Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-14 BAA MINUTES• • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO JANUARY 14, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER. Z o C.J The regular meeting of the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order by Chairman Fish at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Seymour, Brown, Fish, Lighthall, and Welker. Members absent: Hallagin. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I Chairman Fish stated that there was a quorum of five members, and four affir- mative votes will be required to grant a variance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Fish stated that the Minutes of December 10, 1986 were to be con- sidered for approval . BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1986 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. All members of the Board present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes approved as written. III. FINDINGS OF FACT. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASES NUMBERED 30-86, 31-86, and 32-86, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Welker seconded the motion. All members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman ruled the Find- ings in Cases 30-86, 31-86, and 32-86 were approved. IV. CASE #1-87. 4823 South Lincoln Street. Chairman Fish declared the public hearing for Case #1-87 open. Mr. Fish stated that he had in hand certification of posting and proof of publication of the notice of the hearing. He outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting public hearings, and asked that the staff identify the case. -1 - • • • Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner I for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Del Brouhard, was requesting a variance to permit the continued use of an existing garage for an auto-repair service. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.4-5 b, Permitted Uses in the R-2, Medium-Density Residence District. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Del Brouhard, 4823 South Lincoln Street, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that the garage is about 1100 square feet, much larger than the house. The garage is fully insulated, heated, has electricity, and was built for more than storage and use as a garage. He understood that there had been com- plaints from the neighbors, but, in his opinion, ceasing the use of the garage as an auto repair service will not solve those complaints. Dust will remain and the alley will continue to be used by trucks because of the weight limit on the streets. He said that the complaint that other people would want similar variances is invalid because each variance is supposed to be judged on its own merit. He said that cars parked on his property are not blocking the alley or using the street for parking. He did not feel that his business is detrimental to the neighborhood, but is of the opinion that he has improved the property. He asked that, if the Board decided not to grant the variance, he be given suffi- cient time to relocate his business. Mr. Welker asked if the cars parked in the front yard were personal cars or cars waiting for repair. Mr. Brouhard said that he has four cars and a travel trailer. The neighbors across the street park in the street in front of his property, so he parks his cars in his yard. Miss Lighthall said that there were eight cars parked on the property on Saturday. She noted a Blazer with dealer plates. Mr. Brouhard said that he is a licensed salesman for Gerlich Motors. He trades cars often. Mr. Welker asked what kind of repair Mr. Brouhard does. Mr. Brouhard said he does who 1 esa le auto repair for Burt Chevro 1 et. He does not do body work or heavy engine work. Mr. Welker asked how many cars are on other lots waiting for repair. Mr. Brouhard said he has two lots to the south in the B-2 district where he has six cars parked. He said the number varies, but he has quite a few right now because he is storing some cars for a dealer. Mr. Brown said that City records do not show that the business has ever been a permitted use . Mr. Brouhard said that in 1971 a 30' by 30' garage was built by a man who was to be all owed to rent the garage for ten years when it would revert to the owner. The builder did not stay for ten years and other tenants used the garage. Mr. Brouhard bought the property and has used it for auto repair since July of 1984, but he has been in a similar business for nine years. Mr. Brown asked if Mr. Brouhard realized the use was not legal. Mr. Brouhard said that the property has had commercial uses for many years, and he assumed that he could operate the garage. Mr. Seymour noted that there is no record - 2 - • • • of a business license. Mr. Brouhard said he is not required to have one be- cause he is a wholesale repairman doing work for a licensed business in Engle- wood (Burt Chevrolet). There were no further questions or speakers in favor of the variance. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers opposed to granting the variance. Debora Weems, 4855 South Lincoln, was sworn in for testimony. She said that she is opposed to granting the variance because there are auto-related busi- nesses along Broadway. The area is zoned residential, and in her opinion, should remain residential. LaVinia Weems, 4851 South Lincoln, was sworn in for testimony. She said there is a lot of business on Broadway, and Lincoln is supposed to be residential. Miss Li ghtha 11 asked if there are other properties used as businesses. Mrs. Weems replied that there is a rooming house across the street, but she is not aware of any other regular business. She has lived in the area for 39 years, and said she had had no trouble with the applicant. There were no other speakers in opposition to the variance had nothing further to say. The Chairman incorporated the the record and asked if the staff had further comments. Staff had nothing to add in addition to the staff report. and the applicant staff report into Mrs. Romans said Mr. Fish asked if a cabinet shop would be a permitted use in this district. Mrs. Romans said it would not be permitted. She noted that at the time the garage was built there were no maximum square footage regulations in the Zoning Ordinance for garages. Because it has been the staff's experience that over-size garages invite businesses, the new ordinance permits nothing larger than 1,000 square feet, a size which is coordinated with the U.B.C. She fur- ther noted that to be classified as a nonconforming use, a use must have been legal at one time. An automobile repair shop has never been a legal use in the R-2 Zone District. In response to a question from Mr. Welker, Mrs. Romans said that there had been numerous complaints concerning this business, and it was in checking a complaint that the Zoning Enforcement Officer cited the applicant. There were no further questions. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT, DEL BROUHARD, BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4823 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET TO PERMIT THE CON- TINUED USE OF AN EXISTING GARAGE FOR AN AUTO-REPAIR SERVICE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16.4-5 b, PERMITTED USES IN THE R-2, MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Mr. Seymour said that this would be a "Use Variance'' which can only be granted if: 1. The property cannot be used for any purpose permitted within the zone district applicable to the property. - 3 - • • • 2. The proposed use is the use for the property most compatible with the standards and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan . 3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to nor incompatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed use is the least traffic-intensive use possible which will permit some reasonable use of the property. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship was not self-imposed. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said that he had voted "no" because of complaints from the neigh- bors and failure to meet some of the requirements necessary to grant a use variance. Mr. Brown said he voted "no" because the conditions were not met, the use had never been permitted, and there was no hardship; but he would recommend time be given to move the business. Ms. Lighthall voted against the variance because the request did not meet the necessary conditions. Mr. Welker voted against the variance because the property should retain its residential designation. Mr . Fish agreed, and declared the variance denied . BOARD MEMBER LIGHTHALL MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN UNTIL JUNE 1, 1987, TO REMOVE HIS BUSINESS FROM THE PROPERTY AT 4823 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. Upon a voice vote, all five members present voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman declared the applicant had until June 1, 1987 to return the subject property to residential use exclusively. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case No. 3-87. He said he had proof of publication and posting was not necessary because the case involves an appeal to a determination of the Chief Building Inspector rather than a variance. Mr. Fish asked that the staff identify the request. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the applicant, Rafael E. Juarez, was appealing a denial by the Chief Building Inspector for a building permit for the remodel- ing of an accessory structure which is located on the southeast portion of the property at 4734 South Bannock Street. This is an appeal from the 1985 Uni- form Building Code, Table 5A and Section 1710. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Rafael E. Juarez, 13494 Omega Circle, Littleton, was sworn in for testimony. He submit- ted pictures (Exhibits 1 through 31) of the property, and two letters (Ex- hibits 32 and 33) of approval from the neighbors. He said that this is the only investment property he and his wife own . They bought the property - 4 - • • • through HUD, saw potential in it, and knew it was zoned for duplexes. They hoped he would retire in six years and then would build a duplex, live in one unit and rent the other. Until that time, they intend to rent the property as a single-family house. The house on the north side of the property will have the bedrooms, kitchen and dining facilities, and the family room will be in the second structure on the south side of the property. When they bought the property they contacted the Housing Authority stating that the property would be available for low-income rental. They have also arranged an improvement loan through the Housing Authority. He asked in the building department if he needed a permit to install a bathroom and wet bar in the second structure on the property, and was told that if he had a licensed plumber, the plumber would be the person required to obtain the permit. His intention was to create more living space . In the main house there are two bedrooms, on the back of the property is the building in which he intended to put a bath, wet bar and recreation room. On the permit obtained by the plumber, it was stated that it was for replace- ment of existing plumbing . Work began . An inspection was requested. He called the Utilities Department, and was told there would be a $12.50 hookup fee. Before the Plumbing Inspector came, the pipes that had been installed were inadvertently covered . The Plumbing Inspector, Foster Wills, came out and put a stop work order on the property on 11-20 -86. On November 24, 1986, Mr. Juarez returned to town, and discovered that work had been stopped on the project . He contacted Mr. Wills and Mr. Yoder. Mr. Yoder issued a letter (which was included in the Staff Report) listing reasons why the back unit could not be worked on or occupied. Mr. Juarez then told the City Staff of the variance granted on July 14, 1965 to Mrs. Burr, which permitted a recreation room in the back building. It was the opinion of the staff that the old variance was not valid because there is nothing in the file to indicate that a building permit was requested or issued to convert the building to a recreation room following the granting of the variance. If a permit is not issued within six months after the variance is granted, the variance becomes void. Mr. Juarez said that, in his opinion, the issue was decided 21 years before. The Chief Building Inspector is stating that this building is only a storage room and cannot be used as a residence. Mr Juarez said that it has gas, elec- tricity, and is really a residential structure. He said that Utilities and Building permitted the construction to continue until the underground work was inadvertently covered up. He said that he had spent a total of $7,200 improv- ing the structure. He said that the property should have been rented since December of 1986, and he is suffering financial hardship while the status of the second building is determined . He empha s ized that he always intended to rent this property as one, single unit . Mr. Juarez addressed the Staff Report. He sa i d that the current structure has nothing to do with the original tool shed. He said Utilities has changed its position on requiring a statement concerning possible division of the proper- ty. He said that it is not economically feasible to meet the Building Inspec - tor's requirements. Mr . Juarez noted that the Housing Authority ha s granted the loan. He has ab- sorbed all costs because the Housing Authority has not yet released the funds. -5 - • • • Mr. Fish asked if the plumbing work is completed. Mr. Juar ez said that the permit was granted to a plumber who did $4800 worth of work. The plumber i s finished, the tub is in place . Work was stopped when the pipe th at was i n- stalled was covered. Mr. Juarez said there are no kitchen facilities in the back buil d ing. There are four separate rooms. There is a fireplace, another room and a bath . In resp onse to a question from Mr. Welker, Mr. Juarez said that most of the rooms have seven foot ceilings, but the ceilings do slope. The bathroom is lower . Mr. Seymour said that it seemed to him that the south wall was barely s even feet. Mr. Brown noted that the building was originally a storage shed. The vari ance granted in 1965 was for a rec re at ion, not a s 1 eep i ng or 1 iv i ng room. The housing survey doesn't list this as a residential structure. Mr. Juarez said he is aware of this. The Chairman asked if there were other speakers in favor of the appeal. Mr. Bob Schlegel, 312 Elmira, was sworn in for testimony. He said he is a friend of Mr. Juarez and a contractor. He said he believed that the building might have met the 1965 building codes. He also noted that only plumbing remodeling was done and that a person on 1 y has to fo 11 ow the 1985 codes if structural work is done. He said that this is a recreation room, which can have a hot tub and a sauna. The plumber got a permit, and if the City allowed the work to be done, it is the City's fault, in his opinion. He said the Plumbing Inspector redtagged the bathroom when the sewer work was covered with concrete . Ms. Lighthall asked if the building were heated. Mr. Schlegel said there is heat from a stove in the front room. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked if there were any further speakers in favor of the variance. Mary Agnes Juarez, 13494 Omega, Littleton, was sworn in fortes- timony. She is a co-owner of the subject property. She said that people as- sume that if a bathroom is put in this building the building will be a sepa- rate living residence. It is, however, only ten feet from the main building and they are only adding a bathroom with accompanying water and sewer. They have, she said, no intention of using the building for anything else, but want to provide additional facilities for the people who will live in the house on the north side of the property. Ms. Lighthall asked about the heat. Mrs . Juarez said that it has a gas heater with heat piped in. The fireplace is ornamental. Mr. Welker asked if there are any windows in the south wall. Mrs. Juarez said there are not. There were no further speakers in favor of the variance. The Chairman de- clared a recess of ten minutes . The meeting resumed at 9:05 p.m. with the same persons present. The Chairman asked if there were any speakers opposed to granting the variance. -6 - • • • Bob Cook, 4754 South Bannock, was sworn in for testimony. He said that in the past, before the rear building was built, there was a concrete slab and a bar- becue pit in that location. He was out of town, and when he returned the building had been framed. This has been a nuisance because it is built on the property line and is lower than Mr. Cook's property. Because of the location on the property 1 i ne, he (Mr. Cook) had to give a 11 the easement for street lights. Mr. Cook asked that the wall be removed so that the side yard setback would be met. He noted that there is another nonconforming house on the other side of his property, but that was there when he bought in the neighborhood eighteen years ago. Gary Yoder, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. He said that the original Board of Adjustment Case in 1965 for this building resulted in a stipulation that a building permit would have to be obtained and the building could be used only for a recreation room--not sleeping or living quarters. There is no record that a building permit was ever obtained, and the City is of the opinion that the building cannot be used even as a recreation room since the conditions imposed by the Board were not met. As a result of the City's determination that the old Board Case did not apply, any change of use to the structure would have to meet 1985 Building Codes. He also noted that the Codes in 1965 were almost identical to the current Code, and in his opinion, if a building permit had been obtained, the Building Department would have required that the Codes be met, and they were not met. Mr. Yoder addressed the plumbing permit taken out by the plumber. The wrong address was given on the permit application, and the permit application was only for replacement of existing plumbing. When the Plumbing Inspector went out for an inspection, he found that the address was wrong and he found new installation of pipes, plumbing and appliances, not simply the replacement of previously existing facilities as had been stated on the permit. As a result of this, he "red tagged" the project, stopping all work on the rear unit. The original permit had been granted with the understanding that no new construc- tion would take place, and this is not what the inspection showed. Mr. Yoder stated that when the owner, as a result of the Stop Work Order, came in to obtain a permit which correctly reflected the work which he wanted done, the permit was rejected because, in the City's opinion, this would change the use of what was legally no more than a storage building which does not meet the present Codes; and because the owner had no intention of bringing the building up to Code. Mr. Yoder said that at its highest point the ceiling is the required seven feet, six inches, and it slopes to as low as six feet, nine inches, with the average about seven feet, two inches. A bathroom may have a lower ceiling. Other deficiencies include the width of the door, projections and roof overhang. In response to a question from Mr. Welker, Mr. Yoder said that it is feasible to correct the projections, but not the ceiling height. He said, however, that the use approval is primary, and then the heating would need to be in- spected. The Division of Building and Safety is of the opinion that this has never been a legitimate recreation room because the conditions of the variance were never approved; therefore, any construction which supports "living space" in the structure is a change in use. He cautioned that if the recreation room with bath is approved, monitoring will be difficult and at some time in the - 7 - • • • future with, perhaps, a new owner, this structure could become a second dwelling . There were no other speakers in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Juarez asked that Mr. Short explain rental procedures of the Housing Authority. Robert Short, Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor of the City's Housing Authori- ty, was sworn in for testimony. He said that Mr. Juarez had applied for par- ticipation in the rental rehabilitation program, a program designed