Loading...
Minutes 06-27-77MINUTES OF THE B0~D OF ADJUSTMENT ~EETIN~ ~LD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA~ MONDAY, JU~E 27, 1977 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Derie B. Bailey, Chairman Vernon Thompson, Jr., Vice Chairman David Heaty, Secretary Mrs. Liltian Bond Walter B. Rutter Foy Ward Carl Zi~erman Bert Keehr, Assistant Building Official ABSENT V. Paul Scoggins, Alternate Ben Adelman, Alternate Chairman Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board, Assistant~Building Official, and Recording Secretary. Minutes of June Mr. Rutter made a motion to accept the r~nutes as read, seconded by ~s. Bond. Motion carried 7-0. ~. Healy read the attached memorandum dated June 14 to M~. Gene Moore, City Attorney, from Mr. Der!e B. Bailey, Chair- man, and Mr. Moore's reply dated June t6. ~. Ward stated that Mr. Moore had not answered their ques- tion entirely. Chairman Bailey asked if another letter w~s necessary. Mr. Rutter stated that he believed Mr. Moore had answered. Mrs. Bond clarified that since there were not four affirmative votes, it means the variance is denied. M~. Rutter clarified that ~ Moore' ~h_s Board s reply states how ~' ~ is to function with five votes needed to approve. Chairman Bailey informed him that the ordinance requiring five votes had not been submitted yet. ~h~. Ward pointed out 2hat only one part of their question had been answered and ~ Healy c] .... m~_~ed that an affirmative vote of four is needed to grant relief. ~. Ward asked if it required four votes to approve or deny and Mrs. Bond replied that since it was a 3-3 vote, the variance was denied. Mr. Healy stated he thought the confusion was whether they needed five votes to approve or disapprove. ~hen a motion i~ made to disaoprove, does it also require five ~ VO~eS~ Bond ~+~+~ *~ ~ ........ a~ the five votes had not been passed by the City Council yet and they were discussing a past denial. ~. Healy stated that it was ~i!l confused in that sometimes a motion is made to approve a request and sometimes a motion MINUTES BOARD 0F~ ADJUST~'~NT PAGE ~0 JU~E 27, 1 977 is made t.o disappr°¥e a request and the question is whether you need four votes to disapprove. Mr. Ward stated that the law is plain stating either four votes are required to deny or approve. Ch~ m~n Ba~i~y announced that they have a letter from the City ~ttorney and they must either accept it as an explana- tion or not. A motion should be made either to accept this explanation or proceed further. ~. Ward asked if they understood the ordinance stated that four votes were needed to approve only and ~Ps. Bond replied that she understood the ordinance perfectly and it states that api~oval requires four votes and. there is no approval with three votes. Since there was not a majority for appro- val~ it is a denial. M~. Ward referred to the particular case having a tie vote and stated that according to Roberts Ru=es of Order, the Chairman must break the tie vote. Chair- man Bailey stated that he abstained because of being a pro- perty owner in the area. He clarified that his opinion of the interpretation of Paragraph C, Page 40, Section 10, is that you must have four votes in favor of an applicant to grant a variance and ~P. Moore agreed. Mm. ~ard replied tha~2 four votes are also needed to deny and Chairman Bailey dis- agreed. Mr. Zi~rmer~an stated if this came up again with a denial vote, just a motion to approve would be needed to see if there would be four votes. Chairman Bailey replied that he did not think this was necessary as he thinks the ordinance is plain enough. }~. Ward asked if he said the ordinance does not state it takes four to deny and Chairman Bailey replied: yes, it does not state four to deny. }~. Ward referred to it stating four to approve or reverse and Chairman Bailey replied that reverse means the opinion of a City Official. Mr. Ward stated this was the same thing and Chairman Bailey disagreed. Mr. Ward stated that the question~ was not answere~ completely. Mr. Ward made a motion to write another letter to Mr. Moore asking if in his ooinion it takes four votes to approve,?