►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals 10-21-14
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
this
is
a
public
hearing
of
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
of
the
city
of
Evanston.
The
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
hear
applications
for
major
variations,
special
uses
and
appeals
from
decisions
of
the
Zoning
Administrator,
depending
on
the
type
of
matter.
This
board
will
either
make
a
final
determination
or
send
its
recommendation
to
City
Council.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
C
A
That
we
have
six
members
present
and
we
do
have
a
quorum
also
present
tonight,
or
zoning
planner
Melissa
clots
planning
and
zoning
administrator,
lori
pearson
and
assistants
city
attorney
mario
tratto.
This
is
a
formal
meeting
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time
to
accurately
record
the
proceedings.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
advance
to
address
the
board
regarding
any
matter
on
the
agenda
will
have
the
opportunity
to
do
so
at
the
appropriate
time.
A
Our
procedure
is
to
hear
from
the
staff
on
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
or
appellate
next.
Persons
who
wish
to
make
any
statement
regarding
the
matter
may
do
so
at
that
time,
any
person
with
a
legal
interest
in
property
located
within
500
feet
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
continuance
of
the
hearing.
When
all
supporting
an
opposing
testimony
and
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
or
appellate
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
closing
statement.
A
Then
the
board
will
close
the
record
and
begin
deliberations.
All
testimony
will
be
under
oath,
although
we
do
not
apply
the
strict
rules
of
evidence.
Please
limit
your
testimony
or
statement
to
your
personal
knowledge.
When
you
address
the
board,
please
state
your
name
and
address
and
be
sure
to
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet.
We
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
that
you
are
at
a
microphone
when
asking
questions
or
making
statements
so
that
you
may
be
properly
recorded.
All
proceedings
are
subject
to
broadcast
at
a
later
date.
A
Any
matter
not
concluded
at
tonight's
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
We
do
have
three
items
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
Although
the
matter
of
3146
Harrison
Street
has
been
reino
de
stand
will
be
heard
at
our
November
eighteenth
meeting,
so
we
actually
have
two
matters
on
the
agenda
tonight.
1231
hinman
Avenue
is
the
applicant
present
and
715
milburn
street
I
see
them
present
as
well.
So
with
that,
we
will
move
on
to
the
first
matter
of
our
agenda
this
evening,
which
is
the
approval
of
the
meeting
minutes
from
October
7th.
D
A
B
Julie
em
liska
architect
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
two-story
addition.
The
applicant
requests
38.1
percent
building
lot
coverage
where
a
maximum
thirty
percent
is
allowed
and
thirty
four
point:
two
percent
currently
exists:
zoning
code,
section
6827,
52-percent,
impervious
surface
coverage,
where
maximum
forty-five
percent
is
allowed.
Zoning
code,
section
6,
8
to
10
a
and
a
three-foot
south
interior
side
yard
setback
where
five
feet
is
required,
sewn
in
code,
section
68,
2,
8
a-3,
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
A
Thank
you
at
this
point.
If
I
could
have
anyone
who
may
be
speaking
to
us
in
the
matter
of
1231
him
an
avenue
be
sworn,
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
or
affirm,
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings?
Thank
you.
If
you
please
come
up
to
the
microphone
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
E
E
The
the
current
property
currently
has
an
enclosed
porch
at
a
location
where
we
were
are
proposing
to
remove
this
porch
and
build
a
new
addition
that
the
porch
was
enclosed
at
some
point
fairly
poorly.
It
has
not
been
maintained,
it's
not
usable,
so
the
the
homeowner
would
like
to
replace
this
with
something
that
that
meets.
Today's
building
code
is
structurally
sound
and
meets
today's
energy
code.
E
As
well
part
of
this,
we
will
also
be
achieving
a
new
stair
to
the
basement
that
they
can
actually
carry
a
load
of
laundry
down
without
danger
and
a
very
modest
size,
living
space
and
master
bedroom
space.
The
impervious
coverage
is
increased
beyond
what
is
is
allowed,
but
it's
increased
by
about
four
percent.
It
already
is
fairly
significantly
over
and
the
existing
property
is
an
existing
non-conforming
lot
in
that
it's
10
feet
narrower
than
the
minimum,
and
that
it's
about
2,400
or
twenty
four
hundred
and
forty
square
feet
less
than
the
minimum
lot
size.
F
Have
a
couple:
I
have
a
couple
questions
if
you
don't
mind
sure
so,
I
see
the
new
stair
to
the
basement,
the
exterior
stare.
Can
you
talk
to
me
about
that?
There.
F
E
They
currently
have
a
deck,
and
they
do
like
to
use
that
so
they'd
like
to
replace
that
existing
deck
use.
We
did
sighs
it
fairly
minimally,
so
that
we
can
fit
a
table
and
four
chairs
the
the
homeowner
did
say
that
they
were
very
open
to
the
idea
of
replacing
the
front
concrete
walkway,
if
that
would
be
a
way
to
reduce
some
of
the
impervious.
That
was
something
that
was
proposed
at
the
the
last
review
meeting.
C
E
E
A
To
sort
of
pick
up
on
where
she
was
headed,
I
have
a
bit
of
an
issue
with
the
fact
that
we
were
trading
things
before
in
order
to
try
to
keep
us
below
impervious
surface,
and
now,
a
year
later,
we
are
trying
to
get
the
impervious
surface
back
up
over,
so
I
feel
a
little
bit
like.
We
were
switched
last
time
and
now
we're
coming
back
and
trying
to
get
the
impervious
surface
back
in.
E
Okay,
yes,
we
did
look
at
trying
to
make
that
deck
as
small
as
possible.
If
you
can
also
see
from
the
the
new
addition
that
were
proposed,
that
is
a
minimal
footprint
and
that
you
can
see
that
the
furniture
layout
we
have
space
for
a
couch
and
a
TV,
and
that
leaves
us
just
enough
room
for
circulation
and
then
also
the
stair
to
the
basement
that
needs
to
meet
today's
building
code.
We
did
look
elsewhere
in
the
house
to
put
that
stair.
E
F
E
E
They're
looking
to
provide
modern
amenities
in
this
home,
which
today
would
be
more
than
one
bathroom,
would
also
be
a
a
master,
bedroom
type
suite
and
a
family
seating
area
near
the
kitchen
right
now,
that's
not
something
that
they
can
have
in
this
home.
Just
because
of
that
back
area
that
is
considered
part
of
the
building
is
not
usable.
It's
also
not
a
structure
that
can
be
built
upon,
even
if
it
is
maintained,
the
the
footing
is
inadequate
because
it's
just
the
pure
footing.
E
Original
house
I
believe
was
I,
don't
have
an
actual
date,
but
it
was
turn-of-the-century.
It
is
part
of
the
historic
district
and.
E
None
of
them
were
would
allow
us
to
to
build
a
stair
that
would
be
meeting
building
code
within
the
house
to
the
basement,
basically
that
the
stair
had
to
be
removed
in
order
to
have
a
kitchen
and
family
room
setting
and
that
stair
needed
to
be
rebuilt.
So
that
meant
that
we
needed
to
have
enough
width
to
the
the
house
in
order
to
get
the
stair
and
that
TV
couch
circulation
space
set
up.
E
C
E
F
E
I
think
this,
this
family
has
been
been
used
to
having
a
deck
that
the
same
level
of
the
kitchen
and
that
use
that
they're
very
much
looking
to
maintain
his
with
everything.
But
you.
E
Also,
no
longer
a
modern
amenities
and
and
is
two
parking
spaces,
a
zoning
requirement.
It
isn't
mad.
A
F
B
E
Was
it
was
something
they
would
like
they
had
considered?
They
would
like
to
think
about.
It
was
not
something
that
they
had
asked
to
have
studied
in
a
way
that
we
could
determine
if
things
would
fit
within
the
the
footprint
that
existed
there
or
something
smaller
or
if
there
were
any
ways
that
we
could
put
a
stair
to
a
basement
elsewhere.
That
that
sort
of
study
was
not
done
at
that
time,
but.
A
E
The
addition
will
provide
a
very
modest
living
or
family
room
on
the
first
floor.
A
modest
master
bedroom
on
the
second
floor
will
provide
some
of
today's
modern
living
amenities
that
are
expected
in
most
homes
like
a
second
bathroom
and
will
also
provide
a
sa
first
air
for
them
to
the
basement
for
access
we'll
also
maintain
their
access
to
the
basement
so
that
they
can
enter
and
exit
the
basement
from
the
rear
yard
it
does
require.
E
A
A
C
There
sounds
like
they're
more
than
one
of
us
that
are
troubled
by
the
fact
that
this
applicant
was
here
a
year
ago
and
appeared
to
make
a
trade
off
in
order
to
secure
a
zoning
variation
that
we
granted
with
respect
to
the
impervious
surface
space
on
the
property
and
within
the
standards
we
have
to
consider.
As
Mary
Beth
pointed
out,
you
know
that
hardship
seems
to
be
self
created.
C
F
F
So
there's
really
no
moving
anything
from
side
yard
setbacks.
There
I
think
they
do
have
an
opportunity
to
reduce
the
degree
of
nonconformity
of
impervious
surface
I.
Don't
think
this
is
the
minimum
necessary
it's
what
they'd
like,
but
it's
not
the
minimum
necessary
and
I.
Think
we
traded
off.
Some
I
mean
we've,
given
them
the
garage
and
other
stuff,
so
I.
D
Would
be
willing
to
entertain
the
changing
the
/
requiring
the
change
in
the
proposal
to
to
go
to
the
impervious
or
the
excuse
me,
the
pervious,
pavers,
and
even
though
technically
it
still
would
require
the
variance
sort
of
knowing,
in
my
mind,
that
the
pervious
pavers
were
going
to
actually
get
it
down
to
an
acceptable
like
getting
to
the
end.
You
know,
even
though,
theoretically
we're
still
over
we're,
not
cuz.
D
F
C
C
F
C
Okay,
just
so
with
the
modification
where
we
where
we
would
require,
rather
than
the
deck
to
have
pervious
pavers,
then
perhaps
that
is
really
the
minimum
change
possible
and
necessary
in
order
to
get
this
project
done
and
modernized
and
otherwise
make
saleable.
You
know
a
property
that's
behind
the
times.
Yes,.
D
A
A
Personally,
am
not
willing
to
go.
The
pervious
pavers
out,
I
think
that
for
an
applicant
to
come
twice
in
the
two
years
that
they've
owned
the
home
to
request
variations
and
I'm,
not
accusing
them
of
anything,
but
obviously
the
the
one
improvement
that's
already
been
made
is
the
one
that
we
really
can't
take
away,
which
is
the
parking
with
the
garage.
A
So
my
personal
feelings
on
it
are
that
it
doesn't
need
to
be
the
standard
in
terms
of
the
applicant
creating
their
own
hardship,
but
I
also
only
have
one
vote.
So
if
the
general
thinking
on
the
board
is
that
everyone
else
can
live
with
the
pervious
pavers,
we
can
make
that
our
determination
and
then
it's
really
up
to
the
applicant
to
determine
whether
or
not
they
want
to
live
under
that
application
or
that
that
determination
from
the
board.
A
Obviously,
if
they
don't
feel
that
pervious
surfaces
is
a
pervy,
our
previous
pavers
are
going
to
to
solve
and
meet
what
they
needed
to
do.
Then
they've
gotten
a
determination
from
us,
even
though
it's
not
exactly
what
they
want.
It's
not
an
outright
denial.
It's
not
not
right
approval!
It's!
This
is
what
we're
willing
to
to
give.
D
A
C
Could
frame
it
a
little
differently
and
say
that
this
proposal
is
put
to
us
is
not
the
minimum
change
necessary
in
order
to
obtain
the
relief
needed
and
that
we
would
be
willing
to
consider
or
condition
approval
on
a
more
minimal
change,
which
would
be
reflected
by
the
requirement
that
the
deck
portion
of
the
project
be
scrapped
in
favor
of
pervious?
Pavers
is.
F
B
One
option
for
you
guys
if
the
applicant
were
to
switch
the
front
walkway
and
the
deck
over
to
pervious
pavers
and
lose
the
stairs
it
would
put
them
at
just
under
fifty
percent
impervious
surface
coverage.
So
you
could
motion
to
approve
it
with
that
impervious
surface
and
that
way,
if
they
would
rather
have
a
smaller
deck.
So
long
as
the
numbers
come
out
as
a
wash,
they
would
have
that
option
when.
F
F
Okay,
so
if
they
see
this
is
where
we
get
to
the
minimum
change
right,
they
could
actually
get
better
numbers
by
changing
the
sidewalk
along
the
side
as
well
and
that's
a
determination
they
can
make
if
they
want
to
swap
out
the
sidewalk
on
the
side
of
the
house
with
pavers
to
be
able
to
get
a
patio
in
the
back.
So
I'm
not
sure
I'm
buying
the
50-percent
yet
because
that
doesn't
include
anything
on
the
side.
So
for
me
the
number
would
have
to
be
less
a
smaller
percentage
than
that.
F
A
A
Guess
probably
one
of
the
easiest
ways
to
do
this
will
be
to
go
through
our
standards
and
find
out
where
we
have
our
disagreements.
I
think
I
know
where
they
are,
but
to
see
if
there
is
a
workable
solution
here
that
makes
everybody
happy
or
I
guess
makes
everybody
unhappy,
which
is
the
sign
of
consensus.
A
So
we
will,
we
have
to
find
that
seven
standards
are
met
to
grant
a
a
variation,
so
we
will
go
through
those
standards
and
I
will
encourage
everyone
to
be
active
participants
instead
of
me
just
kind
of
giving
my
take
on
it
because
I
know
there
will
be
some
disagreement
with
my
my
take
on
number
one.
The
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
use,
enjoyment
and
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
I
believe
that
this
standard
is
met.
A
We
do
know
that
the
zoning
ordinance
looks
at
trying
to
maintain
a
housing
stock
which
is
attractive
to
our
modern
families
and
to
make
sure
that
the
amenities
that
one
aspect
expects
to
find
in
a
house,
even
though
the
house
was
built
over
a
hundred
years
ago,
someone
expects
to
have
certain
certain
features
in
that
home
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
what
is
being
requested
here
is
is
totally
out
of
out
of
expectation
with
that.
So
I
would
say
that
standard
number
two
is
met.
A
A
A
As
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience,
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
this
one
I
do
have
a
bit
of
a
problem
with
I
understand
the
the
the
applicants
desire
to
keep
a
number
of
the
things
that
they
have
as
well
as
to
update,
but
in
terms
of
impervious
surface
I
feel
that
the
the
requested
amount
exceeds
what
I'm
willing
to
grant.
In
this
particular
case.
I
know.
Other
people
probably
have
disagreements
with
that.
C
C
A
Number
five:
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
We
expect
all
home
improvements
to
to
raise
property
values.
That's
not
what
this
is
meant
to
address.
This
is
more
to
address
the
fact
that
if
someone
were
creating
an
apartment
to
try
to
rent
so
I
believe
that
standard
number
five
has
been
met.
Number
six-
and
this
is
the
one
that
I
think
we're
going
to
have.
A
I
would
have
much
rather
have
seen
everything
kind
of
come
as
a
package,
so
we
knew
what
the
end
was
here
and
I
understand.
That's
not
always
possible,
but
I
would
have.
Rather
we
had
a
request
this
year,
as
opposed
to
one
last
year
in
one
this
year.
So
I
don't
believe
this
standard
is
met,
but
I
will
listen
to
anybody
else
who
has
a
different
opinion,
so
I.
C
At
the
same
time,
we
would
be
talking
about
something
I
think
most
of
us
probably
would
agree
if
not
all
of
us
was
a
minimal
change
necessary
to
accomplish
some
good
things
on
the
property,
and
so,
if
we
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
make
a
favorable
motion
that
replaces
some
of
the
impervious
space
with
pervious
space,
as
we've
discussed,
I
think
that
that
softer
application
of
this
standard,
as
well
as
the
next
one,
would
justify
granting
the
relief.
So
I
can
find
this
standard
met
under
a
softer
reading.
A
A
This
one
again
going
back
to
the
fact
that
I
think
we
would
have
been
in
a
much
better
position
to
have
everything
before
us,
so
that
we
would
have
known
what
the
true
minimum
was
and
could
have
had
a
better
position
on
that.
But
I
believe
that
requesting
an
impervious
surface
variation
for
this
particular
project
is
where
I
have
the
greatest
issue.
So
I
do
not
believe
that
this
standard
is
met.
C
A
A
F
D
F
F
A
So
if
we
want
to
make
a
motion
encouraging
less
pervious
surface
on
the
property,
I,
don't
know
how
someone
wants
to
make
that
if
they
want
to
make
it
based
on
a
percentage
which
kind
of
becomes
a
nightmare
for
staff
to
then
have
to
figure
out
if
they
want
to
make
it
on
specific
items
on
the
property
which
again
kind
of
becomes
a
nightmare.
Yeah.
D
A
A
C
Can
we-
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
counsel-
can
we
make
a
motion
that
contemplates
some
percentage
number
that
Melissa
will
calculate
and
communicate
and
that
will
finalize
in
the
minutes
after
today,
but
that
deals
with
sort
of
the
removal
of
these
three
I
think
we've
mentioned
three
potential
impervious
spaces:
the
deck
/
stairs
the
front
walkway
in
the
sidewalk
way,
so
if
those
were
removed
and
and
made
pervious
than
what
the
percentage
of
impervious
space
that
we'd
allow
on
the
property
would
be,
as
that
as
a
point
of
procedure
acceptable.
Oh.
A
H
No
no
I'll,
I
was
as
I'll
look
into
it.
I.
Don't
think
we're
able
to
do
that
via
minutes,
but
I
look
enjoy
right
now:
okay,.
C
H
What
has
been
done
previously
is
moving
on
to
the
next
case.
Then,
coming
back
to
this
one
I
think
chairman
Rogers
on
that
or
if
you
want
to
take
recess,
we
can.
B
F
E
A
F
A
The
determination
that
the
impervious
surface
can
be
reduced
to
forty
seven
percent,
where
a
maximum
of
forty-five
percent
is
allowed.
If
the
sidewalk
is
replayed
are
the
side.
Sidewalk
is
replaced
with
steppers
the
deck
and
the
front
sidewalk
are
replaced
by
pervious
pavers.
That
would
be
what
we
would
need
to
do
in
order
to
get
it
down
to
47,
which
was
those
two
percentage
points
over
what
is
allowed
by
the
zoning
code.
A
D
C
D
A
A
B
B
Between
the
principal
and
accessory
structure,
where
10
feet
is
required,
zoning
code
section
646
to
see
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
the
determining
body.
For
this
case.
Documents
included
in
part
as
part
of
the
record
include
variance
application,
dated
September
5th
2014
standards,
form
zoning
analysis,
plat
of
survey,
data
July,
eleventh
2014
site
plan,
elevations,
image
of
property,
aerial
view
of
property,
zoning
map
of
property
and
spark
meeting
minutes
of
October
8
2014.
A
G
You
j
the
case
before
you
this
evening
is
a
replacement
structure
that
is
very
decrepit
at
the
moment.
It
actually
has
a
flat
roof
which
has
over
time
started
leaking.
In
fact,
the
owner
has,
as
we
were
chatting
about
it
further
this
evening,
just
suggested
that
when
he
bought
the
home
20
years
ago,
would
have
been
more
ideal
for
them
to
have
replaced
it
at
that
point
it
is,
it
was
somewhat
to
grab
it
back
then,
and
it
certainly
is
in
much
worse
shape
as
we
stand
here
today.
G
So
our
project
seeks
to
replace
that
rather
unusually
shaped
structure,
as
you
can
see
by
the
survey,
it's
somewhat
of
a
garage
with
somewhat
of
a
storage
space
on
the
end,
it
is
a
fraction
of
a
24
feet,
long
24,
foot,
4
inches
long.
Our
project
will
replace
that
with
a
24
foot
long
garage,
the
the
the
proposed
size
is
minimally
larger
than
what's
there,
as
you
can
see,
because
we
have
two
of
those
kind
of
cut
outs
on
the
corners,
we're
squaring
it
off.
G
The
idea
behind
that
is
just
to
make
it
a
far
more
practical
structure
for
a
vehicle.
Obviously,
it's
not
being
used
for
vehicle
storage
at
the
moment
it's
in
such
bad
shape,
so
the
idea
is
to
actually
have
it.
For
vehicle
storage
was
a
little
bit
of
storage.
On
the
end,
there
was
a
yeah
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
project,
some
slight
consideration
given
to
actually
having
a
two-car
structure,
but
that
would
have
really
kind
of
messed
up.
G
That
would
be
even
slightly
conforming.
These
requests
are
large,
but
there's
really
not
a
heck
of
a
lot
else
that
can
be
done
here
and
all
we're
doing
is
replacing
what's
there
so
essentially
what's
driving
this
from
a
hardship.
Standpoint
is
excuse.
Me
is
the
the
the
nature
of
the
light.
It's
2,000
square
foot
smaller
than
what
the
one
zoning
district
permits,
but,
as
you
can
see
from
the
the
plan
that
was
provided
by
staff,
the
map
of
the
area,
there
are
quite
a
few
lights
in
this.
G
This
block
covered
by
arrington
on
the
Sherman
on
the
west,
santa
on
the
north
and
melbourne
on
the
south,
where
at
some
point
in
the
early
part
of
the
1900s,
some
owners
decided
to
sell
off
the
rear
portions
of
their
light
and
create
other
lots.
It's
what's
driven
this
homes
request
because
there's
basically
not
a
lot
of
room
to
do
anything
on
this
property.
G
We
have,
however,
and
that
was
part
of
the
consideration
about
not
going
to
a
larger
garage
than
just
this
one
and
a
half
one
car
with
storage
and
being
able
to
keep
under
all
of
the
other
coverages
we're
not
over
on
like
coverage
or
not
over
impervious.
So
we
are
just
here
replacing
that
structure
and
kind
of
driving
at
those
same
non-conforming
conditions
that
that
exist
on
the
property
right
now
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
the
board
hasn't
hear
ya
so.
C
The
distance
between
the
garage
and
the
principal
the
principal
structure,
obviously
the
garage
is
being
put
in
the
same
place,
but
requires
the
variation.
What,
if
anything,
are
you
doing
in
your
project
to
address
the
fire
hazard
that
having
the
accessory
structure
near
the
principal
structure,
too
close
to
the
principal
structure,
imposes
the.
G
Process,
that's
already
under
way
through
the
building
department
has
is
requiring
us,
of
course,
will
one
our
firewall
on
the
side
adjacent
to
the
house
and
I'm
pretty
sure
we're
having
to
put
one
on
the
north
side
as
well,
just
because
the
adjacency
to
that
neighboring
property?
There
is
nothing
there.
There
was
a
driveway
into
that
home
that
fronts
on
the
street
to
the
yeast
that
the
building
code
is
requiring
is
to
make
those
changes.
B
F
A
G
G
A
A
We
aren't
looking
to
really
increase
anything,
we're
looking
to
square
off
an
existing
dilapidated
structure,
keeping
setbacks,
basically,
where
they
are
now.
It
actually
probably
makes
the
structure
safer
because
it
probably
does
not
have
a
one-hour
firewall
constructed
in
it
right
now.
So
overall
I
would
say
this
is
definitely
an
improvement
on
this
property,
but
we
will
go
through
our
standards
for
variations
number
one.
The
requested
variation
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
youths,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties;
quite
the
contrary.
A
It
will
probably
only
make
everybody
much
happier
and
especially
the
enjoyment
portion
being
able
to
look
at
a
newer
structure
as
opposed
to
something
that
is
dilapidated
number
two.
The
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
I.
Believe
I
heard
testimony
that
it
really
is
not
used
as
a
garage
currently
so
actually
by
putting
a
true
functioning
garage
into
the
space.
We
are
getting
a
car
off
the
street,
which
is
one
of
the
things
that
the
zoning
ordinance
are.
A
The
the
comprehensive
General
Plan
B
zoning
ordinance
asked
us
to
do,
and
so
that,
as
well
as
just
general
upkeep
of
property,
is
something
that
we
do
encourage
so
I
believe
standard
2
is
met,
number
3,
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
We
had
testimony
that
the
distance
from
the
back
of
the
house
to
the
alley
is
about
16
feet,
which
is
actually
probably
about
the
width
of
an
average
alley.
A
So
it's
not
very
wide
at
all
the
fact
they're
looking
to
build
in
the
in
the
exact
same
space,
that
is
there
I
think
shows
that
they
really
don't
have
a
lot
of
options,
so
I
believe
standard
number
3
is
Matt
number
for
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
As
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience.
It
sounds
like
this
particular
structure
is
on
its
last
leg
and
have
anything
that
could
be
built.
A
There
obviously
would
improve
the
applicants
ability
to
use
that
space,
preferably
for
parking
a
car,
but
also
to
to
provide
storage
for
the
necessities
that
they
have
for
their
home,
so
that
standard
is
met.
Number
5.
The
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
Again,
since
this
is
not
a
garage
is
being
rented
out
or
anything
like
that,
the
standard
really
only
comes
into
play
where
someone
is
trying
to
create
additional
income
for
themselves,
but
for
something
that
they
will
be
using
for
themselves.
A
This
standard
is
met,
number
60,
ledge,
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
The
structure,
I
think
I
saw
in
our
notes,
it
is
believed,
probably
was
built
about
the
time
of
the
house
and
is
probably
original
to
the
house,
and
we
know
the
current
owner
has
not
owned
it
since
the
house
was
built,
so
I
believe
that
this
standard
has
been
and
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
ZBA
again
talking
about.
C
A
And
seconded
any
further
discussion
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor
of
approval
of
the
requested
variations
for
715
melbourne
street.
Please
say:
aye
aye,
aye
aye
opposed
with
six
votes
in
favour
and
none
against
your
project
is
approved.
Good
luck
with
your
project!
Thank
you.
That
concludes
the
items
that
are
on
our
agenda
this
evening.
The
one
additional
item
that
was
on
for
discussion
was
the
proposed
change
to
our
rules.
A
Someone
decided
vacation
was
more
important
yesterday
than
working
on
my
rules,
so
we
will
I
wanted
to
ask
counsel.
Do
we
have
to
present
those
and
then
vote
on
them
at
a
next
meeting,
I'm
assuming
as
the
way
those
have
to
be
approved,
they
would
have
to
present
them
and
then
okay,
so
we
will
present
those
at
our
next
meeting
for
approval
at
the
following
meeting
and.
B
A
A
It
the
same
for
representing
right,
so
everybody
everybody
will
have
a
two
week
three
week
period
to
read
through.
If
there
are
questions,
I
encourage
people
at
that
point
to
reach
out
to
staff.
If
they
don't
understand
why
something
is
changing
like
I
said
most
of
it
is
because
of
things
that
are
outdated
or
things
that
we
should
be
doing
or
best
practices
that
we
are
not
doing.
I
assume.