Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 18-1997Appeal #18-97 Amended Appeal #18-97 William R. and Pamela Lehmann W I83 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive Muskego, WI 53150 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Topaz Drive. Petitioner seeks a 23 foot variance to build an accessory structure 32 feet from the centerline of Topaz Drive. 2. Chapter I7--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Jewel Crest Drive. Petitioner seeks a 19 foot variance to build an accessory structure 36 feet from the centerline of Jewel Crest Drive. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay, DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Approve as submitted subject to removal of shed, garage, fence pine trees and existing drive. Hardship stated was the unique configuration of the lot, the burden the ultimate road right-of-way places on this lot, and that addresseA ip,the Police, Chiefs letter. /01 Approved Chairman O'Neil Absent Vice Chairman Brandt Denied Member Herda 9L Approved Member Schepp V�4_V'A"� Approved Approved Ross (1 st Alt.) Lag srPr „ July 29, 1997 Mr. and Mrs. William Lehmann W183 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive Muskego, WI 53150 RE: Appeal #18-97 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lehmann: BUILDING DEPARTMENT Chuck D. Dykstra, Sr., Director (414) 679-4145 Inspection Requests (414) 679-4110 The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your appeal from Section 5.02(1) Building Location (Topaz) and from Section 5.02(1) Building Location (Jewel Crest Drive) was granted with the following contingencies: • 1. Remove existing garage structure. • 2. Remove shed in front yard. 3. Remove pine trees located in the vision corner. • 4. Remove the fence located in the setback area. 5. Remove the existing driveway on Jewel Crest. A razing permit is required prior to removing your garage and prior to commencing building on your property, a building permit is required. Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674. Sincerely, Susan J. Sc roeder Recording Secretary W182 S8200 Racine Avenue * Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5618 STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given July 11, 1997, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. OLD BUSINESS: Amended Appeal #18-97 William R:rectionPamela Sectmonn3.08g(1�6453 Jewel Crest Drive. Under the s variances: Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (on 5. 1 Building 1) Chapter 17--Zoning n nce: requires foot setback from Topaz Location. Said regulation Drive. Petitioner seeks a 23 foot variance to build an az Drive; accessory structure 32 feet from the center line of T°Building and 2) Chapter 17--2— inuareg'aSStfoot5.02 setback from Jewel Location. Said regulation9 Crest Drive. Petitioner seef�,om thefcenterrlineeofoJeweldCrest an accessory structure 36 feet Drive. The property is zoned RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. Chairman O'Neil administefromaJuneoath toto Mr. William allow Mr. Lehmann toLehmann. 4' This appeal was deferred proposed 2 submit a new survey witehmannhmentionedct °thatoheowould eadown the x 28, garage. Mr. L current 10, x 21' garage attached to the home, cut down the pine trees located at the northeast hmannrof statedehis thardship Zistthe shed in the front yard. Mr. he Le size and configuration of the lot and atthe lothelgaragetto the. Mr. Lehmann stated that he couldnot home because the porch does not have footings seunderager it and there is no buildable ertyt o make conforming on the p P . Mr. Trejo stated that this property is legal nonconforming, and that the structures located on the lot are also legal nonconforming. The current garage could be renovated and brought into code under the 50% rule. Staff is concerned over the blocking of the vision corner, and stressed this lot should not have a aceresory receivedstructure last month fromit. theMr. policejchiefalso stated letterer s w and Public Works Director. Mr. Lehmann stated that the Police Department was in agreement with the location and that he had spoke with John Loughney at Public Works to explain how the proposed garage would be out of the vision omaerforMr. thisehmann propertysdidonoted out match upat the survey and the platP NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 20-97 Mark and Jennifer Le May Larsen 6112 South Barland Avenue, Cudahy, WI 53110. Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance for the property located at: Lot 12, West Lakes Estates Subdivision: Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 40 foot setback from the right-of-way of Bluhm Court. Petitioner seeks a 3.3 foot variance to build a primary structure 36.7 feet from the Bluhm Court right-of-way. Chairman O'Neil administered an oath to Robert Mastalir from RM Construction, representative and builder for the Larsens. Mr. Mastalir explained that due to the configuration of the lot the northeast side of this lot is wasted .T-. -4--ri h 1 a Mr. Lehmann stated that the Police Department was in agreement with the location and that he had spoke with John Loughney at Public Works to explain how the proposed garage would be out of the vision corner. Mr. Lehmann also pointed out that the survey and the plat map for this property did not match up. NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 20-97 Mark and Jennifer Le May Larsen 6112 South Barland Avenue, Cudahy, WI 53110. Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance for the property located at: Lot 12, West Lakes Estates Subdivision: Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 40 foot setback from the right-of-way of Bluhm Court. Petitioner seeks a 3.3 foot variance to build a primary structure 36.7 feet from the Bluhm Court right-of-way. Chairman O'Neil administered an oath to Robert Mastalir from RM Construction, representative and builder for the Larsens. Mr. Mastalir explained that due to the configuration of the lot along the cul-de-sac, the northeast side of this lot is wasted space due to the required setback and offsets. He stated his company had tried several configurations to conform to a subdivision by-law requiring that a one-story residence maintain a minimum 2,000 square feet. Mr. Trejo stated this is the last lot in the West Lakes Estates Subdivision, and the RS-2 zoning requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet, while the subdivision rules requires 2,000 square feet for a one-story residence. This lot is definitely buildable, maybe not for a 2,000 square foot ranch, but a two-story home could easily be built in this location. The request is self-imposed. Mr. Mastalir stated a two-story home would not be acceptable to his clients, as they have an elderly family member. Mr. Mastalir stated since the location is at the end of a cul-de-sac, there will never be anything built in front of this home and the variance would not be interfering with any public safety issues.. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL #18-97 Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the appeals as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. After much discussion Jim Ross amended is motion to include that the shed, garage, fence, pine trees and existing driveway need to be removed. Mr. Schepp seconded the amendment. Upon roll call vote, the motion failed. (3-2, Mr. Schneiker and Mr. Herda voting nay.) Chairman O'Neil called for further discussion over the appeal. Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted, the hardship being the unique configuration of the lot, the burden the the ultimate road right-of-way places on this lot, and that concerns and questions over public safety and welfare have been addressed in the Police Chief's letter. The variance is contingent upon the pine tress, fence, shed garage and current driveway (Jewel Crest) being removed. Mr. Ross seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to approve carried. (4-1 with Mr. AGENDA CITY OF MUSKEGO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23 (7) (e) 6, that a Public Hearing will be held in the Muskego Room at the Muskego City Hall, W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 8:00 P.M., Thursday, July 24, 1997, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26, 1997, MEETING 5. OLD BUSINESS Amended Appeal #18-97 William R. and Pamela Lehmann W 183 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive Muskego, WI 53150 REQUESTING. Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances: 1. Chapter I7--Zoning_ Ordinance: Section 5,02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Topaz Drive. Petitioner seeks a 23 foot variance to build an accessory structure 32 feet from the centerline of Topaz Drive. 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Jewel Crest Drive. Petitioner seeks a l9 foot variance to build an accessory structure 36 feet from the centerline of Jewel Crest Drive. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. 6, NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 20-97 Mark and Jennifer Le May Larsen 6112 South Barland Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (I) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance for the property located at: Lot 12, West Lakes Estates Subdivision S 7 5 W I3850 Bluhm Court Muskego, WI 53150 1. Chapter 17--Zonk Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 40 foot setback from the right -of --way of Bluhm Court. Petitioner seeks a 3.3 foot variance to build a primary structure 36.7 feet from the Bluhm Court right-of-way. ^�aiT'ny 7. sc o 2 .K C1 0 � � � • Z = T� xa m a ca _ g Q J �maY� �M . b a � r 7 q` 2 v y 3 r r- o �3 x m ij m z 0 y A A A N C W vD N T N � ND � A = xa Z 3 Nti �► x 8: g Ur d o 4 �a N41N33 33 W&; Egs9 CITE' OF M 41GO July 3, 1997 Mr. and Mrs. William Lehmann W183 S6453 Jewel Crest Muskego, WI 53150 RE: Appeal #18-97 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lehmann: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP Director of Planning (414) 679-4136 The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your appeal from Section 5.02(1) Building Location (Topaz) and from Section 5.02(1) Building Location (Jewel Crest Drive) was deferred. The Board request that a plat of survey be submitted of the garage, located as shown as option 'b', be submitted, with no part of the garage being located within the ultimate road right-of-way. Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674. Sincerely, Susan J. chroeder Recording Secretary W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614 Page 2 Appeal #18-97 William R. and Pamela Lehmann W 183 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive Muskego, WI 53150 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5,02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Topaz Drive. Petitioner seeks a 21 foot variance to build an accessory structure 34 feet from the centerline of Topaz Drive. 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Jewel Crest Drive. Petitioner seeks a 29 foot variance to build an accessory structure 26 feet from the centerline of Jewel Crest Drive, Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. Appeal #19-97 Dean A. Lubecke W 183 S6526 Jewel Crest Drive Muskego, W1 53150 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A. Legal Nonconformity: Classification and Regulation - Nonconforming Structure. Said regulation restricts expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming structure except within conformity of the zoning district. Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said structure over 50% of its current fair market value. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. 7. Miscellaneous Business. None NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may convene, upon passage of the proper motion, into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85 (1) (a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of a quasi-judicial hearing; said cases being the above listed appeals. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. Detailed descriptions are available for public inspection at the Clerk's office. Alt interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard. Board of Appeals City of Muskego Terry ONeil, Chairman Dated this 13th day of June, 1997 PLEASE NOTE: It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above -stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. also, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact Jean K. Marenda, City Clerk, at Muskego City Hall, 679-5625. Also, Board of Appeals members may conduct site visits for informational purposes. BOA 06/26/97 Page 3 Thirty dumpsters were required to remove ceiling tiles and flea market leftovers not removed by the previous tenant. Mr. Dyer has worked in Fox River Hills, Racine, Milwaukee, West Milwaukee, Okauchee and numerous other communities in which no permit was required for clean-up work. There were no structual walls removed nor plumbing removed, however, the Building Department of the City of Muskego required a permit and assessed triple fees as a fine for work being done without a permit. There was no wrecking/razing permit required by Rozman's True Value nor for Sentry walls being removed. There was a permit for the Golden Chicken and that was completely taken down. Mr. Dyer stated he has in his possession letters from City of New Berlin and Village of Big Bend stating no permit is required for clean up work. Mr. George Resch stated he has worked in the wrecking/razing field for 30 years and is currently working for EBA. He has done approximately 3,000 demolitions and has never taken out a permit for work removing nonbearing walls. Chuck Dykstra, Sr., Director of the Building Inspection Department stated there is confusion regarding demolition permits. When demolition is being done with a remodeling/ alteration permit, no separate demolition permit required, its part of the remodeling/alteration permit. In the case of the Parkland Mall, no plans were submitted for alteration/ remodeling, hence a demolition permit to remove walls is required. Mr. Dykstra presented a survey from Southeastern Wisconsin Building Inspectors Association asking who requires a demolition permit to remove walls in commercial buildings regardless if walls are bearing or not. 16 of the 17 inspectors surveyed required demolition permits. The Building Department has a policy of assessing triple permit fees to all contractors when work is done without a permit. Mr. Dyer stated this was only clean up work, sweep -up mold and mildew tiles, no electric nor plumbing were removed. Electric was left in place or else placed up in the ceiling. The telephone lines have been cut. Mr. Dyer indicated there is a pattern of abuse by the Building Director as in the case of Jack Galkowski. On June 4th, Mr. Galkowski reported to Mr. Dyer the Building Director harassed and screamed at him (Mr. Galkowski) at the Parkland Mall. Dan Schepp made a motion to hear a rebuttal by Mr. Dykstra, Mike Brandt seconded. Upon voice vote, motion to hear was denied. Mr. Dykstra stated he objects and did not agree with that decision. Appeal #18-97 William R. and Pamela Lehmann, W183 56453 Jewel Crest Drive REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building BOA 06/26/97 Page 4 Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Topaz Drive. Petitioner seeks a 21 foot variance to build an accessory structure 34 feet from the centerline of Topaz Drive. 2. Chapter 17--Zoningordinance: Section 5.02 (1) Building Location. Said regulation requires a 55 foot setback from Jewel Crest Drive. Petitioner seeks a 29 foot variance to build an accessory structure 26 feet from the centerline of Jewel Crest Drive. The property is zoned RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. Mr. Trejo informed the Board that the petitioners had been before the them on a previous appeal, that had been denied. They have proposed a new location for the garage. Mike Brandt made a motion to re -hear the Appeal. Dan Schepp seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion carried unanimously. Chairman O'Neil administered an oath to William and Pamela Lehmann. William Lehmann stated he had spoken to the Police Department and Public Works to correct confusion regarding where the garage was proposed to be built and discussed the corner vision. Mr. Lehmann stated this garage would not have an adverse affect to code nor public safety. The existing attached garage would come down as well as a small shed if approved. The proposed garage would be 24' x 28'. The hardship is the preexisting location of structure on lot, the irregular configuration of the lot, and the lot being locked in by a corner, surrounded by two streets on the side. With the inclusion of the ultimate right-of-way, there is no buildable area on his property. Mr. Lehmann offered two location options: A Location and B Location. Mr. Trejo explained the legal nonconforming building allowed 50% of assessed value for structual renovations or additions and that an attached garage structure is an option for the petitioner. If detached, the 60% rule would allow for a 773 square foot accessory building, the plan proposed is under that figure. Mr. Trejo explained that even though the configuration of the lot is unique and complex, owners are responsible for doing their homework when purchasing a home. If the Board were to grant a variance to the Lehman's, this would be an injustice to the potential owners that did do their research and selected not to buy the lot. Mr. Trejo expressed a concern in regards that the detached structure would encroach within the vision angle of the intersection, which proposes a threat to safety and public welfare. If a structure is built, staff would recommend that the structure be built parallel to the road, not to the house. Prior to issuing any building permits a survey would be required with garage staked out. Mr. Lehmann reiterated the following: Trees to be removed per vision code. Pine trees are year round to block view of yard. Attached garage would require a variance as well. If garage were parallel it would be a moot point because we are only talking a couple of feet and would be more in the vision line (in his opinion) Mrs. Lehmann's question is do aesthetics play a part in this decision; the answer was no, that is not a hardship. BOA 06/26/97 Page 6 property line (preexisting location) and basement leakage (safety). Jim Ross seconded. After discussion upon a roll Cali vote, motion passed unanimously. Appeal #17-97 Dan Schepp made a motion to deny as submitted. Mike Brandt seconded. Mr. Schepp and Mr. Brandt rescinded their motion upon the advice of the City Attorney to make positive motions. Mr. Dan Schepp made a motion to approve appeal as submitted. Jim Ross seconded. After discussion, upon roll call vote, motion was denied 4-1, Chairman O'Neil voting yes. Appeal #18-97 Heather Schuster made a motion to approve as submitted on location "B" with the stipulation that a survey be submitted to the Plan Department with setbacks located on the map. Hardship being unique parcel (narrow). Jim Ross seconded. After discussion, Ms. Schuster made a motion to defer until location "B" could be identified on a certified survey, a location not to be in the Right -of -Way. Jim Ross seconded, upon roll call vote, motion to defer passed unanimously. Appeal #19-97 Dan Schepp made a motion to accept the appeal as submitted. Hardship being location of building on site. Heather Schuster seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion to accept was denied 4-0. (Mr. O'Neil abstained from voting). MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Mr. Brandt questioned when building ordinances would be rewritten. ADJOURN: Mike Brandt made a motion to adjourn. Heather Schuster seconded, with no further business to come before the board, meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Susan J. Schroeder Recording Secretary RVEYING C:IATES,INC. SER VA;CONSIN SOCIETY OF LAND SURVEYORS AF/SERSCAN CONGRESS ON SURVEYING AND MAPPING PLAT OF SURVEY 2554 N. WOTH STREET P.O. BOX 26596 WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN 53226 (414) 257-2212 FAX: (414) 257-2443 William J. Karpen nLS Frederick W. Shibilskl FILS L01' 1, BLOCK 21, JEWEL CREST SUBDIVISION, a part of the Northwest 1 /4 of the Southwest 1 /4 of Seoion 4, Town 5 f lu: th, Range 20 East, also a part of the South est 1 /4 of the Northwest 1 /4 of Section 4, Town of Muskego, Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Survey location: W183 56453 Jewel Crest Drive, Muskego. een�^� 1w E�ewHan, Sanchry Serer Ele hll• Non tlov. : 79A.0a --I'—AZ— — -- -- — _ - ernooall '-'I �r'Of:� A i J 1 ^ 'may :i 11 i r Plop' IJ If EXISTUIc � DWIR IM0 �I � I Vil NO TIE� 11 WS area of lot r S in the 100 year Mood hone 10 [� e • •• ��-V All V - q 6 O I e,* EkIS7iWi _ DUELWI ■loraq E rn• p4 9q R I I { t: '1 1■I float d■r. 79E.3 �• b. �"il'/ � . b• I ck 0C 1\ l c4 CY-• -jam,.=;1 �';•{5fi n 14 y r/194• �i X / � t{J •tN ` C I a� weli / G ` s j r I E.I■thq r 2 cenlou �k+et 56(4s3 Cjt'-5t. SETBACK RESTRICTIONS / PER CITY OF MUSKEGO ORDINANCE aQ 1 75 F007 rNg11 1% 5 FOOT SIDE 30 FOOT ONUINANY H0i Writ SCALE: r - 30' 'tea 100 year flood elevation 'd AREA OF PROPERTY • 8,616 LO. FT. per FEIAA Flood Insurance Stuffy doled 6—I-82 Is 794.2 n7 _ DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS ,� Mr. William Lehmann W 183 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive Muskego, Wisconsin 53150 Mr. Lehmann, POLICE DEPARTMENT John R. Johnson Chief of Police (414) 679-4130 June 11, 1997 JUN ` , This is in response to your request for the police department to review the corner of Jewel Crest Drive and Topaz Drive as to the vision corner and a proposed 24' x 28' garage built in the vicinity of that corner, and how it would affect traffic safety. On June 9th, 1997, Officer Kuspa inspected the site and using the map provided located the garage on the lot and indicated that the garage would not be a problem with safety vision on that corner anymore than the trees and shrubs that are already in place. Therefore, the Police Department, upon review, does not object the proposed garage placement on that lot. Sincerely, John R.Johnson Chief of Police JRJ/aw cc- Carlos Trejo, Planning W183 S8150 Racine Avenue * Box 903 * Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 * Fax (414) 679-4113 CITY OF MUSKEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES W189 S8235 Mercury Drive, Muskego, WI 53150 - Phone 679-4128 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Matt Sadowski JUN I FROM: John Loughney , DATE: June 13, 1997 RE: W183 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive Mr. William Lehmann, W183 S6453 Jewel Crest Drive, has proposed to build a garage on his property, the front of which would be located 26 ft. from the centerline of Jewel Crest Drive. This property is located on the corner of Jewel Crest Drive and Topaz Drive, and I believe a garage built in the location proposed would impair vision at this corner. In addition, there is a line of trees that is now located approximately the same distance off the road as the proposed garage. These trees need to be trimmed back to provide clear vision at the corner. Mr. Lehmann had contacted me and requested that I take a look at other garages located along Jewel Crest Drive and observe their location. I have found no other garages on Jewel Crest Drive that are as close or closer as Mr. Lehmann has proposed and are intersection related. c: Mr. William Lehmann MEM043/JZ CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS Application for variance Applicants Name Subject Property Address:s_�\,S -�, 6 •:S�e-�-'y c-ce-f-, Telephone Property zoning Key ##_ Z_ ) 761' Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): wne� lessee other Fees: $125.00 Date inspector denied permit: Requesting variance to Section To allow: Cp �,CjeC -A A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because: The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: cp, ,N � Ct+t — r % ^` e 49- + �-t •� a .._ a �..� `j c� c .v. '�c t.