►
From YouTube: Athens Board of Zoning Appeals - February 9, 2021
Description
Athens Board of Zoning Appeals - February 9, 2021
A
A
A
A
So
that's
what
we're
going
to
be
doing.
In
our
second
case,
any
person,
resident
or
officer
department
or
appointed
body
of
the
city
of
athens,
aggrieved
by
a
decision
of
the
board,
may
petition
the
athens
county
court
of
common
police
concerning
the
illegality
of
the
decision.
Such
petition
must
be
filed
within
30
days
after
the
mailing
of
the
decision
of
the
board
to
the
applicant.
A
A
B
A
Because
we
can't
see
anyone-
or
we
assume
that
on
this
online
or
virtual
meetings,
anyone
who
is
speaking
aside
from
the
officers
of
the
code
office
and
the
members
of
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
they
would
be
under
owed.
Okay,
we
assume
that
everyone
who
is
going
to
be
speak
would
be
under
on
the
road.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
This
application
came
to
us
and
it
is
in
a
b2
zone
where
they
would
require
only
re,
only
rental.
On
the
above
the
first
floor.
This
originally
was
a
rental
unit
and
up
until
2009,
after
that,
this
property
ended
up
on
the
city's
blight
list
and
we
were
moving
forward
to
condemn
the
structure
and
it
was
purchased
by,
I
think,
by
the
appellant,
and
they
are
working
to
fix
it
up
and
repair
it.
C
A
B
A
B
B
A
A
There's
richard
avenue
one
block
over
and
there
are
probably
eight
nine
ten
houses
all
together
in
there
and
there
is
no
business.
Of
course
these
are
all
residential
or
rentals,
and
I
was
there
today
and
it
looks
like
every
house
does
have
either
a
driveway
or
a
garage
and
the
street
is
too
narrow,
so
you
cannot
park
in
there.
So.
B
B
B
B
A
Okay,
if
I
stand
in
the
front
of
your
house,
look
on
the
right.
There
was
like
a
steps
in
there.
If
you
remove
that,
then
that
gives
you
the
room
for
a
one.
Is
space
see
we're
trying
to?
If
you
know,
if
you
could
find
one
or
two
spaces
that
will
reduces
the
the
minimum,
you
know
it
makes
it
more
minimum
than
what
it
is
now.
So
are
you
saying
that
you
should
be
you?
You
should
be
able
to
provide
two
spaces.
B
We
we
would
really
not
like
to
use
that
as
the
driveway,
but
if
we
had
to
we
could
we
wanted
to
put
some
nice
strawberry
and
plants
to
make
it
look
really
nice
when,
when
we
get
the
new
siding
on
it
and
everything,
but
but
what
we
had
thought
was
to
the
right
where
the
old
driveway
was.
If
we
took
that
up
the
back
far
enough
into
the
backyard,
then
we
would
have
room
to
put
three
vehicles
there.
D
B
B
A
Mr
riggs
need
your
help
in
here.
Do
we
need
to
reward?
Maybe
the
motion
for
the
statement
of
this,
for
variance
that,
assuming
that
she
is
going
to
provide
three
potentially
three
spaces,
or
should
we
just
go
with
this,
because
she
would
have
a
better
chance,
probably
if
she
can
state
that
she's
going
to
provide
and
make
a
condition.
C
A
B
Can
we
say
two
just
in
case
the
brick
doesn't
go
back
that
far
well,
we
could.
We
could
say
three
if
you,
if
you
need
me
to
and
then
we
could
like.
I
said
we
could
use
the
front
yard
if
that's
something
that
we
need
to
do
so,
whatev
whatever
you
all
think,
I'm
new
to
all
this.
So
what
whatever
you
all
think
is
best
I
I
will
gladly
do
it.
E
A
G
F
Yeah
it
that
street
is
crazy.
I
think
that
if
yeah,
if
the
appellant
could
commit
to
creating
two
parking
places,
maybe
three
and
then,
if
that
doesn't
work
out
getting
a
commitment
from
the
neighbor.
The
other
possibility
would
be
that
what
about
the
architects
office
down
the
street
a
little
bit
they
they
seem
to
have
a
lot
of
parking
or.
A
You
know
when,
from
from
the
left
side
of
the
speedway
on
that,
what
is
it
milton
street
or
avenue
when
you
go
up
and
then
atlantic
avenue
is
perpendicular,
so
you
go
right
and
left
and
then
you
can
go
straight.
I
saw
a
whole
bunch
of
parking
space
over
there
and
also
on
the
right
side
of
the
street.
I
From
I
used
to
my
friend,
lived
at
11
11
atlantic
in
college,
so
right
up
from
there
just
be
parking
in
front
of
that
porch.
But
if
you
go
back
behind
the
speedway,
there
was
a
student
housing
and
they
had
like
parking
back
there,
almost
like
six
or
eight
spaces
behind
one
of
the
houses.
Okay,
so
once
you
get
on
the
other
side
of
atlantic,
they
had
whoever
used
to
rent
that
had
parking
and
that
parking's
still
there.
I
C
A
C
E
I
11
had
a
bear
room,
downstairs,
living
room
and
think
like
two
or
three
bedrooms
upstairs,
but
they
only
had
one
space
where
the
garage
used
to
be,
and
then
the
parking
was
in
the
gravel
in
front
of
the
front
porch,
which
was
off
the
street.
But,
like
you
see
some
places,
don't
have
curves
or
sidewalks.
So
you
see
the
gravel
in
front
of
the
the
home
and
that's
where
the
off
street
parking
was
so
that's
where
most
people
usually
parked.
That
was
in
the
gravel
spaces
in
front
of
the
houses
on
the
atlantic.
B
E
C
B
E
C
C
A
D
A
1
to
allow
a
rental
on
the
first
floor
of
a
b2
zone
where
residential
use
is
only
permitted
on
the
second
story
and
above
requesting
a
variance
from
acc23
23.10.01
table
b
to
allow
two
parking
spaces
and
one
letter
of
allowing
parking
from
the
next
door.
Neighbor
where
three
are
required,
is
that
the
right
verbiage.
A
Okay,
second,
okay,
let
me
go
through
the
findings,
quickly,
exceptional
circumstances.
There
are
exceptional
or
extraordinary
circumstances
or
conditions
applying
to
the
property
in
question
or
to
the
intended
use
of
the
property
that
do
not
apply
generally
to
other
properties
or
classes
or
uses
in
the
same
zone.
A
What
I
could
argue
is
that,
even
though
this
is
a
b2
zone,
these
are
all
first
of
all
residential.
I
don't
think
any
business
is
going
to
be
going
moving
in
that
area
in
that
neighborhood
I
didn't
see
any,
and
so
it's
going
to
be
for
living
quarters,
whether
owner
or
the
rentals,
so
that
makes
it
exceptional
circumstances
to
me.
F
A
So
practical
difficulty
and
undue
hardship,
any
questions
on
that
it
will
just
follow
the
exceptional
circumstances:
preservation
of
equal
property
right.
So
all
the
neighbors
have
the
same
rights
you're
enjoying
the
same
rights
that
she's
asking
any
comment
on
that
minimum
variance.
I
think,
since
they
have
address
now
the
parking
issue,
it
would
be
minimum.
A
You
all
agree
absence
of
detriment.
I
think
they're
going
to
do
a
wonderful
thing
in
the
neighborhood
by
fixing
the
police
and
it
I
think
they
have
been
working
on
it,
but
it
still
needs
some
improvement.
I
think,
and
they
will
be
taking
care
of
it
and
not
of
a
natural
nature.
It's
not
are
we
ready
to
vote.
A
C
A
Our
second
case
is
case
number
21
dash
o2.
I
I
stands
for
interpretation
property
at
750,
east
state
street
the
zone
is
b3
and
mithril
enterprises,
llc
is
the
appellant
appellant
is
requesting
an
interpretation
from
the
board
of
acc
2304
b3
a
and
the
termination
of
acc
230407
b3a3
under
200
foot
or
feet
setback,
condition
for
drive-throughs
or
drive-ins
that
are
not
part
of
or
otherwise,
directly
associated
with
an
eating
or
drinking
establishment
or
place.
A
A
It
was
just
for
an
interpretation,
but
it
turns
out
that
the
appellant
or
the
representative
had
sent
some
letters
to
the
neighborhood
and
I
don't
have
the
copy
of
the
letter,
or
I
don't
think
I
have
one
but
that
had
given
the
neighborhood
the
impression
that
this
was
for
a
permit,
a
new
permit
or
or
various
we
are
not
going
to
do.
Any
permits-
or
we
are
just
going
to
interpret
the
code,
as
is
stated
so
depending
on
how
we
decide,
then
there
is
a
couple
of
options.
A
A
C
Sure,
mr
chair,
thank
you
just
as
a
big
overview.
This
is
not
interpretations
are
not
something
that
we
do
all
the
time.
So
if
I
could
just
refresh
the
board,
the
we've
actually
done.
28
interpretation
cases
1995
till
today.
This
is
actually
the
first
one
I'm
doing,
and
that
power
comes
to
the
board.
The
interpretation
power
comes
to
the
board
under
title
230703
powers
of
the
board
appellate
jurisdiction
belt.
This
gives
the
this
gives
the
board
three
grants
them:
three
powers:
administrative
review,
variances
and
reversal
of
orders.
C
This
allows
the
board
to
do,
among
other
things,
where
it's
alleged,
that
by
the
appellant
that
an
error
has
occurred
to
hear
and
decide
of
a
correct
determination
that
was
made
by
the
zoning
administrator
and
the
enforcement
and
interpretation
of
the
provisions
of
the
zoning
code.
This
is
really
technical,
but
that's
what
we're
doing
here
tonight.
C
I
would
recommend
that
a
decision
from
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
would
be
in
the
form
of
the
interpretation
of
the
provision
of
the
code
made
by
the
zoning
administration.
Either
administrator
either
was
or
was
not
correct,
so
it's
not
a
yes
or
no
or
it's
not
a
approve
or
deny
it
would
be.
Did
the
zoning
administrator
make
the
correct
interpretation
of
the
code?
So
that's
the
big
picture.
C
A
C
You,
if
you
look
at
the
code,
230407
principal
permitted
uses
it
includes
any
use,
permitted
and
regulated
in
the
b2
or
b2d
zones.
So
this
will,
if
you
look
back
in
the
b2
zones
it
it
looks
at
the
closest
thing
I
could
get
to
it
was
a
convenience
store
and
convenience
stores
are
permitted
in
a
b2
zone.
Okay,
so
we
had
no
choice
but
to
approve
right
that,
based
on
the
the
230407a,
principally
permitted
uses.
A
C
C
Unfortunately,
no
that'll
make
my
job
a
lot
easier.
The
problem
is
is
that
we
have
this
eating
and
drinking
establishments
drive-throughs
and
drive-ins
eating
and
drinking
places,
but
we
don't
really
define
that
in
the
code.
That's
what
made
this
particular
case
difficult
for
the
code
office.
For
me.
L
C
J
C
L
Right,
but
I
guess
I'm
just
thinking
if
we
hypothetically
thought
or
decided
that
you
did
not.
Might
this
be
a
section
of
the
code
that
could
re
sort
of
we
could
look
again
at
a
drive-through?
That's
not
an
eating
or
drinking
establishment
and
come
to
a
variance
request
based
on
this
part
of
the
code.
A
C
One
of
the
things
that
I
did
as
I
went
through
and
before
I
made
this
determination
and
we'll
look
through
it
past
case
history
on
similar
zoning.
Permit
requests-
and
I
have
three
of
my-
I
just
bring
up
to
the
board
to
consider
the
kindred
market,
which
is
this
is
not
a
b3.
It's
a
b2
zombie,
it's
very
similar
in
case
zn1800100,
kindred
market
284,
east
state
street,
had
asked
for
the
drive-through
where
they
were
clearly
going
to
be
selling
eating
and
drinking
were
providing
eating
and
drinking
services.
C
The
zoning
administration
denied
that
permit,
and
then,
if
you
recall,
they
went
to
the
bza,
the
permit
was
denied
because
there
was
a
drive
through
within
200
feet
of
a
residential
zone,
and
that
case
was
denied
at
the
bca.
I
think
in
2018.,
also
in
2007,
the
mcdonald's
on
richland
avenue
rebuilt
their
store,
so
they
tore
down
the
store
and
put
it
back
up
that
was
in
2007.
C
They
requested
a
permit
and
again
they
were.
They
were
eating
a
drinking
establishment
with
a
drive
through
that
was
within
200
feet
of
a
r1
or
r2
zone.
We
denied
that
case
because
it
was
clearly
an
eating
and
drinking
establishment
with
a
drive-through
within
200
feet
of
a
residential
zone.
They
went
to
the
bza
and
a
substitution
variance
was
approved.
C
I
believe
in
2007
as
well,
and
the
substitution
was
that
the
mcdonald's
had
a
drive-through
before
they
tore
it
down
and
put
it
back
up
and
the
board
approved
the
substitution
for
that
used
and
then,
on
the
other
side
of
the
coin,
with
permit
zero
05002
one
one
citizens
bank,
at
20,
east
stimson
avenue,
had
asked
for
a
drive
through
with
their
primary
building
within
200
feet
of
a
residential
zone,
and
clearly
this
was
not
in
eating
a
drinking
establishment.
So
we
did
not
deny
that
and
the
variance
was
not
sought.
C
A
M
F
M
F
Restaurants,
blah
blah
blah,
not
including
drive-in
or
drive-through
restaurants,
and
if
you
look
then
down
at
the
piece
of
code
that
we're
being
asked
to
consider,
I
don't
think
it's
very
well
phrased,
but
I
feel
as
though
it
might
be
pretty
clear
eating
and
drinking
establishments.
So
that's
that's
telling
us
already
that
that's
what
this
piece
of
code
is
referring
to
it's
eating
and
drinking
establishments,
whether
drive
in
or
drive
through,
and
if
they
had
only
said
instead
of
saying
and
eating
and
drinking
places
had
said
and
sit
down,
eating
and
drinking
places.
F
It
would
seem
clear
that
that
code
refers
to
three
types
of
restaurant
that
drives
in
like
the
old,
like
the
sonic
and
nelsonville,
the
drive-through
like
mcdonald's
or
the
sit-down
restaurant.
So
I
I
guess
I
would
start
out
by
arguing
that
this
part
of
code
does
in
fact
refer
only
to
restaurants
and
not
to
other
drive-through
kinds
of
things
which
I
think
would
reasonably
be
dealt
with
in
a
separate
place.
M
23.04.07
a
three
and
she
is
correct-
that
the
verbiage
and
structure
of
this
provision
isn't
well
done.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
it
was
revised
by
city
council
at
least
twice,
and
I
believe,
maybe
three
times
in
an
effort
to
clarify
its
intent,
but
each
time
I
think
it
got
worse.
I
I
don't
think
they
ever
got
quite
where
they
were
trying
to
go
and
it
it
still
makes
it
difficult
to
interpret.