~hich he has ac~uaowle~ge~ or four to deny~ four votes either way. Also, in the ~vent of a tie, who will break the vote. Thompson seconded the motion with the provision that if this should happen again, he thinks it should be tabled to when an alternate would be present to take the place of the abstaining member. Under discussion, ~. Thompson stated that the Chair- man, in this particular case, had a conflict and Chairman Bailey added that at that particular meeting, he did not have anyone to take his place. Mr. Zimmerman informed them that the portion of the ordinance chasging the requirement to five MI~JTES BOARD OF ADJUSTY~NT PAGE T]~EE JUNE 27, t977 votes had been pased on first reading by the City Council. MX. Ward stated he did not see how five votes should be needed as the State requires a majority and a majority would be four. They then discussed further the possibility of a tie vote and how it~'icould be broken and Mx. Rutter suggested tabling the application until a full Board was present and Mr. Thompson agreed. Mr. Healy stated that if the motion was to approve and there was a 3-3 vote, the applicant would be denied~ so it wou!d only make a difference if the motion was to deny. ~r. Thompson disagreed and explained how there was the possibility of an applicant being technical and taking to co~u~t and requiring a majority vote. The only recourse is to table it until there is a majority vote. M~. Healy stated he thought the ordinance was specific in that it states you must have fo~u~ votes to approve for the applicant. Mrs. Bond agreed the ordinance is plain. Chairms~ Bailey referred to breaking a tie and ~. Ward clarified that he wanted a reply whether the application should be postponed or what. Chairman Bailey cls~ified that an exampl~ would be with people sitting on the Board and three are opposed, he is asking how it could be rectified and Mr. Ward agreed. Motion carried 6-$, with Mr. Zimmerman dissenting. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel #3 - Lot 141, Block A, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 5~ Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear yard setback requirement to ~8 ft. rear yard setback and relief from 7.6 ft. side setback requirement to 6 ft. side setback to build additional ~ ~ o~droom and Florida roo~ Address - ~23 N. W. ~rd Avenue Appiicant- Robert Daniels, Jr. ~. Healy read the above application and the members reviewed the plan. Mrs. Robert Daniels, Jr., ~23 N. W. 3rd Avenue~ appeared be- fore the Board. Chairman Bailey referred to this formerly being zoned R-1 and asked if it met the requirements then and Mr. Keehr re- plied that as it exists, it is non-conforming as far as the side setbacks, but he does not kmow what the setbacks were when it was built. Chairman Bailey referred to it being zoned from R-1 to R-lA and ~. Keehr informed him that the side setbacks to his knowledge have never been less than 7½ ft. M~. Rutter asked if it was non-conforming now and ~. Keehr replied: yes, it is built 6 ft. from the side property line~ the front and rear setbacks ~re all right. Mr. Thompson M!~YGTES BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT PAGE FOUR JUNE 27, 1977 referred to there being a 6 ft. setback several years ago and ~'~. Keehr agreed this could be true, but he doesn,t have the old zouSn~_~g books. Chairman Bailey consulted an old zoning book and read that not less than 6 ft. was required in the R-1 district. He clarified that when the house was built, it was conforming. Chairman Bailey asked if Mrs. Daniels had anything to add and she replied negatively. He asked if anyone in the audience desired to ~ ~ ~ s~ea~..~n favor of this variance and received no re- sponse. He then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to this vamiance and received no response. Mm~. Healy made a motion to grant this varismce and the addition must be completed within six months and is only granted to the present owner only and not to any future owner. ~. Rutter referred to the six month stipulation and asked if Mrs. Daniels was prepared to build it now and Mrs. Daniels replied that they did have the money, but she did not know how long it would take .to complete. ~s. Bond asked if she had gotten estimates re- garding the cost and Mrs. Daniels informed them that her hus- band was going to do most of the work himself. Mms. Bond asked if it could be completed within six months and !~s. Daniels re- plied that if they get the permit, they will start in JUly. ~. Ward then seconded the motion. Under discussion, ~. Rutter asked what would happen i~ I~. Daniels ~ .~ ~ - s~ar~em to build and did not complete it within six months and Mm. Zimmernmn stated he thought it would be more appropriate to set a time limit on the start of construction rather than completion because there are things to be considered which could hold up construc- tion such as a hurric~ae, etc. at this time of year. ~. Wa~d asked how long the permit was good for amd ~. Keehr replied: 90 days. Mr. Ward continued that an extension for another 90 days could be requesSed. He referred to having granted vari- ances and not putting on any stipulations and he feels six months is reasonable. He knows of a variance granted eight years ago and the man is going to try to use..