Loading...
06-08-1977 ,. ""." r {.J Q BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JUNE 8, 1977 Chairman Millard called the meeting to order on June 8, 1977 in the Mayor's office, at 7:00 P.M. Chairman Millard explained that the meeting that was called for May 25, 1977 was recessed until tonight, because there was not enough Board of Adjustment members present to vote. Chairman Millard briefed the history of this hearing. The original application for the hearing was on April 13, 1977; we could not complete it. It was recessed for one week until April 20, 1977. At that time the applicants withdrew their application. Later they decided to re-app1y. At that time we advertised in the New Smyrna Beach News and Observer. The abutting and adjacent property owners were notified. The property was posted. Chairman Millard checked off the people that were notified. The property owners that were notified were: East Coast Railroad, Mr. J. Griffith, George and Elizabeth Shira, John and Mary Ki1bert, The Wagners, Government Builders were also notified. Chairman Millard asked if there were any questions about the proper notice? Mrs. Turner asked about the Shira's property. Chairman Millard stated that they own the trailer park. Chairman Millard stated at the last meeting, which was on May 11, we introduced the new member of the board and for those who were not there he is Mr. James Poland, he is a businessman in town; he operates throughout the State. He abstains from voting for reasons he presented at the meeting. He has relatives in the Highland Shores area. Mr. Poland asked the Chairman if he will be able to ask questions. Chairman Millard stated that he may. Chairman Millard stated that we did not discuss any special case at the regular meeting. It was a meeting with our lawyer. Chairman Millard stated that he needed to check with the applicant on the lot numbers. He asked if there were any that he would like to strike. He went on to say that this is not a Council Meeting, it is not a Zoning Meeting, it is not a Planning Meeting, this is a judicial hearing and the rules of conduct are dffferent and very firm. We will give everybody who has anything relative to tfiis case a chance to speak. We will not have cross talk. It is much better if you address the Chair. Mr. Cartee was asked if there was anything that he would like to strike. Mr. Cartee stated Lot 15, he is not asking for a variance on that lot. Chairman Millard asked if both Mr. Cartee and Mr. Richards will speak. They answered yes. Chairman Millard asked if the gentlemen swore that the evidence that they are going to give and the statement they are going to make are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. They stated yes. Chairman Millard stated that he thought it would be in order for them to make their case now. He reminded the applicants in the ordinance and in the law that it is necessary for them to establish unnecessary hardship and to state the kind of variance they are applying for. J u () Chairman Millard asked the Vice Chairman to take roll. ROLL CALL Jim Poland Jerry Fenske Ken Millard Lewis Lupinek Present Present Present Present Mr. Richards showed drawings that he had of the area in question. They are pretty much to scale. He explained that they are asking for some relief on these lots. There is no other depth that can be purchased. ~h~y are replatting the area. They are asking that the depth be 100 'feet instead of the 115 feet. All other set backs will be met. There are two lots that are pie shaped. He went on to explain the pie shape lots. The houses will be all concrete block. Chairman Millard asked the people who are recognized to come up so that they may be heard and also identify themselves and the land or house they own. This will be very helpful to the record. Mr. Matthews stated that he has lived in this area for 35 years. He went on to say that he and Mrs. Hardy are about the oldest residences in the area. His address is 118 Oakridge Ave. The question that he wants to ask is what is the gentleman going'to do with the fifteen feet. Is he going to take it from the back, the front, or what? Mr. Richards stated that the lots are only 100 feet and you have to have 115' x 75', from the front property line to the rear. He has had it surveyed. Chairman Millard asked if there was anyone else who owns land and wishes to speak. Mr. Lupinek stated that on Lot 15 they are using 80 feet as the footage in the back. Mr. Cartee stated that the reason we are using 80 feet on Lot 17 and the West 30 feet of Lot 16 is because there is a drainage on the East side of the West 30 feet of Lot 16. Chairman Millard asked if they had started building on the 80 foot lot? Mr. Cartee stated that they have not. Lot 15 is the one that they are building on. Chairman Millard asked if they had applied for a building permit on that lot. Mr. Cartee stated that they have applied for a permit. That was when they were told they had the building permits, not since we have requested variances for the second time. Chairman Millard stated that the reason he is asking is the new ordiance which passed apparently covers this. Mr. Richards stated that they think it is covered also. Chairman Millard stated that the new ordiance says it intends to eliminate the need to come down and apply for a variance on an existing non-conforming lot, and that appears to be an existing non-conforming lot. The building department can grant this. Mr. Cartee stated that this is true if a person has owned it since 1974 only. Mr. Poland stated that he had some questions but first for the benefit of some of the members of the public that are here. He would like to read something from Ordinance 880; 2. .. ""./ (.) (J Mr. Poland asked Mr. Richards several questions about the building sites. It was determined that they would lose 2 building sites if they received depth variances and not area variances. Chairman Millard asked if they have thought of making the area of that virtually what is required by R-3 and maintain the intent and spirit of this ordinance? Mr. Richards stated that we have considered that extensively and due to the fact that if we went that route we would not have to be here seeking this variance. There was more dicussion about the depth variances. Mr. Cartee stated that by losing 2 building sites it would make it unprofitable to build. It would leave wasted property that could not be built on. Mr. Swoope figured it out. He does not have the figures with him. Mr. Poland asked why they are asking for variance for area as well as depth for Lots 31 and 30 of Block E. Mr. Cartee stated that area would be no problem. Chairman Millard stated that there is no unnecessary hardship on why they have to put the house that near to the road. They can provide the necessary yards in this case they have got the area and th~y have got the yard. What they need is a variance on the depth. Chairman Millard would like to correct one thing for the record; Mr. Poland read from Ordinance 880. These are 2 lots not more than 2. There is no showing of undue hardship, the area must be met in order to carry out the spirit of the zoning. There was a question of what is hardship. Chairman Millard stated that whenever there is a zoning law passed and there is zoning, it is made to correct a thing that hasn't been corrected in the past. There is going to be hardship because once they say this is the law from here on you have to do it this way rather than the old way. If you said I have this trememdous oak tree in part of the yard and it is a historic oak tree and you don't want to cut it down we want to build a house a little over from it, that is an unusualJsituation_and we could do it. He went on to explain other unnecessary hardships. Chairman Millard stated that he thinks it would be better to vote on these things as we come to them. He went on to explain what we are voting on. On this Block E variance on the 2 lots the variance is granted on the depth of 100 feet with the provision that you meet the yards as required by R-3 completely. No variance on the yard measurements and you provide the R-3 area square that you need. That is what we are voting on all except Mr. Poland who is excused from voting. Mr. Lupinek votes yes, Jerry Fenske votes yes, Mr. Millard concurred. This carries. Chairman Millard went on to Lot 17. 3. / u u Mr. Richards explained the hardship. with the drainage ditch. The Wagners East end there is a easement. Behind street 1n fro~t of it. He stated that it has to do own the property. On the it is a trailer park and a Chairman Millard stated that you have 8,000 square feet which is a little less than R-3. He has 100 feet on depth and 80 feet on the width, his yard is ok. Mr. Fenske stated that he did not see anything wrong with it. Chairman Millard stated that we weren't voting yet. Chairman Millard recognized Mr. Kane. He owns land a lot or two away from this, but he feels that he has a reason to be heard. Mr. Kane asked Mr. Richards if he tried. to aquire more property from Mr. Wagner to conform? Mr. Richards stated that he is selling what he wants to sell right there and all that he has on the East side of hls~house, which would run from the two lots he is perserving for his house over to this drainage ditch. Mr. Poland stated that he thinks what Mr. Kane is driving at, i~ that Mr. Wagner has roughly 100 x 100 feet on his residence and:I think he is asking if he would be willing to sell.6 feet or 6~ feet off of that. Mr. Cartee stated that we tried to buy all of Mr. Wagner's property including his home, but he wanted to maintain two lots and his home. Mr. Kane stated that Mr. Wagner is the one who owns the