CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
July 25, 2000, 1:00 p.m.
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
Tulsa
Civic Center
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT OTHERS
PRESENT
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
White,
Chair Turnbo |
|
Stump |
Ackerman,
Zoning
Official |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Monday, July 24, 2000, at 8:30 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:11 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted to 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of June 27,
2000 (No. 798).
Action
Requested:
For the Board of
Adjustment to reconsider its decision in the referenced case that was
made in a public hearing on July 11, 2000.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated
that Tower Heights Neighborhood Association made a request for re-advertisement
of this case to be re-heard by the Board of Adjustment.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
Mr. Prather to explain the procedure for Reconsideration of a case. Mr. Prather explained that one of the
members that voted for the case in the previous Board action would need to make
a motion to reconsider. There would
need to be an extraordinary circumstance, such as the Board has exceeded their
jurisdiction, or there was some sort of mistake in the rule, or similar
problem. To be extraordinary, it
would need to change the whole tenor of the issue. Mr. White brought up the three issues
listed by the applicant. Mr.
Prather stated that he saw no legal reason to re-hear the case.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Perkins,
the Board voted 3-2-0 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no White, Cooper "nay";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
Case No. 18742 to re-advertise.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
Section 1217.C.2 to allow open-air storage or display of automobiles offered for
sale within 300 of an R zoned district to 0. SECTION 1217.C. USE UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use
Conditions Use Unit 17, located S of SW/c E. 11th St. & S.
145th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Robert
Flynn, P.O. 799, Tulsa, OK, stated he was an attorney representing Andy
Flynn. It was his opinion that the
Board of Adjustment (BOA) Action of 18 years ago, regarding when uncle started
his business, needed some housekeeping.
He stated that the BOA allowed him to operate a car lot, permitting the
sale of automobiles and or mobile homes in a CS district, with a screening fence
required on the south and west sides, and a hard surface parking lot to run with
this owner only. He added that they
did not specifically state that they would also allow him to display cars on the
hard surface parking lot, which seems to be contradictory.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Flynn about the outside storage of stacked tires and old batteries. Mr. Flynn responded that someone who leased the property had allowed this but it has been cleaned up since that time. He stated that the applicant only desires to display automobiles; motor homes rather than mobile homes, campers, and similar things on the hard surface lot. Mr. Dunham commented that this application is only for that portion of the lot that fronts on 145th and only on the paved area.
Protestants:
James Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., submitted an information packet to the Board
(Exhibit A-1). He
stated that Use Unit 17 has two conditions for fencing, and that within a CS
district not outside display within 300 of an R district. He stated that for several years the
applicant leased the property, and it was used for storage on bare ground, the
pole barn was used for a garage and repair. He added that neighbors were disturbed
at all hours of the night.
Neighborhood Inspections cited Mr. Flynn, and the towing service was then
cleared out and the property cleaned up.
Mr. Mautino informed the Board that in 1999 the property was leased to a
tire wholesaler that brought in two semi-truck loads of used tires and stacked
them on bare ground, and put up a screening fence. When a third truckload of tires was
brought in, Code Enforcement stopped the process. Recently a used car lot was
established and the pole barn has again been used for repairs. There are signs of detail work and
painting. The pole barn is 13 from
a residential property line, where young
children
play. Four high intensity lights
were installed on a high pole, and shine on the neighboring property. Mr. Mautino also stated concern
regarding some 55-gallon barrels and what they may contain that have been stored
on the subject property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked Mr. Prather if the Board were inclined to deny the application,
would the BOA actions in 1982 and 1989 be in effect. Mr. Prather responded that the previous
actions would be in effect.
Protestants:
Randy
McPhearson,
14326 E. 11th St., to the west of the subject property, stated
concern about more paving that could cause excess water run-off onto his
property. He had a complaint
that the lighting on the subject property was too bright and much of it is
directed toward his property.
Eck
Ruddick,
P.O. 6920177, stated he is in the Tower Heights Neighborhood Association. He shared his concern regarding
the wrecker service that was allowed to use the property, on an unpaved surface,
and use alarm lights and sounds, all hours of the day and night. He stated that the cars disappear on
Tuesdays and are returned on Fridays.
Mr. Ruddick mentioned the possible dangers of paint fumes to the children
that play in the yard next door.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked if anyone in the neighborhood contacted the EPA about the barrels. Mr. Ruddick replied that they only recently took the pictures of the property and had not contacted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as yet. He informed the Board that the neighborhood association has a meeting with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on July 26, 2000, and the subject will be addressed.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Flynn stated his belief that the need in this case is for the Board to do housekeeping to accomplish what the applicant attempted to do in 1982. He recognized that those who had leased the property in the past did not comply with the zoning code. The applicant was relieved to have the Neighborhood Inspections citation to facilitate breaking the lease so that he could clean up the property. Mr. Flynn stated that the presence of the barrels and their contents would be brought to the applicants attention. His request was that the applicant be permitted to display automobiles on the hard surface parking lot.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Flynn to reiterate the hardship for the Variance. Mr. Flynn stated that the hardship is the time and money the applicant spent to meet the requirements for a hard surface and screening if he cant display cars on the hard surface he was instructed to put in for parking cars. Mr. Cooper asked if Mr. Flynn would be willing to put in shields for the lights. He replied that this would be a good idea, and he thought the applicant would be willing to shield the lights. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Flynn to suggest established operating hours that would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Flynn indicated whatever is usual and customary, or what is reasonable to the Board.
Board discussion
ensued regarding the legal description, portion of property involved in the
action requested, lights, and hours of operation.
Board
Action:
Mr.
Dunham
made the MOTION
to CONTINUE
Case No. 18790 to August 8, 2000.
The motion failed for lack of a second. After further Board discussion Mr.
Dunham
WITHDREW
the motion to continue.
On MOTION
of Cooper,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
of Section 1217.C.2 to allow open-air storage or display of automobiles offered
for sale within 300 of an R zoned district to 0, finding the
hardship to be an administrative matter to clean up the prior Variance, and to
place restrictions that lights be shielded and pointed downward, auto
sales only, operable cars only, hours of operation be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, paved surface for autos on display, and all of Lot 1
and east 31.4 of south 150 Lot 2, a screening fence along the south and west
boundary properly installed, and finding that it will not cause substantial
detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the
Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described property:
S 150 of Lot 1 and all Lot 2
less and except the E 31.4 of the N 150 thereof, Block 1, Maudlin
Resubdivision Lot 1, 2 and 7, Block 2; Eleventh Street Acres, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18794
Action
Requested:
Variance of
required street frontage in a CS district of 150 down to 83 for lot split
purposes. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, 6501 E. 71st St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Larry Pennington, 9718 E. 55th Pl., stated his request,
describing the portion of the property involved in the case. He indicated the need to move the access
on Sheridan further north. The
hardship is that current driveway is so steep that trucks hang up on high
center.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a
Variance of required street frontage in a CS district of 150 down
to 83 for lot split purposes, per plan, with the condition that no access on
remaining 83 frontage on Sheridan, and the intention of the Board is that the
83 continue to be tied with the remainder of Lot 3, finding the hardship to be
the elevation changes to the corner, on the following described
property:
All of Lot 3, less the east
20 and less a parcel in the NW/c of Lot 3, more particularly described as
follows: Beg. at the NW/c of Lot 3; thence E 180 to a point; thence S 295.01
to a point; thence W 180 to a point on the W line of Lot 3; thence N along the
W line of Lot 3 a distance of 295.01 to a point beg. and less, Beg. at a point
20.00 due W of the SE/c of said Lot 3; thence due W along the S line of said
Lot 3, a distance of 125.00 to a point; thence due N a distance of 226.90 to a
point, said point being on the NEly property line of said Lot 3; thence S
61Ί3520 E a distance of 0.00; thence SEly along the NEly property line of
said Lot 3 on a curve to the left, said curve having a central angle of
11Ί0938 and a radius of 680.00, a distance of 132.46 to a point; thence S
1Ί0059 E on a line 20.00 W of the E line of said Lot 3, a distance of 175.62
to the POB, Block 1, Plaza Village, an Amended Plat of Skyview Center, an
Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, And less and
except: A parcel of land lying in Lot 3, Block 1, Plaza Village, an Amended Plat
of Skyview Center, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Commencing at the SW/c of said Lot 3, said point also being the SE/c of Lot 4;
thence N between Lots 3 and 4, 10.00 to the POB; thence E and parallel to the S
line of Lot 3, 132.60; thence N 10.00; thence W and parallel to the said S
line 132.60; thence S along the Lot line between Lots 3 and 4, 10.00 to the
POB. And less and except: A part of
Lot 3, Block 1, Plaza Village, an amended plat of Skyview Center, being more
particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the NW/c of Lot 4, Block 1;
thence N 00Ί0537 W, along the W line of Lot 3, a distance of 46.67; thence N
89Ί5423 E, a distance of 140.50; thence S 00Ί0537 E, a distance of 30.00;
thence N 89Ί5423 E, a distance of 61.00; thence S 00Ί0537 E, a distance of
197.00; thence N 90Ί0000 W, a distance of 1.50 to the E line of said Lot 4;
thence N 00Ί0537 W along the E line, a distance of 180.00 to the NE/c of said
Lot 4; thence N 90Ί0000 W, along the N line of said Lot 4, a distance of
200.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit tire sales and auto repair in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 17, located 12545 E. 21st St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
F.L. Swanson, 11421 S. Granite Pl., stated he sent a letter to the Board
and a survey, and asked if it was received. Mr. White responded that the letter was
not received but the survey was received.
Mr. Swanson stated that he desires to allow his tenant to continue a tire
sales business and auto repair. He
was willing to build the screening fence.
The property was previously used for a gas station and tire sales. He was unaware that the business was not
in compliance with the zoning.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White stated
that the Special Exception approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1983 allowed
the lot to be split into 60 and 90 sections and limited the west bank to
automobile sales only. He asked the
applicant if he wanted the Special Exception to cover the entire 150. Mr. Swanson replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Beach stated
that a citation was written for failure to build a required screening fence and
for tire sales that are not allowed on the property.
Protestants:
James
Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., stated he represented Tower Heights Neighborhood
Association. He protests this
application based on outside storage of old cars, junk, used tires, and
submitted pictures (Exhibit B-1).
Hilda
Brown,
706 S. 138th E. Ave. stated complaints as above.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
The speaker for applicant (name and address not stated to the Board) spoke in defense of the established business, stating that the lessee is an honest businessman. The applicant has stated he will build the screening fence in compliance.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY Case
No. 18803, finding that it would not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of
the Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to
the public welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to Section 701 to allow a single-family dwelling in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located1308 N. Nogales.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Jose Botello, P.O. Box 2872, Tulsa, Ok., stated the lot is vacant and he desires
to move a house onto the property.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
if the house was a mobile home. Mr.
Botello replied that it is an existing frame house.
Protestants:
Harold
Wise,
1011 W. Newton, owner of the Brown Sugar Club protests the application on the
basis that it would be right next door to a club. He was concerned about possible
complaints in the future against his club by the applicant.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Botello stated that he had relatives in the neighborhood, he liked the neighborhood and that is where is wanted to live.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye";
Perkins "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to Section 701 to allow a single-family
dwelling in a CS zoned district, and that the intent is for a single-family
dwelling and not a commercial business, finding that it will be in harmony with
the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 9; and a Special Exception of one-year time limit to permit
a mobile home permanently. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 496 W. 36th Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Timothy Scott Nall, 3755 S. Tacoma, stated he had fulfilled all of the
obligations, site plan was given to the Board and would like to move a mobile
home back on the property permanently.
He stated that there are other mobile homes in the area. He stated that the legal description was
incorrect, and should read the N 165 of Lot 11.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye";
Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a
Special Exception to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district, per
plan; and a Special Exception of one year time limit to permit a
mobile home permanently, finding that it will be in harmony with the spirit and
intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
N 165 of Lot 11, Block 2, Garden City Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18809
Action
Requested:
Variance of
required 5 side yard 2½ to permit the construction of a garage in an RS-2
district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 4930 E. 7th
St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Anthony Miller, 1722 S. Carson, Ste. 3101, stated he represented Jason
Ray, 4930 E. 7th St. The
applicant wants to replace the existing garage. The old structure is about 71 years old
and was built too narrow for the newer cars. The unique shape of the lot and
the easements do not allow enough room on the other side of the house for a
garage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach asked
if the finished structure with the brick would be only 2 ½ from the property
line. Mr. Miller replied that the
boundary survey shows it would be 2.9 from the property line. Mr. Stump asked about the 32 depth for
the garage that would cause an encroachment to the required setback. Mr. Ray, the owner, replied that he was
trying to stay with the style of the house, and wanted to include a work space
at the back of the garage for personal use and not commercial. Ms. Turnbo asked about the plans for a
single garage door at back of the structure. Mr. Miller wanted access to the back
yard by driving through the garage.
Protestants:
James
Williamson, 1515 E. 71st, Ste 302, came representing Billie
Townsend, 4931 E. 7th St., neighbor on the west of Mr. Miller. Ms. Townsends objection to the
application is that her own property would be diminished by the variance. He stated that there is no hardship for
the variance; it is just the personal preference of the applicant.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Miller stated
that the length of the new structure would be a distance of .2 over the 5
requirement and would farther from the lot line than the old structure.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
about storage of 28 empty box trailer.
Mr. Miller replied that he uses it to travel to car shows, and he has
permission from the neighbors to park it there.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of
Cooper, the Board voted
5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance of required 5
side yard 2½ to permit the construction of a garage in an RS-2 district for
personal use only not commercial, per plan, on the following described property:
A part of Lot 10, Block 23,
White City Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, more
particularly described as follows to-wit.
Beg. at the SE/c of said Lot 10; thence in a NEly direction along the E
line of Lot 10, 264.5 to the NE/c of said Lot 10; thence along the N line of
said Lot 10 on a 662.39 radius curve, a distance of 132.7 to a point of
tangent; thence in a Sly direction a distance of 241.07 to a point on the S
line of said Lot 10, this point being 2.2 NWly from the SE/c of said lot;
thence in a SEly direction a distance of 2.2 to the POB
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18810
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow church use in an RS-3 district.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 5, located 3143 N. Xanthus
Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Tony Maxville, 1204 N. Santa Fe, stated that the church desires to build
a dining hall across the street from the church. The existing kitchen and dining hall is
too small for the number of people they serve.
Protestants:
Opal
(last name inaudible), 2015 E. 31st Pl. N.,
protested the application because it would be behind her home taking her privacy
and cutting her off from her neighbor.
She expected it would cause a traffic problem because of the narrow
street, and lower her property value.
She indicated that it would be inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked
the protestant to point out where her home is located on the site plan as
related to the subject property.
Mr. Stump stated she is located immediately south and her neighbor is
immediately north of the tract.
Mr. White advised the Board of a letter
of protest from Harvey Jones, at 3216 N. Xanthus Pl., which is north of
the subject property.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Maxville
stated he had just talked with Harvey Jones, and his concern was that the map
that was sent out to the neighbors showed an alley as if it were a street. He stated that just because they added
space to the sanctuary did not mean they do not need more space in the
kitchen/dining area. He stated they
need more room to accommodate larger numbers of people for funerals and other
gatherings. The traffic would not
change from what it has been at these times and the parking would continue to be
at the main church building.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
why they dont want to build on the other lots owned by the church. Mr. Maxville replied that they plan to
use the other lots for recreation area for the children. Mr. Beach asked if they plan to use the
dining hall for other group gatherings.
Mr. Maxville stated that it would be for the church functions only.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye";
Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow church use in an RS-3 district,
with the conditions to meet landscape requirements, dining hall to be used for
church purposes only and not leased for outside purposes, finding that it will
be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious
to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the
following described property:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Murray
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18812
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow a Bed and Breakfast (Use Unit 2) in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 2, located 1585 E. 19th St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Jocelyn Heard, 6535 S. Fulton, stated she desires to use the subject
property as her personal residence and a bed and breakfast. She submitted a binder containing
documentation on her plans, transactions and photographs for the bed and
breakfast. She addressed the
traffic/parking issues, including shuttle service and required parking
spaces.
Comments and
Questions:
In answer to
questions from the Board and staff, Ms. Heard responded there would be two
guestrooms; she plans to serve breakfast only to overnight
guests.
Protestants:
Aaron
Adams, 1575 E. 19th St., stated her concern regarding commercial
encroachment, and security issues when there are a people coming and going that
are not a part of the neighborhood, late night check-in times, and parking on
the street.
Interested
Parties:
Chip
Adkins,
1638 E. 17th Pl., President of the Swan Lake Home Owners Association,
stated he talked with other Board members regarding this application. They already deal with some commercial
encroachment concerns in the area, and have had traffic problems on
19th Street. They
appreciated Ms. Heards agreement to 10:00 p.m. as the latest check-in time, and
screening fence in back yard. The
association has no objection to the bed and breakfast.
Stacey
Bales, came before the Board in support of the bed and breakfast. She stated Ms. Heard has been more than
candid with the neighbors, and has taken exceptional steps to consult with the
neighborhood.
Trish
Sherry, came to represent her mother who owns property at 1568 Swan
Drive. She is in favor of bed and
breakfasts, and came today with interest and some concerns. She was satisfied and feels her concerns
were all addressed.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Ms. Heard stated
there are four other bed and breakfasts in Tulsa. She shared her plans to convert the
sunroom and garage into bedrooms for herself and her daughter. She is very concerned about safety,
especially for her own child. Ms.
Heard also described her plans to put in a hedge for screening
also.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
if the neighborhood had any other conditions they would request. Mr. Adkins stated the latest
check-in time of 10:00 p.m. is good.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a
Special Exception to allow a Bed and Breakfast (Use Unit 2) in an
RS-3 zoned district, subject to meeting all of the conditions of a Bed and
Breakfast, and a no later than 10:00 p.m. check-in time, finding that it will be
in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the
following described property:
Lot 9, Block 2, Swan Park,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18813
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow an 8 screening fence in the required front yard in an RS-3
district. SECTION 212.A. SCREENING
WALL OR FENCE, Specifications Use Unit 17; and a Special Exception to waive
the screening requirement along the south line of Lot 3. SECTION 212.A. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE,
Specifications, located 3244 N. Lewis.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Jerry Springer, 3244 N. Lewis, stated his request for an 8 screening
fence because of past burglaries.
Protestants: