Loading...
Minutes 03-12-84MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1984 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary George Mearns Joseph Moore Harold Weinberg Lillian Artis, Alternate Leo Grossbard, Alternate Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official ABSENT George Ampol, Vice Chairman (Excused) Paul Slavin (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. He introduced the Deputy Building Official, Board Members, and Recording Secretary. Chairman Thompson recognized the presence of Vice Mayor Carl Zimmerman and Councilman Joe deLong in the audience. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1984 Mr. Grossbard moved to accept the minutes as received, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Thompson announced that they would have a full Board voting. Any 5-2 vote in favor will grant the request, and any 3 votes against will deny the request. Chairman Thompson read the six criteria on which the Board Members base their decision. Case ~54 - Lot 97 - HIGH POINT Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 225 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 75 ft. lot frontage require- ment to be reduced to 60 ft. lot frontage to con- struct single family residence Address - 120 S. E. 26th Avenue Applicant - Peter C. Krauser Secretary Gordon read the application and the answers to questions a-f, paragraph 5. Peter C. Krauser, P. O. Box 1091, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, said he and his wife, Eileen, were the applicants. - 1 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 Secretary Gordon asked if he was building this residence for his own use. Mr. Krauser replied that he is a State Licensed Contractor and intended to build it for himself, but it will be for sale. Chairman Thompson asked, "When this section was platted, was it as it is now there?" Mr. Keehr answered that it was platted as a mixture of 60 foot and 75 foot front lots in 1952. There are some corner lots at High Point with even larger dimensions. It is basically a 50/50 proposition as far as the 60 foot frontage and the 75 foot frontage. Chairman Thompson noted on the survey that both Lots 95 and 96 have 75 foot frontage. The lot involved (Lot 97) has a 60 foot frontage. Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Keehr if a legal sized home Can be built on that~lot. Mr. Keehr replied, "Yes." Chairman Thompson determined that the only problem, as far as Mr. Krauser was concerned, was the frontage, which was changed in 1975. Mr. Keehr informed the Members that this particular lot became non-conforming in 1962. In 1962, the zoning for R1AA was changed to 70 foot frontage and then again, in 1975, it was changed to 75 foot, so it has gone through a couple of zoning changes, since being platted. Mrs. Artis did not see a deed to indicate when the lot was purchased. Mr. Grossbard called attention to the date of 12/21/83 on the contract for sale. Mr. Weinberg called attention to Mr. Krauser's answer "F", where he states: "The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the area . . . and as such will be in harmony with the rest of the zoning area." Mr. Weinberg questioned whether that meant Mr. Krauser should be at liberty to build a wooden house where the rest of the houses are CBS and he also wondered if Mr. Krauser could build a two story house where the rest of the houses are one story houses. Mr. Weinberg then asked if the Board is to be involved in that angle of the transaction. In answer to the questions regarding the type of home Mr. Krauser may construct there, Mr. Keehr advised that the only criteria that the zoning has is that the home have a 1500 square foot living area. As far as whether it be frame or CBS or one or two stories, Mr. Keehr said there were no restrictions on that and no criteria whatsoever. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman - 2 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 Thompson asked if anyone wished to. speak against the granting of a variance. Mr. James C. Darcey, 126 S. E. 26th Avenue, Boynton Beach, objected because all of the lots in the neighborhood are 75 feet or larger and all of the homes are CBS homes. Mr. Darcey could not see a wooden structure or a .two story home going up on a 60 foot lot because it will bring the value of his home down. He stated that was his main objection to it. Mr. Darcey further said the people that had the lot before Mr. Krauser knew that it was 60 feet and they could not build° When the real estate lady came by, Mr. Darcey said he was asked some questions about it. The lady said she did not know, and she went to City Hall. City Hall told the real estate lady Mr. Krauser could not build on a 60 foot lot, and the lady said Mr. Darcey was correct because the law was changed approximately within the year Mr. Darcey moved in. He has been in Boynton Beach approximately ten years. Mr. Darcey met the man who owns the other two lots, and he said it will be a long time before he ever builds on them. Mr. Darcey said the man, himself, has cleaned all three lots off from time to time. Mr. Darcey had the same thought now that he had 9-1/2 