Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-13 BAA MINUTES• • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO APRIL 13, 1988 9 D 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, George, Doyle, Lighthall, Waldman, Shaffer and Welker. Also present: Dorothy Romans, Staff Advisor Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney Mary Alice Rothweiler, Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 1988, BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. All seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Minutes of March 9, 1988, were approved as written. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT • BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #4-88 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. Board Member George seconded the motion. A 11 seven members voted in favor of the motion, and the Chairman ruled the Findings of Fact in Case #4-88 were approved as written. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION: The Chairman stated the request for extension of Variance #20-86, granted to Wendell Dick for property located at 3135 South Sherman Street, should be con- sidered. Mr. Welker noted that with seven members present, five affirmative votes would be required to grant, deny or extend a variance. Mr. Dick said that after he received the variance in December of 1986, he lost his job. He is now financially able to proceed with the garage, and would like to do so . Discussion ensued. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED IN CASE #20-86, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3135 SOUTH SHERMAN STREET, THAT THE VARIANCE BE EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 180 DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THIS MEETING, APRIL 13, 1988. THE VARIANCE GRANTED MR. DICK PER- MISSION TO BUILD A GARAGE WITH NO SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND NO REAR SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE WEST. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-5 n (1) (c) - 1 - (i), WHICH REQUIRES THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BE THREE FEET, AND SEC- TION 16-4-5 n (1) (d) (i), WHICH REQUIRES THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK TO BE • THREE FEET. Board Member George seconded the motion. Upon a vote, all seven members voted for the extension, and the Chairman ruled that the extension was granted for 180 days from April 13, 1988. PUBLIC HEARING #5-88. The Chairman said the Board is authorized to grant or deny a variance by Part 3, Section 60 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for Case #5-88 for property located at 3106 South Washington Street, stating he had proof of publication, and asking that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner was sworn in for testimony. She stated that the applicant, Dan T. Mai, has requested a variance to permit a 14 foot by 16 foot storage shed (224 sq. ft.) to remain as it has been constructed in the rear yard of the subject property. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance, Section 16-4-4: M 2 b, which sets the maximum floor area of a storage shed at 100 square feet. Dan T. Mai 3106 South Washington Street was sworn in for testimony. He said that he was unaware that he needed a permit in order to build a shed. He has a very small house, and felt he needed a large shed for storage. He, therefore, built the subject shed which has no foundation. He received a Stop Work Order, and applied for a permit for the shed. He was told that Zoning would not permit this shed because it is larger than the permitted 100 square feet. He applied for the variance, and because of a misunderstanding, it took several months to go before the Board. He said he hopes to put siding on the shed, and that he has some experience in construction. Walt Groditski Code Administrator was sworn in for testimony. He said that a building permit would be re- quired for any shed over 120 feet. He does not know if the existing shed would meet the Uniform Building Code, but he would expect it to be brought up to code if the variance is passed. He said they would require footings and anchorings. There were no further comments from the staff, and no one present wished to speak either for or against the request. The staff report was made part of the record. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED IN CASE NUMBER 5-88 FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY DAN T. MAI AT 3106 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET, TO PERMIT A 14 • FOOT BY 16 FOOT STORAGE SHED (224 SQ. FT.) TO REMAIN AT THE SIZE AND LOCATION • AT WHICH IT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE - 2 - • • • ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-4: M 2 b, WHICH SETS THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF A STORAGE SHED AT 100 SQUARE FEET . Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr. Seymour said there is a hardship because of the small house; there was no opposition and the structure could be altered, if necessary, to meet codes. Ms. George voted for the variance because the size did not seem excessive and the building codes would be met. Ms. Lighthall voted against the variance because there was no evidence of genuine hardship, and the ordinance could be met. Mr. Doyle voted against the variance, saying the applicant could have avoided the problems by applying for a permit. Ms. Shaffer voted against the variance because the shed does not meet the standards of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr . Waldman voted against the variance because there is no provision for safe- ty. No permits were obtained and the shed is too large. Mr. Welker said the shed complements the neighborhood, and won't weaken the Code. The small residence is a hardship which is not really self-imposed . When the votes were displayed, three members had voted for the variance, and four (Lighthall, Doyle, Shaffer and Waldman) had voted against the variance. The Chairman stated that inasmuch as five affirmative votes are required, the variance was denied. He referred Mr. Mai to the staff for clarification. PUBLIC HEARING #6-88. The Chairman stated the public hearing for Case #6-88 was open for consider- ation. He said he had proof of publication, and Mrs. Rothweiler affirmed that the posting had been correct. The subject property is 1495 West Thomas Avenue, and the appellant was Charles C. Haney of Good Decal. Dorothy Romans Staff Advisor was sworn in for testimony. She said the appellant is requesting an ap- peal from the staff requirement of a 25-foot setback on the east side of the property at 1495 West Thomas Avenue, which requirement was imposed at the time the property was zoned following its annexation in 1978. This is in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-2-8: A 1, which explains the procedure to appeal "any order, requirement, decision or determination by any employee of the Department of Community Development." Mrs. Romans said the subject property is in the 1-1 zone and abuts an unincorporated area which is zoned for single-family residential use. The owner of the property which abuts 1495 West Thomas Avenue, Mr . Porter, asked that the 25 foot setback be imposed at the time of the original zoning because it was not known what kind of business might go -3 - on the property. The owner of the property which abutted Mr. Porter agreed. He eventually divided his property and sold the south half. Mr. • Parter has submitted a note saying the 25 foot setback is no longer necessary, in his opinion. Mrs. Romans said the matter was brought to the Board because it is not customary for the staff to modify an original condition imposed by action of the Planning Commission or City Council. In response to questions from Mr. Seymour and Mr. Waldman, Mrs. Romans agreed that a more formal letter of agreement is needed from Mr. Porter than the one ori gi na lly submitted. There have been no objections received by the staff from any neighbors. There may have been some question as to the legality of the condition imposed at the time of the original zoning, but because the owner of the property now identified as 1495 West Thomas Avenue did not object, the condition was imposed. The Chairman asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Mr. Mike Haney 3322 West Aksarben, Littleton was sworn in for testimony. He said they had built one building on the property 20 years before. The business has grown into another building which is now also filled. They need a storage addition on the building at 1495 West Thomas Avenue, which addition would be 15' x 70'. There were no further speakers for or against the variance. The Chairman made the staff report part of the record, and Mrs. Romans said the staff had no further comments. It was noted by the Board that the standard required setback between I-1 and residential areas is the 10 foot setback proposed by the appellant. BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT THE APPELLANT, CHARLES C. HANEY OF GOOD DECAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1495 WEST THOMAS AVENUE, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL TO MODI- FY THE 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT 1495 WEST THOMAS AVENUE, WHICH REQUIREMENT WAS IMPOSED AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED FOL- LOWING ITS ANNEXATION IN 1978. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-2-8: A 1, WHICH EXPLAINS THE PROCEDURE TO APPEAL ANY ORDER, REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION BY ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE DE- PARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Board Member Lighthall seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said he had voted for the appeal because there is a hardship, and the requirements should be the same for all the industrial zones. Ms. George agreed that the requirements should be the same, and noted that Mr. Porter had agreed to the reduction. Ms. Lighthall agreed. • Mr. Doyle said he had voted for the appeal because Mr. Porter doesn't object, • and this property should be treated as other industrial areas are treated. -4 - • • • Ms. Shaffer voted for the appeal, saying it would then conform to the zoning requirements as stated in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Waldman said he had voted for the appeal because the spirit of the or- dinance would not be harmed, and this is the minimum variance. Mr. Welker concurred. When the votes were displayed all seven members had voted for the appeal and the Chairman ruled the appeal was granted. PUBLIC HEARING #7-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #7-88, for property at 12 East Quincy Avenue, owned by Johnson A. Barton. He said he had proof of publica- tion and a picture of the sign posting the property. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner was sworn in for testimony. She said the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the structure located at the rear of the property to be used for residential purposes. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-5: P 1 and 2, which states in Subsection 1 that no structure ... on the same lot with the principal dwelling shall be used for residential purposes, and which states in Subsection 2 that two units must have at least one party wall and a common roof. Johnson A. Barton 4332 South Broadway was sworn in for testimony. He said he had been in business in Englewood since 1935. He has been trying to put together property in the area of 12 East Quincy for several years. He bought this property from his son- in-law and rented the front unit. The tenant, without his (Mr. Barton's) knowledge, rented the rear unit. Mr. Barton said the rear unit could be made into a nice two bedroom home. He said he was unaware that the second unit was illegal, and that he would appreciate being granted a variance. He believed that it had been used in the past as a second unit, and he had assumed it was legal. He looked over the property when he bought it, but was unaware of violations. In any case, his primary interest is in owning the land. Mr. Doyle noted that the unit contains only 528 square feet, and the minimum permitted is 850 square feet. Mr. Barton said he had not rented the property, but the tenants have left and it is now vacant. He said he did not need the income, and would not be willing to pay $2400 for utili- ty taps and fees in order for the unit to be occupied. There were no further speakers in favor of the variance. Walter Groditski, Code Administrator was sworn in for testimony. He said the Building and Safety Division had conducted a Housing inspection on April 6 and many items required upgrad- ing. He said the Division Staff would not like to see the variance gran- ted. A hole in the ceiling of the unit showed that the upstairs (with a -5 - '~ . ceiling height of 3 - 3 1/2 feet) was being used as two bedrooms for children. He emphasized that the unit is too small for occupation. Mr. Welker asked how they could insure that the unit would not be rented in the future. Ms. Reid said that a notice will be filed with the County, and inspections will be made. There were no further speakers in opposition to the variance. The staff re- port was made part of the record, and staff had no additional comments. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #7-88, JOHNSON A. BARTON BE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 EAST QUINCY AVENUE TO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16-4-5: P 1 AND 2, WHICH STATES IN SUBSECTION 1 THAT NO STRUCTURE ... ON THE SAME LOT WITH THE PR I NCIPAL DWELLING SHALL BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, AND WHICH STATES IN SUBSECTION 2 THAT TWO UNITS MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE PARTY WALL AND A COMMON ROOF. Board Member Seymour seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said there was no hardship, the house is too small to be in- hab i ted, and there are many code violations; therefore, he voted against the variance. • Ms . George voted against the variance because of the size of the house, and • i ts lack of safety. Ms . Lighthall concurred . Mr . Doyle said the house did not meet the codes and was too small; there was no hardship. He said the repairs seem insurmountable. Ms. Shaffer concurred with Mr. Doyle. Mr. Waldman said it would not be in the public interest to grant this variance. Mr . We l ker said none of the conditions are met; the unit is not compatible with the neighborhood and is detrimental to the community and the neighborhood. When t he votes were displayed, all seven members had voted against the va ri ance, and the Chairman ruled the motion was denied. A r ecess wa s called from 9:45 p.m. to 9:55 p.m. Th e meeting resumed with the same persons present. PUBLIC HEARING #8-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #8-88, for property located at • 2943 South Lincoln Street, owned by Maureen Broy. He said he had proof of publi cation, and that it is not necessary to post the property for an appeal. - 6 - • • • Dorothy Romans Staff Advisor stated that the appellant is appealing the strict application of the Housing Code which would prohibit the use of a basement room for sleeping purposes. This is an appeal from the Englewood Municipal Code, Section 9-3A-2, which requires that at least one half of the floor area of every habitable room shall have a ceiling height of at least seven feet. Mrs. Romans stated that the Englewood Housing Authority has written a letter to Mayor Van Dyke suggesting that basement rooms having less than a seven -foot average ceiling height, which are now being used for sleep- ing purposes be permitted if other safety requirements are met. This matter is in study. She emphasized that the intent is that this would not apply to new homes, but to older homes where the basement is already in use. In answer to questions from Mr. Seymour and Ms. Lighthall, Mrs. Romans said it was being suggested that average ceiling heights of 6'6" or 6'7" be allowed in basements of houses built prior to 1950. Maureen Broy 2943 South Lincoln Street was sworn in for testimony. Mrs. Broy said she had purchased the house expecting to be able to use the two bedrooms on the main floor and the basement bedroom. She had no knowledge that this would not be accept- able. She discovered there were serious sewer and roof problems, and applied to the Englewood Housing Authority for help in bringing her home up to Code . She has an eighteen year old son who occupies the basement bedroom . He attends Arapahoe Commun i ty College and cannot at this time support himself. The main floor of the house is only 556 square feet, which is a hardship in itself. She is willing to install all safety fea- tures needed for the basement bedroom, and said she wants to provide a healthful environment for her family. Robb Short Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor was sworn in for testimony. He said that the Housing Authority is con- cerned that defic i ent ceiling height will prevent much more life- threatening conditions from being corrected. He said that in his opinion the danger from lower ceiling height can be offset by escape windows and smoke alarms. In most cases that the Authority encounters, the basements are already being used. The choice seems to be between correcting other safety problems and not cor r ecting them. He believes that whatever hap- pens, the basement bedroom will be occupied, and his concern is that it be made as safe as possible . Mr . Welker asked where the egress window would be. Mr. Short said that it would be on the north side where there is presently a small window. Mr . Seymour asked if the doorways would be adequate . Mr. Short said they would probably not be, but emphasized that if other safety provisions were made, the danger of fire would be greatly reduced. Mr . Doyle asked for a description of the escape window. Mr. Short said there would be a window well, and the window would be cut deeper, but the same width as the present window. There were no further questions or speakers for or against the request. The Chairman made the staff report part of the record, and Mrs. Romans said the staff had no further comments. The Chairman closed the public hearing. -7 - BOARD MEMBER SEYMOUR MOVED THAT IN CASE #8-88, MAUREEN BROY, OWNER OF 2943 SOUTH LINCOLN STREET, BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE • HOUSING CODE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE BASEMENT ROOM FOR SLEEPING PURPOSES. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9-3A- 2, WHICH REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE FLOOR AREA OF EVERY HABITABLE ROOM SHALL HAVE AN AVERAGE CEILING HEIGHT OF AT LEAST SEVEN FEET. Board Member Doyle seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes and gave their findings as follows: Mr . Seymour said that he voted against the request because this is a safety violation, and, while it is possible that Council may change the law, in the past the Board granted variances on the expectation of changes in the or - dinance, and then the changes were not made. Ms . George voted for the appeal, saying the other safety problems are more important than the height requirement. Ms. Lighthall voted for the appeal because it is more important to see the 18 year o 1 d son educated than enforce the seven foot ceiling requirement. She also stated it is unfair that only when people come for help with very real problem s are the height deficiencies discovered. Mr. Doyle voted for the appea 1 , saying that if it is granted, the basement will be made habitable with egress windows under the Rehab program. Other needed repairs will also be made. Ms. Shaffer said the other changes which will be made by Rehab will make the s tructure much safer. Mr. Waldman agreed, saying they were taking steps to make the house safer. Mr . We 1 ker said the size and age of the house made for except i ona 1 ci rcum- stances. The rules should apply to newer construction. Granting the appeal will not be adverse to the interests of the City or the neighborhood. When the votes were displayed, six members had voted in the affirmative, and one (Mr. Seymour) had voted against the appeal. The Chairman ruled the appeal wa s granted . PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #9-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #9-88. He said he had proof of publ i cation, and asked that the staff identify the request. Mary Alice Rothweiler Pl anner stated that the applicants, Paul and Pat Apodaca, for property located at 3865 South Grant Street, were requesting an appeal of the strict applica - tion of the Housing Code, which would prohibit the use of the basement for residential purposes. This is an appeal from the Englewood Municipal Code, Section 9-3A -2, which requires that no less than one-half of the • floor area of every habitable room shall have a ceiling height of at • least seven feet. - 8 - • • • Patricia Apodaca 3865 South Grant Street was sworn in for testimony. She stated they had been using the basement for living quarters since they bought the house. They have had to take a pay cut recently. They applied to the Housing Rehabilitation Division for funds to repair and to bring their house up to Code. The ceiling height in their basement is between 6'7" and 6'8". She said they would be happy to put in necessary safety features and correct the exits. Robb Short Housing Rehabilitation Supervisor returned for testimony. He said that the subject property would be a normal rehabilitation project. It is nicely kept, but needs electrical, heating and gutter work. There are two bedrooms in the basement, and two escape windows would be necessary. There is no headroom problem on the stairs. In response to a question from Mr. Waldman , Mr. Short said they are not trying to set a precedent at this meeting. He noted the letter which had been sent to Council by the Englewood Housing Authority, and said that unless or until Council acted upon the suggestion made by the Englewood Housing Authority, they would continue to bring to the Board any case which has a ceiling height deficiency. He also noted that door- ways are not part of the Hous i ng Code, but are part of the U.B.C . In response to a question from Ms. George, Mr. Short said that if the appeal is not granted, the owners will be instructed not to use the base- ment for sleeping quarters; however they will either have to use