Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA_Minutes_1984_01_04' I MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL ON JANUARY 4, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Moore Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Moore ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bill Grove, Senior Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Williams, seconded by Comm. Cutler, to approve the December 19, 1983 minutes, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. LEGAL DETERMINATION -674 Longfellow Avenue Applicant: Peter Rosenbaum Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that the request resulted from a Jifference between the actual use and the records in the Building Department as to the legal use. The applicant is requesting a determination that the legal use be two units; however, the Building Department records indicate that the legal use is a single family residence. The City's position is based on the original permit issued in 1951 which indicated that the permit was for a single family residence. Both P.F. Horne and N.W. Milligan indicated that the property was used as a single family residence from 1952 to 1956. P.F. Horne was a past owner of the subject property, and N.W. Milligan was a neighbor of the subject property. A complaint was filed in 1962 which indicated that an inspector observed installation of kitchen facilities and posted a "stop work" order at the site. Residential Building Reports. #859 and 2535 indicated that the use of record was a single family residence. One report was made in 1972, and one was made in 1975. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. Peter Rosenbaum, 6421 Pat Avenue, Canoga Park, applicant, stated that the staff report states that the garage is a single-car garage. He explained that there was a double-car garage, as opposed to the single-car garage. Also, the staff report indicated that there were two bedrooms on the ground floor. He stated that there are three bedrooms on the ground floor. He explained to the Board that he and his family moved into the house in 1975. They purchased the house at that time so he could be closer to his job and to accomodate his mother-in-law, who was living with his family at the time. The County records show that the property is two units. The house has two 3eparate kitchens, one being on the first floor and one on the second floor. There were two fireplaces when he purchased the property, indicating that it was clearly two separate units. There are three entrances, excluding the entrance from the garage. There aEe two entrances to the top floor and one --------- I /I BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 2 LEGAL DETERMINATION -674 Longfellow Avenue (Cont.) entrance to the bottom floor. He stated that his mother-in-law used to live in the lower unit. He explained to the Board that he lost his job in Manhattan Beach last year and found another job in the Valley. He stated that he and his fami'ly moved to Canoga Park and rented the property in question as two units. One of his renters failed to pay his rent; therefore, the applicant started proceedings against that renter. At that point, the renter filed a complaint that Mr. Rosenbaum was renting the unit illegally as two units. He added that all other buildings on his street are two units, with the exception of two. Mrs. Rosenbaum, 6421 Pat Avenue, Canoga Park, stated that she had been informed that the house was originally built as a duplex. She stated that she and her husband were always under the impression that it was a duplex. She noted that both of the units have separate yards. The upper unit has a backyard and a patio, and the downstairs unit has a sideyard. She stated that the house is 3,200 square feet, and it would be difficult to rent that large of a house to one family~ Mr. Rosenbaum noted that there are two complete kitchens in the building, and the City had allowed his family to move in after it had been inspected. He stated that he and his family use only the Tennyson entrance. He does not even own a key to the Longfellow entrance. He added that it was his understanding that the building inspector who inspected the house also felt that the subject property was two units. Chmn. Moore stated that the Board must find that at some time the building met the legal requirements for a two-unit structure and also that it was used continuously from that point up to the present as two units. The record shows that it may have been a potentially-legal two-unit structure in 1956 when the zone changed from R-2 to R-1. He stressed that the Board must find that it was used as two units in 1956 and has continued to be used as a two-unit structure up to the present time. Mr. Rosenbaum stressed that the County still lists his property as R~2. He added that they are paying taxes on two units. He informed the Board that Longfellow is indicated as being an R-1 property on the map submitted by the City; however, he claimed that all of the property on Longfellow was two units. Comm. Wi 11 i ams asked the applicant if he bought the property from Mr. and Mrs. Colburn in 1975. Mr. Rosenbaum replied in the affirmative. Comm. Williams asked the applicant if he ~aw a copy of the Residential Building Report at the time he bought his house, indicating th~t the structure was one unit. Mr. Rosenbaum replied that there were stacks of papers to look at at the time he purchased the house. BOARD OF ZOtJ ING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 3 LEGAL DETERMINATION -674 Longfellow Avenue (Cont.) No one else appeared to speak in favor of the determination. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the determination. (See below.*) Public Hearing closed at 7:52 P.M. Mr. Grove noted that he had not researched the entire block to determine how many of the dwellings were two units. He noted that the area is R-l; however, the area was R-2 at one time. It was an R-2 area up to 1956; so it is possible that a number of the dwellings were built prior to 1956 as two units and are now legal nonconforming units. *Public Hearing reopened at 7:54 P.M. Bob Content, 671 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there are a number of people in the community who are opposed to this request. He stated that the neighbors of the subject property have always viewed this property as being a single-family dwelling. He felt that a conversion of the property to two units would decrease the property values. Sarah Content, 671 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she had a letter from Jean Milligan who lived across the street from the subject property from the time the building was built .in 1952. The letter stated that Mrs. Milligan knew all of the owners of the property in question. The property was built for, and has always been maintained as, a single residence. The downstairs portion of the house was used for a family room and for entertaining by a number of the residents. At no time was it a multiple-use residence. Mrs. Milligan noted that the concerns relate to crowding, congestion, and devaluation of property. Richard Lucy, 2916 Tennyson Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he lived approximately one block from the subject property. He stated that he had a letter from the present resident at 702 Longfellow Avenue opposing the change to a two-unit property on grounds of the crowding, the parking, and the difficulty to pass on such a narrow street. He also had a letter from Kenneth Klug, who lives on Tennyson Place, and he noted opposition to the proposed change of use. He also expressed his own disapproval of the change of use. He noted that the subject property is located on a corner, and the area is predominantly single- family use. He noted that there is a parking problem on Tennyson Place. Martin Kenzoric, 3001 Tennyson Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he lived immediately south to the subject property. He stated that the properties in the immediate vicinity have recently been upgraded, due to the rental properties now becoming occupied by the owners themselves. He felt that Mr. Rosenbaum's property has recently been rented to some very undersirable people, who had a paint shop and a repair shop for motercycles in the garage. He felt that the subject property should be kept as a single-family dwelling. I BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 4 LEGAL DETERMINATION -674 Longfellow Avenue (Cont.) Mrs. Rosenbaum stated that the bottom unit is on Longfellow; therefore, it would not interfere with the crowded situation on Tennyson. She added that Mr. and Mrs. Content live on 30th Street, which does not have the same circumstances as Longfellow Avenue. She noted that Longfellow Avenue clearly has a climate of rental units and duplexes. She explained to the Board that the renter who had a repair shop in the garage was renting the upstairs unit. She felt that if they were required to rent the unit as one unit, they would have to rent it to more single adults than they do as a two-unit dwelling because the rent would be too high for only a few people. She stated that at the present time a couple and their child are renting the upstairs unit, and the downstairs unit is being rented by a young woman and her child. Public Hearing closed at 8:06 P.M. Comm. Corder sympathized with the applicant's position; however, he felt that the Board had no legal grounds to grant their request. Comm. Williams felt that there was not enough evidence presented to show that this was a legal nonconforming duplex. She informed the applicants that she knew of a case where the judge ruled that a unit could be rented as a second unit so long as it did not have a stove. Chmn. Moore questioned whether Comm. Williams was suggesting a method by which the applicants could continue to rent the building as a duplex. Comm. Williams replied in the affirmative. Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Williams, to deny the request for legal determination at 671 Longfellow Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore None None Chmn. Moore announced that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. VARIANCE REQUEST 154-542 -1050 Aviation Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Fournier Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that the property is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The existing square footage is 1,517 square feet. The square footage of addition is 258 square feet. The parking spaces required for the addition and the existing structure would be six spaces based on one space per 300 square -feet·;of gross floor area. The applicant proposed providing those six parking spaces in a tandem configuration. There are two existing buildings with a breezeway between them. ( ( ( BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 5 VARIANCE RE QUEST 154-542 -1050 Aviation (Cont.) The applicant is proposing to connect that into a single structure. A tandem configuration is the only method by which six parking spaces could be obtained on the site. Comm. Cutler asked how many parking spaces exist at the site at the present time. Mr. Grove replied that six parking spaces presently exist. The applicant is required to have only five. Comm. Cutler asked whether the five parking spaces required are already in a tandem form. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative, adding, however, that they are de facto tandem in that they are not legal. Comm. Cutler questioned whether the required parking is met at this time. Mr. Grove replied in the negative. Comm. Berardo asked what the parking requirements were when the building was built. Mr. Grove replied that he did not have that information. He noted that he was not certain when the structure was built. Comm. Berardo questioned whether the double-car garage behind the building belonged to the building in question or the building next door. Mr. Grove replied that it is not indicated on the plans as belonging to the building in question. Comm. Berardo asked whether the open space behind the building is wide enough to accomodate three cars at the present time. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Comm. Cutler asked if the parking spaces were for retail customers or for staff. Mr. Grove replied that a few of the spaces would probably be utilized by staff, and the rest of the spaces would be utilized by their customers. However, he indicated that the applicant could better address that question. Public Hearing opened at 8:14 P.M. Yves Fournier, 1411 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, introduced his wife Dee to the Board. He stated that their business is now on Hermosa Avenue; however, they bought the building on Aviation and now plan to move into it. He felt that the parking situation should improve because there will be only his business in the building as opposed to the four businesses that currently occupy the -two buildings. By adding the square footage between the two BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 6 VARIANCE REQUEST 154-542 -1050 Aviation (Cont.) buildings will not take away any parking whatsoever. Dee Fournier, 1411 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that their business hours will be 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturdays they are open from 9:00 A.M. to l :00 P.M. They are not open on Sunday or the evenings. This will allow for parking by residents in the area and customers of other businesses. Comm. Williams asked the applicant what would prevent him from selling the building and having it revert back to four offices. Mr. Grove replied that a variance is granted, basically, forever. It carries with the land. Any other potential use of the property --as long as it was a legal use for that building and was not a more intense use --would be permitted. Comm. Williams suggested that a condition of approval be that the variance would return to the City if the use were changed .to a use that required more parking. Chmn. Moore noted that the applicants wish to make a change in the building, not in the use. The additional square footage requested by the applicants is triggering the need for a variance. Comm. Williams felt that the Board should protect the City's limited parking in the event of a future change. Mr. Grove stated that the Board could legally condition the variance with a deed restriction stating that the site would be considered as a single-business site. He did not believe the Board could condition the site to preclude some of the permitted uses in that zone. Mr. Fournier stated that they want the walkway so that they can make a showroom in the front. be difficult to have more than one business in their construction changes. in between the two buildings He stressed that it will the building after they make Comm. Cutler asked the applicant ,who will be using the tandem parking. Mr. Fournier replied that his brother works for him .and his wife works for him. He also has a full-time employee and a part-time employee who makes deliveries. Therefore, most of the parking would be used for the customers. He noted that his employees would park in the front and leave the back open for customers. Chmn. Moore asked the applicant if he would agree to putting some type of portable signage in the back of their cars. The sign could read "Customer Parking." Mr. Fournier replied that the above suggestion would be acceptable. He noted that there is a wall in front of the parking spaces that he could paint a sign on. r BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 7 VARIANCE REQUEST 154-542 -1050 Aviation (Cont.) Comm. Berardo asked whether the 258 square feet of addition was merely for enclosing the breezeway between the two buildings. Mr. Fournier replied in the affirmative. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 8:23 P.M. Comm. Cutler stated that he could support the variance if the motioh stated that the variance would be applicable only as long as the structure remains a :single business. Chmn. Moore noted that if they added that condition to the motion, a large, customer-oriented single business may come in. Comm. Williams stated that she was in favor of the condition of approval. She noted that she is usually very cautious about the shortness of parking requirements; however, she felt that this variance was different because of the building configuration.\:'•She felt that the configuration of the building was an exceptional circumstance. Comm. Berardo questioned how many legal parking spaces are existing at the site at the present time. Mr. Grove replied that the Zoning Code does not address tandem parking for commercial uses. Based on that, there are now legally three parking spaces, although there are six existing spaces with three of those being in a trapped tandem configuration. Comm. Cutler questioned whether the variance was for the parking or the construction. Chmn. Moore replied that the variance is for the parking. Motion by Chmn. Moore, seconded by Comm. Corder, to approve Variance Request B.Z.A. 154-542. Comm. Williams asked Chmn. Moore if he would include in his motion a condition that the building remain a single business site. Chmn. Moore replied that he would welcome a condition if he agrees with the wording. Comm. Cutler recommended placing a condition on the variance that the building l ~ remain as a single structure, thus retaining a single business. Chmn. Moore stated that he would not accept the above condition. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -December 4, 1984 Page 8 VARIANCE REQUEST 154-542 -1050 Aviation (Cont.) Mr. Grove stated that the Board could vote on the motion on the floor and then introduce another motion. Comm. Cutler withdrew his amendment to the motion. Chmn. Moore stated that there were exceptional circumstances relative to other commercial properties because of the minor nature of the change -- enclosing the breezeway --and the applicant has been in business in town for a very long "time. AYES: NOtS: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Chmn. Moore Comm. Williams ABSENT: None Chmn. Moore stated that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to th~ty Council within ten days. Comm. Cutler asked Chmn. Moore why he did not accept the proposed amendment to the motion. Chmn. Moore stated that he did not feel it would be effective in any way. Required Findings: 1 . . . . because the actua 1 physi ca 1 change of the building is very minor, that being, enclosing a very small breezeway; the rest of the change would be in the direction of reducing the current and projected future requirement for parking. 2. . .. because the variance is necessary for this to be developed as a reasonable business in a way that other businesses have been developed in the same vicinity and zone using the existing structure. There could be no possible upgrading of the structure without the variance. 3 ..•. because the parking requirement of six spaces is virtually met by the tendem parking; the Board has had discussions of suggested methods whereby that tandem parking might be effective, and there is no extreme ·parking problem noted in the current area at this time. 4. . .. because it does not affect the use of the property. Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Chmn. Moore, to approve the above Findings. AYES: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Chmn. Moore NOES: Comm. Williams ABSENT: None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 9 SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST 84-1 -81 Pier Avenue Applicant: Sears Savings Bank Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval for changing the texts of four existing signs, those being, one monument sign, one roof sign, and two wall signs. The signs presently indicate "Allstate Savings." The Sign Ordinance requires that changes in copy be treated as new signing. The applicant, therefore, is requesting two sign variances, one for sign a~ea and one for the roof sign. The sign area requested is 225.5 $quarie feet, :and the allowable sign area is 110.5 square feet. The present sign ordinance prohibits the use of roof signs and, as previously stated, the Ordinance does treat the changing of copy as new signing. Comm. Cutler asked if the 225.5 square feet of signing includes the roof sign. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Comm. Cutler asked what the total signage would be if the roof sign were denied. Mr. Grove replied that the roof sign is 7' x 14', and it is double-faced. Therefore, the roof sign comprises 197 square feet, which is the majority of the signing. Comm. Corder questioned whether a variance had been granted for the excessive amount of signage existing at this time. Mr. Grove replied that he did not see any variance existing in the file. He assumed it predated the existing requirements. Public Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. John McKinney, 24210 Etna Street, Woodland Hills, representing the QRS Corporation, stated that Sears Savings Bank has requested that all signs that now read "Allstate Savings" be changed to "Sears Savings Bank." He stated that the roof sign and the wall sign on the front of the building exist at this time. They have a wall sign and a monument sign in the parking lot. He added that there are approximately ten parking stalls. He stated that beach parking is at a premium, and there needs to be some indication that the parking lot is for customer use only. The roof sign is needed because the visibility of the building is limited. He noted that two-thirds of the front and side wall of the building is glass; therefore, there is a limitation as to where the signs can be placed. He noted that his figures for the total square footage of the existing signs were slightly different from the City's figures; however, he did not offer his figures to the Board. He stated that the applicant is merely requesting that they be able to retain the visibility that they have today. The bank is not changing; only the name is changing. The bank will be doing the same business as it was before the name was changed. He presented a copy of the sign that will be used to the Board. He added that the QRS Corporation was hired to change all of the signs to "Sears Savings Bank'!,.in Southern California. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page l 0 SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST 84-1 -81 Pier Avenue (Cont.) Chmn. Moore asked Mr. McKinney if there was consideration of changing the square footage of the signage and why the applicant was unwilling to bring the signage into conformance with the existing code. Mr. McKinney replied that they do what the City requests them to do. He believed that the roof sign is necessary to attract the customers. Chmn. Moore stated that the roof sign could be 11 blacked out 11 on one side, thereby removing 98 square feet of si gnage. Mr. McKinney stated that blacking out one side of the roof sign would not give them the visibility needed. He noted that the sign is not a revolving sign. He stressed that the applicant did not consider eliminating one side of the sign. Norma Hicks, 1120 Town Avenue, Los Angeles, representing the applicant, stated that she would suggest blacking out one side of the roof sign to her client. She stated that she was surprised to find that the City of Hermosa Beach counts both sides of a double-faced sign. She submitted some photographs to the Board depicting a roof sign on the Bank of America, which is on the opposite corner, that has a sign similar to the one they were suggesting. She added that the overall area of signage without the roof sign would be 50 square feet. If the Board desired the removal of some square footage of signage, the applicant would prefer removing all of the signs and leaving the roof sign. She questioned whether the City allows grandfathering of existing signs. D.hmn. Moore replied that the 11 Allstate 11 roof sign was allowed prior to the change of text. He noted that roof signs are allowed if the text is not changed. Public Hearing closed at 8:46 P.M. Comm. Williams stated that the change was minor, and she would support a motion to approve the signage. Motion by Comm. Williams, seconded by Chmn. Moore, to approve Sign Variance B.Z.A. 84-1. Comm. Cutler believed the sign was very obtrusive, and he felt that the application should be denied. He did not believe the Board had the perpetuity to grant the landmark. Comm. Corder concurred, adding that the current Sign Ordinance prohibits the use of roof signs. He could not justify granting the variance. He stated that he would like to know if a variance was granted to exceed the existing allowable signage. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Williams, Chmn. Moore Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler None BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 11 SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST 84-1 -81 Pier Avenue (Cont.) Chmn. Moore announced that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Ms. Hicks requested that a copy of the minutes be sent to her by the Building Department. MISCELLANEOUS Comm. Cutler noted disappointment that Ms. Sapetto or some other representative of the Planning Department was not present to address the concerns of the Board at their prior meeting. Comm. Williams stated that she was surprised that the topic of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was not on the agenda. Mr. Grove stated that one of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act is that the preparer of the environmental impact report give his responses to the comments at the close of the public comment period; therefore, those comments will be carried along with the environmental impact report. The final decision-making body will certify the final environmental impact report based on the responses to those comments. Comm. Cutler questioned where the comments of the Board will appear. Mr. Grove stated that the Board's comments will appear at both the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings. He noted that the Planning Commission is holding two public hearings on the zone change and general plan amendment, which will be followed by City Council actions. He added that the City Council will have to be satisfied with the responses to all of the comments --not only from the Board, but from the public --and they have to be satisfied that those comments have been adequately responded to in order to certify the final environmental impact report and approve the project. Comm. Williams stressed that the commissioners spent a great deal of time reading and reviewing the report. She felt that there should have been a representative present at the meeting to answer the Board's questions. She felt it would have been merely a courtesy to do so. She wished to know the correct answer to the discrepancy of the sewer destinations and whether or not her suggestion to have different reports for each school site was a legal or illegal suggestion. Mr. Grove stated that the California Environmental Quality Act does allow for grouping of similar projects into a single environmental impact report. Comm. Williams stated that she was suggesting the reverse, that is, to have individual reports for each of the school sites. She stressed that she would like to know if the City Attorney was asked if her suggestion was valid. Mr. Grove stated that he would check with Ms. Sapetto to obtain the answer. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 12 MISCELLANEOUS (Cont.) Comm. Corder noted his concern for having no representative present to answer the Board 1 s concerns. Chmn. Moore noted his absence at the last meeting, and he asked whether or not the Board was aware that their function was not to find the report adequate, non- significant, et cetera. Comm. Cutler replied that the Board was aware of that fact. Comm. Williams stated that it was made clear that the Board was not to find the report adequate, nonsignificant, et.cetera; however, it was not made clear that the Board 1 s concerns would not be addressed. Comm. Cutler recommended that the Board have the answers to their questions sent directly to them, even if that is not part of what the California law requires. He also recommended that the Board receive notice of when the Planning Commission and City Council will be hearing this item, even though the Board has no legal position in approving or disapproving the project. Mr. Grove replied that he will send notices to the Board members. Comm. Williams stated that she was surprised that the answers were not addressed, especially when there was such a major discrepancy in the report. She recalled that Ms. Sapetto stated that she would check with the City Attorney, and she would inform the Board members of his replies. She added that the Board would like to know if they are making valid motions. Mr. Grove stated that he would get the information to the Board. Comm. Corder felt that a representative from the Planning Department should have been present to address the Board's concerns. He did not believe it was the BuildiAg Department's responsibility. He felt that the Planning Department could have been courteous enough to send the Board a memorandum. He noted that Mr. Jim Hinzdel, preparer of the report, also said that he would be present at this meeting to answer the questions brought up by the Board. He felt that some communication should go to the City Council. Gregory Meyer, City Manager, stated that the Board is entitled to have the answers to their questions. He stated that the Board need not send any communication. They can merely ask their staff to obtain these answers. He stated that it would be an informational item on the agenda; it would not be an action item. The answers will not be voted on, nor will they be read into the record; however, they will become part of the record. He stated that with regard to Comm. Williams' suggestion, the City is obligated to treat the five school sites as a package; therefore, the report must remain as one report covering a multitude of sites. He stated that there were conversations with the City Attorney, but he did not render a formal opinion back to the Planning Department. He added that it was the proposer who initiated that the report be only one report covering all five sites. He noted that it was not the City's proposal. '-.J BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 4, 1984 Page 13 MISCELLANEOUS (Cont.) Chmn. Moore believed that the Board did not like the report presented to them at the previous meeting. Comm. Williams disagreed, stating that the Board merely wished that their questions be answered. Mr. Meyer assured the Board that Mr. Grove will submit a copy of the answers to their questions as they move through the process. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments were approved at a regular meeting. DATE