Loading...
Minutes 10-25-76MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUST~NT ~'~ETiNG HELD AT CiTY HALL,' BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1976 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Joseph Aranow, Chairman Der!e B. Bailey, Vice Chairman George Ampol Robert Gordon, Secretary Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward Walter gutter, Alternate A. J. Caravetta, Alternate ABSENT E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P~ M. He introduced the members of the Board, Building Officia~ ~ud Recorm~n~ Secretary. - Minutes of Se~tember~ M~. Bailey moved to accept the minutes as submitted, seconded by Mm. Thompson. Motion carried 7-0. OLD BUS !~SS ~ication from Robert i~ester Mr. Gordon made a motion to remove this from the table, seconded by Mr. Rutter. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Aranow read a letter from ~. Trester advising that the Building Department had decided he did not need a variance. He referred to spending time and money and requested the filing fee be refunded to him in the amount of ~50. He also requested his application to be withdrawn. Chairman Aranow then asked the pleasure of the Board. ~. Rutter stated that since he had a hearing, he is bound by it. Mr. Ward added that if it was wrong, he filled out his ~t~ca~on wrong. Chairman Aranow clarified +b~+ ~ ~ ..... ney must o~ss o -~' . · · . ' w~..~ ~ ..... ~ ~ .n ~e.~.~hdrawai of the a~pl~cat~on and ~ ~s~u, out ammed t~at he did n~* ~i ~ ~-~- ' that it was someone e!se's fault. Chairman Aranow stated it ~as not within the Board's ~urisdiction re~ardinf the refund and is sure ~s. Padgett knows about this. ~e assumes the original letter is on file and is sure ~s. Padgett will direct it for departmental consideration and give the man ~ustice in connection herewith. ~ Bailey made a motion to acce~t the ~ithdrawal of this application, seconded by ~. T ' ~ , hompson. NO '' '~ d~so~slon, AS r~quesved~ ~,~tcs Kruse took a roll call vote as MINU~$ BOARD OF ADJUST~I~T OCTOB~R 25, !976 PAGE TP~tO ?~. Bailey - Aye Mr. Rutter - Yes ~{r. Ward - Yes M~. Thompson - Yes ~. Ampol - Yes Mr. Gordon - Yes Mro Aranow - Yes Motion carried 7-0. NE~¥ BUS !~SS Parcel #1 - Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6 & E 15.35' of 7, Casa Loma Recorded in Plat Book ~, Page 3 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front setback requirement to build up to front property line, to remodel and add an extension Address - 728 Casa Loma Blvd. Applicant - George W. Culver ~. Gordon read the above application and advms~m' ~ ~ a variance was requested to replace a part of the non-conforming building and rebuild_ same to improve the services to t_~e~ customers of the Two Georges Marina. M~. George W. Cu!ver~ated his name and his address as the ~o Georges ~rina, Boynton Beach. Chairman Aranow referred to ~iisiting the location and having difficulty telling the back of the street from the front and the way the lot extended and he passed a plan to the members to review. Mr. Cu!ver then informed the Board that he had a preps~ed statement to read and passed a copy to each member of the Board Before reading the ~tateme~t, amv_sed that in the notice to the ~oublic, which he chec~.ed~ with the City Clerk's office and sighted, it stated to remodel and add an extension. ~¢owever, he just wants to remodel the building and not add an ex~ens_on. He then read the attached statement. Chairman Aranow referred to the plan being reviewed and '~ ~ as~e~ Mrs. Kruse to return it to M~s. Padgett. <However~ after the application ~as presented, Chairman Aranow decided to keep the plan.) Chairman Aranow then asked Mr. Howell what was the zoning on this property before June, ~975, with the restrictions as far as setbacks and~. Howell replied that mt' was C-2 previ- ously and is C-4 presently. He then read Page ~3 of the old zoning r ~ ~ egu~a~ons. He pointed out the only difference is that the side setback required 10 ft. on one side and now it is 15 ft. Chairman Aranow questioned if he does hs~e 15 ft. OCTOBYLR 25, ~976 available and ~. Howell referred to the survey and stated that he m~derstood the previous !