Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/12/1988ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 12, 1988 Regular Meeting — 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 12, 1988 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Boardmember Lancaster arrived shortly after the beginning of the meeting. Boardmembers Absent: Barnett, Coleman and Walker. Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman and Goode. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 14, 1988, Approved as Published The minutes of the April 14, 1988 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal i11864Section 29-404 (4) by Greg Anderson of Amshel Corporation, 4500 Innovation Drive — Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required side yard setback from 30 feet to 11 feet for the addition of an enclosed loading dock to an existing warehouse/distribution facility in the IP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The pet onto an existing dock and enclose the variance for the existing dock was granted The petitioner needs docking space for 2 nature of their products, the docking space This is the only place where a dock existing building is not dock height except Ltioner desires to add entire dock area. (A September 9, 1979). trucks, and due to the must be weather tight. can be placed since the at this location. ---Staff comments: The existing dock at this location was granted a variance to reduce the setback from 30 feet to 22 feet with the condition that it remain an open air platform." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes spoke regarding the variance. This building is located in the Golden Meadow Business Park which is considered an industrial park zone. In this zone a 30' sideyard setback is required adjacent to all sideyard lot lines. A proposal to approve a similar variance was granted in 1979. It allowed a 22' side lotline resulting in an 11' setback. Behind the property is a large substation and the lot to the south is undeveloped. Large trees line the south side of the building providing more than adequate screening for the proposed enclosed dock addition. The remainder of the industrial park is undeveloped and the use of this building will not change. Greg Anderson appeared to speak :.a favor of the variance and to further explain the hardship. He feels that the hardship exists due • • ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 ' Page 2 to the existing configuration of the building on the lot, therefore there is no other area where the dock can be placed. He further explained that this location became attractive to The Innovative Companies because of this dock —high building, no other dock —high buildings are near this area which is readily accessible to the Innovative Companies manufacturing facility that is located directly north of this building. The two docks are needed for the two trucks utilized by Innovation Companies. One of the vehicles is a large truck used to ship their product interstate and is loaded and unloaded less frequently then the small truck that is used for regional deliveries, therefore reinforcing the need for two docks. The enclosure of the dock is mandatory to protect the manufactured products, that are wood cabinets and casework with finishes, that are unable to be exposed to sun, dampness and changing temperatures. Mr. Anderson concluded by adding that he doesn't believe that the approval of the variance will cause any hardship for the adjacent property owners since this is an industrial park and the addition of the enclosed dock is not out of character with the neighboring area. K. Bill Tiley, managing partner of the Golden Meadows Industrial Park, appeared to speak regarding the variance, stating that he is not opposed to the proposed variance but wishes to address the Zoning Administrator with his concern regarding the dock problem issue that seems to keep coming up in the industrial areas. He suggested that studies be done and some thought given to consider the dock separately from the building in industrial parks. He feels that the current code that requires a 30' setback are excessive and hopes that provisions can be made for dock areas in the code itself. Boardmember Thede was concerned that the accessibility for fire equipment would be diminished because of the addition to the side of the building. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reassured the Board that two curb cuts along Innovation Drive provide adequate accessibility to accommodate fire equipment from all sides, he added that Poudre Fire Authority does review the plans, and that the plans for the proposed enclosure have already been reviewed, although he was unsure of what comments they have made. Following brief discussion, all of the Boardmembers agreed that the hardship is a location factor. Boardmember Lancaster added that he feels an enclosed dock is by far more favorable than an open dock and sees no problem in approving this variance. A motion was made to approve the variance for the hardship stated by Boardmember Thede. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Lancaster, Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Nays: None. ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 3 Appeal #1865. Section 29-133 (3), by Fort Collins Housing Authority, 1715 W. Mountain Avenue - Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for an addition to the Fort Collins Housing Authority building in the RL zone. The addition will line up with the existing wall. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The Housing Authority has leased the building as their office since 1977. Since that time staffing levels have increased to the point where additional space is needed. The addition in question is about 110 square feet and will line up with the existing north wall of the building, which already received a variance in 1974. Therefore, the addition will have the same setback as the existing building has. ---Staff comments: If the ZBA approves this variance request, the applicant will then have to proceed to the P&Z Board for review of an enlargement to a building containing a nonconforming use." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes spoke briefly regarding the variance. This building is located directly north of the City Park baseball fields and is currently used as administration offices for the Fort Collins Housing Authority. This building was built as a community recreation building in association with the park and considered an accessory use, it then became the office for the Housing Authority. It is zoned as low density residential which doesn't allow business offices; therefore, it is a nonconforming use. If this variance to reduce the required front yard setback is approved by the ZBA it will then proceed to the P&Z Board for further review. This building was granted a variance in 1974 to reduce the required 30' setback to 15' when the building was originally built. This variance request proposes to add -on to the front and the back of this building and to do some interior remodeling. David Herrera, director of the Housing Authority, appeared to speak in favor of the variance. The proposed addition is needed because of the expansion in staff and because of record keeping requirements and storage. It is proposed to enclose the area under the existing roof line in the front of the building for additional office space. The architecture will match that of which currently exists. The entry is currently on the south side of the building; it was changed to the south side last year for handicap accessibility, so the existing entry sidewalk on the north side of the building will be removed. Boardmember Lancaster questioned the hardship. He questions if out -growing space is a hardship, and wonders if the Board is setting a precedence if the variance is approved. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes addressed the Board to clarify the hardship. This addition will have the same setback as the existing building has. This situation comes up in the old part of town usually in residential areas where the houses were built before the 1965 code was adopted. Prior to 1965 different setbacks where required, so if someone wants ZBA Minutes May 12, 1� • Page 4 to add -on to their home and have the addition line up with the existing building, and since the new construction can't comply with the current code requirements because of the existing building setback, it is considered a hardship. All of the Boardmembers agree that enlarging the building will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and a motion was made by Boardmember Lancaster to approve the variance for the hardship that this existing building is a nonconforming building. Yeas: Lancaster, Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1866. Section 29-493, 29-494 (2), 29-293 (2) (f), by The Fort Collins Housing Authority, 114 S. Bryan - Approved with conditions. ---The variance would reduce the required parking lot landscape setback along Mountain Avenue from 10 feet to 7 feet behind the walk, reduce the required number of parking spaces from 41 to 28, and reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 436 sq. ft. to 210 sq. ft. for a multi -family development containing 27, one -bedroom, elderly apartments in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property has been a trailer park for many years. The petitioner wants to upgrade the site with 27 elderly apartments. The 10 foot landscape strip along Mountain could be obtained by moving the sidewalk north, but there are large existing trees which prevent this without their removal. There will be a large landscape strip on the street side of the walk, so the intent of this ordinance is met. Since the units are one -bedroom, and intended for elderly residents, an allowance of only one car per unit will be allowed, therefore 41 spaces are not necessary." ---Staff comments: If the ZBA approves this appeal, the petitioner will then proceed to the P&Z Board for consideration of changing the previous nonconforming trailer park use to this multi -family project, another nonconforming use in the RL zone. The P&Z Board will make a finding as to whether or not the change in use is more compatible with the uses of surrounding property than the previous nonconforming use. They will consider the following criteria: 1) the nature and purpose of the existing nonconforming use; 2) the difference in quality and character of the proposed use; 3) the difference in the degree of use of the proposed use; 4) the reasons for the proposed change; and 5) the overall impact of the proposed use on the surrounding property. There was one notice returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes spoke regarding the variance stating that this variance deals with a nonconforming use situation. This is the site of the former Sunset Mobile Home Park. The proposal is for the 4-plex that exists on the site to remain and be converted into a 3-plex and to convert the remaining dwelling unit into a recreation room, and then build four 6-plexes. The site has a lot of mature trees in the interior and all but one of them will be saved. 4 ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 5 The specific variances are: 1). The landscape strip on the north to be a 7' strip between the parking lot and sidewalk; the code requires 101. 2). The code requires 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit of on —site parking, to comply 41 parking spaces would have to be provided for this type of project, it is proposed to provide 28 spaces including one handicap space, that is required to comply with code. 3). In regards to the interior parking island, the code requires 436 sq. ft., because of the existing mature trees, it is proposed to provide 210 sq. ft.. There is alley access on the south side of the property, it is proposed to construct a 6' fence in that area. The previous use was a mobile home park and considered a nonconforming use, not a permitted use in the RL zone, this proposal to multi —family is also not a permitted use. There are two procedures available to an applicant considering putting a use in zone where it is not allow as a use —by —right. One is a PUD, the other is that if the property previously had a nonconforming use they can do a change of nonconforming use procedure. That is where you're changing one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. The PUD isn't necessarily required but P&Z approval is with a site plan that complies with the zoning code. The site plan submitted for this project doesn't; therefore, they need a variance from the ZBA for those particular sections. If the Board grants the variances they then go before the P&Z Board for the nonconforming use procedure. If the Board denies those, the petitioner then has the option of doing a PUD. For the nonconforming use issue the P&Z Board will consider, 1) the nature and purpose of the existing nonconforming use; 2) the difference in quality and character of the proposed use; 3)the difference in the degree of use of the proposed use; 4) the reasons for the proposed change; and 5) the overall impact of the proposed use on the surrounding property. David Herrera, director of the Housing Authority, appeared in favor of the variance stating that the responsibility of the Housing Authority in the community is to clean slum and blight, and to reduce substandard housing, and also to provide affordable housing. The proposal is to provide 27, 1—bedroom, elderly, low—cost/low—income housing units. To address the first matter --the landscaping, he argued that it doesn't make sense to provide a 10' landscape strip when it means removing mature trees to be replaced with 1-1/2 inch caliber trees. On the second issue --the number of parking spaces, it is their experience that if 41 spaces where provided a lot of those spaces would go unused, because low—income, especially elderly on a fixed income, can't afford the gas to put into cars, let alone the cars themselves. He also added that again it doesn't make sense to remove mature landscaping to provide for parking spaces that wouldn't be used. Addressing the third issue, Mr. Herrera commented that for the interior parking lot landscaping the lot size would have to be expanded to provide the landscaping, he argued that unlike a new development where landscaping would need to be provided, landscaping already exists throughout this site. Additionally, Mr. Herrera mentioned that he is aware that the Board cannot consider an economical hardship, but if this project where to comply with the codes the number of units would be reduced, therefore it would not be feasible to move ahead with this project. Also this nonconforming use in comparison to the existing nonconforming use is actually reducing ZBA Minutes May 12, M Page 6 the number of units which exited before, therefore reducing the overall impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Lengthy discussion followed by the Boardmembers. Sherry Albertson -Clark, of the Planning department distributed a copy of the preliminary landscape plan to each of the Boardmembers. The Boardmembers all agreed that the plan to maintain the existing mature landscaping for the parking lot landscape, and also to reduce the interior parking lot landscaping was acceptable, but the Boardmembers were concerned about reducing the required number of parking spaces. Although they could respect the experience of the Housing Authority regarding parking, the Board still questioned if adequate parking was being provided for this use. Boardmember Thede suggested that a condition be attached to the variance that would limit the granting of this variance for the reduced parking spaces to this use only, and if the use ever changed, the variance would then be null and void. City Attorney, Paul Eckman was consulted regarding this matter, he advised the Board that granting of the variance not be based on demographics, but on the number of automobiles permitted per unit. He added that it would be a firmer way to establish the condition to the variance. Mr. Eckman clarified to the Board that the battle over parking is not over just because the ZBA has approved this variance --the ZBA is to consider whether or not the parking is appropriate for this particular piece of property; it is the P&Z Boards responsibility to decide on the overall impact on the surrounding property. Mr. Herrera addressed the Board again, adding that the Housing Authority plans to work with Transfort and Carevan to provide transportation for this community from this project, further reinforcing the argument for reduced parking spaces. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship that the configuration of the maturity of the landscape creates, with the condition that the tenants be limited to one vehicle per unit. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. Yeas: Lancaster, Thede and Nelson. Nays: Lawton. Appeal #1867. Section 29-595 (a), 29-595 (d), by John and Barbara Schofield, 330 S. College Avenue. - Approved with conditions. ---The variance would reduce the required setback for a freestanding sign which does not contain free air space, and is located within 50 feet of a driveway, from 15 feet to 2 feet. The variance would also allow the sign to be located 6 feet from the north interior lot line instead of the required 15 feet. The sign will be a tenant panel for the tenants on the north side of this office building, and is 24 square feet per face. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The building is built to the lot line, therefore the only location to put a freestanding sign is in the area north of the building in an existing landscaped island. The driveway there is "entrance only" so the sign does not obstruct visibility since cars don't exit there. In addition, the sign will be set back 25 feet from the curb, so the intent of the Code is met. Signs on the building to identify tenants on the 1 0 ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 7 north side will do no good because the traffic is one way in front of the building, therefore, a freestanding sign is the best way to advertise those businesses. ---Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes spoke briefly regarding the variance. The property in question is at the corner of College and Magnolia. The parking lot between the two buildings --330 S. College and The Perkins Restaurant-- belongs to 330 S. College. There is a landscape island right behind the sidewalk which would be the proposed location of the internally illuminated sign. The code sections asked to vary are two that deal with freestanding sign requirements. The first one deals with the sign being located within 50' of the driveway. It is taller than 42" and the bottom of the sign is less than 6' above grade; therefore, the interpretation of the sign code is that it doesn't have free air —space which would allow vehicles to see either over or under the sign when entering traffic. The second variance deals with the section that requires that freestanding signs be at least 15' from an interior side lot line. The code requirement that requires this is there to ensure spacing of signs along the street. It ensures that every freestanding sign be at least 30' apart, or 30' from another one. The proposal here is to have it approximately 6' from the north lot line of this property which is approximately at the edge of the parking lot. The hardship is one—way, entrance only, with angled parking so cars are not exiting from the parking lot to College Avenue. John Schofield, a representative for the owners appeared in favor of the variance stating that Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes had given an accurate and complete explanation of the variance request. The only additional comment concerned the specific hardship that owners and tenants in the downtown area have to deal with because of the structures built prior to the adoption of the code were generally built up to the property line. The Boardmembers commented that similar variances have been granted in the past, thus leading to a motion by Boardmember Lancaster to grant the variance with the condition that access to the parking lot remain one—way ingress. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Nelson. Yeas: Lancaster, Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Nays: None. * The order of the agenda was changed to accommodate the petitioner for appeal #1868, so appeal #1869 was heard before #1868. Boardmember Thede was dismissed following the vote on appeal #1869. Appeal #1869. Section 29-133 (5), by Brian Parsonnet, 147 N. Washington — Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required 15 foot side yard setback along Laporte Avenue to 10.6 feet for a detached one —car garage in the RL zone. The property is on a corner lot and the garage is an existing garage on the south side of the lot which the petitioner desires to move to the north side of the house. ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 8 ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner recently constructed a passive solar addition on the south side of the house. The existing garage is 7 feet from the addition and blocks the sun from making the addition effective. The only way to meet the 15 foot setback at the proposed location would require removal of existing mature landscaping. This is the only feasible location to put the garage. It would also act as a desired buffer between the bedroom and Laporte Ave., serving to cut down on noise along an arterial street. The garage will actually be 25 feet from the curb since the property line is 15 feet from the street." ---Staff comments: None A brief description of the variance was given by Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes. The property in question is located at the corner of Laporte —which is an arterial street-- and Washington. There is an existing curb cut on the north side of the property which will be utilized as an entrance into the garage. The petitioner proposes to place the garage between the two existing large trees on the north side, so basically the variance is needed so that one of the large trees won't have to be removed. The owner, Brian Parsonnet appeared. He further explained to the Board that the intended purpose of the greenhouse addition was to provide heating for the house, and because of the garage, the addition is not effective. Moving the garage to the north side of the house would also provide a play area for children on the south side of the property away from the arterial street, and provide visibility of his house from the street for security reasons. He went on to say that his house had been burglarized and entry was secured from this location because the garage hides the entrance. He concluded by stating that if the variance is not granted, the tree will be removed to meet the necessary code requirements for the garage setback. All of the Boardmembers agreed that this is a difficult situation for the petitioner, but also feel that the hardship is self-imposed. All feel that a number of alternatives exist for other locations for the garage. Boardmember Lancaster commented to the other Boardmembers that if a foundation were to be placed under the garage, the roots of the tree would probably be severed, and the root system left after excavation wouldn't be sufficient to support this size of tree. Boardmember Thede reminded the petitioner that the ZBA can't consider a self-imposed hardship as a deciding factor when rendering a decision. A motion to deny the variance was made by Boardmember Nelson and seconded by Boardmember Thede. Yeas: None. Nays: Lancaster, Lawton, Thede and Nelson. Appeal #1868. Section 29-494 (7), by The City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department, 1630 Casa Grande Blvd. - Approved with conditions. ---The variance would reduce the required amount of off-street parking from ten spaces to zero spaces for a new neighborhood park in the RLP zone. The park contains one tennis court, one basketball court, a picnic shelter, and a playground. • i ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 9 ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The park is intended as a small neighborhood park to serve the adjacent residents and does not provide facilities which will generate parking needs. The park has 15 acres, but a detention pond takes up 14 acres. It is beneficial to provide as much grass as possible and therefore eliminating an unnecessary parking asphalt area is desirable. The only area to put the parking spaces is in the one acre outside the detention pond. This is the only area where improvements can be located, so to put the parking there would mean less in the way of other more desirable improvements. ---Staff comments: Parks and Recreation was granted this same type of variance for one of their other neighborhood parks in 1985. No notices were returned. One letter was received. May 9, 1988 City of Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals RE: Appeal 1868 We live directly across from the area to become a park. If the park has no parking people will be parking in front of our home. We need all our parking and would not want people using the park to take up our space around our home; therefore, we object to this variance. In addition is there any truth to the rumor that Dunbar is to become a no parking street? If this is true it would create even more of a parking problem. Sincerely, Mona Lee Krewson Ronald G. Krewson 1700 Bedford Circle Fort Collins, CO 80526 Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes first addressed the comment from the property owner regarding the rumor to prohibit parking on Dunbar. According to the transportation department the rumor is unfounded. He went on to give a brief description of the variance request. The proposed park is bordered by Dunbar and Casa Grande, which are collector streets, and Sam Houston Circle which borders the proposed park on the east side. In the past, a similar variance was granted for Golden Meadows neighborhood park. Generally many neighborhood parks are located near one of the elementary schools and they are allowed to consider that as a collective parking lot so their parking requirements are met through the parking lot provided at the school. Leslie Beckman, a park planner with the Parks 6 Recreation department appeared to speak in favor of the variance. This site was purchased • i ZBA 3linutes May 12, 1988 Page 10 by the P&R department in 1980 with the intention to develop a neighborhood park. Approximately 1200 surveys and invitations to the neighborhood meetings were mailed to residents within a one -square -mile radius; two neighborhood meetings were held to hear the input of those residents. Approximately 100 people attended each of the meetings. They were adamant in requiring the planning of the park be designed for walk-in use by area residents; there was strong sentiment of the neighbors not to provide parking. 250 surveys were returned and that information was used to come up with the master plan. The parking area location is very limited because of the configuration of the property; the parking area location is in the same area as the location for the facilities. An alternative location for the parking area would be on the east boundary, but the neighbors living on east side of the park were opposed to the lack of visual appeal of an asphalt parking lot, and are also concerned that high school students from nearby Rocky Mountain High School would come to the parking lot to "hang out". It is the experience of the P&R department that this type of park doesn't generate alot of drive-in use, but rather is utilized by the neighborhood residents that generally walk over to the park. The Boardmembers were generally favorable of the variance but were concerned with insuring that the park would not be used in any manner that would generate heavy traffic flow such as scheduled activities, but would allow for a small group, such as a organized picnic or reunion -something of that nature- be a permitted use. The Boardmembers considered a stipulation to prohibit any scheduling of group activities. City Attorney, Paul Eckman advised the Board to be specific regarding the stipulation. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that no organized recreational program that is sponsored or affiliated with The City of Fort Collins be permitted. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. *Yeas: Lancaster, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. Appeal #1871. Section 29-133(4) by Gordon Murdoff, 1131 Oakleaf Court - granted. ---The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 9.33 feet for a new single family home in the RLP zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is a corner lot. The house faces the legal side yard, therefore the legal rear yard is in reality the side yard and not the back yard. A side yard setback is only required to be 5 feet." ---Staff comments: None. Gordon Murdoff, general contractor, appeared before the Board with the intention of requesting a special meeting to hear a variance to reduce the required rear setback for a new single family home. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes informed the petitioner that to comply with code, adjacent property notices (APO) must be sent 7 days prior to the special meeting. Stan Everitt appeared and stated that he is a representative of Everitt Companies that is the owner of the adjacent ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 11 properties within 150 feet. City Attorney, Paul Eckman spoke to clarify the meaning of the code. He stated that since the church parking lot is separated by the street and is not considered adjacent to the property in question, then the adjacent properties are in fact those that are owned by the Everitt Companies, so the intent of the code is met, and the hearing can be conducted. A motion was made by Boardmember Nelson to amend the agenda to include Appeal #1870. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. Yeas: Lancaster, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. City Attorney, Paul Eckman wished to make it clear in the record that there hasn't been a required notice as required in the Code given to the adjacent property owners, but that a representative of the Everitt Companies is present. He then addressed Stan Everitt and asked if he was prepared to waive the requirement that he be given formal written notice of this appeal. Mr. Everitt indicated that he was prepared. Gordon Murdoff, contractor, appeared again to speak regarding the variance. He designed the proposed house incorrectly on the lot because of the location of the utilities that have already been stubbed —in, and because of his own misinterpretation of the setback requirements. This resulted in a sideyard setback of 9.33, instead of the required 15' setback. The hardship of this variance is that the client would feel uncomfortable closing on this lot without the granting of the variance. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes, stated that this is a typical corner lot situation where the house faces the legal side yard. The north property line legally is the rear yard and that is where the 15' setback requirement is required. The petitioner pointed out that Lot 5, which is the north lot, is an irregular shaped lot. It has been discussed over the phone with a couple of people of deeding some of Lot 5, since it is unbuilt, to this particular lot so that the they could meet the required setback. There is a question in the developers mind and in the City's mind whether or not, if that is done, will Lot 5 then be buildable. This may not be a good alternative. Ed Shaw, the proposed owner of the property spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that because of the lay of the land, constructing the house with a physical front toward the south is impossible for this house and impractical for other house plans. Working along with the architect, the house size has been reduced in order to make an attempt to meet the Code requirements. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lawton clarified the hardship for the record. The hardship is the irregular shape of the lot, and the instance of the legal rear yard being the actual side yard. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Lancaster. Yeas: Lancaster, Lawton and Nelson. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. 0 0 ZBA Minutes May 12, 1988 Page 12 Respectfully submitted, Dave Lawton, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator