Chikaming Township

CHIKAMING TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes from the February 21, 2006 Meeting

Vice Chairman Michael Hojnacki called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with
members Jeanne Dudeck, Mike Livengood and Carl Anderson present. Werner
Petterson was absent.

Also present were Zoning Administrator Betsy Bohac, her assistant Kim
Livengood and Recording Secretary Marisue Hojnacki.

Minutes from the January 17, 2006 were approved in a motion by Anderson,
seconded by Livengood. Motion carried.

Case 850 – Property Code No. 11-07-0900-0048-00-8, 13266 Prairie Road,
Harbert, MI 49115. (4:00 p.m.) Keith Ockerman, Architect for Katie Vande Brake,
was in attendance to present the request for a variance from Section, 14.02 of
Chikaming Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87, as amended, which requires a
30 foot rear yard setback and a ten foot side yard setback in an R-1 Single
Family Residential District. If granted, the variance would allow demolition of the
existing garage and the south wall of the existing dwelling to be replaced with a
one and half story addition with an attached garage. The side yard setback to the
south will be 5’2”; the rear yard setback will be 18’3”. The property is served by
municipal water and sewer. Ockerman said that Vande Brake wants to make this
her retirement home so she needs more space and a larger two car garage.
Anderson asked the size of her cars and Ockerman responded that she has an
SUV and needed the additional space for visitors. There were no other
comments from the audience.

Two letters were received. Kathryn and John Viskant of 13248 Prairie Road,
neighbors to the north, were in favor of the variance as was Catherine Tingley of
7429 Columbine Drive.

Anderson said that he had no problem with the rear yard setback since it borders
on a deep ravine. However, he had a problem with the 5’2” side setback.
Livengood agreed. Dudeck said that she did not see the need for the variance for
the side yard. She felt that there was enough room for the architect to design it
so that it met the required setback. Ockerman responded that if he moved the
garage forward, it would block the street view. He added that when the neighbors
built their garage and got a variance Vande Brake supported it with the
agreement that they would support her and she would get a variance for her
garage. Dudeck stressed that she did not see any reason for a variance on the
side yard. It could be designed in such a way that it could meet the side yard
setback.

Dudeck moved to approve the rear yard variance of 18’3” with the Findings of
Fact that there are no safety concerns and it is a reasonable request. They
denied the side yard variance with the Findings of Fact that it is a safety concern
because it does not meet the required side yard setback. Anderson supported
the motion. All members voted aye. Motion carried. (4:08 p.m.)

Case 851 – Property Code No. 11-07-0009-0039-04-8, 13641 Pepperidge
Lane, Harbert, MI 49115. (4:14 p.m.) Anthony Moss, Architect, and Robert
Paladino, RLP Property LLC, were in attendance to present the request for a
variance from Section 15.03, Paragraph A, of Chikaming Township Zoning
Ordinance No. 87, as amended, which states detached accessory structures in
an R-1 District shall be limited to a footprint size of 1,000 square feet for a lot
area of 20,001 square foot to one acre in size. If granted, the variance would
allow construction of a 1,300 square foot one story detached garage on a lot 0.66
acres (28,750 square feet) in size in an R-1 District. This structure will meet all
required setbacks. Moss said that they are taking a house with no storage and
adding a garage that is one bay larger than is allowed. His client wants to
become more of a fulltime resident. They are not taking advantage of any
setback or height requirements. The garage doors would be facing towards the
inside of the property. Moss said that 2/3 of an acre was a substantially sized lot
and Anderson added that it was mostly filled by a pool.

Frederick Lighthall of 13686 Wallenberg Lane had submitted a lengthy letter and
the board asked him to speak on his concerns. Lighthall said that he is opposed
to the variance and the problem is the size and what it means for the usage of
the property. He said that the property is the site of summertime partying around
the pool and hot tub. He said that he did a study of 46 houses in the surrounding
neighborhood and their garage space. The most frequent use of garage space
was none at all. The second was one car garages and then two. There was one
three car garage with an enormous house. Therefore, he felt that the proposed
garage was way out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. He questioned
the need for such a large garage when the use of the property was by renters.
He said that when the neighbors come out, they don’t park their cars in garages.
He felt that this garage meant four times as many cars and people. He said that
they have observed this as a rental property and there is a web site that offers it
for rent year round with the high season June to September and the low season
September to June. He said that the rates charged are current inn rates. He felt
the proposed garage promised a much more intense presence of people and
rental of the property. He asked that they deny the variance on four grounds: It
will drastically alter the site and is widely outside normal provision of residential
garage space. The usage promised more rental clients and therefore increasing
the disturbing behavior. The increase people-density will increase the traffic and
degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood. As a result the neighbors will be
forced to confront the renters and call the police more often.

There were four more letters. Edie and Hal Kessler, Brook Horwitz and Holly
Edelman objected in a letter as the property is not owner occupied as it is
rentable 100% of the time and the addition will create too much density. Gary
Moore and Ted Dyekman of 13644 Pepperidge Lane, directly behind about two
third of the property were opposed. Laurence Lewis and Nancy Bradt of 13685
Pepperidge Lane were also opposed as they found looking at a 52 foot long
garage very unsightly. Freeman Braswell and Caley LaRue of 13666 Wallenberg
Lane were opposed as they felt that the construction of an inappropriately
oversized structure would dramatically alter the look and feel of the neighborhood
in a negative manner.

Moss felt that whether or not the house was a rental house was irrelevant. He
said that asking for storage had nothing to do with noise. He felt the scale
proposed there was more in line than some of the existing houses in the
neighborhood. He said that the garage doors would face the house. He said that
there should be no concern about additional traffic as the storage facility was for
1960 collector cars. It has nothing to do with the renters. Paladino said that he
has had the property for three years and that is was quite overgrown. It is the
largest parcel on Pepperidge. He said when he bought it he cleaned it up, added
the pool and spent $45,000 on landscaping. He said that he only rents it ten
weeks a year, starting June 15th. The rest of the time he is up every weekend. He
added that he has a collection of cars and the lot is big enough to handle that
size garage and it will be built in the same style as the house. Dudeck agreed
that the fact that the house is rented has nothing to do with the variance. Lighthall
said that the history of the property is one of usage that is not in keeping with the
neighborhood.

Anderson felt that the ordinance offered enough space for accessory structures
and extending it is out of keeping with the neighborhood this property is in. He
felt that an extra 300 square feet was too much. Hojnacki pointed out that they
already had a shed on the property and there used to be a garage that is now
going to become a game room. Bohac said that the garage was connected to the
house before Paladino bought it. Hojnacki said that when it was a garage the ten
foot setback that was OK, but now they are changing the use to a game room, it
should then meet the rear setback requirement. He agreed with Anderson and
added that they worked hard to revise the ordinance concerning accessory
buildings. They have a shed that is 100 square feet and they are being lenient
with the garage becoming a game room, so they should limit him to 1,000 square
foot garage. Dudeck said that she did not see the hardship for the variance. She
said that they had struggled to address these large garages on small lots so they
should limit the garage to 900 square feet. Anderson felt that they should follow
the ordinance and subtract the square footage of the shed from 1,000 square
feet for the size of the garage. Moss asked for a 25’ by 40’, 1,000 square foot
garage.

Anderson moved to deny the request as presented, but allow a garage/storage
facility of 1,000 square feet for 1960s cars. Livengood seconded the motion.
Dudeck asked if they are saying that the pool structure is a permanent building. If
so, they would need a variance for the additional 100 square feet of accessory
structure on the property. Anderson said that he still felt it was out of keeping with
the neighborhood, but was allowable. Anderson agreed to the revision that a
variance be granted for the 100 square feet of additional accessory structure and
Livengood agreed to the second. The Findings of Fact was that it was to
accommodate Paladino’s hobby for the storage of cars. It was a reasonable
request for the additional 100 square feet. It will meet all the setbacks; the
property is served by water and sewer; and there were no safety issues. All
members voted aye. Motion carried. (4:46 p.m.)

Case 852 – Property Code Nos. 11-07-0019-0024-02-1 & 11-07-0019-0024-03-
0, 15056 Lakeshore Drive, Union Pier, MI 49129. (4:47 p.m.) William
McCollum, Architect, Leslie Secore, and attorney Larry Frankle were in
attendance to present the request for a variance from Section 15.03, paragraph
A, of Chikaming Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87, which states a total of all
detached accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet and one and a
half stories on a lot 20,001 square feet to one acre in an R-1 Single Family
Residential District, and Section 14.02 which requires a ten foot side yard
setback. This property contains a one story structure that has a kitchen and living
area, but no bedrooms. A 2-story structure housing only bedrooms and
bathrooms, but no kitchen and a one story bedroom and bathroom structure. The
fourth structure requiring the variance was under repair and renovation. The
building permit was issued based on the condition over 50% of the existing
structure was to remain in place. As construction continued, the building was in
such disrepair, 50% of the structure could not be salvaged. If granted, the
variance would allow reconstruction of a one and a half story, 1,592 square foot
accessory structure with a side yard setback of three feet. Frankle handed out an
outline of the structure. He said that the Secore family has been there since the
1920’s across the street and bought the current property in the 1940s. It has
been kept as a family compound. Two of the buildings are bunk houses and the
building in the center is a kitchen. He showed photographs of the buildings and
the one in question. He said that there was no real foundation so they were going
to put a foundation under the house and put on a second floor. He said that when
taking out the windows, the wall crumbled. He agreed that there was a lot of
property where the building could be set, but they were trying to save the house
where their mother spent her time. To date they have spent over $100,000 in
trying to salvage this house. They have a brand new foundation and sub floor.
Frankle said that there is a 25 foot access easement right next to the property so
the house would be 42 feet away from the neighbor. He said that the old
concrete foundation has now been filled in and a deck will go over it. He felt that
density and drainage were not an issue. A lot of the work has already been done
and he felt it would be a hardship to pick up the building and move it back to
meet the setback requirement. He said that the family promised their mother that
they would keep it in their family. He said that McCollum and Leslie Secore were
present and that the New Circle Association owned the access next to them.
McCollum pointed out that the second floor of the addition is ten feet back. What
is not in compliance is the existing floor.

Suzanne Hines said that she represented the Douglases, who live next door.
They had sent a letter with several photographs. She said that they came in
response to a variance for an accessory building and now they are talking about
a house. McCollum responded that in the permitting process they had to take the
kitchen out. Hines quoted section 4.03 “A nonconforming structure may be
enlarged, expanded or altered, so long as the nonconforming characteristic of the
structure is not enlarged upon extended or increased in its degree of
nonconformance.” She said that by adding a second floor they are increasing the
nonconformity. Frankle responded that it is a family compound and there really is
no residence. It really should be a residence. He said that most of the foundation
wall was rebuilt. It was an existing structure that is still partly there. Secore said
that at one time the water came up to the edge and they were asked by the Army
Corp of Engineers to take part of the house down which they did. She said that
they are paying taxes every single year and they have nowhere to rest their
heads. She pointed out that the original footprint of the house was larger. Hines
said that they are still dealing with a request for a variance and it is going to
increase the nonconformity of the structure. Hines then quoted Section 23.04 D,
listing the five conditions that need to exist for the Board of Appeals to grant a
variance. She said that if the family owned the property for 60 years and let it fall
into such disrepair it was their problem. They are asking for a two story structure
when it was one. Secore said that that the property has not been used since their
mom died in 2001. It was in 1985 that part of the building had to be taken down.
Charles Douglas introduced himself and his wife Diane. He said that they have
been there for little over ten years. That structure has been in very poor repair
and he showed pictures. He said that what is there is one wall that they have
been able to prop up. That it is right out on the buff and he thinks it is extremely
unwise to allow the structure at that location. He said that he has not seen it
inhabited for the last ten years. He said that it was presented as an accessory
building and now it is being shown as a residence. He said that they say it is
important to keep it as a compound. There are already three structures on that
property and one is a two story building. He said that they look right out at the
proposed structure from their home. He felt that they could build it some place
else on the property and it was the time to cut their losses.

Frankle said that he understood Mr. Douglas’ opinion. He said that you have to
have bedroom, bathroom and kitchen to qualify as a residence. They only need a
variance for the side yard. He admitted that they were over the limit with
accessory buildings, but they have been there for a long time. They have spent a
lot of money and time filling in the old foundation and keeping what was there. He
said that Douglas has been looking down at this building since he bought his
house. McCollum said that new foundations have to meet new requirements. He
said that one wall could gave been braced, but the contractor took it down.
Douglas responded that he felt it would devalue his property. He built a one story
fence so he doesn’t see the building, but he can’t build a two story fence. He did
not see the hardship and did not think they have a right to do it.

Anderson suggested that they designate one of the buildings as a residence.
Hojnacki said that according to the information they were given, the kitchen
building was designated as the main building. Dudeck suggested that they add
onto the structure. It would solve everyone’s problem and would then almost
meet the ordinance. Frankle felt that would be a hardship. Dudeck felt that there
was a good argument that could be made with the cycles of the lake levels. She
said that it is an argument that this is a safety concern with the location of that
house. Anderson said that based at looking at the pictures, it should have been
listed as one of their dangerous buildings. Dudeck felt that in 1985 the dangerous
building ordinance should have been involved. Frankle said that he felt that the
accessory structures were grandfathered in. He said that if they met the side yard
setback, they could put a residence there. Livengood said that they could have
rebuilt if everything had fallen into place. Frankle said that they can’t have two
residences. Hojnacki said that this case wouldn’t be there if the building hadn’t
fallen apart. He said that he didn’t necessarily agree with all the philosophy and
that he had taken pictures for a local clothing store, Filoni, years ago and it was a
family compound at that time. He felt they should just let it go forward from there.
Livengood agreed. That is the hardship. Anderson said that deep in the
ordinance there is the requirement to diminish these nonconformities and he
didn’t see that happening in this case. Hines agreed that it was conditional on
50%. Frankle felt it was making it more conforming by putting a residence on the
property. Douglas said that there was a comment that they were only here
because the building fell down and pointed out that the permit was conditional
that only 50% be rebuilt. Then it became an opportunity for the pubic to bring
problems to the board. Secore wanted to show the receipts for the money spent.
Anderson said that the fiscal aspects are rarely considered. Anderson said that
he was seeing that having the side yard up against the walkway takes away the
safety issue. Hojnacki wondered if there was a way that the building could have
been inspected more before the permit was issued. McCollum said that he felt it
was rehabable. Dudeck said that she wants to see it more conforming.

Anderson moved to deny the variance as requested with the Findings of Fact that
it is a hardship created by the applicant. Dudeck seconded the motion. Anderson,
Dudeck and Hojnacki voted aye. Livengood voted nay. Motion carried (5:42 p.m.)

Case 853 – Property Code No. 11-07-0125-0003-11-4, 15880-B Lakeshore
Road, Union Pier, MI 49129. (5:46 p.m.) Gintaras & Christine Karaitis were in
attendance to present the request for a variance from Section 14.02 of
Chikaming Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87, as amended, which requires
20,000 square feet of lot area, 30 feet front and rear yard setbacks and ten feet
side yard setbacks and 30% lot coverage; and Section 4.03 Paragraph 1 which
states “A nonconforming structure may be enlarged, expanded or altered, so long
as the nonconforming characteristic of the structure is not enlarged upon,
extended or increased in its degree of nonconformance in an R-1 Single Family
Residential District.” If granted, the variance would allow a 314 square foot living
space addition to connect the existing house and detached garage and a 16’ by
20’ deck addition toward Lakeshore Road and a second story over the entire new
footprint including existing structures and new addition. This new construction will
have an 18 foot front yard setback, a 2’2” side yard setback to the South and a
ten foot rear yard setback. Existing lot coverage of 28% would be increased to
40%. Karaitis said that he is not increasing the footprint of the house, just joining
them together. He is 31 feet from the nearest building and has water and sewer.
Susan McFallar, neighbor to the south, said she was in favor. Dudeck asked her
if she had recently come before the Board of Appeals to split her property and a
house could be built on the property adjacent to Karaitis. She said yes, but there
was no house there yet.

Hojnacki said he had a problem with the second story. Livengood said there was
a power line there and Karaitis said he would have it moved. Hojnacki said that
there was no floor plan. Karaitis said that it was a very narrow house with just
one bedroom and this would allow a bedroom above the garage. Hojnacki asked
that if they were going to do all that work, why not stay more conforming. He felt
they should reconstruct to meet the setbacks. He said that they are taking an
accessory building and making it part of their house so it should meet the 30 foot
setback. He is changing the use of the structure. Dudeck said that they have a
small lot and they have the opportunity to make it more conforming. She said that
a two foot side setback was unacceptable. Livengood added, “Especially with a
second floor.” Bill Marcy said that the house always had a dormer. Hojnacki said
that he would like to see something smaller and Anderson said that he was
ambivalent. He said that the whole plot is full of inconsistencies and
nonconformities and he did not want to see it expanded and 40% lot coverage
was a step in the wrong direction. Karaitis said that if they did not do the deck, it
would be 34%. Livengood said that he did not have a problem with filling in, but a
two foot setback with a second story was not acceptable.

Dudeck moved to deny the variance request as it is a public safety issue with
only a two foot side yard setback and it is an excessive request to increase the
lot coverage to 40%. Livengood supported. Karaitis asked for a compromise.
Dudeck withdrew her motion and Livengood his second. Dudeck then moved to
allow them a 314 square foot living space addition to connect the existing house
and detached garage, but no second story. The variance is for the 314 square
foot living space connecting the existing house to the existing detached garage
and a 16’ by 20’ deck, which would mean an 18’ front yard setback, a 2’2” side
yard setback to the south, a ten foot rear yard setback and increasing the lot
coverage to 40%, but no second floor with the Findings of Fact that they will not
have a public safety issue. Livengood supported. All members voted aye. Motion
carried. (6:04 p.m.)

Case 854 – Property Code No. 11-07-4570-0076-00-9, Red Arrow Highway,
Union Pier, MI 49129. (6:04 p.m.) Ben Schwartz, Attorney for Andrew Davis,
Union Pier Land Company, was in attendance to present the request for a
variance from Section 14.02 of Chikaming Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87,
as amended, which requires 20,000 square feet of lot area in an R-1 Single
Family Residential District. If granted, the variance would allow construction of a
single family dwelling on a lot with buildable area of 14,300 square feet. Total
square footage of this lot is approximately 20,700, which includes the 6,400
square feet of Berrien County road right-of-way. This will meet all required
setbacks and is served by municipal water and sewer. Schwartz said that 7,000
square feet was taken in fee by MDOT, which left a buildable area of 5,600
square feet. The survey showed 13,204 square feet. He said that before coming
to the Board of Appeals they tried to get a sewer line to this parcel. The Utility
Board has approved the line and the Road Commission will allow them to put it in
the road right-of-way. He said that it was a classic variance per Section 4.02 C
and it will meet all the requirements except for area and it was not a self created
hardship. Anderson said that it was taken off the original plot in 1928 and asked
why not taken in original plot. Realtor Mary Lou Johnson has been marketing the
lot since 1971. Hojnacki said that there have been other properties that have
come to them that always talk about the space taken by MDOT. Dudeck said that
the Utility Board did approve the sewer and she felt it was a reasonable request.

Dudeck moved to approve the variance as requested with the Findings of Fact
that it is a lot of record and has a buildable area that meets all the setbacks and
is served by sewer and water. Livengood seconded the motion. All members
voted aye with Anderson stating his was a reluctant aye. Motion carried. (6:12
p.m.)

Case 855 – Property Code Nos. 11-07-0019-0005-02-7 & 11-07-0019-0005-01-
9, 14678 and 14684 Meadow Lane, Lakeside, MI 49116. (6:12 p.m.) Bennett
Schwartz, Attorney for Mignon Jaicks Trustee, was in attendance to present the
request for an interpretation of Section 15.08 D, exception No. 1 which states
“The private road was established by means of a legal instrument recorded in the
office of the Berrien County Register of Deeds, on or before the effective date of
this Ordinance.” A variance could be required depending on the interpretation of
the above, Per Section 15.08 of Chikaming Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87,
as amended, which requires a lot to have frontage on a public or private road and
a privately owned and maintained way of passage cannot serve more than two
dwelling units; and Section 4.02, which does not allow non-conforming lots of
record that abut each other and are in the same ownership to be divided. If
granted, the variance would allow two parcels (parcel 1 = 1.66 acres; parcel 2 =
1.12 acres) to be separated. Parcel one is served by a 16.5 foot easement with
no public or private road frontage. Parcel 2 has 148 feet of frontage on this
easement. A third parcel to the North is also served by this easement. None of
the parcels have frontage on a public or private road right of way. Schwartz said
that parcel one has a house and parcel two is undeveloped. Parcel one is being
marketed by his clients. If they want to do something with parcel two then the
private road ordinance kicks in. He said that this private easement will serve only
three parcels, the current Jaicks house, parcel two and the Wilson lake lot parcel.
Everyone else has access off of Meadow Lane or someway else. He said that
when the lots were created in 1974 between the Racines, Smithwichs and Jaicks
they limited the access amongst themselves. At that time parcel two used to
have a house on it. What they are asking for is to go back to what was once
status quo. A fire occurred in January 1995 that burned the house down and then
the Smithwichs sold the property to the Jaicks in June. Parcel two has
abundance of frontage and the lot with the house on it doesn’t have any.
Schwartz added that due to the ordinance they are considered combined lots.
Anderson added “or by choice for tax purposes”. Schwartz quoted Section
15.08D – the conditions that need to be met and in which cases they not be
applicable: “the private road was established by means of a legal instrument
recorded in the office of the Berrien County Register of Deeds, on or before the
effective date oft his Ordinance” and “the private road was improved, on the
effective date of this Ordinance to a physical condition which provides adequate,
safe access to the lot by conventional motor vehicles and emergency services
vehicles.” He felt that both of these were met back in the early 1970’s. There is a
legal document recorded with the Register of Deeds and it is an adequate,
paved, safe access. He asked for an interpretation on this section. Then he felt it
was a hardship to have the obligation of owning a very large parcel that was
former two buildable parcels. He asked for a variance to sever the two lots and
return to the status quo. They are not creating anything new.

Max Sims, who owns an adjacent lot, said that he supports the request as there
was a house there and the association has always treated it as a separate lot
and the Jaicks pay full dues on both lots. Bill Racine to the south was in support
as well as Bob McDermitt. He said that they have always thought of it as the
Smithwich property. If there had not been a fire, someone else would be living
there. Dudeck said she understood that the parcel has access to water and
sewer and was told it had. Anderson said that his sense was that no variance
was needed for frontage. Hojnacki said that they do need a variance from
Section 4.02. Dudeck agreed that 15.08D applied and no variance was needed.
All agreed on the interpretation.

Dudeck moved, supported by Hojnacki that 15.08D applies and the property is
exempt from the private road standards and #1 and #2 apply. Hojnacki seconded
motion. All members voted aye. Motion carried. Dudeck moved to grant a
variance to Section 4.02D on the Findings of Fact that historically these two lots
were under separate ownership. Parcel two had a home on it which burned in
1995 and this will bring this parcel back to the status quo. Livengood seconded
the motion. All members voted aye. Motion carried. (6:32 p.m.)

Case 856 – Property Code No. 11-07-0770-0177-00-1, 301 Spring Park
Avenue, Bethany Beach, Sawyer, MI 49125. (6:33 p.m.) Attorney Larry Frankle
and Bob Nyberg were in attendance to present the request for a variance from
Section 14.02 of Chikaming Township Zoning Ordinance No. 87, as amended,
which requires 20,000 square feet of lot area and a 30 foot front yard setback in
an R-1 Single Family Residential District. If granted, the variance would allow
demolition of the existing single family dwelling and the detached garage and be
replaced with a new 1,670 square foot, one and a half story single family dwelling
on a lot with an area of 6,250 square feet. The new construction will have an
eight foot front yard setback off Third Street. This property has two front yards,
one on Spring Park Avenue and one on Third Street, and is served by municipal
water and sewer. Frankle said that this case has been before the Board of
Appeals before. They have owned the house since 1992 and have a demolition
problem. Before they had a substantially larger plan that was not approved. This
plan has been approved by the Bethany Beach Committee. He said that this new
plan rectifies two problems. It cures the setback from Spring Park and takes out
the garage so there is no zero line. They could make it longer and narrower, but
that would not fit in the neighborhood. There are no safety issues. He felt that it
was much more in line with what the Board had in mind. Anderson questioned
the eight foot wooden fences, one to be removed and one to be rebuilt. He was
told that it is a privacy screen. Anderson questioned the retaining wall and Bohac
said it was more like a fence and they measure the setback from the foundation
wall of a building.

A letter was received from P. Edward Converse stating he had no objection to
the variance.

Hojnacki said that he had no problems with the new plan and Livengood agreed.
Hojnacki moved, supported by Livengood to approve the variance as requested
with the Finding of Facts that it is an undersized lot, it has two front yards, and
eight feet is a minimum variance. Dudeck added that the property is only 50 feet
wide. Hojnacki added that it is in harmony with the other buildings in Bethany
Beach and there are no safety issues. All members voted aye. Motion carried.

Livengood moved to adjourn at 6:44 p.m. Motion carried.

Marisue Hojnacki
Recording Secretary