* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:03]
          UH, GOOD 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
EVENING. 
          UH, TODAY IS THURSDAY, MARCH 28TH, 2024. 
          AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. 
          THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD AT 5 5 5 5 PERIMETER DRIVE. 
          THE MEETING CAN ALSO BE ACCESSED VIA THE LIVESTREAM VIDEO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. 
          WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENT ON CASES. 
          THE MEETING PROCEDURE FOR THE CASE THIS EVENING, EXCUSE ME, CASES THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH OF THE APPLICANTS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. 
          THE BOARD WILL THEN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, FIRST OF STAFF, AND NEXT OF THE APPLICANT, THE BOARD WILL HEAR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PODIUM. 
          JUST NOTE THAT THE SPEAKER MUST PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOLLOWING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, INCLUDING THOSE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY BY EMAIL. 
          THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE ON THE CASE PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION. 
          JUDY, WILL WE HAVE A, UH, CALL ROLL PLEASE. 
          MR. DESLER? HERE. 
          MR. NYE? HERE. 
          MR. MURPHY. 
          HERE. 
          MR. GARVIN? HERE. 
          MR. KRETZ HERE. 
          NEXT, WE'LL 
          [ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS and APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
MOVE ON TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVE OF THE MINUTES. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT DOCUMENTS, UH, IN THE RECORD AND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024. 
          SO MOVED. 
          SECOND, PLEASE. 
          SECOND ROLL, PLEASE. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          MR. MURPHY? YES. 
          MR. NYE? YES. 
          MR. DESLER? YES. 
          WITH REGARD TO THE SWEARING OF WITNESSES AND STAFF, ANYONE INTENDING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE CASES THIS EVENING, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 
          DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? THANK YOU. 
          [Case #24-038V]
WE'RE GOING TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED AGENDA THIS EVENING, UH, AND MOVE FORWARD FIRST WITH THE LAST CASE ON THE LIST. 
          THAT'S GONNA BE, I'M GONNA BUTCHER THIS NAME. 
          IS IT HELENAN? DID I GET THAT RIGHT? CLOSE ENOUGH. 
          WITH REGARD TO A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE, THAT IS CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR DASH 0 3 8 V. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS A VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0 7 4 B 6 1 53 1, UH, 1 9 0 E ONE C, AND 1 5 3 0.190 E ONE I FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          THE 2.01 ACRE SITE IS ZONED R DASH ONE THAT'S RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND HARD ROAD. 
          FOR OUR CASE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, WE'LL HAVE ZACH HOUNSELL. 
          ZACH. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL JUST GIVE US A MOMENT TO SHOW ON THE SCREEN. 
          UH, WELL, GOOD EVENING. 
          THESE ARE THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THIS RESIDENCE TONIGHT. 
          UM, THE SITE, AS YOU SAID, IS 2.09 ACRES IN SIZE IN A ZONE WITHIN THE R ONE RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 
          UH, THE SLIDE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN SHOWCASES SEVERAL OF THE NATURAL, UH, FEATURES THAT ARE ON THE SITE AND CONDITIONS, UH, THAT ARE APPLICABLE ON, ON MANY OF THE SITES THAT ARE ALONG THE SIDE OF, UH, RIVERSIDE DRIVE. 
          SO THE RED IN, IN THE RED LINES MOVING FROM NORTH TO SOUTH ARE ALL CONTOUR LINES. 
          SO THAT SHOWS THE SIGNIFICANT GRADE AS YOU MOVE TOWARDS, UH, THE RIVER. 
          THE FLOODPLAIN IS SHOWN ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SITE, WHICH OCCUPIES ABOUT HALF, UH, OF THE SITE. 
          AND THEN TO THE NORTH, YOU CAN ALSO SEE A STREAM PROTECTION CORRIDOR ZONE. 
          THESE ARE TYPICALLY PUT ON STREAMS THAT ARE NOT DESIGNATED BY FEMA AS HAVING FLOODPLAIN. 
          SO THEY ARE PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE. 
          SO DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO RESTRICTED WITHIN THAT ZONE THAT SHOWN THE SCREEN ARE SOME EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE. 
          YOU CAN SEE, UH, MOVING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, LEFT IS THE, THE 
          [00:05:01]
VIEW FROM, UH, RIVERSIDE DRIVE. 
          SO THIS IS A GATED ENTRY, SO NOT MUCH OF THE SITE IS SEEN. 
          AND THEN THE TWO PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT SHOW AS YOU'RE LOOKING OUT TOWARDS THE RIVER, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE GRADE AND SOME OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION HERE. 
          SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THREE SEPARATE VARIANCES, ONE FOR SITE, WHICH IS FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE, AND THEN TWO, UH, TO THE RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. 
          SO THE REQUEST FOR THE SITE IS FOR THE DETACHED GARAGE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. 
          IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. 
          THIS IS ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FEET AND IS SHOWN 44 FEET FORWARD OF THE HOME. 
          UH, THE REQUIREMENT FOR DETACHED GARAGES AND DETACH DETACHED STRUCTURES IN GENERAL IS THAT THEY NEED TO BE TO THE SIDE OR REAR OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. 
          AND THE OTHER TWO REQUESTS ARE TO THE RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS. 
          SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, UH, IS AN AERIAL, UH, RENDERING AND THEN RENDERINGS OF, UH, THREE OF THE ELEVATION. 
          SO THE FIRST REQUEST IS TO THE EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS, WHICH ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. 
          UH, THESE ARE SHOWN ON THREE OF THE FOUR ELEVATIONS FOR, UH, FOR THIS STRUCTURE. 
          UH, AND THIS IS INTENDED, THIS REQUIREMENT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE FINISH PRODUCT FOR, FOR ALL SIDES OF, OF A STRUCTURE, SO THAT THERE'S FOUR-SIDED ARCHITECTURE. 
          UH, AND THEN THE SECOND REQUEST IS FOR NO TRIM OR SHUTTERS AROUND THE WINDOW. 
          BOTH OF THESE ARE INTENDED TO BE, UH, DEVIATED FROM BASED ON THE, THE DESIRED ARCHITECTURAL TYPE OF THIS HOME, UH, AND NOT BASED ON, UH, TRYING TO NOT MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS PER SE. 
          SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST OR THESE REQUESTS TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA. 
          THE FIRST THREE CRITERIA, THE FIRST ONES SHOWN HERE, HAVE TO BE MET, UH, IN ORDER FOR VARIANCE TO BE APPROVED. 
          STAFF HAS FOUND THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE PROVIDED ON THE SITE, UH, DUE TO THE NATURAL CON CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE, UH, DUE TO THE NARROWNESS OF THE SITE. 
          AND THEN THE CIDER RIVER, THE FLOODPLAIN AND STREAM PROTECTION ZONE. 
          UH, STAFF HAS ALSO FOUND THAT CRITERIA IN TWO CRITERIA, TWO IN THREE R MET AS THE APPLICANT DID NOT SPLIT THIS LOT, AND THEY DID PURCHASE IT AFTER IT WAS SPLIT LAST YEAR. 
          AND THEN IMPAIRING THE INTENT PURPOSE. 
          UM, AGAIN, THE, THE HOME IS NOT GONNA BE SEEN FROM RIVERSIDE DRIVE, AND THEY ARE MEETING THE, THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THIS. 
          IT'S JUST BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. 
          THIS IS WHERE THEY CAN LOCATE THIS STRUCTURE, AND THEN THE NEXT FOUR, TWO OF THE FOUR HAVE TO BE MET. 
          AND STAFF IS FOUND THAT ALL FOUR OF THESE CRITERIA ARE MET. 
          SO WITH THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS TONIGHT. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, ZACH. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JOE? GOOD. 
          ZACH? UH, FOR THE EXPOSED FOUNDATION PIECE, IF SOMEONE WERE TO PUT A CONCRETE WALL AROUND THEIR PATIO INTENTIONALLY IN THE BACK OF A HOUSE, IS THAT SOMETHING TO BE APPROVED? YEAH. 
          THIS REQUIREMENT SPEAKS MORE TOWARDS THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE ITSELF. 
          IT DOESN'T CONSIDER PATIOS, BUT IN THIS, THERE, IT'S KIND OF BUILT INTO THEIR, THEY'RE USING THE FOUNDATION AS PART OF THEIR PATIO, IT APPEARS TO ME, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          SO IF THEY WERE TO, IF THEY WERE TO BUILD A PATIO WITH A PIECE TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR TOWARDS THE, THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, I'M SORRY, BUT AGAINST THE FOUNDATION OUT OF CONCRETE, IF IT WAS BEING BUILT FOR THE PURPOSES OF A PATIO, THAT WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE APPROVED? IT WOULD, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          I'M OKAY AS WELL. 
          UH, WE CAN MOVE TO THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. 
          IS IT CARLY MAGGIO? OKAY. 
          YEAH, IF, IF YOU PERFECT, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          I THINK YOU BOTH STOOD UP. 
          UM, FOR THE AFFIRMATION, IF YOU, CARLY WILL, UH, JUST NOTE YOUR, UH, FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          GOOD. 
          HI, UH, MY NAME'S CARLY MAGGIO. 
          I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS PROJECT AND MY ADDRESS, MY PERSONAL ADDRESS IS THAT, UH, YOU CAN DO THE BUSINESS BUSINESS ADDRESS, UM, 2000 SOUTH HIGH STREET. 
          AND THEN, UH, I'M WILL HALLAN, UH, THE OWNER, UH, 75 93 RIVERSIDE DRIVE. 
          UM, YEAH, SO WE CAN JUST ECHO WHAT ZACH KIND OF PRESENTED, BUT, UM, REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS JUST A COUPLE. 
          WHAT WE FEEL ARE MINOR VARIANCES. 
          WE ARE CONSTRICTED ON THE NORTH BY THAT STREAM PROTECTION ZONE, THE SOUTH BY OUR SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THEN THE WEST BY THE, UM, THE RIVER. 
          SO WE JUST HAD TO PUSH OUR BUILDING UP THE HILL SLIGHTLY. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE GET THE DETACHED GARAGE IN TECHNICALLY IN FRONT OF THE HOME, UM, EVEN THOUGH. 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN OUR, LIKE, VIEW TO THE RIVER ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. 
          AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW, UM, I THINK REALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. 
          AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE FOUNDATION AND THE NO TRIM, IT'S REALLY JUST 
          [00:10:01]
TO CREATE THIS ARCHITECTURAL CONTEMPORARY STYLE. 
          UM, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO LIKE, TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. 
          IT'S REALLY JUST TO MAKE AN ELEVATED LOOK. 
          YEAH. 
          ARE YOU GOOD? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, ? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. 
          OKAY. 
          LIKE, UM, LIKE CARLY MENTIONED, LIKE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO LIKE DISRUPT THE AREA AT ALL. 
          UH, IT'S LIKE REALLY COOL AREA DOWN THERE. 
          I WANT TO FIT IN. 
          UM, AND, UH, YEAH, THAT'S ABOUT IT, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          WHY DON'T YOU BOTH HANG TIGHT UP THERE AND, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I'VE GOT ONE. 
          UM, IS THE REASON THAT THE, UH, GARAGE, ASIDE FROM THE SIGHT LINES TO THE RIVER, IS THERE AN ISSUE FITTING A DRIVEWAY AROUND THE HOUSE IN ORDER TO PLACE THE GARAGE BEHIND THE HOUSE? YEAH, WE ARE BASICALLY MAXED OUT IN OUR NORTH TO SOUTH DIRECTION. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE RIGHT AT THE STREAM PROTECTION ZONE, WHICH WE DON'T WANNA MESS WITH. 
          AND THEN WE ARE AT OUR, UM, SIDE YARD SETBACK, SO WE COULD NOT GET A DRIVE AROUND. 
          AND WE'RE TRYING TO JUST, HE'S BUILDING A REALLY NICE HOUSE. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THAT WITH, UH, LOOKING OUT TO THE RIVER. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU ALL GOOD? ANYTHING GOOD? PATRICK? JOE? UH, KIND OF ECHOING ON WHAT, WHAT DAN WAS ASKING. 
          I GUESS IT'S FAIR TO ASSUME THAT IF THE HOUSE WASN'T AS LARGE, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A, A GARAGE THAT WAS SITTING ADJACENT TO, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DECIDE. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT, THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE HOME, UM, IS THAT, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? UM, SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          IF IT WAS A SHORTER HOUSE, YOU COULD DEFINITELY FIT A GARAGE THERE. 
          I THINK ARCHITECTURALLY IT WOULD, WOULD BE KIND OF SACRIFICING SOME VIEW FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, AN END WALL OR A SIDE WALL OF A GARAGE. 
          SO WE JUST FELT REALLY STRONGLY THAT LIKE, HIS GUESTS SHOULD ALSO HAVE A VIEW OF THE RIVER AS WELL AS LIKE HIS PRIMARY SUITE AND THE LIVING ROOM. 
          SO THOSE ARE KIND OF LIKE THE THREE PIECES YOU'RE SEEING. 
          SO IT REALLY IS A ONE DIRECTIONAL HOME LOOKING OUT TO THE RIVER. 
          THE OTHER, UH, YEAH, JUST ADDING ON TO THAT AS WELL, LIKE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME IS I'M TRYING TO BUILD A RANCH HOME WITH THAT. 
          LIKE, SO THERE'S NO STAIRS GOING, LIKE MAKING IT TWO STORY. 
          SO, UM, AS WE WERE KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, THAT WAS LIKE, SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME WAS KEEPING EVERYTHING ON LIKE ONE PLANE. 
          BUT IS IT ON A SLAB? IS THERE GONNA BE SOME KIND OF, SOME KIND OF LOWER LEVEL WALKOUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YEAH, THERE IS A BASEMENT BELOW A PORTION OF IT, AND THEN THE REST IS CRAWL. 
          WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? WE ARE AT JUST ABOUT 3000 OF FINISHED INTERIOR, AND THEN I THINK IT WAS 15,000 WAS THE GARAGE AND THE, THE SUITE ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I HAVE IT. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          DO, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. 
          YOU GUYS CAN TAKE A SEAT. 
          WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          APPRECIATE IT, DAN. 
          JOEL, HOW WE, UH, HOW WE FEELING ABOUT THIS HERE? GOOD, THANK YOU. 
          ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE? ANYBODY HERE? NO. 
          WE DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          NOTHING ONLINE? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, JOEL, DAN, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING, UM, ON THIS? UM, I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ALL THREE VARIANCES. 
          I FEEL LIKE THEY DESCRIBED ENOUGH SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 
          UM, THAT WAS THE ONE THAT I WAS, YOU KNOW, JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM ZACH AND THE APPLICANT, UM, THAT I WANTED TO FILL OUT. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT NEEDS ANY PARTICULAR SPECIAL CONDITION. 
          IT FELT LIKE THEY DESCRIBED ENOUGH SPECIAL THINGS ABOUT THE PROPERTY, FRANKLY, MORE THAN ONE. 
          SO I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING, UH, YEAH, I'M IN FAVOR OF APPRO. 
          I THINK THAT, UH, OUT OF CRITERIA A ALL THREE ARE MET, NO AGREE WITH PLANNING. 
          UM, CRITERIA BI DON'T THINK THE FINAL CRITERIA IS MET. 
          I THINK THAT, UM, POTENTIALLY YOU COULD HAVE THE, BY OTHER MEANS. 
          YOU COULD HAVE THE GARAGE BEHIND THE HOUSE. 
          UM, BUT ONLY TWO OUT OF, OR ONLY TWO OF THOSE FOUR NEED TO BE MET. 
          SO I'M IN FAVOR OF ALL OF APPROVING PATRICK. 
          UH, I GUESS I WOULD JUST ECHO EVERYBODY'S, UH, SENTIMENTS TO THIS POINT. 
          UH, IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, WE'RE NOT REALLY MAKING A MODIFICATION TO, WELL, THEY'RE MAKING LARGE MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND THAT WOULD, UH, COMPORT WITH THE, UH, R ONE, UM, UH, UH, REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, YEAH, 
          [00:15:01]
I I REALLY DON'T SEE ANYTHING, UH, TOO OBJECTIONABLE, UH, HERE WITH, UH, REGARD TO THE GRANTING THE VARIANCE. 
          THANK YOU, JOE. 
          SAME. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I'M IN FAVOR TOO. 
          AND I THINK, UH, BASED ON PAST PRECEDENT, UH, WE'VE HAD, UH, ALMOST THERE'S BEEN SPECIFIC CASES ON POINT, UH, RIGHT AROUND THE SAME AREA OF HOMES ABUTTING TO THE RIVER, REQUESTING ALTERATIONS BASED ON FLOOD PLAIN, UH, SLOPE VEGETATION, AND ESPECIALLY WHETHER IT'S OF THE ARCHITECTURE. 
          UM, WE'VE ALLOWED MODIFICATIONS BASED ON SOME OF THE ARCHAIC CODE, UM, THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR CERTAIN HOMES THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IF WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR, UM, I'M HAPPY TO DO IT. 
          YEAH. 
          WE DO HAVE TO DO THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS RIGHT? ON THIS ONE, DON'T WE? YEAH, WE DO. 
          YOU GONNA START WITH THE FIRST ONE? YEAH. 
          IF YOU WOULD GO FOR IT. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NO PROBLEM. 
          I MOVE FOR A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53 0.04 B SIX FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          SECOND ROLL, PLEASE. 
          MR. NYE? YES. 
          MR. DASHER? YES. 
          MR. MURPHY? YES. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          ALSO MOVE FOR A VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53 0.190 E ONE C FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          SECOND ROLL, PLEASE. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          MR. MURPHY? YES. 
          MR. DASHER? YES. 
          MR. NYE? YES. 
          AND FINALLY, I MOVE FOR VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53 0.190 E ONE I FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          SECOND ROLL, PLEASE. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. MURPHY? YES. 
          MR. NYE. 
          MR. DASHER? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED, ALL THREE OF THEM, SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WE WILL NOW MOVE BACK 
          [Case #24-031V]
TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT CASE. 
          THIS IS THE BURNS RESIDENCE CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR DASH 0 3 1 V REGARDING A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS A VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 A 1 1 5, 3 0.08, ZERO B ONE A, AND THE TRINITY PARK DEVELOPMENT TEXT TO ALLOW A BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE TO BE LOCATED ALONG A PROPERTY LINE. 
          THIS ONE, OR EXCUSE ME, 0.9, I'M GONNA TRY THAT AGAIN. 
          THIS 0.19 ACRE SITE ZONE, PLR PLAN, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TRINITY PARK, AND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 85 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DALI MOUNT DRIVE AND GRANTHAM LANE. 
          OUR STAFF, OR EXCUSE ME, OUR CASE PRESENTATION IS BY, UH, ZACH HANSEL STAFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR, THERE ARE THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THIS SITE. 
          UM, ONCE THESE ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, THERE WE GO. 
          UH, SO THIS IS A 0.19 ACRE SITE WITHIN THE PLR TRINITY PARK DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, WE DON'T QUITE SEE RS TOO OFTEN ANYMORE. 
          MOST THINGS ARE, ARE CAPTURED UNDER THE PLAN UNIT, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHAPTER. 
          BUT, UM, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WHAT THIS IS. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THIS, THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE IS LOCATED ON THIS SITE. 
          UH, JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE. 
          UH, SO BACK IN NOVEMBER, PLANNING ISSUED A DISAPPROVAL FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL, UH, FOR FENCE ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          THE REASONING FOR THE, THE DISAPPROVAL WAS BASED AROUND THE LOCATION OF IT, UM, AND NOT MEETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          FOLLOWING THIS, UM, AT THE, TOWARDS THE END OF JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE THAT OFFENSE HAD BEEN INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY, UH, AND ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THE INSTALLED FENCE, WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE SCREEN ON THE SCREEN HERE. 
          FOLLOWING THIS, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT FOR A VARIANCE TO KEEP THE INSTALLED FENCE. 
          UM, SO THE REQUEST IS FOR THREE SEPARATE VARIANCES. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS TO ALLOW A FENCE TO ENCROACH A 10 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. 
          UH, SO TO ORIENT YOU, NORTH IS LOOKING TOWARDS THE TOP OF THE SCREEN, AND THEN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, UH, IS AT THE BOTTOM. 
          SO THERE IS A 10 FOOT PUBLIC EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. 
          WITHIN THAT EASEMENT, THERE IS A SANITARY LINE THAT THE CITY OWNS AND MAINTAINS. 
          UM, SO SHOULD THE, 
          [00:20:01]
OR SHOULD THE BOARD DECIDE TO APPROVE THE, THE VARIANCE FOR THE EASEMENT, UM, THAT'S NOT THE FINAL STEP. 
          THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. 
          UM, THAT HAS NOT BEEN RAISED QUITE YET WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT FOLLOWING ANY GUIDANCE TONIGHT ON THAT REQUEST, WE WOULD BRING THAT UP WITH THEM. 
          UM, ENGINEERING MEMBERS ARE MADE, HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS REQUEST, BUT JUST HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCUSS IT AT A LARGER STAGE. 
          UH, NEXT IS THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO BE LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          UH, SO WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, TRINITY PARK ALLOWS FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF SIX FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 25% OF THE LOT DEPTH, WHICH FOR THIS SITE WOULD BE 30 FEET. 
          UH, SO THIS IS A PRETTY SIMILAR, UH, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES NEXT TO THIS DO HAVE SIMILAR, UH, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE VARIANCE TO THE TRAIN PARK DEVELOPMENT TEXT TO ALLOW A BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT TEXT, THE CODE STATES THAT, UH, FENCES ARE REQUIRED TO BE WOOD MASONRY, UH, OR SORRY, UH, WOODSTONE OR MASONRY RECONSTRUCTION I HAD ON THE SCREEN. 
          UM, THE TEXT IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT MATERIALS ARE ALLOWED TO BE USED HERE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHAT'S NOT. 
          UH, SO A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THAT, UH, TYPE OF MATERIAL TO BE PERMITTED HERE. 
          AND ADDITIONALLY, THE, THE VERY, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A VARIANCE STATEMENT WITH THIS. 
          UM, SO I WILL LOOK TO THEM TO EXPLAIN THEIR REASONING FOR THIS REQUEST AND, AND SOME OF THE BACKGROUND ON WHERE IT'S BEING LOCATED AS WELL. 
