HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-95 Regular Meeing and Public Hearing•
OATH OF OFFICE
•
•
OATH OF OFFICE
I, Deborah Bemay , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will
faithfully and impartially execute the duties imposed upon me by law as Chairman of the
La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment, and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that
I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to contribute any money or
valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment, as a reward to secure my
appointment. So help me God.
SWORN TO and subscribed before me, this the 27th day of July, 1995.
~,....
~
t
1
~' sme a Tex
f%~ ~:E~ os~ts~5
00
Peggy Lee
Notary Public for the State of Texas
•
•
MINUTES
•
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 6, 1995
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Cif Staff Present:
Acting Chairman Sidney Grant, Board Members Willie
Walker, Bob Capen; Alternate Members Jim Zoller, John
Willis
Deborah Bernay
Chief Building Official Mark Lewis, Assistant City Manager
John Joerns, City Attorney Knox Askins, Planning Secretary
Peggy Lee
I. CALL TO ORDER --
Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Sidney Grant at 7:02 PM.
II. ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
A. REAPPOINTED BOARD CHAIR
Chairman Bernay was not present at the meeting.
B. REAPPOINTED MEMBER
-.
Knox Askins administered the Oath of Office to Willie Walker.
C. NEWLY APPOINTED BOARD ALTERNATE MEMBER
Knox Aslcins administered the Oath of Office to John Willis.
III. APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 1995, ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
With no corrections needed, Acting Chairman Sidney Grant declared the minutes
approved as presented.
•
Page 2 of 6
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of July 6, 1995
IV. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
•
Mark Lewis introduced Guy Rankin as the Gity's new Director of Planning.
V. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION #A95-002,
WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARD
FENCE LOCATED AT 1217 ROBINSON ROAD.
Mr. Lewis presented staffs report for Appeal of the Ei'tforcing Officer's Decision
#A95-002. Eight (8) public notices were mailed to surrounding property owners.
One (1) was returned in favor of the appeal and none returned in opposition. No
notices were returned undeliverable.
Mr. Lewis noted that the appeal is requested by Timothy Smith, the property
owner, for the property located at 1217 Robinson Road. Mr. Smith is appealing
the decision of the Enforcing Officer to deny a building permit to construct a
residential front yard fence.
Mr. Smith constructed the fence without a building permit and without the City's
knowledge. Since Mr. Smith's .property is less than one acre, a front yard fence is
not allowed per the City's Zoning Ordinance. A City Inspector discovered the
fence and informed Mr. Smith that his fence was in violation.
Mr. Lewis presented the Board with a short video of the property in question and
how it appears alongside surrounding properties in the neighborhood that have
similar fences.
Staffs review of the appeal indicated that the applicant's fence and home are of
the same character of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Lewis also noted the
fence should not prevent the applicant from maintaining his property in a manner
that complies with applicable City Ordinance. Staff concluded the fence would
not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties and recommended
Board approval of the appeal. Staff also recommended that it be stipulated as a
condition of the approval, a building permit be obtained within ten (10) days from
the date of the Board's decision. In addition, since the fence was constructed
•
Page 3 of 6
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of July 6, 1995
without a permit, the permit fee would be doubled as provided for by the
Standard Building Code.
A. PROPONENTS
Acting~Chairman Sidney Grant swore in Timothy Smith. Mr. Smith
apologized for not being aware he was required to obtain a permit
to construct a fence. In asking the Board to rule in favor of the
appeal, he asked them to take into consideration the similar
appearance of the other homes with fences in the neighborhood.
B. OPPONENTS
There were none.
A motion was made by Bob Capen to grant A95-002. The motion was seconded
by Ruben Salinas. All were in favor and the motion passed.
VI. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCING OFFICER'S DECISION #A95-003,
WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARD
FENCE LOCATED AT 823 MOSSY DRIVE.
Mr. Lewis presented staff's report for Appeal of the Enforcing Officer's Decision
#A95-003. Eleven (il) public notices were mailed to surrounding property
owners. Four (4) were returned in favor of the appeal and none returned in
opposition. One (1) notice was returned undeliverable. In addition to the
mahout replies, several other replies were received and were also given to the
Board for their consideration.
