HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-13 BAA MINUTES•
•
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
January 13 , 1999
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to
order at 7:30 P.M. in the Englewood City Counc il Chambers , Cha ir Bode presiding .
Members present: Allen , Bode, O 'Brien , Seymour, Smith
Members absent: Mcintosh
(Secretary's Note : One vacancy)
Staff present: Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney
Harold Stitt, Sen ior Plan ner
Lance Smith , Chief Building Official
Chair Bode stated that there were five members present ; therefore, four affirmative
votes will be required to grant a variance. Chair Bode stated that the Board of
Adjustments and Appea ls is empowered to grant or deny variances by Part Ill , Section
60 of the Englewood City Charter.
Cha ir Bo de set forth parameters for conduct of hearings : The Chair will introduce the
case ; app li cants will present the ir request and reasons the variance should be granted ;
proponents will be given an opportun ity to speak ; opponents will address the Board ;
and then staff will address the Board .
II. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #10-98
Matthew Heffernan
3434 and 3436 South Down ing
Cha ir Bode declared the public hearing reopened stating the case was continued from
the November 12 , 1998 hearing .
Matthew Heffernan , 8679 Doane Place , was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Heffernan
stated s ince he testified at the November hearing and because he had nothing further
to add , he wished to defer to the contractor who installed the furnace.
Ryan K. Schm idt, 8714 W. 95 th Avenue was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Schmidt stated
• he was present to discuss the need to upgrade a 41-year old duplex with a second
1
furnace. His company became involved when he responded to a "no heat" complaint ; •
his service technician discovered that the furnace had a bad gas valve and cracked
heat exchanger. He testified that he provided Mr . Heffernan with a quote for replacing
the unsafe furnace, pulled the appropriate permits, and installed the furnace. He stated
he was surprised to learn that they had incorrectly installed the furnace.
Mr. Schmidt continued by stating it would take considerable time and effort to bring the
41-year old building up to Code; the current furnace is a 90,000 BT furnace and is
designed to heat the entire house. If the Board requires that the units not share return
air, he stated the only alternative would be to have a second heating unit installed
upstairs and remove the duct work from the upstairs system or at least cap it off so the
units don't share return air. This procedure would render the duct system in the lower
part of the unit too small to handle the current furnace; therefore, the lower unit would
need to be renovated by installing a smaller furnace and a second smaller furnace in
the attic in order to accommodate the current duct system which is designed to handle
a larger furnace. He further testified that he spoke to Jim King , chief mechanical
inspector for Denver. Mr . King informed him that on an older home , such as this
duplex, he would grandfather the replacement furnace . If it were a new building, Mr.
King would not allow it. Mr. Schmidt stated that he also spoke to Bill Austin with the
City of Arvada who relayed the same comments. Mr. Schmidt asked the Board to
appeal the decision .
Mr. Allen asked the primary reason why he wanted one furnace for two units . Mr. •
Schmidt stated that there is wasn't a good reason; this duplex was designed that way
41 years ago. By today's standards , you would want separate furnaces so you are not
sharing communicable air --smoker in one unit and non-smoker in another unit sharing
the same air space. He stated that there is also the possibility of transference of
diseases by sharing return air; however, this building was built long before the current
Code went into effect.
Mr. Smith asked if he was aware of the Code and its requirements. Mr . Schmidt stated
that he is familiar with the Code . Mr . Smith then asked why he didn 't inform the
applicant that two furnaces were required, especially in light of his testimony that it
could be a health hazard. Mr. Smith stated the age of the building doesn 't matter if a
health hazard exists. Mr. Schmidt stated he installed the furnace to protect the
occupants and assumed the design of the building would be adequate.
Mr . Seymour stated that according to Englewood Code, this requirement has existed
since 1973 --25 years. Further , the Board's information is that Denver requires a
separate furnace for each unit; Arapahoe County , Brighton , Commerce City, and many
other municipalities require separate furnaces . Mr. Seymour pointed out that
regardless of what other municipalities require , dwellings in Englewood must follow
Englewood 's requirements and for 25 years , the Englewood has required separate air
returns.
2
•
•
•
•
Ms. O'Brien clarified that the installed furnace is capable of heating two units. Mr .
