, Assistant City Attorney Reynolds & Staff Assistant Grace. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Hollas called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2, 3 &4 Approval of minutes from the meeting of September 16,1997. Approval of minutes from the meeting of October 21,1997. Approval of minutes from the meeting of November 4,1997. Board Member Blackwelder made the motion to approve items 2, 3 & 4 as written. Board Member Dill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Request for a rehearing of a drainage variance that was denied by the Board on November 4, 1997 for the Carter Creek Relocation Project. The variance request is to the concrete liner in the bottom of the proposed channel. The subject property includes sections of the Carter Creek and Burton Creek from State Highway 6, under State Highway 60 and through to State Highway 30. The applicant is Mike Davis. Graduate Engineer l{aspar approached the podium. The Board Members asked some specific questions about the variance request considered at the last meeting, but since he was not the staff member who has worked on this case, he was unable to give specific answers and could only reply to general questions. Mr. Kaspar reminded the Board that>the variance request was not being considered at this meeting, but rather whether or not the LBA would agree to rehear the request. Mr. Kaspar went on to say that since this project will be reviewed by many additional regulatory agencies, staff would recommend that if this rehearing is rescheduled, that it be done either after those reviews have been completed, or after staff has at least had time to work with the applicant and the additional regulatory agencies. He added that the public comments should be submitted as a part of those reviews, and aim complete reviews staff would be able to come up with alternatives. • ff the applicant is unhappy with the alternatives that come out of that process, then at that time they can pursue a rehearuig or additional variances. Staff does not recommend setting a rehearing date at this time but certainly does not discourage a rehearing after more discussions have taken place among all commenting agencies, if a problem exists. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Rabon Adam Metcalf of 1406 D Airline Drive in College Station approached to podium on behalf of Municipal Development Group. He was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He read a letter to the Board which staff had never seen before. A copy of that letter is attached as part of these minutes. Chairman Hollas asked why wasn't a variance requested for some other type of bottom as opposed to concrete and clay. Mr. Metcalf said the Corp of Engineers has gone to clay liners as being their standard, but he hadn't brought forth any information to substantiate that. Mr. Metcalf said they would like a variance so that they can investigate different alternatives. Chairman Hollas explained if they do decide to rehear this case they are going to want data not only on clay but other alternatives which will provide the least amount of change to the ordinance to provide the relief granted. Ms Warren asked why this issue did not arise any eazlier in the life of the project in terms of trying to get this complicated issue sorted out. Mr. Metcalf couldn't not offer any answer. Mr. Blackwelder asked what the life expectancy of a project like this would be. Mr. Metcalf said there was not a whole lot of similaz things to compaze this with that he knew of, but he guessed between a range of 20-40 years. Mr. Blackwelder asked after this period of 20-40 years and the • project is worn out, who's responsibility is it to come and clean it up. Mr. Metcalf could not answer. Christian Turner of 4401 Kirkwood Drive in Bryan approached the podium and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. He stated that he did not want to revisit the issues from the last hearing, but did want to mention a couple of things that he had just found out about and he referred to the time line. Mr. Turner added that the applicant got his permit just 4 days before the Corp of Engineers changed their rules on granting these kind of perrruts and this particulaz permit would no longer be granted, and due to that, the applicant would have to go through a whole new process. Mr. Turner continued by saying that it was somewhere around January 17 when the applicant got the permit and City Staff did not find out about the project until June. The public did not learn of it until September. Mr. Turner feels that now here it is November and the applicant is in a hurry for the Boazd's decision. Because the permit will expire, the Board would have to grant them the variance from ordinance, otherwise the project may not go forwazd. Mr. Turner then briefly went over the November 6 letter from Municipal Development Group that was included in the ZBA packets. A copy is attached as part of these minutes. The final point Mr. Turner discussed was the maintenance of the channel. It was Mr. Turner's understanding after discussions with City Staff and the developer, that the city would take over maintenance of the channel after a very short period of time and continuing for a couple of years. The details have not been worked out and Mr. Turner indicates that the city is not happy about maintaining .this channel for that time and the maintenance concerns are there. Mr. Alexander asked, in regards to the maintenance of the channel, if this is a negotiated deal between the City and the Developer. Mr. Turner replied that that was his understanding. In the developer's application to the City of Bryan, Bryan said that the developer would have to supply a bond or some kind of a fund that would allow for the maintenance of the channel for a lengthy period of • time. That particular requirement had not been met. Mr. Turner further said that the applicant is looking for the city to acquire an easement on that property or to require the property to include some bikeway along the top of the channel and also mamtain the channel. He further added that the city staff as well as certain City Council Members do not share the applicant's optimism about the maintenance of that channel. Mr. Alexander asked if a possible water rise off-site would be caused by the type of liner • presented. Mr. Turner explained that there is an ordinance that states that a variance cannot be granted which results in a water rise off-site. Mark Shavers of 400 Suffolk approached the podium and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Chairman Hollas asked him what he could add to what has already been said. Mr. Shavers expressed his concern as to whether or not a rehearing should be held based on the application. He feels that it would be incorrect to grant the reheac~uig at this time based on several reasons. Mr. Shavers added that the purpose of granting the variance is to make it a minimal variance to grant the applicant relief, and in no way does this application indicate that this is a request for a munmal variance. The one question of concrete liner goes to the question of erosion and maintenance. Mr. Shavers feels these questions are very long term questions as well as expensive maintenance items. Mr. Shavers stated that the request for a variance to clay is not a request for a minimal variance. Chairman Hollas asked Mr. Shavers if he was against the Board rehearing the matter at all or just at this time. Mr. Shavers responded that the application is a request for a variance which is not asking for a minimal variance and this is not the tune to grant a request for the same request. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. Chairman Hollas asked Assistant Attorney Reynolds, if the applicant had a variance request at the last meeting and the Board declined to grant the variance, and then the applicant came back 6 months from now asking for another vanance from the concrete for a specific channel bottom, would the Board have authority to hear that variance. Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative. Development Coordinator Volk mentioned that City Council just established 60 days for reviews of new permit applications and she didn't know if it would take 60 days but would certainly take • more then 2 weeks. Mr. Blackwelder made the motion to not rehear the variance and Ms. Warren seconded the motion. Mr. Alexander said he had concerns that the Board would not be doing the general public any favors by not giving the applicant time to present his case again. More discussions followed as to the pros and cons of granting the request for rehearing. Chairman Hollas said he wanted to go on the record that voting to deny the request to rehear this same request, does not prevent the applicant from bringing a different variance request with more specific back-up information. The motion carried (4-1) to deny the motion for rehearing. AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a lot size, lot depth, front setback and rear setback variance request at 309 Lincoln Avenue to allow for the resubdivision of one lot into three lots and for the construction of three new homes on a portion of lot 6 of the D.A. Smith Subdivision, 311 Lincoln Avenue. Applicant is Sherman Click for Bill Harris. Staff Planner McCully approached the podium. She stated that two weeks ago the Board considered a variance request for a front and rear setback for the subject property. The Board denied that variance by a vote of 3 for and 2 against. The applicant has revised his plans and has submitted a replat for the subject property. By replatting the property, it no longer falls under the city's exemptions for minimum lot size and dunensions. Staff Planner McCully explained that there was a 1976 ordinance that covered the subject area and some other older areas m town to • exempt the lot sizes, but only under those configurations, so when the lot configuration changes, the 1976 ordinance no longer applies. Staff Planner McCully further added that this request differs from the previous one in that the applicant has added lot s>ze and lot depth variances to the front and rear setback variances requests. The setback variance that the apphcant is requesting has also changed with this new request. Essentially there are 3 variances now, being lot size, lot depth, and front and rear setbacks. The • lot size and lot depth setbacks are required in order for the city to continue the platting process. Staff Planner McCully reminded the Board, that City Staff is recommending that any future replats along Avenue A include a 7' ROW dedication because Avenue A is nght now a 16' substandard roadway. This will allow the City in the future to make needed upgrades to the road. Eventually what the city is looking for through the replatting process is to require some property dedication, which is typical of the replatting process when looking at substandard areas. This proposed replat shows the additional 7', which decreases the lot depth from 74' to 67'. The comer lot is proposed to be a bit larger than the interior lot. The corner lot is proposed to be 4795 sq. ft. as opposed to the 5000 sq. ft. required in the R-1 district, the other two lots, as submitted, are shown to be 4044 sq. ft. These square footages reflect the new lot sizes and have the ROW dedication already removed. The applicant requested at the last meeting a 15' rear setback variance and a 5' front setback variance. The applicant is requesting the same reaz setback variance of 15' but has increased the front setback variance by 2' for a variance of 7'. Staff Planner McCully continued to say that even though it may seen as though the applicant is requesting more of a setback variance from before, that is not really the case. Staff Planner offered this summation. Originally, there was no ROW dedication ,and the lot that previously came before the Board had a 74' of depth. The buildable depth, if that variance had been granted, would have been 44' . These variances, if granted, would result in a buildable depth of 39'. There is some indication from some past maps which are not official, that originally the subject property was split into 3 perhaps even 41ots. But because the interior lot lines were never shown on a metes and bounds description that predates our ordinance requirements for subdivision, we can not consider those to be grandfather. Staff Planner McCully said the current property owner had the understanding when he first closed on the property, that he owned more • lots than just one large lot. Staff Planner McCully further added that the azea that was being presented is the same as shown, but that there were actually additional divisions that might have had some grandfathered protection because of their age. The proposed replat does show a 7' ROW dedication and eventually if and when the property owner across the street comes in for a replat, the City will be asking hun for 7' ROW also, for a total of a 30' ROW. So basically the lots size is changing. It's decreasing in depth and overall size as well. Chairman Hollas asked if the proposed setback is after the dedication of the ROW. Staff Planner responded yes. It is to be measured from the new ROW line. Staff Planner McCully stated that if the Board does grant lot size and lot depth variances then the plat can proceed. ff the Board does gent the setbacks we will have to measure the 25' from the new ROW line. Staff Planner McCully continued with some history in the subject property. There are several lots in the neighborhood that had houses on them for several years, in fact, they date back so long that there were no variances on file and she was not sure if they even had building permits on them. Other lots in the neighborhood had variances granted. Some of the lots have been combined to form a single lot. The 4 lots on Nimitz at the intersection of Lincoln, lots 10, 11, 12 & 13 have been combined into 2 lots. There is one house built in this azea by our Community Development Program through the city's Optional Relocation Program and it did not have to come before this Board because it is written into their policy, so they can get additional funds. Staff Planner McCully added that the City staff does review those plans to make sure there is not a dangerous situation, and if there is any way that we can get them close to meeting setbacks we do. Staff Planner McCully continued to say that due to some concern at the last meeting about the current request the Board should not grant too much more than had been granted to others in similaz situations within the area. Specifically the lots that front on Nunitz and lots on Avenue A. Staff • Planner McCully said she had not had any calls in opposition to this request. However, the City did have some calls during some of the past variance requests concerning parking. Chairman Hollas opened the public hearing. Sherman Click of 3309 Bahia approached the podium and was sworn in by Chairman Hollas. Mr. Click requested that the Board gent the approval of his request. Mr. Click further added that • the gentlemen who purchased the subject tract of land lives across the street at 311 Walton. The land owner knew the gentlemen that originally owned the subject property and he would frequently refer to the land as "his 3 lots". The land owner now bought the land assuming that there were 3 lots, and proceeded with plans to construct the 3 houses on the lots and realized he would have to ask for a variance on the front and rear setbacks. This is when it was discovered that is was really only one lot and the description was defined only by metes and bounds. Mr. Click added that the County Tax Office has it shown as 3 lots, the maps that the City has shows it as 3 lots and the Brazos County Abstract shows it as 3 lots. It was then discovered that it never got to the Court House and filed as the 31ots, so although the land owner originally bought 3 lots, rt is actually only one piece of property. Mr. Click further added that the land owner originally bought a tract of land that was 74.4' x 171' feet. When the surveyor got through with it, it ended up being 195 feet in length due to the way it was described in the county records by metes and bounds. Mr. Click stated the when he began the process to replat the 195' x 74' feet piece of property that were to be 31ots which were compatible to other lots in that area. Mr. Click mentioned the Board's concern about the front parking area. Mr. Click stated that he went back and talked to City Staff and they looked at other options as how to meet the desires of the ordinances and requirements of the City, and still have it work for him also and added that until the City comes in and curbs and gutters the street and acquires the ROW as a street and sidewalk, his plans would be to provide 4 drive in parking spots. Once the ROW area is taken in and it becomes a curbed paved street, Mr. Click stated he would extend the parking to the left and right of the house and have an area in the center that you could turn in off of Avenue A. Chairman Hollas questioned the need for 4 parking spaces. Mr. Click responded that since this was a 4 bedroom house there would be more than likely 4 students living • there. The owner lives across the street and does not want to have cars pazked in the street and in case there were 4 students, there would be adequate parking. Chairman Hollas closed the public hearing. The Board had some discussion as how to grant to variance and it was decided to gant a variance to each individual lot due to the fact that they could sell separately. Mr. Blackwelder made a motion to authorize a variance to lot number 6-12 as on preliminary replat. Those variances being to the lot depth for 32.6 feet to allow a depth of 67.4 feet instead of 100 feet; to lot size for 205 square feet to allow 4795 square feet; to minimum from set back of 7 feet to allow a setback of 18 feet instead of 25 feet; and to minimum reaz setback of 15 feet to allow a setback of 10 feet instead of 35 feet; due to the following conditions: the size of the lots in the neighborhood and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to the applicant being he cannot construct a house comparable to existing houses without these variances and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: As the homes aze constructed, the curb must be built and parking for four cars must be made within that portion of the lot not being taken for street expansion. Ms. Warren second the motion. The motion passed unopposed (5-0). Mr. Blackwelder made a second motion to authorize a variance to lot number 6-13 as on preliminary replat. Those variances being to the lot depth for 32.6 feet to allow a depth of 67.4 • feet instead of 100 feet; to lot size for 956 square feet to allow 4044 square feet; to minimum from set back of 7 feet to allow a setback of 18 feet instead of 25 feet; and to minimum rear setback of 15 feet to allow a setback of 10 feet instead of 35 feet; due to the following conditions: the size of the lots in the neighborhood and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being he cannot construct a house comparable to existing houses without these variances and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: As the homes are constructed, the curb must be built and parking for four cars must be made within that portion of the lot not being taken for street expansion. Mr. Hill second the motion. The motion passed unopposed (5-0). Mr. Blackwelder made a third motion to authorize a variance to lot number 6-14 as on preliminary replat. Those variances being to the lot depth for 32.6 feet to allow a depth of 67.4 feet instead of 100 feet; to lot size for 956 square feet to allow 4044 square feet; to minimum from set back of 7 feet to allow a setback of 18 feet instead of 25 feet; and to minimum rear setback of 15 feet to allow a setback of 10 feet instead of 3 5 feet; due to the following conditions: the size of the lots in the neighborhood and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being he cannot construct a house comparable to existing houses without these variances and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: As the homes are constructed, the curb must be built and parking for four cars must be made within that portion of the lot not being taken for street expansion. Mr. Alexander second the motion. The motion passed unopposed (5-0). • AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Other Business. Mr. Hill wanted to state for the record the Board's appreciation to the applicant Mr. Click for the efforts he went though to address the concerns that were denied last time. Chairman Hollas second the appreciation and expressed the Board's appreciation for working to try and improve the neighborhood. AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Adjourn. Chairman Hollas moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hill seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5-0). ATTEST: • t Assistant, or Grace APPROVED _ Chairman, Stephen Hollas ~~ ~ ~~ ~11eXQ~P~~ Q G~` n ~ C ~~~ Iv1, Q /~ r 11/24/97 13:01 FAX 409 693 4243 ht D G 11~ZINICIPI4 L DE VEL OP~,~NT GIB O UP • 303 Huffe-nwr Drive Easr • C:nf(t~e Slaeron, Tczes 77840 • -iU9-693-3339 • F.~1.1: 40J-693-a3-03 C~j 0O1 Engineering, Survrying. Pl~~ning and Envirvntnentsl Con~uItnnts v t November 18, 1997 Zoning Board of Adjustments City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Request for Rehearing on Carter Creek Relocation Drainage Variance Dear Mr. Chairman and Member of the Board: We are making this request for several reasons, and we do not undertake to ekpend the time of • the Board or Staff ]i~,lttly. The purpose of this request for rehearing is to have an opportunity to present the additional technical data to the ZBA We have not presented the data to staff to date, because absent an opportunity to have a rehearing, presentation of the data is moot. Time is of the a ss eace on this project and we could receive approval of our FETv)A submission within the next thirty (30) days. At such time, given the variance which we seek, College Station portion of this project will be in compliance with ail City Ordinances, our U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit, and all regulation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In other words, our project will be able to proceed. What the City staff has requested is yet another delay or stall tactic with the unstated objective of delaying the project until after January 1998, at which time our Section 404 permit will expire. The crux of this question is concrete channel bottom or not? The ordinance does not allow any deviation from concrete without a variance. (A copy of the relevant part of the ordinance is included.) Any channel bottom which is pot wncrete, required a variance. We merely ask for our opportunity to present to you why the variance is appropriate. We will, of course, provide a channel bottom consistent with protection of public health, safety and welfare, and which follow appropriate engineering design standards. Lack of a variance produces a number ofnon-financial hardships, of which are enumerated: • 1) Without the variance, the project is delayed immeasurably, perhaps as much as eighteen (I8) months to two (3) years. Such interminable delay may kill the ooocsa-~.~ o.s~~z~s~y • 11/24/97 13:01 FA% 409 693 4243 project entirely. ~I D G 2) Without the variance, we will be forced to concrete line the channel. The concrete channel liner wilt product super heated water in the summer which will result in the following: 1) odor offensive to and damaging to all area property owners. 2) A "dead zone" at the confluence between the concrete bottom channel and the natural segment of Carter Creek, where the super-heated, low oxygen water empties into the natural reach of Carter Creek. This dead zone will be a fish kill area with warm water aquatic plants with associated odor. 3) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed us that concrete bottom channels no longer meet their design standards due to the environmental damages associated with them. 4) Denial of the variance will work additional hardship on the developer, placing him in position between two (2) regulatory agencies. We can demonstrate the appropriateness ofnon-concrete channel. We can also demonstrate non- financial hardships. • Again, based on the above, we respectfully request this opportunity to be heard while these and other points are presented. Sincerely, • North !i. Bardell, lr., P.E, C.E.O. NB/tm cc: Judy Warren, ZBA Frank Pyrtly, ZBA Stephan Hollas, ZBA Jere Blackwelder, ZBA David Alexander, ZBA Enclosure oo~ 000653-e.10-27(3187) ZONING BOARY'~ CSF ADJUSTNiENNT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yazd (Section 8.T) ~-1~- = 2~ 5 D lot width (Table A) ~, ~ ~ ~ lot depth (Table A) ~~'p~n.~ ~ ~~ ~~~/' ~ minimum setback ~~ ' (~ i -z., ~~1~ ~ J~~ ~~~~ pazking 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: S j' ZG ~` /o ~ ~ y dos ~ ~ ~,"'~ and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: n rat cis 1~''~~f ~ h au s ~ ~ v-~/11--~y ~r rz -~ .~~~1 ~~ and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: ~o~,s•~ ~.~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~h ~ ~~~ ~f Motion made by tle/~ Ii~GGW~c~d-•~- Date I 9 L-[ v ~.-!z G ~ ~y Seconded by ,~u~ yT ~3~ ~~-~I Voting Results _~~-o~ s-° Chair Signature ~T~,~ v~~ssa.ooc ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSI'T'IVE MOTION Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the ~- ~ ~~~~~~ ~d (Section 8.T) ~ ~5 s~ ~~ s~ ~~ ~ ~ lot width (Table A) ~ce- / lot depth (Table A) ~~ rn~ ~ ~ -~ ~_ minimum,, setback e'~- YrWri~.YMVi'~ YQ~r, a~C - L parking requirements (Section 9) ~9 Ld~ Y~ /cv~l `~ cs o~ l S 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: and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to theme followin~ limi ations: I ~ Motion made by Seconded by Chair Signature Date Voting Results YARP! 638.DOC h B'LL/,~D~ i~~ CGS v~F~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ / y ~X ~ _ y"7lD /d'M~ ~^"~~ --- z ~~~~,,w ~ ~n~o~ t~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~Lw~ ~ n VaG. 4-I ~I~ ~~ v-~S r. Zoning Board of Adjustment • i• i' Guest Register Date (~? ~o~ ~ ,, Name Address 2. ~12i~ SNI~t/~~i~~ 4 ~ 5 v`~=~=ez~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. - 23. 24. 25. MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP • 203 Holleman Drive East • College Station, Texas 77840.409-693-S3S9 • FAX: 409-693-4243 • EMAIL: MDC'csQa aol.com Engineering, Surveying, Planning and Envirorunental ConsaltanGs November 6, 1997 Stephen Hollas Chairman Zoning Board of Adjustments City of College Station, Texas Re: Request for Rehearing, Carter Creek Project Mr. Hollas: On November 4, 1997, the ZBA heard a request for a variance from a requirement of the Drainage Ordinance, namely, relief from the requirement for a concrete channel liner. The • request was voted down. We hereby request a rehearing. There are several reasons: 1) We have additional engineering data from authoritative sources, including the USDA Soil Conservation Service, which was not taken into account during the presentation by the City Engineering Staff. This data demonstrates our contention that the ordinance requirement of a concrete lined channel is not good engineering practice in this instance, and relief from the requirement is in the best interest of the public. Specifically, the discussion turned continuously upon the tas bility of the clay- lined channel. We have engineering data to show that aclay-lined channel, in this application, will be stable. 2) Several examples of channels pointed by staff during the meeting are clearly not germane to this situation. We have additional information pertaining to applicability to this project. 3) The City Engineering Staff agreed that concrete channel bottom is not desirable. Why then, did they recommend a.~ainst the variance? 4) The City Engineering Staff said that an alternative solution could be worked out - any alternative solution mu t also receive a variance. • Stephen Hollas Page 2 November 6, 1997 We strongly feel that the additional information which can be presented at the rehearing will be more than sufficient to cause the ZBA to grant the requested variances. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ ~~~~ North B. dell, Jr., P.E. C.E.O./Project Engineer NBB/kw • 000653c.08-28(2787)