years ago about what they could do in building. He thought the first 75 foot lot was zoned commercial. The next one is residential and is 75 feet. Mr. Darcey asked the Board Members to suppose a dentist or doctor comes in. He will have to have parking for patients, so he would have to have part of the other 75 for him to get a variance for it. Then that would be room for the person who had the 60 foot lot to add on and make a larger lot so he would be in compliance with the rest of the houses on the block. John Kovach, 125 S. E. 26th Avenue, Boynton Beach, resides directly across the street from the property in question on a lot that measures 150 feet across the front and 150 feet deep. The three lots that are in question, especially the 60 foot lot, has been a bone of contention for almost 15 years in this area. Mr. Kovach was interested in this piece of property 12 to 13 years ago, and when he confronted the Board, the 60 foot lot was unable to be built on. The purchase of the other two lots was necessary to go along with the 60 foot lot so that it would comply with the visual scene and the various properties within this area. Mr. Kovach bought the biggest piece of property he could put his house on. He has 3600 square foot of house on his - 3 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 property and would object to having a smaller home being built on a smaller lot diagonally across the street from his property. A few years back, Mr. Kovach recalled that Dr. Simone approached the Board and he got the lot directly across the street from the 60 foot lot rezoned to accommodate his park- ing lot for his medical building. Mro Kovach had not heard any complaints about this parking lot in the neighborhood because it was done in good taste. Mr. Kovach pointed out that the depth of the 60 foot lot is in question also because the lot line comes down at an angle or bias towards Seacrest and diminishes the depth of the property in question as it comes out towards Seacrest or west. When he had the opportunity to buy it, Mr. Kovach said he would not build on it because he could not get the other two lots to go along with it or, in other words, go over the lot line with a building to keep it in the good taste of the neighborhood. Mr. Kovach was sure that this builder, who anticipates build- ing this house, was probably not going to live in it as his residence. He was sure it was going to be something the builder was going to market. Mr. Kovach hoped, under the situation that is now in the community in this particular area, that the Members of the Board would also object to putting a smaller home in an area of homes with large lots. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak against the granting of the request. A woman in the audience called out that Mr. Kovach said it allo Secretary Gordon read a letter dated March 7, 1984 from Parker and Lelia F. Throckmorton, 131 S. E. 27th Avenue, Boynton Beach, Florida, as follows: "This lot adjoins our property and I am unhappy about the request for a variance to build a home on this small lot. This area is composed of nice homes with CBS structure and I am curious what type home would be built. I would hate to see a home built that would not be of the nature that has been set and one that could withstand the average hurricane that has swept across many areas along the east coast. This lot in question is directly behind our property located at 131 S. E. 27th Ave. I hope if a variance is allowed that it will be given thought as to improv- - 4 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 ing and not degrading this area. There are nice homes around and a lot of money has gone into them." Chairman Thompson noted Mr. Keehr said the mimimum living area is 1500 and the lot size for this is 60x140 feet. This means 8400 square feet within the property. Chairman Thompson said this means the builder could put any size home that would meet all setbacks, etc. in that area. He stated that the only thing that should concern the Board Members is the 60 foot frontage of the property. Chairman Thompson called attention to two things that may have been overlooked. In granting a variance, he said the Members look to see if a hardship is placed on the property, not on the owner. In 1962, Chairman Thompson said a hard- ship was placed upon the property by the City of Boynton Beach. In 1975, when it was upgraded, that same hardship continued, so there has always been a hardship placed upon the property except when the property was platted. Chairman Thompson said it means two things: 1. The original owner had the right to build without a variance. 2. The hardship has been placed on the new owner/developer, which means it is entirely possible that person has the right to a variance. Many times the Board Members disagree with a decision like this, but Chairman Thompson said when they are placed before the Board, sometimes the Members really do not have any choice. He reminded the Members of the Workshops they had with the Professors from the University. This was one of the main questions pointed out to the Board Members. Mrs. Artis referred to the applicant's answers to questions a-f, paragraph 5 of the application. In "C", the applicant stated, "Lot 97 is essentially a 'landlocked' lot. . .- She asked if it was landlocked. Chairman Thompson answered that the property to the west of it is not developed, and that is the only side. He did not know if the property was for sale. Chairman Thompson said Mrs. Artis was talking about Lots 95 and 96, which are owned by another party, and should not be a part of this. Mr. Keehr explained this lot might be considered more or less isolated because of the fact that there is only one lot that is zoned residential, which would be Lot 96. That lot is a conforming lot, and the owner of that lot (who happens to be someone other than the person asking for a variance) - 5 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 can build on there any time he wants to. Consequently, Mr. Keehr said they are down to one lot. If you took from one lot, you would make the other lot non-conforming. Mr. Mearns thought to deprive anyone from building on a lot like this would be tantamount to being confiscatory. He asked, "What can anybody do with a lot like that?" If a piece of property is landlocked, as Mr. Keehr pointed out, then Chairman Thompson said they, as a Board, do not have the right to deny the owner the use of his land. To deny this would mean that lot could sit there for the next 100 years. Mr. Moore recalled that someone said all of the lots were 75 foot but they are 60 feet on the south side except for three of them. Chairman Thompson clarified that they are all platted as 60 except the three to the west and the one to the east side. Mrs. Artis asked if the sellers were the original owners. If the people they are buying the property from owned the property prior to 1975, Mr. Keehr said they would not be required to have a variance to build on this lot. Chair- man Thompson reiterated that the variance is on the property instead of on the owners. Inasmuch as a statement was made that it would be illegal for the Board to deny the use of land that, through no fault of the present owner, has been put into a non-conforming situ- ation, Mr. Weinberg made a motion that the owner be allowed to build his house on that piece of property. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion because (1) the hardship was caused by the City, not by the lot owner; and (2) he always thought that a new home looked much better than a vacant lot, which usually turns into a City dump. Mr. Gordon thought a new home would beautify the place. At the request of Chairman Thompson, Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion: Mr. Mearns Mr. Weinberg Mr. Grossbard Chairman Thompson Secretary Gordon Mrs. Artis Mr. Moore Favor the motion Aye Aye Favor the motion Aye Aye Aye - 6 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 Motion carried 7-0 in favor of granting the variance. Case 955 - Lots 18 to 20 inclusive and the North 30 ft. of Lot 21 (less road right-of-way), Block 1, LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON, recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71, Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 20 ft. rear yard setback requirement to be reduced to 10 ft. rear yard setback to install aluminum canopy Applicant - Alphonse Lembo Secretary Gordon read the application and the answers to paragraph 5, a-f. David D. Centola, Attorney at Law, .125 Hypoluxo Road, Hypoluxo, Florida 33462, appeared on behalf of Alphonse Lembo, the owner of the property in question. Attorney Centola said the property is located west of the Federal Highway and runs up to the railroad right-of-way. There is an alley behind this property and the adjacent property which ran from approximately N. E 10th Avenue down to 2nd Avenue. Most of this alley was abandoned back in about 1976 or 1977. For some reason, at that time, they eliminated the property behind Mr. Lembo's property which houses Tire Kingdom right now. Attorney Centola informed the Members that they attempted to abandon this property back in September, 1983. At that time they found out there was a reverter clause in this property and, therefore, it could not be abandoned. They then applied to the City of Boynton Beach for a lease which was finally granted at the City Council Meeting on December 2nd, and the lease was executed in January of 1984. Attorney Centola advised that the property to the south of this property is occupied by Tropigas. They have a fence around their property and a platform up to the railroad right-of-way. They have gas storage tanks up to the railroad right-of-way. The property north of Mr. Lembo's property is Ed's Garden Shop, which also has utilized all of the property right up to the right-of-way. Attorney Centola said it was their intention to erect a canopy in back of the building occupying ten feet of the alley. They since found out this would require a 20 foot - 7 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 setback~ and they only have ten feet. Attorney Centola pointed out there is no possible use of this property that could be injurious to anybody else as it runs up to a railroad right-of-way. Under the zoning, Attorney Centola