Eau Claire County Board of Land Use Appeals 721 Oxford Avenue, Room 1277 Eau Claire, Wisconsin Wednesday, September 24, :30 PM AGENDA

Transcription

1 Eau Claire County Board of Land Use Appeals 721 Oxford Avenue, Room 1277 Eau Claire, Wisconsin Wednesday, September 24, :30 PM AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. A variance request to exceed the height limitation zoning ordinance map for the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport to construct a water tower at an elevation 1,100 feet above mean sea level in the Village of Lake Hallie. VAR / Discussion Action p A variance request to disturb 30% and greater slopes in order to install a driveway in the A-2 Agriculture-Residential District. VAR / Discussion Action p Review / Approval of Minutes from June 9, 2014 / Discussion Action p Adjournment Post: 9/19/ Media, Committee members, Rod Eslinger Please note: upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through sign language, interpreters or other auxiliary aids. For additional information or to request the service, contact the County ADA Coordinator at 715/ (FAX) 715/ or (TDD) 715/ or by writing to the ADA coordinator, Human Resources Department, Eau Claire County Courthouse, 721 Oxford Ave., Eau Claire Wisconsin

2 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY BOARD OF LAND USE APPEALS STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION - VAR DATE PREPARED: September 17, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 24, 2014 PROPERTY OWNER: Village of Lake Hallie, th Ave, Chippewa Falls, WI AGENT: Randy Sanford, 421 Frenette Drive, Chippewa Falls, WI PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: SW ¼ of the SW ¼, Section 19, T28N-R8W, Village of Lake Hallie, Chippewa County, Wisconsin PARCEL SIZE: ZONING DISTRICT: 9.7 acres Zone 3, Airport Zoning, underlying zoning Village of Lake Hallie EXHIBITS 1. Staff report 2. Application materials (includes narrative, site maps, list of figures and FAA reviews) REQUEST AND BACKGROUND: The Village of Lake Hallie is requesting a 68-foot variance to exceed the Eau Claire County Height Limitation Zoning Ordinance (HLZO) to construct a new 500,000 gallon water tower at th Ave. The site is located in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of section 19, T28N-R8W, Village of Lake Hallie, Chippewa County. The height limitation for this property is 1,032 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The ground elevation at the proposed construction site is 904 feet AMSL. The finished height of the water tower will be 1,100 feet AMSL. The property is located in Zone 3 of the Height Limitation District. In 2013 the Village hired SEH to complete a water system evaluation. The evaluation found that the Village s water supply system had insufficient water storage volumes to meet the system storage needs. In the written narrative, the applicant stated that this request is in the interest of public safety for fire protection. The narrative also states that the proposed location is the best location for providing 3,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours throughout its water supply system. The rate was requested by the Village officials. The Chippewa Valley has a vested interest in protecting the airspace and land uses around the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (CHVA). The airport is the air transportation hub of west central Wisconsin. $465 million dollars have been invested in the airport since the 1940 s. The airport serves the regional community for the purposes of attracting businesses and industry to the region, the airport contributes more than $28.3 million dollars annually to the economy of Eau Claire, Chippewa and Dunn Counties and the surrounding region, it is the largest airport in Northern Wisconsin, the airport can support large aircraft both commercial and military, many large retailers rely on its existence and supports a job base of 130 positions. Agency review Airport Commission The commission will consider this application at their meeting on September 19, 2014 and their position will be available at the public hearing. Airport Manager Charity Speich, Airport Manager, stated that as a rule, the Airport is not in favor of any variances to the County zoning regulation. Variances can set unsafe precedence and weaken the enforcement ability of the zoning ordinance. In addition, non-protection of areas surrounding the airport property could jeopardize the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport s ability to secure future federal grants under the Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program. 2 EXHIBIT 1

3 Federal Aviation Administration - The FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation on July 16, 2014 (part of Exhibit 2). Wisconsin Division of Transportation, Bureau of Aeronautics Justin Hetland, Airspace Safety Program Manager, WDOT, stated in a letter dated September 18, 2014, since the FAA s airspace study found there to be no hazard to air navigation, we (DOT) will have no objection to the proposed structure so long as there are no objections from the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. (letter attached) AUTHORITY Chapter of the zoning code establishes the Board of Land Use Appeals and its authority. Variances granted by the Board of Land Use Appeals are required to meet the standards as defined by the code. The Board must find that due to literal enforcement of the code an unnecessary hardship would result. Unnecessary hardship is defined as an unusual or extreme decrease in the adaptability of the property for the uses permitted by the zoning district, caused by such facts as rough terrain or soil conditions uniquely applicable to the property and not generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The statutory authority for the Board of Land Use Appeals is found in Wis. Stats (7) (c). ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND VARIANCE ANALYSIS: Title 18 Zoning Section Purpose. This section describes the purpose of the zoning code. Generally, the purpose of the zoning ordinance is as follows: to separate incompatible land uses from one another; to maintain public health and safety; to protect and conserve natural resources; to prevent overcrowding; to preserve property values; and to maintain the general welfare of the citizens. Chapter Airport Zoning Section Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate the use of property and to regulate and restrict the height of structures and objects of natural growth in the vicinity of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, to promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, to increase safety in the use of the airport, to implement the recommendations of the airport master plan and to protect persons and property within the airport affected area and zoning districts. NOTE: The CVRA Master Plan was last updated in The master plan is a comprehensive study providing an updated analysis of the airport needs, defining its role within the regional airport system, and evaluating alternatives with the of purpose updating the direction for the future development of the facility. The Eau Claire County Airport Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 2002 to reflect modifications made to the master plan. The Eau Claire County Board of Supervisor s amended the Official CVRA Height Limitation Zoning Ordinance map on July 17, Section Statutory Authorization. This chapter, designed to protect the approaches, airspace, physical and hazard areas of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, is adopted pursuant to Wis. Stats , 59.04, 59.69, , and Section Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this chapter shall extend over all lands and waters within 3 statute miles of the boundaries of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. Section General Provisions. A. Use Restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no use may be made of land or water within any districts established by these zoning regulations in such a manner as to create electrical or electronic interference with navigational signals or radio or radar communication between the airport and aircraft; no use or installation of flashing or illuminated advertising or business signs, billboards or other types of illuminated structures which would be hazardous for pilots because of the difficulty in distinguishing - 2-3

4 between airport lights and others, or which result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, thereby impairing visibility in the vicinity of the airport or endangering the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft; or use which would emit or discharge smoke that would interfere with the health and safety of pilots and the public in the use of the airport, or which would otherwise be detrimental or injurious to the health, safety and general welfare of the public in the use of the airport. G. No land, building or structure shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building, structure or part thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered, except in conformity with all the regulations herein from the zone in which it is located. Section Administration. A. Regardless of the governmental jurisdiction in which this chapter is in effect, administration of the chapter shall be the responsibility of Eau Claire County, unless otherwise specified. Section D. Zone 3 - Height Limitation District. The purpose of this district is to protect the approaches to the airport from incompatible land uses by establishing height limitations within three miles of the airport boundaries as shown on the map dated July 17, 2007, entitled Eau Claire County Airport Height Limitation Zone Map on file in the office of the department. 1. Permitted Uses. All uses allowed by the underlying zoning of the affected municipality. 2. Prohibited Uses. No use may be established in this zone which would create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between the airport and aircraft; create confusion in identifying airport lights; results in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport; impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport or otherwise endanger or interfere with the landing, or take off or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport. VARIANCE STANDARDS Section C. 6. Standards for Granting Variances. a. The burden is upon the appellant to prove the need for a variance. The petitioner must prove that the strict letter of the restrictions governing structure exceeding the height permitted by the HLZO map would unreasonably prevent them from using the property or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. b. Pecuniary hardship, loss of profit, self-imposed hardships, such as that caused by ignorance, deed restrictions, proceeding without a permit, or illegal sales are not sufficient reasons for getting a variance. The request can be considered self-created, however, other a similar request was approved for the City of Eau Claire to construct a water tower that encroached into HLZO for purposes of providing an adequate water supply on the City of Eau Claire s west side. This request does serve a community need for water supply and fire protection. However, the applicant did not look at sites that were not owned by the Village nor part of a tax incremental district outside the airport overlay district. By not limiting the search area, the applicant has not proven that other sites within the Village limits would not be acceptable. c. The plight of the applicant must be unique, such as a shallow or steep parcel of land or situation caused by other than his or her own action. The application lacks detail how this site is unique. However, water towers are unique as they serve water supply needs within a municipal boundary and are typically required to be constructed taller to provide adequate hydraulic pressure to the entire system. The search parameters limited finding other potential sites that would work that lie outside of the Airport Overlay District

5 d. The hardship justifying a variance must apply to the appellant's parcel or structure and not generally to other properties in the same district. This request is specifically to the municipalities that supply public water to its users. According to the application, the Village of Lake Hallie s current water system does not meet the system supply needs. e. Variances allowing uses not expressly listed, as permitted or conditional uses in a given zoning district shall not be granted. The applicant will need to comply with the Village zoning ordinance and obtain the necessary permits. f. The variance must not be detrimental to adjacent properties. It does not appear that granting the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent properties. However, granting the variance maybe detrimental to the current and future airport users. g. The variance must by standard be the minimum necessary to grant relief. The applicant has requested the minimum necessary to construct a new water tower and to allow cranes to service the towers in the future. h. The variance will not be in conflict with the spirit of this subtitle or other applicable ordinances, nor contrary to state law or administrative order. Arguments have been raised on both sides on this issue regarding whether the use would and would not be in conflict with the spirit of the subtitle. The airport manager s position to oppose the variance supports the protection of the airspace around the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. The manager is to protect the airspace as it is a public asset to the Chippewa Valley. The purpose of the Airport Zoning is to regulate the height of structures around the CVRA, to promote the public heath, safety, convenience and general welfare, to increase safety in the use of the airport, to implement the recommendations of the airport master plan and to protect persons and property within the airport affected area and zoning districts. The FAA has filed a no objection to the request. The Village states that water supply at a certain is necessary to meet the water demand today and into the future and is a fire protection issue. i. The variance shall not permit any change in established flood elevations or profiles. Underlying zoning authority regulates. j. Variances shall not be granted for actions, which require an amendment to Chapter 18.20, the Floodplain Overlay District. Underlying zoning authority regulates. k. Variances can only be granted for lots that are less than one-half acre and are contiguous to existing structures constructed below the RFE. Underlying zoning authority regulates. l. Variances shall only be granted upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, shall be the minimum relief necessary, shall not cause increased risks to public safety or nuisances costs for rescue and relief efforts and shall not be contrary to the purpose of the ordinance

6 The applicant has indicated that there is a need for the variance to construct the water tower at 1,100 AMSL to meet the Village s water supply needs for fire protection and future growth demands. The applicant has requested the minimum relief necessary according the recommendation of SEH to provide the water pressure within its system. Public safety efforts, mainly fire rescue would improve with increased water pressure at a longer duration. In accord with the FAA, the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. RELEVANT CASE LAW In 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided two cases of relevance regarding area variances. In the first case, STATE EX REL. ZIERVOGEL V. WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CASE NO (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the definition of the statutory term unnecessary hardship set forth in the Snyder case as follows: We have stated that unnecessary hardship is present when compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, set backs, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. In the second case, STATE OF WISCONSIN VS. WAUSHARA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CASE NO (2004), the Supreme Court stated that the Board of Adjustment should focus on the purpose of the zoning law at issue in determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists for the property owner seeking the variance. In 2005 the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided, LAMAR CENTRAL OUTDOOR, INC. VS. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF CITY OF MILWAUKEE, 2005 WI 117 (Wis. Sup. Ct. July 12, 2005), the Supreme Court held that a board of appeals may not simply grant or deny an application with conclusory statements that the application does or does not satisfy the statutory criteria, but shall express, on the record, it s reasoning why an application does or does not meet the statutory criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In evaluating this variance application, the Board must consider the twelve ordinance standards for granting a variance and relevant Wisconsin case law. An approval or denial requires that the board state its reasoning why an application did or did not meet the statutory criteria. There are arguments in support and in opposition to the requested variance. When there are completing public interests such as there are with this request. The board has to carefully weigh each argument and fact against the appropriate variance standards, the purpose statement of the respective ordinance and relevant case law before making a decision to grant or deny the request. Variance Analysis An unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessary burdensome. To determine if an unnecessary hardship is present, an evaluation of the purpose statement for airport overlay district is required. The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate land use and restrict tall structures within three miles of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport to promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, to increase safety in the use of the airport, to implement the recommendations of the airport master plan and to protect persons and property within the airport affected area and zoning districts. When reviewing this request against the purpose statement of the Airport Overlay District the Board needs to consider whether compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing the height limitations would render conforming to such restriction unnecessary burdensome. Has the Village of Lake Hallie met the burden to prove the need for the variance to allow the construction of a water tower at the requested location at an elevation of 1,100 AMSL? Denial of the variance would mean that the Village of Lake Hallie did not meet this burden. There is a public expectation for the Village of Lake Hallie to provide water to users and to ensure there is adequate water available for fire protection purposes

7 The Chippewa Valley Regional Airport Manager stated she is opposed to the variance. The Airport Manager is responsible to protect the airspace around the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport. The airport is the air transportation hub of west central Wisconsin. $465 million dollars have been invested in the airport since the 1940 s. The airport serves the regional community for the purposes of attracting businesses and industry to the region, the airport contributes more than $28.3 million dollars annually to the economy of Eau Claire, Chippewa and Dunn Counties and the surrounding region, it is the largest airport in Northern Wisconsin, the airport can support large aircraft both commercial and military, many large retailers rely on its existence and supports a job base of 130 positions. Another consideration for granting a variance is to determine if unique physical property limitations exists. The uniqueness with this request lies with the fact that this facility will serve public fire safety need and addresses future water demands as the community grows. Public water supply system are unique to the municipalities. The application never addressed how this property was unique or different than other properties subject to the airport height limitation regulations. The narrative did state that the search criteria was limited to Village owned property in tax incremental districts. No further explanation was provided in the application materials on whether or not other potential sites existed that lie outside of the Airport Overlay District. Granting this variance will not result in harm to public interests. Granting approval of the variance will not impact or harm public interests. Actually, it could be argued that granting of the variance could be in the interest of public safety as it will provide a better water system for the Village of Lake Hallie. Other arguments in support are that the FAA does not object to the request, this variance should not be detrimental to adjacent properties, the site is owned by the Village of Lake Hallie, and the request is the minimum relief necessary. Lastly, the applicant has shown good and sufficient cause for the need of the variance. However, again denial of the variance would protect the interests of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport in its future improvement projects at the airport. Staff recommends that the Board create findings to support its decision to grant or deny the variance request per LAMAR CENTRAL OUTDOOR, INC. VS. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF CITY OF MILWAUKEE, 2005 WI 117 (Wis. Sup. Ct. July 12, 2005). After the completion of the public hearing staff will summarize the board s options to grant, deny or table the request

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 41

42 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY BOARD OF LAND USE APPEALS STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION - VAR DATE PREPARED: September 18, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 24, 2014 PROPERTY OWNER: Jason & Ashley Pribyl, th St., New Auburn, WI PETITIONER: Same as owner. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 OF CSM V.6 PG.218 (#1203) LYG IN THE SE-NW CONT AC WITH RD R/W OF 9.78 AC WITHOUT RD R/W, Section 29, T26N-R9W- Town of Pleasant Valley PARCEL SIZE: ac ZONING DISTRICT: A-2 EXHIBITS 1. Staff report 2. Variance Application REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The request is to build a new house and driveway on slopes in excess of 30%. Chapter Storm Water Management and Erosion Control prohibits land development or land disturbing activities on 30% slopes and greater. ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The adjacent parcels are predominantly forested land use with some residential development and designated as A-1, A-2, and A-3 zoning districts. AUTHORITY Chapter of the Storm Water Management and Erosion Control code establishes the Board of Land Use Appeals and its authority. Variances granted by the Board of Land Use Appeals are required to meet the standards as defined by the code. The Board must find that due to literal enforcement of the code an unnecessary hardship would result. Unnecessary hardship is defined as an unusual or extreme decrease in the adaptability of the property to the uses permitted by the zoning district, caused by such facts such as rough terrain or soil conditions uniquely applicable to the property and not generally other properties in the same zoning district. The statutory authority for the Board of Land Use Appeals is found in Wis. Stats (7) c. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND VARIANCE ANALYSIS: Section Purpose A. The general purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulatory requirements for land development and land disturbing activities aimed to minimize the threats to public health, safety, welfare, and the natural resources of

43 Eau Claire County from construction site erosion and post-construction storm water runoff. Specific purposes are to: 1. Further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. 2. Prevent and control the adverse effects of storm water; prevent and control soil erosion; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; establish erosion control and storm water standards for building sites, placement of structures and land uses; and preserve ground cover and scenic beauty. 3. Control exceedance of the safe capacity of existing drainage facilities and receiving water bodies; prevent undue channel erosion; control increases in the scouring and transportation of particulate matter; and prevent conditions that endanger property. a. Through a single storm water permit process; this ordinance is intended to meet the current construction site erosion control and post-construction storm water management regulatory requirements of Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 151 and NR 216 on the effective date of this ordinance. Nothing in this ordinance prevents the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources from adopting or enforcing more stringent storm water management requirements in future revisions of Wis. Admin. Code. b. Provisions have also been incorporated to coordinate the storm water permit requirements of this ordinance with other county and town zoning and land division regulations. (Ord , 2006) Section Definitions 54. Steep Slope means 20% or greater. For the purpose of application of these regulations, slope shall be measured over a horizontal distance of 50 feet parallel to the direction of the existing slope and within the proposed land disturbing activity. Slopes shall be measured as the change in elevation over the horizontal distance between consecutive contour lines and expressed as a percent. Modeling software, where used, shall be adjusted to account for large areas with steep slopes Applicability and Exemptions A. Construction Site Erosion Control. Unless otherwise exempted under C. below, an erosion control permit, the requirements of which are outlined in shall be required and all erosion control provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all proposed land disturbing activity that meets any of the following: Disturbance of a 20% or greater slope. For the purpose of applying these regulations, the definition of steep slope shall be used. The most restrictive slope for the site shall apply. E. Prohibited Activities. 1. Land development or land disturbance activities on 30% slopes and greater, unless: a. exempted in C.; or b. for activities that require public improvements; or c. to correct a pre-existing erosion problem

44 VARIANCE STANDARDS C.3 Variances 1. Upon appeal, the board of land use appeals may authorize variances from the provisions of this ordinance which are not contrary to the public interest. The interest to the public is to prevent and control soil erosion, prevent and control water pollution, and preserve ground cover and scenic beauty. 2. The purposes of this ordinance, and where owing to special conditions beyond the control of the applicant. This request could be considered a self-imposed hardship. However, the building site has been served by the access before zoning was adopted. 3. A literal enforcement of this ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. This request could be considered a self-imposed hardship. If the ordinance is enforced the property will be deemed unbuildable. Although unbuildable, the property is significant in terms of wildlife habitat, preserving rural character, and maintaining scenic beauty. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In evaluating the variance application, the Board must consider the county ordinance prohibited activities for granting a variance. An approval or denial requires that the board state its reasoning why an application did or did not meet the statutory criteria. Based on a review of the preliminary engineering designs submitted with the application and chapter Storm Water Management and Erosion Control, staff has concluded the application should not be approved for a variance due to the steepness of the terrain and the limitations of the property to properly stabilizing the site. FINDINGS: If the Board approves the variance request, the Board may incorporate any or all of the following findings in its decision: An unnecessary hardship is present because compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing steep slopes would render conforming to such restriction unnecessary burdensome. The Certified Survey Map was approved prior to the adoption of Chapter 17. The variance will maintain the spirit and intent of the Storm Water Management & Erosion Control code by upholding the code s purpose statements. The design will minimize all cut and fill areas and such areas will be sloped no steeper than 3:1, covered with a minimum 4 inches of topsoil, and properly stabilized via erosion control blankets. The erosion control plan will follow all applicable Natural Resources Conservation Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Best Management Practice design standards. If the Board denies the variance request, the Board will need to establish findings to support its decision

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

53 53

54 54

55 55

56 56

57 57

58 58

59 59

60 60

61 61

62 Eau Claire County Board of Land Use Appeals 721 Oxford Avenue, Room 1277 Eau Claire, Wisconsin Monday, June 9, :30 PM MINUTES Members Present: Randall Stutzman, Karen Meier-Tomesh, Pat Schaffer, Judy Bechard Members Absent: Gary Eslinger Staff Present: Rod Eslinger, Jeanna Allen 1. Call to order Chairman Stutzman called the meeting to order at 5:31, and verified that the meeting was properly noticed. Mr. Stutzman reviewed the process of the proceedings for the applicant and audience members. 2. A variance request for a 117 foot variance to create a lot that does not meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 150 feet in the A-1 Exclusive Agricultural District. VAR / Discussion Action Rod Eslinger, Land Use Supervisor for Eau Claire County, was sworn in by Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Eslinger reviewed the request for a 117 foot variance. He also noted that if the variance is approved, the property owner will be applying for a conditional use permit to create a farm consolidation greater than five acres. Members also viewed a video of the property. Mr. Stutzman opened the floor to public comment. Alice Schuster, applicant, was sworn in by Mr. Stutzman, and spoke in favor of the request. Discussed the upcoming farm consolidation No one else spoke for, or against, the variance request. The Board began deliberations at 5:44 PM. Deliberations ended at 5:47 PM. ACTION: Motion by Pat Schaffer, 2 nd by Judy Bechard, to approve the variance request. Mr. Schaffer offered that by granting the request there would be no impact on agricultural lands, the area where the variance is requested has existed as a driveway for 70 years, and conforming to the restriction would cause an unnecessary hardship. Motion carries, Review / Approval of Minutes from April 28, 2014 / Discussion Action ACTION: Motion by Karen Meier-Tomesh, 2 nd by Pat Schaffer, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carries,

63 Board of Land Use Appeals Page 2 of 2 Minutes June 9, Adjournment ACTION: Motion by Pat Schaffer, 2 nd by Karen Meier-Tomesh, to adjourn at 5:48 PM. Motion carries, 4 0. Respectfully submitted, Jeanna Allen Clerk, Board of Land Use Appeals 63