►
From YouTube: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 5/05/2015
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
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeal
and
the
zoning
ordinance
directs
this
body
to
hear
four
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.
We
please
call
the
roll.
A
A
Four
members
present
we
do
have
a
quorum.
We
are
expecting
a
fifth
member
to
join
us,
but
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
started.
Also
present
tonight
is
zoning
plan
on
Melissa
clots
and
no
one
else.
This
is
a
formal
meeting
and
there
are
rules
that
govern
our
proceedings.
Most
importantly,
only
one
person
speaks
at
a
time,
so
all
testimony
may
be
accurately
recorded.
Anyone
who
wishes
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
the
documents
on
file
and
then
receive
testimony
and
other
evidence
from
the
applicant
or
appellant
next.
Persons
who
wish
to
make
a
statement
regarding
the
matter
may
do
so
at
that
time,
any
person
with
legal
interest
and
property
located
within
500
feet
of
the
subject.
Property
may
present
evidence
reasonably
question
witnesses
or
seek
a
continuance
of
the
hearing.
When
all
the
supporting
and
opposing
testimonial
statements
have
been
heard,
the
applicant
or
appellant
will
be
given
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal
or
a
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
sign
in
on
the
provided
sheet.
Our
meetings
are
audio
and
video
recorded.
Please
make
sure
that
you're
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
it's
nice
hearing
will
be
continued
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
We
do
have
two
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
The
first
one
is
the
matter
of
1323
Ashland
Avenue
is
the
applicant
present
and
the
second
one
is
for
825
asbury
avenue
and
is
the
applicant
present
for
that
as
well.
Thank
you.
The
first
matter
on
our
agenda
this
evening
is
to
approve
our
meeting
minutes
for
April
21st,
as
everyone
who
attended
that
meeting
had
an
opportunity
to
read
through
them
and.
B
E
A
A
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
any
further
discussion
hearing
none
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
hi
I
will
note
that
any
member
who
is
not
voting
was
not
in
attendance
at
that
meeting.
With
that,
we
will
move
into
the
first
item
on
our
agenda
this
evening,
which
is
1323
ashland
avenue
and
before
I
have
you
read
it
into
the
record.
A
I'll
make
the
statement
that
I've
made
before
the
property
owner
in
this
particular
case
is
a
member
of
this
board,
who
has
recused
herself
from
this
hearing,
but
obviously
we
will
be
making
a
decision
based
on
her
property,
but
I
believe
that
we
are
all
able
to
remain
neutral
enough
to
not
have
our
relationship
interfere.
So
with
that,
will
you
please
read
it
into
the
record.
B
Tina
crest,
consulting
architect
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
dormer
addition
and
two
car
detached
garage.
The
applicant
requests
a
1.6
foot,
north
interior
side
yard
setback
where
five
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code,
section
68,
47,
a
a
2.5
foot,
south
interior
side,
yard
setback;
we're
five
feet
is
required:
Sonnen,
Code,
section
68
for
7a
and
a
dormer
within
ten
point.
B
Five
percent
of
the
length
of
the
side
wall
closest
to
the
front
facade
where
a
dormer
shall
not
be
located
within
twenty
percent
of
the
length
of
the
side
wall
closest
to
the
front
facade
sewn
in
code,
section
68
18
be
the
applicant
also
requests
a
two
point:
six
foot,
north
interior
side
yard
setback
where
three
feet
is
required:
zoning
code
sections,
6-4,
6-2
e
+,
6,
8,
47
c
4
for
the
detached
garage.
The
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
A
With
that,
I
will
ask
that
anybody
who
may
be
speaking
to
us
in
this
matter
be
sworn
at
this
time.
By
raising
their
right
hand,
do
you
swear,
affirm,
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings.
Thank
you
and
miss
crest.
If
you
would
please
come
up
and
tell
us
about
your
proposal.
Actually
I'm.
Sorry
start
with
stating
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
place.
My.
G
So
this
is
an
existing
two
flat
and
a
substandard
lot
to
be
converted
into
a
single-family
residence
with
a
new
two-car
garage.
The
building
has
not
been
properly
maintained
for
decades
and
has
been
completely
vacant
for
the
last
three
years.
As
part
of
this
major
renovation,
we
are
requesting
three
variations.
The
first
one
is
for
both
the
North
and
the
South
dormer
editions
for
the
side
yards,
so
those
are
being
built
over
the
existing
non-conforming
exterior
walls.
The
second
one
is
for
the
North
dormer
only
for
the
front
setback.
G
This
dormer
is
not
large,
but
is
necessary
to
allow
the
existing
interior
stair
can
to
continue
to
the
Attic.
The
current
stairs
to
the
Attic
doesn't
meet
any
code
requirements
at
all.
Basically,
and
while
several
options
were
looked
at
for
where
to
relocate,
the
existing
stair
all
other
options
present
both
structural
and
Headroom
issues,
or
in
some
cases
both
structurally.
G
It
makes
the
most
sense
to
utilize
the
existing
infrastructure
and
to
impact
the
existing
house
as
minimally
as
possible
by
putting
the
new
stair
to
the
attic
above
the
existing
interior,
stair
and
the
third
variation
is
for
the
new
garage.
There's
currently
no
parking
on
the
site,
but
there
is
a
slab
I'm
still
there
that
isn't
usable
but
indicates
where
the
previously
demolished
garage
is,
which
is
in
the
same
location,
we're
proposing
to
put
this
new
garage.
G
G
H
A
G
A
It's
all
it's
all
preservation,
it's
all
present
request
that
doesn't
change
overall,
bulk
or
height,
or
anything
like
that
footprint.
Okay,
thank
you.
You'd
mentioned
that
there
is
a
slab
currently
existing
in
back
from
a
demolished
garage.
Was
that
garage
standing
when
you
bought
the
property
or
as
it
was
it
already
gone
before
then?
Okay
and.
G
For
the
the
side
yard
setbacks,
those
are
so
that
the
dormers,
the
new
rumors,
can
be
placed
on
the
existing
exterior
walls.
Those
walls
are
existing
non-conforming,
and
so
you
know,
from
a
structural
perspective,
from
a
maintenance
perspective,
bringing
those
dormers
down
onto
those
existing
walls
just
makes
the
most
sense
and.
G
G
A
G
We
also
looked
at
a
number
of
other
options
and
you
know
trying
to
have
a
straight
run.
Stair
trying
to
you
know,
have
a
switchback,
that's
turned
in
the
other
direction.
In
all
other
cases,
there
are
structural
challenges
or
you
know,
clearance
challenges
that
just
make
all
other
options
unfeasible
and.
A
I
A
F
E
H
A
A
A
A
C
F
C
C
G
G
So
that,
yes,
there,
if
there
is
the
hardship
that
necessitates
the
variations,
but
there's
the
need
to
make
money
on
the
resale
resale
of
the
property
in
order
to
you
know,
make
it
a
livable
space.
Basically
it
wouldn't.
We
couldn't
do
the
Attic
at
all.
If
we
couldn't
have
the
variation
for
the
stair,
so.
J
There
are
hardships
because
it's
a
substandard
lot
and
the
house
is
an
existing
non-conforming
location,
so
there's
nothing
I
can
do
about
where
those
dormers
go
right.
There
aren't
going
on
top
of
this
of
the
side.
Walls
in
the
same
thing
with
the
garage
I'm
just
trying
to
put
the
garage
wall
back
to
where
it
was
originally
so
I'm
not
asking
for
more
just
asking
for
it
to
go
back
where
it
was
originally.
J
So
those
are
our
the
the
functional
hardships,
I
guess:
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
also
that
that
whole
standard
about
how
they're,
either
it
can't
be
primarily
made.
The
request
can't
be
primarily
based
upon
making
a
return
on
investment,
but
it
has
a
public
benefit
and
this
house
has
been
sitting
derelict
for
three
years.
It
has
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
and
related
to
asbestos
and
lead
and
structural
challenges
as
well.
J
But
one
of
the
other
benefits
right
is
that
we're
taking
a
house
that
is
a
landmark
house
that
previously
had
gotten
a
co
co,
a
for
vinyl
siding
and
taking
that
vinyl
siding
off
and
restoring
the
house
back
to
its
landmark
status,
with
landmark
quality
with
by
exposing
all
the
exterior
wood,
shingles
and
repainting
it
and
fixing
everything
up
that
way.
So
there
is
money
to
be
made
on
the
project.
J
A
As
a
point
of
clarification
to
that,
when
we
say
that
the
standard
I
don't
remember
the
exact
wording
about
deriving
income,
that
doesn't
mean
that
we
we
expect
people
who
develop
homes
to
make
profit.
Otherwise
they
don't
develop
home.
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
that
that's
not
a
thing
saying
you
cannot
make
money
on
a
home
nor.
C
Was
my
question
about
whether
the
project
was
intended
for
profit?
I
do
have
another
question:
if
we,
if
you
were
we
ready
to
move
on
from
yeah,
so
in
view
of
the
fact
that
you
have
to
pour
a
new
pad
for
the
garage
anyway,
couldn't
you
pour
it
in
a
compliant
way
so
that
we
don't
have
to
grant
a
variation.
J
I
certainly
could
it
just
means
that
on
a
25
foot,
lot
you're
down
to
19
feet
beat
out
to
out
on
the
garage
which
is
really
18
on
the
inside
18
feet
is
really
too
tight
for
two
car
garage,
so
I
wasn't
asking
for
more
than
where
that
existing
garage
is.
Furthermore,
the
garage
that's
to
the
north,
the
neighbor's
property
to
the
north.
They
are
a
good
three
feet
off
of
their
side
yard.
J
So
between
the
two
garages,
it'll
be
five
and
a
half
feet,
which
is
a
fair
amount,
and
did
you
guys
get
by
any
chance?
Take
a
look
at
what
that
garage
looks
like
that.
Coach
House!
It
is
a
very
large
two
story
to
story
coach
house
that
I
think
from
a
square
footage
perspective
is
actually
bigger
than
the
main
house
on
that
lot.
So,
from
a
from
a
scale
perspective,
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
problem
with
that.
It's
just
that
it
gets
really
tight
to
be
able
to
get
all
the
did.
J
A
A
G
A
F
A
Whenever
we
go
through
a
project
we
we
have
to
find
it.
It
meets
a
certain
set
of
standards.
In
order
for
us
to
approve
the
project.
There
are
seven
standards
for
a
variation
that
come
before
us,
which
we've
kind
of
alluded
to
a
little
bit
during
our
discussion,
but
we
do
have
to
go
through
those
and
find
if
they
are
met
or
not
the
first
standard,
unless
anybody
has
anything
to
add
before
this
all
just
goes
through.
A
It
usually
has
the
opposite
of
impact
and
makes
neighboring
property
values
increase,
as
well
as
making
those
properties
are
more
usable
for
the
people
who
live
in
those
properties,
so
I
believe
standard
number
one
has
met
standard
number
of
standard
number.
Two.
The
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
A
The
fact
this
home
are
this
property
is
being
converted
from
a
two
flat
into
a
single-family
home
will
hopefully
provide
a
little
more
stability
in
this
particular
neighborhood,
as
opposed
to
a
two
flat
which
usually
involves
renters
of
some
sort,
but
I
believe
that
standard
number
two
has
also
been
met.
Number
three:
the
alleged
hardship
of
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
A
This
will
is
a
substandard
lot,
as
we
mentioned
it's
about
just
over
half
the
size,
probably
about
60
percent
of
the
size
of
what
we
consider
a
standard
lot
in
the
city
of
Evanston
and
the
fact
that
we
have
not
been
presented
with
a
proposal
that
seeks
to
increase
the
footprint
of
the
building
drastically.
I.
Think
we've
determined
there'd
be
a
hundred
and
roughly
110
additional
square
feet
of
coverage
on
the
property
between
the
mud,
room,
which
is
being
added
at
the
back,
and
the
proposed
garage.
A
A
Standard
number
for
the
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience.
If
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
there
was
a
little
bit
of
discussion
on
this
about
what
is
the
particular
hardship,
the
the
fact
that
were
we
have
a
home
that
is
a
historic
home
and
is
being
converted
and
in
such
a
way
that
it
can
be
reused
with
with
somebody
making
it
a
single-family
home
instead
of
a
two
flat
presents
some
issues
in
terms
of
having
the
the
wall
setbacks.
A
Obviously,
one
of
the
things
that
we're
most
concerned
with
them
we've
had
some
discussion
many
times
on
is
when
a
second-story
addition
is
proposed.
Trying
to
keep
that
second
story.
Addition
on
the
existing
first
floor
walls
so
as
not
to
require
developers
to
actually
have
to
redistribute
weight
and
so
I
feel
that
the
this
particular
standard
has
been
met
with
the
fact
that
we
are
building
on
those
existing
walls
and
I
believe
the
parking
pad
is,
is
seven
square
feet,
210
square
feet,
larger,
so
I
believe
standard
number
four
is
met.
A
Standard
number:
five:
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
There's.
Also,
a
supporting
Claus
here
saying
that
additional
income
can
be
can
be
drawn
from
a
property.
If
we
find
that
there
are
public
benefits
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
the
city
as
a
whole,
as
I
mentioned,
we
do
not
expect
developers
to
not
make
income
off
of
their
properties.
A
The
this
particular
project
is
is
claiming
a
public
benefit
which
would
be
taking
a
home
that
has
been
empty
for
three
years.
I
think
was
the
number
of
years
converting
it
into
a
usable
space,
so
I
believe
standard
number
five
is
Matt
standard
number.
Six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property.
Obviously,
this
the
situation
of
the
building
on
the
property.
A
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
as
mentioned
in
many
of
the
other
standards
that
we've
gone
through,
the
requests
seem
to
be
minimal
at
best
the
the
fact
that
we
are
building
on
existing
first
floor
structures
and
basically
replacing
an
existing
parking
pad
with
slight
increase
in
order
to
make
the
two-car
garage
more
feasible
option.
But
I
believe
standard
number
seven
is:
is
everyone
in
agreement
with
my
findings
on
standard
standards,
I.
F
F
E
A
With
three
votes
in
excuse
me
with
three
votes
in
favor.
The
motion
is
not
enough
to
carry
so
the
matter
will
be
held
until
our
next
meeting,
at
which
members
who
are
absent
here
tonight
or
who
joined
us
late
this
evening
will
have
an
opportunity
to
cast
the
vote,
but
there
will
be
known
that
further
need
for
any
discussion.
They
will
just
be
asked
to
review
the
record
and
cast
their
vote
at
the
next
meeting.
So
stay
could
stay
stay
with
us
until
the
next
meeting.
A
B
Catherine
verma
property
owner
applies
for
major
zoning
relief
to
construct
a
second
story.
Addition,
the
applicant
requests,
a
1.9
foot,
north
interior
side
yard
setback
where
5
feet
is
required.
Zoning
code
section
68
for
7a
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals,
is
the
determining
body
for
this
case.
Documents
included
as
part
of
the
record,
include
variance
application
submitted
april
sixth
2015
standards
form
zoning
analysis,
plat
of
survey
dated
March
13
2015
site
plans,
elevations
letters
of
support,
image
of
property,
aerial
view
of
property,
zoning
map
of
property
and
Deborah
meeting
minutes
of
April
22nd
2015.
A
Thank
you
at
this
point.
Anybody
who
may
be
speaking
to
us
on
the
matter
for
a
25
Asner.
If
you
please
be
sworn
by,
raising
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
or
affirm,
to
tell
the
truth
throughout
the
course
of
these
proceedings.
Thank
you
and
if
you
would,
please
come
up
to
the
microphone
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
of.
A
K
K
I
In
compliant
with
all
other
setbacks-
north
south
I'm,
sorry,
east,
west
and
south,
and
we've
spoken
with
as
many
neighbors
in
the
area
as
we
can
about
the
project
and
all
are
very
happy
to
hear
that
we
purchased
the
home.
It
was
on
the
market
for
almost
a
year
and
are
willing
to
put
in
the
time
and
effort
to
renovate
it.
I
Which
is
on
the
yeah,
it's
on
the
south
side
of
the
property,
and
it
was
just
a
little
breeze
way
so
that
I'm
pretty
sure
they
had
to
go
outside
in
order
to
get
into
the
basement
to
do
their
laundry,
so
they
just
kind
of
added
this
little
square
and
so
we're
just
removing
that
and
then
making
the
yeah
exactly
that
little
space
and
then
we're
just
making
it
a
sexual
corner.
Cuz
right
now,
it's
like
on
an
angle
the
door
into
that
space.
So.
A
You're
you're
removing
that
that
little
piece
that
mutts
out
there
yeah.
I
I
I
I
Right
now,
there's
kind
of
a
strange
like
entryway,
where
it's
like
one
door
and
then
just
a
narrow,
hallway
and
then
I'm
pretty
sure.
That's
was
the
actual
entrance
to
that
when
it
was
built
in
1864.
So
what
they
did
was
they
enclose
the
front
porch
you
can
see
where
the
bump-out
is
which
was
enclosed,
and
then
they
just
kind
of
made
this
little
narrow
hallway
to
where
the
real
front
door
is
so
we're
proposing
to
just
open
that
space
up
and
add
on
some
square
footage
so
that
we
have
a
nice
little
front
porch.
I
I
F
I
Yeah
right
now,
the
existing
footprint,
the
back
half
of
the
house,
is
actually
three
or
four
steps
down.
So
in
order
to
get
into
the
bathroom,
you
open
the
door
and
take
three
steps
down
to
get
into
the
bathroom
and
the
same
for
the
back
bedroom.
You
open
the
door
and
walk
down
three
steps
to
get
into
the
back
back
bedroom.
So
we
just
want
to
level
out
the
first
floor
and
in
doing
that
we
lose
one
of
the
three
bedrooms,
because
one
of
the
bedrooms
is
above
the
bedroom.
I
F
A
I
Yeah
we
have
a
letter
from
the
neighbor
to
the
north,
which
is
the
lot
line
that
is,
you
know,
you
know,
puts
that
pack
requirement
and
she's
perfectly
happy
to
provide
a
letter
stating
that
she's,
okay
with
that
and
we
actually
met
a
neighbor
that
lived
out
in
the
street
and
they're
excited
for
us
as
well.
Basically,
anyone
that
we've
come
in
contact
with
is
thrilled,
but
something's
happening
with
it.
A
L
Porter
I'm
the
property
owner
at
1303
Washington,
which
is
within
500
feet
immediately
west
of
this
property,
so
I
just
wanted
to
come
and
voice.
My
support
of
the
project
and
I
noted
that
this
you
know
that
the
North
property
line,
the
house
to
the
north,
which
I
don't
own
but
is
about
30
feet
away
from
the
property
line,
so
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
separation
between
the
houses.
So
that's
all
I
wanted
to
say
thank.
A
D
A
I
A
Right,
thank
you
with
that.
We
will
close
the
record
and
begin
our
deliberations.
I'll
say
that
I've
seen
this
property
for
a
while
on
zillow
or
one
of
those
many
sites
and
kind
of
looked
at
it.
But
oh
that's
a
house
that
needs
some
help
and
so
I'm
glad
to
see
somebody
well
I
was
excited
when
I
saw
the
pack
and
I'm
like
oh
somebody's,
going
to
actually
do
something
with
that
house
and
rather
than
just
tear
it
down
or
do
something
along
those
lines,
so
general
thoughts
from
the
from
the
board.
This
case.
C
A
I
would
also
note
that
this
seems
to
be
one
of
those
areas
where
all
of
the
buildings
are
kind
of
shifted
off
to
one
side,
so
they
have
a
yard
that
appears
to
be
a
South
yard
and
a
couple
of
the
properties
that
is
much
greater
than
the
required
space.
So
because
of
the
way,
the
property
lines
were
drawn
with
the
houses
in
this
house
being
here
since
1864,
obviously
predated
the
concept
of
zoning
I
believe,
indeed,.
F
A
That,
though,
we
do
have
to
go
through
our
our
standards,
and
let
me
just
pull
those
up,
and
these
will
sound
very
familiar
on
the
requested
variation-
will
not
have
a
substantial
adverse
impact
on
the
youths,
enjoyment
or
property
values
of
adjoining
properties.
We
actually
have
had
some
of
the
neighbors
come
out
and
voice
their
support
of
this.
The
the
homeowners
claim
to
have
spoken
to
the
property
owner,
who
will
be
most
impacted
by
this,
and
they
seem
to
have
his
or
her
support.
So
I
believe
that
standard
number
one
has
been
met.
A
Number
two:
the
requested
variation
is
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
as
I
mentioned
on
the
previous
case.
What
we're
looking
for
here
is
you
know,
to
maintain
the
character
of
our
neighborhoods,
but
at
the
same
time
improve
them
and
make
them
habitable
for
what
is
considered
a
a
property
that
people
would
want
now,
obviously,
this
property
being
built
in
1864
and
having
several
additions
to
it
over
the
years.
A
It's
it
seems
like
the
fact
that
someone
is
willing
to
take
the
time
the
effort
in
order
to
make
it
seem,
like
a
cohesive
unit,
really
kind
of
touches
on
everything
that
we
have
in
in
terms
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
so
I
believe
standard
number
two
has
been
met.
Number
three:
the
alleged
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
A
As
I
mentioned,
the
property
is
situated
in
such
a
way
that
it
is
only
about
two
feet
from
the
property
line
and
the
fact
that
the
second-story
addition
will
need
the
support
of
the
first
floor
wall.
That
is
the
reason
that
we're
here
for
a
request,
and
so
the
it
really
comes
down
to
the
positioning
of
the
property
on
the
our
positioning
of
the
structure
on
the
property,
and
it
is
unique
to
this
particular
property
so
that
standard
has
been
met.
A
The
property
owner
would
suffer
a
particular
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
as
distinguished
from
a
mere
inconvenience
if
the
strict
letter
of
the
regulations
were
to
be
carried
out,
as
we
mentioned,
the
the
fact
that
trying
to
set
a
wall
back
for
a
second
story.
Addition
by
approximately
two
feet:
three
feet:
what
do
we
need
to
go
here?
A
Five
feet
is
the
total
right,
so
the
fact
that
we
would
ask
someone
to
move
that
back
that
that
far
would
create
a
hardship
for
them
in
order
to
create
a
second
story
that
would
be
stable
and
structurally
sound.
So
standard
number
four
has
been
met.
Number
five:
the
purpose
of
the
variation
is
not
based
exclusively
upon
a
desire
to
extract
additional
income
from
the
property.
A
What
makes
this
a
little
more
unique
from
the
first
case
is
the
fact
that
we
have
property
owners
here
who
are
making
this
their
home,
and
so
the
fact
that
they
will
at
some
point,
hopefully
get
a
return
on
their
investment.
It's
not
something
that
they're
planning
on
doing
immediately,
so
standard
number
five
has
been
met.
Number
six,
the
alleged
difficulty
or
hardship
has
not
been
created
by
any
person
having
an
interest
in
the
property
property
owners
are
fairly
new
to
having
purchased
this
property.
A
The
house
has
been
standing
for
a
hundred
and
fifty
years
if
I
do
well.
If
I
do
my
math
correctly,
so
I
can't
believe
that
they
had
anything
to
do
with
putting
the
house
where
it
is
on
the
property
and
standard
number
seven.
The
requested
variation
requires
the
least
deviation
from
the
applicable
regulation
among
the
feasible
options
identified
before
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
A
Again,
what
is
being
asked
for
here
is
something
that
we
routinely
grant,
which
is
the
construction
of
a
second
story
on
top
of
a
first
floor
wall
in
order
to
make
it
make
it
the
least
difficult
for
someone
who
wants
to
build
a
second
story
addition,
so
I
believe
standard
number
seven
is
met.
Is
everyone
in
agreement
with
my
findings
on
standards,
I
sure.
A
E
A
Right,
it
has
been
moved.
Is
there
a
second
second,
it
has
been
moved
and
seconded
any
further
discussion
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye
aye
opposed
with
five
votes
in
favor,
your
you
do
have
the
requisite
for
votes
the
bead
to
move
something
forward
for
determination.
So
you
can
work
with
Melissa
on
what
your
next
steps
will
be
on
working
on
your
project
and
good
luck
with
it.
Also
thank
you
to
the
neighbors
for
coming
out
and
speaking
to
us
this
evening.
A
A
A
F
A
F
A
Say
anything
now
we'll
say
something
at
the
next
meeting,
but
I
just
wanted
to
how
to
get
that
out
there
that's
one
of
the
reasons
them
as
I'm
looking
to
try
to
bring
some
of
the
newer
people
in
to
help
offset
some
of
the
duties
on
the
older
people
for
making
motions,
etc,
etc.
So
with
that,
is
there
any
other
matters?
If
not,
is
there
a
motion
to
adjourn
make.