to en- courage 1 andl ords to imp rove renta 1 units. The Housing Authority does not apply all building codes, but is primarily interested in life-safety matters and upgrading of the housing stock. They do not approve or disapprove build- ing permits, they provide funds for construction approved by the Division of Building and Safety. Under the Section 8 program, the government will subsi- dize low-income families so that they may obtain housing at normal rental rates. The person in the rental rehabilitation program does not have to rent to Section 8 low-income families, but he may take a Section 8 tenant. Section 8 guarantees safe, decent housing, and the landowner agrees to provide such housing. The rental rehabilitation program matches the landlord's output up to $5,000. Under the rental rehabilitation program, the Authority does not provide con- tinuing inspections unless the tenants are low-income, subsidized renters. Then the unit is inspected twice a year, and when a new tenant moves in. There were no questions of Mr. Short. Mr. Juarez returned to the podium. He said that Mr. Cook, who spoke in opposition to the appeal, had signed a letter stating he had no objections. Mr. Juarez said that Mrs. Burr, the previous owner, stated a building permit had been issued. He said that he could meet the requirement of door size, but the other requirements would not be feasible. The Chairman incorporated the Staff Report into the record, and asked if there were any staff comments. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the plumbing permit which the plumber received in order to do work for Mr. Juarez was to replace plumbing already in existence. A different address was given on the Permit and had the work been done at that address, there would have been no problem. When Mr. Wills approved the is- suance of the permit, he did so based on the address of the Permit. When he went to do the inspection, however, he found the plumbing was for a a dif- ferent address, and the plumbing was new, not a replacement of old plumbing. There were no questions. Mrs. Romans stated that the zoning for this neighborhood was not "spot zoning", as had been stated earlier. The zoning was an extension of R-2 zoning and covered a square block. Single or two-family uses are permissible in the R-2-C Zone District with 50 foot frontages. Duplexes must have a com- mon roof and a common wa 11. The subject structure could not qua 1 i fy as a second living unit. There were no questions . -8 - • • • Mr. Yoder returned to answer a question from Mr. Welker. He stated that if the variance were denied, it would not be necessary to demolish the structure . It would only be a definition of use--a storage shed. Chairman Fish asked if the applicant wanted to speak. Mr. Juarez said that if the appea 1 is not granted he would have the most expensive storage shed in town. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE NUMBER 3-87, RAFAEL E. JUAREZ BE GRAN- TED AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4734 SOUTH BANNOCK STREET, FROM THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, TABLE SA AND SECTION 1710, CONCERNING THE REMODELING OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT WOULD, IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, BE ABLE TO USE THE STRUCTURE FOR A RECREATION ROOM ONLY, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A DOOR WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said the main issue is whether the structure is a storage shed or a recreation room. He said, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it must be a duck." Mr. Seymour said it looked like a recreation room . Mr. Brown voted "yes" because there is a hardship, the neighbors approve, and a bathroom is suitable for a recreational building. Ms. Lighthall concurred. Mr . Welker voted "yes" stating that granting the appeal is in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance, and won't hurt the neighborhood. There are no safety hazards except the door, which would be taken care of if the appeal is granted. Mr. Fish said there is valid concern about the possible misuse of the proper- ty, but agreed that a "duck is a duck". When the votes were displayed, all five membe r s had voted in the affirmative, and the Chairman stated that the appeal filed by Mr. Juarez had been granted. Mr. Fish stated that Mr. Juarez now has a recreation room. * * * * * The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case No. 4-87, 2754 -2754 1/2 South Sherman Street, and asked that the Staff identify the request. Mrs. Roth- weiler stated that the applicants, Janet F. and Robert L. Oram are appealing a decision issued by the Code Enforcement Officer that the basement apartment does not meet the minimum ceiling height requirement of seven feet. This is a variance from the Housing Code, Title 9, Section 9-3A -2, which states that at least half of the floor area of every habitable room shall have a ceiling height of at least seven feet. - 9 - • • • The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Mr. Robert Oram, 6711 South Franklin, was sworn in for testimony. He said that he and his wife had purchased the property about a year before, and this was their first attempt at investment property. He had checked with the realtor that a basement apartment was permitted by the zoning. The owners said the basement apartment was permitted. Mr. Oram said that the question came up when the tenants reported water in the basement. He hired a contractor to correct the drainage, but in the meantime, the tenants dee i ded they wanted to break the lease and called Code Enforcement Officer Greg Rasmussen to make an i nspec- t ion. Mr. Rasmussen noted that there had been water in the basement and that the ceiling height did not meet the Minimum Housing Standards. Mr. Oram noted that the ceiling height is mostly six feet, eight inches. The neighbor on the north stated that the basement had been used as an apartment s i nee before 1959. Mr. and Mrs. Oram have imp roved the property s i nee they bought it. They painted the inside and trimmed the trees. They will have to sell if the appeal is not granted. Mr. Oram said that the apartment is small, but habitable and lacks only four inches in height. Ms. Lighthall asked if the unit is presently rented. Mr. Oram said it is. There were no further questions, and no one else wished to speak in favor of the variance. The Chairman asked that the Code Enforcement Officer answer some questions. Greg Rasmussen, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Englewood, was sworn in for testimony. He said he was called regarding a complaint about ground water. While there, he noted the ceiling height and wrote a violation notice including water and exiting. Two separate exits and smoke detectors would meet the Minimum Housing standards, so only the ceiling height is at issue. He said the apartment is generally habitable, clean, neat and well kept. There were no speakers in opposition to the variance. Mr. Oram returned to the podium. In response to a question from Mr. Fish, Mr . Oram stated that the tenants wanted to break the lease before he was aware they complained to the City. The Chairman included the staff report in the record and asked if there were any further staff comments. There were none. Mr. Fi sh asked for cl arifi cation on the difference between an appeal and a variance. Ms. Reid stated that, in effect, there is no difference. If this appeal is granted it would be a variance from the Code, and the Board would be saying that the apartment is habitable. Ms. Lighthall asked if Mr. Yoder would have a problem with the Board's grant- ing the appeal. Mr. Yoder said that because his job is to enforce the minimum standards, he would prefer not to comment. BOARD MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE APPLICANTS, JANET F. AND ROBERT L. ORAM, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2754-2754 1/2 SOUTH SHERMAN, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION ISSUED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT THE BASEMENT APARTMENT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF SEVEN FEET. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE HOUSING CODE, TITLE 9, SECTION 9-3A-2, WHICH STATES THAT AT LEAST HALF OF THE FLOOR AREA OF EVERY HABITABLE ROOM SHALL HAVE A CEILING -10 - .. • • • HEIGHT OF AT LEAST SEVEN FEET. THE BOARD WOULD, FURTHER, REQUIRE THAT SMOKE ALARMS BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE TO THE MINIMUM HOUSING CODE . Board Member Welker seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour voted 11 yes 11 because the apartment had been there for ten years and there were no other complaints. Mr. Brown voted for the appeal because there was a hardship, no objections and no danger to tenants. Ms. Lighthall voted 11 yes", concurring with the other members. Mr. Welker said granting the appeal seemed a reasonable solution. Mr. Fish said that granting the variance will not weaken the ordinance or damage the neighborhood. When the votes were displayed, all five members had voted in the affirmative and the Chairman stated the variance was granted. * * * * * The Chairman stated that the next order of business was a rehearing of Case 28-86, applicants John and Jennifer Pietrus, 900 West Tufts. He asked that the staff identify the request. Mrs. Rothweiler stated that the request is for a rehearing of Case No. 28-86, but the applicants were not able to be present and asked that they be heard in February. BOARD MEMBER WELKER MOVED THAT THE REHEARING OF CASE NO. 28-86, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 WEST TUFTS, BE POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 11, 1987, AND THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE IF THE APPLICANTS DO NOT APPEAR ON THAT DATE. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion, and all members present agreed. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans said she had a letter from Mr. Higday, Council Member for District III, concerning the first case. She gave copies to the Board. BOARD'S CHO I CE. Mr. Welker said he would be reapplying for membership on the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ~ ... e..J Sher'YRiusses; Recording Secretary -11 -