~.M_~. Zimmerman stated he thought a time limit should be set as to the begin- ning of a project. Mr. Thompson agreed that a time limit is needed but questions six months and ~. Ward replied that this is an addition. Mr. Thomps~on stated that it takes a builder almost five months to build a home. ~. Ward pointed out that this applicant would not have to go before the Boards like a commercial building and they could get their permit tomorrow. ~s. Bond stated that Mr. Daniels is going to build the addition and possibly will be doing it in his spare time. Mm. Ward asked if she wanted it left open and Bond. replied that she suggests giving a restriction as to the time to s,~ar~ it. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~arm stated that it is restricted with the permit to three months and ~. Keehr clarified that 90 days is the starting oeriod and if t~'~eze is continuous con- struction, the permit would not be cancelled. Chairman Bailey MINUTES BOP~RD OF ADJUST}~NT PAGE FZVE JU~E 27, 1977 clarified that if he goes over 90 days without an inspection, the permit becomes void and he must re-apply. There is a possibility in this situation if they say completed within six months, it means fully completed with a certificate of occupancy issued. There is a possibility that an addition of this size could go on for longer than six months, iflit was not como!eted, the Board would have to put a further stiou!ation on to cover that. He feels six months is a rea- sonable time to get it started and if it~continuaiiy worked on, it should be finished in six months. He thin}~' it would be strenuous though to n=ve it comoleted in sm~ months M~. Ward commented that he kmew of another case where an appli- cant was given t~,~oyears to complete and. he feels it was too generous. Mr. Rutter stated he was concerned about setting a six month completion date. ~,~. Healy then withdrew his motion. Mr. Ward withdrew his second and stated he would abstain from voting. ~. Healy made a motion to grant this variance and the addition must be completed within one year and is only granted to the :oresent owner only and not to any future owner. Mr. Rutter seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Healy stated that he t:~ought some res~r~c~_o~.~s should ~e put on these variances. As requested~ Mrs. Yruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: i~k~ Rutter - Aye ?~s. Bond - Aye I~h~. Thompson - Aye Mr. Ward - Abstain Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mm. Hea!y - Aye Mr. Bailey - Aye Motion carried 6-0~ with one abstention. Parcel #1 - W 194.66 ft. of the South ~15.0 ft. of the West ~2° ~ ft. of~ ~ ~ .~.~ Trac~ B, with an easement for in- gress and egress over the ~est 50 ft. of Lots 7 & 8, Boynton Industrial Park Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 232 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 15 ft. side yard setback requirement to zero side yard to have spaces for required parking for office building Address - 680 West Industrial Avenue Applicant - Joseph J. Muro ~g~. Healy read the above application, i'~. Ward announced he was abstaining. The members reviewed the site plan. M~~. Joseph J. Muro, 1198 S. W. 5th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, appeared before the Board. Chairman Bailey referred to the MI~YJTES BOARD OF ADjUST~T PAGE S IX JUNE 27, 1977 50 ft. easement and asked if it was in the right-of-way of ¥~est Industrial Avenue and ~. Muro replied: yes and he will deed it to the City. Chairman Bailey asked if the easement was recorded and Mr. Muro replied that as far as he knew, it was, ~. Thompson asked if all the other requirements had been met and Mr. Keehr replied: yes. ~. ~hompson c!airifed that the space~! given on the side was being used for parking in the center. Chairman Bailey asked if there would be adequate fire protection and M~. Keehr re- olied: yes, along t~e side is the parking lot of a new build- ing just erected. M~~. Thompson asked if there was any space between the buiidinga and Mr. Muro informed him there was 65 feet.. ~, Thompson asked how much was his property and Mr. Muro replied: 43 feet. Chairman Bailey asked if there would be enough room to go around the building ~d Mr. Muro replied: yes, more than adequate. ~. Zim~rman asked what the setback was on the existing building on the south side.and M~~. M~o replied: t8 inches. Mr. Rutter asked if the right-of-way was not dedicated if it would make any difference and Chairman ~am~ replied ~ha.