Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-09 BAA MINUTES• • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO DECEMBER 9, 1987 //tJ The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Welker at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, Fish, Lighthall, Brown, Doyle and Welker. Members absent: Hallagin. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 1987, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Welker seconded the motion. Upon a vote a 11 six members present voted in favor of the mo t ion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of November 4, 1987, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES #24-87, 26-87, 28-87 AND 29-87 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Fish seconded the motion. Upon a vote, a 11 six members present voted in favor of the motion, and the chairman ruled the Findings were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Carol Castor-Ekwall 4030 South Sherman Street Case #30-87 The Chairman opened the public hearing, saying there was proof of publication and posting. Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant was requesting an appeal of the strict application of the Housing Regulations which require that the ceiling height of at least one-half of the floor area of a basement be seven (7) feet, in order for the basement to be habitable, and that each room in the basement has to be provided with a safe egress route. This is an appeal from the En- glewood Housing Regulations, Sections 9-3A-2, 9-3A -4E, and 9-3h -3 of the 1985 Englewood Municipal Code. • The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. - 1 - • • • Carol Castor-Ekwall, 4030 South Sherman Street, was sworn in and stated that she bought the house a year before, and it had been advertised as a four- bedroom home with two of the bedrooms located in the basement. Because she was aware that some updating was necessary, she contacted the City's Housing Division for advice and to inquire about a low-interest loan. She obtained a loan under the Rehabilitation Program and improved the furnace, plumbing, electrical system, and added a water heater, egress window and door. When the Chief Building Inspector came to make an inspection, he said the basement could not be used for sleeping purposes because the ceiling height was less than the required seven feet, and now two of her children cannot live with her. The Rehabilitation office had made many inspections of her home throughout the construction; and because the City was involved during the whole process, she had assumed all of the City requirements were met. Robert Short, Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the normal procedure for a rehabilitation project is: 1. Initial Evaluation. To find major problems and to determine the aims of the homeowners. 2. Discuss the money available. 3. Determine the amount of work possible within the money limitations. 4. Prioritize the work beginning with life-threatening issues . In this case there were serious electrical, heating and plumbing problems which needed to be addressed immediately. There was no solution to the low ceiling in the basement which was already used for the two bedrooms, so they chose to address the egress door, smoke detectors and windows. They were aware there is no way to meet all current Codes, but did the best they could. Mrs. Castor-Ekwall has four children, and the four bedrooms, two of which are in the basement, have been in existence in this house for many years. The Housing Rehabilitation viewed the ceiling issue as an existing situation. When a contractor, however, called the Building Division for an inspection after framing was exposed and cleaned, Mr. Yoder put a Stop Work Order on the project. Mr. Yoder felt he had no choice, and that no compromise could be made. He did, however, allow the work to be finished, and an application was filed to go to the Board. Mr. Short said that in their work they notice many Code violations, and aim to improve existing situations. It would be easiest to have the Building Depart- ment accompany them on their inspections, but the Building Department is un- able to devote that much time to rehabilitation projects. Mr. Short stated that many older homes in Englewood have low ceilings in the basements; and this structure, and many like it, will remain in Englewood. Mr. Short said that the applicant was caught between the old codes and a run- down house, and the new codes. He said they need to be able to address the most critical of the existing problems problems without having to solve every- thing. Other units have been improved under the Rehab Program with low ceil- ings, and his staff tries to do the most important things, keeping in mind that the owners have to repay the loans. -2 - • • • Mr. Short said the areas of concern to the Building Department were the lack of an egress window in one of the bedrooms, an egress door and the low ceil- ings. He said that the second window could be installed, but it would open on to a driveway and that would cause other safety problems. The door could be addressed, but the ceiling (which is between six foot, two inches and six foot, four inches) could not be raised. He said it was obvious that the base- ment was intended to be used for sleeping quarters. He was presented with a moral dilemma that if he refused to help he would be walking away from a dan- gerous situation, and the basement would still be used. He would not have lent money to finish the basement with the lower ceilings, but he felt jus- tified in improving the wiring, plumbing, etc. Walter Groditski, Code Administrator, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Grodit- ski said the Building Department became involved on September 10, 1987, when Mr. Yoder did a framing inspection. They met Mr. Short on the site on Septem- ber 18th. He said the Building Department had no choice but to say the house is in violation of the Codes. He said the stairway is too narrow, and the door opens in the wrong direction; however, this can easily be corrected. The window is a "practical problem", and the ceiling height must be decided by the Board. Mr. Groditski said the Codes do not make provision for older homes. He said the Division is unable to devote the time to Rehab inspections that would be required, although they work closely with that department. He was unable to state when the seven foot ceiling requirement became law in Englewood. Mr. Short returned to say the door and window can be fixed, but not the ceil- ing height. There are currently smoke detectors in the basement which are hooked to a central system. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR SECONDED, IN CASE #30-87, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4030 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE HOUSING REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE CEILING HEIGHT OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE FLOOR AREA OF A BASEMENT BE SEVEN (7) FEET IN ORDER FOR THE BASEMENT TO BE HABITABLE, AND THAT EACH ROOM IN THE BASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A SAFE EGRESS ROUTE. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE ENGLEWOOD HOUSING REGULATIONS, SECTION 9-3A-2, 9-3A-4E, AND 9-3H-3 OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted against the measure because of the life safety hazard with the egress route. Mr. Fish said the Code would be weakened if the appeal were granted as stated. Mr. Brown voted against the motion as stated, saying the egress clause should be deleted. Ms. Lighthall concurred with Mr. Brown. Mr . Doyle wanted the appeal to be altered. Mr. Welker said there is a hardship, but they cannot permit life-safety issues to be ignored. -3 - • • • When the votes were displayed, all six members present had voted against the motion . BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR SECONDED IN CASE #30-87, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4030 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, THAT AN APPEAL BE GRANTED FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE HOUSING REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE CEILING HEIGHT OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE FLOOR AREA OF A BASEMENT BE SEVEN (7) FEET IN ORDER FOR THE BASEMENT TO BE HABITABLE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 9-3A-2 OF THE 1985 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said he would approve the variance because the applicant had been led to believe the situation was permissible. Mr. Fish said there was a hardship which was not the applicant's fault. The Code will not be weakened, and the egress will be fully addressed. Mr. Brown said there was a hardship, and the improvements have upgraded the property. Ms. Lighthall said the applicant had begun work in good faith, and the proper- ty has been used for at least thirty years. There is a hardship, and this is the minimum deviation from the Code. Mr. Doyle said there was a hardship, and a misunderstanding caused by a lack of communication. The ceiling height variance is acceptable . Mr. Welker said the ceiling height is very low, but there is a hardship. The situation goes beyond this case and should be addressed. This variance is not detrimental to the Code or a safety hazard. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted for the variance, and the Chairman stated the variance was approved. Ronald T. Smith 3140 South High Street Case #31-87 * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing, saying he had proof of posting and publication. He asked the staff to identify the request. Dorothy A. Romans, Staff Advisor, was sworn in for testimony. She stated the applicant was requesting a variance to allow a sun deck to be constructed with a zero-foot side yard setback adjoining the north side of the house and patio. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-2:1- 1, Minimum Side Yard in the R-1-A, Single-Family Residence District, which requires a total side yard setback of 18 feet with a minimum setback on one side of seven (7) feet. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony . Ronald T. Smith, 3140 South High Street, was sworn in for testimony. He said that he began to construct a sun deck in his side yard, and a Code Enforcement -4 - • • • Officer gave him a Stop Work Order. When he applied for a permit, it was re- fused because of the proximity of the deck to the property line on the north side. His house is five feet in from the property line. He would want to put a six-foot fence along the deck, and that five feet of setback would be un- usable between the two fences. His neighbor to the north had no objection as long as a six-foot privacy fence is installed and the sun deck will be only one-foot above the ground. Mr. Fish asked about the gap between the house and the deck. Mr. Smith said this would be the footing for a removable tub. He would reroute the drain. The deck has footings which would be five inches in from the fence. There will be no roof over the deck, but there will be a railing on the south and east sides. He had not thought he would need a permit because there would be only a platform one foot high. According to his neighbor, the fence is six inches in on Mr. Smith's property, and the sun deck would extend to the fence. Mr. Smith said this location was chosen to take advantage of shade and sun. The fence will act as a wind screen. The Staff report was incorporated into the record, there were no further speakers for or against the variance, and the staff had no further comments. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED AND BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL SECONDED, IN CASE #31-87, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3140 SOUTH HIGH STREET, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO ALLOW A SUN DECK TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A ZERO-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJOIN- ING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND PATIO . THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COM- PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-2:1 1, MINIMUM SIDE YARD IN THE R-1- A, SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 18 FEET WITH A MINIMUM SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF SEVEN (7) FEET. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said the neighbors agree and this is the logical place for the sun deck. This is not a very permanent structure. Mr. Fish said he would like to put restrictions on the concrete, and there is a need for a professional survey. He did not believe this was the minimum variance possible, and there was no hardship . Mr. Brown voted for the variance, saying the neighbors would not be adversely affected, there was a hardship, the area won't be wasted, and the owner will have the benefit of a better location for t he sun deck. Ms. Lighthall concurred. Mr. Doyle voted against the variance, saying the three foot limit, at least should be met. Mr. Welker said the variance would only be for a sun deck, an impermanent structure protected from view. The variance seemed reasonable. When the votes were displayed, four members had voted for the variance, two against, and the Chairman said the variance was denied . - 5 - • • • The members agreed to reconsider the variance with conditions and reopened the hearing to ask the applicant if he were willing to reduce the amount of cement used as foundation for the hot tub, and to obtain a professional land survey. The applicant agreed. BOARD MEMBER FISH MOVED AND BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR SECONDED, IN CASE #31-87, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3140 SOUTH HIGH STREET, THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO AL- LOW A SUN DECK TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A ZERO-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJOINING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND PATIO, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE TUB MAY NOT BE ON SPREAD FOOTINGS OR CONCRETE SLAB. 2. A SURVEY MUST BE MADE BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO ESTABLISH THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-2:1 1, MINIMUM SIDE YARD IN THE R-1-A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 18 FEET WITH A MINIMUM SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF SEVEN (7) FEET. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted for the variance for the reasons previously given. Mr. Fish said that with the conditions the spirit of the ordinance would not be adversely affected, and this was the minimum variance. Mr. Brown voted for the variance because the neighborhood would not be ad- versely affected, there is a hardship, and this is the best location. Ms. Lighthall concurred. Mr. Doyle said that because of the conditions, he would vote for the variance. Mr. Welker agreed. When the votes were displayed, all six members had voted in favor of the mo- tion, and the Chairman stated the variance was granted with the above conditions. The meeting recessed for ten minutes. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 with the same persons present. Dennis H. Ding 3688 South Sherman Street Case #32-87 * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #32-87, saying he had proof of posting and publication, and asking that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler stated that the applicant was requesting a late reg- istration of the structure as a Nonconforming Use with four dwelling units rather than three. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance, Section 16-4 -S:C, Minimum Lot Area for Permitted Principal Uses in - 6 - • • • the R-2 Medium-Density Residence District; and Section 16-4-5 H, Minimum Lot Frontage; and in accordance with Section 16-6-6, Registration of Nonconforming Uses. Linda F. Cohn, 3396 South Sherman Street, Attorney for Mr. Ding, stated that there is a hardship in this case, and that it is no fault of the applicant. He purchased the property in 1985 from Mrs. Merlin, and there is one unit up- stairs and three downstairs. Mrs. Merlin told the applicant the zoning is appropriate for the existing units and that for the 15 years she and her de- ceased husband had owned the property, there had been no problems. Mr. Ding bought the property, and Mrs. Merlin gave him a note with a balloon payment due in 1987. When Mr. Ding tried to obtain permanent financing, the lending institution said the property is not in conformance, and it became necessary to either abandon the use of one of the units or to obtain a variance for four units. If the use of one of the apartments were abandoned; the worth of the property would be significantly reduced, and the income was a consideration in purchas- ing and improving the property. The layout of the basement is obviously for three units, there are outside entrances, separate bathrooms, and records in 1959 indicate the presence of four units. Apparently at that time a variance was denied, but the use continued. Ms. Cohn stated there would be no impact on the neighborhood if the use were continued, as