15 OCTOBER 1996

7:30 P.M.




The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Mitchell at 7:30 p.m.


Members Present: Chairman William Mitchell, Councilmembers Marge

Boice and Kathy McNear, David Okum, Tom Schecker

Jim Squires and Barbara Ewing


Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all voted aye and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative



A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 10 September 1996


A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice - no report

B. Report on Planning Commission - David Okum

Mr. Okum reported we had a light agenda last Tuesday night. A gentleman was in from Home Quarters concerning their outside storage and area of outdoor display. There was a presentation of a new fence scheme for the enclosure area in the back for their loading docks. There also was a discussion about the front area of storage. They will be resubmitting a plan. They are looking to expand the outdoor display area nearest to Tri-County Parkway. Their setback requirements are set there; there are a lot of trees and landscaping, and Planning pointed out if they planned on expanding to plan on protecting as well. Under New Business we had the proposed facility for the Vineyard Community Church. That preliminary plan with conditions outlined by the engineering staff was approved. It is a brilliant use of the site. They are using a very small portion and holding out the biggest portion to be dedicated to green and trees; sixty percent of the site will not be touched by the development. On the other hand, because of our tree preservation ordinance, and this is probably being the most dense growth in the community, there are some restrictions and adjustments that will need to be made. However, if the site had been developed all commercial as zoned, this tree issue wouldnít have been considered, because of all the site being taken up by buildings. I think it is a win-win for the community. Once the final plan comes before Planning Commission, I think we will have a first class development there, with a lot less density than any commercial development that could have gone in there and less effect on the environment.

Mr. Squires asked about the January Workshop and Mr. Okum announced it will be on January 4th and the starting time is being debated.




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Two


A. Bill Mayborg, 402 Cameron Road requests variance to allow his deck to project 16 feet from the front door. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D) "...may project 6 feet into a required front yard..."

Mr. Mitchell stated that this item has been dropped from the agenda, and called on Mr. McErlane to report on this. Mr. McErlane said the initial application indicated a 16 foot deep deck on the front of the house. There are encroachments permitted into a required front yard of 6 feet. In this application the house is set back further than the required setback, and the deck does not encroach more than six feet into the required front yard setback. We measured the distance. There was no distance shown to the curb, so we measured that and notified the applicant that there was no need for a variance.

Mrs. Boice moved to drop the item from the agenda and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the item was dropped.

B. Emkenn Homes requests variance to allow the construction of a new single family residence at the s.e. corner of Madison Avenue & West Kemper Roads. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(D) (4)(c) "rear yards must be at least 35í deep."

Ken Williamson, contractor stated there are two options. Where the City requires a 30 foot setback, we would like a 25í setback so we could have a 12 foot back yard. Mr. McErlane added if you hold the six foot rear yard and have a 32 foot deep house, you will have a 32 foot front yard. Mr. Williamson stated we are looking for a variance from 12 feet to six feet, so we can have the necessary square footage that the City requires for the house. Mr. McErlane added the 32 foot house and 12 foot rear yard would leave a 6 foot front yard.

Mr. Squires wondered if they were looking at the as drawn or the preferred; you have two here. Mr. McErlane added what they are requesting is the one labeled preferred.

Mrs. McNear stated I need to abstain and not participate in the discussion, because Holly Todd used to be my neighbor and Ken is my brotherís neighbor and has done work for both of them.

Mr. Squires asked if the preferred were a 26 foot front yard or 25 foot front yard. Mr. Williamson responded as drawn it is a 33 foot setback, but we are looking for a 26 foot setback.

Mr. McErlane reported if we concentrate on what he is requesting, if you have a 12 foot rear yard and a 32 foot deep house, it leaves you with a 26 foot front yard setback. Mr. Okum wondered if the 26 foot front yard curb line back? Mr. McErlane answered no, actually probably about 10 feet back from the curb is where the setback starts. Mr. Okum commented they show eight feet here. Mr. Williamson explained that they measured from the center of the street. Mr. McErlane commented so the eight feet could be where the right of way line is. The lot is 70 feet regardless of where the right of way line falls. In reality if there is eight feet of grass area before you get to the lot line, that means there is 34 feet to the front door from the curb.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Three


Mr. Squires wondered if it would face Madison. I had trouble picturing where your driveway would be relative to where I was standing. Mr. Williamson stated there is a curb cut at that location. Mr. McErlane showed the curb cut on the slide. It is at the right hand side of the lot. Mr. Squires commented so it will be towards the fence of the adjacent property, but you are not going to come very close to him; he has a very wide side yard.

Mr. Okum asked the depth of the house to the south relative to the setback? Also, are the four major trees going to survive? Mr. Williamson answered we may lose one; that is why we made this layout. Mr. Okum wondered how close is the house to the south, on Madison to its property line? Mr. Williamson answered I donít know; it looks about 12 feet from the property line. Mr. Okum continued I would be concerned about this house being at a different depth from Madison. I have seen the houses built with six foot deep back yards, and I think it is absolutely ridiculous. These lots are unusual type lots, but I would hate to bring this house closer to the street than that house, considering this house will be 18 feet from the corner of that house. These fronts should be fairly even across Madison instead of setting one out closer or even back further. If you push your house back as far as that house is, you may be right on top of this fence.

Mr. Okum continued we donít know how far back the house sets from the curb line, and you will be building within 12 feet of his property line. If you build your home closer to the street than he is, when he looks out his front door, he is looking at the side of your home. Without that information, I would have a hard time making a decision on what I think is proper for your site.

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane if there were a way to determine that setback from the adjacent property, and Mr. McErlane indicated the only way would be to go out and measure that property.

Mr. Mitchell asked if this information was reviewed by the gentleman on the adjacent property, and Mr. Williamson responded that they got his signature, but did not tell him exactly where the house would be put.

Mr. Squires commented to get the preferred back yard, 12 feet, the house would have to come closer to Madison, so we are concerned about the conformity along Madison.

Mr. Mitchell asked the applicant if he would object if we tabled this until we could measure the setback on the adjacent property? Mr. Williamson answered I have no objection. I am looking to start on the construction, but if that is what has to be, it has to be. I can go measure it and talk to the people. If we were to go up there now and measure it, could we get back here tonight and discuss this? Mr. McErlane stated we have had situations where the Board has tabled something until later in the meeting pending information. Mr. Okum moved to table to the last item on the agenda and Mr.Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote all except Mrs. McNear who abstained, voted aye and the item was tabled to the end of the agenda.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1996

Page Four

VII NEW BUSINESS - continued

C. James Petrey, 570 Observatory Drive requests variance to allow his deck to be closer than 17.5í to the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D) "..not more than 50% into a required rear yard."

Mr. Petrey stated the way the house is situated, I have no choice but to put the deck there. The southeast corner of the deck would be too close to the property line. Mr. Schecker said this is along the back of the house, and at the southeast corner in close proximity is your privacy fence, is that correct? Mr. Petrey responded it will be coming right off the corner of the house towards the fence, and that corner will be approximately 11 feet from the fence line.

Mr. Mitchell wondered where the doorway was located from the house going onto the deck, and Mr. Petrey answered that there is no door. The deck comes around to the side patio, and you would enter onto the deck from the patio.

Mr. Okum asked if it would have a roof over part of the deck and part will be open, and masonry facade on the bottom? Mr. Petrey confirmed the roof, adding that it is supposed to be concrete pillar on the bottom. Mr. Okum wondered about the steps on the southeast side, does the staircase drop down to a walkway that comes along the side of your house? Mr. Petrey responded it will be next to the patio that we intend to work into the patio where it is all one level, so there probably will be a platform at the bottom rather than concrete, to match the deck. Mr. Okum commented so it will tie the walkway alongside the house. Mr. Petrey reported there really isnít a walkway there; it steps down into the back yard, and this will come up next to the patio level with the patio and then one step down into the yard off the deck.