piece of property on that lot, by not selling the lot for the area. So to him it says in here it's not a hardship, the gentleman is selling the property. In other words he knows what you are walking into when you buy the piece of property. Mr. Kane went on to say that the hardship for the gentlewen by not selling the property or by not cutting a piece off of his to make this right. Mr. Cartee stated~that our hardship is in depth we are required to have 115 feet and we have 100 feet, so that is the variance we are requesting. Mr. Wagner has stated that he does not wish to sell Lot 18 and 19. Chairman Millard stated that this is getting to be very clear. He thanked Mr. Kane. Chairman Millard stated that he would like to ask a little about this ownership thing. This is a very good point and it is inadvertent that Mr. Wagner did not give them what they need, The continuous ownership line is the clue. Since Mr. Wagner technically owns this land they have not bought it. Mr. Cartee stated that they are under contract. If th~y get the variance is that corrected? Chairman Millard asked. Mr. Cartee stated that that was correct. Chairman Millard stated that this is more than two lots that can't be broken down into a non-conforming lots so Mr. Kane has brought up somethi~g that.~scaped'us until this moment. If next to it and he owns the part east and west of it here would be no hardship to him or to you to provide you with that. Is there anything standing on his land like a brick wall or something? Mr. Richards stated that he has fruit trees, of course he would like to keep them on his property. Chairman Millard stated that 6 feet seems to me like a very minuscule thing. We would have to rule if that was an unneccessary hardship. 4. ~ u u Mr. Richards stated that he would like to say at this time R-3 is minimum 75 feet width with a 115 feet depth. On this lot we have 80 foot width and to give him the real estate he wants for his house and his shed he needs the 2 lots so we are running approximately 6l foot short on this particular lot. And, I don't see how the 6~ feet will effect anybody. And due to the fact that he has fruit trees on that pr~perty it seems like it would be asking a lot of him to uproot a row of his fruit trees to give us the extra two or three feet. All we are asking is a variance on the depth and whereby a minimum size lot for R-3 area is 75 feet by 115 feet, so if the width made that much difference why wouldn't we need 80, 85, or 90 feet in R-3 area. If you have a 115 foot deep and 75 feet wide lot and that meets the R-3 area. If you have a 115 foot deep and 75 feet wide lot and that meets the R-3 zoning, why would people be offended? They~are .on 75 foot lots. That is the reason we made them 75 foot lots. If the people that live in R-3 areas who live on a 75 feet wide lot why san't the people in this area live on 75 foot lots?' Chairman Millard stated to Mr. Richards that he does not think we need that particular line of argument we had that at earlier hearings and doesn't feel that it is really valid. Chairman Millard stated that the zoning exists and it is to apply from that day on for some cases it is impossible to meet. Now we have to decide this and for the life of me I can see no reason why the owner of the land would hesitate to give you land that you need. However that is his choice. He asked if there were any other comments before we vote. Chairman Millard stated that here is the issue on this one. Lot 17 and the West 30 feet of Lot 16 is right next to Mr. Wagner n owns all the land there. The applicant wants a variance on the depth to 100 feet. Shall we grant him the variance on the depth of 100 feet and provide that he secure the necessary square area and maintain the same yards that R-3 require? Chairman Millard ~ stated that he will start the voting on this. He went on to say he will vote yes. Mr. Fenske stated that if h~ makes the comments he will vote yes. Mr. Lupinek stated that he would like to say only in true conscience if the lots are plotted right now and Mr. Wagner has two he wishes to keep if he is to sell 6 feet to them he breaks up his plot land. Mr. Cartee asked if this would not be forcing someone who does not wish to sell. Chairman Millard stated he did not think so. If we can't build on the lot if we don't get the variance and you are putting a provision that we must meet the area requirement which is 8,625 feet. He would be forced to sell us 6.25 feet. It would place a hardship on Mr. Wagner not necessarily us. It is forcing Mr. Wagner to sell a piece of property he does not wish to sell. Chairman Millard stated that this would be a good time for Jim Poland to read that line again, it starts out as more than 2 lots or combination of lots. Mr. Poland read from Ordinance 880. Chairman Millard stated that that is about as clear as law can be made. We are guided by that, we are controlled by it. Mr. Wagner is the owner of all this land he has contracted with you to build a number of houses and the division of the land is made exactly opposite to what this ordinance says. You will not break it up to make a non-conforming lot unless you can establish hardship. I don't find any unnecessary hardship in making that lot meet R-3 other than for the depth. Depth is a valid argument. 5. --. .~ (.) (.) Mr. Poland asked if the two lots that Mr. Wagner's home is situated on were in his wife's name we would have no problem. Mr. Cartee stated that he thought we are getting into legality which he doesn't even wish to talk about. Mr~ Poland stated that it seemed that the parties are further apart than the distance between point A and point B which is the 6.25 feet. Chairman Millard stated that we have interrupted the vote in order to clarify that which was good and I think Mr. Lupinek brought out a'very important point. It's right on target, the law sa7s you can't do this so Mr. Wagner the person who is getting paid for all this land, I feel should"comply wi,th the law. There is no unnecessary hardship to him whatsoever, in my view, if he wants to come down and say he has a hardship, fine. I have already voted not to grant a variance on the area, but I will and I have voted on depth. So now it is up to Lou. Mr. Lupinek asked if Mr. Wagner had a home on those two lots~ He went on to say that he realized there were orange groves all around. He stated he did not know at this time he would vote no on this. Chairman Millard asked Mr. Lupinek to say which parts of it he is voting on. Mr. Lupinek went on to say he thinks we are asking a hardship against Mr. Wagner if ~he breaks up these two fifty foot lots. He thinks we should protect him also, and not force a hardship on him. We are quite close to our required area so if that means to vote against you sir, I guess I will have to. Chairman Millard will grant the depth variance but attach the condition that it will meet R-3 square area. We have one vote that will give a variance that would allow 80 x 100. In that case the variance is denied in total. Nothing is passed. Mr. Cartee asked did you not vote yes on the depth? Chairman Millard stated that on the condition there are two votes saying that it must meet it and one vote saying you can have it, there is no approval. Chairrr.an Millard went on to say that it is a dead issue, unless you want to say that you can get the square footage. Mr. Richards stated lets have a condition in there if we do succeed in getting the square footage. Chairman Millard stated that that was up to Lou. He asked him if he would want to put that condition' in... Mr. Lupinek stated that he will put that condition in. Mr. Lupinek went on to say that he will amend his vote if the provision is met with the square footage. Chairman Millard stated that he did not know if that was a binding legal vote but he would call it a challange to require that. Mr. Richards asked if they get the added footage can they get a variance on the depth? Chairman Millard went on to say moving on to the major thing, the nine home sites. Mr. Mackie asked the Chairman if he could interrupt. Chairman Millard stated please. Mr. Mackie aske4i.f.th.e."yariances'being discussed could be identified so that we can get it on the tape. Chairman Millard stated that what he is going to have to do is write up a memo to the Council afterwards and detail that. He went on to say that you are anticipating the next question I am sure, we can move into it which is in the remaining clear area keeping in mind this ordinance, the spirit and intent of it is to apply to R-3 zoning and to not allow non-conforming lots to be established if it is continuous ownership. 6. ,~ v <.J If it is possible without unnecessary hardship it is required that you have the square foot area. Since you have 9 or 10 or whatever, it is in line there it is 9 that is all block B. Now this did not happen all at one time,Mr. Richards I think you will be interested in this, this board is not trying to be hard on builders or business men, we are not anti-growth or pro-growth, we are here to conduct our duty; we are a volunteer board. It is very difficult at times to get everything weighed out and to decide. But somebody has to do it and when you apply for a variance you are granting that the law exists and is correct. You are not questioning the fact that R-3 zoning is there, you are saying that you have problems. We have gone through this hearing once before and here we are doing it one more time. You are experienced in this, so I am going to talk maybe a little straighter and a little harder to you in that spirit that you're pros your not just one man coming in that has never done this before. These gentlemen are contract builders, they are professionals with practical knowledge. And you realize the intent of R-3 zoning was to start R-3 zoning it would defeat the intention of this ordinance not to require as muoh compliance to R-3 as possible. A variance on the depth appears reasonable, but since more than two lots in continuous ownership exists~per this law, we are led to say you must show some unnecessary hardship in order for a variance on that area to be granted. The variance on the depth is reasonable, the variance on the area is hanging waiting for somebody to prove they have unnecessary hardship other than money which does not apply. Now it's a perfactly approvable andicorrect motivation to get maximum number of lots of land that you own. Nobody is ever going to knoek the profit motive as far as I'm concerned, but that is not allowed as a reason under this ordinance. We are specifically prohibited from using that I want to be very careful that you all understand, being as fair as we can on this thing. :'.,You have only to make your case in order to win it. The board must always find that there is unnecessary hardship, hardships that are unavoidable if the ends and aims of the zoning ordinance are to be accomplished, are necessary hardships and may not be granted variances. That is about as tough as law I have ever seen, but we are going to live with it. Now I gather from the comments tonight and the map and the work going on over here, that the board is welcome and is open to any suggestion you have on how you might divide the remaining land and come substantically within the area. We are trying to be as reasonable and helpful as we can, we think homes should be built. We wonder if you c&n get maybe not 9 maybe 8 in there and still make it. We are not anti-building we are trying to do this legally. Mr. Cartee stated that he cannot understand~why if 80 feet is wrong on one it wouldn't be wrong on the rest. Chairman Millard stated that he said we were saying what would be the minimum. Mr. Cartee stated that minimum is 75 feet. Chairman Millard stated that we have opened the door to see what is the best you can do on area, we would like to see it R-3 all the way through. Mr. Richards suggested that we will try to live with anything you think we should have and you figure out what size the lots should be and we can see if we can live' with it. We are not going to get what we ask for anyway that is plain to see. I don't know what we need to do, we will work any way in the world we can. Chairman Millard stated that it was a tricky' turn that the road makes~ you have pie shaped lots and you have some that are only part way. What I feel and I gather the board feels at this point 7. ,~ (.) u is you need the opportunity to maybe replot.that area getting as near as you possibly can to the full R-3. If you can't do it I am sure people are very understanding and that they would grant you a few feet one way or the other. Mr. Richards stated that the lots on the corner of the curve, there is not much you can do with them. We do have the area there I believe so if we left those like they were they would work both ways. Chairman Millard stated that you would probably lose more houses that way. He stated that we would like to be helpful on this board we are not going to plot your land for you. Mr. Cartee stated that he does not have the exact records that Mr. Swoope did for us but if my memory is correct, I think, he said we would lose two building sites plus have 65 feet unusable land by going to 86 feet. Mr. Poland asked would it be possible instead of getting 12 cutting back to 10 or 11 building sites. Mr. Cartee stated that we are only talk1gg about 9. Mr. Cartee stated you are talking about taking two houses, coJipret'el'y away ~ from us. Mr. Poland stated you are talking about profit, we are talking about the welfare and the beauty of Edgewater. We are talKing ". about something that you are going to take your money and build your houses and leave town and that is the end of it, and we are going to live here we have to put up with this. Whatever you build we are going to have to live with. Chairman Millard stated that he hated to interupt, but this area is beyond our responsibility and places them in a bad spot. This is not denying the validity of your points, but I am a~raid this is not the right place to talk about it. As you know any votes we make will come up to the council. We really have to stick pretty much to the issue here. I would be interested in any comments that you may come up with now as to what you would do refering to Mr. Richards and Mr. Cartee. We can proceed down the row and take each one of these homes and vote on it per your application at this time and that is what we are here to do I am ready to start that. Mr. Cartee stated that in the ordinance, you have five criteria. Chairman