J
M
The
proposed
use,
the
one
that
has
been
permitted,
is
for
a
convenience
store
and
the
applicant
intends
to
open
a
convenience
store,
but
their
desire
is
to
include
a
drive-through
now.
This
would
be
similar
to
something
like
stopping
cop
on
richland
avenue,
which
I
consider
like
a
drive-through
convenience
store.
You
can
not
only
get
cold
beverages,
but
you
can
buy.
You
know:
pre-packaged
snacks,
convenience
items
whatever
the
intent
is
not
to
sell
food
for
consumption,
on
the
promises
or
drinks
for
consumption,
on
the
premises
or
prepare
food
on
the
premises.
M
That
is
not
what
we
have
been
approved
for
and
that's
not
the
intent
of
the
business.
It's
a
retail
convenience
store
with
a
drive-through
feature,
and
I
think,
if
you
read
the
specific
code
and
take
into
consideration
that
the
permitted
uses
in
the
b3
zone
specifically
include
bear
with
me
here
one
second,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
get
this
right.
M
A
A
The
question
was
that
initially,
when
we
had
all
the
meeting
previous
time,
it
was,
I
think,
at
the
time
we
decided
that
if
you
are
selling
food
or
or
drinks
that
would
be
a
eating
and
drinking
establishment
again
eating
and
drinking
establishment.
That's
this
is
what
we
have
to
decide
tonight
to
me.
It
doesn't
mean
just
a
restaurant
to
sit
in.
A
You
know
if
you're
just
going
through
the
window
and
picking
food
up
or
drink
up,
that
would
be
a
food
establishment
that
would
be
a
drinking
establishment
and
and
that
this
never
came
up
in
the
last
meeting.
But
since
then
you're
now
saying
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
general
retail
store
and
in
somewhere
else
you
talk
about
basic
convenience
store,
so
please
define
those
for
us.
What
are,
if
you
are,
having
a
general
retail
store,
what
would
you
be
selling.
M
M
A
Let's
give
an
example:
if
I
pull
into
that
driveway
I'll
drive
through
and
order,
let's
say
pizza
and
let's
assume
they
have
an
oven
that
they
make
pizza,
and
then
I
say
I
want
a
large
drink
and
they
pour
the
drink
in
the
big
cup
with
the
ice
and
gave
it
to
me
to
me
that
is
their
eating
and
drinking
establishment,
even
though
I'm
not
going
inside
to
sit
that
would
be
a
drinking
and
eating
establishment
because
you
are
preparing
the
pizza,
you
are
pouring
the
drink
in
the
cup
you're
serving
for
money.
That's
exactly!
A
F
They
would
that
they
specifically,
I
believe,
refer
to
restaurants.
Now
I
mean
someone
who
worked
on
the
code.
Maybe
will
tell
me
well
you're
absolutely
wrong
about
that,
but
that
seems
to
me
suggested
by
the
it's.
For
one
thing,
it
says:
eating
establishments
at
the
beginning
of
the
sentence,
so
that
suggests
that
everything
that
follows
is
going
to
have
to
do
with
an
eating
establishment,
and
then
they
seem
to
refer
to
the
three
kinds
that
drive
in
eating
establishments
barely
exist
anymore,
but
probably
had
quite
a
few.
At
the
time
the
code
was
written.
F
Like
a
you
know,
a
w
root
beer
or
whatever,
where
you
pull
up,
you
know
you
sit
there
and
you
eat
in
your
car,
so
drive
in
drive
through
like
mcdonald's
and
then
sit
down
or
eat
in.
I
think
refer
to
three
types
of
eating
prepared:
restaurant
food,
which
is
distinct
from
a
convenience
store,
like
you
might
see
at
a
gas
station
where
you
get
a
bag
of
pretzels
and
a
coke,
and
you
you
pay
and
you
leave
and
and
there's
no
question
of
you
eating
it
in
the
establishment.
F
M
M
It's
a
very
large
long
building
and
the
idea
is
to
put
a
convenience
store
in
the
front
of
the
building
and
there
is
ample
parking
for
a
convenience
store.
That's
one
reason
it
has
been
approved,
but
naturally
the
building
is
naturally
suited
for
a
drive-through
in
the
back,
because
it
already
has,
I
believe,
three
overhead
garage
doors
in
the
structure
already
we're
going
to
add
one
just
to
improve
the
flow
of
traffic,
but.
M
To
further
clarify
this
is
not
an
answer
to
your
question
but
to
further
clarify
the
applicant
I
mentioned
fountain
drinks.
The
applicant
is
not
going
to
be
serving
fountain
drinks,
because
apparently
that
requires
a
different
kind
of
license
or
permit
through
the
health
department
and
they're
not
going
to
go
that
route.
So
we
are
talking
strictly
prepackaged
foods
and
beverages,
nothing
prepared
on-site.
A
D
D
So
if
you
want
a
literal
judgment
from
us,
I
mean
you
have
to
be
kind
of
literal
yourself
saying
that
we
would
only
have
bottle
drinks,
and
so
I
I
just
throwing
that
out
there
and
just
asking
that,
because
some
of
the
people
in
the
neighborhood
are
70
feet
from
you
and
they
have
kids.