Mr. Mitchell asked if he had discussed these plans with your neighbor? Basically your back yard and their back yard are facing one another. Mr. Petrey responded they have been showed the plans and explained in great detail and they have no problem with it.

Mr. Squires commented one of the signatures was on Grandin Avenue and I couldnít determine how your deck would affect that property. Mr. Petrey explained that the way my house sets, their back yard looks into my back yard. They could see it, although it is a pretty good distance away.

Mrs. Boice said having looked at the property and heard the discussion, I would move that the variance be granted. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

D. Vineyard Community Church, 1391 East Crescentville Road requests variance to allow the placement of a temporary office trailer and tent on their property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.072(A)(8) & 153.046(A) "Temporary structures..may be permitted in any residential district if such structures..are deemed necessary for the construction of the dwelling and accessory buildings.."

Gordon Bunnell stated we need this trailer for temporary office space as part of our service to our people. It is really crowded and we need this temporarily to relieve the situation with the new construction underway. We are asking for this variance, and I have additional figures here if you would like to review them.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Five


Mrs. Boice commented I would like to read the second paragraph of your letter in total:

"It is requested that a zoning variance be granted to permit this tent to remain in use through November 1996. At that time the tent will be removed for the winter and reinstalled in the spring of 1997 for use through November of that year. A similar schedule might be required through 1998, depending on construction progress on the new building."

Mrs. Boice stated that concerns me; that is a long construction time. Mr. Bunnell responded we are looking at a $11.3 million dollars and 95,000 square feet. The occupancy is scheduled for Christmas of 1998. It is possible that the construction is moved up and the project completed, we will want to get rid of that tent as soon as possible. Mrs. Boice said it seems like a very long construction time. Cookie Jacobs added we are not breaking ground until spring of 1997. We need $2.4 million before we break ground. Mrs. Boice asked what would happen if the funds are not raised in time? Ms. Jacobs responded the plan we are submitting is the worst case scenario. Just in the last year we have raised $1 million to pay off the land which is unheard of, and we have not gone to the congregation and said that we want to do this building and showed our plans. We have just talked about it generally and the money has been coming in very generously. I believe we will be breaking ground way before spring of 1998 and will be into the church by December of 1998.

Mr. Mitchell commented I thought the request for the tent was to house the congregation during construction. Mr. Bunnell responded this has nothing to do with the construction. Neither the tent nor the office are related to construction. These are on the existing church site for existing church activities until we can move into the new facility. Mr. Mitchell commented that the tent is a pretty small one.

Mrs. McNear wondered what kind of activities would be held in the tent that you would need to have it up all the time. Mr. Bunnell answered we have a large number of visitors that meet each week, and we open that tent as a place for the visitors to congregate for coffee, and get acquainted with some of our associate pastors and pastors. We donít have a place big enough for that activity, so temporarily we have put it outside. Obviously we canít do that in the wintertime but it worked out well for us in the summer.

Mrs. McNear commented we have some pretty stringent rules in Springdale about tents. These are for businesses, and you are in the business of God. To me if we make an exception for churches we have to make exceptions for businesses. I would have a problem voting for a tent for that extended period of time. If we start this we set a precedent and would have to do this for the businesses as well. I couldnít support having a possible three year variance for this tent.

Mr. Schecker commented I have had occasion to drop people off in your parking lot, and that tent is ominously close to the traffic. You have restricted the flow; you have some handicapped parking on the one side and normally you would have had a wider lane and parking adjacent to the building, but that tent extends into the driveway. I visualize that someone will run into that tent. It is very intimidating coming around the corner and seeing that tent there.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Six


Mr. Bunnell responded we could not come up with a location that would meet all our requirements, and that seemed to be the lesser of the evils we were dealing with. Ms. Jacobs added we see about 50 new families every weekend, and that is what the tent is used for. It is hard because we have no other place to house them right now.

Mr. Okum commented I agree with Mr. Schecker, having been in your parking lot on numerous occasions. I find it a safety issue, a bad one, regarding people congregating in a group area where there is already a very difficult parking situation. The cars have a very hard time getting around, and there constantly is transition between your services. This is a safety issue as well as setting the precedent that Ms. McNear referred to. I think there are a number of locations on your site that you might find something of a shelter, a simple addition, patio with a shelter cover in a grassy area off to the side between the buildings or off to the left of the entryway would be more favorable, something more permanent. We all understand that you are outgrowing your facility. I would be very much against allowing the tent to be left there at any time because of the safety issue. Get the people out of the parking area because of people transitioning from the parking lot and cars coming through there, I see a real hazard.

Mr. Squires said what comments I had have been expressed by Mrs. McNear and Mr. Schecker, so I canít add anything to that.

Mr. Mitchell said the two issues are the safety location and the time frame.

Mr. McErlane said there actually are two requests involved in this. We are addressing the tent, but there is an additional issue as well, the temporary trailer.

Mrs. McNear moved to treat each item separately and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye.

Mr. Mitchell stated we will look at the trailer as Item A and the tent as Item B. We now will discuss Item A.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Bunnell if the trailer would be there before the Spring of 1998? Mr. Bunnell answered the trailer would go in immediately. There is a desperate need for office space. Ms. Jacobs added and this would only be until summertime, because we are supposed to be breaking ground for office space. Our construction completion date is June but we are asking for it until August to make sure everything is done. CUC is building the other offices.

Mr. Okum reported Planning Commission did not consider an office facility being built on the new site last Tuesday night. You are indicating that there is an intention to build part of the new building, or a separate office building? Ms. Jacobs answered it is totally separate that we just started looking into in the last three weeks. Mr. Okum continued Planning did not approve that in your preliminary plan review. Ms. Jacobs said if for some reason Planning does not approve this office space, we would go to a leased space. We had leased space across the street from the new church and at the 11th hour the current lessee decided to keep their lease. That fell through three weeks ago and we have had to scramble, because our staff has tripled in the last three years.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 August 1996

Page Seven


Ms. Jacobs reported that the trailer is not on the new property. It is on the current church property. Mr. Mitchell stated they are asking for a temporary office space, and Mr. Okum was talking about the preliminary proposal which did not include any permanent office space. So it is two separate things. Mr. McErlane stated at Planning Commission, there was some mention of some office building on the site at some point in time, but it was pretty vague in the discussion.

Ms. Jacobs commented the only bearing is whether we build or get off site. We really need about 10,000 square feet of office space, whether we construct or lease, and it has to happen in early 1997. Weíre not working efficiently right now because we are so cramped for space. Within the next month or so we should have plans from CUC to present to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum said certainly I would expect the new development and the new building to incorporate office space into it. I would assume that the architect would have taken that into consideration when they designed the overall building Maybe that needs to be looked at, because as a Planning Commission member, I was not anticipating a separate office building, and I would like to see it all incorporated into one facility.

Mr. Okum continued getting back to the trailer, I do not see a problem with it being put into that location. I do have a little concern as to why it is brought out so close to the street, why it is not nestled back in further. Are there setback requirements that require it to be pulled closer to the street? Mr. Bunnell responded we canít get much further back. We have a transformer; we are back as far as we can go. Mr. Okum commented for a short period of time, office space wouldnít be a problem, but we are talking a two year period. Mr. Bunnell responded not at this facility. Ms. Jacobs added we are asking until August of 1997.

Mrs. Boice said you stated you are going to do a separate office building on the new site, and you are expecting to have this done by August of next year? Ms. Jacobs stated they told us by June. Mrs. Boice commented you will have some administrative delay here because that needs to come back to Planning Commission. Ms. Jacobs added if something would happen that we would not be able to do our construction, we would definitely lease.

Mr. Okum asked if there are setback requirements? Mr. McErlane stated to avoid trying to call the trailer a part of the building, there needs to be a 10 foot setback from the building. Mr. Okum continued I still would like to see it back further, and much more landscaping around it than two or three six foot pines. Ms. Jacobs commented you have the pictures; it is a very upscale building. Mr. Okum commented itís a trailer, and we have had them with air conditioning systems hanging on the back. I would make a motion that the mechanical air conditioning system be against the building but not out towards Chesterdale Road. From the audience, the HVAC representative said we could position a HVAC system on either end; it is possible.