Millard stated that that is in zoning. Chairman Millard stated that all those mean in the absence of unnecessary hardship it is up to the board to decide if necessary hardship has been shown. We understand your desire to get maximum houses, that is not a valid showing. We have opened the door at this time to say do you wish to try to get 8 houses in there I don't know if 8 would be alright or not, I am just saying that? If so we would be willing to hold things at this point and let you come back in a few days and you could say here is'what,we'want'to~do. now. This is beyond our area, we are here to vote. But once we vote I don't want to have to go through this again. Mr. Cartee stated that the only hardship we have is the best use of the property. M~. Richards asked if they had something in mind as to what you believe we should have for square footage of a lot for a homesite. Chairman Millard stated that the kind of argument that would go down best would be if you could show with a clear plot how you could get these 8 houses on there and it was obvious that you have gotten the maximum area. Then we could look at that and vote. Mr. Richards asked if in other words you want 8 houses on there instead of nine? Chairman Millard stated if that is the way it turns out. In other words, you have got to work out the numbers and figure it out and then we would say well is this the best that we can get and is this going to meet the criteria? I would think if you came that close to the area that we would all feel much more at ease with that. 8. "" (.) (,J Mr. Richards stated that if you had a seventy five foot lot width which is what R-3 is and you have the proper set backs you have the same distance between the two houses side. by side as you would if you had 100 foot lots with larger houses on them, and stay within the 10 foot or whatever is required set back. It would be no different. With the size houses we are~putt1ng on those lots you will have your set back, that are more than required in R-3. We thought that would be a reasonable request whereby if you had more set backs than was required,. this would give each individual more real estate. And of course if you have your houses constructed. I also point out that F.il.A. will let you build on a~ 7500 square lot. That is about standard anywhere. Chairman Millard asked the members if they had anything to add. Mr. Lupinek stated that he would rather give them 8 houses instead of nine. Chairman Millard asked how wide would those lots be. Mr. Lupinek stated that it is hard to take all the figures on account of the pie shaped corner. Mr. Richards stated that the pie shaped lots are well over what is required. Mr. Cartee stated that he is not trying to disagree, but a registered surveyer has told us that it is impossible to put 8 houses on that property, we would lose 2 building sites. Mr. Boland stated if you are going to have 65 feet left over you are taking 2~ feet from each lot or 250 square feet and it works out of 8400 square feet per lot, roughly, in that area you come out with 8 building sites. You have got 65 feet of property left over that you can't do anything with and you take two feet off of each of the remaining 7 lots, that's 14 feet. You are removing 300 square feet from meeting the area. Mr. Richards stated that maybe if we were using 8200 square feet that would be a reasonable request. Mr. Poland stated that you could get 8 building sites in there and come reasonably close. Certainly closer than you come with this. Chairman Millard stated that he thinks Mr. Poland and Mr. Lupinek have given as much help as possible. Chairman Millard stated that if he could add to this, there is one thing that has been overlooked. We might as well tell you now that this house on the corner of Highland and Wildwood is too close to the road and should meet R-3 yards. I wouldn't go for the 10 foot thing there. Mr. Richards stated, that we could just turn the house around and let it face south. Mr. Millard stated that it is impossible for us to get a variance on that much of an area lack for R-3 zoning in view of the directions and guidance we have from this Ordinance. I don't see any way that we can vote. If we would start to vote on this now we would probably go for another 2 hours and we would end up possibly in that high lot area that is very difficult. Chairman Millard stated that we would like to help you, I think helping you would be to stop now and let you come in with what you can live with. Mr. Richards stated that he would like to suggest that if you could vote on 8 houses being in that area rather than nine, would that clear your conscience whereby we could proceed? Chairman Millard stated that that is in essence what we are trying to do~ but we can't vote like that. We have to vote on a pl~t. plan on where this is going to be and how it is going to be. I think we should try to get as near to R-3 area as possible. 