Schmidt stated that was correct. Ms . O'Brien asked if a one-hour rated wall around the
furnace exists. Mr. Schmidt stated no; the furnace is located in a kitchen of the
downstairs unit. Ms. O'Brien further asked if a one-hour rated wall and door could be
placed around the furnace and if so , could it be accomplished with minimal expense.
Mr. Schmidt responded that yes it could be done and at minimal expense . Ms . O'Brien
informed Mr. Schmidt that if the Board chose to grant the appeal, it would be for this
property only. Mr. Schmidt stated he understood ; the Board could be assured that if he
receives a call on another duplex owner he will instruct him as to what the Code
requires. Ms. O'Brien asked if he would estimate the cost of replacing the duct work
and other work required to install two furnaces. Mr. Schmidt stated that to add a
second furnace in the attic would be the only choice, and it would depend on whether
the electrical service in the building could handle the extra load. He estimated that if no
electrical upgrades were required, the cost would be approximately $3,000 . With
electrical upgrades to both unit , the cost would double to $6,000 . Ms. O'Brien asked if
he would feel safe in one of the two units with only one furnace installed. Mr. Schmidt
responded that he would feel safe because he has never had a problem sitting on a
crowded bus or in a car with other people and has lived under such circumstances. Ms.
O'Brien asked if he had an understanding with the property owner regarding who would
bear the cost if the appeal is not granted. Mr. Schmidt stated that they have not
discussed that issue, but he informed Mr. Heffernan that he was working for him. If
needed , they will discuss it. Ms . O'Brien asked if he would assume the cost of placing a
one-hour rated wall and door around the furnace if the Board grandfathered the
furnace . Mr. Schmidt stated he would.
Lance Smith , Chief Building Official, was sworn in for testimony . Mr. Smith testified that
the he contacted the State of Colorado Infectious Diseases Center and asked what type
of viruses someone might encounter with a common return air system. They informed
him of chicken pox, disseminated herpes, lassa fever, tuberculosis; and under the
obnoxious odors, they mentioned benzene and toluene ; products of hairspray, nail
polish, crafts, hobbies, etc. Mr. Smith stated that the reason the Code changes is
because problems, such as these, have been proven to exist. When it comes to
replacement of a furnace , the Code requires that the furnace be split into two separate
systems so the return air is no longer shared. Mr. Smith stated that some jurisdictions
require a fire wall or an area of separation between the furnace and the other areas, as
well as installing fire hampers in the ducts penetrating the systems . Mr. Smith pointed
out that this method would have no effect on sharing the common return air.
Board member Smith asked what the difference would be between a single family
dwelling with 7 family members and this duplex. Mr. Smith responded that the
difference is the duplex has separate families and in a single-family house , a person
controls their environment. Board member Smith asked if the health hazard was any
different in those two examples. Mr. Smith stated it probably wasn't, but reiterated that
in your own home you control your environment. A family would be aware if other
family members had any diseases and would take the necessary steps to isolate them.
3
Ms. O'Brien asked if the health risk to the duplex occupants is any greater now than •
before the furnace was replaced . Mr. Smith responded that it would be no worse. Ms.
O'Brien asked what his objection would be to grandfathering this property. Mr. Smith
stated he is charged with enforcing the Code as written.
Board member Smith inquired when a "repair and maintenance" becomes a
"replacement"? If the contractor had only replaced the broken parts, would the two
furnaces still be required? Mr. Smith responded "no"; the Code is very specific that a
person can repair and maintain. While a permit is not required for repair and
maintenance, the Code is very specific that any parts or pieces replaced or repaired
have to be done so according to Code.
Mr. Seymour asked if the prior furnace could have been repaired . Mr. Smith responded
that on a 41-year old furnace, it would depend on whether parts would be available .
Chair Bode stated that it is rare that replacement parts can 't be found; however, the
cost of repairing is usually prohibitive; it is more cost effective , usually , to replace the
furnace .
Mr. Seymour asked for clarification: The contractor testified that Denver informed him
that two furnaces weren't required, but the survey states that Denver does require two
furnaces in a duplex. Mr. Smith responded that he is unaware of who Mr. Schmidt
spoke to , but the survey question was worded the same to every jurisdiction . Also, •
Denver follows the same codes as Englewood.
Mr. Bode read the section of the staff report entitled "Existing Installations." He then
asked Mr. Smith if he considered the new furnace a new instance of hazard to life,
health, or property. Mr. Smith stated that particular section of the Code only pertains to
repair and maintenance; when replacement is done, the Code states it shall comply
with the provisions for new equipment.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the appeal. Chair Bode
incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public hearing .
Mr. Seymour moved;
Ms . O'Brien seconded:
THAT FOR CASE #10-98, MATIHEW HEFFERNAN , 3434 AND 3436 SOUTH
DOWNING, THE APPLICANT BE GRANTED AN APPEAL TO SECTION 317 .8
OF THE 1994 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE.
Mr. Smith stated he had a problem distinguishing between when replacement becomes
maintenance, and maintenance becomes a replacement. Mr. Smith further stated that
if the applicant had replaced the whole heating system, that it would need to comply .
However, the applicant only replaced a piece of the system . He stated he was
4
•
• concerned about spending more money to renovate a problem that has existed for 41
years and believes on those grounds the case should be grandfathered in. He further
stated that he didn't see any reason for a fire wall ; the danger is not from fire, but from
germs floating in the air.
Ms. O'Br ien stated that it appears in other jurisdictions that the building official has the
authority to grandfather such cases or feels it is opportunity for this Board to
grandfather it in . Ms. O'Brien stated that when she weighs the cost, the issue of repair
versus replacement , and that the risk has not increased , she feels grandfathering the
case would be appropriate .
Mr. Smith stated the Code states the existing mechanical system may have the use
continued as long as no hazard is created by the mechanical system . Mr . Smith
continued that he believes no hazard was created by this change; it has not increased
or de creased the risk. Presuming the mechanical system is the whole heating system ,
it appears the case is grandfathered in under Section 104.2.
Discussion ensued.
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes .
Mr. Seymour stated he voted "yes" since only a portion of the system was replaced and
• agreed with comments made by Mr. Smith earlier.
•
Mr . Smith , Ms . O'Brien , and Chair Bode voted "yes " concurring with Mr. Seymour.
Mr. Allen stated he voted "no" because the Code is designed to protect and guarantee
health, safety , and privacy. He stated he doesn 't believe this is achieved by heating
two apartments with one furnace .
The Chair announced the appeal as granted by a 4-1 vote.
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #15-98
Broadways Sport Tavern
3978 South Broadway
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open, stating he had proof of posting and
pub li cation .
Chair Bode stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the 30-inch
maximum projection for a projecting sign by 36 inches. This is a variance from Section
16-4-19-1 O:C(3) of the Comprehensive Zon ing Ordinance.
Greg Carter, 6699 S . Helena St., was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Carter stated he is
requesting the Board to allow a perpendicular sign to extend 36 inches from the front of
5
the building at 3978 S. Broadway. Mr. Carter directed the Board's attention to the
drawing of the sign provided in their packets. He stated that the drawing is a sample of •
the sign he wishes to place on his business. Addressing the four criteria, Mr. Carter
stated :
1. The proposed perpendicular sign will be placed on the front wall of the existing
building which is set back approximately 2 feet 11 inches from the front property
line. Adjacent buildings to the north sit on the property line; therefore, his business
is at a disadvantage setting back 2 feet 11 inches. The proposed sign would extend
1 inch farther than a complying sign on any of the adjacent buildings to the North.
Currently, there are 4 signs to the North that are beyond the complying amount.
2. The proposed sign is approximately 13 square feet in area, and the proposed wall
sign is approximately 36 feet in area. The wall sign would say "Broadways." Added
together, the two total approximately 61 % of the allowable sign area; 80 square feet.
He is not asking to exceed the allowable sign area, only to extend farther out
because of the setback.
3. The proposed perpendicular sign is in keeping with the size and configuration of
other signs in the area. Because of the building setback , it will not project farther
into the right of way than other neighboring signs. The sign keeps with the scale
and character of the existing building and proposed use. If a Code complying
perpendicular sign of maximum allowable size were installed, the resulting sign •
would be out of scale and character with the building. It would project 2.5 feet from
the building and 10 feet in the air and would extend beyond the roof of the building .
4. A variety of conforming and nonconforming signs exist on neighboring buildings .
The proposed sign has been designed in keeping with the scale and character of
the building and the neighborhood. As the neighbor's statements reflect, the
surrounding businesses do not object to the request.
Mr. Allen asked which portion of the sign would project out from the building . Mr. Carter
stated that probably the word "Sports" and part of the baseball diamond.
Mr. Seymour asked if the sign would be lit. Mr. Carter stated that it will be back lit which
means there will be lighting behind the sign , and the letters will be in neon. The
baseball player and the green diamond will be back lit with fluorescent bulbs. Mr.
Seymour asked what part of the sign would be in neon. Mr. Carter responded that only
the letters that say "Sports Tavern ." The wall sign, "Broadways" will be painted on
either the building or a fixture. Mr. Seymour asked for the height of the letters for
"Sports Tavern." Mr. Carter stated they will be approximately 8-12 inches high,
depending upon the scale of the sign.
Mark Hoskin, 160 Jersey St., was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Hoskin stated he is an
architect with Cocallas and Hoskin Architects and has been assisting Mr. Carter in the
6
•
•
•
•
Broadway Sports Tavern with regard to the exterior work. The business is currently a
pool and foosball center, and Mr. Carter is changing the business to a sports tavern .
Mr. Carter has been successful in obtaining a liquor license. Mr. Hoskin testified that
the applicant is attempting to return the exterior of the building to its original look with a
couple of exceptions . He agreed with Mr. Carter that a complying perpendicular sign
would extend beyond the roof of the building. Mr. Hoskin stated that they have
attempted to provide a tasteful compromise and clarified that the sign is internally lit ,
rather than back lit. The sign is a two-face sign and will be vis ible from both the north
and the south ; internally lit within the sign , and the letters "Sport Tavern " are
approximately 8 inches and will be out lined in neon . He continued by stating that an
awning will be installed the length of the existing store front, and the store front will be
painted to match the awning.
Mr. Smith asked if both the buildings to the North and the South extend beyond the
setback. Mr. Hoskin replied that only the buildings to the North extend 2 feet 11 inches.
The building immediately to the South does not ; their sign , however, encroaches further
than the allowable 2.5 feet.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the variance request.
Chair Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the
public hearing .
Mr. Seymour moved ;
Mr. Smith seconded :
THAT FOR CASE #15-98 , BROADWAYS SPORTS TAVERN , 3978 SOUTH
BROADWAY , BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 30-INCH
MAXIMUM PROJECTION FOR A PROJECTING SIGN BY 36 INCHES . THIS IS
A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 16-4-19-10 :C(3) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE.
Mr. Smith stated that with the other front of the buildings extending out beyond the
applicant's , it makes the case unique . He further stated that the proposed sign was
very attractive. Ms . O'Brien concurred that the sign was aesthetically pleasing .
With no further d iscussion , the secretary polled the members ' votes.
Ms. O'Brien stated she voted "yes "; the sign would not extend beyond the face of the
adjacent buildings ; the subject building is set back from the front property line on the
North. The proposed variance will allow for a aesthetically pleasing sign ; it is
appropriat e to the bus iness and is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses.
The proposed variance , coupled with the other facade improvements described during
the public hearing , will enhance the commercia l character of this portion of South
Broadway which is an important area to the City. The proposed sign variance will not
affect adjacent build ings or uses.
7
Mr. Allen stated he voted "yes"; it is not a safety hazard; does not change the character •
of the neighborhood; and there were no objections from surrounding business owners.
Messrs. Seymour, Smith, and Bode voted "yes" concurring with Ms. O'Brien and Mr.
Allen .
The Chair announced the variance as granted by a 5-0 vote, and directed the applicant
to contact the planning division staff for any additional information .
IV. PUBLIC HEARING -CASE #1-99
3263 South Broadway
Steven Schalk
Chair Bode declared the Public Hearing open. Chair Bode introduced the case by
stating the applicant is requesting an appeal of Sections 1103.1.2.1, 1105.1, and
1105.2 .2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code.
A. Riddick Semple, 2385 Ash , was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Semple stated he is the
architect for the owner of the Gothic Theater. He testified that he is assisting in
renovating the Gothic Theater into concert venue that will serve alcohol. He described
the building as having a sloped floor, lower floor auditorium with a stair-stepped balcony
over approximately half of the floor area. He continued by stating that Section •
1103.1 .2 .1 of the Code exempts elevators to a mezzanine area of 25% or less of the ·
total seating of the space. He testified that for the most part, there will not be fixed
seating; it will be a stand-up venue where people mill around . Taking the existing
balcony and calculating for "standup" seating, he would be at approximately 30%, or
5% higher than the allowable factor.
Section 104.2 . 7 recognizes that there may be practical difficulties involved in carrying
out the provisions of the Code and allows the building official to grant modifications for
individual cases based upon special individual reasons. In this particular case, Mr.
Semple stated that he finds installing an elevator very impractical for a number of
reasons. One is the loss of floor space; the building is rather small. An elevator
capable of taking a wheelchair into the space will travel from the ground floor lobby to
an intermediate mezzanine, which eliminates the possibility for a men 's room, and then
to a balcony that is no more than 200 square feet of space. He testified that the stair-
stepped balcony will be converted it into a series of bigger platforms . The platform is
only 200 sq . ft . of space that a wheelchair could use. He testified that the expense to
install the elevator for access to such a small area is onerous. An elevator would
eliminate any ability to meet the Code requirements for toilets. He continued by stating
that the existing balcony will have a capacity of 183 people, approximately 30% of the
capacity of the building, and "wings" will be constructed on each side of the existing
balcony towards the stage . When the wings are added, the 30% factor will go up to •
closer 40%. Mr. Semple stated that all the services available to customers in the
8
•
•
•
balcony are also available to custome rs on the ground floor. There is a bar on the
ground floor, as well as in the balcony; anything that happens in the balcony also
happens on the ground floor.
He stated that he has made provisions for handicapped people, especially in
wheelchairs, to be served to the same extent as non-handicapped people on the main
level. The building also has an historic character --art deco --and the intrusion of an
elevator through the space is not only an undesirable aesthetic, but also takes up floor
space that the owner needs to meet the toilet requirements.
He continued by stating that the strict compliance under the particular scenario seems
very impractical and if forced to install an elevator, it would create an unacceptable
impact on the project's viability.
With regard to the issue of handicapped restrooms being provided for each sex and on
each level, Mr. Semple stated that since the application was filed, he has adjusted the
drawings ; the building will now have handicapped restrooms for each sex on the ground
floor. However, the same cannot be accomplished in the balcony and, in fact, would
not need to be done if an elevator is not required.
Mr. Seymour stated that his information indicates that "based on the occupant charts,
as submitted by the architect, the occupant load of the main floor assembly area
including the stage and bar area is 415 occupants . The occupant load of the
mezzanine area, again based on the submitted charts, is 294 occupants and is
approximately 41 % of the total seating a rea." Mr. Seymour asked why the information
was now changing --200 square feet in the balcony and people standing up rather than
sitting down . Mr. Semple responded that there is a difference between the packet the
Board has and the numbers he presented because his numbers do not include the
stage or the bar area. The bar area is only for the people who are working behind the
bar, and the stage area is only for the people that are performing on the stage. The
occupancy of the mezzanine area , as stated in the Board's information , includes the
addition of the two wings. Mr. Semple further responded that with the new use, the
existing balcony would have an occupant load representing 30% of the total seating
capacity of the entire building . Mr. Seymour asked for the total seating capacity of the
building. Mr. Semple responded that the total seating capacity of the entire building is
673 ; the occupant load factor is 7 square feet per person for stand up as opposed to 15
square feet per person for chairs . The ground floor seating capacity is 379 and upstairs
is 274 .
Mr. Allen asked if there would be restrooms in the balcony. Mr. Semple responded that
the entrance of the building is at grade. Off of the anteroom is a men's and women's
handicapped toilet. A large platform in the auditorium area contains a bar; this is the
area that is wheelchair accessible. The intermediate level can be accessed by stairs
and contains a large men's and women's restrooms . The men's room portion of this
9
level would be obliterated by an elevator shaft . The sta irs proceed up to the balcony
level were there is an additional men 's and women 's restrooms , adjacent to the bar. •
Ms . O'Brien asked why the men 's restroom on the middle level couldn 't be moved to
make room for an elevator room. Mr. Semple submitted drawings for the Board's
reference. Referring to those drawings , Mr. Semple stated that the buildi ng is very
small --120 ft. x 47 ft. He stated the yellow and red markings on the drawings indicate
the elevator and elevator shaft. The second floor drawing also shows the elevator
superimposed , which obliterates the men 's room entirely. The upper level drawing
shows a highlighted area which indicates the only space a wheelchair would be able to
access even if an elevator were installed .
Ms . O'Brien asked why ramps couldn 't be installed to provide access to the upper
levels. Mr. Semple stated that it would be too steep and the headroom becomes
minimal on the upper level.
Lance Smith , Chief Building Official , stated that Section 1103 .2.2 requires that all
portions of the building be access ible . The drawings indicate a dance floor , and it
appears that a lot of obstacles exist for handicapped people to access the fu ll use of the
facility. Mr. Smi t h continued by stating that the elevator requirement is the 25% rule.
The staff report indicates 415 as the occupant load and Mr . Semple has reduced it to
379 which increases the staff's 41 % to approximately 45% of the total seating area .
With regard to the elevator and the construction preventing space on the second floor , •
he stated that it will need to be remedied by proper ramps or a different method to
provide access for people to the seating or standing area . It's a basic requirement of
Chapter 11 that handicapped people have to be given the same views and amenities in
the bu il d ing as an able person .
Chair Bode asked if these requirements were necessary for Mr. Schalk to obtain a
liquor license . Mr. Smith stated no; the liquor license changed the character and use of
the bu ilding which drives the requirement for the elevator . The Code states that when
the mezzanine area exceeds 25%, accessibility must be provided .
Board member Smith stated that the property's prior use was an entertainment venue ;
he asked how the character and use changed. Mr. Smith responded that liquor makes
for a more hazardous situation for the occupant. Again , if the occupant load on the
balcony were kept to the 25% level , the requirements for the elevator disappear.
Ms . O'Brien asked if the 25% was in the control of the owner . Mr. Smith stated that it
was.
Steven Schalk, 23709 St. Isabelle Road , Indian Hills, Colorado, was sworn in for
testimony . Mr. Schalk stated that the Gothic Theater is an historic landmark in
Englewood and feels that he is trying to meet all the current Code and upgrades
required. Continuing he stated that he doesn 't wish to damage the deco and the
10
•
•
•
•
character the building has and believes that installing an elevator will do that. If the
handicapped were not getting all the necessities, he personally would feel that he was
not complying; however, he believes all the services will be provided to the handicap in
a very comfortable setting.
There were no other persons present to testify for or against the appeal request. Chair
Bode incorporated the staff report and exhibits into the record and closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Seymour moved;
Mr. Smith seconded:
THAT FOR CASE #1-99, STEVEN SCHALK , 3263 SOUTH BROADWAY , BE
GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM SECTIONS 1103.1 .2.1 , 1105 .1, AND 1105 .2 .2
OF THE 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE.
Mr. Seymour stated that if the Board granted the appeal , he foresaw the case being
appealed to the Supreme Court . He continued by stating that he sees a lot of problems
with the project.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she had great concern with the project because it is an
extremely unfriendly venue for handicapped people . She continued that she fully
supports the ADA and "separate but equal" has not worked in other contexts and feels it
will not work in this case. Further, if she were in a wheelchair, she wouldn 't want to be
told that she was restricted to the lower level when 45% of the occupants can be
upstairs. If the owner feels that the deco and the aesthetics are so important , he should
reduce the top floor to less than 25%. Continuing , she stated that loss of floor space
and aesthetics do not outweigh the rights of handicapped people .
Mr. Allen stated that in this case he feels that the handicap issue has been adequately
served since there are handicapped restrooms on the ground floor .
Mr. Smith stated that it is easy enough to meet the 25% requirement. Making it more
than 25% is only to sell more liquor and increase the occupancy .
With no further discussion, the secretary polled the members ' votes .
Ms . O'Brien stated she voted "no "; the 25% rule is applicable and the owner could stay
within that 25%. The loss of floor space and undesirable aesthetics does not outweigh
the rights of the handicapped.
Mr. Allen stated he voted "yes."
Messrs . Seymour, Smith and Bode stated they voted "no", concurring with Ms. O 'Brien .
11
The Chair announced the appeal as denied by a 4-1 vote .
Mr. Allen left the meeting. Chair Bode declared there was no longer a quorum present
and the meeting was declared adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
~ording Secretary
12
•
•
•