believed if they consider the railroad right-of-way as a public right-of-way, all they would need is a ten foot setback and, therefore, they directly would not need a variance. He thought the Building Department took the position that a public railroad is not a public right-of-way. Therefore, they are considered abutting a private property, thus requiring the 20 foot set- back. Mr. Grossbard asked if the awning was already up. Attorney Centola replied that it is. He said it was put up in August, 1983. At the time it was put up, they were under the impression that, as with the rest of the alleyway~ this property was part of the Lembo property, like Tropigas,~ and, therefore, they could utilize both properties as Tropi- gas and Ed's Garden Shop have utilized their property. As Mr. Grossbard remembered from viewing the property, on the ground there is a cement platform. He asked if the platform was legal. Mr. Keehr answered that you can pour a concrete pad right up to your property line. Mr. Grossbard noticed the awning was coming out only a few feet further from that pad. Mr. Keehr drew a small sketch for the Members relating to existing canopies and how they relate to the lot lines and the railroad right-of-way. He said an existing canopy, in fact, abridges the applicant's rear lot and extends into the 10 feet, as the drawing would show. It was also on the survey. There was discussion about the sur- vey. Mr. Grossbard asked if the property was leased to Tire Kingdom. Attorney Centola replied, "Yes." He explained that there are two different organizations leasing the build- ing. One is Chapman Radiator and the other one is Tire King- dom, so the lease was made out to Mr. Lembo, the owner of the property. Chairman Thompson did not know if this would have any bear- ing on it, but he noticed the papers where they were apply- lng for a lease were signed by City Manager Cheney. Mr. Keehr brought to the attention of the Members the fact that this canopy actually abridges the applicant's rear lot line at this time, and the actual City right-of-way (20 foot alley) is only on a year to year basis. The Board, in fact, would - 8 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 be granting this owner a variance to a zero lot line to the rear of his lot. That is why it would be the City's posi- tion that if this variance is granted, that it become null and void if the City should exercise its rights not to renew this yearly lease. Mr. Keehr said that is an important fac- tor in this particular case. If this canopy goes to the zero property line, Attorney Centola pointed out that Tropigas goes to the zero property line too because it runs completely over the alley to the railroad right-of-way. Likewise, Ed's Garden Shop runs past the property line up to the right-of-way, so there is no distinction between the three properties. Attorney Centola advised that the only distinction will come in the fact that because of the reverter clause in this section, which may also be in the other sections, they only have a year to year lease. Mr. Weinberg observed that Tropigas has a siding there~ and they must have had the City's permission to do that, because you just do not put a siding without permission. He did not see where Tropigas had anything to do with Tire Kingdom or Mr. Lembo's property. The fact remains that canopy could have been ten feet less without any detriment to the organi- zation. Mr. Weinberg did not see the comparison as being a valid one° As Mr. Keehr had said, Mr. Weinberg said if the City should decide to cancel the lease at the end of the year, Mr. Lembo would be obliged to take that canopy down. If they should grant the variance, Mr. Weinberg questioned whether it would be on the valid assumption that Mr. Lembo would provide the Board with a written agreement or if it would have to go to the City Attorney. Attorney Centola's only point was that all they were asking for was a variance for part of the alleyway. He said they are not asking for the same right the adjacent property owners have. They are asking for part of that right. Chairman Thompson asked if this and the other ones were there before 1975 and if they were grandfathered in. He knew Tropigas had been at the same corner for many years. Mr. Keehr did not know for certain whether the alley behind Tropigas had been abandoned but he assumed Tropigas is the owner of that property considering the fact they have a structure back there and the siding comes right up to it. Mr. Keehr advised there is a reason why this portion of the alley has not been abandoned, and that is because there is a - 9 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 public utility in this portion of it, which is the reason the City could not abandon it. Therefore, the applicant has been granted permission by the City to utilize the alley. Mr. Mearns was concerned about the structure and whether it can withstand hurricanes. He noticed the central column is bent and supports nothing. Mr. Keehr advised that this particular canopy has not been permitted yet. Consequently, the Building Department has not examined the structural plans. When they do, they will make a final