the four units have been there between 17 and 28 years. There are a variety of uses in the neighborhood, the zoning permits multiple units, and there is almost enough land for four units. Because of the size of the basement units, only single people live in them, which limits noise, traffic and parking difficulties. If the late registration is permitted, it will af- ford relief to Mr. Ding and to Mrs. Merlin and will ratify a use which has existed for up to 28 years. In response to a question concerning hardship, Ms. Cohn said that Mr. Ding could lose the home because of the balloon payment and his inability to obtain conventional financing. This would require Mr. Ding to go into litigation with Mrs. Merlin who is elderly, and would be upset emotionally and financial- ly by such action. There have been no complaints and the Ordinance would not be weakened, in Ms. Cohn's opinion. There was some discussion as to whether a variance or a late registration of a Nonconforming Use would be necessary to resolve the difficulties. Dennis Ding, 3688 South Sherman Street, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Ding stated that he had owned some other property, but wanted larger living quarters with some income. This property seemed to fill the needs, and there was enough income to justify the purchase. The building is blond brick, with a garage, garden area and a beautiful yard. The little apartments are not obtrusive because there are single occupants, often with no cars. The largest unit is the middle unit which is rented by a retarded girl. He said he does not wish to go to court against Mrs. Merlin or the real estate agent, but will have no choice. He checked the zoning before he bought the property and was told that multiple units are permitted in the district, and he is aware that a neighbor has a triplex larger than his property . Mr. Ding had a building inspector check the property, and it was found to be in good condition. Only minor repairs were necessary. There is plenty of - 7 - • • • parking across the street by the school. He does not want to enlarge one of the units, because it would make it more likely that more than one person would live in a larger unit, and that would increase the noise. He had been assured by his real estate agent that the present use was legal. The Utility Department records show four units. Tenants park in the front, in the drive- way and beside the alley in the rear. His leases restrict the units to one person and one car. Mr. Ding said he is billed for the four units on one uti lity bill, the furnace and storage room are used by the landlord. There are two thermostats in the units, and there are two large water heaters. There is one water and one sewer line. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers in favor of granting the variance. Tom Burns, 3333 South Bannock Street, the attorney for Mrs. Merlin, came for- ward for testimony. He said that Mrs. Merlin is 78 and lived at the subject property for ten years. She had no idea there was a problem with the four units which were there the entire ten years. She needs the income. Mr. Burns said that he was under the impression that the request should be for noncon- forming use rather than a normal variance because a variance would increase density . He said they would be glad to change the request to make it accept- able to the Board. He emphasized that the seller and buyer were cooperating. Discussion followed, noting the 1959 variance request which was denied, and that only three units were to be permitted with this lot area. Mrs. Romans said that, because the City has known since 1973 that there are four units in this property, as evidenced by the Utility Department records, and did nothing to change the situation, she had advised the applicants to request a Noncon- forming Use. There were no further comments from Mr. Burns. Mrs. Romans submitted three letters of opposition from neighbors: Margaret Cohrs, 3650 South Grant, Georgia C. Ross, 3687 South Grant Street; and Michael T Sears and Sally M. Ezell -Sears, 3679 South Grant Street. It was noted by Mr. Welker that all believed that rezoning would be required to grant the request. He noted that the zoning in this district would permit four units. Mrs. Romans said that she has not received any complaints about the existing circumstances at this address prior to the application that was filed by Mr . Ding. There were no persons in the audience who wished to address the Board, either in favor of or opposition to the request. The Chairman closed the public hearing for Case #32-87. BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED, AND BOARD MEMBER BROWN SECONDED, THAT DENNIS H. DING BE GRANTED A LATE REGISTRATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE FOR PROPERTY LO- CATED AT 3688 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET TO PERMIT THE STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS FOUR DWELLING UNITS RATHER THAN THREE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-5:C, MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES IN THE R-2 MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT; AND SECTION 16-4-5 H, MINI- MUM LOT FRONTAGE; AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16-6-6, REGISTRATION OF NON- CONFORMING USES. -8 - • • • The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said he voted "no" because, in his opinion, this case did not meet the criteria for nonconforming use status. Mr. Fish said the City permitted the use to exist, which makes it a 1 egal use. Mr. Brown said this is a hardship situation. The Nonconforming Use will not change the neighborhood or traffic because the four units have been in exis- tence for many years, and there have been no complaints. Ms. Lighthall said the City condoned the four units. Mr. Doyle said this is a hardship, and agreed the City had condoned the four units. Mr. Welker said granting the request would rectify an injustice. No benefit is to be obtained from causing further suffering to the buyer or seller. The property is well maintained. He voted "yes". When the votes were displayed, five members had voted for the motion, and one, Mr. Seymour, had voted against it. The Chairman ruled the Nonconforming Use request was granted, and instructed the applicant to contact the City for details. Goodwill Industries of Denver 4021 South Broadway Case #27-87 * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #27-87, saying he had proof of posting and publication, and asking that the staff introduce the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to reduce the required parking area from 10,734 square feet to 6,600 square feet, and to reduce the required 1 andscapi ng by 75%. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Sections 16-5-5 A 14, Parking Standards, and 16-4-18 C 2 e, Landscaping. Thomas Welker, 13555 West 74th Place, Arvada, was sworn in for testimony. He stated Goodwi 11 Industries has been in the area for 70 years, and they are funded from used goods sold in five stores. The Englewood store is the smal- lest, and it needs to be enlarged. The property to the south is for sale, and the store could be nicely expanded in that direction. This remodeling would, however, require Goodwill to meet the landscaping and parking requirements of the current zoning ordinance. It was noted there was some discrepancy between the letters (which indicated an 85% reduction) and the official request which indicated 75% reduction in landscaping. Bettie Moore, 14880 East 21st, Sales Director for Goodwill Industries, was sworn in for testimony. She described the proposed landscaping and parking, and explained that there will be limited space for both, and the variance is -9 - • • • needed. It would not be feasible to reduce the size of the proposed building because the additional space is needed for the business . Mr. Welker said that it did not seem that the drawings submitted were accu- rate, and that fewer parking spaces were possible than were indicated on the drawings. Mr. Seymour agreed that it was not possible to park more than eight cars in the lot. Ms. Moore said they are not expecting to increase the number of customers, but only present better service. She submitted graphs showing the number of cus- tomers in the store at twenty-minute intervals. In addition she said that they could not approach meeting the landscape requirements, but said that any landscaping at all would be more than is there presently. There were no further speakers for the request, and the Chairman asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the variance. Eden Recor, 8285 South Cody, Littleton, CO, was sworn in for testimony. He said that 26 years before he had opened a neighboring business, Cathy's Import Chalet. He said there is currently a parking problem in the area, partially caused by Goodwill's customers. An increase in floor space can, in his opinion, only be justified by an increase in customers, and there should be a similar increase in parking. Mr. Recor said that he had bought an additional lot for his customers at 3995 South Broadway and it is often used by Good- will's customers, who also use his dumpster. He considered himself robbed by Goodwill, and said it would be an injustice to allow expansion without much more space devoted to parking . Ms. Rothweiler further described the parking and landscaping as proposed, saying that the figures in the staff report were correct, but not properly shown on the submitted drawings. Forest Garrison, 5502 South Clarkson, was sworn in for testimony. He said there would be 24 parking spaces if the plan is approved, which would double the current 10. Mr. Recor said the retail space would also be increased, along with parking. Mr. Garrison said the improvement to the store would complement the Downtown Development and would add eight trees to the area. It was noted that Mr. Gar- rison is the current owner of the property onto which Goodwill wishes to expand. Discussion followed . Mrs. Rothweiler said that, as best as she can calculate from the figures she has been given, 22 parking spaces would be possible in the new lot. Mrs. Catherine Recor, 8285 South Cody, Littleton, was sworn in for testimony. She said that her business had had to meet the parking requirements, and were also providing parking for Goodwill, and Goodwill should meet the requirements of the ordinance. They are considering fencing their lot, and giving tokens to their customers . Ms. Moore returned to respond. She said that she had drawn her plans to the best of her ability, but would be willing to redo them. She said that other -10 - . . • • • neighbors do not object to the request. They are able to improve the parking and the landscaping, but cannot meet the requirements . Mr. Garrison said he would donate fencing for the Recors' property and put up better "No Parking" signs at his own expense . After some discussion, the Board voted 5-1 to continue the case to the January 13, 1988 meeting which will begin at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Lighthall disagreed. The Board instructed the applicant to have complete, accurate plans for the proposal. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said that Assistant City Attorney Reid would be addressing appeals of the Housing Code with the Board at a future meeting. BOARD'S CHOICE. Mr. Seymour said he would be having surgery in eight days. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Sh~Secretary -11 -