And
you
know
this
isn't.
This
is
just
what
we're.
What
we're
hearing
from.
M
Sure,
like
I
said
you
know,
I
attempted
to
clarify-
and
I
probably
muddied
the
waters
more
than
anything,
but
we
won't
be
preparing
drinks.
The
only
thing
we
will
be
doing
is
is
selling
bottled
or
canned
drinks.
That's
it
we're
not
preparing
anything
and
as
far
as
percentage
of
business
that
would
be
anticipated
for
alcoholic
beverages.
M
M
You
know
if
they're,
not
selling
alcohol,
alcoholic
beverages,
that's
just
the
way
it
is,
and
so
you
know
roughly
25
30
percent,
I
think,
would
be
a
reasonable
estimation.
But
again
it's
all
for
off-premises
consumption,
not
on
the
premises
and
when
we
get
to
comments
made
by
neighbors.
You
know
regarding
the
sale
of
alcohol,
it's
it's
inevitable.
M
M
It
would
be
extremely
difficult
for
them
to
find
a
way
to
get
to
avon
place
to
drive
on
avon
place.
They
are
specifically
directed
to
the
state
street
to
eliminate
any
traffic
impact
to
avon
place,
and-
and
you
know
frankly,
there
are
plenty
of
other
businesses
you
know
within,
and
you
know
on
the
same
block
selling
alcohol.
M
We're
not
it's
not
something
new
to
the
state
street,
so
we're
not
going
to
be
contributing
to
the
decline
of
the
neighborhood.
We
are
going
to
be
offering
a
service
that
I
think
will
be
a
great
benefit
to
the
neighborhood
and
a
huge
convenience
once
we're
there.
I
think
people
will
see
how
convenient
it
is
to
be
able
to
just
pull
in
and
pick
up
convenience
items
either
on
their
way
to
work
on
the
way
to
school
on
the
way
home.
M
F
F
Then
it's
not
our
position
to
talk
about
whether
the
neighbors
approve
or
disapprove
of
what
is
being
sold
at
this
place
because
it's
simply
allowed
by
code.
So
I
guess,
like
the
vape
store,
a
lot
of
people
refer
to
that
and
they
don't
like
having
a
vape
store
on
their
corner.
But
I
I
don't
think
they
came
to
us
for
variants.
They
simply
were
allowed
to
open
their
store
there
and
to
sell
those
products
and
a
lot
of
the
neighbors
are
not
happy
about
it.
F
D
F
J
Their
new
site
plan,
though
this
rob
their
new
site
plan,
does
include
a
sidewalk
and
a
barrier
to
keep
the
cars
from
driving
on
the
sidewalk
too.
So
they've
also
made
accommodations
there
as
well
as
there
was
a
question
last
time
about
headlight
coming
into
the
house.
Next
next
door
and
they're
gonna
put
up
a
wall
to
stop
that.
So
I
think
they've
addressed
all
those
issues.
C
Mr
chair,
if
I
may
sure
sure
this
is
really
the
what
we're
here
tonight
for
is
really
how
did
how
did
I
make
my
refusal
determination
on
the
permit?
This
was
permit
zn2002
102
and
I
think
that's
in
your
packets,
if
you,
if
you
have
that,
I
refused
that
permit-
and
this
is
what
we're
talking
about,
did
I
make
the
right
decision
in
refusing
that
permit.
But
if
you
look
at
it,
it
was
a
use
permit.
They
give
you.
I
don't
know.
C
If
everybody
has
that,
if
you
look
at
it
the
pre
they
call
and
and
they're
the
ones
that
filled
this
out
the
present
use
or
the
appellant
was
the
one
that
filled
it
out.
The
present
use
was
for
automotive
garages
in
office,
and
the
proposed
use
they've
called
out
as
a
drive-through,
slash,
food
and
drink,
and
that
kind
of
is
why
I
used
acc
230407
subparagraph
three,
because
they
were
calling
it
a
drive-through
with
food
and
drink
later
on.
C
They
call
it
a
drive-through
retail
store,
but
the
way
I'm
the
reason
I
made
part
of
the
reason
I
made
that
determination
was
based
on
their
what
they
described
as
their
proposed
use
for
this
permit,
and
that's
a
that's
a
reason.
One
of
the
reasons
why
we
refused
that
and
the
question
before
the
board
is:
was
that
a
correct
decision
or
not.
A
M
If
I,
if
I
could
add,
if
I
may
sure
yeah,
I,
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
we're
here
this
evening
is
because
I
agree-
or
at
least
I
believe
that
the
drive-through
is
permitted
under
the
general
retail
use,
because
drive-in
drive-through
is
not
defined
anywhere
in
the
code
as
far
as
like
I
could
find.
So
it
is
permitted
and
the
interpretation
I
come
to
and
the
only
one
that
I
think
makes
sense
is
that
a
drive-through
is
or
falls
under
the
definition.
M
M
M
It
has
more
than
one
possible
interpretation
and,
honestly
it
it's
not
well
written.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
doing
the
right
thing
from
a
regulatory
standpoint.
We
don't
want
to
make
it
look
like
we're,
ignoring
the
guidance
of
the
code
office
or
the
the
dictates
of
the
bza
or
anything
we.
We
want
to
know
that
our
interpretation
is
the
correct
interpretation
and
that
we
can
proceed
with
our
plans.
M
Of
doing
it
yeah
it,
but
frankly
you
know:
that's
you
know,
that's
a
last
resort.
I
don't
think
it's
necessary.
I.
I
think
this
is
a
very
simple
matter
and
I
think
it
just
takes
a
plain
reading
of
the
code
and
common
sense
interpretation
of
it
and
you
know
so
we
can
go
through
the
regular
process,
continue
working
with
code
office.
M
D
A
Well,
it
talks
about
it
in
that
section
three,
you
know
it.
It
does
say
that
eating
and
drinking
so
and
we
have
to
just
to
decide
what
which
kind
of
a
eating
and
drinking
this
establishment
is
going
to
be
otherwise
for
other
uses
is
not
regulated.
I
agree
you
know,
but
for
this
specific
application
it
does
say
eating
and
drinking,
including
including
the
driving
drive
through.
Let's
go
to
joe,
I
mean
I
want
each
one
of
you
maybe
express
something
you
know.
Maybe
we
can
all
collectively
then
have
a
better
view.
Joe.
E
H
L
J
Yes,
I'm
not
a
voting
member
tonight,
but
I'm
I'm
still
going
to
state
my
yes
absolutely
comments
here
and
that
I
think
it's
common
sense
that
eating
and
drinking
and
I've
looked
other
places
and
it
always
means
preparation
or
serving
of
food,
and
so
I
think,
if
they
had
crossed,
maybe
crossed
the
line
if
they
were
serving
fountain
drinks
that
might
be
considered
serving
an
eating
drink
establishment.
But
in
light
that
that's
not
even
what
they're
doing
there's
no
preparation,
no
real
serving
going
on.
I
don't
see
any
way
that
this
this
could
be
interpreted.
A
N
M
M
No,
you
said
it
is.
I
was
mistaken.
I
said
there
was
a
possibility
for
that
and
I
got
a
text
from
the
applicant
saying
absolutely
not
because
that
required
a
separate
permit
from
the
health
department
and
they
are
not
pursuing
such
a
permit.
So
he
provided
me
with
clarification
that
fountain
drinks
are
not
included.
There
is
no
food,
prep
whatsoever,
no
food
being
sold
for
consumption
on
the
premises.
M
D
A
Mr
lee
we're
going
to
probably
close
the
floor
for
discussion,
except
I
don't
see
anyone
in
here
from
the
public
who
wants
to
speak
and
again.
If
anybody
there
is,
we
want
just
to
be
with
respect
to
the
code
interpretation
of
the
code,
whether
you
agree
or
disagree
with
the
this
establishment.
That's
a
different
issue.
We
are
just
interpreting
the
code
tonight,
john.
O
O
O
So
it
seems
like
one
thing:
okay,
if
it's
going
to
be
a
convenience
store,
I
know
mr
lee
has
said
that
it
won't
include
any
fountain
drinks
any
prepared
food
at
all,
but
all
other
convenience
stores
do
so,
and
let
me
just
read
you
one
one,
just
real,
just
just
part
of
a
sentence
in
the
letter
that
was
put
on
our
front
door.
Some
some
of
us
in
the
neighborhood
received
a
letter
on
our
on
our
front
door
and
it
says.
O
When
what,
if
you
don't
want
want
to
get
the
kids
out
of
the
car
to
run
in
and
grab
some
coffee
or
a
cold
drink?
Well,
what
about
coffee?
Then
it's
it's
not
going
to
be
just
you
know
like
a
can
of
coffee
or
anything
it's
going
to
be
prepared,
coffee
and
what
I
would
imagine
would
happen,
but
I
mean
I'm
just
imagining
this.
O
I
can't
say
for
sure,
but
I
I
could
imagine
that
it,
they
would
say
no
right
right
now,
no
prepared
food
at
all,
no
hot
dogs,
no
pizza,
no
fountain
drinks,
nothing,
none
of
that
and
then
they
open
up
and
they
get
the
drive-through
going.
And
then
they
say.
Oh
maybe
now
it's
time
to
add
to
add
these
things,
because
we're
we're
a
convenience
store.
All
convenience
stores
have
these
things,
so
it
seems
like
it.
It
gets
a
little
murkier,
maybe
maybe
it
it
is.
It
is
food
and
drink.
M
They
are
not
part
of
a
permitted
use
and
so
any
type
of
food,
prep
or
anything
that
falls
in
that
category
requires
a
separate
health
department
license,
and
it
is
not
the
owner's
intent
to
prepare
any
type
of
food,
and
so
anything
requires
preparation
or
that
license
from
the
health
department
is
not
going
to
happen
here
if
we
or
if
the
applicant
intended
to
start
doing
so
serving
like
fresh
brewed
coffee
on
something.