inspection so that it conforms with the structural plans. Attorney Centola stated it is the applicant's intention to file engineering plans with the City at the time a permit is applied for. Mr. Weinberg asked if the Board had the right to grant a variance without the legal agreement of Mr. Lembo to remove the canopy or if it went without saying that if the City cancels the lease, down comes the canopy. If the Board votes against the request, then Chairman Thompson assumed the canopy must come down. He saw there was a lease granted by the City of Boynton Beach for the use of this. Chairman Thompson said the Board was faced with a predictament he hoped they could handle. They have a lease facing them by the City of Boynton, that they represent. If the Board votes to deny the request, Chairman Thompson wondered what would happen to the lease. Mr. Keehr answered that the lease stays valid. However, the canopy comes down. Mr. Keehr reiterated that the Board has the right and power to stipulate how a variance shall be. He advised that the variance will become null and void in the event the City should utilize its right not to renew the lease. The canopy will have to come down because the variance is no longer in existence. Mr. Keehr advised that the Board can make that stipulation. Mr. Mearns read item "f- under "Legal Description of Property Under Permit": -f. This permit shall not be deemed a covenant running with the land, and shall expire when the permittee ceases to own the abutting private property. Successors in interest, however, will be required to remove any improvements made to the property at the direction of the City." Mr. Grossbard said the City granted the applicant the use of the right-of-way of the alley, which has nothing to do - 10 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 with the awning, which is up to the Board Members to decide on. He thought the Members were out of line when they talked about the right of the use of the alley because the City has granted them that use for one year. Mr. Grossbard advised it was the Members' position to grant the size of the awning. Mr. Keehr confirmed that was correct. Attorney Centola pointed out that the City knew the awning was there, and the City Manager and the City Council agreed to lease the land to them so they could make application for a permit. Mr. Gordon asked if Tire Kingdom is going to expand south. Chapman Radiator is leaving the property. Attorney Centola did not know whether Tire Kingdom would take over the whole building. If they expand south, Mr. Gordon questioned whether there would be a second canopy. Chairman Thompson reminded the Members that every case is based on its own merit. He referred to a similar case last year where a canopy was in question that was in violation to the setbacks. As was pointed out, the lease is not on the canopy but on the use of the ten feet. Chairman Thompson referred to paragraph "g" under the "Legal Description of Property Under Permit" and read: "If any public utilities are located in the above described property, the City shall have access to the property at all times to maintain same." Chairman Thompson believed if the canopy is left there, then it would become a violation with the canopy blocking the alley. Mrs. Artis wondered about the fact that the canopy was already constructed. Chairman Thompson said the Members had to assume that when the canopy was put up, it was put up in violation because there was no permit. The City just leased the land~ not the canopy. Mr. Weinberg was concerned about whether the holder-of the permit could claim damages because the Board of Adjustment allowed him to keep up the canopy, knowing the City could cancel. If the City should cancel at the end of the year, the permit holder would be "out of pocket" for the cost of the canopy and the erection of it. Mr. Weinberg referred to paragraph "c" under "Legal Descrip- tion of Property Under Permit", which states, "The permittee shall save the City harmless . . .- Therefore, he felt the Board Members should grant the petitioner the variance with - 11 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 the understanding that if the City should cancel the permit, the petitioner would be required to remove the canopy at his expense. Mr. Keehr confirmed that Chairman Thompson's statement that regardless of how this goes, one way or the other, it has nothing to do with the lease of ten feet of the property. Chairman Thompson said the decision of the Board was whether to deny the request of letting the canopy remain or grant the applicant that permission. He thought the lease was confusing but advised that it has nothing to do with the decision of the Board. The lease was only for the use of that ten feet of property. Chairman Thompson commented that if the Board makes the decision to grant the request and the City feels in time that they do not want to renew the lease for ten feet, the law says that the canopy could be put up the following year. Chairman Thompson did not know what good the canopy could be without the use of the property back there, but he assumed it would stand. If they deny the request, Chairman Thompson said the City can still lease the land to the owner, but they just would not have a canopy there. He guessed the lease was just to let the Members know the property has been leased, but it really had no bearing on the canopy, one way or the other. If the Board OKs the granting of the variance and the City, in turn, rejects the permit on that right-of-way the follow- ing year, Mr. Grossbard asked if the canopy must come down. Mr. Keehr replied that it must come down if the Board Members make it in their motion that this variance is granted with the stipulation that the canopy shall come down in the event the City shall utilize its right not to renew the permit. Mr. Gordon asked if they were talking about one canopy or two canopies. Mr. Keehr answered that they were talking about two canopies. What disturbed Chairman Thompson more than anything else was all of the properties in that section were about the same distance away from there. He asked if they would be setting a precedent by granting this. He wondered if they would be saying to the other owners who are next door or a few feet down the line that they can put a canopy in the back. As pointed out, Chairman Thompson would have to assume that Tropigas has owned that because there is a permanent structure there. - 12 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 The thing that disturbed Mr. Mearns the most in these cases was the fact that it had already been erected without a per- mit. This happens quite frequently, and Mr. Mearns admitted that it influences his thinking. He asked why it was-built without benefit of a permit. Certainly, they must or should have looked into it. Mr. Weinberg moved to grant the variance of ten feet with the added proviso that if the City should see fit to cancel the lease, that the lease holder be required to remove the canopy from the City's property at his own expense. Chairman Thompson understood Mr. Weinberg to say to grant the request for the canopy to remain as long as the City leases the property. If the City denies the request on the lease, the owner will have to take down the awnings at his own expense. Mr. Keehr clarified that the way the motion has been made, when the City does not renew the lease, the owner still will be able to have his canopy out to the zero lot line because, as he said before, his canopy is abridging his rear lot line and going right over it. The ten feet that extends into the City property is one thing. The ten feet that comes back into his is another one. That is why Mr. Keehr said it would be the City's position that this variance become null and void in the event the City does not renew the applicant's lease rather than stipulate it will have to come down. If it becomes null and void, Chairman Thompson interjected that it will have to go back to 20 feet. Mr. Weinberg asked if there was never any canopy there before Mr Keehr answered, . "Mr · - "No " "In other words, . Weinberg asked, the whole thing which extends from the building itself on his own property is a new one?" Mr. Keehr replied, "Yes sir." Mr. Weinberg did not understand that the whole canopy was never there before and commented that the applicant would need a permit for the portion of the canopy which covers his own property. If the motion was not Mr. Weinberg's original intent, Chair- man Thompson thought they had to carry the motion through. Councilman deLong advised that all they had to do was to withdraw the second and motion if both parties agree. If the City does not renew the lease and they want the portion of the canopy to come down which is on City property, Mr. Weinberg asked if the applicant would only need a permit for the portion of the canopy that remains on - 13 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 12, 1984 his property and, in other words, would not need a variance. Mr. Keehr answered, "Not if you grant him this variance tonight." Chairman Thompson felt they needed clarification. He ques- tioned whether Mr. Grossbard understood what he seconded. Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Grossbard if he understood that the whole 20 feet would have to come down or just the 10 feet over the property line. Mr. Grossbard thought the whole 20 feet would have to come down. Chairman Thompson said the motion was just to the 10 feet, and Mr. Grossbard seconded to 20 feet. Mr. Grossbard withdrew his second. Mr. Weinberg withdrew his motion inasmuch as he did not understand the entire ramifications of the problem. Attorney Centola wished to make a comment and was refused by the Chair. Mrs. Artis moved that the variance be granted with the stipulation that should the City decide not to renew the lease, the variance shall become null and void. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Weinberg Mr. Grossbard Chairman Thompson Secretary Gordon Mrs. Artis Mr. Moore Mr. Mearns Aye Aye No Aye Aye Aye Aye The motion carried 6-1 in favor of granting the variance. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Mearns moved, seconded by Mr. Grossbard, to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0, and the meeting properly adjourned at 8:20 P. M. (TwO Tapes) - 14 -