HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 8/8/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 8, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
� IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) Z-345
OF HELEN BUSCH, TRUSTEE UNDER THE ) BUSCH-KNOX.
PROVISIONS OF A TRUST AGREEMENT ) ZONING UPON ANNEXATION
DATED FEBRUAR:Y 9, 1977, AND KNOWN )
AS TRUST NO 140, AND MCHENRY STATE )
BANK TRUST NO 4705 FOR ENTRY INTO )
AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH AND )
AMENDNIENT +DF THE ZONING ORDINANCE )
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY )
COUNTY, ILLI:'�1015. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the at>ove-captioned petition was held on July 18, 1994, and was recessed to this date.
Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:32 P.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Chris�tensen, Emil Kleemann, Frank IVIcClatchey; Harry
Semrow, John Swierk, Danna Tobeck. Absent: None.
2. Attarney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recordin� Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
�
5. Petitioners: Represented by Helen Busch, 219 James Road, Spring Grove, lllinais 60081.
6. Attomey for the Petitioner: Thomas Rupp&Associates,represented by Thomas Rupp and Guy
Yauman, P.O. Box 745, McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger, Alderman Locke, City Clerk.
Althoff.
8. Court Reporter: Cheryl Barone.
9. Objectors/4bservers:
1. Karen Burns, 706 S Emerald Drive, McHenry.
2. Jerry Yencich, 225 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
3. Kim Yencich, 225 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
4. Mike Moushey, 229 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
5. Kim Moushey, 229 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
6. Steve Lohr, 227 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
7. Ki.m Lohr, 227 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
$. Kathv Service, 231 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
9. Kolleen Afeld, 2�2 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
10. Bob Hettermann, 211 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
11. Scatt Persky, 110 Augusta, McHenry.
12. Harry Dukas, 217 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
13. Mar�k Stuckel, 216 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
� 14. Dor��thy Bangle, '�(K S Broadway, McHenry.
15. Harry Diedrich, 403 N Green St, McHenry.
16. Joh,� Warner, 212 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
17. DeAnne Warner, 212 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
Page 2
ZBA-Busch/Knoa.
$/9/94
� 18. Edna Mae Johnson, 210 S Green St, McHenry.
19. Dorothea Rodiek, 3500 W Biscayne, McHenry.
2O. Karen Nolin, 330 Richmond Lane, Crystal Lake, 6Q014.
2L John Vlcek, 805 S Pearl Ave, McHenry.
22. Randy Patterson, 6322 Chickaloon Dr, McHenry.
23. Vernon Ehredt, 3220 Bull Valley Rd, McHenry.
24. Kathy Reese, 3303 W Bull Valley Rd, McHenry.
25. Frank Ehredt, �911 W Prairie St, McHenry.
26. Paul Antens, 3321 Bull Valley Rd, McHenry.
27. Dennis Drake, 209 S Loch Glen, McHenry.
2$. Greg Rowlett, 3402 Turnberry Drive, McHenry.
29. Roman Bauer, 3510 Turnberry Drive, McHenry.
3Q. Phylli� Bauer, 3510 Turnberry Drive, McHenry.
31. John Hundrieser, 3200 Bull Valley Rd, McHenry.
32. Tonee Peterson, 4�4 Country Club Drive, McHenry.
33. Scott Nolan (for Alliance Church), 3815 Bull Valley Rd, McHenry.
34. Doyle Kearns, 213 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
35. Pat Kearns, 213 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
36. Dina 13ernad, 2�1 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
37. John Lindquist, 204 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
38. Mark Hagy, l22 S Ronda Rd, McHenry.
39. Donald Nickol, 200 S Ronda Rd, McHenry.
40. Jae Trybula, 202 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
41. Charles Porter, 3421 Turnberry Dr, McHenry.
42. Donald Garner, 210 S Valley Rd, McHenry.
�.. SWEARING IN OF OBJECTORS/OBSERVERS
Chairman Semrow swore in all Objectors/Observers who intended. to speak at these proceedings.