them or move. Future owners will undoubtedly use the basement for sleeping quarters whether or not they are made safe now . There were no further speakers for or against the appea l . The Chairman made the staff report part of the public record, and there were no further comments from staff. The Chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD MEMBER WELKER MOVED THAT IN CASE #9-88, PAUL AND PAT APODACA BE GRANTED AN APPEAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3865 SOUTH GRANT STREET FROM THE STRICT AP- PLICATION OF THE HOUSING CODE, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE BASEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9-3A -2, WHICH REQUIRES THAT NO LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THE FLOOR AREA OF EVERY HABITABLE ROOM SHALL HAVE A CEILING HEIGHT OF AT LEAST SEVEN FEET. Board Member Waldman seconded the motion. The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows. Mr. Seymour said this height is more acceptable than in the previous case. He voted for the appeal . Ms. George said this seems to present no safety problem with the addition of an egress window . Ms. Lighthall concurred. Mr. Doyle agreed, saying that going through the Rehabilitation process will improve safety conditions in the house. -9 - Ms. Shaffer voted for the appeal since the installation of the windows will make conditions safer. Mr. Waldman voted for the appeal saying the owners are making every attempt to address the safety requirements. Mr. Welker emphasized that the Board is not establishing a precedent. In this particular case, safety features added will take care of exceptional circum- stances. He said the Board may not approve every case of ceiling height variance requests. He said granting this appeal will not adversely affect the Ordinance, neighborhood or City. When the votes were displayed all seven members had voted for the appeal, and the Chairman ruled that the appeal was granted. PUBLIC HEARING #10-88. The Chairman opened the public hearing for Case #10-88, for property located at 2341 West Warren Avenue. He said he had proof of publication, and Mrs. Rothweiler affirmed that the posting had been correct. Mary Alice Rothweiler Planner stated that the applicant, Able Salazar, was requesting a variance to permit construction of an attached garage which would extend to two feet from the west property line. This is a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-4-6: M 1 c, Minimum Side Yard for garages in the R-2-C, Medium Density District. Able Salazar 2341 West Warren Avenue was sworn in for testimony. He said he has lived on the subject property since 1971, and now has two children. He needs storage space and cover for his cars. His lot slopes and a retaining wall will have to be put in, along with a lot of fill dirt. There is no other place on the prop- erty for the single-car garage which will be about 16 feet wide. The present driveway would be widened from about 12 feet. The neighbors have agreed to allow him access to the side of the garage through their prop- erty for maintenance. He agreed to meet any Building Codes, including a fire wall. He said he was not yet sure of the final plans, and has been considering a carport in front of the garage which would be open on the neighbor's side. There were no further speakers for or against the variance, and the Chairman asked that the staff report be made part of the record. There were no further comments from staff. BOARD MEMBER WALDMAN MOVED THAT IN CASE #10-88, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2341 WEST WARREN AVENUE, ABLE SALAZAR BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE WHICH WOULD EXTEND TO TWO FEET FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 16- 4-6: M 1 c, MINIMUM SIDE YARD FOR GARAGES IN THE R-2-C, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT. Board Member Doyle seconded the motion. -10 - • • • • • • The members locked in their votes, and gave their findings as follows . Mr. Seymour said there had been no opposition from the neighbors, and he voted for the variance. Ms. George concurred. Ms. Lighthall said a garage would be an improvement, and there is exceptional topography on the property. She said there is no other location on the lot suitable for a garage. Mr. Doyle said the property is neat and well kept, and there were no objec- tions from the neighborhood. A garage would, in his opinion, be an improvement. Ms. Shaffer agreed, saying the garage would not adversely affect the adjacent property. Mr . Waldman said granting the variance would not violate the spirit of the Ordinance. Mr . Welker concurred. When the votes were displayed, all seven members had voted for the variance, and the Chairman ruled the variance was granted. He instructed the applicant to apply for the property permits from the Division of Building and Safety . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans told the Board that a list of the conditions necessary to grant a variance were in the Handbook beginning on page 24. If anyone had a list other than those in the Handbook, that list should be thrown away. Mrs. Romans asked that the Members bring their zoning ordinances to the next meeting so they could be checked to see if they are current. Mrs. Romans announced that the new Director of Community Development, Richard Wanash, had been appointed, and will begin on June 6. Mr. Wanash had been the Director of Community Development and the Assistant City Manager of Englewood fo r several years before moving out of State. BOARD'S CHO I CE. None. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m . She~g Secretary -11 -