►
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
B
Welcome
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
meetings
again
monday
september
13
2021,
and
this
one
is
about
a
appeals
meeting.
It's
a
public
hearing
upon
an
appeal
building,
permit
number
14181
issued
by
the
city
of
madison
4,
a
single
family,
residential,
new
home
construction
and
river
bluff,
river
bluff
estates
lot,
18
known
as
1368
cnu
drive
and
the
way
we're
going
to
do
this.
B
It's
being
appealed
by
mr
john
podravinsky,
we'll
give
you
or
your
representative
mr
pogziwinski
15
minutes
to
present
your
case,
and
he
has
previously
submitted
a
very,
very,
very
well
done
statement
of
his
argument
and
then
we'll
give
representative
of
the
city
of
madison
15
minutes,
and
then,
mr
pogziwinski,
you
will
have
five
minutes
to
rebut
anything.
You
wish
to,
and
city
madison
will
have
five
minutes,
and
should
anybody
from
the
public
have
anything
to
add
we'll
give
three
minutes.
B
So
let's
begin
mr
pogbanski
are
your
representatives?
Would
you
come
up
and
give
your
name
an
address.
B
Want
to
let
me,
before
you
begin
one
of
our
board
members
mark
acosta
has
recused
himself
because
he
lives
across
the
street
from
you
and
therefore
as
a
financial
interest.
So
there
are
only
four
of
us
on
the
board
here
and
today.
Okay,
thank
you.
C
Well,
I
figured
before
I
got
into
the
details
of
the
legal
elements.
As
we
see
it,
I
do
a
little
introduction.
If
you
don't
mind,
my
name
is
john
potzerwinski.
I
live
at
one
three.
Four
zero
east
scenic
view
drive
my
wife
gayle,
and
I
moved
from
chicago
to
madison
about
18
years
ago
and
as
we
took
a
job,
I
took
a
job
at
rotary.
Lift
that's
the
reason
we
came
here
and,
as
they
say,
the
rest
is
kind
of
history.
C
Many
people
thought
we
weren't
going
to
make
it
because
of
the
big
city,
little
city
thing,
but
we
love
it
here
this.
This
is
our
home.
C
Despite
what
people
thought
we
have
fit
in
beautifully,
our
children
went
through
the
madison
school
succeeded,
they're
doing
very
well
in
the
real
world
because
of
it
we're
active
in
the
community
active
members
of
resurrection,
lutheran
church,
we
run
a
food
pantry
that
that
feeds
3,
000
people
annually
in
the
community.
C
This
is
our
home
and
we
take
our
home
very,
very
seriously,
which
brings
us
as
to
why
we're
here
tonight
is
because,
in
our
opinion,
our
home
is
a
little
bit
under
threat
at
this
point
in
time,
because
we
believe
that
the
city
of
madison
has
erroneously
and
in
direct
violation
of
its
own
zoning
regulations,
has
given
out
a
building
permit
for
the
property
messages
we
think
it
is
will
show.
It
clearly
violates
the
zoning.
C
We
have
tried
to
address
this
issue
with
the
owner
of
the
neighboring
property
without
success,
because
I
will
tell
you
it's
awkward
being
up
there
in
my
60
years
of
life.
I
have
never
been
in
a
personal
legal
matter,
and
so
it's
kind
of
weird
being
up
here,
because
this
is
not
what
we
do,
we're
not
professional.
C
C
Section
210
and
again
I
won't
get
into
this,
but
it
defines
what
a
side
yard
is.
I
assume
you
know
you
might
know
that
or
not
we
can
do
it,
but
it
basically
says
run
a
parallel
line
and
you
cannot
create
a
building
or
a
structure
inside
whatever
the
requirements
are
for
the
side
yard
section
6.11
of
the
zoning
ordinance
that
was
passed.
I
believe
in
2016
says
that
for
residential
agricultural
buildings,
side
yards
shall
in
no
case
be
less
than
20
feet.
C
So
you
can't
build
anything
within
20
yards
of
that
line
that
property
line
according
to
the
ordinance
it
can
be
higher
than
that.
If
the
home
that
were
to
be
built-
and
I
haven't
seen-
the
plans
were
to
be
taller
than
I
believe
one
story-
it
has
to
get
wider
than
20
feet,
it
could
be
up
to
28
30
feet
whatever
okay
and
then
the
last
part
of
the
legal
argument
is
important.
C
Section
1.1
of
the
zoning
ordinance
in
play
tells
you
what
happens
if
this
law
is
in
viola
in
conflict
with
any
other
law,
legal,
dark
document
d-
and
it
says-
and
I
quote
whenever
the
requirements
of
this
ordinance
are
at
variance
or
in
any
other
way
in
conflict
with
the
requirements
of
any
other
lawfully
adopted,
rule
regulation,
ordinance,
deed
restriction
or
covenants
the
most
restrictive
or
that
imposing
the
highest
standard
must
be
played.
So
in
no
case,
according
to
this
law
can.
D
C
Less
than
22,
okay,
so
that's
the
basis
of
our
argument.
So
therefore,
any
property
to
be
built
in
our
area
because
of
its
zoning
because
of
the
city
of
madison
control,
must
have
at
least
a
20-foot
side
setback
building
permit
issued
by
the
city
of
madison,
and
it's
an
exhibit
a
of
the
package
I
gave.
You
shows
that
for
some
reason,
the
city
of
madison,
this
is
exhibit
a
towards
the
back
granted
a
building
permit.
C
C
Accordingly,
this
clearly
violates
the
zoning
ordinance
in
our
minds,
and
we've
asked
the
city
of
madison
to
revoke
the
permit.
The
permit
itself,
if
you
look
actually
says
that,
just
because
we
granted
you
this
permit,
doesn't
allow
you
to
violate
the
zoning
ordinance.
C
It
all
started
on
august
6th
when
coombs
construction
started
grading
the
property
out
next
door
to
our
property
and
they
laid
out
the
markers
to
show
us
or
to
show
themselves
how
the
construction
would
go
and
we
said
to
ourselves
wait
a
second
that
is
really
close
to
our
property,
especially
again,
given
what
our
community
is
like
when
you
take
a
look
at
the
wide
expanses
between
properties.
C
This
was
right
on
top
of
us,
so
what
I
did
was
I
made
a
call
to
the
building
inspector,
the
city
of
madison,
mr
scott
gross,
who
was
exceedingly
helpful
for
us.
He
walked
through.
He
confirmed
that
river
bluff
estates.
Our
subdivision
is
governed
by
the
city
of
madison.
He
confirmed
that
his
own
residential
agricultural.
He
confirmed
that
there's
a
20-foot
site
setback
requirement.
C
He
said,
though-
and
this
is
this-
I
find
it
interesting,
but
that
there
were
no
permit
had
been
granted,
so
he
we
then
had
an
extensive
this
discussion
of
what
the
neighbor
would
need
to
do
to
get
a
variance
in
this
case.
So
we
talked
at
length
about
that.
I
thanked
him.
He
was
very
helpful
after
that.
C
But
I
told
him
that
this
violated
the
rules
and
that
we
recommended
that
he
stop,
because
we
didn't
want
them
to
go
to
expense
on
something
that
might
not
be
legal.
He
disagreed
at
the
time.
He
told
me
that
that
the
law
was
10
and
10,
meaning
10
feet
from
either
side
of
the
property,
and
I
informed
them
that,
based
upon
my
call
to
the
city
of
madison,
as
well
as
my
review
of
the
zoning
awareness,
that
was
not
correct
and
I
suggested
that
he
stop
the
construction
that
day.
C
I
also
emailed
all
of
the
neighbors
in
the
subdivision
to
make
them
aware
of
that
conversation
that
was
going
on,
and
so
we
thought
we
were
going
to
be
up
against
the
ver
of
variance
hearing
where
they
were
going
to
ask
for
a
variance
at
that
point
in
time.
C
He
said
that
it
was
issued
by
some
prior
building.
Commissioner,
I
don't
know
the
name
he
didn't
give
the
name
of
who
issued
it
at
that
point
in
time,
and
I
asked
him
how
could
that
happen?
How
could
it
violate
the
zoning
ordinance
and
a
building
permit
game,
and
he
said
he
assumed
that
the
prior
inspector
must
have
relied
upon
the
flat
document
and
not
considered
the
zoning
ordinance.