N�TICE OF PL�BLICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on July 23, 1994. The Publisher's
Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Abutting property
owners were notified by certified mail of these proceedings. Subject property was posted as required
by the Zoning Ordinance. An Affidavit ascertaining all of the above is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
LOCATION
The subject property is located north of the intersection of Bull Valley Road and Green Street, both east
and west of Green Street. The property is comprised of approximately b8.9 acres and is cunently not
within the jurisdiction of the corporate limits of the City of McHenry.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be zoned as follows upon annexation to the City
of McHenry:
RS-2 Single Family Residential 12.5 acres
RM-1 Low Density Multi-family 4.8 acres
O-1 Lc�cal Office District 3.2 acres
O-2 Of tice Park District 6.0 acres
C-3 Ccrmmunity Commercial 8.5 acres
OS O��en space 20.9 acres
�
RO�W B��ll Va11ey corridor 11.0 acres
Tc�tal 68.9 acres
Page 3
ZBA-Busch/Knczx
8/9/94
� The open space would be classified in the most restrictive zoning district subject to Chapter III,
paragraph D, of the Zoning Ordinance. It was noted at this time that the Site Plan which was
incorporated as a part of the Petition, contained an error. The Petitioner is requesting G3 Community
Commercial and not C-1 Convenience Commercial. The Site Plan was corrected to reflect this zoning
request. Attorney McArdle noted that all publication notices reflected the actual zoning request for C-3
community commercial.
TESTIMONY
Attorney Rupp stated the Petitioners are presenting an amended Petition which reflects changes from
the Petition which was presented in 1992. The testimony presented in 1992 stands for the recard.
Rupp provided an overview of what was requested in 1992, and the various changes in concept which
have occurred since that time. The plan which is before this Board this evening is the Concept Plan,
revised 6/22/94. It was again stated that the Petitioners are requesting that the proposed commercial
district be C-3 and not Gl as st�own on the Site Plan which was a part of the Petition.
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Swierk asked about the wetlands mitigation area at the northeast corner of the subject property which
abuts Valley Roacl in Green Valley subdivision. Swierk asked if the Petitioner planned to mitigate any
wetlands at this time. Rupp said they do not. Swierk asked if Lot 2 of the proposed single family
district in this location would be in the wetlands. Rupg said that lot may be unbuildable. Swierk asked
if there has been a detailed wetlands survey of this property. Rupp said that Ken Fiske had completed
a wetlands study, however, he did not have a co�y of it at this time. Swierk said that a conservancy
overlay di�-h-ict has been created by the city since this project first appeared before the City Council two
years ago. Swierk said this project would be a good candidate for the conservancy overlay district.
Rupp said there is much open space which is a part of this proposed project and it is all being dedicated
to the city. Rupp said he could not see the benefit of the conservancy overlay district in light of the
�.. fact that the open space would be given to the city. Swierk asked who would maintain the ogen space
which would be given to the city. Swierk said the Petitioner should consider keeping the open space
and having it maintained by a progerty owner's association. Rupp said that the county would like the
open space dedicated to the city. Swierk asked the main reason that the Petitioner was appearing before
this Boarci. Rupp said the Petitioner is before this Board in order to request zoning reclassification.
Swierk asked if the Bull Valley Road extension would be given to the county. Rupp said the City is
reyuiring that the proposed Bull Valley right of way be donated to the county. Swierk asked if there
had been any thought with regard to creating a special district far the maintenance of the �pen space.
RuPP said the City would install bike path and foot Path in the open space. Swierk asked if any details
had been worked out with regard to the foot path or the bike path. Rupp said the details are being
worked out in the annexation agreement. The City is requesting that the Petitioner pay for the
installation of the bike path.
Swierk said that with regard to the 2.5 acres of wetlands mitigation area, would the PetiNoner agree
to abandon that as a mitigadon site. Rupp said that at this time he does not anticipate the need to
mitigate at this location, however, any use the Petitioner could make of the property would be
appropriate. Swierk asked why the O-1 Office district was selected for a portion of the property rather
than both office sites as O-2. Rupp said O-1 is more readily utilized in this area. Swierk asked the
m�iximum building height which would be proposed in both the O-1 and O-2 districts on this property.
Rupp said in the O-2 District there is no restriction as to height. Swierk said he did not feel that a 6
or 7 story office huilding would be aggropriate on Green Street. Swierk asked if there had been any
traffic study done regarding this proposed development. Rupp said there has not.
McClatchey askeci if there had been any tests done regarding the live springs on the site; has there been
any testing of the soils on the property. Rupp said the Petitioner has not had any engineering done on
� this progerty yet. There is a perched fen in the e�sting single family district to the north of the subject
property. It would not be appropriate for the engineering to be done until such time as the City is
ready to move fo�ward with this project.
Page 4
ZBA-Bu�chlKnox.
8/8/94
� Swierk said the city is dealing with a large tract of land which may or may not be buildable. There
is a need for engineering reports and studies before looking hard at this development. Semrow asked
what type of engineering was needed at this time. Swierk said he does not know the location of all of
the wetlands on this property; he does not know the exact location of all of the live springs. Kleemann
asked if those items were not beyond the purview of the Zoning Board. Semrow said the Petitioner
has the right to bring any property before this Board without having all final platting and engineering
done. To ex}�ect that this Peht�oner provide all of the engineering reports at this early stage gresents
an undue burden upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not have to provide such detail in order to
ask for his progerty to be zoned by the City.
Swierk asked if it would be appropriate to recommend a conservancy overlay district far this praperty.
Semrow said that would be appropriate, but the Board would need to pinpoint specific restrictions and
that would have to be presented to this Board. This Board could ask that the Council apply a
conservancy overlay district to this property.
Lobaito s�tid therf} is a procedure in place for looking at these types of issues. The Plan Commission
and City Council will look at this pro}�erty when it comes before them for platting. What is represented
here is that the Petitioner has discovered certain areas where there are wetlands, etc. Drainage issues
will be addressed when the engineering is done prior to platting of this property. Each individual lot
may or may not be buildable. Soil borings are not taken on each lot. Every lot could eventually be
buildable. It is just a matter of how much may have to be spent in order to make it buildable. Swierk
asked how the Board can assure that a particular property is designated with an overlay district.
Lobaito said the Board could recommend that the zoning be granted subject to the application of the
canservancy averlay district. The Council could then act upon the recommendation.
Semrow said with regard to the O-2 Oftice District classificarion, would the Petitioner be willing to
�.. s�tipulate that he would restrict the height of the potential buildings in this portion of the development
to 3 or 4 stories. Rupp said he would have to speak with his clients before agreeing to such a
stipulation.
S�UESTIONS BY OBJECTORS/OBSERVERS
Charles Porter: He said he had a question regarding drainage. How would the Petitioner provide
drainage from the proposed single family district at the top of the hill which abuts Green Valley. Rupg
said the properiy would drain as it does now. Lobaito said the engineering plans would be submitted
for City approval before housing permits would be issued. Drainage would be addressed prior to
causing problems in this area.
Dennis Drake: Drake asked what is an overlay district. Semrow said the purpose of creating the
conservancy overlay district was to protect wetlands and other special soil areas. The ordinance set
f�rth certain restrictions that cause developers to not disturb wetlands areas. lt was also established
to assure that wetlands will not be built upon. Drake asked when the McHenry County Soil &
Conservation District becomes involved in such a project as this. Lobaito said at the time of platting
before the Plan Commission, a Resource Inventory of all soils involved in the project would be
required. This would cover such things as poor soil suitability for building, drainage issues, etc.
Drake said that regarding the possible extension of Valley Road to the south fi-om Green Valley
subdivision ta Bull Valley Road-what is the status of this? Rupp said that}�ossible roadway extensian
has nothing ta do with this petition. That land does not belong to this Petitioner.
Joe T bula: Ha� there been a traffic study done regarding this proposal? Is the Bull Valley Road
being built by the� City. Rupp said there has been no traffic study required by the city to this point.
Semraw said the<:ounty is extending Bull Valley Road. Trybula asked the difference between G 1 and
� C-3 Commercial Districts. McArdle said the basic difference is the uses permitted in each. G 1 is
more restrictive than C-3. Swierk said the ma�cimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in G1 is .50 and the
maximum FAR irtt C-3 is 2.0. Trybula said with regard to the wetlands, who will pay for the upkeep
and maintenance. Swierk said if the city owns the property, all citizens will pay for the maintenance.
Page 5
ZBA-Busch/Knox
8/8/44
� Trybula asked if there could possibly be apartments built in the multi-family portion of this
development. Semrow said one portion of the property is being proposed RM-1 zonmg which is multi-
family.
Jerry Yencich: Yencich asked the potential height of the multi-family building in the RM-1 District.
Lobaito said the maximum height allowed is 40 feet. Yencich asked if there had been a study done
with regard to sewer and water availability for this project and how this project could impact the city
services. Rupp �id there has been no such study. Yencich said that with regard to the southeast
corner of the proposed project, would the Petitioner consider single family rather than the proposed
multi-family district. Rupp said the proposal before the Board tonight has gone through many
revi�ions. The Petitioner believes that the City would prefer the feathenng which would be in place
with the implementation of the multi-family district in this location. Yencich asked how could the
building height possibly be restricted to a potential developer. Semrow said the C-3 District and the
O-2 District do not contain maximum building heights. Perhaps the Petitioner would be willing to
restrict the huilding height in these districts. This could be done through the annexation agreement.
The issue before this Board this evening is should this property be rezoned as is being requested by the
Petitioner.
Kim Yencich: What is actually going to be decided by this Board this evening. Is there anything that
could be said which could calm the fears of abutting residents in Green Valley subdivision. Could we
he looking at a hu�;e office building out of our windows? McArdle said each area would be zoned as
reyuested if recommendation is made for same by this Board and if ultimately approved by the City
Council. Yencich asked if all objections stated this evening are recorded as a part of these proceedings.
McArdle said that is correct. If the Board votes against this Petition, there woulci be no
recommendation to the Council by this Board. However,the Council would still retdin the right to vote
on this Petition,even without a recommendation from this Board. This Board is a recommending bcxly
`- only.
Mike Moushey: Moushey said in light of what he has read regarding proposed multi-family
development at Route 31 and Bull Valley Road, he does not see the need for mulri-family zoning in
this project. Moushey asked what changed with regard to Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the single family d�str�ct
in the southeastern portion of this project. Swierk said nothing had changed with regard to those two
lots. Swierk said he would like the Petitioner to eliminate the proposed m�tigation area at the northeast
corner of this section of the development, which abuts Lot 1 and Lot 2 of this single family district.
Moushey asked if land which is used for mitigation could be built upon. McArdle said that wetlands
mitigation area is not to be confused with wetlands. Swierk said this land which is proposed for
wetlands mitigatian is not currently wetlands. Semrow said if mitigation was desired, the developer
would move soils from the wedands to this designated midgadon area. This procedure would make
the initial wetlands naw buildable, but the mitigation area would then be unbuildable. Moushey asked
with regard to the Valley Road extension not being a part of this Petition, would the Petitioner ex.plain
how there could be access to Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the single family district if Valley Road is not
extended. Rup� indicated that what is before this Board is merely a concept plan, this is not set in
stone. If Valley Road were not extended, and if this concept plan were actually followed, then Lot 1.
and Lot 2 would not be buildable as there could be no access to them. Moushey asked if the proposed
zoning changes would have definite boundaries. Rupp said that definite zoning district�s would be
established. Moushey asked if the Petitioner would cons�der changing the multi-family district to single
family district. Rupp said they would not.
DeAnne Warner: Why was there a change from C-1 to C-3 Commercial District? Rupp stated that
the intent was fram the very beginning to request C-3 zoning for the commercial portion af this project.
The commercial tiection was misidentified on the site plan as G1. However, rt �s important to note
� that all publication notices, notices mailed to abutting landowners, etc. actually requested that the
Petitioner be grar�ted C-3 zoning. The only error was the indication on the site plan. This is being
corrected at this t-me. Warner asked if all C-3 uses would be permitted uses, or would there be some
which would be c anditional. Mc.Ardle said that all Permitted uses in the C-3 district would be allowed
Page 6
ZBA-Busch/Knox
$/8/94
� in the G3 District and would require no additional public hearing once the zoning is granted. Those
uses which are li�ted as conditional uses would require a hearing before the public. Warner asked if
the Multi-family c�welling units would be rental or privately owned. McArdle said there could be an
attempt to negotiate this issue in the annexation agreement. Warner asked why the Petitioner was
requesting multi-family zoning. The granting of this multi-family zoning would greatly reduce the
property values for the $200,000 homes in the abutting Green Valley subdivision. Warner said that
the pro�wsed singie family district in the southeast portion of the subject property might be too small
to l�e developed as single family. Could the developers then rezone this area to multi-family? McArdle
said it would require another hearing before this Board.
Tonee Peterson: Is the Army Corps of Engineers involved in this project yet? Rupp �;aid nc�t at this
time. The Petitianer is not involved in using wetlands areas at this time or using wetlands soil. This
is strictly a concept plan at this time. McArdle said the purpose of this hearing is to get this prc�perty
zoned. The city is not looking at individual lots at this time, but at Proposed zoning disiricts.
Donald Garner: Has this matter been presented to the Plan Commission. Rupp said that it has. The
Plan Cammission voted it down.
Dennis Drake: I�there an update on the status of the Bull Valley Road extension? McArdle said that
the Caunty would have the latest word on the status of that road.
STATEMENTS BY OBJECTORS/OBSERVERS
Chairman ascertained that all of the following were sworn in prior to making statements before the
Bc�ard.
Jerry Yencich: '"The first concern is regarding the letter sent �ut, on page 4, in which Mr. Semrow
� states that there is a definite need for multi-family in order to make housing accessible in McHenry.
Irish Prairie, the housing project by McCullom Lake Road and Route 31, and the Pacini Property, will
all provide multi-family housing for the city. We don't need any more multi-family hou�ing in this
area. My second concern is in regard to the open space. ln Green Valley there is a designated park
area which has not been maintained in the entire one and one half years in which I have lived there.
Again, I am opposed to the multi-family housing in this area."
Kim Yencich: "Regarding the Bull Valley comdor, those that live on Bull Valley Road would like to
see the new exten�ion of that road go through. I am against the multi-family and would like to see the
wetlands brought up to the boundary of the Green Valley subdivision. Ten foot high grass is preferable
to looking out on an office building on a service road. Regarding the groposed office district across
from the Municipal Center, I would prefer to see single family rather than office in this locatican.
Offices on the west side of Green Street, south of the Municipal Center, would be okay. But, they
should try to tie in the architecture of this office district to complement the building structures in this
area such as the Municipal Center. Regarding the wetlands, keeg the open space; it belongs in this
locatian. I am opposed to the multi-family."
Steve Lc�hr: "This plan will force Valley Road to be extended. This will cause mare traffic in the local
neighborhoods. '�hey will use Loch Glen and Valley Road as a short cut to get frorn Bull Valley to
Green Street and firom Green Street to Bull Valley Road. Multi-family is inconsistent with the way the
neighbarhood is designed. My main concerns are potential traffic problems and the multi-family
hc�using."
John Wamer: °1 am concerned about the school system. I recently bought in this area, one and one
half years ago. The impact fees are going up. There is a lack of planning by the schonl boards. I am
� concerned about the Valley Road extension to multi-family homes. There could possibly be an impact
of 6-10% on property values in Green Valley. I would like to stress again that I wauld not like multi-
family homes in this area. If there has to be multi-family, there should be no rental units. 1Vlake
Valley Raad a cu 1-de-sac and not a thoroughfare."
Page 7
ZBA-Busch/Knox
8/$/94
,� Joe_Trvbula: "Multi-family homes- we don't want to see them. Traffic in our subdivision is too much
already. We nee�.i to see a traffic study. Look at what is going on in the neighborhoods. There sh�uld
be no new multi-family homes."
Dennis Drake: "1'm opposed to the single family homes in the wetlands area in the northwest corner
of the parcel. There are several live springs in that area. I bought this �roperty with the
understanding that this area to the south of my home would be unbuildable."
Tobeck asked who had advised Drake that this land was unbuildable. Drake said he was told by the
builder, not the City, that the land was unbuildable.
Swierk asked if the Petitioner would be willing to agree to condominium ownership of the multi-family
dwelling units. Christensen asked why no traffic study had been provided. Rupp said it was not
required by ordinance. The same thing would be true of the imgact study with regara to the utilities
and the schools.
�LOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
Rupp stated that the site plan provided as a part of this Petition is a good one. It addresses the c<�ncerns
of the Board and the City Council. The Green Valley homes will be several hundred feet away from
the multi-family dwelling units. Valley Road is a non-issue; we can do nothing about the extension
or non-extension�f V�lley Road to Bull Valley Road as we do not own that properiy. What is before
this Board is a proposal for multi-family, single family, office and commercial use. This is a very
gooc� mixed use.
Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further before this Board with regard to the Petiti�n, the
Board will consider this matter at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a member of the
�.. Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition."
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Swierk, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
the Pedtioners' reques-t that the subject property be zoned as follows upon annexation to the city
of McHenry be granted:
RS-2 Single Family Residential 12.5 acres
R:M-1 Lc�w Density Multi-family 4.8 acres
O-1 Local Office District 3.2 acres
O-2 Office Park District 6.0 acres
G3 C<>mmunity Commercial 8.5 acres
OS Open space 20.9 acres
ROW Bull Valley corridor 11.0 acres
Total 68.9 acres;
and, furth�;r,that Table 33, Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments,page 401 of the Zoning
Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Kleemann, Semrow.
Votin� Nay: Adamson, Christensen, McClatchey, Swierk, Tobeck.
Not Vating: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Nc�ne.
1Vlc�tion failed 2-5.
�
Page 8
ZBA-Bu�chlKnov.
$/$/94
� Motion by Swierk, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
if the Petitioner's request is granted to request the zoning reclassification as stta..ted below:
RS-2 Sirigle Family Residential 12.5 acres
RM-1 Low Density Multi-family 4.8 acres
O-l Local Office District 3.2 acres
Q-2 Of'fice Park District 6.0 acres
C-3 Cc�mmunity Commercial 8.5 acres
QS Open space 20.9 acres
R4W Bull Valley corridor 11.0 acres
Tc�tal 68.9 acres;
that a Conservancy Overlay District be agplied to the subject property in accorciance with the
City c�f McHenry Zoning Ordinance.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Kleemann, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: Christensen.
Not Voting: Nc9ne.
Abstaining: Nc►ne.
Absent: Nc>ne.
Mc�tion carried 6-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion hy McClatchey, seconded by Tobeck to adjourn this hearing.
Voting Aye: Adamsan, Christensen, Kleemann, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tabeck.
Voting Nay: N�ne.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: Nc�ne.
�... Absent: Nane.
Mc�ti�n carried 7-0.
This hearing was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Harry S ow, Chairman
Zoning oard of Appeals
c: Agenda, loning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission {7), City Administratar, Director c�f
Building �Yc Zoning, Public Works Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Aldermen
Reference Copy, Objectors/Observers (36), Petidoner's Attorney, Building& Zoning Zoning
File, Lancimark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Doc/ZBAMIN.34_5
�
r