~ he didn't believe so and the ordinance states you cannot build on an easement. ~. Zimmerman added that in the deed to the property, the easement is indicated as a reservation. ~. Thompson advised them that most of tke property in this area is buii~ basically the same way on the ~ne with s~ace in the center ~. Hea~y referred to where the building would be against the line and asked if it was a vacant piece of property and Mr. Muro informed him there was 43 feet, which was p~rking for the adjoining building. Mr. Healy asked if the adjacent building was granted a va~iance and ~ Muro replied that he didn't k~uow, but didn't believe it was required. Chairman Bailey asked if snyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor of tn_s variance and received no resoonse. He then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to this variance and received no response. ~. Thompson made a motion to grant this variance, seconded by Mrs. Bond. Under discussion, Mr. Zimmerman asked why~i.all these properties had to come in for a variance - have they been platted too small or what? M~. Keehr replied that cou~ be a great deal of the problems. He added that the require- ments of particular zonings have increased and where the land is platted, it does require a variance. ~-~. Healy then made an amendment to make this variance active for the present owner only and not any future owner. ~t~~. Thompson seconded the amendment. Under discussion~ ~. Rutter questioned the reason for this stipulation. He added that h~ could see it on unimproved property where the person may sell it, but in this case, do they think he would sell the variance? ~OARD OF ADJUSTY~NT J~v~ 27, ~-~ t 977 }~. Hea!y referred to there being deals made in real estate subject to a variance being given and when giving a hardship case~ he believes it should be given to the present owner and not to any future owner. Mr. Thompson added that he se~nded the amendment based that once a variance is ~$ranted~ the owner should use it as he wishes as long as in guidance with the City ordinances and a new owner must come back. M~. Rutter stated he did not think it was necessary on this piece off industrial property with plans submitted. P~. Hea!y re- plied that the struct~mre could be cancelled after getting the variance. ~. Thompson stated he thought the intent was to make sure what we g~ant a varismce on will be built. Healy continued that we have to weigh the hardship in our variance and we are granting a i~hardship to the present owner. As iong as it is not stipulated in the ordinance, he thinks it should be stated that the variance is granted to the present owner. Chairman Bailey announced they would vote on the amendment and the amendment carried with a vote o£ 6-0 with ~. Ward abstaining. As requested, M~s. Eruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: M~ Rutter - Aye M~s. Bond - ~e ~,~. ~homoson_ _ - Aye Mr. Ward - Abstain M~. Zimmerman - Aye M~. Heaiy - Aye ~. Bailey - Aye Motion carried 6-0, with P~. Ward abstaining. PP. Ward then stated he would like to know how long the previ- ous variance granted would be good for? He referred to ~. Reed, City Attorney~ in December, 1976, infor~the Board a time stipulation should be included. Also, he mentioned before that there is a man who got a varis~ce about eight years ago and the City cannot stop him from building. Chair- man Bailey replied that he thought everyone could give a different answer and he doesn't think anyone klows. He even believes it could be forever. ~. Thompson stated he did not think a stipulation for time was needed on the previous var- iance because h~ does not see any reason for it in a commer- cial zone, but does not think any building should be under completion for more than one year in a residential zone. Mr. Ward remarked that anybody with this kind of variance could wait ten. years before starting and another ten yesa~s before completing, Mm. Thompson stated he believed the zoning code would be updated about every five years and Mr. Ward agreed, but stated that this man has a bonafide variance and would be grandfathered. ~ M~. Thomoson stated that the City could always chsmge it and Mr. Wa~d disagreed in that it takes a circuit court to change this Board's decision. MINUTE£ BOARD OF ADJUST~.