HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-02 Minutes (2)MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, December 2, 2002 at 3:45 p.m.
in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
VAR 02-29.00 (1036): Variance (Norbash, pp 291) Approved
Page 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Sheree Alt
Michael Andrews
Joanne Olszewski (arrived at 4:10 p.m.)
Marion Orton
James Kunzelmann
Michael Green
Bob Nickle
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Renee Thomas
Dawn Warrick
David Whitaker
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 2
VAR 02-29.00 (1036): Variance (Norbash, pp 291) was submitted by Sid & Sherrie Norbash for
property located at 2482 Jimmie Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 0.44 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a
11' rear setback (a 9' variance).
Green:
It is time to call this meeting to order. This is a regular meeting of the Board of
Adjustment for December. I want to welcome all of you today. We have some old
business but first let's review the minutes of the previous meeting of the Board of
Adjustment. Has everyone had a chance to review those? Are there any changes or
corrections that need to be made?
Nickle: I move that we approve the minutes as submitted.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Green:
There is a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed say no. Ok, the minutes are approved. Under old business the item was
tabled at our last meeting and in order to further discuss this particular item which is
VAR 02-29.00, we will need a motion to take it off the table.
Andrews: So moved.
Orton: Second.
Green: There is a motion and a second to take this off the table. Could you call the roll
please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to take VAR 02-29.00 off the table for
further discussion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Green:
Ok. This particular item was submitted by Sid and Sherrie Norbash for property
located at 2482 Jimmie Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential
and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback.
The request is for an 11' rear setback (a 9' variance). Dawn, do you have any further
information on this?
Warrick: Really we don't. Staff has included in your packet a copy of the report from the
previous meeting, which was your November 4th meeting when this item was initially
heard by the board. After that meeting when this item was tabled the Board
requested to arrange a site visit to the subject property and the adjoining properties
where there was concern. That was arranged for November 11 `h. I believe several of
you attended that and with that information and the staff report as unchanged from
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 3
Green:
Norbash:
previous, we would ask you to consider the item and move forward. If you have any
questions of staff I will be glad to answer them. I think that basically nothing has
changed, I think that the main issue of course is the variance to the rear setback,
which the requirement, as you stated, is 20', the request is a 9' variance or an 11'
setback and staff does recommend in favor of the variance.
Would the applicant like to address this Board?
Mr. Chairman, since our last meeting of course we have had a little bit of time to
think the project over and we have basically drastically scaled down the project. If I
may present it to you if it is appropriate at this time I would like to go ahead and
share that with you all just for you to look and see how much we have scaled down.
Nothing in essence has changed. The question is still the 9' but we have dropped the
9' request down drastically so if you are willing to look at it I will share that with
you.
Green: Ok.
Norbash: As I have said, we have thought real long and hard about this and we want to be
neighborly. We appreciate the concerns that the other property owners have. We
hope that we have reached out to them in some way where this might be acceptable
to them. We have not had any discussion with them so of course, I don't know. We
would respectfully ask you to consider this.
Green: Mr. Norbash, you are asking for a variance of 4.5' down to 2.5' at rear?
Norbash: Yes. Mr. Chairman, as you will see in the drawing, the house is skewed and also the
lot line is skewed. That is the reason there is a couple of feet different. This is what
is actually on the ground out there. What we are basically asking is on the north end
that would basically be a 2 1/2' variance from the setback line and on the extreme
south end of the house that would translate to a 4'/z' variance. In other words, at that
point we were asking for 9' on both sides. We have redrawn that and this is basically
what we are asking. We hope that this might be acceptable to all parties involved.
That is what we are basically asking. We also mentioned in our letter that we are not
restricting ourselves to any other part of the setback. In other words, whatever the
law would allow we would like to have that option left wherever we can but as far as
this particular variance goes, we will try to build this into our project if that is
acceptable. I will be more than happy to answer any questions.
Nickle: This would include any overhang of the house and everything?
Norbash: This is everything.
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 4
Green: Ok, are there any other questions for Mr. Norbash? Are there any comments from
the audience?
Pettus: Can we have about two or three minutes to talk about it? This is the first time we
have seen this.
Green: Sure.
Andrews: Can we give a variance at an angle like this?
Warrick: I think that however the Board chooses to vote on it you can certainly place
conditions that it match the site plan that has been submitted and that it vary between
4 '/2' and 2 '/2' as shown on that site plan. We of course, would restrict any building
permits to match whatever the Board has approved if that is the case. I would
certainly recommend that you place a condition on it if that is acceptable to the
Board as far as the configuration of the variance.
Green: Ok, so this total area is 131 sq.ft. down from 337?
Warrick: The area of the Variance itself.
Norbash: What we were asking previously is the 337 sq.ft. and this is just an approximate give
or take a foot or so. I am saying approximately 131 sq.ft. if it is acceptable, which
translates to about 60% reduction from what we were asking before.
Green: Ok. Dawn, would this have any affect on Staff's recommendation?
Warrick: It improves the situation because it is less of a variance than what was previously
requested so staff would be in favor of this reduction in the request.
Pettus:
I do have some questions here. In his letter, Mr. Norbash reserves the right to go up
to the setback lines to the north and south side of the existing structure, if necessary,
to accommodate their plans. Now not only will he be asking for this variance here,
then he will be, according to his letter, he will just build all across the north and
south up to the setback lines.
Whitaker: He can do that regardless of what happens here because that is as of right obviously.
Pettus: Right, he can build up to the setbacks as of right but then he can do it also with the
Variance so now you have not only the variance but more structure this way too. He
can go around the requirements, so to speak, to have much more than what he would
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 5
have originally had.
Andrews: I am not sure I follow.
Pettus: I have an architect here that may be able to explain it better.
Park: I think that the concern that we would have is that there are two conditions, there is
the encroachment toward the east, which is described in the variance that is being
requested and then there is also the expanse of the house north and south. The thing
that I think we are curious about is the design issue being is it an addition to the east
or is it an addition to the north and south? If it is an addition to the north and south is
the necessity for the encroachment to the east necessary and if not, why not just build
to the north or to the south?
Green: Mr. Norbash, can you respond to that?
Norbash: We basically had a set of plans Mr. Chairman that we submitted to you. That set of
plans, because of the opposition, because of the concern, we tried to scale it down.
At this point me and my family do not have a floor plan that we can render to you
and say this is our plan. We have to go back to our architect and say our preference
would be to just go ahead and do this addition to the back of the house and be at that.
Now that we have given up a large square footage, we may, depending on what our
needs are, we may want to use the sides for something else that we may need. For
instance, there is a need for a utility room and the only place we can have it is up on
the northeast corner of the house. There is nowhere else to go. You were kind
enough to come to our house and look the situation over. It is not that we don't want
to do another option, it is just that we are really tied down with what we can do
because of where the floor plan is right now and where the house is.
Nickle: I think that your revised request is just this area that I have shaded in here, not this
way.
Norbash: That is right.
Nickle: And not this way behind this setback line is that correct?
Norbash: That is right. What we are saying is that we would like to reserve the right for
instance if I want to add something over here to this side.
Nickle: We can't restrict that anyway. I guess you were just pointing that out.
Norbash: The only reason I pointed that out is because I did not want anybody to
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 6
misunderstand us and it would be construed as misleading the board. "Hey, you
came and said you need this, now that we gave this to you now you are going to the
sides." I am just being very up front and very honest with you. Our plans have been
messed up so to speak but now we have got to regroup so today what we are asking
is that this shaded area, as Mr. Nickle mentioned, that is all we are asking for a
variance for. Everything else we have over there, I understand as long as we follow
the side setbacks and everything it is alright to build wherever the law allows. That
is basically where we are. I cannot say that if you give us this variance today I can
not guarantee that because I may sell the house six months from now and another
person might want to add on something else to it. That is a question that I cannot
guarantee, I would like to have that option available to us.
Pettus: I guess my problem is that if you do have an option to expand north and south and if
it is a reasonable alternative why do you need the variance?
Norbash: We are talking about 6' for the washer and dryer.
Pettus: What you are telling me is that now you have got to go back to an architect and look
at some other options. Why should a variance be granted if there are other options?
Norbash: What you are doing here, because we have given up the area that we asked for, we
have to push it somewhere else. The need is there, we are just trying to rearrange it
and the best I understand your concern over there Donna was the closeness. You and
Mr. Moberly yourself said you do not care whether we go south or north, we don't
care where you go as long as you don't come closer to us and that was your number
one concern.
Pettus: Sid, you are coming closer.
Whitaker: If we could remind everyone that comments should be addressed to the Chair
properly.
Pettus:
Green:
Yes Sir, we were both talking to each other. Truly, he still is coming closer. Not
only is he still coming closer but now he also reserves the option to go this way too.
That is far more, far more, than what he originally proposed to go back and both
ways.
Would it be less desirable for the 9' variance that he had before and keep it still
within the width of the house or to go wider? When we were up there that day, in
fact, it was really asked of the owners if they preferred to have it wider without the
setback and that didn't seem to be an issue. It really was not an issue to go wider.
Now it looks to me like that we are boiling down to asking merely for a 4 /' to a 2
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 7
/2' variance in the rear setback.
Pettus: Added on to what he is already allowed to do which is more than 4 '/z' brings that
house that much closer.
Nickle: I kind of think Mr. Chairman, that he was just being very forthright with us. He
doesn't know what his plans are and we don't have any say so whether he goes north
or south. I believe what we are concerned with is this now considerably reduced
application for this shaded area, 4 '/z' on the south end to 2 %z' on the north end,
which I would say is a significant compromise. In looking at when we were up there
on our site visit I found it hard to envision that much, I didn't think it affected the
other two properties to the east that much but it just reduced the area here and since
he has reduced it that much I think that is a significant reduction and I personally
would favor that reduction and I think that while he brought up that he might go over
here or he might go over there within the regular setbacks has no bearing on our
decision here. If he does he does, we can't stop him because the city wouldn't have
that much say about that. I think he has significantly reduced what he was asking for
and the largest part of the variance is furthest away from that neighbor.
Pettus: I guess the bearing is that one of your criteria that you look at is are there alternatives
to allowing an encroachment into a setback. Obviously, now he thinks there are.
B. Moberly: I am Bob Moberly. What we are faced with here is a request without any plans of
whether it is even feasible to go north and south. He hasn't gone back to the
architect and said is it possible to go north and south, we plan to do that anyway but
can we do that within the existing setbacks as required by law. Really, you have
nothing here in terms of his plans or his abilities to build without having to violate
the setback. I really don't know any bearings for granting the variance because he
hasn't really presented any plans showing that he requires a necessity for a variance.
Pettus: Not with the new design.
Green: Mr. Norbash?
Norbash: You would understand if we are not just jumping out there, especially after the
concerns that have been raised, and spending thousands and thousands of dollars on
plans that we don't even know whether they are going to be used or not. All we are
asking is that before our needs were for 750 sq.ft. as mentioned in the application
before. Our needs were that. What I heard is why don't you just cut down on your
needs, which in a sense we already have done. All we are saying is that we would
like to reserve the right to draw our plans and if we do need to use the area that is
available to us to the north or the south we would like to reserve that option. In my
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 8
Pettus:
humble opinion I don't think it is too much to ask because that never was part of the
argument before. We were asking for a 9' variance before and we have cut that by
60%. As far as the need goes, yes, the need is still there. We have the need. That
hasn't gone anywhere except now the burden is on us to go back to redraw plans and
have the architect redesign everything. Really not knowing how much land we are
going to have available it is kind of shooting in the dark.
I would like to ask a couple more questions. What we would also like to inquire
about is what type of investigation has been done for drainage for the finished grade
outside of the addition and the topography to make sure that there are not any
problems in that respect. Still, it appears, I can't really tell from the drawing, that
there might be an affect on the existing request. I can't really tell. I don't know
where the retaining wall is according to this drawing.
Whitaker: Mr. Chairman, that is a question that isn't appropriate until the building permits are
actually pulled if there is a slope in excess of 15% they would be required to submit a
drainage plan at that time. That is incredibly premature at this level. This board only
looks at variances.
Green: There are actually ordinances in place to ensure that the grading and drainage does
not affect the adjacent property owners.
Pettus: How about the retaining walls?
Whitaker: That, again, would be addressed at the building permit stage.
Green: Is there anything else?
B. Moberly: I don't want to talk too much but it seems to me that they did have some plans, I
don't know if they were done by an architect or not but it seems to me that it would
be prudent to ask him to try to design the plan using the north and south
permissibilities basically without having to come in and ask for a setback variance
without any set of plans that shows any kind of need for it. It may very well be that
they may be able to move north or south and retain all of their space if they actually
work with an architect or a planner to see whether their needs could be met. That
seems to be an option that hasn't been brought out.
Pettus:
Mr. Park, by the way since I didn't really introduce him, is a graduate of the
Architecture School and has his own residential design business. We talked about
before we came here today, availability of redesigning interior spaces and additions
within the allowed setback lines so that Mr. Norbash and his family gets what they
want without intruding upon the neighbor's expectations of having a 20' setback,
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 9
Park:
Green:
which is what the neighbors have a right to expect. That people abide by the 20'
setback ordinance. That is why we have the setback, to provide light and air and
green space. The neighbors have a right to expect that. Is this addition of a family
room to the convenience of the Norbash's, is it is a more compelling right than the
neighbors expectations of living within the law and the ordinance of the 20' setback?
I guess what I would like for you to talk about Brett, is the design of the original
space out there.
Without trying to prescribe a design solution, which is absolutely not what we are
here for. I know in my business a variance is a design solution of last resort. We
really try very hard to exhaust every other option before taking any time here or
proposing something. It seems like a most far fetched first response to a design
situation. One of the things that occurred to me when I started talking to Bob and
Lynn is that it would be interesting to know what conditions preclude a design to the
north or to the south rather than as a first option building to the east and requiring a
variance and all of this.
The last meeting Mr. Norbash answered that I believe or a question very similar to
that. Basically, this floor plan that he was proposing for the 9' variance required is
actually an extension of the existing study and an extension off the master bedroom,
which are both at the rear of the house. I think, if I remember his answer properly, is
that those are the areas that need to be expanded. If you expand out to the sides that
is not getting connections and that is not getting the flow from the family room that
he is proposing and the laundry facilities to the places that he wanted them connected
to. Is that right?
Norbash: That is exactly right.
Park: I think it addresses a series of design determinants but I guess what my concern is
whether internal to the house there is a convenient set of relationships within the
floor plan with the master bedroom, the family room, or study. Are those issues that
are internal to the house more important than the fact that the house is seeking, that
the project seeks to vary a legal constraint on the site. That is something that we
work very hard with in our practice to make certain that there is not any possible
design solution that could accommodate the needs. The thing that occurs to me here
is that we really don't see a plan. We are asking for a variance that is a reduced
variance for some possible design someday and leaving options open to build to the
north and south for some other design solution sometime and we really don't know
what those things accommodate. I think that stems my concerns.
Pettus: I guess that it is just that we have got two competing rights here. I know that the
Norbash's would very much like to have a family room, I understand that. But is
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 10
Green:
that fact more than compelling than the neighbor's right to maintain the 20'
setbacks? The law requires those setbacks for a reason. Your ordinance requires
those for reasons. Why is that family room more important than the light and the air
and the allowance of the 20' setbacks that people in the City of Fayetteville have a
right to rely upon, especially neighbors who are going to be directly affected by that
variance?
Are there any questions of the board by the Board of the applicant or the audience?
If not, I would just like to make a couple of comments and observations I guess.
After we toured the site and looked at all of the information involved, what we have
here of course Ms. Pettus, as you mentioned, there are always competing rights. One
of the major tests I think of getting a variance are the special conditions that are
associated with a particular application. This seems to meet that litmus test very
well. As a matter of fact, it has three special conditions that are unique to this
property. One of them is that that existing structure is located more than 80' from
the right of way leaving only 30' in the rear yard. Second, the steep slope in the
front yard caused the house to be located further back on the lot. Third, an addition
to the north of the structure would result in the removal of four mature trees. From
that standpoint, we actually hear variance requests all the time that do not meet these
litmus tests that are statutory, is that correct?
Whitaker: Yes.
Green: Things have to meet these tests in order for us to really be able to justify a variance.
We have actually heard variances before where all the neighbors were unanimously
for granting the variance and still yet we did not do that because of these various
litmus tests that were before us. As far as I can tell, staff has researched this, they
have looked at the special conditions. They have looked at other things at the site
and it appears to me that by restricting any kind of development on this site it is
basically saying that you really don't want him to build an addition on there and I
can fully understand that but also, they have a right within the special conditions that
a variance should be granted and to me, I haven't found anything that should say we
should deny the variance request. Especially in light of his proposal to further
reduce that by about 60% to keep it from encroaching any closer than it has to the
back property line. That is what my observations have been today. I certainly would
like to hear from the rest of the board too.
Kunzelmann: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the accommodations that the Norbash's have made with
the change in their request but without seeing any more concrete plans that what we
have I have trouble supporting this request. Further, we keep talking about
extending to the east and to the north and to the south and I guess my question for
staff is what are the requirements for going up?
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 11
Warrick: The applicant has the right to take the building higher. In the R-1 zoning district
there is not a height restriction as long as setbacks are accommodated.
Kunzelmann: With this request, with the lack of more concrete plans I am having trouble
supporting it and I would encourage the applicant to investigate going up.
Nickle: Joanne, were you aware of this new request?
Olszewski: Yes. I apologize for being late. There were three things that have been mentioned
against granting the variance, the first in the original request was that someone called
in about the view.
Pettus: That wasn't accurate.
Olszewski: Ok, so nobody is concerned about the view?
Pettus: No.
Warrick: I believe the main concern is the proximity of the proposed addition.
Olszewski: Ok, so we are not worried about the view. The second was property values. In
looking at it I didn't see where the property values would necessarily go down by
having that addition. I would think they would almost go down if they had to build
out. Now the question has to do with the air and the space.
Pettus:
Green:
L. Moberly:
Well, now that you have raised that, may Lynn Moberly address that issue?
Yes.
I don't know if it would ruin my property value since I know that appraisers largely
just go by square footage and what has sold in the neighborhood. However, I am
concerned about how rapidly the house would sell. If we elected to sell the home at
some point, when we purchased this home it had already been on the market for over
a year. It is in a price range where there aren't as many buyers as there are in some
other price ranges. It is also the price range where buyers buy property in part for the
illusion of privacy. Obviously it is not real in the city setting but there is the illusion
of having somewhat of a country side city space. I can tell you when I looked at the
home before we bought it, we did this very recently, we just closed in September.
That was a major concern was how close that one house was. We had to make some
peace with that to purchase that house and I am thinking we wouldn't be the only
ones. I suspect, and I will say that in a neighborhood like Sherwood one of the
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 12
things that people are looking for is a sense of spaciousness inside and outside the
home. Of course it is not acres and acres, and I don't mean to give you the illusion
that it is in any way shape, size, or form, but I do think that the closer any property
is, especially in the back where there is a pastoral sort of setting, the closer any
property is the more disconcerting a buyer will be. I am not saying that we couldn't
sell the house for what it is worth and I am not saying that we wouldn't eventually
find a buyer but how long it would take would be considerable and depending on
what happens in our future, it might put us in a position of paying double mortgages
and all kinds of things. It might be, it might not, I understand that. That is a concern
for me as a home owner. I am concerned about all three things you mentioned. I am
also concerned about air and green space and I think I should say that we did look
elsewhere in Northwest Arkansas and one of the reasons we chose to live in
Fayetteville was yes, proximity to our work place because we both work at the
University. But, also, because frankly I just love it. It is a great city that we have
these setbacks and regulations and even utility easements and things and that is
lovely. That is part of why I wanted to stay, even when we moved recently we were
encouraged by many people to look elsewhere but we wanted to stay close in. It is
very discerning to me that my right as a citizen and a tax payer in the City of
Fayetteville seems largely ignored. I appreciate that he wants to expand, we moved
to a larger home. I understand that there comes a time in your life where you want
more space for family reasons. I have no problem with that but there are just so
many ways to accommodate that that do not involve encroaching on the green space
that to me is so precious. I understand the concern about the trees and that is part of
the green space, but it isn't. It is not part of the green space. If with a new site plan
the Norbash's build to the north those trees are gone anyway. They are gone. I am
also very concerned about any construction back there because even if you grant this
where are the machines going to go to build this? They are going to go in areas
where there are trees. I raised this with Brett, earlier he said even if machines didn't
have to take out trees, the machines are so heavy they compact the earth so terribly
that in another growing season or two often you lose a tree or two or three and
sometimes large trees because of the earth being compacted by those machines. I
think for us to think that this construction can occur with no damage to trees is really
naive. I am concerned about trees but I would rather take out four trees to the north
and retain that green space that the city has granted, to not just us but the whole
neighborhood.
Olszewski: I can really appreciate the green space. As far as the property value, the part that I
am having trouble reconciling is that there is an empty lot to the side of your house
and that someone could build 8' back from that. You definitely do have a piece of
property that could have a large house very close to you.
L. Moberly: The house is designed so the whole view is to the back. We already have a home
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 13
fairly close to us on one side and I think that would force us to put up shutters. I tell
you honestly, we never close the window coverings in the back. We don't need to
right now. I am also concerned frankly, that if the Norbash's are granted their
request that the neighbor right next to them might come to you all and for precedent,
I would assume you would have to grant that one too.
Green: They all stand on their own merit.
L. Moberly: It is a concern that the house is going to come toward us.
Pettus:
Norbash:
Green:
MOTION:
Orton:
If someone does build on the lot next to them, then all of a sudden you have a house
here, a house pulled way back here and again, the green space is just disappearing
and the light and the air that is required and planned for is disappearing.
I was going to answer something really quickly. As far as the plans, we are going to
follow very close to what we have got there. We may go another 5' or 6' the other
way if it fits, if it doesn't then we will not. The plans, this is pretty much what we
are doing.
Are there any other questions or comments?
1 move that we grant the variance including the recommendations that staff has made
and using the new proposal by the petitioner for the 2 %2' to the 4 %Z'.
Kunzelmann: Would that 4 1/' and 2 ''/2' variance extend only the width of the house or would it
extend the width of the property?
Orton: Just the width of the existing house.
Nickle: That is all that he is asking for, just that shaded area right there. When he is talking
about the north and south he is talking about within the setbacks.
Olszewski: I am confused. Does that mean that he can go out this way?
Green:
Nickle:
Within the setback area.
Just that shaded area. This new setback that she is making a motion for is just that
shaded area lot.
Olszewski: Ok. A month ago he was saying he wasn't going to do that at all if he was granted
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 14
the new setback.
Nickle: I think that is based on his new request. He is just saying I may have to punch out
over here for a laundry room or something like that.
Norbash: We would very much like to save those trees. We are not going to go that far to get
into the trees. All we are asking is to give us that lead way. We have cut down on
our project 60%.
Olszewski: That is what you were talking about James, that is bothering you am I correct? It is
almost easier if he goes straight back than if he were to go straight back and then
wide?
Kunzelmann: Yes.
Olszewski: That is problematic for me too.
Nickle: I would second her motion.
Green: We have a motion and a second to grant the variance requested subject to the
conditions that staff has recommended that the variance shall apply only to the 740
sq.ft. addition to the rear of the house and to further restrict the variance to 4 '/2' on
the south edge of the house to 2 'h' on the north of the house within the current
footprint of the house in the north, south dimension.
Warrick: That is the way I understand what you are discussing with the exception that the 740
sq.ft. would need to be amended because that reflected the original size with the
wider variance request. That would need to be amended.
Green:
Orton:
Warrick:
The 740 sq.ft. addition to the house, he is not asking for that anymore, ok.
The motion was to grant the new proposal that he brought to us today.
The new proposal would be approximately131 sq.ft. of encroachment if that
describes it a little better.
Green: Is that what the motion intends?
Orton: Yes.
Nickle: Yes, just as she said.
Board of Adjustment
December 2, 2002
Page 15
Olszewski: I am not sure I should vote since I missed part of the meeting.
Whitaker: To be honest with you I don't believe so I think the requirements for abstention
wouldn't require you to but in a situation like this if you feel you don't have enough
information to make an informed decision you can choose not to cast a vote. Under
the circumstances, the facts would not suggest you must.
Pettus: May I inquire as to the affect of an abstention?
Whitaker: An abstention is as if there was no vote. It would still require a majority of seven
would have to vote for any motion whether it was to approve or deny.
Green: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion?
Olszewski: Did anyone discuss that by changing this Mr. Norbash is considering moving out to
the other side? That was all discussed?
Green: Yes. Ok, we are ready for roll call please.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-29.00 was approved
by a vote of 5-1-1 with Mr. Kunzelmann voting no and Ms. Olszewski abstaining.
Meeting adjourned