Loading...
BOAMin03-22-00CSTY OF LONGWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Minuses for Marcn 23,2000 ATTENDANCE.: BOARD: STAFF: Jim Daly, Chairperson F. Jay Sargemt - Planning Division Maruger David Richards, Vice Chairperson Beverly Majors -Planning Secretary Edward Fagan John Groe:inndaal, Planning Aide J. Russell Hammond "Butch" Bundy, Deputy Mayor Cdward Strain ABSENT: L CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Daly called the meeting to order a~ 6:06 P.M. I[. A. Introduction of new members avda brie[background Each oftbe new members, David Richardq Edward Fagan and Edward Strain, introduced themselves and gave a briefsynopsis oftbeh background. Mr. Hammond and Mr. Daly also iruroduced themselves to the new members and gave a brief background of themselves also. R. Work session with Ri<harJ Taylor, City Attorney hh. Taylor had given each ofthe members a brochure on the Surtshir:e Law and spoke abom the ales ofthat Law. C. Generel [aformatiov ehom[ [he BOA Mr. Sargent handed each ofthe BOA members copies oCSection 2453 and Section 24-103 fiom the Land Developnwvt Code Rook and 6rieHy explained the general purpoa ofthe dories and responsibilities oPthe Board ofAdjustment. 11. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Daly opened the uorzwietimos for Clie'vpermn and Vice Cbairycrson and asked for Mr. Hammond nomirutM Mc. Daly for Cha'vperson. Mr. Strain seconded the nomination. With no fiuther nominations for Chairperson Mr. Daly asked for nomhations for Vice Chaiperson. Mr. Daly nominated Mr. I Iarnmond for Vicc Chairperson. Mr. Hammond refumd she position. Mr. Daly asked fnr othu nominations. Mr. Fagan nominated Mr. Richards. Mr. [Iammond seconded the nomination. With no futther nominations for Vioe Chelrpermn, Mr. Daly closed the vommatioris and asked for a vote. The vote for Mr. Daly as Chairperson une' unanimous (5-U). lY,e vote jot Mr. ftlchardr as VIrP Chairperson uns unanimous (5-0). IV. APPROVAL OF TBB MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 29, 1999: Mr Hammond made a motion ro approve the Mlnwes ofNOVember 29. 1999. as presented Mr. Strain seconded the monon The motion war urcantmmrsly approved (5-0j. V. PUBLIC BEARING: Mr. Daly openetl the public heazing. At the advice ofRichard Taylor, Mr. Daly excused hhnselffrom the discussion o(VAR-0]-99 and passed the gavel to Mr. Richards. A. (Tnbled fmm November 20, 1999, Oatabor 2], (999, and Decombor I5, I999.) VAR-0]-99 Applicant: Stephen R Miller Locntien: 381 E. Jessup Avenue Request: Rear eaMack Mr. Riehmds asked Mr. Sargent to present the staff report and proof ofpublication. Proof ofPUblication was pcavided. MOTI ON/RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Development Rem w board's c and re mmevdetio and the Pind'mgs oCFact, the Plarmivg Division ofthe Community Svrviaes Dapartmvnt recommends that the Hoard oCAdjustment Bevy the Bequest. ~X349NAI'lON/BACKGAOIMD: See attached Development Review Board Reporc. INFORNA'[ION: LD~~eption za-yo~94A The BOA may prescrbe approprate conditions [or any variance artd mat' pmscrile a time limh not to exceed ninety (90) days for which the variance shall begin. completes or both. LDC Section 24-103 OS -Bxo wCOn Unless specifically stated otherwise, all vaziartces shall expire Winery (90) days after fatal e0A actiots uNess a building perrzut or cercifloate oPoccupancy has been issued. L~ectiov 24-103_06-Ap ep~t Appeals of BOA dceisions shall be made to the C'vcuit Court in tlu meaner and form required by the Court. RE: VAR 07-99, Stephen A Miller, 381 [. Jessup Avenue, request frr n wriance to Table 24-s of the City Code to reduce rev yard setback finm ffteen (I S) Fzu to one end one half (1'h) feet fiom the north property line fr a atWChed gvege (14' x 24'). Tax Parcel ID N 31-20-30-SAU-00004860. OACKGROI1Nll' The applicant, Mr. Stephen R. Miller, is seeking a setback vvienac to coretrutt an addition (garage) to live home at 381 E. Jessup Avenue. Nc. Miller requ'ves this u he o 't loc tc his ached gvege immediately adjac to his Mme. To dorsor,che would hav r up his septic tank and a portion of the drain feld, which would not M permitted by the Seminole County Health Dept. With 1hls variance, Mr. Miller proposes to crate a covered walkway over the drain field to wrurect the home o the 8ara8e. The garage must be stvcturally attached, as Mr. Miller already has a detached storage Milding on his proDenY and the subject stmeaure is too big Cor it to be considered as a detached stooge huilding (on Mr. Mitlee's particular lot) according to City Cade. STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan \ Zmning Camsimenoy Thc subject site Is desigmted Medium Uermity Residential on the 1'vtvre Land Use Meg "fhe site R caned Residential Duplex (R-2). TNe Future band Ilse and mning on this site are wmDatible, end the use of the subjett site is consistent with Cily policies. There arc a limited number ofoptional ways in which the subject atrveture could, theoretically, be placed on the appliennt's property. Attavh the gvege directly to the rear of the house, thereby covering up a portion of the vesting septic tank and drvin field area. The Seminole County Ncaltb Dept, howevu, would not allow this. Attach the gvege to the east side of the house, thereby regeving the existing shed to M relocated to another portion of the lot. In this scenario, the existing travel trailer, wlrivh has been locvted rat the east portion of the lot for a numbr of years would no longer have the capability for ingress/egress. Pimlly, ifihe 8arage was located in this ould still be required fiom the side lot setback requ'vement, and it would be situa~d within 20 feet of the rev of the house locvted to the east. Locate the garage, without attaching to the Amin nructure, in the same proposed rear yard locating thus meeting setback viteda with no variance required as to xtback However, due to the existing shed end mwinrum area allowed far the s've of the proposed detached.vnucture, the could not M pertained per code-nordoes the node allow for variances for number ofsheds or s'vc. I.oc e [he garage in the ar yard az proposed with a orally covered wolkway- The a aohed garage would then hav et the regm'red setback of I S feet unless as granted. To the rear of this tut is a former 5(Ffool rnihoed right-of-way which was taken by the City in 1996 and u sized for utilities avd tha provision of access to residences which abut it. In a field investigation of the site and the surrounding arcs, i[ has been noted That the ea has ahistory of no - Deforming .vt mcluding addi[iuwl sheds and so with more square footage shun the a [Ng Dodo allows. ALso, them a sheds thnl are of properly located on the lots lheyXe and ev aprimary struuuetha[hns rear setback Char is ompliance with [he City code. These nosed swnures are a located wiNin 200 feet ol'Ne regocstcd vnrwnoe and hvvc exuted torn number of years. Since a varianoe is a quasi judicial decision, the applican[!ms the burden of proofto provide evid¢me (feats) that enfomemcnt of the Code provisions in this specific situation should M changed. The City Code provisions are assumed to be a valid represemation of publio policy and verse adopted Cot the benefit oEthe poblic health, safety and welfare. [n eaoh case, the OOA wdI determine the relative irnpprtar¢e oC yeah of the criteria Sound in Chapter 24-I03(c) ofthe Gty Code as shown below: t. That granting of the proposed variance will unplement specificalty Identified policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Staff has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and has found iw policies or obJectives that wgl be Implemented with the issuance oCthk variance. Tha applicant may no[ exceed the 0.55 (2,]SOSq.ti.) maximum impervious sorGce ratio (ISR). The ISR for this site, with the proposed attached garage and covered wantway, will be.43 (2,1 SOSq.R). The proposed variance is wnsistent with the popoies end objetives of the Comprehensive Plnn. 2. That granting the proposed variance will nos result in eating or uinga use ofeither e, the lend, oracombination of land and s[rueture, which is not compatible wish adjacent land uses in the The propomel variance will permit the applicant to atom an easeAwd garage that is oompatible with other shudures in the neighborhood. Several of the neighbors have erected sheds N their rearyards. Inspcetion of the arcs revwled several sheds very close to rear progeny lines, including one partially aRthe property and partially on [he E'lorida Ave. right-of-way Rrsearch of property appraiser date indicates thvt sll of these sheds are older then ten years and pemut sivtus could not br deternuned. Ilecause this proposed attached garage will auually be part of tha pt;tnary structure. h n appropriate to examine whether any ofthe other residences arc closer to propenY lines than provided by code. In the immediate area, one residence appears to have a covered screen porch that encroaches into the rear yard setback area. Thc encroachment appea s w be Icss than ten (10) f f Thc Board should also consider that there R a good chance that many of the sheds tFut make this shed garage compatible tttay love been erected whnom a paean. 3. That granting the varwnoe u~ the minimum action vvailablc to permit rcaso~uble usv oftha property. 1 he applicant wants and nmd additional garage and storage area. His particular parcel har a legally ¢Ilowvble Impervious Snrfnce Ratio of .55. Therefore, the maximum anrowt of lot wvetage for this bt is (5,000 >y.1t. x .55) 2,'!50 sq.fl. The applicant's proposed sWC[urc would cause the site to be wveced with 2,160 sq.ft., which u eppcoximately S90 sq.fl.Iess thm allowed. The applicant asserts that he could add onto his hotce with a garage along the rcer ofthv house, but the septic tank and drain field canno[ be ered. The apptican mluti o request this van order to reduce the r setback to and one half (I Y::) feet and to stmetumlly connect the Garage to the house with a coverrA walkway. Mother possible solution coWd be placing the structure within twenty (20) feet of the existing residence m the east and moving the existing shed to the rear along the rear property line.'fhis would still requ've a ce (side yard), and the existing shed would be placed on the rear property line. Further, the properly would be winuauy unusable for the applicant's Travel Trailer. The lessor impacting and i.rore tlesireble solution to this situation, tlue to proximity of the adjacem residence, would be os the applicant has requested. d. "Iltat the physienl chameteristies ofthe subject site arc unique to the specific site end not present on adjnecm sites. l'he physical characteristics of thisi unique. Thcepplicant's request is based on the locatiov of the septic tank and drain field Thls udgaa o me s cent that nearby vronenr otrners.nay nave them septio rysteme i the front yard ve s the r ar yard. Had the optic taM been located in the 6ont ywd, the situation may rat exist. The applicant s as9ertion is a rational oaa, but n is not totetty unique to this 5. That the c ring the need for a vazinnce are not the result of ectiore by the applicant, o auu rw proposed by the applicant. The applicmt needs additional apace for he and his Cmtitly to enjoy their home and pusonal activities. It could be argued that perneps they have outgro vn the home. -emd on the lot coverage diuusstoa earlier, howevee this does rat hold true. The applicant could move the septic rys[em and add a room or garage n order to iocreave the square footage This u a tinandal burden 6r the applicant, and therefore the request fnr an ached garage results. The City Code requires that economic hardsltipanot be aut£cientjustification to grant a varuv<e (Sec. 24-103.01) Tne appnwnt is creating the hardship by not choosing the more expensive optione m achieve the same ntearts and within code wmphance. 