9. ~ ~ ~ Mr. Cartee asked Mr. Millard if he could vote to grant the depth of the lots that are requested and we could work this problem out. Thereby we won't be put off. All that we will have to do is meet your requirements, we would not have to come back in here and we would not have to hold Mr. Wagner up from going up north. If you could vote for and give us what we ask for depth variance, providing we can meet whatever requirements you come up with, then get that out of the way so we don't have to wait another 3 weeks to come back in front of this board and go through this again. Chairman Millard asked the members of the board for comments to give him some guidance. Mr. Lupinek was wondering what he had in mind on the width of the lot. Mr. Richards and Mr. Cartee stated we will give you what you want. Mr. Poland stated that he cannot vote on the issue. He stated that he would not want to vote on something he did not see. Chairman Millard stated that he is just asking for guidance on how we should proceed from here. Mr. Lupinek was asked by Mr. Millard how he feels on this. Mr. Lupinek stated that it seems like if they go through with a reasonable area correction, he thinks that by putting eight houses in there it would not be as ~ad as Mr. Cartee says. He stated that he will not be able to be h~re after this for a couple of months. Chairman Millard asked Mr. Richards if it was not possible for them to work out how wide they want each lot. Mr. Cartee asked how wide do you want them, give us something to go by. You all figured out that we could get 8 building sites, what did you figure out. Mr. Millard stated that he would be much happier with something closer to 85, but we can't do that until you have definite plQts. And no matter what we might like, it is not possible mathematically, there is nothing we can do about it. Now you may find that your big leadway is on the curve. Mr. Cartee stated that if we can get you to say yes on the depth then we will work out the other problems, put your provisions there and not hold us up for two more weeks. We can have a surveyer on this in the morning, and get this problem handled and we still have to go in front of the other board and they are going to take your suggestions. Give us a decision on depth so we can go on with our business. Chairman Millard asked Mr. Kane if he had a question. He stated that he thought you should give them thexF request on the depth, but it still says in the ordinance that they will comply with the 8625 square feet and if it creates a hardship financially, it is not a hardship. Chairman Millard asked Mr. Cartee when is the soonest they could be back and show the board what they want to do. Mr. Cartee stated that he could be back tomorrow night. Chairman Millard stated that we want to do this fair, and respect the law and we are going to listen to what the audience says and we will try to come up with something that everybody can live with. Mr. Richards asked if it is possible for the board to meet tomorrow night and inspect the drawings. Chairman Millard asked if there was anybody here that could not come. They will all be there. 10. ~ ~ u u Mr. .Richards asked at this stage of the game do we have any variances? Chairman Millard stated that you have those that we have voted on. We are going into recess. Chairman Millard asked to have a few comments from the building inspector. Mr. Loeffler stated that you are going to set a lot size down there that no one will be able to meet in the future. If it is 85 feet wide, who is going to meet it? Chairman Millard stated that we are not making the lot that wide as a rule, we are saying that you have to provide the area. We want to upgrade the area. Mr. Loeffler stated that if he has to make his lot 85 feet to meet the required area all the rest of the lots in that subdivision will have to meet the same thing. Chairman Millard stated that he did not think so, variances do not set laws. Mr. Richards asked, if at this stage of the game, have we established the fact that the 100 foot depth is the only thing we can have? Chairman Millard asked if there were any comments for the audiance. Mr. Richards asked if they would vote on that. Chairman Millard stated no, we will vote on your plan, does anyone object at this point to a variance on the depth~ It looks like a valid thing to me. Mr. Kane stated that he is not'objedtional as long as they have the area. I think it is a great thing, I would like to see it developed. Mr. Richards asked if this could be voted on. Mr. Millard stated that we would have to say that provided you come with the plan and it meets the area. If there are no objections this hearing will continue tomorrow. night the same. time and the same place. 11.