~ ' ~ ~nalor~ dedicated the street to the City. If it was a private street, he would have the setbacks. He does have plenty of room on the s~ He comes up to the water in the rear. However, this is on the basis of having this b ~ ' ~ u~idmn~ facing the street. remarked that possibly it ~,as,better if the building faces w ~ Chairman Aranow the rear as he ~s olenty of room. This was discussed fur- ther ~ C~ ' ~ a~ namrman Aranow asked again if they had the side setback and ~. Howell replied that it was more than ample. Chairman Aranow then referred to the question of what was going to be built and ~. Howell clarified that under the existing ordinance~ if you have a non-conforming building on a setback~ you can maintain i~; but instead of maintaining it, he would like to tear down part and put down pilings and put up a decent building in exactly the same spot. He would like to do the whole building like this eventually. He wants to tear it down and out it up properly. Thompson asked if the buildin~ would be the same size and M~. Culver agreed the~e would be no change M~. Warm clari- fied tn~t the setbacks would have no bearing and ~ Howell replied that he probably would want to straighten out the building. ~, ~ard then asked if the power oole was on his prooerty or an easement and ~. Cuiver ~.~ ~ - rep_~em that it was on his property as no easement has been given to F_ormaa Power & Lmont Co. and he wants to have it moved. ~. Ampol cuestioned whether they would move it and ~. Culver replied t~at they would or may want him to pay for it. ~. Ward questioned why it was located on private property r~ _ a~ i~. Howell re~erred to the public right-of-way being more or less parking. ~ Thomoson r ~ to · e-erred him tearing down half of the building and rep!~cing it and asked if he was violating the non-conform- -~y law and ~. Howell informed him that the ordinance states you can:,~maintain a non-conforming bui!ding~ but when you get into more than 50% demolition, you sa~e reconstructing. This is what he wants to do. M~. ~ard questioned whether this would be creating a self-hardship and Chairman Aranow replied that this is something the Board must determine, He added that this is the big orob!em. Mr. Thompson referred to being familiar with the site and questioned what would happen if he moesn~t imorove it and ~L~. Rutter remsrked that it would demol- ish ~ ~e~f. ~ Rutter ~ ~ · re~,~_rem to E. ~st ~venue and asked mf ~ would be affected by any future building or zoning and ~ Howell reo!ied: no, this is a r~oht-o~-w~y de~cate~ to the City. Mi~ UT~S B OAi~D OF O~T0~R ~, ~ 976 PAGE FOUR Chairman Aranow referred to putting in pilings and asked if he was going to put the pilings in the water and ~. Cu!ver rep!ied~ no, they would be on the land as he just wants to replace the existing building. Chairman Aranow clarified that the building is now there and is on the l~d and ~. Culver agreed. Chairman Aranow asked if there would be no pilings in the water at all and Mr. Cuiver replied: no. Chairman Aranow asked if he ever1 thought of building out over the water and ~. Culver ~ep!med: no, he would be taking away dockage. He added that the building has been there for 25 years and he cannot see why he has to adhere to setbacks, if he had the money two years ago, he could have built to the property line like his neighbor did. Chairman Aranow clarified that the problem is that this is a non-conforming building at the present time and you cannot reconstruct a non-conforming building. They must face this ]problem. If he doesn't reconstruct, there ~y be a hardship. Someone must come up with an answer and he does not think this Board has the authority. Mr. Cu!ver informed him that the building became non-confor~ing during the years. There have been all kinds of laws and ordinances passed since it was built. Mr. Ampo! questioned how old the existing build- ing was and ?~. Cu!ver informed him it was more than 25 years old. He added that he is looking towards the future. If he can't have the building, it will put him out of business in the future. !