Mr. Okum commented you have a lot of night functions. Would there be outdoor lighting for safety? There is a courtyard back there, and that will be a safety issue. Mr. Bunnell stated there is lighting provided back there now. Mr. Okum responded I understand that, but you are creating a blank dead corner area. There should be a camera or something back there for your people, because you are creating a situation that might be a problem. Mr. Bunnell stated that could be incorporated.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Eight


The HVAC representative stated that there are exterior lights on this building, globe lights.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance to allow the portable office trailer to be on the site until August 1, 1997, with the following contingencies: (1) that landscaping be upscaled much more than what is presented; (2) the HVAC system on the unit be against the building not towards the street side; and (3) the trailer unit be as far back onto the site to keep it from plain view of traffic on Crescentville. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Mitchell. Mrs. McNear, Boice and Ewing voted no, and the variance was granted with four affirmative votes.

Mr. Mitchell stated we will move on to Item B, the use of a temporary tent on the site. Mr. Bunnell said we are asking for the tent to be on the site through November of this year, when we would take it down. In the Spring of 1997 we would put it up again through November of 1997, and depending on construction, coming back in the Spring of 1998.

Mr. Mitchell stated this was discussed earlier, and the two issues that came up was the safety of the proposed location. Would it be possible for you to propose a different location? Mr. Bunnell responded we would have to look at that. Ms. Jacobs wondered if it would be possible to ask for it until the end of this year and build something during early spring that would be approved for all the new members? Mr. Bunnell added we are asking for 45 days until the end of November of this year, which would give us a chance to see what we could do. Mr. Okum said I am sympathetic to that, but it is a safety issue, and I canít support it being there this weekend; Iím sorry.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance to allow the placement of the tent in the parking lot through the month of November. I bring this up in a positive manner but I will be voting no. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. No one voted aye, and Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Squires, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell voted no. The motion was defeated with seven negative votes.

E. Springdale Family Medical Center, 212 West Sharon Road requests variance to allow a 0í parking lot setback on the west property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(G) "drive and parking area setback - 5í "

Dr. Barry Webb stated you have a letter stating our case. Parking is very precious to us because of the limited location. I know we will not increase the parking spaces, but we will increase turning radius for the dumpster truck to get back there and deliveries to be made. It is nicely landscaped with a retaining wall, and that extra five feet will be helpful for safety. People who are infirm, the elderly can sometimes use that extra turning radius, and with the nicely landscaped area around it, we would like to keep the lot as it was when Spooners was up. Doug Purcell showed the area on the site plan.

Mr. Mitchell commented I was there and I noticed there were shrubs along the line north of it, but as you came towards the street, there were no shrubs. If you are sitting on the adjacent propertyís front porch, you would look out and see cars parked there. Are you proposing to put up any kind of fencing or barrier between your property and the residence next door?


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Nine


Dr. Webb responded we had not, only because the original pizza lot went right up to there with cars parked there, and it has been like that for the last 30 or 40 years. I think a fence would be a barrier to the natural aesthetics, but we could do that, but I think that five feet of space will mean a lot to the people who have to maneuver in that lot. Mr. Mitchell asked if they had discussed the proposal with the neighbor, and Dr. Webb responded that the neighbor is here this evening and is in favor of the project. He submitted a letter last year when we were getting approval for our new building.

Mr. Squires said regarding the retaining wall there, is it Mr. Brankampís (the neighbor) responsibility to maintain that, and do you intend to? From the audience, Mr. Brankamp indicated that he did. Mr. Squires wondered how long the retaining wall had been there, and Mr. Brankamp reported 36 years. Mr. Squires continued and it is your contention that leaving it the way it would allow your patients a bit more maneuverability. Dr. Webb responded we have lived with our present lot the last 12 years that we have been here and it is according to code, but we have had people hit other bumpers trying to get out of there. It has become apparent to us that the more space we can get the better. If you are driving home with a 103 degree fever and a headache, you are not as safe as you might be otherwise.

Mr. Schecker commented Mr. Mitchell mentioned that the shrubbery is rather sparse coming this way towards Sharon Road. I was wondering if Dr. Webb would be inclined to offer some shrubbery for Mr. Brankamp to plant and enhance that area, if he wishes it.

Dr. Webb responded we would be happy to enhance that. There are nice mature trees in the back. If he prefers that to be enhanced, we would be happy to do that. Mr. Brankamp added there is shrubbery along the driveway. As far as looking out from the porch, for 36 years I have been looking at it.

Mrs. Boice stated I would definitely concur with the idea of giving the patients a larger turning radius, not only the patients but any of us who have transported the elderly to the doctor. So I would definitely concur with this, and would make a motion to grant this variance.

Mr. McErlane reported that the front portion of the wall actually goes over onto Mr. Brankampís property a couple of feet by the time it reaches the street. Is it your intention to pave all the way up to that wall, all the way out to the front? Dr. Webb confirmed this, and Mr. McErlane added so your pavement actually will be two feet onto his property towards the front. Dr. Webb responded I guess it would; I hadnít thought of it, we are essentially replacing the old parking lot. Mr. McErlane commented that encroached on his property previously. Just as long as Mr. Brankamp is aware of that and concurs with that, thatís fine. Dr. Webb said I guess he owns two feet of our blacktop.

Mr. Squires seconded the motion to grant the variance. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Squires, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Mitchell stated we will go back to Item B, the variance for the construction of the new home. Ken Williamson reported we measured the distance from the curb to the house next door, and it was 43 feet. We talked to Bill and have come up with an option of reducing the size of the house, and take the depth down to 28 feet. That way we will have 12 feet from the back of the house to the property line and in reducing the actual width of the house, having 10 feet from the edge of the house to the right side property line. We also measured from the property line to the house next door, and their house sets 29 feet from the property line. That would give us 39 feet between the houses. The distance from the house that we propose and the properly line in back will be 12 feet. The front setback will be 38 feet from the curb.

Mr. McErlane stated Mr. Williamson does have a sketch that shows all these dimensions.

Mr. Squires wondered how many square feet that cost you? Mr. Williamson answered we were under the impression that awe needed 1600 square feet of living space, but in that area we only need 1,000. This will reduce the house by about 300 square feet, which will give us 1298 square feet of living space.

Mr. Schecker wondered if they still proposed to have a porch on the front of the house, and if it would encroach, have the same impact that Dave was concerned about? Mr. Williamson reported it is six feet deep. Mr. Okum added the outside edge of the porch is still 38 feet. Mr. McErlane reported that a porch is permitted to project six feet into the required front yard. Mr. Okum added if I had a choice of a mobile home look house or a house with a porch on the front, I would take the house with the porch across the front.

Mr. McErlane reported that based on what is being requested here, the only variance is for the rear yard setback, 12 feet versus 35 feet Mr. Okum commented I think we have some that are less than 12 feet. Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding we have some that are five feet.

Mrs. Boice commented this is really what we are all about, where we try to work with people. I appreciate the give and take effort you have shown this evening. Mr. Squires concurred, and moved to grant the variance for rear yard setback. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing, and Mr. Mitchell. Mrs. McNear abstained, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.


Mr. Squires commented I know that Mr. Mayborgís request was dropped from the agenda, but I looked at it, and the deck extended more than six feet. Mr. Mitchell stated that the house is set back more than is required. Mr. McErlane added the way the section of the code reads, you are allowed to project into a required front yard six feet with a deck. The required front yard in that instance is 35 feet, so a deck can project as close as 29 feet to the right of way line. In his case it is actually 30-something feet to the deck. Mr. Squires said he built the deck before the fact; suppose someone does that and we do not approve the variance? Mr. McErlane stated they would have to remove it.



Board of Zoning Apjpeals Meeting Minutes

15 October 1996

Page Eleven


Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,1996 ______________________

William Mitchell, Chairman



____________________,1996 _______________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary