Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES r: MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Bond & Hill. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS December 7, 1999 6:00 P.M. • • MEMBERS ABSENT: Alternate Members Lewis, Searcy, Ellis & Dr. Bailey. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board. AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider Absence Request from Meeting. There were no requests turned in. AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of Minutes from the October 19, 1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Happ made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Approval of minutes from the October 20, 1999 meeting of the Board. This item was pulled prior to the meeting. These minutes will be presented for consideration of approval at the January 4, 2000 meeting of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Approval of minutes from the November 2, 1999 meeting of the Board. Mr. Murphy made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which passes unopposed (5-0). Zoning Board of Adjustment . Chairman Alexander told the Board that there was a request prior to the meeting to switch items 6 &7. ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 1 of 8 AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Consideration of a rear setback variance at 702 Hereford Street. • Applicant is Craig H. Blakely. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant wants to receive approval for a gazage and an up-stairs living quarter's addition built within the rear setback requirements. The applicant received a building permit in April 1997 for a slab only to be placed between the original gazage and the existing home. Slabs aze not required to meet setback requirements, as only structures must be within setback guidelines. In August 1999, a building inspector noticed the current gazage addition being constructed without the required building permits. The applicant, who had received notice from the inspector, applied for a building permit and was subsequently denied due to the reaz setback encroachment. The applicant was informed he would have to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustments for a variance request. As of October 26, 1999, a ZBA application had not been submitted, and thus, the Building Official issued an official stop work order. The original garage is located 0.5 feet from the reaz property line and is considered non-conforming due to the age of the structure. The non-conformity was considered to be 19.5 feet since it was a gazage structure, which have a required reaz setback of 20 feet. However, the owner has added onto the structure in width (using the azea between the existing home and original garage) in addition to building a second floor, a 700 square foot residential space, to the original gazage. These additions did not receive building permits and would have not been allowed due to the non-conforming reaz setback of the garage structure. Since living quarters have been added to the structure, the required reaz setback is 25 feet from the reaz property line. Thus, the applicant is asking for a variance of 24.5 feet to the rear setback requirement for the upstairs use and 19.5 feet for the downstairs • garage. The applicant states that the footprint of the original structure was not changed at the back of the lot. The applicant also states that the garage modifications were included in the original reconstruction plans and a new foundation toward the front of the property was permitted and approved. The applicant further explains he did not realize that the reaz setback requirements for gazage versus usable space above the gazage was different. The applicant offers a hazdship that framing and siding have already been completed to the gazage addition and residential space. Hazdships should not be self-inflicted. On Apri13, 1997, the applicant was only approved for a slab to be placed between the original gazage and existing home. 'The Building Department has not received, nor approved, any reconstruction plans that pertain to the gazage structure and the second story residential space. Lance Simms, Building Official, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Simms went over the events of this property. In October of 1996 the applicant received a building permit for remodeling to be done on the second floor of the primary residence. The remodeling was not associated with the gazage. In April of 1997 the applicant applied for and received a slab only permit for a gazage foundation that would be located between the primary residence and the existing • gazage. Mr. Simms told the Board that the Building Code makes provisions for a special foundation permit and one was issued to Mr. Blakely. The Building codes stated that "a builder of such special permit is proceeding at his own risk and without assurance that a permit for the remainder of the work will be granted nor that corrections will not be required in order to meet the provisions of the technical codes." ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 2 of 8 In August of 1999 a building inspector was in the area and noticed the construction. The building inspector issued a door hanger stating there may be potential code violations and to contact the • Building Department. The applicant came in September 17 and applied for a permit to construct the gazage that at this point was already built. At this point Mr. Simms stated that because of the encroachment he was not able to issue a permit. A stop work order was issued. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Simms if the applicant understood that the permit was only for the slab. Mr. Simms referenced the permit file. The applicant clearly wrote on the permit that the use of the structure "gazage-foundation only at this point." Mr. Bond asked if no building permit was issued, what is the Board to do in this case. Ms. Anderson replied that the applicant is asking for approval from the Boazd to have the addition so close to the rear setback. Mr. Bond asked if a building permit has been issued to date. Ms. Anderson replied no. Mr. Bond asked if the Boazd granted the variance, then would the building permit be issued. Ms. Anderson replied that there is a stop work order pending this case. If the variance is approved the structure can be completed. If the variance is denied the stop work order stays active. Craig H. Blakely, the applicant, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Blakely told the Boazd that he purchased the home three years ago. The home had a single owner since 1934. Mr. Blakely described the home as being in such disrepair, before a lender would lend on the property he had to do foundation repair. • Mr. Blakely told the Boazd when the original permit for the house was obtained, there were discussions concerning expanding the gazage away from the property line and not altering the existing walls. This would not change any of the setbacks. When the permit was approved for the slab the inspector looked at the pour. It was done to code along the back and along the side near the house adjoining it to the existing slab, but did not have the extra foundation trenched out along the front of the garage. There were discussions with the inspector concerning the need to dig it out again. Mr. Blakely stated that he was curious why that was done because the front of the gazage will only have a door that would not support any weight. Mr. Blakely stated his assumption was since the original construction permit made reference to the garage, their next step was to get the framing inspected before the dry wall was put into place. Mr. Blakely told the Boazd that Mr. Simms had been to the property and has walked through the inside and there is not any concern about the quality of the structure framing. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Blakely what hazdships could he give that aze unique to the property and that the Boazd could use in considering granting the variance. Mr. Blakely stated that the reaz and both side neighbors had written letters in support of the construction. All three neighbors liked the aesthetic look the addition made to the neighborhood. Graham Horsley, 703 Hereford, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. • Mr. Horsley told the Board that he wrote a letter in favor of the improvements. Mr. Horsley stated that he approved of the caze and consideration the Blakely's have shown for their home and community in their successfull efforts to improve the property. ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 3 of 8 Alex Davis, 800 Hereford, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Davis told the Board that she was in support of the addition and felt it was a nice addition to the • neighborhood. Kathleen Rodriquez, 900 Hereford, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Rodriquez told the Board that she was in favor of the request and told the Boazd that it is a nice addition. Linda Cleboski, 702 Park Place, stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Cleboski told the Boazd that she wrote a letter in favor of the addition. Ms. Cleboski stated that her property is immediately adjacent to the gazage at 701 Hereford. Ms. Cleboski added that she had no objections to the addition. With no one else stepping forwazd. Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. There were general discussions among the Boazd Members. Kazen Chavis, 702 Hereford, stepped forwazd and was granted permission by Chairman Alexander to speak after the public hearing was closed. Chairman Alexander swore in Ms. Chavis. Ms. Chavis told the Board that there was miscommunication concerning the building permit. Ms. Chavis stated that it was their understanding when they applied for the second building permit in September 1999, that would also give them the go ahead to start the construction as well. Ms. Chavis ended by telling the Boazd that they have invested more in the house on the remodeling then what they had originally paid • for the house. Mr. Happ 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 structure that is being built is not changing the original setback locations of the original structure. The new addition is either in the direction of the house or up and matches the primary house; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hazdship to this applicant being: the options now available, i.e. destroying the new structure would serve no purpose; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial done subject to the following special limitations: the construction maybe continued once explicit building permit has been issued. Matt Murphy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Consideration of a rear and side setback variance at 204 A Fairview. Applicant is Thomas L. Linton. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board the variances aze being requested in order to allow an outdoor work and storage azea in the required. setbacks. The applicant has constructed an additional work area to the existing wood shed by setting posts into the ground and providing acover/roof to the work azea. The covered area is approximately 14'x 30' with a portion in the faz corner going azound an existing tree. A fence borders the back and front of • the work area, while the sides aze open. The work area may be best described as being similar to a carport. The Zoning Ordinance regulates that any structure, which requires a building permit, (structures 100 sq. ft. or more), be located outside the required setbacks. The work area is considered to be a structure since a roof is in place, which restricts the view to the sky. ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 4 of 8 The accessory structure is located 2 feet from the rear property line and 2 feet from the west side property line, therefore the applicant is requesting an 18 foot variance to the rear setback and a • 5.5 foot variance to the side setback requirements. The applicant offers several special conditions. First, he states that the work area is a temporary type structure built at the site of a former non-conforming garage. He also adds those neighboring properties have non-conforming structures in the setback area, this would be due to the age of this neighborhood. The third, and most substantial, special condition offered by the applicant is the location of an 18' unused alley that separates the subject property from the property to the rear. This alley is often used as a utility easement for municipal crews to do repairs. The applicant states that if the work area were moved outside the required setback, it would interfere with the open space appearance of the backyard area. The applicant feels the far back corner of the backyard is the most visually appealing area to place such a work area since he will be able to easily screen it from the road and neighboring properties. Mr. L. Linton, 204 A Fairview, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Linton described the neighborhood has being one of the older subdivisions in town. The violation was discovered by a building inspector. Mr. Linton stated that the inspector showed him documents showing the setbacks as 7.5 feet instead of the 20 - 25 foot setback. Mr. Linton stated that he believed that to be due to the alley. Mr. Linton stated that he understands the zoning ordinance is intended to maintain property values. Mr. Linton told the Board that he had spoken to all his surrounding property owners before he started the work and no one was in opposition. Mr. Linton told the Board of his desire to retire soon. He explained his plans and stated that he wanted to keep his property from becoming an eyesore to his neighbors. With no on stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. • Mr. Hill 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 structure which will be allowed by this variance does not distract from the neighborhood in any way; and possibly adds aesthetic value by hiding equipment which would otherwise be visible; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant being: the structure would be required to be toward the center of the backyard which would be less desirable; and such that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: a side setback variance of 5.5 feet and a rear setback of 18 feet to be allowed. Mr. Happ seconded the motion. Mr. Happ stated that even though he seconded the motion his only concern would be that the structure could become an enclosed structure. Mr. Hill stated that it could be enclosed but it would still be restricted to be used as a utility building and could not be used for a living space. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the variance was for the accessory building setback of 20 feet. Mr. Hill asked if the variance was granted could they come back and enclose the structure and make a garage or storage shed. Ms. Anderson replied that was correct. It can not be occupied as a living space. Mr. Bond stated that he would caution using the language of aesthetically pleasing qualities because he would hate it to become a standard in which these type variances are granted. There were continued discussions concerning the hardship to the applicant and using the aesthetics as a special condition. • ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page S of 8 Mr. Bond made an amendment to special conditions. The special conditions would read: The structure, which will be allowed by this variance, does not detract from the neighborhood in any way • and the location of an 18 foot unused alley that separates the subject property from property to the rear exists on subject property. Mr. Hill seconded the amendment, which passed (5-0). Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Hill to read the entire motion with amendment. Board voted (S-0) for granting the variances. AGENDA ITEM N0.8: Consideration of a sign variance at 701 University Drive East. Applicant is McCoAd Signs. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Boazd and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Boazd that the variance is being requested to add sign panels to an existing non-conforming sign. The applicant offers a special condition of elevation differences along University Drive, which create visibility problems. The applicant states a hazdship of not being able to remove the existing sign tower since it is part of the building itself and would compromise the building's structural integrity if removed. The allowable heights for freestanding signs aze found in Table I of Section 12. The table assigns allowable heights based on the distance from the distance from the curb/pavement edge from the base of a given sign. Sign heights are measured from the elevation of the curb or pavement edge. The maximum height for a sign not located on the East Bypass is 35 feet. • The Corridor Overlay District gives additional regulations pertaining to signs. Once such additional regulation is not only the limitation of freestanding signs adhere to the restrictions of Table I, but also freestanding signs shall not exceed the height of the building. The Chimney Hill Shopping Center was measured to have a height of 13.5 feet. Thus, the maximum allowable height for a sign located at the Chimney Hill Shopping Center is 13.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to maintain the current non-conforming height of 72 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 58.8 feet. The sign tower located at Chimney Hill Shopping Center is considered non-conforming in height because it pre-dates the sign height ordinance. The sign is allowed to keep its non-conforming status as long as no changes to the sign height or square footage is made. The applicant wishes to add two 17x20 foot sign panel boxes, (ten 4x8 panels on each side), to the existing sign tower. These additions would cause the sign to loose its non-conforming status. The proposed sign would meet the squaze footage requirements since the shopping center has over 670 feet of frontage along University Drive. Thus the applicant is only requesting a variance to the sign height. Past discussions with the Legal Department have resolved that such alterations as seen here are the only opportunity to eliminate non-con-conformities and gain compliance to current standards. Ms. Anderson ended her staff report stating that this Boazd has never seen nor granted a sign variance of this magnitude. • ZBA Minutes December 7,1999 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Murphy asked since the structure is four sided, can signs be added on the other sides. Ms. Anderson replied that would exceed the square footage. • Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the vaziance. Fred Bayliss stepped before the Boazd and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Bayliss told the Boazd that he is the general council for the company that owns and manages the properly. Mr. Bayliss explained that tenants feel their potential customers have a hard time locating their businesses. Mr. Bayliss told the Boazd that McCoAd signs drew up a proposal and presented to city staff that was approved. When the signs were ready to be placed the city told them the signs would not be allowed. Mr. Bayliss told the Board that there aze improvements being made to the shopping center to present a better appearance. Mr. Bayliss described the proposed signs. Mr. Bayliss ended by saying that the new sign will improve the property. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Bayliss would a sign closer to the road attract more attention then the existing sign. Mr. Bayliss replied that he and Taza with McCoAd signs spent a lot of time driving along University Drive figuring which median would be best for that type sign. It was when the city told them that they could not have that type sign is when they began working on the signage for the tower. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Bayliss if he is asserting that visibility is a problem with a sign that would conform to current standazds. Mr. Bayliss replied yes. A 13-foot sign next to the building would not have good visibility. Mr. Bayliss told the Board that the trees along University Drive were planted for aesthetics purposes and that has accomplished. The trees also make it difficult to see a sign. • Taza Norsworthy, with McCoAd Signs, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Ms. Norsworthy told the Board when she was first contacted to do the freestanding sign, she knew that this azea was a special district and the city needed to be contacted. Ms. Norsworthy wanted to make sure before any money was spent on a new sign that they get approval from the city. It was then that a fax was sent to the Planning Department. Ms. Norsworthy was told that a second freestanding sign would not be allowed. It was then that she was told about the tower being a pre- existing structure and she would have to use it for any additional signage for the center. Ms. Norsworthy described the second hardship on the tenants, as being 4 signs would be needed to cover all sides. Ms. Norsworthy stated the dollaz range would be anywhere from $6,000 to $25,000 per tenant. Ms. Norsworthy explained that after the ZBA application was turned in she received a call from the Planning Department saying that the new signage would not be allowed due to the Overlay District guidelines. Ms. Norsworthy showed the Boazd pictures of the tower structure. Ms. Norsworthy explained to the Boazd the installation of the signs and their descriptions. Chairman Alexander asked Ms. McCully to address the Boazd since she was referenced as the city staff who talked to Ms. Norsworthy in this case. Ms. McCully told the Board that she apologized for the confusion with this case. Ms. McCully did recall speaking with Ms. Norsworthy concerning a second freestanding sign and what would have to occur. Ms. McCully stated that she did not remember talking about the option of removing all of the signage. Ms. McCully told the Boazd that her understanding before talking to Ms. Norsworthy is that the sign could be removed. At that time it was discussed to use the existing freestanding sign. There was only information on the sign that was to be installed. Ms. McCully stated that is probably where the miscommunication occurred. ZBA Minutes December 7, 1999 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Hill asked Ms. McCully if she felt in any way that her discussion with Ms. Norsworthy was misrepresented. Ms. McCully did not feel that the applicant misrepresented it. There was just too little • information. With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public heazing. Mr. Happ made the 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 special conditions not generally found within the city: the primary frame structure that the additional signs will be added per dates the present sign ordinance. A conforming sign would not be as visible and may even block visibility. This freestanding sign is a city landmark; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in substantial hardship to this applicant being: constructing a new structure would require additional freestanding sign when one already exists 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 the additional signage on the present structure will not exceed codes i.e., amount of squaze footage per sign. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Mr. Hill stated that he is sympathetic to the situation and he does not see a feasible alternative to granting the variance. Mr. Hill stated that he is concerned about the president this will set. There were discussions among the Boazd Members. • Chairman Alexander made comment that by granting this variance if something catastrophic should happen to the sign it will be allowed to be replaced at the same height. Board vote for granting the variance (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0.9: Discussion of Board Meeting dates & times. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Boazd and explained a memo the Board Members had received from Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services. The memo stated that the demand for having two ZBA Meetings do not exist. Based on the Planning Department deadlines and workloads the ZBA Meetings have been changed to meet the first Tuesday of each month. The present time of 6:00 P.M. can be changed or continue as scheduled. Chairman Alexander expressed his concern of only having one meeting a month. There aze cases where time is of the essence. Ms. Anderson stated that there would still be deadline days and felt sure if there was an extreme circumstance the Boazd could call a special meeting. Chairman Alexander asked to place this item on the next agenda and have Jim Callaway address the Board with their concerns. • ~S~ ~ -( ~~ ~ ~ ^ Chairman, David Staff Assistant, DeboratfGrace ZBA Minutes December 7,1999 Page 8 of 8 Zoning Board of Adjustment ~;. • • Guest Register ~-- Date \~ ~ ~~~ Nam .-. o (' S v-~o _ 2. ~ ~ 1 c,.~rc- 3. 5'-T-s~(~r~ S ~-oS1' 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Address ~ ~~ ~~_~ ~ ~a ~.~ ~ to C a„fs ~-, ~ ~ o _ g~ o _~ ~C>h ~ P~(~~v~ ~C~ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the yard (Section 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 theyyfollowing special conditions: / I ~ • cTll.~. .~ i~~~..Lv Ti`tGG~.~to /'yl~ ~ C w ` _ e~.L )'LGGtJ •t-~ Gam' a strict enforcem~it of the provisions of the hardship to this applicant being: • I and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice, done subject to the following limitations: d~ ~ /~~C~G~ ~t.Ct.L~ ~It Motion made by Date ~ ~~ ~~-/ Seconded by ~ 4~ ~~ y i l (.(11~j `L, doting Results J ' Chair 1 l ~~ ~ ZONING BOARD OF~ADJUSTMENr , FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance to Sign- Regulations: From Section 12, Ordinance Number 1638. t I move to authorize a variance to the sign regulations from the terms ~f this ~riinznce zs it will net be contrary t~ the ruLlic interest due t~ the fill~win~ unisue slecial c~niiti~ns nit generally fieund within the City: - ~ ' se a smc ruo hardship o this ~_ ~ . C~ a. f the proviso being: and such that the spirit and intent ofc~iis ordinance shall bc~ interests of the public and applicant served, subject to the fc _e~c..~ ...,~ti. , salt ~ z~~~ , /_ V'` c ~L D~'h.G ; ~ed and the g limitations: • Motion m~ ~ Motion Se Voting Rey Chair Sign Date sxpisss.~oc ~C~\ t v\~ ~'t ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • 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) V 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: • ~c w,~~ w~~ ,bc /~we b f~,~ T~ t S~rNC ~N ~! Gj /r~_ l~q!'~, Gj NC 2 ~© ~S f'ID ` /r(C ~/^!a C f /~/^D/~ ~~ !? P~nN 60nyD4~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ q Q Q VA ~ r~q~ and beca s c e orcement o the provisions of the ordinance ~wou~d result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: fG-~ sf~u~ /, it P/~ ~- D / ft/~i - c ~t Gr/4cr ~P' ~J e ~QSS dP~, v~ 0~~2 and such that the spirit of this ardinance shall be observed ~ and substantial justice done subject to the following limitationsv,Ar~ aloe ti~ r~GV~ Se ~b~ ~k vAr, g.~ ~~ ~~_/R ~Pe r~ ~~ Q n/~o~~ /~- 7- Motion made by Date Seconded by Voting Results ~ ` ~ Chair Si -~ VrtnoIRQR I)OC !1/2~iUC/V `ZZe~Z~/ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNi1~1T • FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638. I move to authorize a variance to the ~ ~ a- yard (Section 8.7) 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 oCllo~wing special conditions: / G ~~,, p~ l Q 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 the following limitations: Motion made by ~~ ~~ Seconded by iwt'~~ Chair Signature ~rrt f7v I RSA I'N'N'. SEA P Date Voting Results