~. Rutter questioned the approximate expenditure on the improvements and Mr. Cu!ver replied that by the time it is ~ ~ ? ~ ~' ~ ~n~snem~ it ~mt~ cost close to $90,000. ~. Bailey clarified that this would be a total project figure. D~. Howell questioned what type of construction he was planning to use and ~. Cuiver informed him it would be all concrete including the roof. Cnamrman Aranow ascertained there were no further questions from the Board members. He then requested anyone wishi~g to spe~ in favor or in opposition to this application to apoear before the Board. ~ ~s. Janet Hall stated her name and advised that she was the adjoining property owner. She strenuously objects to the variance for a seto~c~. This should never have been put in mn ~n~ first place. Ail the buildings are set to the street boundary. The question at hand is that the parking should o~ considered. At the present time, she is providing parking for this business. Secondly there is a government owned strip ~n the east end and she thinks it should be resolved what they can and cannot do along that street~ ~. Rutter questioned if she had a residence or business and M~s. Hall replied that she has a marina. M~. Ampoi clarified that she owned the Seamist Marina and ~s. Hall agreed. M~. Ampo! referred to her recently building a new ou_immng and ~s. Hall agreed and added that it was legal. There was nothing non-conforming about the building. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT OCTOB~ 25~ 1976 PAG~ FIVE Mr, Ampol.stated that she has a new building now and objects to Mr. Culver putting up a new building now and Mrs. Hall re- plied: no, not if the ~ -~ ~ Ps~m~g requirements and other re~umre- ments in the code are adhered to, ~. Howell referred, to the survey and asked if he owned the waterway and M~. Curver pointed out that his ~roperty runs to where the survey is including the water. He ~dded that the Seamist ~arm~a has a 30 ft. easement. .w~. Howell ~ que ~0 ~-~ one d the width of the waterway and ~. Culver informed him it was ~24 ft. ~,~. Howell cl¢~ified that he wanted to point out that according to the survey, he could set the building in the water~ but he is trying to save the waterway. He added that he would have to issue a permit if he wanted to go out over tn~ water. Ph~. Ampoi then asked if he was in competition with ~s. Hall and ~. Culver replied that they were very competitive. Mr. Thompson referred to the survey and pointed out that if the building was moved by 25 ft., it would leave about 50 ft. dock. Chairman Aranow stated that the question is if he wants to build on the land and not over the water, the~e is a problem. M~ ~uiver informed them that he wanted to build on the land. He just wants to replace the building. It is more expensive to Eo over water. Chairman Ara~ow replied that he would be allowed to build over the water and nobody could stoo him. Chairn~n Aranow then requested anyone else desiring to soeak to appesm before the Board. ~ Dr. Jim Warnke t ~ s atedh~s name and advised the Board that he was a close friend and business ~ ~ assoc~t~ of ~. Culver. He stated that Mr. Cuiver could still continue in business in the old building. However, to him, it would be feasible to allow a new building. The parking won't change. The objec- tions to parking ar~ kind of ridiculous because it will be the same whether he stays there or not. He just wants to build something which will add to the com~munity. Chairman Aranow reoiied that they know he can con~.~nue in business with what he has, but if he wants to reconstruct, it is another question. They understand the situation that he can stay there. He explained how none of the members of the Board were out to h~mrt anyone. They try to look into al! sides before coming to a conclusion. Dr. Warnke continued that if !,~. Cutver gets permission to build over the water~ he would lose approximately ~5 water spots which would create a hardship on his income. If a hardship proposition is part of what this Board is listening to, he hmn~s it would be a tremendous hardship to make him build over the water He would like to get a ~arm~nce to build in the same spot. M =~ U ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 0CTOB~ 25, 1976 I~GE S IX Mr. Vincent iMolle stated his name a~ad advised that he is the owner of Smokey's Wharf and is a former tenant of this building. Four years ago when he was leasing in this build- ing, Mm~. Culver