That's
not
pre-packaged.
M
It
is
my
position
that
it
still
would
not
be
an
eating
and
drinking
establishment.
However,
that
question
is
still
out
there
and
it
would
require
a
health
department
license
and
we
would
have
to
come
back
and
get
approval
from
mr
riggs
and
the
code
enforcement
office
to
make
that
change,
because
that
would
be
a
change
of
use
and
we
couldn't
do
it
and
we
can't
represent
here
that
we're
not
going
to
do
something
and
then
do
it.
A
C
A
F
F
A
A
M
A
C
I
suppose
we
could
that's
not
something:
we've
traditionally
done,
we've
provided
the
use
permit,
and
then
we
don't
typically
go
back
and
check
periodically
to
make
sure
that
the
applicant
is
continuing
to
use
their
to
use
their
address
the
way
they
the
way
they
had
described
in
the
permit.
I
suppose
we
would,
if
we
got
a
complaint
from
from
a
resident,
we'd,
definitely
go
and
check
and
see
well,
but
we
wouldn't
typically
go
and
and
check
those
just
randomly.
A
M
M
It
would
work
more
or
less
almost
like
a
conditional
use
permit.
If,
although
this
is
not
a
conditional
use
situation,
it
would
have
the
same
effect,
meaning
your
interpretation
is
premised
upon
our
business,
not
being
an
eating
and
drinking
establishment
and
your
determination
that
it
is
not
an
eating
and
drinking
establishment
is
based
upon
our
representation
that
we
will
not
be
serving
any
foods
prepared
on
the
premises
or
for
consumption
on
the
premises,
and
that
I
mean
that
would,
I
think,
pretty
much
address
all
the
concerns.
M
M
A
A
N
N
We
don't
care
if
they're
t-shirts,
food
or
drink
non-prepared
there
you're
driving
through
the
building
to
obtain
these
goods-
and
this
is
what
the
code
specifically
states
is
not
allowed
in
in
the
zone
that
it's
in
based
on
the
distance
from
the
residential
area,
and
that's
the
only
thing
that
you
need
to
consider.
I
think
it's
not
a
matter
of.
N
Is
it
in
an
eating
establishment,
it's
a
matter
of
they
want
to
drive
through
and
they
were
rejected
the
first
time
they're
taking
semantics
into
a
second
section
of
the
code
and
trying
to
say
that
it
is
allowed
as
a
drive-through,
and
I
don't
believe
that
it
is
and
that's
my
feeling
about
the
situation.
What.
N
N
You
do
drive
through
the
physical
building
of
this
convenience
store,
I
don't
mind
them
having
a
convenience
store,
it's
the
drive
through
that
building
and
good
luck
on
ever
getting
out
on
state
street
through
their
parking
lot
on
the
other
side
of
the
building.
That's
you're
never
going
to
get
out
on
state
street,
but
that's
not
the
issue
either.
The
issue
is
what
was
voted
on
the
first
time
that
they
asked
for
a
variance
and
it
was
denied
and
it
should
be
denied
again
this
evening.
A
M
A
A
You
you
again,
you
know
last
time
it
was
food
and
drinks
and
now
is
general
retail
you're
saying
it's
not
and
we
had
to
decide.
You
know
if
this
was
actually
a
you
know
for
the
drinking,
and
you
know
for
your
nature
of
business.
I
think
you
know.
If
it
is
eating
and
drinking,
then
then
you
have
to
be
within
200
feet
and
that's
what
we're
discussing
but
again,
if
it
was
any
other
business
that
would
have
that
is
not
regulated
by
the
code.
N
Well,
I
didn't
have
a
question.
I
was
just
making
a
statement
of
fact:
okay,
okay,
about
about
the
current
code
and
that
and-
and
we've
we've
heard
this
way
too
many
times
of
people
coming
into
town,
buying
a
piece
of
real
estate
having
an
idea
and
a
dream
without
really
investigating
deep
into
the
city
codes
and
then
once
they
obtain
that
building
they
put
the
horse
before
the
cart.
We've
seen
it
too
many
times.
N
N
J
J
A
I
think
that's
been
the
discussed
in
the
code
for
for
that
kind
of
a
business
for
services
stations
and
those
things,
so
those
are
addressed
already.
Okay,
great
thanks.
Thanks
for
your
input,
yeah
good
to
hear
from
you,
okay,
any
last
words
any
other
comments
before
we
close
the
discussion
from
the
floor.
A
A
C
Sure
so,
there's
several
ways
to
do
this.
The
first
one
would
be
if
you
decide
that
my
interpretation
was
incorrect
and
that
my
assumption
that
this
is
not
an
eating
and
drinking
establishment
was
incorrect.
The
appellant,
if
he
wanted
to
drive
in
or
drive
through
in
for
this
site,
would
have
to
reapply
to
the
code
office
and
we
would
make
we
would
go
through
that
process
if
you
so
I
was.
I
think
that
was
the
that
was.
The
question
nancy
was
that
the
question.
C
A
K
M
M
M
Yeah-
and
you
know,
if
I
may
so-
that
we
just
don't
completely
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
you
know,
while
we're
discussing
semantics
here
and
in
code
language.
Very
specifically,
the
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
we're
talking
about
a
building
that,
but
for
this
business
would
be
empty
and
a
huge
building
right
on
east
state
street
that
would
remain
empty.
G
D
I
would
like
to
hear
from
some
other
people.
I
also
want
to
just
make
a
make
a
point.
Okay,
so
we're
we're
asked
to
we're
tasked
with
making
a
an
interpretation
using
vague
eating
and
drinking
establishment.
Definitions
drive
through
drive-in
definitions
who
comes
up
with
those
originally
city
council.
F
M
A
At
some
point,
lisa
we
are
tasked.
Actually
this
is
our
job.
This
is
our
duty
to
decide
independently
to
decide
whether
how
we
interpret
the
code.
You
know
it
doesn't
matter
whether
we
incorporate
right
or
wrong.
There
is
no
right
or
wrong
in
here,
but
based
on
our
understanding,
as
of
now,
by
reading
the
code,
we
are
going
to
interpret
individually
each
one
of
us
by
our
vote,
and
this
is
our
job
and
I
don't
think
we
can
get
counsel
on
that.
A
We
could
get
some
information
because
again
the
nature
of
this
business.
Right
now,
as
as
of
this
point
to
me,
especially
after
being
emphasized
that
this
is
a
food
and
drink
to
me-
is
a
eating
establishment
to
some
other.
One
of
you
is
different,
so
I
I
think
first
maybe
I
was
thinking
about,
maybe
tabling
it,
but
again
it's
our
job.
You
know
it's
our
job
to
interpret
this
as
we
see.
F
A
B
G
O
O
I'm
I'm
asking
that
because
I
still
think
I
I
mean
not
that
I'm
not
trustful
of
people,
but
I
still
think
it's.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
say
right
now:
oh,
we
won't
sell
coffee,
we
won't
sell
foul
and
drinks.
We
won't
do
any
of
these
things,
but
then,
after
you
get
the
drive
through
and
everything's
all
going
after
a
while,
then
you
start
to
sell
all
those
things
I
mean
you
become
a
more
regular
normal
convenience
store
that
sells
those
things
it
seems
like.
A
Well,
my
information
from
what
I've
heard
from
mr
lee
is
that
the
customer
will
never
see
the
inside
of
this
place.
They
just
come
in,
it's
not
like.
They
are
walking
inside
to
make
their
own
coffee
or
their
own
hot
dog.
They
just
come
into
the
window.
They
order
something
they
don't
really
see.
The
inside
of
this
whole
place
right
am
I
correct.
M
M
A
H
A
F
A
A
A
F
John
I'll
go
along
with
you,
but
I
I
do
think
that
the
alternative
of
including
that
other
language,
I
agree
that
it
would
not
be
amending
the
code,
but
it
would
possibly
address
the
concerns
that
many
have
raised
about
whether
they're
just
trying
to
get
this
interpretation
and
then
you
know
start
making
hot
dogs
and
cotton
candy.
You
know-
and
I
don't
know,
but
that's
fine,
we'll
do
what
you
say.
F
Too
hard,
I
guess
I
mean
if
we
were
to
agree,
that
is
to
say,
agree
with
the
appellant
and
say
that
mr
riggs
made
the
wrong
decision.
Then
any
of
this
could
still
happen.
If,
if
they
did
start,
you
know
preparing
food
and
and
sitting
people
down,
then
a
neighbor
could
complain
right
and
then
enforcement
would
be
initiated.
I
think
I.
D
Okay,
I'm
not
there
to
I.
I
really
I'm
stumbling
with
this
eating
and
drinking
establishments.
Okay,
having
sex,
segmented
this
through
throughout
the
city
and
what
is
and
what
isn't
just
because
of
you've
got
a
little
cellophane
package
with
food.
The
the
health
department
does
inspect
those
places,
so
they
really
do
so.
That
means
that
they
are
an
eating
and
drinking
establishment,
even
though
you're
not
doing
it
on
there.
The
the
drive-through
thing
is
also
concerning
for
me.
A
C
So
I
did
some
research
and
I
went
back
to
see
this
code
has
been
written
at
least
two
other
times
from
the
current
version.
The
version
directly
before
this
was
revised
in
2009,
so
that
we're
talking
about
230407,
b3
general
business
zone.
What
it
said
before
its
current
case
was
that
eating
and
drinking
establishments
the
principal
building
shall
be
at
least
200
feet
from
any
r1
or
r2
zone.
So
they
didn't
talk
about
drivings
or
drive-throughs
at
all.
C
If
you
go
back
one
more
iteration
back
in
probably
in
the
90s
1990s
230407
b3
said
eating
and
drinking
establishments
were
permitted.
However,
drive-in
eating
and
drinking
places
summer
gardens
and
road
houses
were
also
allowed,
provided
the
principal
building
was
at
least
200
feet
from
any
r1
r2
district
and
what
they've
kind
of?
In
my
opinion,
what
they've
kind
of
done
is
tried
to
blend
those
two
together
and
it
didn't
work
very
well.