View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

July 19, 2005

Minutes

 

The Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center.  Chairman Clark Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commission Members present were, Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, Jeff Syrios, and Charlotte Bass.  Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale.  Commission Member David Martine was absent.

Call to Order

 

 

 

Review the minutes of the June 21, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 5/0/2 with Ron Roberts and Quentin Coon abstaining.

Review the minutes of the June 21, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

 

 

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the June 14, 2005 and June 28, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the minutes of the July 5, 2005 and July 11, 2005 Site Plan Review Committee Meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

 

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report. Not available at this time due to updating the format of the report.

Communications:

 

 

VA-2005-01: Recommendation on the vacation of the south 3.5 feet of the north 10 foot side yard utility easement of Lot 20, Block D, Highlands 3rd Addition, also known as 811 S. Dublin Dr.  Chairman Nelson asked Les for an explanation of this application. Les Mangus said this petition for vacation of a portion of the north side yard utility easement is the result of an error both by staff and the applicant in the construction of an accessory structure at 811 S. Dublin Dr. The accessory structure meets the Zoning side yard setback, but encroaches on a utility easement that was not shown on the plan. The utility companies have been notified, and have no objection to the vacation as requested.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if there was anyone from the audience wishing to speak in favor or opposition of the application. No one spoke.

 

Les said this is an area with a 10’ easement on either side of the property line and the only utility in that easement is the sanitary sewer which is offset onto the adjacent property.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recommend approval by the City Council for the vacation of the utility easement at 811 S. Dublin Drive as requested. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.  

VA-2005-01: 811 S. Dublin Dr.

 

 

VA-2005-02: Recommendation on the vacation of the east 10 feet of the 15 foot rear yard utility easement of Lot 7, Block 4, Green Valley 10th Addition, also known as 125 N. Douglas Circle. Chairman Nelson asked Les for an explanation of this application. Les Mangus said this petition for vacation is the result of an error by the applicant in the location of water well in an unused utility easement on the west side of the property at 125 N. Douglas Ct. The utility companies have been notified, and have no objection to the vacation as requested.

 

Quentin Coon made a motion to recommend approval by the City Council for the vacation of the utility easement at 125 N. Douglas Circle as requested. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

VA-2005-02: 125 N. Douglas Circle.

 

 

Jeff Syrios made a motion to recess the Planning Commission at 7:08 p.m. and to convene the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ron Roberts seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.  

 

 

 

BZA-V-2005-06: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of Article 3. General Provisions, Section 104D2: Fencing: from the required open and open non-security fences permitted in the front yard limitation for the purpose of constructing a 6 foot stamped concrete screening fence, with 3-strand barbed wire on top, around utility pipeline maintenance facilities on property zoned as the I-1 Industrial District  (948 N. Andover Road). Chairman Nelson asked Les for an explanation of this application. Les Mangus stated this application for variance of the required open and open non-security fence limitation in the front yard is the result of the KCC requirement for the Southern Star Pipeline Company to provide a security fence around a new maintenance apparatus in the Andover Industrial park. The pipeline Company desires to provide not only the security required, but to screen the above ground piping from view with a masonry wall topped with 3-strand barbed wire. Staff supports the additional effort to provide screening.

 

Lynn Heath asked Les for the pros and cons of this application. Les said the pipeline company has agreed to screen their facilities because they are above ground piping. The masonry wall will make the pipelines virtually impossible to see from Andover Road. A negative view might be the solid obstruction all the way to the right-of-way line on that property. Les said he does not see this is a problem and visibility to the other streets will not be impaired. 

 

Jeff Syrios asked if there are any city regulations about the height of the fence or the type of barbed wire. Les Mangus said there are none.

 

Clark Nelson said notice of this application was published in the Andover Journal on June 23, 2005 and has been mailed to property owners of record on June 20, 2005.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if any of the members have had any ex-parte communications in this matter. Hearing none Terry Blanding, representative of Southern Star Gas Pipeline of 4000 S. Seneca in Wichita, Kansas said because of the emphasis on security, the company has decided to include angled barbed wire on top of all new fences.

 

Jeff Syrios asked for more information about the fencing design. Terry Blanding stated the metal posts for the barbed wire would extend from the top of the masonry wall. Jeff Syrios was concerned about the masonry wall blocking the view of the pipeline from law enforcement. Terry Blanding said there will be full view of the pipeline through a 16’ wrought iron gate along King Street.

 

Caroline Hale said the solid masonry wall might detour vandals from the facility.

 

Jan Cox asked if this facility will be staffed either at night or during the day. Terry Blanding said it will not be manned at all. Terry explained this facility is required by DOT regulations for review of pipelines in high consequence areas every 3 years. These lines are “pigged” with an internal instrument that checks the integrity of the lines between Andover and Webb Road location in Wichita. Terry said a project has started this past week which replaces the current 20” pipe from this location to the east just beyond the railroad track on the north side of 13th Street ¾ mile from Andover Road. This line was originally built in 1927 that is coupled and acetylene welded. The current 20” pipe is being replaced with 12” which is adequate for current flow. The pipeline plans to replace 2-3 miles of pipe per year between Andover and El Dorado. At that time a 12” pig launcher would be installed to run between El Dorado and Andover.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment in favor or opposition of this application. No one spoke.

 

Clark Nelson asked Les about the regulations for the fence. Les said the 6’ high fence is permitted but not permitted to be a solid fence, nor the 3-strand barbed wire on top.

 

Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing and reviewed the findings of fact.

BZA-V-2005-06: Public Hearing (948 N. Andover Road).

 

 

F.

 

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

 

There was general discussion whether this condition was created by the owners. Les Mangus said the pipeline was in place before the plat so the plat changed the conditions and made it unique in that the facilities would be in the front yard.

X

 

 

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

X

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

X

 

 

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; and

 

Lynn Heath stated this would help the community.

X

 

 

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

X

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-06 as requested for the 6’ high stamped concrete fence with a 3 strand barbed wire on top in the front yard. Jan Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

H.

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

 

 

 

1.

None required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BZA-V-2005-07: Public Hearing on an application for a variance of Article 5. Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 101: Required Parking Spaces, from the required 2 parking spaces per 3 students, plus one space for each employee limitation for the purpose of constructing 2 parking spaces per 3 students, plus 1 space for each employee, based on current policy limitation of 18 students per classroom on property zoned as the I-1 Industrial District (715 E. 13th Street). Clark Nelson said this item is related to the special use case heard by the Planning Commission at the June meeting. Chairman Nelson asked Les to explain this request.

 

Les stated this application for variance of the minimum parking required for the new addition of classrooms at 715 E. 13th St. The BCC Staff believes that the college history and policy of limiting classrooms to 18 students makes the requirements for basing parking requirements on full occupancy 30 students, as calculated from the building code occupancy rate, is an unnecessary hardship. Staff opinion is that basing parking on current occupancy is a reasonable request; but that any increases in classroom occupancy need to be monitored since no other parking is available in the area. A periodic review of the variance authorization could possibly be accomplished with a 2 or 3-year limitation on the resolution.

 

Clark Nelson asked if any of the members needed to disqualify themselves from this case. Hearing none, Clark Nelson said notice of this application was published in the Andover Journal on June 23, 2005 and has been mailed to property owners of record on June 20, 2005.

 

Chairman Nelson asked if anyone from the audience was present to speak on this application. Dr. Jackie Vieti, President of Butler Community College 901 S. Haverhill Road, El Dorado, Kansas said this request is based upon actual usage rather than maximum capacity as the regulations require. The average class size is 18 students which she is willing to provide the documentation to prove. She said the college is prepared for a periodic review of class size/ parking needs upon request by the Planning Commission.

 

Dr. Vieti asked Vince Haines of Prigmore Krievins Haines Limon Architects to provide more information to the Planning Commission.

 

Vince Haines Prigmore Krievins Haines Limon Architects, 101 S. Star, El Dorado, Kansas said the occupancy load of the school has to be calculated for fire emergency egress. He said the bookstore, snack shop, and independent study center comprise a portion of the parking needs but not class size. Vince then requested an amendment to the request of total number of parking spaces from 529 to 580. Full occupant load requires 831 parking spaces. He stated currently there are 476 spaces on the property that serve the existing building. 580 spaces is the goal which would include the additional area they plan to asphalt.  There was further discussion about the existing and requested parking spaces.

 

Clark Nelson asked Dr. Vieti for her opinion of the time for periodic review of this parking plan. Dr. Vieti said it is up to the Planning Commission direction.

 

Clark Nelson asked Dr. Vieti if it is the goal of Butler Community College to increase class size from 18 to 30. She said it is the policy of the school to keep the maximum class size to 18. She said the maximum number of students is allowed in the biology/chemistry lab which is spacious enough for 24 students and in the computer lab which will accommodate either 18 or 20 students per class.  

 

Dr. Vieti said the college is seeking the Planning Commission’s support contingent upon the ability to obtain the special use permit from the City Council.

 

Clark Nelson asked if the motion for approval was contingent upon the approval for special use and for a period of 2 years between reviews of parking space needs if that would satisfy the school. Dr. Vieti said that would work fine.

 

Quentin Coon asked Dr. Vieti if the parking needs were regularly assessed. She said they are.

 

Vince Haines said that contingent upon the special use permit the potential to expand this facility even larger. At that point the college would return to the Planning Commission and Site Plan Review Committee with a new parking layout.

 

Chairman Nelson closed the Public Hearing and reviewed the findings of fact.

 

Lynn Heath asked what regulation is being requested for change. Les Mangus said it is the Parking Regulations, Article 5 the parking regulations require that 2 spaces be constructed per 3 students. The 3 student number is based upon the maximum occupancy of the building. Les said the college is asking for the number of spaces to be based upon historical class size averages versus maximum building load.

 

Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus if he is recommending approval of this variance. Les said yes, and his only concern is that there is a periodic review of the maximum class size.

 

There was continued discussion about the availability of additional parking spaces for the future expansion. Les said that today the school is operating on the 351 spaces to the east of the building and the 38 spaces to the north of the building and he has never seen the parking lots anywhere near capacity.

BZA-V-2005-07: Public Hearing (715 E. 13th Street).

 

 

F.

 

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

 

1.

The variance requested arises from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in  the same zoning district, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

 

Clark Nelson said the college prides itself upon the low student to teacher ratio and because of that policy; it is burdensome to comply with the parking restrictions.

 

Jeff Syrios was concerned with who created the issue but believes the stated policy of lower student to teacher ratio falls under this category.

 

Lynn Heath does not see the reason for making the school build a parking lot to accommodate students that don’t exist.

 

The members unanimously agreed this finding of fact is true.

X

 

 

2.

The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents;

X

 

 

3.

The strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the application.

X

 

 

4.

The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare; and

X

 

 

5.

Granting the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

G.

 

In determining whether the evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Board shall consider the extent to which  the evidence demonstrates that:

 

 

 

1.

The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally enforced.

X

 

 

2.

The request for a variance is not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or applicant to make more money out of the property.

X

 

 

3.

The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, and

X

 

 

4.

The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1 of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Quentin Coon move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for Case No. BZA-V-2005-07 as modified. Jeff Syrios seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

H.

 

Restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals as per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:

 

 

 

1.

Any affirmative vote herein be subject to the ultimate approval of the special use permit that is currently pending before City Council.

 

 

 

2.

That this matter be restricted in time for a 2-year period of time to review the parking needs.

 

 

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals at 7:58 p.m. and to reconvene the Planning Commission. Quentin Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

 

 

 

Annual review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 Les Mangus stated this review is required by State Planning and Zoning Statutes in order to keep the plan valid. No review was conducted last year because the current plan was just adopted in June 2004. The only change in the development of the City that would warrant mention in the Comprehensive Plan is the change to the Cornerstone PUD (formerly Decker/Kiser) to include the construction of a hospital. He feels that this change will have broad reaching affects in the development of this area, and more particularly the Cornerstone commercial property. Staff expects the hospital to anchor ancillary medical uses like medical offices, suppliers, pharmacies, etc., and possibly even medical related educational facilities.

 

Clark Nelson suggested amending the Comprehensive Plan relative to the school in the Industrial Park.

 

Les Mangus asked the Planning Commission to recognize there are developments not mentioned in the current plan which will have effect on the area as a whole as to the type of development in the areas.

 

The letter dated July 12, 2005 from Mayor Ben Lawrence which states his objections to the special use application by the college was submitted to the Planning Commission for review.

 

Les said the Planning Commission needs to be aware of the spin-off effect as to the type of uses that surround the new hospital.

 

Clark Nelson asked for other issues that need to be addressed in the Comp Plan update. Lynn Heath suggested using the Comp Plan to encourage development in the existing commercial zoned areas.

 

Clark Nelson said the Planning Commission attempt to jump-start development in the Industrial Park by allowing the Butler Community College was well intentioned. He said Dr. Vieti persuasive (although without evidence) that in other communities throughout the United States the compatibility of a school for the benefit of the surrounding businesses not only is compatible but very profitable. He was under the impression that if that was to occur, it would be one of the first places in the country which has progressed to the extent that we allowed that to happen. Clark encouraged the college to come forward to establish the facts of that national trend in hope this would persuade the City Council to take another look at the subject matter.

 

Caroline Hale stated the Mayor and Butler Community College are in communication and she said it appears things are being worked out for the special use case.

 

Quentin Coon said the Industrial Park was never intended to be “heavy” industry use. Les said the zoning regulations do not permit smokestack type industries.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if it would be appropriate to table this part of the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan until the Mayor and Council work out their differences with Butler Community College so that it can be addressed with the full knowledge of what the future of the Industrial Park is to be.

 

Quentin Coon said the Planning Commission needs to make the plan up front of we want it to look like.

 

Clark Nelson said it is the job of the Planning Commission to recommend what we think should happen. He said the City Council can ignore the recommendations for various reasons.

 

Les said Dr. Vieti could be asked to substantiate her claims that allowing colleges in Industrial zoned areas is an acceptable situation.

 

Lynn Heath said there is a community college on the south end of Boeing just for employees. He said this arrangement could entice other industries to locate in Andover.

 

Quentin Coon said if this industry/college cooperation continues, he would like there to be an attractive campus to enhance the community.

 

Caroline Hale said the Mayor is concerned about the tract of land that the College had already committed heavily to develop which they have now virtually abandoned which creates no revenue for the City.  

Deborah Carroll asked why the college could not buy/lease existing vacant retail spaces or commercial property instead of locating in the Industrial Park. Jeff Bridges said the issue comes down to financing. For them to build a building they would have to get a bond vote passed across the county, to build a facility in Andover. So they make use of existing buildings through lease purchase agreements which operate through their general budget that do not require the approval of the voters of Butler County.

 

There was discussion about Section 11 in the Comp Plan that talks about colleges.

 

Les said at the time when the Comp Plan was being amended, the College’s only presence was in that annex to the high school. They had moved out of the building on 21st Street and they had not yet occupied the 5000 building. Les said that by this discussion, the Planning Commission recognizes the need to have information in the future updates.

 

Clark Nelson said there are 17 factors and findings to be addressed with each zoning change, one of which is compatibility with the Comprehensive Development Plan. He said all 17 did not have to be answered affirmatively to approve the zone change.

 

Caroline Hale said she received a complaint from a constituent about a prospective property owner in the Industrial Park who was being expected to maintain the same landscape and building elevation as other commercial properties along Andover Road. She thought as long as that business had been approved by the PAI board, the Site Plan Review Committee should not expect anything more intense from the owners. She said this misunderstanding kept this industry from locating in Andover.

 

Jeff Bridges explained that the Site Plan Review Committee has always deferred to the Promote Andover Inc. group because they have their own set of covenants for the industrial park. As long as they follow the PAI covenants and submit a reasonable landscaping plan, they will be approved. Jeff said the applicant in question was planning to buy 1 lot, build the business and sell off the frontage and PAI was not going to let them do this. This applicant had not been approved by PAI when they appeared before the Site Plan Review Committee.

 

Quentin Coon suggested renaming the Industrial Park. Jan Cox suggested Office Park or Business Park. Jeff Bridges said there has been discussion by PAI about renaming the area to “Business Park”, but the main goal was to have industrial property available. If they go to more commercial or business park, they would be directly competing with other private property owners in a public/private partnership which they do not consider fair to the private property owners who weren’t receiving government support.

 

Clark Nelson said that after conversations with Les, he now understands that industrial parks take longer to develop.

 

There was further discussion about the vision for the Andover Industrial Park.   

Annual review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.

 

 

 

Review & approve the City of Andover Capital Improvement Plan. Jeff Bridges said this review & approval is required by State Planning and Zoning Statutes. All major public improvements proposed are required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for compliance with or addition to the Comprehensive Plan before proceeding to construction. He said most of the items that would concern the Planning Commission and impact the Comprehensive Development Plan occur after page 22. They include:

1.      Street Rehab projects.

2.      Expansions of 13th Street and Andover Road to Harry

3.      New Library.

4.      Possible future swimming pool.

5.      Hike/Bike path on Andover Road

6.      Future new city hall

Page 24 shows the new subdivisions that have zoning approval which will be phasing over the next 5 years.   

 

There was general discussion about the 13th Street project. Jeff Bridges said we are responsible from the county line to the city limits which we anticipate would be inside the city prior to the construction of the street project. The bridge will bid January 11, 2006. There is a commitment from KDOT for full funding. From there the paving project will be completed to 159th.

 

Les Mangus said Sedgwick County has a project that has been approved and scheduled for construction in 2006 to not only pave the portion from 143rd to 159th but to go back and reconstruct all the way from Hwy. 96 to 4 lane all the way to the county line. Jeff Bridges said the Wichita Area Planning Organization has provided funding for a majority of these larger projects equaling almost 6 million dollars to the City of Andover in the last 18 months.

Clark Nelson praised Jeff and Les for their consistent efforts with WAMPO to bring substantial funding for these projects for Andover.

Quentin Coon asked for an explanation of “manhole rehab”. Les Mangus said that over the course of time the hydrogen sulfide gas that is generated by wastewater deteriorates the inside of the manholes and can corrode concrete. On the older areas of town where more corrosion is seen, a structural liner is installed in the existing manhole that is an epoxy product that stops the deterioration. This also keeps the rainwater from percolating through cracks or breaks in the manholes and to be treated as if it were wastewater.

 

Jan Cox asked about 159th Street on page 23 for the year 2010. Jeff Bridges said that will run from 21st Street to ½ mile south of Kellogg and the bridges are not included at this time and will be 3 lanes. Jeff said this is a joint project with the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County and the City of Andover to rehab 159th Street. The Federal Government will pay for 80% of the project and the remaining 20% will be split between the other 3 entities.

 

Jan Cox asked how wide a 3 lane street is. Les said it will be 41 feet back to back. 3- 12 foot lanes and 5 foot curbs.

 

Jeff Syrios asked if the 21st Street west is from Andover Road to 159th Street and if that is in response to the new hospital.  Les said that was part of the plan before the hospital, the hospital and the surrounding development may cause it to be moved up in the plan. Jeff explained the line item he was looking at is for resurfacing only. Jeff said the hospital has petitioned the City for an acceleration/deceleration lane on 21st Street. He said until we get traffic generators besides the hospital, the city will wait and see on how the traffic flows with the small improvements for the acceleration/deceleration lanes.

 

Lynn Heath made a motion stating the Capital Improvement Plan has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Review & approve the City of Andover Capital Improvement Plan.

 

 

Member Items:

Lynn Heath- none

Ron Roberts- none

Jan Cox- Asked why the fee was waived for the one vacation case heard tonight and not the other. Jeff said the filing fee was waived for the case that was a joint error between the applicant and the city. The other case was totally applicant error.

Quentin Coon- none

Jeff Syrios- none

Charlotte Bass- none

Caroline Hale- none

Clark Nelson- Said he appreciated everyone’s attendance including that of Caroline Hale.

Member Items

 

 

Lynn Heath made a motion to recess the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on August 16, 2005.  Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 7/0.

Adjournment

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by

 

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative Secretary

 

Approved this 16th day of August 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Andover.