wanted the building condemned and he had to move out and he had to pay rent from February to September. He does not know how he got it relicensed, but he understood it was condemned. He built a new restaurant and he could not build over the water as you must leave space for emergenc- vehicles in the rear. He had to provide sufficient Darking. The idea of the code is to upgrade the community and-this would only be compounding and extending this violation into the future. Some of the remodeling on this building has al- ready been done with enclosures to the dumpster ~eas, etc. They have a concrete slab under a hut and every day when ~ney~ ~ wash it down, they wash it into the City paved street and use it as a gutter into the canal. He was told by Jack Barrett that he could not extend in back of his building as there must be a 20 ft. right-of-way. Also, the City paved the road for these people, but he had to fight with the City on his new place as they would not run the sewer to him. He feels if thev~ ~ ~ei[going to a~low~ ~ nmm' ~ to build, they should make him conform. He had to build ~i nmnks ~. Culver should also.- acco_~ng to the code and t~ ~ ~ Chairman Aranow replied that what happened four or five or even twenty years ago is something the Board can not do any- thing about. Zf a permit was given when it should not have been~ he would, have been the first to holler it was wrong. _ams Board is not involved in that, but they are here for the variance request. Mr Molle~ clarified that ~ · -- n~ just wanted to make the point that this would, be compounding it and c~rying it into the future. Chairman Aranow replied that this was not this Board's problem as what he has, he has the right to have. This Bos~d has nothing to do with violations. This is not the business of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Bailey asked if he ~' ~ ap~±~em for a variance when building his building and ~. ~Molle re,lied ~b ~ ~ - - ~a~ there was no need to as he did everything iega!.~ M~. Rutter questioned where the rear of his building was located and ~. Motle informed him it was on the north side facing ~. Cu!ver,s prooerty. He continued that he submitted oians to have the ~ '~ ' um~d~ng on the water, but Jack Barrett sai~ no and tne~e~ r must be a 20 ft. right-of-way behind the building. ~. Kenneth Lyman stated his name and informed the Board that he built Lyman Docks. He also owns property to the east of the Two Georges. He developed Lymans Dock~ and when he did, he complied with all the building requirements. He built the place for beats and his fatally donated 30 ft. of this street for the highw~. The biggest problem is the lack of parking. _NU BOARD OF ADJUST~NT OCTOBER 25 ,' 1976 PAGE S~EN Whe~. Mr. Culver started his business, he complained to the legal commissioners. Everything there is built without park- ing for any business. There are only ten available parking spaces on Mr. Cuiver's property and the rest are on the public street. At the present time, his customers are using a lot of the property on which he has parking on the north side of the lot. He is definitely against it. $~. Ampol asked if his family originally owned all this property and ~ Lyman informed him that they owned a 300 ft. strip to the north, 600 ft. long~ and another strip to the east and west. He still has a 170 x 600 ft. t ~' s r~p. He is against this because of the lack of parking and the building not conforming when it Nwas built. It used to be a jo~ that M~. Cuiver did building on the weekends when nobody was around to stop him. $~. Thompson asked if &ny business there had adequate parking and ~',~o Howell replied that he has not make a check~ but would sa~- no. M~s. Hall stated that they do have adequate parking because they lease space at great expense. ~. Lyman agreed that she was leasing spaCe from him now for her parking. Howell clarified that if they meant adequate parking as far as square footage of the buildings, boats~ customers, etc., he wou±c~ still~.a~e to answer that he doubts very seriously that there is adequate parking. $~r. Ward questioned how much parking would be required for this particular building and ?'~. Howell explained how it would be based on the square foot- age and the number of seats in a restaurant. Chairman Aranow questioned the aooro×imate number and ~i~. Howell informed him they were talking'about at least 50 for the restaursmt. Bailey stated that he did not see where parking had anything to do with a .variance. He does not see anything on the appli- cation about ~i r~_ef from parking requirements. The applicant is asking for something specific. He thinks the Building De- partment must determine the pa=kmng requirements wb~n the olan is submitted. ..... Chairman Aranow then stated he was under the impression that they were not going to accept any applications unless accom- panied with a survey within six months of the date, He dis- cussed this request with M~. Howell and ~. Howell agreed to have his cle~Y type a memo to ~s. Padgett advising of this requirement. Chairman Aranow then stated that a survey from 1969 was too far afield for him to be concerned with. He does not thinkii: the papers are in order for this Board to act on. He then clarm~mem that the tenure of ~ ~ ~ ~n=s application is that mr. ~=~_ wants to have the right to reconstruct part of this non-conforming building. However, according to the rules and regulations, & non-conforming building cannot be recon- structed. M~. Howell replied that he believed the zoning ordinance states based upon the tax records, if a building MINUTES BO¢~RD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBE~ 25, 1 976 PAGE ~,T~_u~ is destroyed by fire, etc., in excess of ~o of the tax assessed ~alue, it cannot be reconstructed. Chair~n Aranow referred to the building not being destroyed~ but ~. Cu!ver is applying to do it because of his statements. He q~est ...... d mf he has the right to reconstruct under these circumstances and ~. Howell replied that the way he reads it, it does not matter how the building is destroyed. If the building is destroyed, he is in violation of the ordinance if he reconstructs it without a variance. However, if this Board ¢!~n grant this variance, he cannot answer. Chairman Ar~uow c±armf~em that if he wanted to destroy part[iof. 2the ~ i bu~d_ng and then construct a new building, n~ would have to get a variance and ?~. Howell replied that he could not issue a permit to destro and rebuild. ~h~. Rutter ~ y questioned maintenance and Mr. Howell replied that he could ~amnta~n it. ~aurme Cu!ver stated her name and informed the Board that she has~ a building permit on that building issued two years ago. Caairman Aranow questioned what the per,it had to do with and M~s Culver informed h~m there was a ~mvt!e marital problem ~m~a a husband rec~i~i~g an eviction notice from his wmfe. She ms part of the Two Georges. She has a building permit for that building. She owns that sa~'~e building She went through t~e problems. She ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_s~ has a liquor license. The day it was approved was the day he told her he didn't need her any more. She had all the plans approved by the hotel commission. He is not in possession of that building tod~y and he is going to be removed ~ ~ ~h~t building. There are too many problems to be solved tonight. ~. Amoo~ questioned if a deed had been sub~mt~em for this prop~rvy and ~@s. Culver informed him it was in the ~s~a~e of George Wasnmngton Cuiver and the estate is in a joint oarty now and the trustee is being removed. Cnamr~an Aranow suggested going ~ oac~ to the request IOZ a survey and as~.~d if at the same time if they could find out whether there has been any transfer of title ~ the deed _rom the Board received dated April 27, ~960 and Mr. Howell replied they could find this out. ~h~. Culver stated that there has not been. ~h~. Howell added that when this is oresented to the Building Department and if it is presented fais~t~ .h~ ~. Culver would be at fault under the law. ~ ~he presents a deed stating he owns the property, they must take for granted that he owns the property. Chairman At,now agreed, but referred to a question being raised about the title. He suggested that they find out if there had been a change in the title. Chairman Aranow then asked if he was George . ±ms ~ed on the d~em and ?k~. Culver mnformed him this was owned by the estate of George W. Culver deceased. He is the trustee along with two other trustees holding the ~= - e~ate >~ Amoot clari- fied t~a~ he was referring to the deed issued. April-27, ~960, M~RVJTES BOARD OF ADJUSTi~NT OCTOBER 25, 1 976 PAGE NINE and M~. Cuiver agreed. ~. Ampol asked if he was George W. Culver and ~. Culver clarified that he was George Walter Culver and his father was George Washington Cu!ver. ~,L~. Bailey asked who the deed was made out to and ~. Culver re- plied: George Washington Cuiver. Chairman Aranow$~stioned when he died and !~. Culver replied in t965. Chairman Aranow asked if the estate was in the courts ~ud I~L~. Culver replied: yes. Chairman Aranow clarified that this property is set forth as part of an estate and asked who were the beneficiaries '~ and Mr. Cuiver replied that he was and his two children. Chairman Aranow asked who the trustees are and ~. Cu!ver re- plied that he is with Nancy Bird and Charles Herring. Chair- man Aranow stated that he presumed that when his father died~ executors were appointed and~ ~he~ v transferred the prooerty to the new ~rus~e~s. He asked if t~ere was a deed on record showing a transfer saad ~. Cuiver replied: yes~ Chairman Aranow stated he thought the ~eople whom own the property which has been transferred are the people who should be mak- ing application and M~. Cu!ver informed him that he was making application on behalf of the estate. He added that he has a power of attorney for the estate. Chairman Aranow asked if he had a copy and ~h~. Cu!ver reo!ied that he could obtain one. Chairman Aranow requested that he obtain a copy of the power of attorney, a copy of the deed to the estate, and a new survey to be sub~tted to the Board. Mr. Ampol referred to the two children mentioned and ~. Cu!ver clarified that they were his chi!dren~ George and Georgette, and Laurie is their mother. ~r~ Ampol referred to this being a legal problem. Chairm~a Aranow then ascertained that nobody else desired to be heard and announced that a letter had been received. Mr. Gordon read a letter dated October 15, ~976, from ~@. William G. Lindsay, 760 East Ocean Avenue, in objection to this va_ri- ance and requesting the_ present setback re~em~s~ ~ to be maintained. ~ M~. Ampol made a motion to table this application with the re- quest to ~-. Culver to produce a power of attorney, deed and new s~vey. ~. Thom~son~ seconded the motion. Under mmscus-~'~ sion, Chairman Aranow questioned whether it would be advisable to request the presence of the City Attorney at the next meet- ing and Mz~. Howell and the members agreed ~ would definitely be ~d~m~o±~. Chairman At,now requested that this request be conveyed to the City Manager so he could act upon it. He then requested Mrs w .... ~ . . ~ ....o~ to take a roll call vote on the motion and she did so as follows: ~%~. Rutter - Aye Mr. Bailey - ~e i~. Ward - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye ~. Ampol - Yes M~. Gordon - Yes Mr. Aranow - Yes Motion carried 7-0. ~T m~. M:NUi~S B0~D OF ADJUST~NT OCTOB~s_~ 25 ~ 1 976 ~. Ampo! announced that this application was tabled~ to November 8 and requested M~. Culver to bring the necessary papers. Chairman Aranow added that the people who spoke on the matter are also advised that this is adjourned until Nov- ember 8. If they desire to appear, they are welcomes but what they have said will be given consideration. Parcel #2 - South 30' of Lot 3 and all Lot 4~ Glen Arbor Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page ~2~ Palm Beach Coomty Records Request - Relief from 7½' side setback requirement to 6~ side setback to construct additional living area, maintaining existing setback. Address - 7~4 N. W. 8th Court Applicant - Wayne R. Prindiville ~. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested is under the previous zoning~ the house was origin- ally built on a 6' side setback and to maintain uniform side lines, the addition must maintain the same side setbacks~ Mr. Ward referred to a survey not being included with the ap- plication and stated he did not see how they could consider it. Chairman Aranow clarified that they m_m~i ~ receive one and passed it to the members. Mr. ~£indiville informed them a survey was on the front page of the plot plan which was accepted by the Building Department. Mr. Howell Questioned the seal on it and Mr. ~indiville informed him it w~s a notary public,s seal. Mr. Howell clarified that it was not a survey, but was a plot plan. }~ Howell added that it could not be accepted as a survey. Mr. Prindivi!ie explained that it was taken from the original plot plan of the house and the stakes were dug up and strung and'it was ce~t=._~em~ ~ ~ by a notary public. Mr. Howell agreed a notary public could verify this much, but he could not o~rtify that it is an actual survey. ~ . ~he~ must have a survey. ~. ~indivii!e referred to the expense for a survey and asked to go ahead with his request and he will submit a survey. Chairman Aranow asked if he had the original survey and Prindiville informed him that he tried to obtain it~ but the house was built about ~8 years ago and he could not get ahold of a copy. Chairms~ Aranow asked if the original survey would be part of the Building Department records and ?~. Howell replied that if it was~ the Board would not accept it. Chair- man Aranow clarified that he had in ~nd if they could find out the original surveyor, they could advise M~. ~indiville and it could be brought up to date ~at a minimum cost. Mr. Ward cis~ified that the survey must be brought up to date and show what has been built since the house was originally built. Chairman Aranow informed ~. ~indivi!le that they could not grant a variance with the survey, i~. Prindivi!le referred to being out of town often and asked if he could proceed with an BOARD OF ADJUSTF~NT OCTOBER 25, 1 976 PAGE ELEVEN explanation and possibly when the survey is submitted~ a var- iance can be granted. Chairman Aranow told about his wife fully explaining their plans to him and he is so~e the Bos~d will have no difficulty in following it on the survey. ~hen they have the proper papers, they can act without too much delay. He believes with the survey, they can aCt and if they find it necessary for him to be present, they will notify his wife. }@. Gordon moved to table this application, seconded by Mr. Rutter. Under discussion, Ph~. Howell referred to ~&~. Prindi- vi!!e s.tating the Building Department accepted this as a sur- vey and possibly they did when the house was built, but as as this application, the survey should have been submitted to Mrs. Padgett. Chairman Aranow added that he presumed the plot plan was forwarded from Mrs. Padgett. M~. Ward referred to the applications being filled out in the BuildinE Depart- ment and Mm~. Howell explained the procedure. Hr. Ward sug- gested that they should have a denial from the Building De- partment and F~. Howell explained how he had tried to simplify it for the applicants, but agrees that possibly he should re- view t~e applications and show it was denied He added that he has a new man doing the plan check and will look into this procedure. ~. Ward stated he felt they should hs~¢e a denial of some type. Chairman Aranow then requested F~s. Kruse to take a roll call vote on the motion and it was conducted as follows: Hr. Rutter - Yes ~. Bailey - ~a~e F~. Ward - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye F~. Ampol - Yes Mro Gordon - Aye Mr. Aranow - Aye Motion carried 7-0. Other Business Mr. Thompson questioned if they decided just what the front of a house is and ~. Howell explained the ordinance require- ments and drew examples on the blackboard. He explained how the ordinance referred strictly to the lot and not to the building. A lengthy discussion followed. ~ournment Mr. Rutter made a motion to adjourn, seconded by }~. Ampo!. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:30 P. M. Respectfully submitted (Two Tapes) ~tober 2~ 1976 GEt']'~, ![~hb]N ~= i HAFE A PREPARW,~, STATEM~D]T TO READ~ E am hers to ask for a va~iauo® to th® 25 f¢~ct s~t back aa~. ~¢,,~ p~s®d last y~a~o p ~% as e. %empe,ra~- st~acturao It is ne~ beyond re~ir~ eco~emie~ umfeas~ ~,rh ole pro]~er ty~ This ~arianc® ea~ o~y -,~:~ e;~aa,~ce and beautify the land and at the sams 6~ ~ust~%y greater taxeso There is no ~*~Y this could So geutleme~ ~ do *the o~m~%uity a fairer by passing ~' th~8 time tbs% Are thor8 a~y questie~:$ you might ha~ at" ¢ ...... p Th~k you~ George W~ Oulva~ ......