C
What's
going
on
after
discussing
with
him,
I
did
a
little
bit
more
research
and
that's
when
I
came
up
with
section
1.1
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
I'll
read
it
again,
because
this
is
really
important
based
upon
what
you're
going
to
hear
in
a
minute
wherever
the
requirements
of
this
ordinance
are
at
variance
in
any
other
way
in
conflict
with
the
requirements
of
any
other
lawfully
adopted
rules,
regulations,
ordinances,
deed
restrictions,
covenants
the
most
restricted
must
apply,
although
that
meeting
the
highest
standard.
So
I
emailed
him
this,
I
said
mr
patterson.
C
I
think
you
could
save
yourself
some
time
going
to
legal.
It
says
what
takes
a
priority
here
and
he
he,
I
didn't,
get
a
response.
But
two
days
later,
I
received
an
email
from
mr
gross
and
mr
patterson,
and
they
were
relying
upon
subdivision
regulations
which
they
say
govern
this
matter
and
they
said
section
2
e3h
said
in
subdivision
regulations
that
the
final
plaque
indicates
the
minimum
setback
requirement
and
since
the
flat
satish
ten
foot
side
setback,
there's
a
built-in
variance
that
that
is
being
given
okay.
C
So
that
was
the
argument
which
is
which
they
made.
But
here's
the
rebuttal
to
that
ending.
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
legally,
which
is
that
actually,
the
subdivision
regulations
cited
by
the
city
support
my
case,
because
when
you
go
to
the
subdivision
regulations,
article
4,
section,
e3
states,
buildings
line
setback,
the
building
line
to
establish
yards
for
all
buildings
and
lots
shall
be
provided
by
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
it's
handing
it
off
to
the
zoning
ordinance
as
to
what
it
does.
C
So
the
subdivision
regulation,
which
I
quoted
are
sending
us
right
back
to
the
zoning
ordinance
and
then,
most
importantly
of
this,
even
in
the
subdivision
regulations
section
or
article
1,
section,
d2
says
these
regulations
are
not
intended
to
interfere
with
abrogate
or
null
any
other
ordinance
rule
or
regulation
statute
or
other
provision
of
law,
where
any
provision
of
these
regulations
imposes
restrictions
different
from
those
imposed
by
other
regulations,
rules,
ordinances
or
provisional
law.
Whatever
provision
is
most
restricted
must
apply.
C
C
D
C
Ordinance
go
with
the
plot;
no,
they
said
the
most
restrictive
same
thing.
If
the
difference
between
the
zoning
regulation,
zoning
ordinance
and
the
subdivision
regulation,
they
could
have
said,
go
with
the
subdivision,
they
said
no,
the
most
recent,
so
I
think
the
law
is
really
clear.
The
higher
standard
must
apply
since
the
highest
standard
must
apply.
C
The
20
feet
is
the
minimum.
It
could
be
higher,
but
it
can't
be
less
than
20.
and
since
it
can't
be
less
than
20
the
building
permit
that
was
issued.
Dropping
a
home
12
feet
from
my
my
property
can't
be
allowed.
So
what
we're
asking
for
is
basically
just
follow
the
law
on
this.
I'm
not
sure
why
the
error
was
made
by
the
city
of
madison.
C
I
I
don't
know
if
the
old
building
commissioner
wasn't
paying
attention,
I
don't
know
if
he
didn't
look
at
the
zoning
ordinance.
I
don't
know
what
he
did
since
he's
old
he's,
not
here
anymore.
I
can
just
tell
you
that
that
is
what
the
laws
say
and
I'm
hopeful
that
we'll
follow
those.
I
also
have
a
section
in
the
document
I
gave
you
as
to
why
a
bearing
should
not
be
issued,
I'm
hoping
that
that's
not
the
point
of
today's
meeting,
but
I'd
be
happy
to
give
to
go
over
that
at
some
point.
C
If
you
would
like,
but
the
gist
of
it
is
this
property
is
going
to
hurt
my
property
value
substantially
and
I
provided
data
showing
how
river
bluff
estates,
property
values
per
square
foot
are
substantially
higher
than
any
other
area.
The
madison
area
and
a
big
part
of
that
is
because
we
have
big
side
yards
right.
We
have
the
space
yet
the
structure
of
our
community.
If
we
start
shrinking
that
it's
going
to
be
problematic,
I
also
provided
a
document
to
you
showing
how
uncommon
this
would
be.
C
If
you
compare
the
12-foot
setback
being
requested
to
everything
else
in
our
neighborhood,
it's
substantially
less
everything
isn't
the
minimum.
It
is
40
percent
less
than
any
other
area
on
scenic
view.
In
our
area
they
range
from
20
feet
up
to
70
feet.
When
you
look
at
the
properties,
this
12
is
going
to
drop
right.
On
my
my
home,
I
also
provided
a
document
to
you
showing
how
it
would
impact
day-to-day
usage.
This
home
will
come
if
allowed
to
permit
will
drop
right
next
to
my
home.
C
It
will
reduce
our
view
by
53,
and
I
gave
you
a
mock
photo
to
show
you
the
differences
between
if
it
were
where
it
should
be
at
20
feet
versus
where
it
would
be
at
12
feet,
I'm
going
to
lose
53
percent
of
my
view,
because
of
that
additionally,
the
sunlight-
this
is
our
family
group.
We
want
it
to
be
bright,
will
be
reduced
by
at
least
20
percent.
C
When
you
look
at
it
so
there's
significantly
and
not
to
mention
the
harm
to
the
neighbor
than
the
subdivision,
I
mean
one
of
the
big
things
about
our
subdivision
is
great
views
of
the
ohio
river.
You
can
go
for
a
walk
which
people
do
constantly
looking
out
at
the
river.
We
start
compacting
them.
It
doesn't
hurt.
Just
me
it
hurts
the
neighborhood
not
to
mention
our
neighbors
who
have
homes
that
can
look
out,
but
if
we
start
allowing
construction.
C
The
final
point
I
would
say
on
the
variance
is
there
are
some
very
specific
regulations.
If
a
variance
would
be
granted
one,
it
can't
harm
anyone.
I
think
I've
shown
it
will
definitely
harm
us
and
others.
The
second
is
the
lot.
You
can
only
issue
a
variance
if
the
home,
the
lock,
can't
be
used
without
the
appearance
and,
as
I
show
the
documents,
that's
not
true.
The
lot
at
one
three,
six
zero,
you
see
if
you
drive,
is
the
exact
same
frontage,
the
exact
same
size
as
both
my
home
and
jim
risk's
home
right.
C
Jim
has
a
great
home.
That's
67
feet
wide.
According
to
public
records,
4
700
square
feet
right.
My
home
is
72
feet
wide,
4
900
square
feet.
You
can
build
a
big
home
on
the
lot
sizes
that
are
there
while
staying
within
the
orders.
The
problem
isn't
that
the
lot's
too
small
at
125
feet
wide
promise.
The
home
is
too
big.
It's
92.
D
A
C
Are
the
bases
of
my
case
if
you
have
any
questions
we'll
get
to
that.
B
B
B
B
D
A
A
According
to
rex
ra
you
have
to
have
a
frontage
of
150
foot
to
build,
or
you
have
to
have
over
an
acre
of
land
16
of
the
houses
or
lots
up.
There
do
not
need
that
requirement,
so
I
am
asking
that
I
be
able
to
build
like
everyone
else
got
to
build
and
also,
I
think
part
of
the
problem
here
is.
I
am
a
lucky
person
who
bought
a
lot,
that's
been
empty
forever
and
ever,
and
I
think
people
have
a
tendency
to
think
it's
their
own.
A
It
is
my
understanding
that
mrs
podzierwinski
asked
my
builder
to
please
not
dig
up
their
dog
underground
dog
line,
which
is
on
my
property,
so
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot
to
say.
I'm
just
saying
I
just
don't
think
I
should
be
held
to
a
different
standard
than
everyone
else
will
build
up
there.
Thank
you.
E
I'm
going
to
use
about
two
minutes
in
my
review.
While
mr
presidency's
presentation
is
compelling,
I
disagree
with
his
interpretation.
I
think
that
the
flat
was
approved
and
that's
what
the
lot
owners
and
the
subdivision
owners
up.
There
are
expected
to
follow
and
I
think
the
building
permit
was
issued
appropriately.
E
B
C
Unfortunately,
that's
not
the
law.
What
she
is
asking
for
is
for
a
zoning
change.
She's
saying
wait,
this
shouldn't
be
residential
agricultural,
but
it
is
right.
What
she
wants
is
to
change
it
from
residential
agricultural
to
maybe
low
density
right,
but
there's
a
whole
process
for
going
through
that.
That's
not
coming
to
this
committee
to
suddenly
say:
hey
ignore
the
law.
Let
me
do
this
right,
and
so
so
from
that
standpoint,
I'm
I'm,
like,
I
said
sympathetic
that
that
other
people
might
not
have
this,
but
that's
not
what
the
law
says.
C
As
for
the
legal
interpretation,
I
think
it's
clear-
I
mean
there.
A
plaque
is
a
legal
document
and,
as
I've
read
to
you
multiple
times-
and
I
will
do
it
again
whenever
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance
are
at
variance
or.
D
C
Any
other
way
in
conflict
with
the
requirements
of
any
other
lawfully
adopted
rules,
regulations,
ordinances,
deed
restrictions,
covenants
the
most
restrictive
applies,
so
the
fact
that
something
occurred
back
in
1995
doesn't
mean
it
stays
forever
right.
Other
laws
can
come
in,
especially
specifically
as
the
subdivision
regulations
did,
and
the
zoning
ordinance
and
changes.
Otherwise,
there
could
be
no
madison
historic
district
right.
C
As
for
her
ability
to
build
a
home
on
this
lot,
comparable
to
what
everyone
else
does
her
home's
substantially
larger
at
92
feet
wide
than
67
and
72,
she
can
build
a
home
on
that
lot
easily.
It
is
125
foot
lot
at
the
front
wider
at
the
base.
So
this
isn't
a
question.
Can
I
build
at
home?
This
isn't
a
tiny
little
lot
where
we
have
to
squeeze
it
in
this.
Is
that
the
home
she
wants
to
build,
encroaches
upon
my
property
line
and
violates
the
ordinance?
E
I
just
I
disagree
with
the
interpretation
the
ordinance
was
passed
and
then,
and
then
this
flat
was
approved
by
the
plan
commission
at
the
time,
considering
the
ordinance
that
was
in
place
at
the
time,
the
considerations
of
it
being
an
ra.
Those
things
were
all
considered
at
that
time.
This
would
be
basically.
E
F
My
name
is
bill
combs
and
we're
contractors
up
there
and
we've
built
a
number
of
homes
up
there
and
the
plat.
It
was
originally
from
the
covenant
from
up
there.
That's
everything
that
this
house
is
laid
out
prior
to
that
plant
and
that's
why
she
bought
the
property
and
built
up.
You
know
we're
planning
on
building
a
home
at
that
same
area
and,
like
mary
said,
you
know
if
it's
zoned
like
ra
like
he
says
you
know
many
homes
up.
F
F
There
to
stake
the
house
out,
we'd
put
some
rough
stakes
in
and
I
think
that's
what
he
got
upset
over
because
especially
set
the
batter
boards.
We
didn't
put
the
batter
boards
same
size
of
the
house.
We
moved
them
closer
property
line,
so
we
wouldn't
have
to
reinstall
them
and
they
were
within
three
feet
of
the
property
line,
but
as
far
as
cropping
line
that
their
lot
lanes
at
an
angle
and
that's
basically
from
his
north
northwest
corner
is
12
feet.
F
F
You
know
we're
wasting
time,
we've
lost
two
months
of
production
and
due
to
the
fact,
because
we
had
decent
weather
over
this
issue,
but
through
that
after
we
got
started,
he
came
back
and
approached
me
again.
He
said
I
tell
you
what
I'll
drop
this
problem
right
here.
If
you
move
the
house
four
feet
east,
and
I
thought
you
know
what
what
do
we?
What
are
we
doing?
You
know
it's
still
if
you're
right,
it's
still
wrong,
so
it
you
know.
He
said
that
you
know.
F
If
we
move
it
over
four
feet,
then
he
would
drop
everything.
So
I
think
you
know
the
covenant.
We
built
a
number
of
homes
up
there
and
that's
what
we
went
through
and
if
anybody
had
a
problem
with
that
now
we
built
homes
up
there
where
the
customer
said
hey.
I
don't
want
somebody
to
build
next
to
me,
so
they
would
buy
that
lot
on
either
side.
So
we'd
have
you
know,
they'd
have
control
of
it
and
he
had
that
opportunity
too.
F
B
A
Well,
you
know
he
had
a
comment
that
I
was
running
the
view.
When
I
look
out
my
house.
I
am
going
to
see
houses
just
like
the
people
across
the
street
when
they
look
they're
going
to
see
houses.
I
went
up
today
because
in
his
document
he
made
it's
going
to
be
awful
for
the
people
walking.
You
won't
be
able
to
see
the
river
where.
D
A
Lot
is
you
cannot
see
the
river
from
the
road
you
have
to
literally
go
halfway
onto
my
property
to
see
the
group
and
I'm
a
friendly
neighbor.
Somebody
wants
to
come
over
and
have
coffee
on
my
deck
and
watch
the
river
I'll
be
glad
to
have
him
come,
but
you
cannot
walk
past.
There
are
some
properties
up
there.
You
can,
but
it
curves,
and
I
am
not
running
anybody's
view
of
the
river
from
across
the
street.
B
B
I've
read
through
the
ordinance
and
I
get
the
impression
that
this
board
of
zoning
appeals
is
a
quasi-judicial
body
and
we
are
for
one
of
a
better
word,
we're
outranked
by
the
planning
commission,
because
the
planned
commission
initiates
amendments
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
planning
commission
has
complete
control,
in
this
case
over
a
subdivision
using
the
subdivision
regulations
when
they
make
a
final
plat
approval
that
they
are
the
ones
that
make
the
platypus
don't
go
any
further
than
that.
B
B
The
subdivision
ordinance,
which
I
made
a
copy,
it's
pretty
clear
in
a
lot
of
places,
which
mr
pop
slowinski
pointed
out
like
on
page
27.
He
pointed
out
that
one
general
improvements,
all
subdivision
plats
and
improvements-
shall
comply
with
following
the
city
of
madison
zoning,
ornaments,
etc.
Page
28,
lot,
dimensions,
size,
shape
and
lot
dimensions
shall
conform
to
minimum
requirements,
page
29,
building
line
setback
and
that's
number
three
establish
yards
shall
be
as
provided
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
B
B
In
within
the
profit,
the
four-step
process,
they
have
making
these
subdivision
class,
and
my
second
question
is:
if
there
was
no
variance
ever
granted
and
they
violated
the
zoning
ordinance
and
this
these
are
huge
lots.
There
are
no
peculiarities
out
there.
There
will
be
no
grounds
upon
which
to
grant
a
variance
for
it
to
come
before.
There's
none
that
I
see
right
off
the
bat.
B
B
If
they
acted,
I
suppose
for
one
of
them
their
phrase
arbitrarily.
Do
they
have
that
authority
to
make
anything
they
want
in
the
whenever
a
subdivision
was
planted,
given
that
there
may
be
flimsy
authority
or
flimsy
grounds
for
variants?
E
I
don't
know
I
didn't
pull
whether
or
not
there
was
a
variance
apply
for
and
approve
daryl's
been
on
the
plane
commission
for
a
while,
and
I
think
he
knows
the
process
better
than
I
do
frankly,
but
if
they
applied
for
that
subdivision
and
those
were
the
setbacks
that
were
approved,
and
that
was
the
final
flat,
I
can
only
assume
that
they
filed
to
appropriate
follow
the
appropriate
process.
B
Well,
I
guess
my
question
is
whatever
process
they
followed.
They
ended
up
with,
as
the
lady
pointed
out,
smaller
width
lots
than
the
zoning
ordinance
requires
for
obviously
on
this
building
permit,
it's
very
clear.
It
says:
25
foot,
building
setbacks
on
the
streets.
I
think
the
ordinance
calls
for
40
10
foot
minimum
side
yards.
The
ordinance
calls
for.
B
B
B
Another
question:
I
have
we
very
regular
all
the
time
here
we
give
variances
on
lock
lines.
We
do
them
well,
not
too
much
downtown,
but
on
the
hillside.
Virtually
everything
excuse
me.
The
hilltop
everything
up
there
at
one
time
or
another
was
a
subdivision,
and
yet
in
all
the
variances
that
I
can
recall
raining
for
specifically
lot
lines.
B
Provisions
and
regulations
and
setbacks
that
were
being
brought
up
so,
but
it
almost
they
would
be
brought
up
in
in
cases
because,
although
maybe
not
specifically
but
there's
houses
on
clinton
ground
that
have
50
foot
lots
and
they're
within
10
or
5
feet
of
each
other.
So
obviously
back
somewhere.
That
mistake
was
probably
not
a
mistake.
That's
just
the
way
that
it
read
back
at
the
time,
but
I
I
don't.
That
would
be
true
for
houses
built
prior
to
the
1967,
the
adoption
in
august
of
1967
of.