6. That the granting ehe proposed variance will not result in creating, or ping n coof~rming nee ofine nse of eaner a atmaare, me Ana or a namb~maeon ofine swmme and lead. Tne sronr s of me ~arianee will not reran m creating, or eommwng, a conforming use on the properly. It will make the structure a legal nonconfnmung stntture. RFCOMMF]JDATION~ The Planning Division, based on the Developmem Review -oard (by a vote of 4-2), tends to the Board of Adjustment that the request be denied, due to the Findings of Fact below. This decision should also be predicamd on input 6om affected property owners. fTNDINGS OF FACT I. The proposed va nsistem with the policies and objectives oC meC mprthensive plan. eo 2. The proposed var will insult in ring, or continuing, a use mat is ompatible with land uses m the immediate area. 3. The proposed vaz with coosidem notaltematives. is oot the emmmum action available to permit reasonable use ofine property. liow a u more desirable and aRects adjacen~ properties in a lesser fashion 4. The physical oharaoteristics aze not totally unique to the specific subject site. 5. The proposed var ce request doe esolt hom actwns end dec~s~cns by the applicant. ion 6. The grmting of the var will m salt in a ting or eont~nuiog, a iwn-conforming use on Ihn property` re Afiu Mr. Sargem gave the staff report he identified the other riels providrd in the Roard Paokat, DW3 minutea, Vinwty Map wd Plot Plan, wtu'ch had ken fleltl verified by the Pluming Stalf, antl plw~os ofihe site. Mr. Richards asked dre applicant s representative, Mr. Mike Idannwuy Io speak. Mr. Hattaway introduced himselfand uttered to the [3oard the m{uest for the Variance. He presentW photos of tie property with the structure and various handouts for Iheir renew and wreideranon. NTen Mr. Hattaway completed his presentation request for Mr. Miller, Mr. Richards askN ifthcre woe any comments Wm the public who wuhed m speak in opposition of the van regnest. Those speaking in opposition were Ms.ludy Potz and Ms.loaMe Rebello~'Request to Speak Daring Public Meetir~' f arts were wmpleted and giva~ to the Secretary. wth no further public wishing to speak in opposition, Mr. Hattaway then rebutted the opposition. Mr. Richards asked inhere was anyone eLsc wishing ta speak N opposition or N fvor of tie request. They was no oneelse wishing to speak and Mc Richards asked for a nwtion to close the public heazing. Mr. Richards made a merlon ro close she Public Roaring on VAR-0~-99. M1L. Sna]n >reonded the motion. Zhe motion sins wianimously approved (f-0). There was a discussion by the [ioard with question dialed to Mr. Sargeu~. Mr Taylor vitl Mr. }hiltaway. N+h~m there wvs no more discussion hG. Riciwrds entertained a M. Hammed made a motion ro rerommerd approvd on VqA-07-99 bared an TirdinAs I Facr and Cundfrfom~ as yresenred Ay Srag Mr. $(mM seconded she madon The rnonon was unanm~ansly npprov¢d /4-O)- With Orecompletion ofthe Public [searing on VAR-0]-99 Mr. Richards returned the gavel w Mr. Daly- Mr. Daly asked for a break and entertained a motion Mr. Ffanrmond made a rnorian jm a short break Mr. Strain seconded the mason Th¢ rrtotion was unanimously apPr'oved (5-0). Mr Daly celled the mceting back to order at approximately ]:47 P-M-and entenamed a mutton to open Public lieanng an VAA-09-99. Fh. Richards mode a mutton ra o-¢n the Public Hearing on VAR-OA99. hh- liammoM seconded rfie morVon_ The motion urns unonimovvty approved (5-U). R. VAR-09-99 Applicane Robcrl Gina Location: 348 Lnke Avenue Request: Rear setback Mr. Daly asked Mr. Sargent to provide Proofof Publication and present the SmffRepon. Nn. Sargent provided Proo[ofPUblicatiou and the Staff Repon as follows. rmmm~ ni.iai n o- ionsrcp a~r~ a~ a n c a l VAR 09-99, Robert Girt' 348 Lake Avenue, request for a variance to Table24-5 of the Gty Code to reduce rear yard ttrback from twenty five (25) tEeA to rnelve (12) feet from the aouth property line. Tax Parcel fU # OS-21-30-504-0400-0060. BACKGAOU`1 The applicant Mr. Robert Gva, is seeking a setback variance to wnsnuct an addition to hu hon et 348 Lake Avenue. Mr. Gina requvee tnia as he desires to have e erect aarpnrt area s r nia boar ana eommerniat ~ehtem. Tne mta~ area ¢fws carporc is 964 sq.ft. 1'he code allows u lot thesize ofMr. Giw's a swgle eecessory structure of526 sq.ft. Nr. Gina currenrty has a single carport 432 sq.ft. He proposes to add an additional 532 sq.ft of caryort to be attached to the residence. Mr. Gina made application end Caned consiruttion Drior to the permit being issued. The Planting Division din deny the pecu s the n . end the e tmg oaryon did not meet the requved setbackv The Code Bnfo cement Office issued~a stop work order; however the work had been omplered. When advised how to possibly werect the problem, applying for a rariance was o~possible solution ifa compelling hardship is Poona. STA[T ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plnn \ Zoning Consistency Thesvbiecr site is designated Low Density liesidemlat nn the pyiere Land U~ Mao. The i _ __dential Single family. (R-IA). The Puture Land Use and zoning on this <<ompatl~le,antltheuseoftnesabieor site is eonsiseenr cairn City poliv7es. Since n variance is n yuasijudiaal decision the appliwnl has the burden of proof to pmvide evidence (facts) that enforcement of the Cnde provisions in !h'lsspecific situation should be changed. The City Cade pre.dsions are assumed to be u valid representation of public policy and were adopted for the benefit of the public heatlth, sefuy and welfare, In each aunt the I30A will Jetermirc the relative impattance of ench oCthe criteria found in Chapter 24-103(e) ofthu Ciry Code av shown below: I. That granting of the proposed wna~e will implement specifically identifiW polici ~ .nd objvstives of the Gtmpreheiuive Plan Steffhns rr ie,~:' tFe Comprehensive Plou'and Itua found no politic. ur ot. ':v rated with the issuance of mis variance The p.~ v the 0.40 (10.533.ftJ maximum -mpervtous sur5tznran~ ~ ~ the ISR for this sire, with the propottd attached carlrort and ~~ ~....d walkway, will be 22 (5860 sq.ft). The propoved var'wtxe is consistent with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That granting the proposed v will not result Ling o uingaltse of either asrructtue, the land, oracombmati noCland and sYmctare, which is not compatible with adjacent lard uses in the area. The regeesmd variance will pemmit the applicant to erect an attachdd tarpon end coveted walkway that ompatble with other !n the neighWrhood Several ofthe neighMrs have erected shedmvtdres carports in their rear and side yards. In a window survey similar structwe exist m the area. The npplica t stales that his tarpon is wmpatble with the surrounding snry stn and setbacks. The staH'rrw s the stNmurc mnybe compatible with the neighborhood. ThvtIIOA should take testimony 6om the surrounding neighbonc ifnveileble, as m whether it is compatible. 3. That grunting the vuriancr i. the minimum action available to permit rsasonable use ofwe property. The applicant doe, own a large lot. Ho could move the tarpon along we house but atso forward to meet the required setback. The prinoiplc proM1lem being that in that arev urc.mme large trees. f[a solution existul mat prntcua ota tree, ana manta con semaoks. wen me ~nmimum amino ~. me amre~t~e~tal d,e appreant supply a survey whh die tree locations. That survey has been included Por the ROA rvview_ d. That rho pl~ysieal characteristics of the subjecx site xrc unique to the specific sac and not preseai on adjacent sites The physical chacaaerislics of this side me cot unique There ere tree chat impede she applicant from Ioce~ing t¢'s cazpon N s~w~h a manner that meets wde. Again, the vice survey supports this claim 5. That the cireumsianees crooting the need for a variance are nut the result o[actions by the applicant, or actions proposed by the apptican~. The applicant is creating the hartsfiip by requesring she siu of wnstruuion of the carport. The existing locanon of rho trees is not rFe result ofepplicwt.If the re healthy and do prevent a placement that meets wtle, then n vaztance should be considered. 6. 'Phut the granting the proposed v will n mlt i eating, o a uinganon-conforming use of dte useofcitherrastmamre, [he luMr ombinutiou of the structure vnd Imd. The granting of the variance will rat result in creating, or continuing. a conforming use on the property. It will make the sructure a legal non- conPorming structure. l2LCOMMLNDATION The Planomg Divisioq based on the Development Review HoeM act'an (by a vote o45-I), mends to the Hoard of Adjustment that rho request be approval, if an arMrist doe mentedthetreesmqucs~ion were worth saving. This dec as predicated on the taut that the applicen to keep the t and an arborist identified the the trees are healthy. if the trees aresremoved or dettroyed within 3 years, the applicantlownersholl he required to replaire 2" f r I"caliper of vice, location of treev end type to be approved by the Planning Division. This decivion should also be predicated on input fiom aBected propany owners. rINUMGS Op FACT- t. The proposed vmivtce is consistent wrth the policies wW objectives ofthe Compreheivsivo Plen. 2. The proposed vadance will result in creetiug-or continuing, a use that is ewhat ompatible with land uses in the inuvediate area 3. The propnsed ve with cotisiduation oC ahematives, Tx not thv vuilahle to permit reasonable use ofthe property. 4. The physi~nl oNuacxeriaics are notmmlly unique to the specific subject sac. 5. The proposed variance request does result from aetiovs and decisions by the apphcant_ G. The ¢ronling of We vanvnce will not result in crentivS. or wntinuing v non wnfonning use on ehc propert~~- After Mr. SnrgGtt gave thv srufl report he identified the orlrer materiels provided in the Board Paeket_ DRB minuses, Vicinity Map and Plot Plnn, which had Irnt field verified by the Planning SmR; and photos of the.vite. Mr. Saryem alm advised the Board that he has requrs~ed a letter from an lvhorixt regaeding the trees Iha~ Mr. Ginv was trying io wvc He lad received n hater fiom AAA Tree Service, that stayed the condition of the Trees, bm he veedetl clarification az ~o .vho the Arboris~ wxs. 'fherewas a discussion wish yuw4ions directed to Mr. Svrpent. Mr Daly Shen asked if there was vnyone who wished ~o speak in favor of the vvriance- Speaking in favor of the Varinvice wvs Judy Putz vnd Mr. Doyle Brown„ an adjacent properly owner also .spoke in favoe of the ceyucst. Mr. Johv Coryat, v neighbor alvo spoke and gave each ofthe Hoazd Members v copy of n wnditional Iwer ofaquest. A copy of this reyvest call become e pen ofthess nunutes vnd the file All had completed she `Requea to Speak^ form. Mr. lames Lax spoke on behnlfof Mr. Gina. Mr. Ginv was also present and also spoke on his behalf. There wvs na (unhu public commend in opposition or favor ofthe verinvice request. Mr. Daly made rs motion In close the pnhlic hearing nn VqR-04-99. Mr. Hammond .seconded the motion. The motion wos nnanimo~uly aPNnved (5-0)- The Hoard then opened Board dissuasion. Mr. Daly eked Mr. Sargent for she comnwnts liom DRR, since they were nod hwluded in Ne package. Mc 3atgen~ rend commenLS fiom the DRB Stafi'that was in the file az follows Pre Marshall Omissions/Conditions: Cue Carbonell Pirc Merslrvfs ofice has reviuwW ihu appGCa~ion Ibr variannv and shows it has nn import nihe fire divi i. How us die dire suporv or for the City of Longwood mdc wmpliana seciionrthe epplieen~ needs ~o address several issues regarding his request Cor vnnence. I. As per she CDC cation 2~I G_01 (a) regattas that no variance be processed until all code violviions rclv~ed to the variance reyvest bu resolved. _. LDC aeecen u-tm feHS>w paeapnrosa e,ia.~etmn. ma eeann,~ene~r that sviced in the need for this tuluest rue not the resvirs of or~br the appficnnt. ifine an~a~~es mat has beta annmraea on thcrptoperty, without a bolding permlt. 3. LOCsrection 24-I113(c)(~requiresthnt the approval ofo variance rcquesr will not create a noncnnfomring ase Upnn insfection of the property by code wmplian e, this' araly what early exisxsdue to that ooPns withovxe building pe mit. The approval t M1onppLecnt srequesrcforaverianee will allow the continuation of thissitnatiun unlese thv applicant submits utgineering plans to obtain o buildmg Permit and the strncrurc can be infected and approved by the huilding official. Wth these existing elements that are in conflict with the Land Deelopmem Cade I cannot see how we can approve this application ar this time. Public Safefv Omissione(COnditioos: J. R. Yelvineton On first w this v ce has oo lmpac tre6c or the Polity dapartmutt. Fiox re the appliationbas eral is sthot aced to be addressed. ev 1. LDC se on 2Ae103.0G(c)(5)requir ether that sthet salted mthe need Cor the vv tther melts ofac ns by the npplicant IFthe Oatnga had nor been pincred on the propnny wnhont n pe<mn me aephcanr wwd nape apphea r,r ma varran~. wlo,ont mis aoaewnnia 2 LUC section 24~103.04(c)(6)requiru Net the approval ofv veriwce requut will not create n ono-conforming usa. Since this is what ently aw ov the site doe to dte placement of the garage withoura perttvS any approval of the varance application will allow for the n of this circutnstnnce until a building permit is obtained, appropriate enginxering submhted oral the building ~ infecud antl approved. t3ased on these atnflius betweev the epptleation end the Land Development Code I do not believe that the application for variance oen M1e approved at this time Utilities Suoenision OmissionslCOnditions: KicM1ard KornblaM1 I. The Urifiry Division has m objection to the proposed variance. 2 The [Jtiliry Division reserves the right to comment vs the project progresses. CII !n er ()missions/C ndifio s'CM1ria MUr h There wvrc no tommants from Mr. Morphy, aty Engineer. There being no more discussion regarding VAR-09-99. Mr. Daly entenaincd a motion - *AS ~.: nenA«P/n'uvnl J VAR-09-996ased mr rr,.11:; d' xJ~Anle~lerj~or mAr~bu> and Mr_Coryars eunA~l ~ (vhieh ls'Part /l.~ «as)_ Mr_hf mmosW seconded the m«»nn_ Tlie morlorr nns appmvad (f-1). wilh hh- DolY volir~g `no ". VI OI.D ItVSINE55: There was no Old business. VII NN:W ItU$INF.55: There «as no New UUSiness. VI. DISCLSSION AND S(:fILDULE FON I+VCUItf ITt~:MS: Next xhedukd meeting dale is Apnl2fi. „000. 41r. Sa95ent sail ibure was one variwce VAR- 01-00 ~hv[ be an~icipa~ed being scheduled for this meeting. VIII. PU ItLIC COMMENT: Mr. Coryat asked to xOCal: regarding the granting o(varion«sand the im0act that they may have nn Ne c IX. ADJOURNMCNT: Mr- Hnmmm~d male a motion fur adjainnnenr. Mr. Tagarr seconded We n~orlon. The marlon »,,, ,mnmm nsry nPP=~,~,ee (s-n~.