Mr. Lewis presented the Board with a short video of the property in question. He
noted that the appeal is requested by Doris and David Shamlin, the owners of the
property located at 823 Mossy Drive. The property is less than one acre in size.
The Shamlins are appealing the decision of the Enforcing Officer to deny a
building permit for construction of a residential front yard fence.
• •
Page 4 of 6
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of July 6, 1995
Mr. Lewis noted there was an existing corral style front yard fence on the
property. The owners removed the old fence and began construction of a new
one. This was done without obtaining a permit. A City Inspector discovered the
fence under construction. Mr. Lewis noted the debris from the old fence had
already been removed and there was no sign there had ever been a previous fence
when the Inspector was there.
The Inspector informed the Shamlins that they would have to obtain a building
permit for the new fence. The applicants provided photos documenting the
existence of the previous fence. Staffs opinion is the fence was a legally
established nonconforming structure. ~ The exact date the original fence was
removed could not be verified. In the Shamlin's application, they stated the fence
was removed May 13, 1995. Staff does not doubt that date, however they have no
means to document it either. Staffs best determination is that the fence in
question was a legally established non-conforming structure that was in place prior
to the City of La Porte/City of Lomax incorporation.
Subsequently, the applicants applied for a building permit and were denied based
on the noted facts.
Staff felt the applicants acted in error simply by not being aware of Ordinance
requirements. Staff made a recommendation to the Board to grant the appeal
subject to conditions.
A. PROPONENTS
Acting Chairman Sidney Grant swore in David Shamlin. Mr.
Shamlin stated he wasn't aware he was required to obtain a building
permit for a fence. He simply wanted to make an improvement to
his property by constructing a new fence. He showed the Board
photographs of the old fence. He asked the Board to rule in favor
of the appeal.
B. OPPONENTS
There were none.
A motion was made by Jim Zoller to approve A95-003 with the following
conditions:
Page S of 6
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of July 6, 1995
•
The new fence must comply with all other fencing provisions of Zoning
Ordinance and Building Code (as presented in the application, the new
fence does comply).
The site plan submitted by the applicants indicates there is a backyard
swimming pool. All gates leading into the pool enclosure must be self
closing and self latching. All fencing must comply with the provisions of
the Standard Swimming Pool Code.
Construction of the new fence was begun without a permit. As provided
for by the Standard Building Code, the permit fee for this fence will be
doubled. "
In addition, staff requested it be stipulated that a building permit for .construction
of the new fence be obtained within 10 days of the Board's decision.
The motion was seconded by Bob Capen. All were in favor and the motion
passed.
VII. STAFF REPORTS
There were none.
Ivir. Capen commended Mr. Lewis on the great job he has done for the City. He
added it is a pleasure to hear citizen's remarks regarding the City working with
people. IVir. Grant offered 1VIr. Capen's remarks as a statement of the Board.
The Boaid was in full agreement.
VIII. ADJOURN
Acting Chairman Sidney Grant declared the meeting duly adjourned.
• •
Page 6 of 6
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Minutes of July 6, 1995
Respectfully Submitted,
Peggy
Planning Secretary
Minutes approved on the 27th day of July , 1995.
Sidne ant, sting Chairman
Board f Adjustment
~ •
VARIANCE REQUEST #V95-003
• C IT'S OF
ZOrtrnlG BOARD
~13RT_o~1CE
L~n pnRTE - ~~ -
OF ADJUSTMENT - ~~~~
REQUEST
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apolication No. S -
OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: X100.00 Date Received:
Receipt No..
NOTE: This Fee is Non-Refundable Regardless of the Board's Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant:
I am the
~it/ ~ /a ~~ ~ ~ ~iV~IIIL /Vf~fQ /~
Name
Address
owner of the herein described property. I
to act on my behalf in
Owner*: ~~ E
Name
Address
(~~'~i~D - ~~a~
P H : f~ ~74 - 9G}/~
have authorized
this matter.
PH:
I am requesting a variance to Sect. ~-~~- ? of the City Zoning
Ordinance No. ~01. I am requesting this variance for property located
a t A2,~2a2S n/~ 2da ~L .oe.c~ Q~~a ~_.cn~ 1~ ~
Street Address Legal Description
(~U Site Plan ( ) Minor Development Site Plan
( ) Major Development Site~Plan ( ) General Plan
A Site Plan of the property is attached. Also, I have listed-the
information requested below on the following pages of this form.
a) All facts concerning the matter that has led up to this request.
b) The type of relief I am seeking (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
c) The grounds upon which I am making this request.
~ If applicant is~NOT the owner, he must provide Authorization to act
on the Owner's~f. ~~~~`~1~,.~~
ate Applicant's Signature
OFFICE USE ONLY
Site Plan and Authorization (if applicable) attached? Yes (~) No ( )
Date transmitted to the Board of~Adjustments: ~ ~
Meeting Date: z-7 S Applicant Alotified of Date: ~'.R-
Notice to surrounding property owners - Date:
~T~±..9C:','.',y^ <y~ ~~ ea...at •,¢e••~e ~g~?~. Via-, .'
"~:;.~.
Board's Decision: Approved ( ) ~ Denied ( )
Notice of Board Decision mailed to Applicant/Owner:
•
•
PAGE 2
A variance is a "deviation from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance ". The City's Loard of Adjustments may NOT grant a
variance that does not meet all of the following conditions:
1) The variance must not be contrary to the public interest.
2) Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance must result in
a hardship. This hardship must be unique to the property
in question. Property that is undevelopable due to its
unusual shape, narrowness, shallowness, or topography con-
e stitutes the primary example•of hardship. Hardships that
are financial in nature or due to the owner's actions cannot
be granted.
3) Granting the variance must not violate the spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance.
4) No variance that allows a use that is prohibited within the
Use zone in question may be granted. For example, a variance
allowing a commercial use in a residential zone is not allow-
able.
Please remember it is the Applicant's responsibility to prove that
a variance will meet the above conditions.
If there is not adequate room on the remainder of this form to
list all pertinent information, please feel free to attach an
additional letter or any information and exhibits you feel the Board
should consider.
FACTS'RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER:
!, l he. hew Bc~si--ie~5 ~r.P,u~sti-i~.~,l ~h-~,a ir~~u,~y~s ~(~~f- -~vcm IRI-
" Ines fo ~ti~ bta~lc_9ih~~. -- ...
2 o O iw- (off' ~.vUs v-~ l~,#t~~ o r i~^ to ~u.r ow~~~~e i n Mav~~ ~ l 945
rs~yt czrcer~t~d bw +h~ ~i-lu ~' l Z~~1~ x 5C)C)~ L
3 ~h oirdey `~O ~-aw~ !~J~J ~ w-d~ bcwtd ~ -~n U.t-~d ~~ OrnOc~.U'
~~~ ~ -r--
S~G~.t°_ G~l~ '~d1' EbC.(iC 4ViG ahl~ ~u1X. `~'(l•YY! GtR.^UVX~ (a.'~ • ~ L
Io~~i~n•, teywi~d ~ ( 5' fibm -N~ saw l~~- i~ii~~
4. nun neca.ytS~ ~T._ vi ei~,li,boy~ b tiildiy ~c ~ YYtot~ `Irlnr.~r~1
• ~~ TYayh OUdr ~C~' ~ t'he~ ~, 11 i
• _ 1.~ ~L'F ' n~• w we r i.. ~r . ~ ~ A i.A.. .~ ~.~ .jjn~ ~~ t f_`~•:/ti7 t lid /11 d.w __~_ i C uiu-...~
• •
PAGE
TYPE OF RED IEF B.ET_IdG SOUGHT : .
I ~ Otc~ u5 ~'O ~O uc~ C iM' VI _W ~ W.~GI ~'lcl ~ rJ 1 ~i~yn Gw^ SOt~
I~ I theme
THE GROIJ!~1DS FOR THE REQUEST
t. 0~1nPw y~.rirew lrsl~ Ma,~~ ~~i~ ~ric~~~ 5c~ti~i~c.(c~r rEE~e~f=d
~. Dw- h~J~ q i,vi I l act. as u. ~~~'(~r ~fcr we~~hi~s P bi~c~a
cwt o4it~i.~o buhiy~ess„ .
.~T ~~ ~'t- -1-V'Otirl G~.ai,' ~C''~" ~ 1Y1 ~ .. i..l~~ _ lcc'~'1J~' ~.Q~~ cE. LtJt.ptG _ P i'LC'G~v1
fide o~k~a oM,~ -~-urw~~sn~ ~~ ..
C~'D/1-'~'7
• •
$5-11569-A
• SHANKS LAND SURVEYORS OF TEXAS. INC.
1414 WAVECREST LANE
HOUSTON , TEXAS 77062 ~ "• `~ ~~ ~ ~ •
FEBRUARY 2U. 1995
A 1.435 ACRE TRACT C)F LAND BEING Ut]T OF AND A PART OF A
52.4866 ACRE TRACT C)F LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED FROM J.A.
SPARGUA, ET t]X TC) R.H. MILLER DATED MAY 17, 1919, AND
RECURDED IN VOLUME 2575, PAGE 227 OF THE_DEED RECORpS OF
HARRIS CC)UNTY, TEXAS, SAID' 1.435 ACRE TRACT BEING •UUT OF
ENOGH BRINSC)N StIRVEY, ABSTRACT NU. 5, HARRIS GOt]NTY, TEXAS
AND BEING MC)RE PARTICt]LARLY DESCRIBED BY METES ~AND~~BOUNDS AS •
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NC)RTHWEST Gt)RNER C)F SAID 52.4866 ACRE TRACT
BEING C)N THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BENS RC)AD (26TH STREET),
6U' WIDE;
THENCE SC)UTH, ALONG AND WITH THE EAST RIGHT-C)F-WAY LINE OF
BENS ROAD, ALSt) BEING~THE WEST LINE OF SAID 52,4866 ACRE '
TRACT, FC)R A DISTANCE C)F 167.(lU FEET TC) A 1/2" IRON RUD FOUND
FUR THE FLACE C)F BEGINNING, ALSO BEING THE SOt]THWEST CORNER
OF A TRACT C)F LAND C)WNED BY GC)C>FERHEAT AS RECURDED IN FILE#
N986632;
THENCE S 89 DEG. 5fi MIN. 45 SEC. ~E, ALC)NG THE SUt]TH LINE OF _.
SAID TRACT C)WNED BY CC)C)PERHEAT, A DISTANCE ~ OF SOU. UU FEET •TO -• - •
A 1/2" IRON RUD FC)t]ND FUR GC)RNER, ALSO BEING UN THE WEST LINE
OF A 32.7995~ACRE TRACT C)WNED BY DECKER McKIM - TRUSTEE;
THENCE SOUTH, ALC)NG.:.THE..WEST LINE OF SAID~~TRACT~~~OWNED~ BY ~ ~~~ ~~~~
DECKER McKIM - TRUSTEE, A DISTANCE C)F 125.UU FEET TU A 1/2"
I RUN RC)D FC)t]ND FC)R CCIRNER , ALSC) BEING .THE NC)RTHEAST CORNER OF
A TRACT C)F LAND C)WNED BY FC)RREST AS RECORDED IN FILE#
P877366;
THENCE N 89 DEG. 56 MIN. 45 SEC. W, ALt)NG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT t)WNED BY Ft)RREST, ' `A DISTANCE C)F 5UU . U() FEET TO A
1/2" IRC)N Rt)D FOUND FUR GC)RNER UN THE EAST RIGHT-UF-WAY LINE
OF BENS RUAD, ALSO BEING THE NC)RTHWEST CC)RNER OF SAID TRACT
OWNED BY FURREST;
THENCE NORTH, ALC>NG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BENS RUAD,
A DISTANCE OF 125.()U FEET TU THE FUINT C>F BEGINNING AND
CONTAINING 62,5C)U SQUARE FEET C)R 1.435 ACRES OF LAND.
~: ~ :,, •
~~
• •
Requested For: 2225 Sens Road, which is further described as Lot being a 1.435 acre tract out
of the Enoch Brinson Survey Tract and has a zoning designation of Business
Industrial (B.I.). (See Exhibit A)
Property Zoning: B.I., Business Industrial
Requested Bv: Ron and Bonnie Natole, property owners
Purpose of Request: A variance is requested to the 30 foot Business Industrial side setback
requirement established by Zoning Ordinance Section 7-600. The variance
is requested for the purpose of allowing construction of a new
commercial/industrial building with a side setback of 15 feet.
Bac und: The tract in question is located on the east side of Sens Road (26th Street)
in a Business Industrial Zone (B.I.). As is fairly typical of property in this
immediate area, the applicant's property is relatively narrow and deep (see
Exhibit B). The property on the east side of Sens Road is largely composed
of unplatted acreage that has been broken into small parcels that are defined
by meets and bounds descriptions. There are no plats in this area that have
been accepted by the City. The comment in the applicant's request regarding
plats is an apparently unintentional misstatement.
The facility proposed by the applicants is to consist of a 6250 square foot
office/warehouse, a parking lot and fenced yard. This complex will occupy
approximately half the total 1.4 acre tract.
• •
Page 2 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 7/27/95
V95-003
The business proposed for the facility is Natole Turbines, an
engineering/consulting firm that will also stock and sell turbine parts. The
business is best described by S.I.C. number 8711. This S.I.C. listing is a
"Permitted" Business Industrial Use. As proposed the facility will, with the
exception of side setback along the south side of the property, satisfy all
applicable City ordinance requirements including:
. Setbacks (front, rear, and side)
. Lot coverage
. Landscape
Driveway
Parking
. Drainage .__
. Fire separation from neighboring properties.
The only question at issue is that of side setback on one side of the property.
Zoning Ordinance, Section 7-600 establishes a side building setback of 30 feet.
Rather than center their building on the tract, the applicants are proposing
to shift it to one side for the purpose of creating a more efficient parking and
maneuvering layout. The applicants, citing the relative narrowness of the
tract, are requesting the variance for the purpose of facilitating this design.
Analysis: ~ ~ This request is a variance. Ordinance Section i1-606.2 defines a variance as:
A deviation from the literal provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance which is granted... when strict conformity to
the Zoning Ordinance would cause an unnecessary
hardship because of the circumstances unique to the
property on which the variance is granted.
The Ordinance continues with the charge to the Board to only grant variances
in cases where it finds that all of the following criteria have been satisfied.
That the literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in
unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or
exception physical situation unique to the specific piece of
property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean
physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished
from a hardship relating to convenience, financial
considerations, or caprice, and the hardship must not result
from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and
• •
Page 3 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 7/27/95
V95-003
That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be
observed.
That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the
public interest.
Before considering the preceding criteria, it will be helpful to
consider the intent and purpose of the Business Industrial
Zoning designation.
The first question to be considered is whether strict enforcement of the
ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship resulting from unusual
property conditions or configuration._In staffs opinion, the 125 foot property
width is narrow for an industrially zoned parcel. The narrowness becomes
more apparent when the 30 foot B.I. side setbacks are considered. These
setbacks are intended to serve a dual purpose, both of which are related to
the purpose and intent behind the creation of the B.I. district.
B.I. Zones are typically sited in high profile areas. They are intended to serve
as a buffer between higher intensity industrial activities and areas such as
residential districts, or residential neighborhoods. Setbacks are one of the
means (by creating more open, lower density development) by which buffering
is achieved. The second purpose is related to typical B.I. business activities.
_ ~ Most B.I. activities are in some way trucking related. The 30 foot side
setbacks are intended to insure room for adequate truck maneuvering.
As noted, 125 feet of property width is somewhat narrow by industrial
standards. Further, in order to provide adequate storm water drainage for the
site, drainage swales are to be cut down each side property line. If the
building were centered on the property, space available for truck maneuvering
would be extremely limited. While the side setbacks would provide an
adequate access aisle, there would be very little room for backing or
maneuvering.
Offsetting the building in the manner proposed will provide an adequate aisle
down the north side of the property. It should also provide adequate area for
backing and turning at the rear portion of the building.
Strict conformance with ordinance requirements would; due to narrowness of
the property, make it difficult to conduct a Permitted Business Industrial
activity. Secondly, as illustrated on Exhibit B, adjacent tracts on both sides
are developed and under separate ownership.
• •
Page 4 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 7/27/95
V95-003
Acquisition of additional property as a means to widen the tract is not a
realistic possibility. Based on these factors, strict enforcement of ordinance
standards would create an unnecessary hardship based on property
configuration.
The next question is whether granting the variance will preserve the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Regarding this question, staff would note
that the Board has granted setback relief for both Cooperheat and Forrest
Services, the businesses on either side of the applicants' tract. The setbacks
between these properties and the tract presently in question, are as follows.
Cooperheat (2221 Sens Road) 80 feet.
Forrest Services (2231 Sens Road) 57 feet.
These setbacks, coupled with those proposed for the applicants' tract will yield
building separations and densities that are very much in keeping with the
spirit and' intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
The final question to consider is that of best public interest. Regarding this,
staff would simply note that the business activity proposed for the facility is
a Permitted Business Industrial use and that the variance as requested will
still allow the site to be developed in a manner that will satisfy ordinance
performance standards. The resulting complex should then serve as an
effective component of a buffer between heavier industrial activity to the east
(including the Southern Pacific rail yard) and the existing commercial and
residential development located west of Sens Road. This will serve to protect
the best public interest.
Conclusion: ~ In conclusion, staff finds the following:
Strict enforcement of ordinance requirements would create a
hardship for this property.
The hardship is created by the narrowness of the property.
If developed in accordance with the terms of the variance, the
facility will satisfy Zoning Ordinance performance standards.
The variance will therefore preserve the spirit of the Zoning
Ordinance.
• •
Page 5 of 5
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Staff Report of 7/27/95
V95-003
If developed as proposed, the facility will comply with all
applicable City Ordinance requirements.
Based on the factors noted above, granting the variance will not
be contrary to the best public interest.
Based on these factors and considerations, staff recommends granting
Variance Request V95-003 subject to the following conditions:
Building line setback adjacent to the southern boundary of the
subject tract shall be reduced to 15 feet.
The terms of this variance and the date on which it has been
approved shall be noted on the Minor Development Site Plan
that is to be submitted for this project.
Except as specifically noted above, this variance does not waive,
alter or supersede any ordinance requirements of the City of La
Porte.
Anneals: Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the
Board of Adjustment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, boazd, or
bureau of the City of La Porte may present to a court of record a petition for
_ a writ of certiorari, as provided by Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Local
Government Code, Section 211.011, duly verified, setting forth that such
decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality.
Such petition shall be presented to the court within ten (10) days after the
filing of the decision in the office of the Board of Adjustment.
.•~•~' . .
.. t'
.,5
~
'
/ •. ..
•~ ~ ,
. ~ ..
V •.
--- --- ---
,e•,.w.rr~
.w,,~ r-
• ~ 1116 8SN8 ROAD (1lTN 8TR6BT)
~
. \-
i
~
~ yy
i
1
~- ~ NOPTM `~ 1=/R,00 6~ A/C ~~w
.
.. .. . i.la...l.
e1RN
4 1~ Llwa
~.~ - ~- -~.~.~.t~ ~ . r
ib
~~ P - .-.~ ~ ~
.
..
~ OYwaM~
nwaw L.ws N~ •
I •` , • 1~
~
~ ~
`j ~' ~~fl` y ~~,
...
y
II
~
t
~ ~~ a
y
~. ~ ~~ `~
l t~'
, '~
. ~~ 1...._..
~ ~•..~.1
,b•
•
e..ru ~
~' ~.
;~ I t s
• R
4 g .r
t
,><• ~
~
\ ~ ~ -
J
IIFjFj
K
.
V " ~-.
e
J
.
. . .r ~y .
. - /~
( a
~
~
. g
8
I y
i
' f
p
z
o~~.~ ; J
. ~ ~~ f to
T
~~ al F~
.' ~
z c ~ ~ ~.1. ~ : y .
. ~. ~ . . ~.a ~ g .,II~,,11_,_._,r.... g . g .
• r ~ r '
A• •' ~
O 3
~ 2
D
V ~ ~ N h
~ BB
•
Z ~~ pp{{
77;;~
i , )0
~i .
y
11 '
i m .
11 11 p ..
V • , .
~~
'~ . ,
~° r
O 1
~~~yQ o
r
n
II ~ .
Osi ~ •i Oil .
wmm - ~- -- ~~
-
.~
O'O m y
yy
f1sON.
O + ~
~a
Q
r i
f
~~
0
* pyNY
~~YY
r ~
~ ~^N~
~=y0
4
e
rfOZ ~
w
0.t A g
w
~ S
~aa R . .
~ ~~ ~.
w
w w
mp
~
Nfl
y ~
A•n=~ .
,17
,r1
Cyy!0 y
' • M101
Nr 1'
y~ MOS r
N -
~l'-ii OM
R~.nl 7i'~C
lAC nl
•
I
sc
~• VVV (
yy(yy~~
aa'
.. SIR
~s w
WC~
M~~ ~•
y = y
MN ~
~ 5° nl
7~
'~'-1 9~~
ra p~
rla +J
iti~
111
' _ ~
a~}}^~'
3d ~ .
666
erI PVI
s ~ =
3 ~ a.. ~
0!•A
i K ••7
N
O
O
~ '
Y• '
.. ~
,ri a ~ '
• A
. ~ Y
~€ ;i~
;~ 1:
n
a
W
to
n
a
m
r -a
~ O
a
n
~1
0
~
r C.I J
'' c
o
m~
m
m
T
m
z
D D
A ~
-_ ~~
1 t^ m
~ n ^1
o z
Zn
~ ~
~
N
y 2
~ ~
~
'' /
J
~
~~_
TT
z
mN
x ``
Y
o
D Z
u
. ]
,
t/1
C
m N
n
m ~~
-i
D
n
~
_
'~.`
` ,~ ~
~
r '
p5
~ a ~~.
A F
~
J
! ~ y
~ .
T
SOUTM ~ 17Q.00
~ •. H= .
6
DfCK6R NLKIM-• 7RY~Tf6 ..
' lt.YLtf ilt.
+
-tat -1 ..
-'
' ~ ?
z - - <.= - -
- ^-
W
K
~°
_
s
t
PI
. -
~ N ~ O
n 2 1'•
n
•~ ~
~-
~
N O
haw
A
O ~I=
X ~1'
° N '•< oy
O •~ - O +
m
O r~i
o
G' M
~ (p
x
> Q9
m
, n
9 nr z •~= as
+ W
O ' +
p Z
w
v
>
O
O
tti 1 nt m rln
r r In a O
a 2 >
<
r O
v
m i
. „ ~ e < y-
r. y r -m
pJ
>
o
O
O
>
~~
1
• N N I A
~ Ni •r`r N
fe I4
.1
C YI p 1'•
a
O
~ 6~i
N O/1 '111
i-r Zf
r '~
< r.l
PI V 7,
Z t .
r
• ~ a P1~
O V
V •{
O "~/ •.
~
L•J
• ~s o•-
n
~~
~ ~~
-I V M
• E {~ H W
r d.
• ~ ~
• A N
s
• W
O
' ... A H((
JJ~ '
f~ . U ^F' Y {'. IL~ . i' ~..
~:~~'.
•
L
1
,~
1
1
I
T~
V 1
d
~~
c-t-
V1
y
~ soo.o'
r~
c-~
~.-. o
• o
~ ~
~,
V - _ 7
~G
O M~
~
O ~~
•
~-3
0
\
~,
N ~-
PROPOSm ~ C J
BUILDING C,J~
~ v
Z~ to ~
~
N
V F
"'~`
Q ~j
`^1
T~
Vt
~ ~y
o bd
~ ~~
_
~
a
~
c.~
w cr
~'
c~
500.0'
y
'--~ ~
.~~
Mai
O
`~J ~
~
F~~ ••
~~
T
O
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ O
~ ~
~ v
T
V1
I
C~1
r
r
O
O
~c~-Il~~' ~3