          SO, UH, WITH THAT, WE'VE COMBINED ALL THREE OF THESE REQUESTS INTO THE CRITERIA SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. 
          ALL THREE ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET WITH THIS PROPOSAL OR WITH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERIA. 
          AND THE REQUEST STAFF HAS FOUND THAT ALL THREE CRITERIA ARE NOT MET. 
          UH, THE FIRST IS SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 
          STAFF HAS FOUND THE, THE CONFIGURATION A LOT, THE LACK OF NATURAL FEATURES AND TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE ARE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND THAT THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS, UH, ON THE SITE THAT MAKE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IN PRACTICAL, UH, SECOND, THE APPLICANT ACTION INACTION. 
          THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED FOLLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ILLEGAL FENCE. 
          SO IT IS TO ALLOW FOR THAT FENCE TO BE MAINTAINED AS IS. 
          AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE IMPAIRMENT FOR THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, SO THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCE REGULATIONS IS TO PREVENT PERIMETER FENCES ALONGSIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES, UH, THAT DO CLOSE OFF PROPERTIES. 
          SO IT WAS, UH, INTRODUCED IN 1998, WHICH IS AFTER WHEN, UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1992. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE FENCES OUT THERE THAT, THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG THE PERIMETER. 
          HOWEVER, IF THEY WERE INSTALLED PRIOR TO, THEY'RE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING AND THEY CAN STAY UNTIL THEY ARE REPLACED AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, BUT THIS FENCE WOULD IMPAIR THE INTENT, UH, AND PURPOSE OF THAT REQUIREMENT. 
          AND THEN THE MATERIAL AS WELL. 
          UH, THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT IS CLEAR ON THOSE MATERIALS, AND THAT WAS TO ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC CHARACTER. 
          UH, SO THIS WOULD, THE USE OF THIS FENCE WOULD CONFLICT WITH THAT ORIGINAL AND EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, AND THEN STAFF HAS FOUND TWO OF THE FOUR CRITERIA TO BE MET HERE. 
          SO I WON'T DIVE INTO THOSE WHEN THE MINIMUM IS TWO OF THESE FOUR TO BE MET. 
          SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THESE REQUESTS. 
          UH, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN OUR APPLICANT'S ALSO HERE TO ADDRESS YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DAN. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU CAN THINK ON IT. 
          PATRICK, ANYTHING? SO THE, UH, UH, THE FENCING, UM, REGULATION FROM 1998, CORRECT. 
          UM, ARE THERE ANY, UH, FENCES IN THAT AREA THAT WOULD RESEMBLE THIS ONE THAT ARE, WOULD COMPLY OR, OR THAT, UH, WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THAT, THAT NEW VARIANCE? OR HOW COMMON WOULD THEY BE WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE ARE FENCES THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT FENCE REGULATIONS? YEAH. 
          THAT THEY MAY HAVE PREDATED THE ORDINANCE? YES. 
          I, I BELIEVE THERE ARE A FEW, UH, IN MY SITE VISIT. 
          THERE ARE SOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE. 
          HOWEVER, TO OUR UNDERSTANDING, THEY PRE-EXIST THESE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO SHOULD THEY BE BROUGHT, OR SORRY, SHOULD THEY BE REVISED OR, OR REMOVED? ANY NEW FENCE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, UM, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REGULATE FENCES BEFORE 1998. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S JUST THE ABSENCE OF THE REGULATION? THAT WAS CORRECT. 
          PRECLUDED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          [00:25:01]
UH, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, FOR THE OTHER FENCES THAT, UH, MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTED, UH, THESE REQUIREMENTS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MATERIALS OF THOSE ARE? UH, THE ONE OR TWO THAT I'M AWARE OF ARE WOOD. 
          UM, THOSE ARE JUST THE ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF THOUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HEY, ZACH, WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND HELP ME HERE. 
          'CAUSE IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE BASED ON WHAT PATRICK ASKED, THAT SOME OF THE FENCES ARE ESSENTIALLY TO USE THE CLICHE GRANDFATHERED IN. 
          RIGHT? IS THAT FAIR? AND SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO LIKE, REVISE OR REMODEL? LIKE WHAT PERCENTAGE HAS TO BE ALTERED TO MAKE THAT THEN REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE NEW CODE? WE DO HAVE A PERCENTAGE IN CODE. 
          LET ME GIMME JUST A MOMENT TO LOOK THAT UP, BUT HAPPY TO, THERE IS A PERCENTAGE REQUIRED THAT ONCE YOU EXCEED THAT, YOU DO HAVE TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH, WITH CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND WHILE I'M LOOKING, YOU ARE, WE'RE WELCOME TO CARRY ON WITH, WITH ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH US ASKING MORE QUESTIONS. 
          JOEL, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD? UM, THANKS ZACH. 
          I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON AS IT RELATES TO CRITERIA A NUMBER ONE. 
          SO IN THE APPLICANT NARRATIVE, THEY MENTIONED THE NEIGHBOR'S DOG, UM, FROM THE RENTAL PROPERTY COMING INTO THEIR PROPERTY, IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CIRCUMSTANCE? AND IF SO, WHY NOT? LET ME PULL UP THE DEFINITION. 
          SO WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT A SPECIAL CONDITION. 
          UM, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ARE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, WHETHER IT'S NARROWNESS OF A SITE, WHETHER IT'S, UH, MATURE VEGETATION, WHETHER THERE ARE NATURAL FEATURES THAT, THAT MAKE IT CHALLENGING FOR AN APPLICANT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OF THE, WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENT. 
          IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO WE WOULD NOT VIEW THAT AS A SPECIAL CONDITION AS THAT'S NOT SOMETHING PERTAINING TO, TO THE SITE ITSELF. 
          THANKS. 
          AND THEN ON CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THEY PUT UP THE FENCE, THEY WANT TO KEEP THE FENCE, BUT THE REASON THAT THEY WANT THE FENCE, LIKE THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THE FENCE. 
          LIKE THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE IS THE, THE REASONS LAID OUT HERE. 
          AM I MISSING SOMETHING? THERE AGAIN, THE, BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE, THIS IS THE CONCLUSION THAT WE'VE COME TO IS THAT THE REQUEST IS, IS TO ALLOW FOR THIS FENCE TO REMAIN IN A NON-COMPLIANT LOCATION. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE OUR ANALYSIS COMES FROM. 
          ANYTHING ELSE WHILE HE'S STILL LOOKING, I KNOW WE'RE 
          [00:30:01]
NOT IN DISCUSSION, BUT IS THERE A A REASON WE NEED TO KNOW THE PERCENTAGE BEFORE WE CAN MOVE ON? I MEAN, THIS ISN'T A REPLACEMENT. 
          NOT NECESSARILY, I GUESS. 
          I MEAN, HE CAN LOOK IT UP AND WE CAN WAIT. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR ZACH? SO YES, SAY I I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS MORE THAN 50% OF THE FENCE. 
          ONCE THAT'S REPLACED, THEN IT HAS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. 
          AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE FENCE WAS REPLACED IN THIS INSTANCE? UH, ONCE THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED, THERE WAS NO FENCE BEFORE. 
          UM, THERE, THE APPLICANT DOES STATE IN THEIR STATEMENT THERE WAS A FENCE ORIGINALLY WITH THE SITE, BUT THAT WAS SINCE REMOVED. 
          SO THIS WOULD NOT APPLY IN THAT SENSE. 
          SO IN, IN REALITY YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WAS A FENCE IN PLACE OR THERE WASN'T A FENCE? I WOULD LOOK TO THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TOWARDS THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          IS IT THE CITY'S POSITION THAT IT WAS, THAT THE 50% THRESHOLD WAS MET? AGAIN, THIS WAS OFFENSE THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE HAD A PERMIT 'CAUSE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THOSE REGULATIONS. 
          SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE A, A PERMIT TO, TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT WAS OR WHEN IT WAS REMOVED AND, UM, HOW IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. 
          THIS IS A HUNDRED PERCENT A NEW FENCE. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY, THEY HAD A 50% OF A BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE AND THEN THEY PUT A NEW 50% ON THIS IS A HUNDRED PERCENT PERCENT NEW FENCE. 
          THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING, YES. 
          HEY, ZACH, QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          HOW MANY SITUATIONS HAVE YOU BEEN IN WHERE SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DISAPPROVED BY, UM, PLANNING AND THEN CONSTRUCTED A VIOLATIVE WHATEVER FENCE OR STRUCTURE? I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER  TO THAT. 
          UM, THE, THE PROTOCOL IS, IS JUST BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS, IS FINDING THAT VIOLATION AND, AND RELAYING TO THAT TO US. 
          SO IN THIS CASE THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. 
          BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TOWARDS ANY OTHER CASES WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FOR STAFF? OKAY. 
          WE MAY HAVE MORE HANG TIGHT, ZACH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MR. ASH FOR THE APPLICANT, AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR, UH, FULL NAME AND FIRM ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          YEAH. 
          THOMAS PASH 0 0 5 9 0 7 9. 
          UM, REPRESENTING DARLA BURNS. 
          MY ADDRESS IS 55 SOUTH HIGH STREET, SUITE TWO 10 AT DUBLIN, OHIO. 
          UM, MAY BE ABLE TO HELP ZACH OUT IF HE LOOKS AT SECTION 1 53 0.803 C AND I'LL READ THAT FOR EVERYBODY IN THE RECORD AND HE CAN LOOK AT IT. 
          IT SAYS, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS IN THIS CODE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FENCES ERECTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE, 75 DASH 98 SHALL NOT NOT BE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE REPLACED IN THE SAME LOCATION AND AT THE SAME OR LESSER HEIGHT AS EXISTED ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE 75 98. 
          IN ADDITION, THE REPLACEMENT FENCE SHALL BE OF A MATERIAL AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 1 53 0.080 C. 
          SO IT IS NOT CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING, AND IT'S ALLOWED TO BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE SITE THAT IT WAS BEFORE. 
          THERE'S NOT A 50%, UM, REPLACEMENT PROVISION. 
          SO THE OTHER, UM, FENCES THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE PERIMETER FENCES, THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE REPLACED AND PUT AT THE EXACT SAME LOCATION ON THE PERIMETER AS THEY ARE NOW AND NOT BE VIOLATING OUR FENCE CODE. 
          SO THAT'S SPECIFICALLY IN OUR, IN OUR FENCE CODE RIGHT NOW. 
          SO THE, THE STAFF REPORT TALKING ABOUT BEING A NON-CONFORMING AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED AND HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT CODE. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CODE SAYS. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE. 
          UM, IN THE, IN THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, THIS WAS DEVELOPED IN, UH, 1992, WHICH IS PRENCE CODE. 
          AND AS STAFF, UH, DISCUSSED THIS AS A PLR, WE DID A LOT OF P LRS BACK THEN. 
          AND THOSE DISTRICTS, WE IN ESSENCE WROTE THE ZONING CODE 
          [00:35:01]
FOR THOSE, UM, DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY A PROVISION THAT WAS IN ORDINANCE, UH, ONE 10 DASH 92 THAT DISCUSSES THE ISSUE OF FENCES IN TRINITY PARK. 
          AND THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY IN SECTION TWO, PHASE ONE, BUT, UM, THE ORIGINAL, UM, SECTION ONE WAS DONE IN 1992. 
          IN THAT DEVELOPMENT TEXT, THE VERY LAST PART OF IT, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, IT SAYS THAT OTHER FENCES WITHIN TRINITY PARK MAY BE OF WOOD OR STONED OR MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 48 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND SHALL NOT BE LOCATED BEYOND THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE. 
          OTHER FENCES WITHIN TRINITY PARK MAY OCCUPY SIDE YARDS, EITHER BEHIND A LINE PERPENDICULAR TO, AND NOT MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN FRONT OF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, OR TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CONTINUE A FENCE LANE ON THE ADJOINING LOT. 
          SO THE DEVELOPMENT DECK THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THIS IN 1992 SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED FENCES IN THE SIDE YARDS. 
          THAT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT OUR CURRENT ZONING CODE FOR FENCES IS. 
          BUT THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT TEXT. 
          IT'S UNIQUE TO THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT MAY HAVE, MAY BE IN SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR TEXT, A TEXT THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNSEL, IT ALLOWS FENCES IN THE SIDE YARDS. 
          THIS IS A VERY NARROW LOT. 
          IT'S 70 FEET WIDE. 
          THE ONE SIDE HAS SIX FEET OF SIDE YARD SETBACK, WHICH IS THEIR MINIMUM SIDE YARD. 
          WELL UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, IF, IF THIS WASN'T ADDRESSED IN HERE AND THE CURRENT CODE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY OF THAT, THAT FENCE IN THE SIDE YARD, IT IS A NARROW LOT. 
          BUT THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT ALLOWS THAT TO BE IN THERE. 
          THE WAY THAT THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER IS SET THAT HAS THE DOG AND THE DOG MAY NOT BE A PARTICULAR ISSUE, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM STAFF STANDPOINT, BUT THAT HOUSE ACTUALLY FACES, AND IT'S THE REAR OF THAT HOUSE THAT FACES MY CLIENT'S SIDE YARD. 
          SO IT'S KIND OF AN ODD LAYOUT THAT OF HOW THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION WAS LAID OUT. 
          AS FAR AS THE MATERIALS, UM, WE, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST VARIANCE IS REALLY APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, BUT WE'VE APPLIED FOR IT BECAUSE THE, THE OF STAFF'S INTERPRETATION ON IT, ON THE BUILDING PERMIT, UM, THE FENCE PERMIT ITSELF AS FAR AS THE MATERIALS, THERE IS AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERMANENT ALUMINUM FENCE THAT'S INSTALLED ON, UH, IS IT KILLARNEY KILLING ME. 
          THAT'S JUST LITERALLY DIAGONAL ACROSS FROM HER. 
          AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, WHICH I I'M PRESUMING IT WAS EITHER NOT APPROVED OR MAYBE DOESN'T NEED A PERMIT, IT HAS A TEMPORARY BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE UP THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ENCIRCLING THEIR YARD. 
          IT'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, THREE FEET TALL. 
          UM, WE, I THINK WE'VE PROVIDED PICTURES IN OUR, IN OUR TEXT ON THERE YOU COULD SEE THAT TEMPORARY FENCE. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK A LITTLE FARTHER BACK TO THE, TO THE NEXT ONE BACK, IT'S ANOTHER, UM, BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE, OR WE'RE ASSUMING IT'S ALUMINUM, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A BLACK FENCE SIMILAR TO THIS. 
          UM, MY CLIENT DID REACH OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION BACK IN SEPTEMBER. 
          UM, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE, THE ALUMINUM FENCE FROM THEIR STANDPOINT. 
          THEY ACTUALLY, I THINK, WOULD PROBABLY PREFER IT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT A, AT A WOODEN FENCE, A BOARD AND BOARD OR A SPLIT RAIL FENCE, IT'S GONNA BE HEAVIER AND IT'S GONNA BE MASSING DIFFERENT THAN A BASICALLY A BLACK PICKET FENCE. 
          SO THIS FENCE ACTUALLY ASSIST IN THE DESIGN OF TRYING TO KEEP THE OPEN VIEWS AND VISTAS BECAUSE IT'S THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE TYPE OF FENCE TO HAVE THAT OPENNESS AND THAT VIEW. 
          SO WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, REQUEST THAT VARIANCE FOR THE, FOR THE MATERIAL BECAUSE IT DOES ADD TO THE, UH, THE VISUAL, UH, VISTAS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. 
          AS FAR AS THE, THE OTHER, UM, PROVISIONS OF OUR, OUR VARIANCE REQUEST, SHE DID A, HER FENCE CONTRACTOR DID APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND WENT AHEAD AND INSTALLED THE FENCE WHILE THE FENCE THING WAS GOING ON. 
          THE FENCE IS UP AND SHE LOOKS AT IT AS A REPLACEMENT FENCE THAT SHE DID HAVE A FENCE WHEN SHE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 1996. 
          AGAIN, PRE FENCE CODE. 
          SHE BOUGHT IT. 
          SHE UNDERSTOOD THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT REQUIREMENTS, SHE UNDERSTOOD THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT COVENANTS PIECE OF IT. 
          SHE INSTALLED A FENCE, UH, SHORTLY AFTER SHE MOVED IN BEFORE THE, THE 98 CODE. 
          IT STAYED THERE UNTIL PROBABLY 2003, 2004. 
          WELL, LONGER THAN THAT, WAS IT LONGER THAN THAT? IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 2014. 
          'CAUSE I HAD MY GRAND, MY OLDEST GRANDSON WAS BORN IN 2009 AND I MET WITH SEVERAL 
          [00:40:01]
YEARS OKAY. 
          AFTER THAT. 
          AND SO IT WAS DETERIORATED. 
          UM, AND SO SHE, YOU KNOW, COULD HAVE REPLACED IT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME AND INSTALLED EITHER ANOTHER WOODEN FENCE, UH, OR ASKED TO GET A VARIANCE ON MATERIALS AND INSTALL THE, THE ALUMINUM FENCE HERE. 
          SO THIS FENCE IS, IS INSTALLED IN THE SAME LOCATION AS WHAT THE PREVIOUS ONE IS. 
          IT DOESN'T ENCROACH INTO THE EASEMENT THAT'S IN THE BACK. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE EDGE OF THE EASEMENT. 
          HOLD IT UP. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S NOT WITHIN THE 10 FOOT EASEMENT. 
          THE, THE STAFF REPORT SAYS SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT EASEMENT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A 10 FOOT EASEMENT. 
          SHE'S ACTUALLY NOT IN THAT EASEMENT ITSELF. 
          AND IF IT, IF THAT, IF IT'S CON CURRENT FIRM, THAT'S NOT QUITE EXACTLY IN THERE, SHE'S GONNA MOVE IT OUTTA THE EASEMENT THAT'S ON THERE OR, OR SHE'LL TALK TO ENGINEERING TO, TO GET THAT APPROVED. 
          BUT THERE WAS THE INTENT THAT, THAT BE MOVED OUT OF THE EASEMENT ITSELF. 
          LIKE I SAID, WHEN SHE, WHEN SHE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, SHE HAD, SHE HAD CERTAIN RIGHTS THAT CAME WITH THAT LAND IN THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT THAT IN THE, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. 
          SHE'S AN ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER. 
          UM, THE FENCE CODE CHANGED AFTER SHE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. 
          SHE PURCHASED IT KNOWING WHAT SHE COULD AND COULDN'T DO. 
          THAT'S ON IT. 
          UH, APPLYING THE FENCE CODE AT LEAST TO HER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, REALLY, I BELIEVE IS MORE OF AN EX POST FACTO LAW TYPE SITUATION. 
          TO HER, SHE IS WILLING, UM, THAT IF THE, IF THE BOARD GRANTS HER THE VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE AND THE MATERIALS, SHE, SHE IS WILLING TO MAKE A, MAKE IT A CONDITION THAT IF SHE MOVES OUT, SHE'LL TAKE THE FENCE DOWN. 
          NOW, WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY ELSE COULD COME BACK IN AND ASK FOR A FENCE AND SAY, HEY, THE DEVELOPMENT TECH SAYS I CAN HAVE IT IN THE SIDE YARD, I THINK THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT, BUT THEY WOULD'VE TO GO TO THE STAFF AND STAFF WOULD'VE TO MAKE THAT, THAT DETERMINATION. 
          I THINK IT'S UNIQUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DONE PREFE CODE AND PRE THE, THE WAY THAT WE'RE DOING THINGS. 
          NOW, AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL ZONINGS OF PROPERTY, WE ACTUALLY WROTE THIS DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND INCLUDED, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED FENCES IN IT, JUST LIKE HAS IT IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT DECKS. 
          YOU CAN'T HAVE FENCES. 
          SO THAT WAS DEFINITELY PRE 98. 
          YEAH. 
          ARE YOU GOOD? ARE YOU GOOD FOR NOW? YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          MOST LIKELY. 
          GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. 
          UH, I'LL DEFER, I'LL DEFER OVER HERE TO, TO, TO JOEL. 
          UH, FIRST IF YOU HAVE OR IF YOU'RE READY, I'M, I'M SURE OTHERS ARE READY TO GO. 
          YEAH, I YOUR CALL. 
          THANKS FOR THE REMARKS. 
          I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, UM, THE ISSUE WITH LIKE GETTING REJECTED FOR THE PERMIT AND STILL BUILDING IT. 
          I KNOW YOU, THE WAY YOU SAID IT, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT'S ON THE CON THAT YOU FELT LIKE THE CONTRACTOR KEPT PROCEEDING ANYWAY. 
          BUT IF YOU COULD JUST BE SPECIFIC ABOUT LIKE, THE TIMELINE OF WHEN PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR WHEN IT WAS REJECTED, WHEN THE OFFENSE WAS STARTING TO BE CONSTRUCTED. 
          I'D APPRECIATE IT. 
          I BELIEVE THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR IN LATE NOVEMBER. 
          AND BECAUSE I KNOW THE CITATION WAS JAN IN JANUARY, THE CITATION WAS IN, WAS IN JANUARY. 
          MY CLIENT IS, WAS LOOKING AT IT AS BEING A REPLACEMENT FENCE, UM, FROM THAT STANDPOINT. 
          AND WHEN SHE GOT THE, THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED AND SHE GOT THE, THE REJECTION AND THE FENCE WAS PRETTY MUCH ALREADY INSTALLED FROM THE CONTRACTOR CONTRACTORS DOING IT AND MOVING ON. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS, IF YOU HAVE HIS SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD AND I'M, I GOT THE NOTICE OF, UH, I MAKE A LOOK IN MY PHONE. 
          UH, THE VIOLATION NOTICE WAS IN JANUARY. 
          SO THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED IN, IN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SAID WAS NOVEMBER WAS, WAS ISSUED A DISAPPROVAL NOTICE ON NO NOVEMBER 1ST. 
          THAT I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RIGHT OR NOT. 
          THE FENCE WAS UP UP BY MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE, DID YOU GET A NO AND THEN BUILD THE FENCE ANYWAY OR WERE YOU STARTING TO BUILD THE FENCE AND APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT AT THE SAME TIME? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          DID YOU GET A NO AND THEN BUILD THE FENCE OR WERE YOU ALREADY BUILDING THE FENCE? I THINK EVERYTHING WAS, WAS START WAS IN PLACE. 
          YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACT, THE ORDERING, I YOU MOVE JUST A LITTLE OVER TO THE YEAH. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          I JUST WANT, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE, WE CAN HEAR EVERY, WE HEAR IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALMOST SIMULTANEOUS, YOU KNOW. 
          'CAUSE I STARTED GETTING ESTIMATES AT LEAST SINCE SEPTEMBER. 
          SO THERE WERE SEVERAL, UM, FENCE COMPANIES THAT I, THAT I WAS WORKING WITH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN IS THE, IS THE FENCE BUILT IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE AS THE OLD FENCE EXCEPT FOR, UM, ON THE, THE SIDE 
          [00:45:01]
FENCES? THE OLD ONE WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, CURRENTLY, YEAH. 
          INTO THE EASEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, CURRENTLY IT DOES NOT, IT'S, IT, THEY'RE PULLED BACK INTO THE, TO WHERE TREES ARE PLANTED. 
          SO WHERE IT'S, WHERE IT'S LOCATED AT NOW, IT ACTUALLY RESOLVES THE FIRST VARIANCE THAT THEY HAD LISTED ABOUT BEING IN THE EASEMENT. 
          IT'S NOT AN EASEMENT. 
          I MEAN, I'M, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO STAFF ON, ON THAT ASPECT. 
          I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          I WANNA CLARIFYING, UM, ZACH OR, OR YAZ, IF YOU WANNA CHIME IN ON THIS, I, RELATIVE TO THE, THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT OF THE, I DON'T WANNA CALL IT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 
          UH, DO, DO, DO WE HAVE THE, SHOULDN'T THAT BE DONE VIA AN AMENDMENT TO THAT DOCUMENT SEPARATELY THAN HERE? ME? AND THIS IS WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL BY THE WAY. 
          THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT I, UH, 'CAUSE THE METAL IS NOT LISTED IN THE, THAT DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND THAT'S WHAT ONE OF THE MODIFICATIONS IS REQUESTED. 
          SHOULDN'T THAT BE DONE IN A DIFFERENT FORUM? I, IF THIS BOARD OR IF, IF, IF THE CITY WANTED TO ALLOW A ADDITIONAL MATERIALS OR REMOVE MATERIALS, UH, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE LEGISLATIVELY DONE. 
          BUT A, A ONE-OFF VARIANCE FROM, UH, PERMITTING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY PERMITTED CAN BE DONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THROUGH A VARIANCE. 
          IF THAT, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO ESSENTIALLY THIS BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY, UH, A DEVELOPMENT TEXT OF A, OF A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ASPECT B BASED ON THE, THE VARIANCE STANDARDS THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, DAN, BUT I'LL, I'LL REFER TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU WANNA ASK SOME THINGS. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUICK ONE. 
          UH, SO THE ORIGINAL FENCE, UM, YOU THINK WAS TAKEN DOWN AROUND 10 YEARS AGO WOULD BE YOUR ESTIMATE, AND NINE NINE, DID THAT MEET THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS? IT, IT WAS, UM, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS, UH, SPLIT RAIL. 
          SO IT WAS WOOD THEN, UH, IT WAS, UH, WOOD AND WIRE MESH. 
          AND THE WOOD ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THE POST STARTED ROTTING AND FIRST THE, UM, THE MESH STARTED COMING OFF AND THEN A COUPLE YEARS LATER, YOU KNOW, SO I HAD TO KEEP GETTING THAT REPAIRED AND THEN THE POST STARTED ROTTING. 
          SO I WAS LOOKING FOR MAINTENANCE FREE, REPLACE REPLACEMENT FENCE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          THE ONLY WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS THAT I RECEIVED WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THE ONLY MATERIALS THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED THAT WERE, UM, CHAIN LINK AND VINYL FENCE COULD NOT BE THOSE TWO. 
          SHE, IN WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, SHE RECEIVED A SUMMARY OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, KIND OF PUTTING IT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS. AND THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN THERE IS IT SAYS, UM, SOMETHING ABOUT OTHER MATERIALS NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. 
          SO IN SEPTEMBER WHILE SHE WAS GETTING HER QUOTES, SHE REACHED OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, SAID, HEY, I WANT TO PUT IN A, A BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE. 
          AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FINE. 
          GO TALK TO THE CITY. 
          THEY'RE THE GATEKEEPERS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          HEY, ZACH, QUESTION? GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT SEVEN FEET FROM THE REAR EASEMENT, YOU HAD MENTIONED 25% IS THE REQUIREMENT, IS THAT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY FROM THE, FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, OR IS IT A PERCENTAGE FROM WHERE THE HOUSE ENDS? SO I THINK YOU'RE REFERENCING TWO SEPARATE THINGS HERE. 
          SO THERE'S THE EASEMENT THAT IS SHOWN ON THE PLAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND FOR THE SITE. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE 10 FEET. 
          UM, SO I BELIEVE THERE WAS A TYPO IN THE, THE REPORT THAT SAID SEVEN AND A HALF, IT IS 10 FEET. 
          UM, THE REAR SETBACK, WHICH IS DICTATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT STATES SAYS 25% OF THE DEPTH OF THE LOT. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THE REAR SETBACK WOULD BE. 
          THE REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET FOR THIS LOT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THEN THAT EASEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN DOES, UH, CODE SUPERSEDE DEVELOPMENT TEXT THE WAY THAT THE, THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, UM, IT SAYS THAT IF ANY, AND THIS IS 1 53 0 8 3 B, IT SAYS IF THESE STANDARDS CONFLICT, UH, IN ANY WAY WITH THE STANDARDS IN ANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, UH, ZONING TEXT, THEN THE MOST RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS SHALL PREVAIL. 
          UM, SO IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD 
          [00:50:01]
BE LOOKING AT THE WAY THAT OUR FENCE CODE IS WRITTEN TODAY. 
          WE WOULD BE APPLYING THOSE SETBACKS TO A FENCE. 
          THAT'S HOW WE WOULD, WE WOULD BE APPROACHING THAT SITUATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ZACH, YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ARE WE ABLE TO ASK YAZ? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YAZ, COULD YOU COMMENT ON THE PART OF THE CODE THAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP THAT WAS NOT IN THE MATERIALS? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE, UH, THE, THE REPLACEMENT FENCE? SURE. 
          ORDINANCE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S 1 53 0 8 3 CI BELIEVE, UM, THAT WAS READ CORRECTLY. 
          IN ALL NOTWITHSTANDING, OTHER PROVISIONS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL, UH, DISTRICTS, FENCES ERECTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE 75 98, WHICH THE EFFECTIVE DATE WAS MARCH 20TH OF, UH, 2000 SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE REPLACED IN THE SAME LOCATION, THE SAME OR LESSER HEIGHT AS EXISTED ON THAT EFFECTIVE DATE. 
          I THINK WE'RE, AND THAT, THAT IS WHAT THAT SAYS. 
          I THINK, UH, 1 53 0 8 3 B COMES INTO PLAY THERE THOUGH BECAUSE, UM, WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE WAY THE STANDARDS ARE BETWEEN THE CODE AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ONE STANDS. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY IF ONE, LET'S ASSUME THAT, THAT THAT PROVISION PERMITS THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS. 
          AND UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TESTIMONY HERE THAT IT'S IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION EXCEPT FOR, UH, MAYBE THE BACK. 
          UM, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE A FENCE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN SIX FEET OF THE SIDE YARDS AND WITHIN THE 25 FEET OR WHATEVER THE REAR YARD IS. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE, UH, STANDARD. 
          CRAIG, THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT DOESN'T SAY THAT. 
          THE ZONING CODE SAYS THAT. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT SAYS I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE IT IN THE SIDE YARD. 
          THE MINI, MAYBE I'M READING THE WRONG, IN THE WRONG SECTION, BUT I, I READ THAT THE MINI MINIMUM SIDE YARD SHALL BE SIX FEET ON EACH SIDE FOR LOTS 75 FEET AND WIDTH OR LESS. 
          IS THAT, DID I READ THAT IN OR IS THAT, WERE YOU REFERRING TO SOMETHING ELSE? YOU'RE READING THAT CORRECTLY, BUT I THINK WHAT MR. ASH IS THE BACK, THE BOTTOM HALF OF THAT PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS OTHER FENCES WITHIN TRINITY PARK MAY OCCUPY REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, EITHER BEHIND A LINE PERPENDICULAR TO, AND NOT MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN FRONT OF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. 
          VERY LAST SENTENCE R RIGHT. 
          AND I, I THINK THAT, UH, ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, I THINK THAT THE FENCE AS, AS SHOWN AT LEAST GOES IN FRONT OF THE BACK BUILDING LINE. 
          IS THAT ACCURATE? NOT MORE THAN FOUR FEET, WHICH IS ALLOWED PER THIS DEVELOPMENT TEXT. 
          THE ONE SIDE YES, THE DOG THE DOG SIDE, YEAH. 
          IT'S NOT MORE THAN FOUR FEET. 
          THE, THE ONE SIDE, RIGHT, WITH THE PROB WITH THE RENTAL PROPERTY. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT ONE IS, THAT ONE'S THERE. 
          WELL ONE HAVE FOUR FEET BACK. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          THE OTHER SIDE IS WITHIN THAT. 
          YES, YES. 
          THE MOM. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK JUST TO ALSO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL, THAT IS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THE SIDE YARD. 
          AND THAT'S NOT ADDRESSING THE REAR YARD SETBACK THOUGH. 
          SO IF IT WERE DECIDED THAT THAT'S THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE SIDE YARD CAN BE WITHIN OR THE FENCE CAN BE WITHIN THAT REQUIRED SIDE YARD, THAT'S NOT ADDRESSING THE REAR YARD SETBACK AS WELL. 
          SO THAT'S PART OF THE REQUEST AND PART OF HOW THIS HAS BEEN WRITTEN WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EXCEEDING THE BUILDING, THE BUILDABLE AREA, IT'S NOT JUST THE SIDE, BUT IT IS THE REAR AS WELL. 
          I KNOW THAT, THAT THEY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THAT WE HAD, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FENCE WAS IN, WAS IN THE EASEMENT. 
          IF IT'S NOT, UM, GREAT, HAPPY TO, TO WORK ON THAT AFTER THIS. 
          BUT, UM, IT IS STILL WITHIN THAT REAR SETBACK. 
          SO JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO BASED ON THAT, YEAH, THIS IS YOUR VIEW THAT THAT'S A MOOT POINT, THAT IT IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT IS THE MORE RESTRICTIVE TEXT? YEAH. 
          THERE WAS JUST SOME BACK AND FORTH THERE. 
          I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE YES, I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY AS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND I, I KNOW AS MUCH AS UH, HAS BEEN, UH, TESTIFIED HERE TODAY, IF THE FENCE EXISTED EXACTLY OR CLOSE TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED OR WHAT IS THERE NOW, UH, APPLYING THIS DEVELOPMENT TEXT WOULD BE THE MORE RESTRICTIVE WAY TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND BECAUSE OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, UM, 
          [00:55:02]
UH, RESTRICTIONS AND THE, AND THE MATERIAL I MAY ADD AND THE MATERIAL, YOU KEEP SAYING DEVELOPMENT TEXT THAT, AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, AGAIN, IT ADDRESSES A SIDE YARD. 
          IT MAY NOT ADDRESS THE REAR YARD PIECE THAT'S ON IT. 
          MY CLIENT IS LOOKING AT IT AS I'M REPLACING A FENCE THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY SHE WANTED TO HAVE IT. 
          SHE'S ACTUALLY MOVED IT OUTTA THE EASEMENT WHERE IT WAS IN THE EASEMENT BEFORE. 
          SO FROM THE BE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK, SHE'S LOOKING AT THAT AS BEING A REPLACEMENT FOR THE FENCE THAT SHE ALREADY HAD BY RIGHT BEFORE THE, THE FENCE CODE TOOK EFFECT. 
          SO THIS ONE WOULD BE FOR ZACH, IS THERE ANY TIMELINE GIVEN FOR REPLACEMENT OR DOES IT GO BACK TO ETERNITY? IS IT SAME OWNER, IS IT WITHIN SIX MONTHS A YEAR? AS FAR AS WE KNOW. 
          SO WITHIN THAT PROVISION THAT'S PROVIDED, THAT'S BEEN BEEN BROUGHT UP, IT DOES NOT BRING UP A TIMEFRAME. 
          UM, I KNOW FOR, AND, AND AGAIN THIS COME BACK TO THE, THE WHOLE NON-CONFORMING THING. 
          THIS IS A PERMITTED, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A PERMITTED OFFENSE AFTERWARDS. 
          UM, AS IT STATES, IT'S NOT NON-CONFORMING, UM, IT'S NON-CONFORMING BASED ON THE CURRENT STANDARDS, BUT IT IS PERMITTED BASED ON THIS REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, I KNOW THERE ARE PERMIT PROVISIONS BASED ON MAINTENANCE, UM, WHERE, YOU KNOW, EXCEPT THE AIM MAINTENANCE THAT REQUIRES MORE THAN 10% OF THE SURFACE AREA OF AN EXISTING FENCE, WHICH HAS NON-CONFORMING MATERIALS WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, UH, SHALL REQUIRE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE FENCE, UH, WITH THE MATERIAL PERMIT BY THAT THIS SUB-CHAPTER THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE. 
          WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SENSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THAT DOES GIVE A TIMEFRAME OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WOULD REQUIRE WHAT, WHEN WE WOULD PERMIT SOMETHING TO, TO TAKE PLACE. 
          SO, UM, HOW WE HAVE APPLIED THIS IN THE PAST IS THE, SORRY, LEMME GO BACK. 
          WE WOULD NOT APPLY THIS BECAUSE THE FENCE HAS BEEN DOWN FOR IT. 
          IT'S NOT AN IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT HERE. 
          UM, IF IT WERE AN IMMEDIATE REPLACEMENT, THERE MIGHT BE A CASE THAT, THAT WE'D BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THAT. 
          BUT BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN GONE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT IN THIS CASE. 
          AND THAT'S JUST BASED ON OUR INTERPRETATION, HOW WE WOULD APPLY THAT. 
          YEAH, SO THAT WAS THE DISTINCTION I WAS TRYING TO GET AT EARLIER. 
          IF IT'S CONSIDERED A REPLACEMENT OR NOT, THE STAFF AND CITY ARE SAYING IT'S NOT A REPLACEMENT, IT'S ESSENTIALLY A NEW FENCE. 
          IS THAT FAIR, ZACH? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WITH, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, I GUESS YES. 
          DO WE HAVE TO TAKE THE CITY'S POSITION FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VARIANCE OR ARE WE PERMITTED TO MAKE OUR OWN INTERPRETATION WHETHER THIS COULD BE A REPLACEMENT? BECAUSE THAT DOES MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WILL CHANGE THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE NEED TO JUDGE THIS. 
          CORRECT. 
          ZACH? CORRECT. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOULD BE MORE THE APPEAL ROUTE, APPEAL ROUTE OF HOW THE CODE SECTION WOULD BE INTERPRETED. 
          MEANING THAT THIS WOULD BE A, UM, NOT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE, UH, THEY, THEY WOULD'VE TO COME HERE FOR A DIFFERENT, UM, ALMOST THAT COULD BE ALMOST THE ONE THAT YOU HAD, BUT ALMOST THE ONE WE HAD BEFORE. 
          I REMEMBER THAT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN ADMINISTRATOR. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE, AND THE WAY THEY SUBMITTED IT IS THAT IT'S, THIS IS NOT A REPLACEMENT, THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR A NEW FENCE. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT FAIR? YES. 
          YY YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU, YOU LED ME TO WHERE I WAS GOING, BUT UH, AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL ARE MAKING DECISIONS ON THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST BEFORE YOU, BASED ON THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU. 
          AND SO, UM, THE SUBMISSION OF THE VARIANCE, I, I WOULD, I WOULD LIMIT OUR, OUR, UH, DECISION MAKING TO THAT QUESTION. 
          UH, I, I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU PRESUME THE, THE STAFF TO BE CORRECT IN ALL STUFF PRESENTED, I THINK IN THE QUA JUDICIAL PROCEEDING THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH BOTH STAFF'S DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION AND THE APPLICANT'S INFORMATION AND MAKE A DECISION. 
          YEAH, I MEAN I ALSO THINK IT DEPENDS ON WHAT IS BEING, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY LAWYERS WE HAVE UP HERE, SO I WAS TRY TO KEEP IT AS LAYMAN AS 
          [01:00:01]
POSSIBLE. 
          , THERE'S A FEW, I KNOW THERE'S LEAST TWO THAT I KNOW AWARE. 
          UH, SO I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE JUDGING WHAT THE STANDARD BY WHICH WE'RE JUDGING APPROPRIATELY. 
          BECAUSE I DON'T, NOT ONLY DO, I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT TO SET BAD PRECEDENT HERE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CODE, UM, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE EVALUATING. 
          ZACH, WAS THERE DI DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL ABOUT REPLACEMENT VERSE NEW? NO, WE DID NOT HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I'M GONNA GO BACK, UH, YOU KNOW, YAZ OR ZACH ON THIS QUESTION. 
          UM, ARE WE BASED ON THE WAY THAT THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR, ARE WE TO ASSUME, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT HERE. 
          'CAUSE IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE TWO SEPARATE DECISIONS, WHETHER ONE IT'S WE CONSIDER A REPLACEMENT OR TWO, IT'S A NEW FENCE THAT TAKES US DOWN SEPARATE PATHS, ARE WE ONE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION? UH, OR TWO, DOES THAT, DOES THAT THEN RE REQUIRE A REAPPLICATION OR SOME FORM OR FASHION IF THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S COUNSEL DISAGREE WITH THE INITIAL INTERPRETATION? YOU, YOU ARE ABLE TO WEIGH ALL THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, UH, YOU, YOU NEED, YOU NEED NOT BE LIMITED BY THE APPLICATION, BUT I WOULD BE, UM, YOU, YOU ARE LIMITED BY THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THIS WAS TRULY A REPLACEMENT FENCE IE REPLACING AN EXISTING FENCE OR WHETHER THIS IS A NEW FENCE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ASSUME EITHER OF THOSE. 
          IT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AS THIS WAS A NEW FENCE REQUIRING A VARIANCE. 
          I WILL SAY THAT. 
          UM, AND SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS BEING A REPLACEMENT WERE NOT REALLY BROACHED PRIOR TO TONIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ZACH, IN YOUR RECOLLECTION, UM, HAVE WE HAD CASES PRESENTED BASED ON THE TIMING OF WHEN OFFENSE IS CONSIDERED A REPLACEMENT OR IT'S BEEN CONSIDERED NEW TO THAT SPECIFIC DISCUSSION? RIGHT. 
          I'M NOT AWARE OF. 
          OKAY. 
          NO. 
          UM, ALRIGHT, JUST HANG TIGHT FOR A SECOND. 
          THIS IS GONNA BE TO THE, THIS IS TO TO US HERE. 
          I WANNA PROPOSE THIS. 
          I I THINK WE NEED TO COME TO A DETERMINATION AS UH, US FIVE INITIALLY ON WHETHER THIS IS A NEW, THIS IS CONSIDERED A NEW FENCE. 
          THIS IS GONNA BE US. 
          'CAUSE THAT'S HOW OUR ANALYSIS IS GONNA BE. 
          OR IS IT GONNA BE A REPLACEMENT FENCE? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, I'M JUST, I'M JUST TRYING TO, TRYING TO GET THE, THE CONVERSATION GOING ON THAT I JUST WANTED TO ADD A POINT JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE OUR APPLICATION, IN OUR PROJECT NARRATIVE, WE DO TALK ABOUT THAT THE APPLICANT IS DESIRING THE REINSTALLING OF A FENCE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS OUR PREVIOUS PERMITTED FENCE. 
          WE DID ADDRESS THAT IN OUR, OUR NARRATIVE PIECE THAT THE, THAT NO, I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. 
          I THINK THERE HAS TO BE JUST THERE, LOOK, WE'VE HAD ALMOST A 10 YEAR PERIOD WHERE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING. 
          SO DOES THAT MEAN IT'S NEW OR WHEN DOES IT BECOME A REPLACEMENT? GENERALLY WHEN PEOPLE REPLACE THINGS, THEY REPLACE THEM SOMEWHAT IN IMMEDIATE FASHION. 
          THAT IMMEDIACY COULD BE THREE TO FOUR MONTHS, IT COULD BE ONE YEAR. 
          UH, THIS IS 10 YEARS. 
          SO I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION FIRST TO MAKE SURE WE ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. 
          THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION GOES TO. 
          SO IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IF THERE IS, IN THIS SITUATION THERE WAS A FENCE AND THEN IT WAS REMOVED, THAT IT CAN BE AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME? SO IT COULD BE 150 YEARS, THEN A NEW FENCE COULD BE PUT IN? IT WOULD STILL BE OKAY BECAUSE IT'S A REPLACEMENT THEN? IS THAT WHAT YOUR POS THE POSITION YOU'RE TAKING? IF MY CLIENT LIVED 150 YEARS AND SHE WAS ORIGINAL OWNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND EVERYTHING ON IT, YES. 
          IF IT WAS A NEW PERSON THAT MOVED IN, I WOULD SAY THAT AT THAT POINT THERE, I DON'T THINK THEY COULD TACK ONTO, HEY, THERE USED TO BE A FENCE HERE 150 YEARS AGO. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS, WE'RE TALKING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, WHICH I THINK YOU CAN NARROW IT DOWN, IS THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL OWNER THAT BOUGHT PREFE CODE, SO SURE, SURE. 
          AND I WANNA COME BACK TO THAT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE CITIZENS IN, IN THE, IN DUBLIN AND YOU START NARROWING DOWN TO WHERE YOU MAYBE HAVE THIS TYPE OF A SITUATION DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND THEN LOOK EVEN FURTHER AS TO WHO THE ORIGINAL OWNERS ARE THAT, ARE THEY STILL THERE KIND OF THING. 
          THEY'RE PROBABLY VERY FEW. 
          SO ONE MORE QUESTION AND THEN 
          [01:05:01]
I CAN, THEN I CAN WEIGH IN WHAT I, YOU THINK THE QUESTION THAT JASON HAS ASKED OF THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US IS SHE DID NOT REPLACE THE FENCE IN THE SAME LOCATION. 
          SHE'S PUT IT IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. 
          I THINK YOU SAID SHE FIXED IT BECAUSE SHE MOVED THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE FROM THE ORIGINAL FENCE. 
          CORRECT. 
          IN THE BACK SECTION. 
          SHE TOOK IT OUT OF THE EASEMENT BECAUSE AT WHEN THE ORIGINAL FENCE WENT IN, IT WENT IN PERIMETER ALL THE WAY AROUND. 
          SHE'S REALIZED THAT THERE WAS AN EASEMENT THERE, SO SHE MOVED IT OUTTA THE EASEMENT ITSELF. 
          SO LET ME WEIGH IN YOUR QUESTION. 
          FOR US, IT'S NOT A REPLACEMENT TO ME 10 YEARS LATER WITH A DIFFERENT MATERIAL ON A DIFFERENT LOCATION. 
          SO IF YOU HAD ALL THOSE, WHICH WE DON'T, IT'S A DIFFERENT SCENARIO TO LOOK AT. 
          SO IF YOU TAKE A FENCE OUT, PUT A NEW ONE IN, SAME MATERIAL, SAME PLACE. 
          I MIGHT FIND A DIFFERENT WAY. 
          I'M NOT SAYING WHERE I'M AT ON THE WHOLE WHOLE PROCESS. 
          WHEN YOU'RE ASKING DO WE THINK IT'S A REPLACEMENT, I I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REPLACEMENT. 
          'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT REPLACING IT. 
          YOU COULD WHAT THEN YOU COULD PUT IT ANYWHERE YOU WANTED TO. 
          ANY SIZE, ANY MATERIAL, ANY LOCATION. 
          I, I THINK THAT THAT'S TOO BROAD OF A, OF A VIEW TO LOOK AT IT FOR THAT QUESTION. 
          I, I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION AND THEN ONCE THE REST OF THE GROUP'S GONE THROUGH THEIR QUESTIONS, I THINK I'M READY TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSS THIS. 
          UM, I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH, I KNOW. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I THINK I HAVE SOME, I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TOO. 
          BUT JOEL, GO AHEAD. 
          YOU, YOU FEEL FREE. 
          YES. 
          WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE APPLICANT PROVING THAT IT'S A REPLACEMENT OR THE CITY PROVING THAT IT'S NOT A REPLACEMENT? LIKE, WHICH IS A HIGHER BURDEN TO HAVE TO PROVE? 'CAUSE I KEEP HEARING YOU SAY THE WORD EVIDENCE, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN, WE HAVEN'T GOT A BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER TO HOW MANY YEARS IT'S BEEN SINCE THE FENCE WAS TAKEN DOWN. 
          UM, THERE'S BEEN A, IT'S BEEN VERY GENERAL ANSWERS FROM MY OPINION. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S MEANT BAD. 
          I JUST, THERE'S NOT LIKE BLACK AND WHITE EVIDENCE. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE I, I WANT TO KNOW YOUR VIEW ON LIKE, HOW HIGH IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT IT'S A REPLACEMENT VERSUS THE CITY PROVING THAT IT'S NOT? WELL, I, I THINK THE, LET MAY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          I THINK IN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, IT'S A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD. 
          AND, UH, IN THIS INSTANCE, UH, I WOULD SAY THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT, UM, BECAUSE THEY ARE PUTTING THE APPLICATION FORWARD. 
          THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE PROPERTY, UH, THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, I I'M NOT SURE THAT, THAT THE CITY HAS ANY EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, WHICH IS THERE HASN'T BEEN A FENCE THERE FOR 10 YEARS. 
          AND IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SO UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, ZACH PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE HERE, UM, ABOUT, ABOUT THE ORIGINAL FENCE OR THE PRIOR FENCE. 
          I THINK THE DEFINITION OF IS THIS A REPLACEMENT IS A, IS A, IS A LEGAL QUESTION THAT DOESN'T NEED EVIDENCE. 
          IF, IF WE, IF WE KNOW THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A FENCE THERE FOR 10 YEARS, I THINK THE QUESTION FOR YOU ALL TO DECIDE IS, UH, DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A A, A EVIDENTIARY STANDARD. 
          IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION OR, OR A STATE QUESTION, AN INTERPRETATION QUESTION. 
          YOU KNOW, WHAT IS, WHAT IS REPLACEMENT IS REPLACEMENT 10 YEARS. 
          NOW, IF THERE HAS BEEN A FENCE THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE RECENTLY THAN 10 YEARS, I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THAT. 
          BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M, SO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IS THE CASE. 
          THAT'S JUST WHAT I HEARD HERE TODAY. 
          I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. 
          I I WAS A LITTLE CIRCULAR THERE, BUT PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, UH, PROBABLY BURDEN ON IS ON THE APPLICANT. 
          BUT THE QUESTION OF REPLACEMENT IS REALLY AN INTERPRETATION QUESTION. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT IN 19, LET'S SAY 1996, SO LET'S SAY EVEN 1997, A FENCE PERMIT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL A FENCE BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THEIR CODE? I DON'T KNOW. 
          BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          YES. 
          SO TO, TO THE POINT MR. DASHER BROUGHT UP, I I DON'T SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE LIKE BLACK AND WHITE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT'S A REPLACEMENT. 
          NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE VARIANCE REQUEST ITSELF MEETS THE CRITERIA, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S BASED ON WORD AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH SPECIFICS FOR ME. 
          HEY, Z ZACH, I, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON SOMETHING. 
          IF THIS IS CONSIDERED A NEW OFFENSE AS THE, THE CITY IS, IS OUTLINING, IS THERE ANY, THERE, THERE'S NOT AN AVENUE WHERE SHE, UH, THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE A FENCE IN THAT YARD. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? ARE YOU ASKING IF THEY'RE, IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A, A FENCE CURRENTLY TODAY? 
          [01:10:01]
WELL, IF, IF, IF WE'RE CONSIDERED A NEW FENCE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UH, BASED ON THE, THE CITY CODE, THAT FENCES ARE NOT PERMITTED NOW. 
          RIGHT. 
          AM I, AM I, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY FENCES WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO OUT, THEY WOULD'VE TO FOLLOW THE, THE THE DEVELOPMENT PLOT TEXT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE AN AVENUE TO HAVE A FENCE BASED ON THE MATERIALS THAT ARE OUTLINED AND THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED. 
          OKAY. 
          CORRECT QUESTION. 
          I WANT TO CLARIFY ON THAT. 
          THEY DO HAVE AN AVENUE WITH, BASED ON THE MATERIALS OUTLINED, THE BLACK ALUMINUM. 
          SO HOW THIS WOULD BE REVIEWED BY STAFF IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT PROVIDES PROVISIONS FOR THE MATERIALS. 
          UM, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE STRICTER OF THE TWO THINGS. 
          SO WE'D LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND THE ZONING CODE. 
          UM, THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT IS MORE STRICT ON MATERIALS AND SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE THREE. 
          THE ZONING CODE IS MORE STRICT ON WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE IS ALLOWED TO GO AND SAYING THAT IT HAS TO MEET THE BUILDABLE AREA. 
          THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. 
          THAT'S WHAT GOT US TO THIS POINT TODAY. 
          ZACH, WHEN DID DUB HOW FAR BACK DOES DUB DISCOVERY GO? WE HAVE AERIALS UP TO 2005. 
          AND WHILE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, I HAVE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH THIS, UM, I, I DO SEE AERIALS BACK TO ABOUT 2014 AND 2015, BUT TRUTHFULLY, IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHEN EXACTLY IT WAS REMOVED, BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A, OF A FENCE BEING THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT LOCATION THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PROVIDED ON, ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          BUT ARE YOU SAYING, SO LIKE 2016 THERE IS AN FENCE THERE. 
          IS THAT BAS YOU'RE SAYING THAT AT SOME POINT THERE IS AN OFFENSE AFTER 2015? BASED ON WHAT I AM SEEING HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 20 15, 20 16. 
          I'M NOT SEEING A FENCE HERE. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST WHAT I AM SO PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS MEMORY WAS AS WELL? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          USUALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WRITE DOWN AT YOUR CALENDAR. 
          I TOOK THE FENCE OUT ON YOUR SEPTEMBER 1ST. 
          DAN, GO AHEAD. 
          QUESTION. 
          YEAH, I'M, I'M INCLINED. 
          JUST TO QUICKLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT REPLACEMENT. 
          I, UM, LARGELY AGREE WITH MR. NYE. 
          I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT MATERIAL, DIFFERENT LOCATION, UM, AND, AND REALLY THE BIG GAP IN TIMELINE, IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A REPLACEMENT. 
          I KNOW IT'S THE SAME OWNER AND I KNOW THAT YOU CAN SAY WE HAD A FENCE, NOW WE'VE REPLACED IT. 
          UM, BUT IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A FENCE REPLACEMENT TO ME. 
          AND FURTHER, I THINK THE WAY THAT THIS IS PRESENTED TO US IS THERE'S BEEN A VARIANCE REQUESTED. 
          DO WE APPROVE IT OR NOT? AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM MR. ASH IS THAT A VARIANCE ISN'T NEEDED. 
          BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING. 
          I THINK WE'RE CONSIDERING THE VARIANCE PUT IN FRONT OF US. 
          I'D WEIGH IN THE, THAT, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT BECAUSE IF A VARIANCE ISN'T NEEDED, IF WE WERE TO DENY IT, THAT WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT UNDER THAT ARGUMENT. 
          THEY WOULD, THEY DON'T NEED US AT ALL. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO DENY A VARIANCE, THEY SHOULD JUST BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CITY BASED ON THAT ARGUMENT. 
          GOING CLARIFY, THE, THE VARIANCE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE EASEMENT ISN'T NEEDED. 
          THAT'S ON IT. 
          SO ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THAT REQUEST THAT, THAT THE FENCE IS OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT? SO JUST FOR OUR, FOR OUR SAKE OF OUR DISCUSSION, ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THAT REQUEST THEN FOR VARIANCE? 'CAUSE IT'S NOT NEEDED. 
          WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY MAKE THAT AS A VARIANCE REQUEST IN OUR, IN OUR APPLICATION. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT STAFF ADDED THAT BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT AT THE BACK. 
          BUT WE'RE, WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THAT. 
          SO THE ISSUE IS THE PERIMETER AND THE MATERIAL? CORRECT. 
          SO IF, IF THE FENCE AND, AND WE WOULD NEED AN UPDATED SITE PLAN TO SHOW THAT IT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT 10 FEET. 
          IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED. 
          THE FOR THE EASEMENT SPECIFICALLY, YES. 
          BUT DIDN'T YOU ALSO SAY THAT IT'S POTENTIALLY IN THE, THE SETBACK. 
          SO THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          I I THOUGHT ALSO, I WROTE THIS DOWN, DOWN, DID, WAS, DID THE APPLICANT ALSO SAY IF IT WAS, THEY WOULD EITHER WORK WITH THE CITY OR MOVE IT OUT OF THE SETBACK? WAS THAT YEAH, WE EITHER WORK WITH THE CITY TO GET APPROVALS FROM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S SIX INCHES INTO IT AS THE, AND IF NOT, SHE WOULD MOVE IT. 
          IF THEY'RE FINE WITH IT BEING THERE. 
          IF THEY SAY NO, THEN WE MOVE IT SIX INCHES OUT. 
          IF THEY SAY YES, THEN WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT WHERE IT'S AT. 
          LEMME RUN ON A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE. 
          I I WANT TO GET SOME CLARITY. 
          COULD MS. UH, IS MS. BURNS, COULD YOU COME UP TO THE, THE PODIUM THERE? JUST, I WANNA, I WANNA GO BACK ON SOME OF THE, UH, QUESTIONS THAT MR. KRETZ WAS ASKING. 
          FROM 
          [01:15:01]
A, FROM A, UH, COORDINATION TIMELINE PERSPECTIVE, YOU HAD CONTRACTORS OUT TO PUT UP A NEW FENCE? I WAS, I WAS REQUESTING ESTIMATES IN LATE AUGUST UP TO MAYBE EARLY SEP EARLY TO MID-SEPTEMBER. 
          AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DAYS THEY CAME TO THE HOUSE. 
          AND HOW MANY BIDS DID YOU RECEIVE? AT LEAST THREE, MAYBE FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND HOW DID YOU DECIDE WHICH COMPANY YOU WERE GONNA GO WITH? HOW DID I DECIDE? UM, SOME GOOGLE REVIEWS. 
          UM, I DIDN'T, I DID NOT GET ANY PERSONAL, UM, REFERENCES. 
          DID YOU SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WITHIN THAT CONTRACT, IF YOU RECALL, DID IT DETAIL OBLIGATIONS THAT DEFENSE CONTRACTOR WOULD HAVE TO CONTACT THE CITY TO GET APPROVAL? I, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I KNOW THAT HE DID INDICATE THAT HE WOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. 
          BUT I DID THAT AND THEN WHEN I, YOU KNOW, WHEN I GOT THE RESPONSE IT WAS NO, NO NEED TO GO FURTHER WITH THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD THAT THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS WAS, WAS OKAY WITH IT. 
          SO WHEN THE CONTRACTOR OBVIOUSLY SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO DUBLIN, THERE WAS A REJECTION. 
          DID THE CONTRACTOR COMMUNICATE THAT TO YOU? YES, AND I DO BELIEVE, UM, HE MAY HAVE PULLED THE PERMIT REQUEST OR WAS SUPPOSED TO. 
          WELL, TELL ME ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS THEN WITH THE CONTRACTOR. 
          WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU FOUND OUT THAT YOUR, YOUR FENCE REQUEST WAS DISAPPROVED. 
          I SAID, WELL, I'LL BE DAMNED. 
          I'M PUTTING IT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT MY OTHER FENCE WAS. 
          AND SO THEY MUST BE WRONG. 
          AND THAT THE ONLY SPECIFIC MATERIALS THAT WAS SPECIFIED WERE NO CHAIN LINK, NO VINYL. 
          SO THEN YOU AUTHORIZED THE, THE CONTRACTOR TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS DISAPPROVED BY THE CITY? YES. 
          I WANTED TO, UM, GET IT IN BEFORE, UM, THE NEW RENTERS MOVED IN NEXT DOOR. 
          NEXT DOOR. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          I'D LIKE TO ASK ABOUT THE NEW RENTERS. 
          'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE, UM, THE APPLICANT NARRATIVE WAS THAT THERE WERE ALREADY RENTERS THAT ALREADY HAD A DOG THAT WAS ENTERING YOUR YARD. 
          THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF RENTERS IN THAT GRANTHAM HOUSE AND ALL, BUT A FEW HAVE HAD DOGS. 
          ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, AFTER HE NOTICED HOW MUCH DAMAGE IT WAS DOING IN MY YARD BECAUSE THEIR BACKYARD FACES MY SIDE YARD, HE DID, UM, END UP TYING HIS DOG TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DECK. 
          UM, SO YOU WERE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF A, IN CASE SOMEBODY ELSE MOVED IN WITH THE DOG? YES. 
          AND THE, AND THE LAST NEIGHBOR THAT WAS THERE, THEY, THEY NEVER CLEANED UP AFTER THE DOGS AND THEY ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, COME INTO MY YARD AND ON THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL. 
          AND YES, I HAD POINTED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, YOU REALLY NEED TO, YOU KNOW, COME OUT WITH YOUR DOG. 
          YOU NEED TO KEEP YOUR DOG IN YOUR YARD, BUT IT DOESN'T DO IT, DO ANY GOOD. 
          THE ONE FAMILY DID PUT A, UM, WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT THING? THE UNDERGROUND FENCE? YEAH. 
          BUT THEY DON'T ALWAYS, UM, ATTACH THE COLLAR. 
          DID YOU, UH, CONTACT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ABOUT THE RENTERS HAVING DOGS COME INTO YOUR, UNDER YOUR PROPERTY? NOT OFFICIALLY, BUT I TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT AND, YOU KNOW, HE, HE HAS A DOG. 
          HE WALKS IT EVERY NOW AND THEN AND WE MAY SIT AND CHITCHAT, BUT I DIDN'T FOUL ANY KIND OF COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S, UH, ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE TO, YOU KNOW, FENCE THEIR DOGS. 
          I THINK THERE'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, DUBLIN FOR DOG TO BE ON A LEASH. 
          SO I HAD A DOG WHEN I JUST MOVED IN. 
          WHEN I MOVED IN, I HAD A DOG. 
          THAT'S WHY THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR YOUR DOG TO BE ON A LEASH IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN. 
          SO YOU CAN LOOK INTO THAT, THAT MIGHT, MIGHT HELP YOU SOME TOO. 
          JUST USE THE CITY TO YOUR ADVANTAGE IF YOU CAN. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT YOU NEED, YEAH, GOTTA KNOW. 
          YEAH. 
          PART OF THE ISSUE IS OHIO'S A FENCE IN AS OPPOSED TO A FENCE OUTSTATE. 
          SO YOU FENCE YOUR ANIMALS IN AS OPPOSED TO FENCE THE ANIMALS OUT TYPE SITUATION. 
          SHE'S TECHNICALLY TRYING TO FENCE THEM OUT, ANIMALS OUT IN THIS CASE AND TAKE THE, THE, THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE TYPE OF THING, RATHER THAN START NEIGHBOR DISPUTES, WHICH USUALLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DOZENS DONE, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE, BUT THEY NEVER TURN OUT GOOD. 
          AND THAT'S WHY SHE'S OFFERING TO, TO TAKE THE FENCE OUT IF SHE MOVES, IS WHEN I MOVE, WHEN I MOVE PROBABLY ABOUT 
          [01:20:01]
FIVE YEARS. 
          PATRICK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YOU WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE? I I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, DID YOU SAY YOU'RE GONNA MOVE IN FIVE YEARS, YOU THINK? I I HOPE TO MOVE IN NO MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A TWO STORY. 
          THE STEPS ARE GETTING DIFFICULT. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S A LARGE HOUSE. 
          I DON'T NEED ALL THAT ROOM. 
          I, BUT I'M NOT PROMISING, BUT THAT'S MY PLAN NO MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. 
          SO I WAS TRYING TO KEEP HER HERE LONG FOR SHE YEAH. 
          . 
          WANT ANYBODY COME BACK AND SAY, YOU SAID YOU WERE LEAVING IN FIVE YEARS, BUT THAT'S MY HOPE. 
          DO I, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, JOEL? OKAY. 
          UM, I'M HAPPY TO START OUR JUST DISCUSSION HERE. 
          CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION, ZACH? YEAH, OF COURSE. 
          REAL QUICK. 
          YEAH. 
          ZACH, IF I, CAN YOU PULL BACK UP? I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT NOW WITH THE WAY WE DO THIS. 
          CAN YOU PULL BACK UP THE UM, I WOULD CALL IT THE PLOT PLAN THAT HAS EACH LOT LAID OUT. 
          'CAUSE IF I'M LOOKING AT IT CORRECTLY, WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, UM, ON HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE LOTS ARE ALL 70 BY ONE 20. 
          HE'S, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE OR THE, THE PLA. 
          SO 70 BY 1, 20 70 BY 1, 20 70 BY 1 20 70 BY ONE 20. 
          RIGHT. 
          IS THAT, I MEAN, I GUESS THERE'S ONE IN THE CORNER THAT'S, THE CORNER ONE'S UNIQUE, BUT THE REST OF THEM ARE THE SAME. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND I, I'D BE HAPPY TO SHOW THAT ON THE, THE FINAL PLA AS WELL. 
          YOU JUST WANNA SEE. 
          SO THE, ACTUALLY THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT'S UNIQUE IS NOT THE PROPERTY THAT'S REQUESTING IT. 
          THE OTHER ONES ARE THE SAME IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          JOEL, DAN, DO YOU EITHER YOU WANNA START, UH, YOUR POSITION HERE. 
          UM, ASK IF YOU YEAH, GO AHEAD AND KEEP ASKING. 
          I'M GONNA ASK THIS WHEN WE START OUR DISCUSSION. 
          IF YOU TWO AND ZACH, UH, WILL REMAIN AT THE PODIUM. 
          'CAUSE WE MAY HAVE SURE. 
          INTERMEDIATE DISCUSS, UH, QUESTIONS THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION. 
          THAT'D GREAT. 
          COULD I SIT DOWN FOR A FEW MINUTES, JUST OF COURSE. 
          ABSOLUTELY, PLEASE DO. 
          UH, ZACH, DID YOU WANNA, UNLESS THE QUESTION WAS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          IT WAS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MS. PERRINS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          SORRY, SORRY. 
          . 
          'CAUSE I'M JUST GETTING AHEAD OF WHERE I'M GONNA GO IN THE DISCUSSION ON, ON. 
          SO CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO SAYS THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT. 
          WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CASE FOR WHY IT'S NECESSARY THEN? IF IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU ALREADY PUT IN THE FENCE? BECAUSE A LETTER I RECEIVED SAID THAT I COULD REQUEST A VARIANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I DIDN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION SAID I COULD REQUEST A VARIANCE, WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND IT BEFORE I, UM, GOT LEGAL COUNSEL, SO, AND I HAD YOU A TIMELINE THAT I HAD TO MAKE THE REQUEST OF THAT IS WHY I REQUESTED A VARIANCE. 
          YOU GOOD RIGHT NOW? OKAY. 
          I CAN SIT DOWN. 
          YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DANIEL, WHAT DO WE, WHAT ARE WE THINKING HERE? DO WE NEED TO HEAR A PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THAT? UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DO NOT. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS FORGET ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE, WE NEVER HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN CASES, BUT THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          DO YOU WANNA SAY YOUR WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? YEAH, I, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT'S REALLY SIMPLE FOR ME THAT, I MEAN, IN RESPONSE TO THAT LAST QUESTION, THE ANSWER WAS BECAUSE THEY GOT THE LETTER FROM THE CITY, WHICH WAS BECAUSE THEY DID SOMETHING. 
          SO, LIKE I WAS, IF, IF I HAD HEARD AN EXPLANATION MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT WASN'T BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THEY DID, LIKE THEY NEED THE FENCE IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA BECAUSE OF SOMETHING WITH THE DOG OR SOMETHING WITH THEIR LAND. 
          MAYBE I COULD RATIONALIZE THAT. 
          UM, I'M MUCH FARTHER FROM BEING ABLE TO RATIONALIZE THE BLACK FENCE PART, GIVEN THE POINTS YAZ MADE ON THE MORE RESTRICTIVE OF THE TWO TEXTS. 
          IT'S HARD, IT'S HARD TO MAKE A CASE FOR, FOR THAT. 
          UM, IT WOULD FEEL LIKE A SPECIAL CONDITION TO ME. 
          BUT, UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. 
          SO I'M OPEN TO HEARING OTHERS' THOUGHTS, BUT I'M CURRENTLY INCLINED TO BE AGAINST BOTH VARIANCES. 
          IT SOUNDED LIKE THE FIRST ONE WAS BEING WITHDRAWN. 
          WELL, IT, IT IS AND IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY IT'S, IF IT'S NOT IN THE EASEMENT, UM, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE, THEN IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK. 
          SO THERE ARE STILL THREE VARIANCES. 
          IT'S THE, THE STILL THE, IT'S THE EASEMENT OR SETBACK REAR. 
          IT'S THE SIDE YARD AND IT'S THE, THE MATERIAL. 
          RIGHT. 
          IS THAT FAIR? SO THE FIRST ONE IS SPECIFIC TO THE 
          [01:25:01]
EASEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE SECOND ONE CONTAINS BOTH THE SIDE AND REAR. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT TAKES CARE OF IT, BUT THERE'S TWO ASPECTS THEN OF THAT, UH, THE PROPERTY SETBACK, BOTH SIDE AND REAR YARD. 
          THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT. 
          I, I GUESS EITHER WAY FOR ME, THE, THE SAME ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE CRITERIA. 
          A NUMBER TWO ON THAT ONE. 
          I MEAN, AND PUT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE IN THIS EXACT AREA AND HAVE IT BE BLACK TO STOP A DOG FROM COMING IN THE YARD. 
          YEAH. 
          AS I MENTIONED, I'M INCLINED TO, UM, REVIEW THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED. 
          UM, AND I WOULD AGREE PARTICULARLY WITH THE SECOND CRITERIA THAT, THAT, UH, WE ARE HEARING THIS AS A RESULT OF THE CLIENT'S ACTION OF HAVING THE FENCE PUT UP. 
          UM, I DON'T FEEL THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS EITHER. 
          UM, BUT REALLY IT'S MOOT BEYOND FINDING ONE CRITERIA THAT I JUST CAN'T, CAN'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE MET, UM, IN THAT A CATEGORY. 
          SO I WOULD BE INCLINED TO DISAPPROVE AS WELL. 
          PATRICK? UH, YEAH, I, UM, I'M KIND OF IN LINE WITH EVERYBODY, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, I MEAN IT, EVEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE, UM, DISCUSSION OF WHETHER IT IS A REPLACEMENT, UH, FOR A PREEXISTING, UM, UH, FENCE. 
          I, I MEAN EVEN LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE CODE SECTION THAT WAS REFERENCED, I'M, I'M NOT REALLY, UH, I DON'T FIND IT VERY COMPELLING TO SAY THAT THIS IS TECHNICALLY A REPLACEMENT OR THAT THIS WOULD FALL WITH IN LINE WITH, UH, UH, THAT SECTION SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, AND LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS, UM, THERE, THERE MIGHT BE A SOLUTION HERE TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE DOG OUT OF THE YARD. 
          UH, BUT IT, THERE WOULD BE ONE THAT WOULD BE MORE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH THESE THREE, UM, THAT, THAT, UM, AND I WOULD SAY PROBABLY SHOULD ENTERTAIN THOSE, UH, THOSE OPTIONS INSTEAD, JOE, SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE. 
          OKAY. 
          MS. BURNS, CAN YOU COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM AND YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, I'M GONNA OFFER YOUR COUNSEL TO, TO ASSIST IN THIS IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE. 
          I, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE, YOU CAN TAKE A MINUTE. 
          I DO DO MR. MCT. 
          YOU WANNA TAKE A MINUTE? SO HERE'S THE DEAL. 
          IT SOUNDS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE, THE VOTES TO BE ABLE TO GO AGAINST, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL. 
          I THINK WHAT SOME OF MY, UM, BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SAID IS THAT THERE, THERE ARE OPTIONS TO BE ABLE TO ULTIMATELY GET WHAT YOU WANT RELATIVE TO, TO KEEPING THE NEIGHBOR'S DOG OUT. 
          AND WHE WHETHER THERE'S SOME OTHER AESTHETICS OR NOT. 
          UM, IT'S JUST, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THERE TONIGHT. 
          UM, AND CAN I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE? 'CAUSE WHAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SEVEN FEET OF MY, OF, UM, SIDE YARD. 
          YOU'RE REQUIRING ME TO ALLOW THE NEIGHBORS ANIMALS TO COME INTO SIX FEET OF MY YARD AND ONLY GIVE ME THE ABILITY TO PROTECT ONE FOOT. 
          AND THAT DOES, YOU KNOW, YEAH. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          I THINK A LOT OF MY RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY. 
          TOTALLY. 
          SO ACTUALLY YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THE DOG IS NOT ALLOWED TO COME INTO YOUR YARD EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FENCE. 
          AND THERE ARE MEANS BY, WITH, UH, THE CITY, UH, AND I'M SURE YOU COULD PROBABLY CALL THE FRANKLIN COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT RELATIVE TO THE DOG, UH, BEING IN YOUR PROPERTY. 
          THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS. 
          UH, AND YOU CAN WORK WITH STAFF TO ASSIST YOU IN THOSE. 
          WE, WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND I DON'T THINK EITHER OF US, UH, ANY OF US UP HERE WOULD WANT THAT SITUATION. 
          SO IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT THE, UH, THE DEFENSE WAS INSTALLED, UH, HERE, UH, WITH A, YOU KNOW, KNOWING VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE, UH, AND A AND A REJECTION FROM PLAN. 
          UM, IT'S JUST DIFFICULT TO, FOR US TO HELP YOU OUT. 
          I I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH A VOTE, UH, WITH YOUR COUNSEL. 
          CAN CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          ASK, ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION. 
          SURE. 
          WITH, UH, WITH STAFF AND THE, AND THE, UM, THE PROVISIONS OF, OF THE CODE WHEN IT COMES TO THE OTHER FENCES THAT ARE ALREADY UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE, THAT ARE PERIMETER FENCES, IS IT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING C THAT IF THOSE PEOPLE CAME IN AND SAID I NEEDED TO REPLACE MY FENCE BECAUSE THE WOODEN FENCE IS ROTTING, THAT IF THEY CAME IN AND SAID, I'M REPLACING A SPLIT RAIL FENCE WITH A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IN THE SAME EXACT LOCATION, THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE'VE APPLIED THIS 
          [01:30:01]
IS THAT ANY REPLACEMENT OF OFFENSE THAT IS NOT MEETING THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS, WHATEVER'S THE MOST STRICT. 
          THAT IS HOW, THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE APPLIED THIS. 
          SO IN ESSENCE, STAFF'S INTERPRETATION AS YOU'RE NEGATING SECTION 1 53 0 8 3 C IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE WOULD BE, EVEN THOUGH THE LANGUAGE IS VERY SPECIFIC, THAT YOU CAN REPLACE IT IN THE EXACT LOCATION. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S PROBABLY 10 FENCES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE PERIMETER FENCES THAT THEY WOULD IN ESSENCE HAVE THAT RIGHT TO HAVE A PERIMETER FENCE. 
          AND NOW MY CLIENT CAN'T HAVE THAT BECAUSE HER FENCE WAS DOWN NINE OR 10 YEARS. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK, UH, THE COUPLE DISTINGUISHING FACTORS IS THAT, THAT THAT TRULY WOULD BE A REPLACEMENT. 
          SO IT, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY LOOK AT THIS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, TO, TO NOT APPLY THE MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS WOULD THEN IGNORE SUBSECTION B. 
          SO, UM, WE HAVEN'T HAD A SITUATION LIKE THAT. 
          UM, I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO, TO LOOK AT IT FURTHER, BUT THAT SITUATION THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED WOULD BE CLOSER TO A REPLACEMENT THAN, THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE. 
          I, THAT, THAT'S, UH, I CAN SAY THAT THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE CLARIFICATION IS BECAUSE THAT LANGUAGE IS VERY SPECIFIC AS FAR AS REPLACEMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          IT CAN GO IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION. 
          AND, AND, AND I WILL, I WILL NOTE THAT, UM, C DOES NOT, DOES, DOES NOT REFERENCE MATERIALS EXCEPT THAT IT REFERENCES BACK TO A SECTION THAT PROHIBITS CERTAIN MATERIALS LIKE CHAIN LINK AND BARBED WIRE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I DO THINK THE LO THE LOCATION WOULD ALSO BE LIMITED TO ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT, THAT MAY BE MORE STRINGENT OR MORE, EXCUSE ME, MORE RESTRICTIVE. 
          BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT SECTION B AND C WERE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. 
          CAN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE. 
          BUT LUCKILY FOR THIS CASE, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE TO DECIDE THAT WHAT I'M, THE REASON I'M, I'M DISCUSSING AN ISSUE IS WE HAVE CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ACTUALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. 
          AND SHE'S NOW DENIED THE RIGHT, BECAUSE HER FENCE WAS OUT FOR NINE YEARS. 
          SHE'S JUST ASKING TO MAINTAIN THE SAME RIGHT. 
          SHE HAD BEFORE. 
          SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE MAIN REASON I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THESE VARIANCES IS ON CRITERIA A. 
          NUMBER TWO, WHEN ASKED THE APPLICANT WHAT THE REASON FOR NEEDING THE VARIANCE WAS, IT WAS BECAUSE OF GETTING THE LETTER FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY DID. 
          IT'S, THE INTENT IS NOT TO DENY A RIGHT. 
          THAT ANYBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE. 
          THAT'S MY POINT OF VIEW. 
          YEAH, I'D AGREE WITH THAT. 
          I'D SUGGEST THAT THAT POINT OF CONVERSATION WASN'T RELEVANT TO OUR HEARING HERE. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANNA SPEND MORE TIME ON IT OR NOT. 
          NO, JOEL, I THINK YOU, YOU NAILED IT. 
          ULTIMATELY THAT'S, WE'RE NEVER GONNA BE ABLE TO GET PAST THAT. 
          UM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OUR INTERPRETATION IS OF A REPLACEMENT OR A, UM, A NEW FENCE, IT DISTINGUISHES THAT. 
          SO THERE ARE, I MEAN THERE ARE OPTIONS HERE. 
          I I'M, AND I'LL SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT HERE. 
          YOU CAN TALK TO YOUR COUNSEL, UH, YOU CAN PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE VOTE KNOWING THAT YOU'RE GONNA GET REJECTED ON ALL THESE. 
          WE'RE GONNA AGREE WITH STAFF OR YOU CAN TABLE THIS AND WORK WITH STAFF AND CITY PLANNING TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A NEW WAY TO, YOU KNOW, TO GET DEFENSE THAT YOU WANT. 
          I THINK MY CLIENT WOULD, WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HAVE, UH, THE VOTE ON THE MATTER. 
          UM, AND THEN SHE COULD DECIDE WHAT SHE, WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH THAT, WITH THAT VOTE AFTERWARDS. 
          UM, JUST AS CLARIFICATION ON THE 0.2, WE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE 'CAUSE THE LETTER TOLD HER SHE HAD TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE AND THAT'S, SHE NEEDED TO TAKE THAT ROUTE BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OF BEING THE FENCE PUT IN HER REASONS FOR PUTTING THE FENCE IN. 
          WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. 
          BUT THE REASON WHY SHE FILED THE APPLICATION WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS TOLD SHE NEEDED TO FILE IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          I I THINK IT ALSO RELATES TO THE GETTING THE REJECTION AND THEN STILL AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACTOR TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OFFENSE THAT'S VIOLATED OF CITY CODE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A 
          [01:35:01]
DISAGREEMENT ABOUT HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INTERPRETED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, SHE WANTS A VOTE. 
          UH, WE'LL DO THESE ONE BY ONE. 
          UH, JOE, PATRICK, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT? DO DO JOE, YOU WANNA LIST THEM AND PATRICK CAN SECOND, UH, OR ANYBODY ELSE CAN SECOND MAKE IT EASIER. 
          HERE WE LOOKING FOR THE LIST? GOOD. 
          I HAVE YOU GOT 'EM? GO FOR IT. 
          YEAH. 
          JOE, GO FOR IT. 
          YEAH, I VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION ONE FIVE. 
          DO SOMETHING YOU A MOTION TO DENY. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          YES. 
          MOVE FOR, I, I MOVED TO, YEAH, SORRY. 
          I JUST WANNA READ, I MOVED TO DENY VARIANCE ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 A ONE AS IT RELATES TO CASE NUMBER 24 0 3 1 V SECOND ROLL, PLEASE. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. SO BY VOTING YES, WE ARE BENIGN THE VARIANCE BECAUSE HE ASKED IT IN THE NEGATIVE THAT WE WERE VOTING TO VOTE. 
          OH, FULL THING. 
          YES. 
          ZACH, DON'T THEY HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE AND THEN NOT DISAPPROVE? YOU HAVE TO VOTE TO THE MOTION? NO. 
          A VOTE TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO TO DENY. 
          IS THAT HOW IT WAS READ? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          WAS THAT THE MOTION? I MOVED TO DENY THEIR VARIANCE DEFENSE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT'S THE SAME THING AS I SAID. 
          I MEAN, I SUPPOSE IT'S THE NEGATIVE VERSION OF VOTING TO SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          YEP. 
          SO LET'S, WHAT'S THE, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE PREFERENCE FROM COUNCIL? CAN YOU TELL US? THE, THE, THE PREFERENCE IS A, A, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND THEN A VOTE ON AN AFFIRMATIVE 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED. 
          WAIT, WE'RE NOTING THE VARIANCE? NO, WE'RE, WE'RE AGREEING WITH STAFF'S REC. 
          OKAY, THEN, THEN MOVE TO APPROVE OR EXCUSE ME. 
          OKAY. 
          I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          MOVE TO, HE GOES, WE HAVE TO, YOU HA HE'S SAYING YOU HAVE TO ASK IT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND WE'RE GONNA SAY NO. 
          YES. 
          LET ME, HERE WE GO. 
          I'M GONNA STRIKE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M MOVED TO APPROVE THE STAFF'S, UH, POSITION THAT THE, THE, THAT THERE SHOULD BE A DENIAL FOR THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. 
          NO, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO ASK IT AS YOU GO AHEAD. 
          YOU DO IT. 
          I CAN AS THE CHAIR YOU NEED TO. 
          SO SOMEBODY NEEDS TO MOVE YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN CAN I MOVE? YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          I'LL SAY IT RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK  CAN IT, CAN WE GET A, UH, I MOVE, UM, TO APPROVE, UH, APPLICANT'S VARIANCE REQUEST RELATIVE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 A ONE. 
          SO MOVED. 
          ROLL PLEASE. 
          MR. KRETZ? NO. 
          MR. NO. 
          MR. MURPHY? NO. 
          MR. NYE? NO. 
          MR. NESTLER? NO. 
          UH, WITH, UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 B ONE A RELATIVE TO THE SETBACKS. 
          SECONDED. 
          ROLL PLEASE. 
          MR. NYE? NO. 
          MR. MURPHY? NO. 
          MR. GARVIN? NO. 
          MR. KRETZ? NO. 
          MR. DASHER? NO. 
          I MOVE TO APPROVE APPLICANT'S VARIANCE REQUEST AS TO THE TRINITY PARK DEVELOPMENT TEXT TO ALLOW A BLACK ALUMINUM FENCE TO BE LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          SECOND ROLL, PLEASE. 
          MR. GARVIN? NO. 
          MR. MURPHY? NO. 
          MR. NYE? NO. 
          MR. KRETZ? NO. 
          MR. DESLER? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ALONG TO OH, OH, MR. DANIELS. 
          WE'RE READY. 
          WE ALLOWED TO TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS? YEAH, WE CAN TAKE A, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK. 
          WE'LL DO THAT. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO BACK ON THE RECORD HERE. 
          DO OUR THIRD AND FINAL 
          [Case #24-037V]
CASE THIS EVENING. 
          UH, CASE NUMBER TWO FOUR DASH 0 3 7 V. 
          UH, DANIELS RESIDENCE RELATIVE, UH, TO A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. 
          UH, SPECIFICALLY THIS IS A VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 A AND 1 5 3 0.080 B TWO TO ALLOW A SOLID 
          [01:40:01]
FENCE TO BE 10 FEET IN HEIGHT AND LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD. 
          THE 1.2 ACRE SITE IS ZONED R ONE, EXCUSE ME, R DASH ONE RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST END OF TRAILS AND DRIVE. 
          OUR CASE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING IS DANIEL KLEIN, THE PLANNING ASSISTANT DANIEL. 
          GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS, UH, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END. 
          UH, THIS CASE IS A NON-USE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE DANIELS RESIDENCE. 
          THE 1.28 ACRE SITE IS ZONED R ONE AND IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST END OF TRAILS END DRIVE. 
          PICTURED IS THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND PROPOSED FENCE LOCATION. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10 FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE INTENT ON PROVIDING PRIVACY FOR THE EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE AND POTENTIAL FUTURE DECK AND PATIO. 
          THE VARIANCES PERTAIN TO THE FENCES. 
          PROPOSED HEIGHT AND LOCATION CODE STATES THAT FENCES CANNOT EXCEED FOUR FEET AND THAT SOLID FENCES MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD. 
          FOR THIS SECTION, ALL THREE CRITERIA ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET. 
          REGARDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS, STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT NO ELEMENTS OF THE SITE PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM HAVING A CODE COMPLIANT FENCE ON THE APPLICANT'S ACTION OR INACTION. 
          THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS BASED ON A FUTURE IMPROVEMENT BY THE APPLICANT. 
          SO THE VARIANCE IS NECESSITATED BY THE APPLICANT AND CONSIDERING THE PURPOSE OF THEIR REQUIREMENT. 
          FENCE REGULATIONS ARE INTENDED IN PART FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT. 
          THIS INCLUDES THE PROVISION OF A NEAT AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS REQUEST WOULD DEVIATE FROM THAT PROVISION. 
          FOR THIS SECTION TWO OF THE FOUR CRITERIA ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET. 
          STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT IF THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE RECEIVING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. 
          THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROPERTIES ZONED R ONE HALF FENCES THAT CONFORM THE REQUEST IS NOT RECURRENT IN NATURE AND WOULD NOT AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. 
          SO THE CRITERIA IS MET IN THOSE REGARDS ON OTHER METHODS AVAILABLE STAFF COMMUNICATED WITH THE APPLICANT ON OTHER POSSIBILITIES FOR ACHIEVING PRIVACY THAT ARE CODE COMPLIANT. 
          THIS INCLUDES A FOREFOOT, PRIVACY FENCE, LANDSCAPING, ET CETERA. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF BOTH VARIANCE REQUESTS. 
          WITH THAT, THANK YOU AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. 
          WELL THANK YOU DANIEL. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? GO AHEAD. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THE, SORRY, THE SECOND ONE IS FOR SOLID FENCE, RIGHT? OR IS THAT THE HEIGHT? I MIGHT HAVE 'EM BACKWARDS, BUT, UM, THERE'S NO VARIANCE NEEDED FOR THE HEIGHT. 
          I'M SORRY, FOR THE SOLID FENCE IN THE REAR OF THE YARD, THE LARGER PORTION OF THE YELLOW LINE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IF I CAN ADD TO THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, SOLID FENCES, THEY'RE ONLY PERMITTED IN THE REAR YARD, LIKE YOU SAID, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ONLY ALLOWED AROUND A PATIO OR DECK AS A PRIVACY FENCE. 
          I GUESS THAT BRINGS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME COURT. 
          SO IT'D HAVE TO BE CONCRETE, CONCRETE OR PAVERS TO BE CONSIDERED A DECK OR, OR WOOD. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'D HAVE TO BE AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. 
          THERE'S NO, UH, WAY YOU COULD ENCLOSE AN AREA, CREATE SEATING AND CONSIDER THAT FOR THOSE PURPOSES. 
          A DECK AREA, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ELEVATED TO BE CONSIDERED A DECK AREA, BUT EVEN THEN IT'S NOT IN THE REAR OF THE YARD, SO IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I, I HAVE A QUESTION ON CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO. 
          UM, THERE'S A THEME HERE, THE, IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BY SAYING THE CRITERIA'S NOT MET. 
          IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE PUNISHING AN APPLICANT FOR ASKING PERMISSION BEFORE DOING SOMETHING ELSE. 
          I GUESS COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN IN DIFFERENT WORDS WHY CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO IS NOT MET? 'CAUSE I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THEY DID OR DIDN'T DO THAT IS CAUSING THIS. 
          [01:45:04]
CAN I FOLLOW UP? I WANNA, I WANNA ASK A CLARIFICATION ONE SO THEY CAN ANSWER TO AT ONCE IS YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE IT SAYS, 'CAUSE IF IT IS, I THINK IT'S SIMILAR TO MINE. 
          'CAUSE IT SAYS THAT THE FUTURE OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE, YOU'RE SAYING IF THERE, IF THE OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE EXISTED, WOULD IT, IS IT, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YEAH, WELL I GUESS WHY DOES A FUTURE SPACE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THEY'VE ALREADY DONE DISQUALIFY 'EM FROM CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO? I I UNDERSTAND BASED ON HOW IT'S DISPLAYED IN THEIR STATEMENT. 
          UM, UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF WHY THEY'RE PROVIDING THIS FENCE, THAT'S THE BASIS BEHIND WHY WE ARE STATING THAT CRITERIA TWO IS NOT MET IN OUR, IN OUR ANALYSIS. 
          UM, YEAH, YEAH. 
          IT'S LISTED IN NUMBER FOUR OF THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT. 
          IT EXPLAINS THAT THE APPLICANT CREATED THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PRIVACY BECAUSE THEY REMOVED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MATURE WOODED AREA. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONE LAST QUESTION ON THE, UM, CRITERIA. 
          A ONE, UH, IN TERMS OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS, IF THERE WAS THICK VEGETATION THAT BLOCKED THE SIGHT LINES OF OFFENSE, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A, UH, YOU KNOW, A CONDITION THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE ORDINARY, A SPECIAL CONDITION? YES, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SITE SPECIFIC THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE VEGETATION, THE LOT NARROWNESS THAT'S UNIQUE TO THE SITE AND NOT NEIGHBORING SITES. 
          AND SO TO FOLLOW UP THIS PICTURE, OBVIOUSLY THAT WE HAVE DOESN'T HAVE WHAT IS NOW AN EXISTING GARAGE. 
          UM, SO THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE VEGETATION AS WELL. 
          THAT BE FAIR TO SAY? YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE VEGETATION IN THE PICTURE IS NOT, YOU BELIEVE IT'S NOT ACCURATE. 
          JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S THE VEGETATION THAT'S BEEN REMOVED TO NECESSITATE THE PRIVACY FENCE OR IF THAT SEEMS TO YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST THAT'S POST REMOVAL. 
          GOOD FOR NOW. 
          THANK YOU DANIEL. 
          NOW WE'LL GO TO MR. DANIELS. 
          WOULD YOU WANNA COME UP TO THE, UH, PODIUM PLEASE? AND I THINK YOU BOTH STOOD RIGHT JUST TO MAKE SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          IF YOU COULD JUST, UH, INDICATE, UH, BOTH OF YOUR FULL NAMES AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          ROB DANIELS 8 4 3 1 TRAILS END DUBLIN 4 3 0 1 6 AND CHERYL DANIELS. 
          UM, SO I GUESS A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS. 
          UM, WE, WE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE IN 2010 AND, UM, WE, I GUESS WE ALWAYS SORT OF INTENDED, UM, WELL WE DIDN'T, WE NEVER REALIZED THERE'D BE THESE HOMES BUILT KIND OF IN OUR SIDE YARD, RIGHT? SO THEY WERE BUILT PROBABLY FIVE YEARS AFTER WE MOVED IN. 
          UM, SO OBVIOUSLY IMPROVEMENTS TAKE TIME, IT'S EXPENSIVE. 
          SO, UM, WE INITIALLY WE DID IN 2016 WE GOT A PERMIT AND DID A LOT INSIDE THE HOUSE. 
          AND, UM, THE FOCUS SINCE THEN HAS BEEN OUTSIDE. 
          AND, UH, IN 23 WE GOT A PERMIT AND DID A, UM, DETACHED GARAGE, WHICH YOU SAW IN THE PICTURES. 
          THE INTENTION ORIGINALLY WAS TO BUILD THAT FORWARD OF THE HOUSE, BUT WE FOUND OUT WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THAT. 
          SO WE MOVED, WE KIND OF REDESIGNED IT, UM, MOVED IT TO THE BACK. 
          BUT BEFORE DOING THAT, WE ORIGINALLY HAD PLANNED ON PUTTING, UH, ONE DETACHED STRUCTURE FORWARD, ONE DETACHED TO THE REAR. 
          AND OF COURSE, WITHOUT KNOWING THE CODE, WE DIDN'T REALIZE WE COULDN'T ATTACH, UH, A SOLID FENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TO CREATE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT ENTIRE NORTH INTO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT TO BE COMPLETELY KIND OF WALLED OFF, I GUESS BETWEEN TWO STRUCTURES. 
          AND I MEAN, YOU COULD DO A FOUR FOOT FENCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING WE WANNA MATCH THE, THE WALL HEIGHT OF THE DETACHED STRUCTURES TO MAKE IT LOOK UNIFORM, THAT WAS THE INTENTION. 
          UM, WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE CAN'T BUILD FORWARD OF THE HOUSE, WE, WE REDESIGNED THE BUILDING. 
          SO IT'S A ONE AND DONE. 
          SO WE JUST BUILT THE ONE AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA TRY TO BUILD ANYTHING ELSE. 
          UM, SO WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH, UH, IS, YOU KNOW, EVER SINCE THOSE HOMES HAVE BEEN THERE, WHEN THE, WHEN THERE'S NO LEAVES ON THE TREES, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE YOU SAW IN THE PICTURES, IT'S CLEAR THROUGH THERE. 
          UM, SO WE'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO, TO GAIN PRIVACY. 
          SO WE HAD A PLAN FOR THAT. 
          WE REVISED THE PLANT. 
          SO NOW WHAT WE'RE REALLY INTENDING TO DO IS SORT OF JUST BUMP A WALL OF THIS NEW GARAGE 
          [01:50:01]
OUT. 
          UH, WE WANNA MAKE IT LOOK UNIFORM WITH THE GARAGE AND, UM, IT JUST, BASICALLY IT'S ABOUT THE IT, WELL DOING THE 10 FEET MIX IT UNIFORM WITH THE WALL HEIGHT AND THEN THE DISTANCE OUT ALLOWS US TO, UM, TO REACH MATURE TREES WITHOUT TAKING ANY MATURE TREES DOWN. 
          UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF THE INTENTION BEHIND IT. 
          UM, YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER PERMIT OPEN FROM, UH, FOR DOING A DECK AND A PATIO IN THE BACK. 
          AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN APPROVE. 
          WE'VE GOTTEN ZONING APPROVAL ON THAT, BUT WE HAVEN'T GOT PLANNING APPROVAL. 
          SO WE HAVE ANOTHER ACTIVE PERMIT FOR THAT. 
          AND SO THIS FENCE WILL BASICALLY GIVE PRIVACY TO THE BACKYARD IN THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED IT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE, THE THREE CRITERIA, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS WE HAD, UM, I GUESS IN DISCUSSING IT, WE HAD, UH, OUR PROPERTY LINE, SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE. 
          OUR PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH SIDE IS LOCATED ON THE EDGE OF WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP. 
          UM, IT'S ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT COUNTIES WE'RE IN FRANKLIN OVER OUR PROPERTY LINE'S, DELAWARE, IT'S, UH, LIBERTY TOWNSHIP I THINK. 
          AND IT'S, YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PROVIDED. 
          UM, SO THAT KIND OF CREATED A SITUATION. 
          WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THESE HOMES WERE BUILT AFTER WE MOVED IN, SO NOW WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS IN OUR SIDE YARD, AND THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT DUBLIN, THEY'RE NOT WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, THEY'RE NOT FRANKLIN COUNTY, THEY'RE NOT PART OF OUR STREET. 
          UM, SO, UH, AND ACTUALLY GIVEN THAT IT'S THEIR BACKYARDS, IT'S PROBABLY MORE BENEFICIAL FOR THEM THAN IT IS FOR US TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, TO BUILD THIS. 
          BUT, UM, SO IT IS A UNIQUE SCENARIO IN TERMS OF OUR, OUR LAYOUT THERE AND WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES ARE. 
          WE'RE AT THE VERY END OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, REGARDING HEIGHT SPECIFICALLY, UM, THE INTENT IS PRIVACY. 
          THE HOMES ARE, AS IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, THEIR ELEVATION IS SIX, AROUND SIX FEET HIGHER THAN OURS. 
          UM, SO IF YOU BUILD A FOUR FOOT FENCE, THE TOP OF THE FENCE IS TWO FEET LOWER THAN THE BOTTOM OF THESE HOMES THAT WERE BUILT LATER. 
          UM, SO THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NICE THAT DUBLIN ALLOWS FOR SOLID STYLE FENCE. 
          OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT USUALLY IS PRIVACY WITH THAT TYPE OF FENCE. 
          BUT GIVEN THE ELEVATION, UH, THERE'S UM, NO PURPOSE IN BUILDING A FOUR FOOT FENCE IF IT'S BELOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET PRIVACY FROM. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN REGARDING THE, UH, UH, ONLY PERMITTED IN REAR YARDS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE OVERHEAD, IT, WE DO HAVE VERY, VERY DENSE MATURE VEGETATION. 
          THE, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS, BESIDES THE HOUSE AND WHERE THERE'S GRASS, UM, BUILDING AT THE REAR WOULD REQUIRE, UH, SIGNIFICANT CLEARING OF MATURE TREES AND VEGETATIONS. 
          WHEREAS THE SPACE NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY, AND THIS WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND COMING OUT FROM IT, UM, REQUIRES NO ADDITIONAL, UM, CLEARING OF VEGETATION. 
          UH, SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE THOUGHT WE HAD SPECIAL CONDITIONS UNIQUE TO OUR PROPERTY. 
          UM, THE VARIANCE NOT BEING NECESSITATED BY ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT. 
          UH, I DID MENTION IN THE REPORT WE CLEARED SOME ADDITIONAL TREES. 
          THERE'S STILL ABOUT 20 FEET OF TREES BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THEIR PROPERTY OF DENSE, MATURE VEGETATION THERE. 
          UM, BUT IN ACTUALITY, THE HOMES THAT WERE BUILT LATER IS WHAT CREATED OR NECESSITATED THE, UM, THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. 
          UM, IF THE HOMES WEREN'T THERE, WHICH THEY WEREN'T WHEN WE MOVED IN, WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, AND THEN ON THE THIRD ONE, GRANTING VARIANCE, NOT CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY. 
          IT ACTUALLY STATED IN THE REPORT THAT, THAT IT, IT AGREED OR I THINK THAT IF ZACH DID THE REPORT, ZACH AGREED THAT IT WON'T CAUSE ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY, IS HOW IT WAS WORDED. 
          UM, BUT HE HAD SAID THAT IT WOULD MATERIAL IMPAIR THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT BEING BURIED, UM, SO THAT IT WAS LISTED, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE WAS NEAT AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. 
          UM, SO WITH REGARD TO THAT, THE INTENTION WITH THIS FENCE WAS TO MATCH WALL HEIGHT, UM, MATCH PAINT COLOR, AND WE'RE ALSO OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS THAT WE COULD EVEN PUT THE SAME SIDING AND TRIM. 
          WE COULD MAKE IT LITERALLY COMPLETELY MATCH. 
          UH, WE'RE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WOULD NEED DONE THERE. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, ALMOST MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT IN MY EYES IS THAT IF, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A NEED AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE YOU HAVE, IT HAS TO APPEAR, RIGHT? IT HAS TO BE SEEN. 
          UM, THIS IS FROM ANY OTHER RESIDENCE IN DUBLIN, WHICH WOULD BE BEHIND US THROUGH MATURE VEGETATION, UM, OR OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. 
          YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T, EVEN IF STANDING AT THE TOP OF OUR DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE WHERE THIS, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT. 
          UM, SO, UH, WE INTEND TO MATCH IT 'CAUSE WE'RE INTERESTED IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE. 
          BUT, UM, EVEN IF WE DIDN'T, YOU CAN'T SEE IT SO IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY PEOPLE IT APPEARS TO ARE IN DELAWARE COUNTY AND LIBERTY TOWNSHIP. 
          [01:55:01]
SO, UM, SO YEAH, WE WERE JUST, THAT'S GOING THROUGH THOSE THREE CRITERIA. 
          I KNOW WE, I MEAN THE OTHER, IT WAS TWO OUT OF THE FOUR NEED MET. 
          WE MET TWO. 
          SO WE CAN REVIEW THAT IF YOU'D LIKE. 
          I THINK I, I ACTUALLY EVEN THINK REGARDING THE FIRST ONE WITH SPECIAL, UH, PRIVILEGES, THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET HAS A 12 FOOT FENCE ON THE SAME PROPERTY LINE. 
          SO, UM, WHICH I THINK WAS BUILT PRIOR TO 1998, BUT, UH, BUT IN ANY CASE IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY A HUNDRED, 150 FEET LONG. 
          IT TRANSITIONS FROM SIX FOOT TO 12 FOOT, ABOUT HALF OF IT, SIX FOOT TALL, HALF'S 12 TALL ON THE EXACT SAME PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME, SAME CIRCUMSTANCE IN THAT, ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          UM, SO I FEEL LIKE THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS UNIQUE TO OUR PROPERTY AND MAYBE ONE OTHER, AND THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE IS A 12 FOOT PRIVACY FENCE. 
          UM, THAT FENCE ISN'T ATTACHED TO ANYTHING AND IT'S NOT PAINTED TO MATCH, UH, THE RESIDENCE OVER THERE. 
          UM, IT DOESN'T LOOK BAD, BUT IT IS WHAT IT'S SO, SO WE WERE HOPING YOU GUYS COULD TAKE A LOOK AT, AT PICTURES AND HEAR, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAD TO SAY AND SEE IF, IF WE COULD, UM, GET THIS DONE. 
          AND AGAIN, WE'RE OPEN TO CONDITIONS IF IT'S APPEARANCE RELATED OR, OR YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE'RE OPEN. 
          SO THANK YOU GUYS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU HAVE ANY QUE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? JOEL, YOU WANNA GO? I, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANKS FOR THE REMARKS. 
          SURE. 
          I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, UH, WERE THE HOMES THAT YOU'RE SEEKING PRIVACY FROM BILL TO AFTER YOU CLEARED OUT SOME OF THE TREES OR BEFORE? THEY WERE BUILT BEFORE, BUT THERE'S STILL ABOUT 20 FEET DEPTH OF TREES IN BE, I MEAN, THERE'S STILL A LOT THERE. 
          UM, HONESTLY, THE, WHEN THE LEAVES ARE DOWN, UM, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE NEED FOR IT. 
          WHEN EVERYTHING'S IN BLOOM, IT'S PROBABLY NOT EVEN NECESSARY. 
          SO, I MEAN, THEY WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE IT WHEN EVERYTHING'S IN BLOOM. 
          SO IF, IF YOU HAD IT TO DO OVER AGAIN, UM, WOULD YOU HAVE CLEARED OUT THOSE TREES? UM, I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE. 
          UM, I GUESS MY ONLY OTHER CHOICE WOULD'VE BEEN TO FILE FOR VARIANCE ON OUR ORIGINAL BUILD OF OUR DETACHED STRUCTURE. 
          SO THERE WASN'T REALLY TO COMPLY WITH CODE. 
          UM, THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY WE, WE ALMOST DID APPLY FOR VARIANCE. 
          THE, THE OTHER, WE LIKED THE OTHER DESIGN BETTER AND IT WOULD'VE REQUIRED REMOVING LESS MATURE VEGETATION. 
          UM, BUT IN ANY CASE, IT WASN'T, I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE, YOU KNOW? DO YOU HAVE IN THE SPACE WHERE THOSE WERE REMOVED, DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT SOME EVERGREENS OR SOME LIKE ARBOR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT COULD PROVIDE SCREENING PRIVACY THAT WOULD BE YEAR ROUND? SO, UM, SO ZACH AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I GUESS IF, ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL UP THE, THE ONE PICTURE OF THE OVERHEAD, THE AERIAL VIEW THAT HAS THE, THE ALL THE YELLOW OF ALL THE FENCING? BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE THING I WANTED TO, TO CLARIFY. 
          THE, ALL THE FENCING AROUND THE REAR IS ACTUALLY FOUR FOOT ALUMINUM FENCING. 
          SO THAT'S ALL THAT'S GOING AROUND AROUND THE YARD THAT'S BASICALLY CONNECTING THE HOUSE. 
          THE, IT'S ENCLOSING, THE, THE BACKYARD IS ALL ALUMINUM FENCING. 
          UM, ALL THIS IS IS ONE SECTION OF, OF CEDAR FENCING THAT'S CONNECTED, BASICALLY LIKE TO BUMP THE WALL OUT AND MAKE THE WALL LONGER OF THE GARAGE. 
          SO, UM, CAN YOU REPEAT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS? I WAS GETTING TO YEAH, THINK, I THINK THE, I JUST MEANT THE, THE QUESTION THAT I THINK, UH, OH, THAT MR. NYE IS ASKING IS JUST ABOUT THE PART OFF THE GARAGE. 
          YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          SO, SO THE ISSUE WITH THAT, I LOOKED INTO THAT WE ACTUALLY EVEN DROVE IN CAMDEN LAKES AND LOOKED AT HOUSES THAT HAD THAT. 
          AND, UM, SO WHEN I STARTED LOOKING INTO IT, THE SPACING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN SPACING BETWEEN THOSE FOR THEM TO, TO LIVE AND GROW AND DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. 
          AND, UM, ONCE THE, SO WITH REGARD TO THAT AERIAL PHOTO, IT'LL SHOW YOU THAT THE FENCE IS, IS RIGHT UP AGAINST MATURE VEGETATION ALL THE WAY AROUND. 
          AND, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PATH THAT'S WITHIN OUR PROPERTY LINE, BUT NEXT TO THE NEW DETACHED STRUCTURE THAT WE CLEARED ENOUGH TO GET TO THE UTILITY POLE AND THE SEPTIC BACK THERE. 
          SO THE ONLY ACCESS ONCE THE FENCE IS ALL THE WAY IN IS, IS TO THE NORTH OF IT. 
          SO THAT WAS SOMETHING I EXPRESSED TO ZACH IS I WANNA KEEP THAT CLEAR AND I, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, LIKE EMERGENCY SERVICES, HOPEFULLY WE WOULD NEVER NEED THAT BACK IN THE WOODS, BUT THAT'S THIS TYPE OF FENCE, NOT GOING INTO THAT. 
          IT'S BASICALLY PROBABLY EIGHT FEET BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND WHERE THE MATURE VEGETATION BEGINS TO THE NORTH. 
          SO IT'S ENOUGH ROOM THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, IF UTILITY COMPANY OR WHATEVER NEEDED TO GET BACK THERE, THEY CAN GET BACK THERE. 
          SO IF YOU PUT OUR RAVIE IN THERE AND YOU'RE COVERING THAT FULL, UH, 25 FEET, YOU'RE ALSO GOING WELL INTO THAT DEPTH THAT YOU NEED TO KEEP THAT CLEAR TO HAVE ACCESS BEHIND THERE. 
          AND MAYBE ASK, I'M GONNA ASK THAT DIFFERENTLY. 
          SO WHERE YOUR PROPOSED 
          [02:00:01]
FENCES, COULDN'T YOU JUST PLAY IN A ROW OF ARBOR VAES OR THAT PROPOSED FENCES INSTALLED THAT SAME CLEARANCE? I MEAN, I, I KNOW A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS YOU REQUIRE THAT AND IT'S, YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ONE FOOT WIDE ARBORVITAE, YOU HAVE TO PLANT, I THINK IT WAS, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT. 
          A ROW OR STAGGERED WHEN I LOOKED IT UP. 
          AND, UH, YOU HAVE TO DO, I THINK IT WAS AT LEAST THREE AND A HALF FEET BETWEEN 'EM. 
          BUT THEN ONCE THEY BLOOM, THEY'RE A CERTAIN DIAMETER. 
          SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU DID DO THAT, YOU NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO THE UTILITIES OR THE SEPTIC OR IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY, BUT THERE'S NO WAY ONCE THE, ONCE THE FENCE IS BUILT IN THE BACKYARD, I MEAN YOU COULD GO, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE, THERE, THERE'S NO CLEARED PATH, I GUESS IS MY POINT. 
          IF, IF YOU DO THAT, YOU'RE BLOCKING THE ONLY CLEARED PATH THAT ACCESSES THE UTILITIES. 
          I MEAN THERE'S SMALL SAPLING TREES. 
          I CAN SEE IT ON THE PICTURE HERE. 
          THE ONES THAT YOU PROVIDED WITHIN YOUR STATEMENT, UM, WAS IT ORANGE FENCE PHOTO? YEAH, WHY DON'T WE, CAN WE PULL THAT UP? HIS, THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT, I WANNA SHOW THIS. 
          'CAUSE NUMBER TWO, HE ACTUALLY, THIS IS IN THE, YEAH, THIS IS IN THE VI THE VISUALS PIECE I THINK, OR ACTUALLY MIGHT BE IN THE PHOTOS, THE APPLICANT DRAWINGS. 
          ACTUALLY, THAT'S NOT A BAD VIEW HERE. 
          YEAH, THIS ONE. 
          YEAH, BUT THERE'S A, UM, A, A VIEW FROM THE BACK OF THE, UH, LIKE LOOKING YEAH, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER ONE. 
          YEAH, . 
          . 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT, SO THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT HERE, THI THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE JOE, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHERE THE RED IS OUTLINED, YOU COULD HAVE THE LINE THERE. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT THERE'S NOT A CLEAR PATH, THERE'S A PATH, THERE'S A WAY TO GET BACK THERE. 
          SOMEBODY NEED TO GET BACK THERE. 
          UM, I MEAN YOU'D BE GOING, YOU'D, YOU COULDN'T GO THROUGH THE ARB IE. 
          SO YOU'D BE GOING THROUGH ALL NO, YOU'D HAVE TO GO, YEAH, YOU'D HAVE TO GO IN THE, THE WOODED AREA, BUT THERE ISN'T A CLEAR IF YOU, IF YOU PLANT THOSE THERE, YOU EITHER TO HAVE A CLEAR PATH TO THE UTILITIES, THE SEPTIC AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU MIGHT NEED TO GET BACK THERE FOR, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PATH TO DO THAT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T GET BACK THERE. 
          UM, BUT WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN A CLEAR PATH. 
          WE'VE HAD, WE'VE HAD, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD OUR UTILITY POLE HAD TO GET REPLACED AT ONE POINT. 
          UH, ALL THE LINES HAD TO GET PUT BACK UP. 
          THEY HAD EQUIPMENT THEY HAD TO TAKE BACK THERE. 
          I HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. 
          IT INVOLVED A TREE FALLING. 
          BUT THE POINT IS, IF, IF WE PLANT THOSE, THERE ISN'T A CLEAR PATH OR WE HAVE TO CREATE, WE HAVE TO REMOVE VEGETATION TO, TO CREATE ONE. 
          UM, OUR SEPTIC GETS INSPECTED TWICE A YEAR, ACTUALLY THREE TIMES, TWICE BY, WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY PLUS ONCE WITH FRANKLIN COUNTY. 
          UM, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO US TO, TO MAINTAIN A CLEAR PATH. 
          AND SO DOING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T COME OUT ANY FARTHER THAN THE, THE DETACHED STRUCTURE ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN THAT PATH. 
          THAT GETS BACK TO EVERYTHING. 
          I, I'M, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE. 
          CAN WE, CAN WE PULL BACK UP THE, UM, THERE'S A PICTURE OF LIKE THE FOUR, THERE'S TWO, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT WORKS. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE IT. 
          UM, SO TELL ME, IF I'M LOOKING AT YOUR GARAGE AND I GO TO THE LEFT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF SPACE THERE. 
          YES. 
          LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A B LARGE CLEAR PATH BACK BEHIND YOUR GARAGE. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE FENCED IN. 
          THAT'S PART OF THIS PERMIT IS THE ALUMINUM FENCING THAT'S GONNA, THAT'S GONNA BE ALL GATED AND LOCKED. 
          I, I GET THAT. 
          SO COULDN'T YOU CREATE A GATE OR SOMETHING ON THE AREA WHERE THE UTILITY, THE SEPTIC IS BACK ON THE BACK, RIGHT. 
          IT'D BE THE, THAT'D BE THE NORTH. 
          WHAT IS THAT? UH, YEAH, THERE, THERE WILL BE GATES, BUT OUR INTENTION IS TO NOT HAVE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T US IN OUR BACKYARD. 
          SO THAT'S THE POINT OF FENCING IT IN. 
          OKAY. 
          I GOTTA TELL YOU HERE, YOU'RE ASKING LIKE YOU'RE BEING VERY PARTICULAR. 
          I WANT THIS, I WANT THIS, I WANT THIS. 
          AND ALL THESE THINGS WERE CREATED BY THE LOCATION OF WHERE YOU PUT THE DETACHED STRUCTURE. 
          SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO COME UP WITH OTHER WAYS. 
          WE'RE THROWING A LOT OF IDEAS AT YOU AND YOU'RE REJECTING ALL OF 'EM. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA TAKE A MINUTE, LET MY COLLEAGUES ASK SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          I GUESS, UH, HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE, UH, THE 10 FOOT NUMBER? WAS THERE, WHAT WAS THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND THAT? YEAH, THE GARAGE, IT'S TO MATCH THE WALL HEIGHT OF THE GARAGE, THE GARAGE, THE WALL HEIGHT'S, 10 FOOT, THE GARAGE DOOR HEIGHT'S, NINE FOOT. 
          SO WE WANTED TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER JUST TO HAVE IT BE UNIFORM. 
          UM, AND WE WOULD BE OPEN TO NINE FOOT AS WELL. 
          THERE'S TRIM THAT GOES AROUND THE TOP SO IT COULD THEN MATCH UP, YOU KNOW, AROUND THE TOP OF THE GARAGE DOOR SO IT COULD THEN MATCH UP, UM, WITH THE TOP OF THE FENCE LINE TOO. 
          UM, 
          [02:05:01]
BUT THAT WAS THE, THE, THE POINT WAS UNIFORMITY WITH, WITH THE, UH, STRUCTURE, IT'S GONNA GONNA BE CONNECTED TO. 
          WOULD, I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU SAY IF YOU HADN'T PUT THE GARAGE IN, UM, OR CLEARED UP THE VEGETATION, YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T NEED THE FENCE. 
          I MEAN, WHERE, WHERE THE GARAGE IS AND PUTTING IT IN IS WHAT KIND OF CREATED THIS, THIS SITUATION. 
          RIGHT? IF WE, WELL, IF WE HADN'T PUT, IF WE HAD NEVER DONE A GARAGE, WE DECIDED NOT TO DO A STRUCTURE, THEN YES, WE STILL WOULD'VE WANTED TO PUT A FENCE IN. 
          THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO DO TWO DETACHED STRUCTURES. 
          ONE WOULD'VE BEEN RIGHT. 
          WE WANTED TO DO THE ONE IN FRONT FIRST. 
          WE WANTED TO DO A NARROWER ONE IN THE BACK, A MUCH SMALLER ONE IN THE BACK. 
          AND THEN WE WANTED TO CONNECT THEM WITH A, WITH A, UH, SOLID STYLE FENCE. 
          UM, WHICH WHETHER THE, OBVIOUSLY NOW WE KNOW THAT THERE'S PRETTY STRICT REGULATIONS ON THE FENCE ITSELF, BUT, UM, THE INTENTION WAS ALWAYS TO PUT SOMETHING WHERE THEY BUILT THOSE HOUSES. 
          SO OUR, WE THOUGHT OUR BEST SOLUTION WAS TWO DETACHED STRUCTURES BECAUSE THE DETACHED STRUCTURES ARE, YOU KNOW, THE GARAGE WE JUST BUILT IS, UM, I, IT'S 16 FEET TALL, SO IT PROVIDES SOME SCREENING IN, IN SOME PARTS, RIGHT? SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, 16 FEET HERE, 16 FEET HERE, AND THEN MAYBE SOMETHING JUST TO CONNECT THEM, MAKE IT UNIFORM AND ADD A LITTLE PRIVACY IN THE MIDDLE. 
          UM, SO HAD WE NEVER BUILT THE GARAGE, YES, WE'D STILL WANNA PUT PRIVACY, PRIVACY OF SOME KIND THERE. 
          UM, BUT YOU WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO PUT THE TREES THERE AND THEN HAVE A PATH TO GO BACK TO THE UTILITIES, RIGHT? YOU COULD HAVE PUT ARBERY ES IN AND THEN STILL HAD A PATH TO GO BACK THERE IF THE GARAGE WASN'T THERE AT ALL. 
          UH, IF THE, YEAH, I, I MEAN, IN THEORY, I GUESS, YEAH, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN OUR, OUR CHOSEN METHOD, BUT YEAH. 
          DANIEL OR ZACH, QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          I, HAVE WE EVER HAD SOMETHING WHERE THERE'S BEEN A SPECIAL CONDITION AS A RESULT OF BEING AT THE END OF A COUNTY OR A TOWNSHIP? I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY VARIANCES WHERE WE'VE HAD ADJACENCY TO TWO OTHER JURISDICTIONS. 
          NO. 
          I MEAN, IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST THE END OF A ROAD WITH A SUBDIVISION, A DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION NEXT TO IT. 
          IS THAT FAIR? IT IS WITH, WITH DIFFERENT REGULATIONS THAN WHAT THE CITY OF DUB ASKED. 
          I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I CAN, I CAN RE-ASK MY QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY. 
          HAVE WE EVER GRANTED, UH, OR RECOGNIZED A SPECIAL CONDITION WITH ABUTTING JURISDICTIONS NEXT TO A PROPERTY WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION? I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY VARIANCE REQUESTS OF THOSE NATURE. 
          I GUESS THAT THAT'S PROBABLY SORT OF OUR, OUR BIGGEST THING IS IT'S, IT IS A DIFFERENT, IT'S A DIFFERENT COUNTY, DIFFERENT JURISDICTION THAT WE'RE GETTING PRIVACY FROM, AND NO ONE IN DUBLIN CAN, WOULD EVEN BE ABLE TO SEE IT. 
          UM, WE DID HAVE AN EMAIL FROM OUR NEIGHBOR WHO, UH, TODAY YEAH, WE CAN GET TO THE, I I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, THEY WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. 
          I, I WOULD IMAGINE THE STATEMENT WE CAN'T PULL UP, BUT WE'LL HAVE DANIEL READ IT FOR US ON THE RECORD. 
          I, I GUESS SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THESE, THESE THREE CRITERIA HERE, UM, THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET STAFF HAS SAID YOU DON'T MEET ANY OF 'EM. 
          UM, PERSONALLY FOR ME, NUMBER THREE, I'M NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THAT ONE RIGHT NOW. 
          'CAUSE I, I, I, I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE MY MIND. 
          YOU'RE MAKING ARGUMENTS, UM, AND PRESENTING POSITIONS AND BASISES IN YOUR MIND THAT MEET ONE AND TWO AND YOU KNOW, ONE BEING THE SPECIAL CONDITION AND TWO BEING, UH, THAT WE'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT YOU CREATED. 
          UM, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF EITHER OF THOSE ARE MET. 
          I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING PAST THAT. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION ABOUT, UH, WHETHER THERE WAS SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT THIS YARD THAT WOULD MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL. 
          SO, I DUNNO, I'LL DEFER TO MY, UH, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HERE IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          OTHERWISE WE CAN, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, DISCUSSION. 
          I WENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          WELL, NO, WE, I, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. 
          WE'LL GET, WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. 
          NO, I, I MIGHT HAVE A DISCUSSION. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          WELL, THERE'S ONE. 
          WE CAN'T PULL IT UP ON OUR, UH, CITY PROVIDED, UH, TECHNOLOGY. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          . 
          YEAH. 
          ZACH, IF YOU COULD READ IT VERBATIM OR, OR DAN, WE'D APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO THIS PUBLIC COMMENT IS PROVIDED BY, 
          [02:10:01]
I BELIEVE IT'S SHANE AND RENEE, UH, BURKE. 
          AND IT WRITES, UH, WE WRITE TO YOU TODAY IN ADVANCE OF THE UPCOMING BZA MEETING ON MARCH 28TH REGARDING THE PROPOSAL FOR THE DANIELS RESIDENCE AT 84 31 TRAILS END DRIVE. 
          IN ORDER TO VOICE OUR SUPPORT FOR THE REQUESTED FENCE APPROVAL, UH, AS THE OWNERS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED, WE ARE LOCATED AT 84 0 1 TRAILS END DRIVE, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE DANIELS HOME. 
          UH, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL AND CONSIDERED THIS REQUESTED FENCE TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE AESTHETIC STANDARDS FOR BOTH THE TRAILS AND COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND ENCOURAGED THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. 
          UH, WE KNOW THE BOARD'S DUTY IS TO EXERCISE GOOD JUDGMENT AND TO THOUGHTFULLY PRESERVE THE BUILDING CODES. 
          UH, BUT IN THIS CASE, IN OUR OPINION, AN EXCEPTION SEEMS WARRANTED. 
          UH, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS MESSAGE AS OUR UNSOLICITED ENDORSEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL. 
          SO JUST TO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S THE HOME, UH, MR. DANIELS TO THE, IF I'M FACING YOUR HOUSE, IT'S TO THE LEFT. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO THAT'S SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPOSED. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S MY ONLY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I ACTUALLY MET HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. 
          HE MADE A POINT TO COME OVER WHEN I GOT HOME FROM WORK. 
          HE ACTUALLY HASN'T EVEN MOVED INTO THE HOUSE YET. 
          UM, HE'S RENOVATING IT AND HE HAPPENED TO BE THERE AND SAW ME GET HO COME HOME AND HE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING AND OFFERED TO SEND A MESSAGE. 
          SO, I GUESS, UH, UH, SPEAKING OF, UH, YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOU DID MENTION THE, UM, THE 12 FOOT FENCE THAT WAS, UH, ACROSS THE STREET. 
          YEP. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, ANY SORT OF BACKGROUND ON THAT? DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT'S, IT'S BEEN THERE? IS IT MAYBE IT IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE BEFORE WE MOVED IN, IN 2010. 
          THAT'S AS MUCH AS I KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT, UH, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S SIX FEET AND IT TRANSITIONS. 
          I DIDN'T ACTUALLY, I'D BE TRESPASSING IF I WENT AND MEASURED IT, BUT I'M GUESSING IT, IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 60 TO 75 FEET OF SIX FOOT. 
          AND IT ANGLES UP TO ABOUT, IT'S AT LEAST 10. 
          IT'S PROBABLY 12 FEET BASED ON WALKING UP NEAR THE SIX FOOT, KNOWING IT'S THE SAME HEIGHT AS ME. 
          SO IT'S GOES FROM SIX TO ABOUT 12, AND THEN THAT 12 FOOT SPAN IS PROBABLY ABOUT 75 FEET AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY MUCH HIS ENTIRE, HIS ENTIRE PROPERTY LINE, THE SAME PROPERTY LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES IT LOOK OLDER? DOES IT LOOK LIKE IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME? I WOULD ASSUME, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , MAYBE YOU MIGHT BE SPECULATING, BUT DO YOU, WOULD YOU KNOW WHY HE MAY HAVE PUT IT THERE? IS IT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SAME REASONS, PRIVACY, OR, YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD DE IT THINK IT'S FOR PRIVACY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I, PATRICK, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE JUST NOT CERTAIN WHETHER THAT WAS INSTALLED BEFORE. 
          UM, THE CODE, UM, OF COURSE THE APPLICANT IS FREE TO CATTLE. 
          UH, WE'VE HAD THAT BEFORE ON OTHER OWNERS, UH, IN THE ADJACENT AREA THAT HAVEN'T MET THE, THE CODE. 
          SO, UM, I'LL, I'LL BE THAT, BE THAT AS IT MAY, I'LL DEFER TO YOU, BUT I, I'M NOT CONSIDERING THAT TO BE RELEVANT RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHAT'S, WHAT, WHAT EXISTS ADJACENT TO THIS NOT BEFORE US. 
          UM, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S MY TAKE. 
          SURE. 
          NO, THAT, THAT WASN'T, UH, A PURPOSE IN ASKING THE QUESTION. 
          IT WAS JUST GENERALLY JUST TO, TO KIND OF SEE IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT PREDATED WHAT HE WAS, WAS LOOKING FOR. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR APPLICANT? ANY, ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. 
          MR. MR. DANIELS, YOU CAN PROBABLY TAKE A SEAT. 
          WE'LL DISCUSS IF WE NEED YOU, WE WILL CALL YOU RIGHT BACK UP. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANKS. 
          WELL, WHAT ARE WE THINKING HERE? ANYBODY WANT TO CHIME IN? JOEL, PATRICK, WHAT DO YOU THINK? YEAH, I WILL. 
          UM, SO OBVIOUSLY WE'VE, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE, UH, CRITERIA A ALL THREE NEED TO BE MET, STAFF FEELS THE NONE WERE MET. 
          UM, I'LL GO STRAIGHT THERE JUST BECAUSE I DO AGREE ON CRITERIA B THAT 2 0 4 ARE MET. 
          I ACTUALLY DISAGREE IN EACH CASE WITH STAFF. 
          I THINK THAT, UM, I DO CONSIDER THE, UH, TWO BORDER PROPERTIES, UH, ONE BEING THE WEDGEWOOD GLEN, PLR, ONE BEING LIBERTY TOWNSHIP. 
          THAT'LL HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, I CONSIDER THAT A SPECIAL CONDITION. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THE VARIANCE IS NECESSITATED AS A RESULT OF THEIR ACTION. 
          I KNOW THAT THAT'S ALWAYS A DIFFICULT STANDARD FOR US TO FIND. 
          UM, I THINK THAT, UH, 
          [02:15:01]
THEY WOULD WANT THE PRIVACY REGARDLESS. 
          I THINK IT'S NECESSITATED BY THE LIBERTY TOWNSHIP HOMES THAT WERE BUILT WITHIN THOSE SIGHT LINES OF THEIR BACKYARD AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE. 
          UM, IF THE PLOTS WERE ALL IN ORDER AND THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE'S BACKYARD, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'D BE AS MUCH PRIVACY NECESSITATED, YOU KNOW, VERSUS THIS ANGLE. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN FINALLY, I DON'T THINK IT CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THEM, AND ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO DUBLIN PROPERTIES. 
          SO I DID AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THOSE POINTS. 
          UM, FINDING THREE OF THREE ON CRITERIA A AND TWO OF FOUR. 
          I THINK JUST TWO OF FOUR, UH, TWO TO THREE OF THE LAST FOUR. 
          BUT THAT'S IRRELEVANT, I WOULD SAY LEANING TOWARDS PROVING. 
          THANKS, DAN. 
          GOOD QUESTION. 
          CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IS THAT PART PLEASE? AND, AND HELP ME. 
          'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I CAN GET WHERE YOU ARE, BUT BECAUSE OTHER HOMES WERE BUILT AFTER THEY BUILT THEIR HOME, THEY DIDN'T NECESSITATE IT. 
          SO YOU'RE, YOU WOULD SAY ANYBODY WHO HAS A HOME, THAT SOMEONE BUILDS A HOME NEXT TO THEM THEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THIS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THIS CRI THEY COULD MEET CRITERIA TWO UNDER A YEAH, I THINK THAT, UM, NOT ANY HOME THAT WAS BUILT, UM, BUT A HOME THAT WAS BUILT WITH SEPARATE CODE OUTSIDE OF DUBLIN, UM, THAT WOULDN'T MEET IF THIS CODE WAS EXTENDED. 
          IF R ONE WAS EXTENDED FURTHER TO A NEW NEIGHBOR, UH, NO, I WOULD NOT THINK THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. 
          AND WHAT, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I CAN GET THERE. 
          SURE. 
          WHAT CODE, WHAT'S DIFFERENT IN THEIR CODE THAT THAT'S, THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THIS BEING DIFFERENT. 
          SO LET'S SAY IT WAS IN DUBLIN. 
          HOW WOULD THAT MAKE IT ANY DIFFERENT? YEAH, SO IT TO ME, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS ISN'T NECESSITATED BY THEIR ACTION. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT IT'S NECESSITATED BECAUSE THOSE HOUSE EXISTS. 
          WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT'S A REASON TO GRANT A VARIANCE, IT'S NOT, UH, SOMETHING THAT THEY DID, IT'S NOT THEIR ACTION. 
          SO I GUESS I'D SAY THERE WERE DIFFERENT JURISDICTION WHEN THEY MOVED IN THOUGH, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T ZONE THAT OUT OF THERE AFTER THEY WERE THERE. 
          NO, BUT THE CRITERIA IS, WAS THE VARIANCE NECESSITATED OUT OF THEIR ACTION. 
          SO I GUESS I'D ASK YOU, HOW ARE, UH, NEW HOUSES BEING BUILT ADJACENT TO THEIRS, THEIR ACTION? I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT. 
          THEY DIDN'T SAY THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT. 
          THEY, THEY, THEY NEED IT BECAUSE THEY WANT PRIVACY. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO GET PRIVACY. 
          AND THEY JUST TOLD US, I, THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS, IF YOU DIDN'T PUT THE GARAGE WHERE YOU PUT IT, WOULD YOU NEED THIS? AND HE SAID, NO, I WOULD'VE WANTED IT, BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED IT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT DOESN'T GET THERE FOR ME. 
          WAS THAT ANSWER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FOR ME WAS THEIR ACTION OF PUTTING THE GARAGE WHERE THEY CHOSE TO AND CUTTING THE TREES DOWN IS WHAT NECESSITATES THIS. 
          I DON'T LOOK AT IT, I DON'T THINK THE OTHER HOUSES, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. 
          I DON'T THINK OTHER HOUSES BEING BUILT NEXT TO 'EM IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I THINK THEIR CHOICE TO ADD A NEW STRUCTURE AND TO REMOVE THE TREES WAS THEIR ACTION. 
          I THINK THAT'S JUST WHERE I SEE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT ACTUALLY BUILDING THAT GARAGE CREATED MORE PRIVACY. 
          IT REDUCED THE NEED FOR MORE PRIVACY. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE DISAGREE. 
          THE, ON THE VEGETATION THAT PROVIDED YOU PROVIDED YOU, UM, SECLUSION. 
          WELL, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE PICTURE BEFOREHAND AND SAW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITHOUT LEAVES, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS RELEVANT. 
          I THINK EVEN WITH A LITTLE MORE VEGETATION, THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH PRIVACY IN THE WINTER. 
          I MIGHT HAVE, THERE'S A PICTURE FROM BEFORE, BEFORE THEY CUT IT DOWN. 
          GREAT. 
          NO, I'M ASKING YOU. 
          I THOUGHT YOU SAID WHEN THEY, AFTER THEY CUT IT DOWN, DID I MISS THAT? AND THERE'S, THERE'S A PICTURE FROM BEFORE AND AFTER, OR IS THAT THEIR ANSWER? I'M SORRY. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          YOU SAID WHEN WE SAW THE PICTURE FROM BEFORE, THEY CUT IT DOWN. 
          I DIDN'T SEE A PICTURE BEFORE THEY CUT IT DOWN, SO THAT'S PROBABLY MY FAULT. 
          OH, I SAID BEFORE THEY BUILT THE DETACHED STRUCTURE. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          I THOUGHT TOTALLY CUT IT DOWN. 
          I DIDN'T SEE THAT, SO I TOTALLY MISSING MY FAULT. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          NO PROBLEM. 
          I, I, I'M LOOKING BEFORE JASON WAS, I THINK BEFORE JOEL, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? I I CAN CHIME IN. 
          UM, I CAN SEE LIKE BOTH YOUR CASES ON CRITERIA. 
          A NUMBER ONE, ULTIMATELY WE JUST APPROVED THE FIRST CASE THE NIGHT THAT WE BROUGHT TO THE FRONT AND CONSIDERED THERE BEING A SPECIAL CONDITION ABOUT THE LAND THAT NEEDED THE OPEN AND CONCRETE LOOK. 
          UM, SOME OF THESE ARE GRAY. 
          I FEEL LIKE THIS IS NO GRAYER THAN THAT ONE. 
          UM, ON CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO, THE VARIANCE IS NOT ASSOCIATED 'CAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, I HOPE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. 
          THE APPLICANT WAS WORDY IN WHAT THEY PUT IN THERE AND HOW THEY EXPLAINED IT. 
          AND I'D HATE TO SEE US PUNISH THE APPLICANT FOR BEING WORDY WHEN GIVEN, WHEN ASKED THE QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY, THE APPLICANT FOR ME ESSENTIALLY SAID THEY'VE ALWAYS WANTED PRIVACY. 
          THEY'VE DESIRED PRIVACY. 
          THEY'VE TRIED TO KILL MULTIPLE BIRDS WITH ONE STONE BY PUTTING UP GARAGE AND A WALL. 
          UM, SO LIKE I'D HATE TO PUNISH THE APPLICANT FOR BEING WORDIER THAN THEY NEEDED TO BE TO MAKE A CASE THAT THEY MET THAT CRITERIA. 
          I DO AGREE AS PART OF THAT WITH COMMENT, MR. NYE MADE EARLIER 
          [02:20:01]
ON CRITERIA B NUMBER FOUR, THEY, THEY COULD ACHIEVE PRIVACY THROUGH OTHER MEANS, BUT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THEY MEET TWO OF THE CRITERIA. 
          SO I'M KIND OF JUST FOCUSING ON CRITERIA A. 
          SO CRITERIA A NUMBER THREE, THE CITY STAFF EVEN SAID IT DOES NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT FOR ME. 
          LIKE THE, THE WORDS LIKE REALLY MATTER ON THIS. 
          IF WE'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, HOW COULD WE SAY THAT THE CRITERIA IS NOT MET? SO, UM, THE ONE I WAS MOST HUNG UP ON WAS CRITERIA A. 
          NUMBER TWO. 
          I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO HOW MUCH DO WE PUT ON THE APPLICANT FOR HOW WORRIED THEY WERE AND HOW THEY EXPLAINED IT. 
          SO I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARDS APPROVING, UM, THE VARIANCES, PATRICK. 
          UM, YEAH, I THINK THE, I THINK MY DECISION WOULD HINGE ON THE SECOND CRITERIA. 
          UM, WHETHER THE ACTION OR AN ACTION, UM, NECESSITATED THE, UH, NECESSITATES THE VARIANCE. 
          UM, IT, SO I SUPPOSE IT, IT SORT OF WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER HE WOULD ACHIEVE A, A BETTER PRIVACY RESULT BY PUTTING UP THE FENCE THAN HE WOULD'VE ACHIEVED OR WOULD'VE MAINTAINED HAD HE NOT REMOVED THE VEGETATION AND ADDED THE NEW STRUCTURE. 
          UM, SO IF THE GOAL WAS TO IMPROVE PRIVACY BASED ON THE HEIGHT OR THE SIZE OF THE SURROUNDING NA UH, THE SURROUNDING HOMES THAT WERE BUILT SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE, UM, UM, THEY'RE MOVING IN, UH, I, I THINK THAT'S, THAT MIGHT BE SOME GROUNDS FOR, UH, POTENTIAL VARIANCE THAT WOULD, THAT MAY HAVE NECESSITATED ADDITIONAL PRIVACY, UH, THAT WASN'T BEING PROVIDED BY THE VEGETATION. 
          AND AS WAS ALLUDED TO BY, BY JOEL, UM, HE WAS TRYING TO KILL MULTIPLE BIRDS WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION BY, BY ADDING THE, THE, THE NEW STRUCTURE. 
          AND, UM, HE'S LOOKING TO STILL ACHIEVE THAT, THAT PRIVACY GOAL. 
          UH, AND I GUESS THE QUESTION TOO WOULD BE WHAT ALTERNATIVES WOULD THERE BE TO THIS FENCE TO ATTAIN THAT LEVEL OF PRIVACY? HE COULD PUT UP SOME NEW VEGETATION, UH, THAT MIGHT DO THAT. 
          UH, HOWEVER, PUTTING UP A 10 FOOT FENCE IS GONNA BE A MUCH QUICKER METHOD THAN FINDING SOME MATURE VEGETATION THAT MAY OR MAY MAY NOT SURVIVE THE, UM, UH, TRANSPLANT PROCESS. 
          UH, OR YOU'D BE WAITING, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS BY, UH, BY INSTALLING VEGETATION FOR IT TO MATURE AND, AND REACH THOSE GOALS. 
          SO, UM, I'M, I GUESS I'M, UH, SORT OF LEANING TOWARD THAT THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY DUE TO ACTIONS OR, AND ACTIONS ON HIS PART. 
          WELL, MIKE, THINGS FOR US TO CONSIDER THAT, AND MAYBE, MAYBE I'LL BE CONVINCED TO GO THAT WAY WITH THIS, IS THEY'RE ASKING FOR THIS FOR PRIVACY. 
          DOES ANYBODY NOT HAVE A PLACE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A 10 FOOT FENCE FOR PRIVACY IN DUBLIN? I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF EVERYBODY THAT I KNOW THAT LIVES IN DUBLIN WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PRIVACY FROM SOMEBODY THAT COULD BE 10 FOOT. 
          I MEAN, MY NEIGHBOR HAS A TWO STORY HOUSE, A FOUR FOOT FENCE DOESN'T KEEP ME FROM THEM SINK INTO MY PROPERTY. 
          SO I NEED A 40 FOOT FENCE. 
          I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE PRECEDENT AND MAYBE, MAYBE ASKING CAN HELP US, I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT IT IS STRUGGLING WITH THE PRECEDENT WE'RE CREATING. 
          IF YOU SAY, WELL, THEY NEED IT BECAUSE THEIR NEIGHBORS ARE NEXT TO 'EM AND COULD SEE INTO IT, I DON'T KNOW. 
          WOULDN'T THAT BE KIND OF BINDING ON US THEN? THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR PRECEDENT WE'VE CREATED IS, UH, I I WOULD SAY IN THESE TYPES OF CASES, UH, NO, UM, HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH ZACH EARLIER, UM, EVERY, EVERY PROPERTY, EVERY SITUATION IS UNIQUE IN THESE TYPES OF LAND USE VARIANCE TYPE CASES. 
          UM, COULD IT SET A TREND MAYBE, UH, I WOULDN'T GO SO FAR AS TO CALL IT, YOU KNOW, PRECEDENTS OR, OR BINDING IN ANY, ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. 
          UM, SO IF THE NEXT PERSON  WILL HELP ME. 
          SO IF THE NEXT PERSON SAYS I WANT IT BECAUSE IT PROVIDES ME PRIVACY, WE CAN SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT PRIVACY. 
          WHAT WE DO WANT TO GIVE IT TO, TO THIS, THIS. 
          THAT'S KINDA WHERE I STRUGGLE. 
          IF, IF, IF, IF THE DECISION TURNS ON THAT, UM, THAT ISSUE OR, OR, OR THAT CRITERIA ALONE. 
          YEAH, YOU MAY HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING, UM, GETTING AWAY FROM THAT. 
          I THINK, I THINK EACH CASE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT HOLISTICALLY. 
          SURE. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU GET AWAY FROM THE PRECEDENT 
          [02:25:01]
SETTING, UM, CASE BY CASE SCENARIO, IF THAT HELPS. 
          INTERESTING. 
          I, I THINK IT'S A GREAT POINT TO BRING UP. 
          I, I THINK CRITERIA A NUMBER THREE DOES GIVE US LIKE SOME PROTECTION ON THAT. 
          IF, IF SOMEBODY ELSE CAME THROUGH AND WANTED, UM, A HUGE WALL IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR YARD IN A MORE, UM, STANDARD NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT IT WOULD CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO, UM, PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY. 
          SO I, I FEEL, I DON'T THINK WE'RE JUST GIVING A BLANKET CHECK TO ANYBODY BEING ABLE TO SAY, I WANNA PUT SOMETHING UP FOR PRIVACY. 
          BUT IT'S LIKE, IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          AND, AND I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH THAT. 
          YOU DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT FOR ANY, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE CRITERIA LISTED OUT AS THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, I TRIED TO REACT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL CRITERIA. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTED OFFENSE, DO THEY HAVE THE SAME SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR WHAT I CONSIDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS WOULD BE RELEVANT? I DON'T NECESSARILY, UM, IT'S, IT'D BE AN INTERESTING QUESTION, BUT IS THE WANT OF PRIVACY AN ACTION OR AN ACTION? I THINK WE, YEAH, IT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          I, I'M GONNA GO OVER THIS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND. 
          OKAY. 
          , SO A SPECIAL CONDITION CAN BE THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION THAT'S DIRECTLY FROM THE CODE. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF ANOTHER HOUSE WAS CONSIDERED, UH, TO BE THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY. 
          'CAUSE THAT COULD BE ALMOST ANYBODY, RIGHT? SURE. 
          UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS, IT'S CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, EXIST, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED, AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. 
          SO THE HOMES THAT ARE, THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. 
          SO THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS THEN THERE IS NO SPECIAL CONDITION IN MY OPINION. 
          UM, IT'S WHAT I, IT'S WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. 
          UM, SO I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THERE. 
          I DON'T HAVE TO GET TO THE NEXT TWO BECAUSE I CAN'T GET PAST THE FIRST ONE. 
          UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS, I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE STAND HERE, BUT I, I, IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M JUST SO MAKE SURE JOEL, JOEL IS A YES. 
          DAN IS A YES. 
          I'VE GOT A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. 
          DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO DOES THAT MEAN NOT IF IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANY OTHER PROPERTY IN THAT ZONING CONDITION? CORRECT. 
          NOT IF IT DOESN'T APPLY TO SAY AN EXAMPLE OR A GENERAL EXAMPLE. 
          IS THAT HOW THAT SHOULD BE READ? WELL, IF WE'RE, I GUESS THE, THE UNDERSTANDING IS THIS, IS THAT, ARE WE SAYING, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, UM, I'M GONNA GO ON MY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, OF COURSE WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY HERE TO BE ABLE TO HELP US OUT AT CERTAIN, CERTAIN INSTANCES. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN READING THIS CODE AND UH, FROM THE INTERPRETATION STANDPOINT THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO BE SOMEWHAT OF A SPECIAL CONDITION. 
          I THINK THAT OPENS THE DOOR. 
          THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO THINK TO OURSELVES IS, IS ANOTHER HOME BEING BUILT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WHAT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A A USER DEVELOPMENT? I MEAN, THEORY, IT COULD BE YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. 
          THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR JOB TO INTERPRET THAT. 
          HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONSIDER THAT HERE BECAUSE THEY ABUT UP TO LANDS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. 
          AND THAT IS THE CLARIFICATION OF, UH, THAT SECTION. 
          AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? YES. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M INTERPRETING THAT CORRECTLY WHILE YA IS PULLING THAT UP. 
          I, I JUST DISAGREE 'CAUSE I, I READ THIS SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. 
          I READ THAT TO MEAN THE LAND OR STRUCTURES THAT AREN'T IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT DON'T MATTER. 
          SO WHAT MA LIKE, WHAT MATTERS IS, ARE THERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS COMPARING ONLY TO LAND OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT? OKAY. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, IT'S, SO WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT YOUR POINT, BECAUSE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO ME. 
          IF THERE'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA BE OTHER HOMES IN R ONE THAT HAVE TWO BORDERS WITH OTHER PROPERTIES, THERE'LL BE AT LEAST FOUR OF 'EM. 
          UH, I MEAN, RIGHT. 
          AND MAYBE MORE. 
          AND SO IF THAT'S 
          [02:30:01]
THE CASE THAT YOU CAN'T CONSIDER IT, IF IT'S APPLICABLE TO ANY OTHER HOME IN R ONE, THEN I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD CHANGE, THAT WOULD CHANGE MY OPINION. 
          MAYBE OUR LAW DIRECTOR CAN PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION FOR US. 
          SURE. 
          THE WAY I INTERPRET THAT IS, OKAY,  IS THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE COMPARING THIS, THIS PROPERTY, THIS LAND, UM, OR STRUCTURE TO OTHERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT THEY ARE IN ON TRAILS END, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          AND DOES THIS ONE DIFFER? DOES THIS ONE HAVE SPECIAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES AS COMPARED TO THE OTHERS WITHIN THEIR SAME DISTRICT? SO LIKE IF THERE WAS A RIVER RUNNING NEXT TO IT THAT NO OTHER PROPERTY HAD, CORRECT? NOT IS THERE, IF THERE'S A HOUSE ON THE SIDE OF IT, IN THE NEIGHBOR HOUSE ON THE SIDE OF IT'S NOT Y YEAH. 
          THAT, THAT DIDN'T GET THAT FAR YET. 
          UM, IT, I MEAN IT DOES SAY BY REASON OF USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY JOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 
          SO I MEAN THAT, UH, IF, IF THE USER OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO IT IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER, THAN OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DUBLIN, UH, ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE IN ON THE SAME STREET, I, I INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED, CAN BE CONSIDERED. 
          SO I, I GUESS THAT WOULD PUT ME KIND OF IN MY ORIGINAL POSITION WHERE I'M LEANING TOWARDS THE PROOF SA SAME HERE. 
          I MEAN, I GO BACK TO THE FIRST CASE WE APPROVED IT WAS GRAY. 
          WHETHER THERE WAS REALLY A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRED HAVING THE OPEN CONCRETE, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT I THINK THE OPEN CONCRETE WAS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC LISTED, THE EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THAT AREA. 
          IT, IT WAS ON, IT WAS IN A FLOODPLAIN, HALF OF THAT HOUSE WAS IN A 200 OR 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. 
          BUT THE CONCRETE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE OPEN NECESSARILY. 
          THAT WAS FOR THE BASIS OF THE, UH, THE WALKOUT, THE STRUCTURE. 
          I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY JUST GONNA AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          IT'S A, IT'S, THAT'S, WE CAN, WE CAN INTERPRET. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          ATION. 
          I'M JUST GONNA ISSUE THIS ISSUE. 
          JUST WORD OF CAUTION HERE. 
          I, I'M, IT'S SOMETHING ABOUT THE, THE, THE PRIVACY ASPECT. 
          I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT HERE ON THE RECORD. 
          WE, WE CAN'T BE IN A SITUATION WHERE I, I DO, I DO NOT THINK THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION MEANS THAT IF SOMEBODY'S HAD BUILT ANOTHER HOUSE NEXT TO IT, THAT THEY CAN AUTOMATICALLY GET CER IT MAKES IT A SPECIAL CONDITION. 
          BECAUSE THEN I, I THINK THAT COULD MEAN ANY STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT ON A PROPERTY. 
          IT COULD BE A NEW STRUCTURE. 
          IT COULD BE A, A, A, A, YOU KNOW, A A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHERE THERE COULD BE SOMETHING HAPPENING. 
          UM, AND IT'S EVEN THE USE, THEY COULD BE USING IT IN A CERTAIN MANNER IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          SO I, WE, WE, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE'RE, HOW WE'RE INTERPRETING THIS, UM, MOVING FORWARD. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S LIMITED TO BUILDING ANOTHER HOUSE. 
          I THINK IT'S THE FACT THAT THE OTHER HOUSE AND THE OTHER STRUCTURE ARE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BASED ON BEING IN DIFFERENT ZONES. 
          I, THEY MIGHT NOT BE. 
          YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. 
          I, I AGREE AGAIN THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, LIKE THE PRIVACY PART. 
          I THINK FOR ME, LIKE FOR THE RECORD, THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES ARE HERE, LARGE, TALL, BIGGER THAN AVERAGE, I GUESS IS WHAT I WOULD PUT IT. 
          AND THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER THING WE COULD CONSIDER ON FUTURE CASES IS LIKE HOW DO YOU DEFINE HOW MUCH PRIVACY IS SUFFICIENT, I GUESS WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT. 
          IT'S HARD TO QUANTIFY, BUT I I DON'T DISAGREE THAT, THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO LOOK AT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE YES, YES. 
          RIGHT NOW, JOE AND I ARE NO NOS. 
          PATRICK, IT'S YOUR CALL HERE. 
          WELL, I THINK, UM, MAYBE WHAT MIGHT BE A CONDITION THAT'S, I MEAN THAT'S UNIQUE TO THE LAND SPECIFICALLY IS THAT IT'S, I MEAN, WHEN YOU'RE PURCHASING THAT PROPERTY, IT IS IN A HEAVILY WOODED AREA. 
          YOU PRO PROBABLY IN 2000 OR, UH, WHEN WAS IT PURCHASED LIKE 10 YEARS AGO OR 2010? UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTIES PROBABLY WEREN'T THERE. 
          UM, 
          [02:35:01]
YOU HAD THE THICK WOODED AREA. 
          YOU PROBABLY BOUGHT IT WITH, UM, A CERTAIN IDEA THAT YOU WOULD, A CERTAIN LEVEL OF PRIVACY IN MIND WHEN YOU GOT IT. 
          AND I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING TO MAINTAIN THAT OR ATTAIN THAT IN SOME WAY. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE THESE INTERVENING STRUCTURES MOVE IN THAT COMPROMISE THAT IN SUCH A WAY, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD BE WITHIN YOUR CONTROL. 
          SO I'M, I MEAN, I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S YOU'RE TRYING TO ESSENTIALLY REPLACE THE, UM, THE SPIRIT OF, OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU PURCHASED. 
          UH, OBVIOUSLY IF WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVACY, GENERALLY, UH, IT IS LOCATION AND CIRCUMSTANTIALLY SPECIFIC. 
          BUT WHEN YOU'RE BUYING A PROPERTY LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU, YOU OWN, I, I THINK YOU WERE BUYING IT WITH THE THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD BE A CERTAIN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. 
          AND I THINK BY BUILDING THIS STRUCTURE, YOU'RE FINDING AN EXPEDITED WAY OF REA ATTAINING THAT LEVEL OF PRIVACY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE HAD, HAD THE VEGETATION NOT BEEN REMOVED. 
          AND IT'S A MORE EFFICIENT WAY OF ATTAINING THAT THAN PLANTING VEGETATION THAT MIGHT NOT BE, UH, MIGHT NOT SURVIVE THE, THE, UH, TRANSPLANT PROCESS IF IT'S, IF IT'S TALL, UH, OR MIGHT TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET TO THE LEVEL OF THE, THE MATURE VEGETATION THAT IS ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. 
          SO, UM, I I, YEAH, I I'M NOT REALLY FINDING TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH, WITH MAKING AN EXCEPTION BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS, THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY. 
          UM, SO I, I'M, I'M LEANING ON ON, YES. 
          IF, UM, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO PERSUADE ME, I, I MEAN I'M, I'M, I'VE, I STAYED IT WITH TO APPROVE ALL. 
          YEAH, EXACTLY. 
          I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO APPROVE EVERYTHING. 
          UM, SO NO, I, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GONNA GET IT. 
          SO, UM, WE'RE GOOD FOR THE RECORD, I, I DON'T THINK YOU MET THE FIRST TWO CRITERIA. 
          I JUST WANNA STATE THAT I THINK, UH, NOT ONLY IS IT A SPECIAL CONDITION, UM, BUT IT WAS ALSO THAT YOUR ACTION IS, IS REQUIRING, UM, THE REQUEST FOR THE FENCE. 
          SO DO WE WANNA HAVE A, A MOTION TO APPROVE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD? I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL SEE IF I GET THIS RIGHT. 
          SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 A TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          NO. 
          SO WE NEED, WE NEED ONE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE MOTION TO, UH, 1 5, 3, 0, UH, 0.08, ZERO A. 
          SO IT'S GONNA BE A SOLID FENCE. 
          AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS GONNA BE TO B TWO WITH THE HEIGHT, I THINK IN THE SIDE YARD, THE HEIGHT. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE TWO. 
          SO THERE'S THE SOLID, 'CAUSE IT'S IN THE SIDE YARD, AND THEN THERE'S THE HEIGHT. 
          UH, LET ME GET THE EXACT, THE WAY THAT STAFF WROTE IT IN HERE WAS, I KNOW, LEMME HERE, LEMME LOOK UP THE CODE. 
          I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE FOR YOU. 
          HANG ON. 
          YEAH. 
          A A IS THE, THE A IS THE, THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. 
          A IS HEIGHT. 
          HEIGHT, YEAH. 
          AND B TWO WAS THE SOLID FENCE. 
          YEAH, I'LL EDIT IT. 
          SLIDE. 
          YEAH. 
          . 
          I DID, THEY WROTE IT IN THE, THE REVERSE . 
          UM, SO WE'LL DO THAT AGAIN. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.080 A TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          SECOND ROLL PLEASE. 
          MR. NYE? NO. 
          MR. DESLER? NO. 
          MR. MURPHY. 
          YES. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53 0.080 B TWO TO ALLOW A SOLID FENCE TO BE BUILT WITHIN A SIDE YARD. 
          SECOND ROLL PLEASE. 
          MR. MURPHY? YES. 
          MR. NOY? NO. 
          MR. DESLER? NO. 
          MR. GARVIN? YES. 
          MR. KRETZ? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CONGRATULATIONS. 
          YEP. 
          WE, LET'S SEE. 
          I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR ZACH. 
          YEAH. 
          IS THERE A WAY WHEN WE DO THIS THAT THEY CAN BE BROKEN AND INSTEAD OF MAKING THEM ONE CONSOLIDATED ONE, THEY NORMALLY INDIVIDUALLY BREAK THEM DOWN? I THOUGHT SO TOO. 
          YEAH. 
          MAKING IT VERY HARD ON US. 
          . 
          I'M DOING MY BEST. 
          WE'RE TRYING. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE, THE CHAIR AGENDA SHOULD TYPICALLY HAVE THE, THE MOTION SPLIT OUT. 
          THIS ONE I NOTICED IS NOT, SO WE WILL MAKE SURE TO CHANGE THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT'S THERE IN THE FUTURE. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          I WAS GONNA TAKE THE BLAME FOR IT, BUT I YOU CAN'T, I'LL BLAME YOU. 
          UH, LET'S SEE. 
          DO WE HAVE, 
          [02:40:01]
SAY WHAT? COULD I HAVE JUST READ IT BOTH TOGETHER? NO, WE CAN'T. 
          NO. 
          REMEMBER THE FIRST ONE I HAD, WE HAD TO SEPARATE, WE HAD TO SEPARATE 'EM. 
          MOTION. 
          THEY NEED TO BE SEPARATED. 
          FOR THE RECORD. 
          [COMMUNICATIONS]
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS? JUST ONE. 
          UM, NEXT TUESDAY WE HAVE OUR NEXT PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE ENVISION DUBLIN PLAN. 
          UH, THIS IS, WE'RE GONNA BE SHARING OUR SPECIAL AREA PLANS, UH, FOR SIX DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. 
          UH, SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD ON THAT AND WE'RE EXCITED TO SHARE THIS WITH THE PUBLIC. 
          SO FEEL FREE TO TO STOP BY. 
          I BELIEVE IT'LL BE HERE FROM FIVE TO SEVEN. 
          UH, NEXT TUESDAY, APRIL 2ND. 
          SO WE HAVE FLYERS OUT IN THE LOBBY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PICK ONE UP AND YOU WANNA STOP ON BY. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF, OF COMMUNICATIONS. 
          NO, THANK YOU. 
          DO ARE WE, DO WE, WHEN'S THE NEXT MEETING? APRIL. 
          YOU HAVE IT THERE. 
          HE'S LOOKING, HE'S CHECKING APRIL 25TH AND YES, I WOULD EXPECT US TO HAVE THAT MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          HAVE A FEW CASES. 
          GREAT. 
          WELL, WITH UH, NO MORE BUSINESSES MEETING, HE'S ADJOURNED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU FOR SURE KNOW.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.