~NT PAGE EiGHT JUNE 27, 1977 Parcel #2 - Lot 86 ~less West 10 ft., Venetian Isle, Addn~ Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear yard setback Requirement to 18.3 ft. rear yard setback to build Florida room. Address - 1034 Coral Drive Applicant - Louis Ett! ~'~. Heaty read the above application and the members reviewed the plan. Mr. Louis Ettl~ 1034 Coral Drive, appeared before the Board. Chairman Bailey referred to there being a concrete slab exist- ing and questioned the approximate size and ~. Ettl informed him it was ~2 x 18 feet and he would like to extend it to end of the house making it 24 ft. Chairman Bailey added that 6 inches would have to be added to the outer edge for the ~mng s~d ~. Ettl agreed. Mr. Thompson ~larified that t~ slab was conforming and he wanted to add 6 ft. and M~. Keehr corrected him that the slab is not conforming as it is a patio and there are no requirements for that. ?~. Ward asked how far from the rear of the house to the rear of the property line an.d Mr. Ettle i~ormed him it would be 18.3 ft. after the wall is built. Mr. Eeehr ~larified that it would be 30 ft. from the house and he is going out 12.6 ft. Chairman Bailey added that the concrete slab is now appro×imately ~8 ft. from the rear property line and approximately ~0 inches will be added to the outside of the concrete slab for the footer and wall. Mr. Zimmerman asked how many rooms his existing house had and ~. Ett! informed him there were three bedrooms, two bathrooms~ living room, dining room andi~kitchen. Chairman Bailey asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of this ordinance. M~. Arthur Breber stated his name and advised that he lives next door to ~. Ett!. He requests the Board to approve this v~riance as he has no objections at all. Chairmsm Bailey announced that correspondence had been re- ceived and M~. Hea!y read a letter from R. L. Bra~dewie~,, 62~ South Seacrest~ stating no objection to the variance. ~. Thompson referred to this address and Mr. Ertl informed him there were empty lots intthis area and possibly he owns one. [~. Healy then checked the list of property owners notmx~.ed and verified that ~. Brandewie did own property within 400 ft. Chairman Bailey then asked if anyone wanted to speak in oppo- sition to this variance and received no response. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT PAGE NiNE JUNE 27, 1977 Mrs. Bond made a motion to grant the variance to M~. Ettl, seconded by Mr. Thompson. Under discussion, Mrs. Bond asked how soon ~. Ett! planned to start on the addition and ~h~. Ettt.~ replied that as soon as he gets a permit, the contractor will start. ~. Ward asked how long it would take to complete and ~. Ettl replied possibly one week. Chairman Bailey clarified that he meant within a reasonable period of,time and Mro Ward questioned a reasonable period of time. Chairman Bailey stated he would s~.~~ about 60 days or something like that, but is not making this as a stipula- tion to the motion. Mr. Thompson stated he thought it would only be fair to put a time limit on it to be sure he is ~ ~ ~o_ng to complete it. It is in a residential area and he thinks the neighbors will agree Chamrman Bam_ey added t~a, it would take approximately one week for the contractor to get a per- mit. ~m~. ~v~_ remarY~ed houses go u~ t~a~ ~ pre~y quick. Chairman Bsiley asked what he thought would be a reasonable period of time for getting the job done and ~. Ettt replied 60 ~ays. ~ ~n~man~ o~'~ Bailey s~ggested the permit period of 90 days and ?~. Etti replied that the shorter period of time~ the better~ so the contractor won't push it off. M~s. Bond then made an amendment to the motion that the per- mit be granted with a time ~mmzt of 90 days for completion, seconded by ?h'. Rutter. Under discussion, Mr. Hea!y referred to givingthe other applicant one year for the same type of construction and he doesn't k~uow why we cannot do it for this man also. Mrs, Bond informed him that the other applicant was doing the job himself and Mr. Zimmerman added that the other addition was more eliaborate. ~'. Thompson added that Mr. Etti had requested 60 days. .Amendment carried 7-0. As requested~ ~s. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Putter - Aye Mrs. Bond - Aye Mr. Thompson - Mr. Ward - Aye Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Hea!y -Aye ~. Bailey - Aye Motion carried 7-0. Other Business Mr. W~mrd referred to making motions without stating the reason 2s required by ordinance. Mr. Putter explained how he thought all the members tried to consider the applicants. He thinks a fair time limit should be given. He does know of many times when lots were sold on the basis of a variance being with them, but he believes it is different in an industrial area and he MII~JTES BOARD OF ADJUST~?~T PAGE TEN JUNE 27, ~977 explained, ~h'. Heaiy stated that approval was given on the hardship cases. ~. Ward replied that they have not been going into the hardships and ~,~. Heaiy replied that they must consider this of the applicant. ~. Ward stated that the hardships were not questioned, but a decision was just made on the variances, The law is specific and it must be an unusual or unique hardship. ~. Rutter explained how the cost off land, ffami!ies~ houses, etc. must be considered at tod~'s pmices and he thinks existing homes should be im- proved. ~'~, Ward refferred to the possibility of granting a variance when no hardship was proven and a neighbor could take it to court mad the court will examine why the variance was granted. Mrs, Bond replied that the neighbor has the right to appe~ 'beffore this Board and present an objection. She questions why they would wait and go to court and ~,~. ~¥ard replied that it has been done. Mrs. Bond questioned how offten and ~ ~ard replied that an applicant has the ~gn~ to state his hardship~ but the Bos~d must t~e the law and make a decision. Mr. Thompson remarried that a h~dship today ~ght not be one next year at this time and ?~. ~ard replied that they must conside~ the hardship present at the time the application is beffore the Board. Mr, Rutter agreed that each case stands on its individual merits. ~. Thompson ~p~.nem how ~t was almost '~ ~ ~ - mmpo~s_o_e for families to stent with a new house and the solution was to make additions to their present homes. Mr, Healy stated that with updating and ~"' ~ ~ ~ moh~ ~s and Thomoson rezoning, there ~mmm always be ~,~, ~ ~ ~ added, that tax assessments also create hardships. ~,~. Healy he ~ - svave~ would, to discuss 9 or._ =~ke ~o. the a~0pii- cation - ~oof of Ownership from Petitioner. He asked if a copy of the real estate tax bill would be sufficient and Thompson replied: no. Mr, Hea!y asked if the Board would ap:wo~, ~n~s as an answer to No. 9 a~d ~,~r. Zm~_.~,~e~man replied that it has been accepted.~ the past. ~. Heaiy agreed, but stated he thought they should mak.e a decision~ He asked if the City .Clerk accepts it, should the Board accept it? Chair- man Bailey referred to the "such as'' deed or purchase under contract agreement covering a big area a~d suggested ~such as~ be substituted with ~the" if the Board was only going to ac- cept these two documents, They discussed at length accepting various proofs of ownershi'~ and the vo~!mmmty of same. Ward then made a motion to leave the application exactly as it is~ seconded by ?~. Zimmerman. Under discussion~ Zimmerman clarified that this would include tax receipts, court orders or other legal documents showing ownership to the property. ~, Healy asked if something other than a deed was submitted~ could it be brought before the Board and ap- proved by the Board? Could the Board be asked to approve the submitted proof i~ i:~ is not a deed? There is one next week submitted with a tax bill. Mm~. Rutter asked why a copy of the deed couldn't be submitted? Motion carried 6-! with ~. Hea!y dissenting. MIhrU' TES BOA~RD OF ADJUST~[T PAGE ...... Em~ E~ ~,is 27, ~977 .M~, Ward made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~?~. Rutter. Mot_~on carried 7-0 and the meeting was proper±y am.]o~trr_ed at 8:30 P. M. su ~m.~ ~ted Respectfully '~ ~ ~ Suzanne M. Kruse Rec ordi~g Secretary (Two Tapes ) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: ~. Gene Moore City Attorney ~o~. Derle B. Bailey Chairman, Board of Adjustment June ~4, 1977 At the Board of Adjustment meeting on June ~3, ~977, a motion to approve a variance received a vote of 3-3. It was ~ opinion that the variance was denied as according to Paragraph C, Page 40 of the Official Zoning Regulations of the City of Boynton Beach, four Votes are required in favor of the applicant to grant a variance. However, some of the members of the Board disagreed and believe a vote of four is required to either deny or approve a variance or motion. We would appreciate your written opinion in regards to this. June 16, 1977 You are correct that it requires an affirmative vote of four (4) members of the Board of Adjustment to grant any relief. Inasmuch as the above requirement was established when the Board consisted of five (5) members, and the Board was subsequently increased to seven (7) members, I have recommended to the City Council that the Ordinance be amended to votes to take action to CC: Frank Kohl, CiUy Manager increase the required~a~mber of affirmative five (5). ~/~/ · /~ ~GENE MOORE,  Cmty Attorney