Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 04/24/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 24,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier, Keith Myers C( hair)R,ichard Salvage,Carl Wilkenfeld,Vice
Chair
Members Absent:Bernie Lukco
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Candi Moore,Steve Mershon,Bob Karaffa,Rob Montgomery,Vanessa Taphouse Fuson, Joe
Sinsabaugh,Perry Watson
Citizens'Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of April 10,2000:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR.BURRISS SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
RobertC &hristine Montgomery,452 West Broadway A- ir Conditioner
Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicants wish to locate the AC unit on the side, which will require a
variance,as it is to be 4'from west property line. The house is in the Heritage Overlay District,100'from the
ROW. Mr. Montgomery added that it is 29"tall x 242!/"a,nd will sit on a platform 1' from the house. There
will be shrubbery around the unit and will sit in an ivy bed. He cannot put it behind the house because it's a
small area right below the dining room window.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION PROVIDING THAT BZBA APPROVES THE
VARIANCE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Tim Tyler,233 South Pearl Street - Air Conditioner and poured concrete
Ms. Wimberger noted that the applicant may modify the application later to add a picket fence. Mr.
Montgomery said there is a lot of space for the unit on the north side,and landscaping will be added later. The
unit will sit in an alcove and will not be visible from the street.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS: (1)THAT THE VILLAGE
PLANNER EXAMINE THE EXACT LOCATIONFOR AC AND (2)THAT IT BE SUFFICIENTLY
SCREENED FROM PEARL STREET. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Members discussed the fence which will be applied for later. It will go around the property. Mr. Salvage thinks
a modification can be brought in with photos or drawings showing the pickets and gate. Mr. Montgomery said
he wanted vinyl, but GPC discouraged him from this idea.
Mr. Montgomery added.that the 10'x30' poured concrete floor is part ofthe application
MR. SALVAGE AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD THE POURED CONCRETE FLOOR,AND IT WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
GPC Minutes,April 24,2000, 2
Bob and Tracee Karajfa,311 NorthPearlStreet S-hed and Retaining Wall
Ms.Wimberger saidthe 8'x8'storage shed will be 4'from property line. The stone 3Vz'retainingwall fof
parking space will be 1' from property line,and BZBA will hearthe variances on Thursday.
Mr.Karaffa added thatthe shed will rest on a concrete pad and be made ofrough- cutwood.
MR.SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONWITH CONDITIONS:1 ()THAT THE COLOR OF
THE SHED BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE PLANNER AND ( 2)PENDING APPROVAL OF BZBA. MR.
BURR-ISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ann & Perry Watson,127 W.Maple Street -Remodel roofand change siding
Ms.Wimberger said they want to change the shed roofinto a hip roofstyle.They will change existing siding
to.matchthat onthe new addition and change shingles on bay window. Mr.Watson explained thatthe project
will fit in with the architecture ofthe rest ofthe street. They will use dimensional slate gray shingles to match
those on the back ofthe house.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SHINGLES ON
REVISED ROOF WILL MATCH STYLE OF THOSE ON THE ADDITION. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Michael FusonV a&nessa Taphouse Fuson,103 ShepardsonCourt p-orch,etc. 2-o D
Ms.Wimberger said the application is in the HeritsgrObae-y* ct,within 100'ofthe ROW. They wish
to remodel porches,convert part ofthe garage into a porch,and also to rebuild porches and add balustrades.
Garage siding and trim will be replaced and match wood siding and trim on house.
Ms. Fuson said they will remove vinyl siding from garage and have it match the rest ofthe house. Both
porches will be rebuilt and will be screened.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR.BURRISS SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Sharon Sinsabaugh,329 West Elm Street - Roof
The applicant said the roof is in poor condition,and he would like to replace it with asphalt dimensional
shingles,which will look more authentic. It needs new gutters and they are thinking about copper material. The
proposed copper on the cupola cannot be seen from the street. The roofover the sunroom will continue to be
standing seam,dark gray and will not be changed.
Mr. Salvage summarized that there will be copper on cupola,dimensional on the rest ofthe roof.Sunroom will
be painted seam.
MR.WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR ROOFING BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED,WITH THE OPTION OF USING COPPER ON FLAT SURFACE AND COPPER FOR
DOWNSPOUTS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
StevenMershonC &andada Moore,405 East College Street
Mr. Burriss recused himself from consideration of this application}
Ms. Wimberger said this is for a new single-family dwelling. She would advise the group not to take final
action yet,there is a copy ofa letter from legal counsel to be considered. She thinks the question ofthe
easement has been answered, but questions remain. This is for discussion and tabling and possible modification
to the lot split.
Mr. Mershon said he received Attorney Erhard's letter this afternoon but he does not know quite whether he is
C
GPC Minutes,April 24,2000, 3
being an advocate or making ajudicial decision. Mr. Erhard accessed. This says an easement is the only way lots can be was a surprise to applicants,but they disagree with Mr. Erhard in saying there is no access on College Street. The School Board gave three deeds for three lots.
Mr. Salvage said GPC favored the easement. He had recommended studying the ad for the real estate auction
at which the property was sold. We did not require the school to sell as three lots. If there were only two lots, there would be no need for shared access. Mr. Myers said that consensus was for two lots but the School Board wanted three.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said a total of two lots with shared access was preferred because the lots were so small that driveways would cause traffic problems. This would make it easier to meet code requirements.
Mr. Mershon said that every house in the area is on a small lot and these three are consistent or even wider. He explained the location of the driveway was to make traffic smoother on Granger Street.and thinks he could plan
shared access for his other two lots. He does not know what they will do with the other two lots at this time,but
ifthere are to be two houses,there would be a shared driveway.
Mr. Myers summarized so far: 1( )The lot split with shared access was GPC's preference. 1( )In order to
change, a modification is needed to the lot split;there is no easement on the application. 3 ( )The general idea
was to eliminate curbcuts. 4( )We are going to have to follow legal counsel's advice. The next step is to go back
to Mr. Erhard and ask him to outline the steps to be taken
Mr. Salvage had talked to the school officials and they said there was supposed to be an easement. ( 1)These
two could share an access;2 ()they would want deed restrictions;3 ()there is a parking problem on Granger,and
parking should be allowed instead of striping; 4 ()they want to be sure the driveway makes sense. 5 ()Mr.
Salvage likes the house plans.
Ms. Lucier said the Village Council voted on the lot split with the understanding that there was an easement as
part of it. Mr. Myers said a subdivision without plat does not go to Village Council.
Mr. Mershon then described the plans for the two-story Queen Ann style house,and showed where changes to
the plans were made. Mr. Salvage said the School Board has no problem,but ifthe Village has other access
plans they want to know about it. Setbacks will not be a problem with the school
Members discussed the wide sidewalks still present and consensus agreed that the school should replace the
tree lawn and gutters, rather than the applicants.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING INFORMATION FROM LEGAL
COUNSEL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ALL APPLICATIONS,A THROUGH F
UNDER NEW BUSINESS,ARE CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS LISTED
IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Next Meetings: May 8 (Ms. Lucier to be absent)and 22
Sign Code: May 9, 7:30 p.m.
Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 04/10/00

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 10,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barbara Lucier,Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage
Members Absent:Keith Myers,Chair,Carl Wilkenfeld,Vice Chair
Also Present:Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Betty Morrison,Marcia Gleaves, Beth Yaekle, Scott Hickey,Gary Coyle,Rich Cherry,Ray Paprocki,Monique Pinkerton
Citizens'Comments: None
Mr.Salvage chaired the meeting and swore in all those who planned to speak)
Minutes of March 27,2000:
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED;MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Marcia Gleaves,221 West Broadway -IFence
Ms. Wimberger stated that the applicant wishes to establish a garden area,and is applying for a 6'
stockade- type wood privacy fence with latticg atop,18"inside the driveway. There would be an arched arbor at the
curve which will have hold climbing planftd¢t!841 had some uncertainties as to design,and Mr. Lukco informed her GPC cannot approve something indefinite. Ms. Gleaves then said she wants lattice,shadowbox,metal arbor. Mr.
Luikco said the fence should be painted if it is to be treated material,but if it is cedar,that will not be necessary.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT APPLICATION # 00-032 FOR FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITION
THAT 1( )FENCE BE 6'HIGH INCLUDING LATTICE ON TOP,2 ()MADE OF EITHER CEDAR
WHICH WILL WEATHER)OR TREATED MATERIAL (WHICH SHOULD BE STAINED OR
PAINTED).MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Antique Show, Betty Morrison -Signs
The group wishes temporary informational signs in the village,some of which are in public right of way. Ms. Morrison
stated that signs have been displayed in these locations for 20 years and that they have the necessary permissions..Ms.
Wimberger added that the only community service sign permitted is at the flagpole. Ms. Morrison said signs would be
put up at the entrances to the village about four days before the 4-day sale and removed promptly thereafter. Mr. Lukco
questioned the necessity ofthe sign at Bennett's G( oodyear)a,nd she said she could eliminate it. The benefit is for
Granville Academic Boosters.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AND THAT THE SIGNS BE PUT UP
WHEN THE APPLICANT FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE. SIGNS MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN A DAY
AFTER THE SHOW CLOSES. MR. BURRISS-SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Granville Volunteer Fire Department, 133 North Prospect -Generator
The Fire Department wishes to add a generator for emergencies at the rear ofthe property,in a concrete area within a
fence. The property is owned by the village,and the Village Manager has expressed approval. Mr. Greg Coyle
GPC Minutes.April 10,2000 ,2
explained the dimensions of the unit,the color and appearance,and security features,and that by using natural gas,it
will be quiet.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A GENERATOR FOR THE GRANVILLE
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
in and Rich Cherry,223 South Main Street -Fences
The application is for air conditioner and two fences: ( 1)privacy fence in back because it is a very small lot and (2)a
picket fence surrounding the front of the property. One area of the picket fence would be on village right ofway,and
ifthe village needed to service the property,any charges involved shall be the responsibility ofthe owner. ( 3) Since
they needed to replace the furnace,they wanted to add an air conditioner,and to conserve space,they chose the south
side. An existing chainlink fence would be removed. Flowers and landscaping would be added. Mr. Cherry heard
earlier this evening that a treated fence must be painted,and he asked ifhe could let it weather for a year before
painting. He was told that the project must be completed within two years. The Village Planner can approve the color
selection.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR FENCE BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:
1)PICKET FENCE IN FRONT AS SHOWN ON DIAGRAM WILL BE LESS THAN 42"2; )(STOCKADE
FENCE AROUND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN WILL BE NO MORE THAN 6'HIGH;
3)TREATED MATERIALS MUST BE STAINED;4 ()COLORWILL BE APPROVED BY VILLAGE
PLANNER ( APPLICANT HAS TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF APPROVAL TO COMPLETE PROJECT);
5)PLACEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONER ON PLAN IS ALSO APPROVED. ( 6)BZBA MUJST GRANT
APPROVAL. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Scott Hickey,Village Baker,212 South Main Street -Signs
The application is for 2 signs: ( 1)33"x22"wall sign on the building and (2)a sandwich board with plexiglass at the
entrance to the complex inside the sidewalk in the right of way. Mr. Hickey described the signs: black lettering on
white background on stained wood. GPC members preferred that the two signs be consistent in color and design.
MR. LUKCO MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR SANDWICH BOARD AND SIGN FOR THE
BUILDING FOR THE VILLAGE BAKER BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: (1)NAME OF THE
VILLAGE BAKER SHALL BE SAME COLOR AND SAME FONT ON BOTH SIGNS;2 ()SANDWICH
BOARD SHALL ONLY BE PRESENT WHEN BUSINESS IS OPEN AND SHOULD BE REMOVED
EACH DAY. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
d Business:
onique Pinkerton,117 East Elm -Change of Use
MR. LUKCO MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,AND
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Ms. Pinkerton

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 09/28/00

AGENDA
GRANVILLE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING
APPEALS
September 28,2000; 7:00 p.m.
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) ROLL CALL
3) SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
4) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 24, 2000
5) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
6) NEW BUSINESS
Administrative Actions
A)Dale and Barbara McCoy: 338 North Granger Street
SRD-B, AROD # 00-122
Variance Application-Side Setback and Lot Coverage
7) OLD BUSINESS
None
8) FINDING OF FACT Approval
9)MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
A)Next BZBA meeting -Thursday, October 26, 2000, 7:00 p.m.,in Village Council Chambers.
B) Following BZBA meeting -Thursday,November 23, 2000, 7: 00 p.iii.,in Village Council
Chambers.
10)ADJOURNMENT

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 09/28/00

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
September 28,2000
Minutes
DRAFT
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana Vice Chair)B,ob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey C( hair)
Members Absent: Eric Stewart
Also Present: Seth Dorman,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Dale and Barbara McCoy
Citizens'Comments: None
The Chairman swore in all those who wished to speak during the evening.)
New Business:
Dale and Barbara McCov,338 N.Granger Street - Side Setbackand Lot Coverage
Mr. McCoy described the location for the proposed 24x28' three-car garage including space
in back for his convertible to be stored sideways over the winter. He wants to attach the new garage
to the existing one,which will be used as a shop. All siding and trim,roof,and color will match the
house. This plan would require variances for side yard setback ( 2' instead of 12') and lot coverage
24.4%rather than 20%).
Mr. Sharkey asked for details about the distances and fencing, and Mr. McCoy described the
existing fencing. The shed is 2' from the fence,which is 6"inside property line. The Robertsons next
door have approved plans for structure and changes in fencing.
Ms. Caravana has more of a problem with the lot coverage than with the 2' setback,and
members discussed how the structure could be situated so as to not need a variance. It is not typical
for three-car garages on the narrow lots in this neighborhood,and BZBA has to be careful about
setting a precedent. Mr. Herman also thought the garage plus shed was inappropriate for the area.
Mr. McCoy said the GPC wanted him to combine the old building and the new rather than have two
separate buildings in order to save space. Originally he was uncertain whether he would need the
shed,but GPC wanted to know specifically whether it would be torn down so he decided to combine
them. Ms. Caravana asked about a two-story building,but he rejected his original idea of a two-story
building because ofthe size.
Mr. Sharkey is concerned about exceeding lot coverage and setting precedents and asked if
there was anything,the applicant could do without,in order to stay within the code,such as tearing
down the shed. Mr. McCoy said that originally he planned to tear down the shed.
Mr. McCoy asked to table application so he could look at it further.
MS CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 00-122. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of August 24,2000: Page 1, 17th line up,change to "ba.s.e.d on concrete facts, not speculation. In the past some applicants have not wanted to calculate lot coverages."Page 2, 19th
line down, change to "O.th.e.r lot coverages are not known at this time. The applicant did not meet
BZBA,September 28,2000, 1
criteria. Other circumstances....."
MS CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. HERMAN
SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Other Business: There was discussion about the replacement tree planted by the Presbyterian
Church to fulfill the condition of approval,and members wondered whether the little tree would fulfill
the request. They decided to go over and look at the tree.
Members asked Mr. Dorman to find the Resolution the BZBA passed to see exactly what it
says. They also want to examine the Minutes and Finding ofFact.
Finding of Fact:None,application was tabled.
Next Meeting:October 26,7 p.m. and November 16 ( date changed because of the holiday).
Adjournment: 8:15 p.m.
BZBA,September 28, 2000,2
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen

Friday
Jun032016

BZBA 11/16/00

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
November 16,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Greg Sharkey C( hair)L,on Herman,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Bob Essman,Ashlin Caravana Vice Chair}
Also Present: Seth Dorman,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Ken and Katie Richards
Citizens'Comments: None
Swearing in: The Chair swore in all those who wished to speak during,the evening.
New Business:
DRAFT
Ken and Katie Richards, 1034 West Broadway,Rear Yard Setback
Mr. Sharkey introduced the application by stating that Ken and Katie Richards are
requesting a rear yard setback variance. He then asked the Richards to tell the group a little bit
about their project,specifically why you would like to place the garage at the proposed location.
Mr.Richards explained that the old shed as shown in the photos Mr. Dorman supplied the
BZBA does not go with the home or the recent addition. The original plan was to build a garage with an eastw-est orientation,just over 100 feet offBroadway,but that required removing a black walnut tree and another large old tree. This plan would not need a variance,but the
applicants' neighbor ( Mr. SawyeO to the north is attached to our home because his grandparents built it and he did not want to see the trees come down. To compromise,we chose to decrease the size of the garage from a 3-car to a 2-car,switch the orientation from east- west to north- south,and place it back further,thus requiring the rear yard setback variance. Mr. Sawyer's home angles to the west,so he will not be looking down on it,and with the excavating the garage will be built more into the hill and that will help it to look smaller for the neighbor and from Beechwood Drive. Ms. Richards said Mr. Sawyer planted some additional evergreens today to help with screening.
Mr. Sharkey asked the Richards to discuss why they want to make the garage the size they propose. Mr. Richards said he does a lot ofhis own work on the home and he does not have
a workshop. So the proposed size is to allow for two cars,a workshop area and room for the kids to play in the garage ifthey want.
Mr. Herman asked ifthis has been through Planning Commission. Mr. Dorman explained that it will not need to go through Planning Commission,because the way the code reads,is that only land within 100 feet ofthe righto- fw-ay line ofthe roads covered by the TCOD are subject to the additional requirements. Mr. Dorman said he confirmed this interpretation of the code with the Law Director.
Mr. Sharkey asked what type ofmaterials would be used. Mr.Richards said the garage would be sided to match the house,and would have two white vinyl insulated doors,one side entrance door and a side window. Ms. Richards said that we want this to look nice for ourselves, and we will add some landscaping around it. In addition,Mr. Richards said eventually we are cgoonindguctoivebuild a home on the west lot,so we do not want to build something that will not be to the home that is there.
1A fS** BZBA.November 16,2000, 2
Mr. Sharkey asked how tall the trees are. Mr. Richards said the black walnut is probably 80' tall and the other in front ofthat is 50' tall.
V Mr. Sharkey asked the Richards to discuss how they arrived at 10' from the property line, Bfaunrrodthawedrhwebatahycekarswitpeowstahssoibupleog.shstOibthbleevitoloeussssllyindoitittiicsfoenarwobtalear,dsacnsldoomsee.toMosu.rRhiocmhaerdasndsaisidlewssecwoannvteednieitnats,bfuatrtohfef be as it is being built into the hill some it will not as visible for Mr. Sawyer. Coming closer to the home with the garage would require removing at least the black walnut so the driveway would work,and you would lose some yard
space for landscaping. Mr. Richards reiterated that the proposed position ofthe garage opens up the yard and saves the trees, all ofwhich would help with the resale value.
MR. STEWART MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE BE APPROVED AS PROPOSED. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the application:
A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or
structures( )involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Special circumstances include the unusually sized lot,which includes some unusual terrain, and in addition to that some trees worthy of saving that could not be saved ifthe
structure was in conformance with the existing code.
B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive
the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district
under the provisions of this Ordinance. No, the lot coverage and other aspects are in
conformance with other similar structures in the district.
C.That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. No, the applicant built neither the trees nor the terrain.
D.Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied
by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. No.
E.That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the
proposed variance. No,the garage will be situated in such a way as it is well shielded from the
neighbor, and should be pleasant in appearance from both Broadway and Beechwood.
Finding of Fact:MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT AS THE
FORMAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of September 28: MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
OCTOBER 26, 2000 MEETING AS MODIFIED. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
BZBA. November 16,2000, 3
Next Meeting: Thursday,December 21, 2000
Thursday,January 25, 2001
Adjournment: 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Seth Dorman