[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING BEING HELD AT 5 5 5 5 PERIMETER DRIVE.THE MEETING CAN ALSO BE ACCESSED VIA THE LIVESTREAM VIDEO RECORDED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CASES.
THE MEETING PROCEDURE FOR EACH CASE THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
THE BOARD WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST AND THEN OF THE APPLICANT.
THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PODIUM.
EACH SPEAKER MUST PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT, INCLUDING THE SUBMIT THOSE SUBMITTED BY EMAIL.
THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE ON THE CASE PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
JUDY, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE MR. ANDERSON? HERE.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
OKAY.WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.
UM, THAT MEETING WAS THE SEPTEMBER 26TH MEETING.
AND I SAID YES, JUDY, SORRY, I TURNED MY MIC OFF INSTEAD OF ON.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE RIGHT INTO THE SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES AND STAFF.
SO ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ANY OF THE CASES THIS EVENING, WOULD YOU PLEASE 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? YES.
[Case #24-111V ]
OKAY.WE'RE GONNA START FIRST WITH CASE NUMBER 24 DASH ONE 11 V, THE KAUFMAN RE RESIDENCE, WHICH IS A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE REQUEST.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FENCE TO ENCROACH INTO BOTH THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
THE 0.26 ACRE SITE IS ZONED R FOUR, THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SCRIBNER WAY IN ANSELMO COURT.
I DID MY BEST WITH THAT NAME AS POSSIBLE.
TAMMY, YOU'LL BE DOING THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.
I'M TAMMY NOBLE AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE CASES FOR THE BOARD THIS EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS FOR THE KAUFMAN RESIDENTS.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR A NON-USE, UM, AREA VARIANCE THAT IS DEALING WITH A FENCE REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT WOULD ENCROACH BOTH IN THE SIDE AND THE REAR LOT LINES OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
IN TERMS OF PROCESS, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WILL BE THE DECIDING FACTOR FOR THE APPLICATION.
THE NEXT STEPS IN THIS APPLICATION PROCESS WILL BE, UH, AN INTERNAL APPLICATION PROCESS THAT WE REVIEW.
IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION WOULD PROCEED AS IT IS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.
IF THE APPLICATION IS DENIED BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICATION WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND EQUALLY BE SUBMITTED FOR AN INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, THE SITE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, UM, IT'S APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF AN ACRE.
THIS IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF, UM, SCRIBNER WAY.
UM, THIS IS A CUL-DE-SAC THAT ADDRESSES, UH, SIX, UH, RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS PARTICULARLY, UH, RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE.
UM, THERE'S NO NATURAL FEATURES THAT RUN THROUGH THE SITE.
UM, IT DOES HAVE ACCESS OFF THE CUL-DE-SAC, SO THE FRONT EDGE IS SLIGHTLY CURVED.
UM, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S INDICATIVE OF THE, UH, THE LOTS AROUND IT.
AND IN CONTEXT, IT'S IN THE HEMINGWAY VILLAGE.
THESE ARE, UM, PHOTOS THAT STAFF HAS TAKEN FOR THE APPLICATION INDICATING THE TYPE OF FENCE THAT HAS BEEN, UM, CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE.
THAT'S APPROXIMATELY FOUR FOOT FEET, FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, UM, MOSTLY AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE AND IS CONSTRUCTED AS WE SPEAK.
UH, THIS SITE PLAN INDICATES NOT ONLY WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR, UH, FENCE REGULATIONS ARE, BUT EQUALLY WHAT, UH, WHERE THE FENCE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO DATE.
UH, THE GREEN AREA IS CALLED SOMETHING CALLED THE BUILDABLE AREA, AND THAT REFLECTS ANY TYPE OF SETBACKS THAT WE REQUIRE FROM THE CITY OF DUBLIN IN THE, I'LL CALL IT ORANGE, IS WHERE THE, THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION HAS TAKEN PLACE.
AND AGAIN, IT'S, UH, MOSTLY ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE.
UM, IN TERMS OF ACTUAL NUMBERS, THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 25.5 FEET, UM, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED THE FENCE AT 25 FEET.
SO THERE'S ROUGHLY HALF OF A FOOT, UM, LATITUDE BETWEEN
[00:05:01]
THE REAR PROPERTY AND THE FENCE IN TERMS OF THE SIDE YARD, PROPERTY LINE, UH, FIVE FEET IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.AND IT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED, UH, FAIRLY CLOSE TO THAT REQUIREMENT.
I WILL SAY, JUST BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS, UH, SLIDE, OUR FENCE REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN ARE, UM, I WOULD SAY A HYBRID OF REGULATIONS.
THEY'RE MEANT TO ALLOW A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR ENCLOSED AREA, UM, IT'S SPEC.
THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED NOT TO HAVE PERIMETER FENCING, AND WE DO THAT SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE HAVE SOME CORRIDORS OF RELIEF FROM BUILDABLE AREA AND THAT THERE'S VIEW SHEDS THAT ARE MAINTAINED UN UNOBSTRUCTED.
IN TERMS OF, UM, CRITERIA THAT APPLY FOR ACTUALLY BOTH OF THESE CASES, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT SUB AREAS OF CRITERIA.
THE FIRST IS A, A IS THE PREDOMINANT REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPLICATION, AND ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS NEED TO BE MET.
UM, THE FIRST REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE BOARD FINDS THAT THERE IS SOME SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE, AND THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE SITE ITSELF.
UM, ANY TYPE OF TOPOGRAPHY OR NATURAL FEATURE REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD, UM, RENDER THE CODE REQUIREMENTS DIFFICULT IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
WHEN STAFF REVIEWED IT, WE FOUND THAT THIS SITE IS FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IT'S INDICATIVE OF A TYPICAL SUBURBAN COMMUNITY.
UM, AGAIN, THERE'S NO WATERWAYS OR, UM, VEGETATED AREAS THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT THE FENCE IN THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
THE, UH, BOARD IS ASKED TO IDENTIFY WHETHER SPEC SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE EITHER A RESULT OF ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NECESSITATED BY THE APPLICANT BY INSTALLING THE APP, THE FENCE, UM, AND IS HERE BEFORE THE BOARD TO, UM, DISCUSS THEIR APPLICATION IN TERMS OF INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S WHY I PROVIDED SOME BACKGROUND TO OUR FENCE REQUIREMENTS.
THE IDEA IS THAT DOES THIS APPLICATION IMPAIR THE INTENT OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS? AND, UH, AS A PLANNING STAFF, WE HAVE, UH, CONCLUDED THAT WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT DOES IMPAIR THAT INTENT.
SPECIFICALLY THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION WE'RE, UM, PROPOSING A PERIMETER FENCE THAT PER WILL PREVENT, UM, THAT KIND OF USE SHED THAT WE WERE SPEAKING OF BEFORE.
AND IT ALSO, UM, CLOSES OFF, IF YOU WILL, ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN TERMS OF THE SECOND SUB AREA THAT THE BOARD IS ASKED TO REVIEW.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, YOU'RE ONLY ASKED TO MEET TWO OF THE FOUR REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THIS SUBSECTIONS SLIGHTLY MORE.
UM, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S SLIGHTLY EASIER FOR THE APPLICANTS TO MEET.
AND SO WE CONCENTRATE TYPICALLY ON A, BUT IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, WOULD THIS APPLICATION PROVIDE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO THE APPLICANT IF THE BOARD WERE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? UM, ONE FENCE REQUIREMENTS OR INDICATIVE OF ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE'S SOMETHING, UM, BEYOND A NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE FENCE IS NECESSARY.
THAT'S ONE, UM, TWO VARIANCES RUN WITH THE LAND.
THAT'S A KIND OF A, I GUESS A LAYMAN'S TERM, BUT THE, THE IDEA IS THAT IF THIS FENCE WERE TO REMAIN IN PLACE, NOT ONLY DOES THE APPLICANT SECURE THAT PRIVILEGE, BUT FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD EQUALLY HAVE THAT SAME PRIVILEGE.
THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT IS ESSENTIALLY A, A REQUIREMENT FOR STAFF, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT IF WE GET APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS THAT ARE SO RECURRENT IN NATURE, THAT WE THEN HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR ZONING CODE AND IDENTIFY IF THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED THAT THIS IS RECURRENT IN NATURE.
UM, IT DOES NOT IMPACT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND OTHER METHODS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY ASKING THE BOARD, COULD THE APPLICANT ESTABLISH WHAT THEY NEED TO ESTABLISH IN ANOTHER METHOD? AND IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, WE WOULD SAY THAT THEY CAN, UM, IT WOULD REQUIRE RELOCATING THE FENCE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
ONE IS FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK AND ONE IS FOR THE RAILROAD SETBACK.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THEM, I GUESS, INCLUSIVELY OF ONE ANOTHER.
UM, BASED ON THE CRITERIA, WE FOUND THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS,
[00:10:01]
UM, THAT WE STATED PREVIOUSLY, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL FOR THE APPLICATION.UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I KNOW THE APPLICANT'S HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AS WELL.
AND, UM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF PRIOR TO MOVING TO THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? ALRIGHT, SIR, THERE'S A BUTTON ON THE, UH, STAND IN FRONT OF YOU.
IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, IF YOU JUST PRESS IT, I'LL STAY ON.
UM, MY NAME'S MITCHELL KAUFMAN.
UH, I LIVE AT, UM, 70 68 ANSO COURT, 4 3 0 1 7 IN DUBLIN.
AND I WANT TO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT.
AND, UH, ALSO WORKING WITH THE DUBLIN PLANNING TEAM, UM, DUE TO MISTAKES, ERRORS, AND OMISSIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
UM, I COME FOR YOU TONIGHT FOR A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY VARIANCE AS LONG AS THE RISK CON CONDITIONS ARE STILL PRESENT.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, IN THE, UH, BEYOND NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, THAT WAS NOT COVERED OR ASKED THAT WHY THE FENCE WAS BEING BUILT, IT WAS NEVER ASKED BY THE, THE PLANNING TEAM.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD'VE BEEN VERY IMPERATIVE, IMPORTANT TO DO.
UH, I WANNA GO THROUGH SOME BACKGROUND AND, AND, UM, UH, PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION AND THEN, UH, TALK THEN UPDATE ON WHY THE FENCE WAS BUILT THROUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THEN WE, IN A, IN SUMMARY OF THE FENCE, I SUBMITTED TO YOU A VERY LARGE PACKAGE, AND I, DID YOU ALL GET A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH IT IN DETAIL? OKAY.
SO, THE, THE, WHAT I WANNA TALK ABOUT FIRST IS SOME PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES AND SOME EX EXPERT.
UH, UM, I SOUGHT OUT SOME EXPERTS, UH, JUST ABOUT ME.
UM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES PETRO ASKED ME TO BE THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR OF COLUMBUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO ADDRESS FINANCIAL ISSUES AND RISK.
THIS WILL ALL TIE INTO WHERE I'M GOING.
UM, I WAS A CIA CHIEF, INTERNAL IRTI METALS, A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INTERNATIONAL.
I WORKED OVER, I WORKED WITH, UH, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING JOHN GLENN, TO ADDRESS ISSUES AND RISK WITH THE PENTAGON, AIRBUS, AND BOEING.
UH, WHILE WORKING IN A GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY IN BOGOTA, COLUMBIA, I ESCAPED A KIDNAPPING ATTEMPT AND LED MY TEAM TO SAFETY, UH, UNDER THE SECURITY OF, OF, OF, UH, SEVERAL ARMED GUARDS.
AND JUNE OF 2023, A, A CONTRACTOR WAS LOOKING AT, WAS GOING TO LOOK AT MY DECK, AND HE TELEPHONED ME THE DAY HE WAS COME TO LOOK AT THE DECK.
THIS WAS A, A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT HE WAS GONNA GONNA, UH, THINK ABOUT GIVING A BID AND, AND GO FORWARD WITH.
HOWEVER, THE DAY PRIOR, HE WAS WORKING IN COLUMBUS AND MS 13 HELD KNIVES TO THE THROATS OF HE AND HIS TEAM AND SOLD THEIR TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT.
THIS IS ALL, THIS WILL ALL TIE IN.
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, I AND MY FAMILY HAVE RECEIVED THREATS VIA TEXT MESSAGES, PHONE CALLS THAT HAVE TURNED OVER TO THE DUBLIN POLICE.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE WITH THE CARTEL THAT THEY WILL, UM, INCLU, AND THEY'VE INCLUDED DEATH THREATS.
UH, AS RECENTLY AS NOVEMBER 18TH OF THIS WEEK, I RECEIVED A TEXT AND A PHONE CALL THREATENING MY LIFE, UM, AND MY FAMILIES.
I REPORTED THIS TO THE DUBLIN POLICE AND THE POLICE OFFICER SAID, AND, AND THE OTHER REPORTS, AND THEY WERE ATTACHED IN THERE.
SOME WERE TURNED OVER FOR THE FBI FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
UM, THE DUBLIN POLICE OFFICER NOTED THAT WE'RE GETTING SO MANY OF THESE THREATS THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO TAKE REPORTS.
AND IF WE TAKE A REPORT, IT'S JUST GONNA GO BACK AND BE FILED, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA LOOK AT IT IF YOU LIVED IN A COUNTY NORTH OR TWO COUNTIES NORTH.
AND WE LOOKED AT MORE SERIOUSLY.
SO I SAID, WOULD YOU PLEASE NOTE THAT I CAME? AND THE ISSUES AND EVENTS I HAD PHONE NUMBERS AND CON CONTACT INFORMATION.
THERE WAS NO INTEREST IN EVEN CALLING OR DOING JUST INITIAL LEGWORK TO SEE IF THESE WERE THREATS FROM SOME SOMEPLACE WAY OUTSIDE OF, OF COLUMBUS.
I WAS, I WAS A LITTLE BIT SHOCKED BY THAT.
UH, HAD DISCUSSION WITH OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR.
HE'S A LEADING CONSULTANT ON FEDERAL, STATE, AND GOVERNMENT CRIME.
UM, AS WE KNOW, COLUMBUS IS A SANCTUARY CITY, AND HE HAS IDENTIFIED MORE THAN 100,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, UM,
[00:15:01]
UH, THAT ARE LIVING IN THE COLUMBUS AREA WITHOUT PROPER VETTING.HE ALSO WENT ON AND SAY THAT MS 13 AND OTHER FOREIGN GAINES ARE PRESENT AND ACTIVE IN COLUMBUS, AND MS 13 IS HEADQUARTERED IN INDIANAPOLIS.
AND SOME OF THE THREATS THAT ME AND MY FAMILY HAVE RECEIVED HAVE BEEN FROM AN INDIANAPOLIS PHONE NUMBER.
ON THE EVENING OF NUMBER FOURTH, 2024, MY SON RETURNED TO HIS HOME IN ASHLAND, UH, TO FIND 30 PLUS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAMPED OUT IN HIS YARD.
UM, HE AND A NEIGHBOR WERE ABLE TO VACATE THEM FROM THE PROPERTY OF ASSISTANCE OF THE ASHLAND POLICE.
ON NOVEMBER 6TH, THAT MIDNIGHT, HE RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM HIS NEIGHBOR WHO HAD CHASED OFF TWO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO WERE CASING HIS HOME, AND HE AND THE NEIGHBOR CHASED THEM OFF.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE HAVE BEEN BREAK-INS AND THEFTS ACROSS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOLLOWING THE ASHLAND EVENTS.
I DISCUSSED WITH THEIR LEAD PROSECUTOR, CHRIS.
AND WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE ASHLAND MAYOR.
AND, AND WE, AND, UH, THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE EVENT AND THE EVENTS GOING ON.
WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE STATE OF OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THEY SAID, THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE ARE WILLING TO DO OR CAN DO.
AND GAVE ME THE, PROVIDED ME WITH THE PHONE NUMBERS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION, AND SAID, CALL THEM IF YOU HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
WE ALSO CONTACTED SENATOR VANCE AND REPRESENTED JORDAN'S OFFICES.
UM, WE HAVE CONNECTED ASHLAND OFFICIALS TO SPRING OFFICIALS TO COLLABORATE AND ADDRESS CHALLENGES AND RISK.
MY SON AND HIS NEIGHBORS ARE MAKING SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS TO COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE ON CITY OF ASHLAND TO ENSURE THEIR RESIDENTS AND SAFETY.
UM, AND, AND ONE NOTE, I WAS AN OFFICER OF A COMPANY PROVIDING ANTI-TERRORIST CONSULTING SERVICES TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATION WITH TEAM MEMBERS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, I AND ISRAEL.
WE ALSO DID PRO BONO, UH, CONSULTATION WITH DUBLIN CITY SCHOOLS AND RE REVIEWING THEIR SECURITY PLAN FOR THE SCHOOLS AND FOUND IT TOTALLY INADEQUATE AND PRESENT THEM WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, WHETHER ACTED ON OR NOT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY BUILD DEFENSE THE SAFE.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION? OKAY.
AND I DO HAVE EXHIBIT TO, TO GIVE THAT TO YOU IN WRITING FOR THE RECORD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOME.
AND THESE ARE SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
AS OF FEBRUARY, 2020 FOURTH, WE NOW HAVE TWO DISABLED CHILDREN.
THEIR CAREGIVERS COME AND GO 24 7.
THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE EMERGENCY EVENTS AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY.
THEY USE AN SAMM COURT, WHICH IS A COURT ENTRANCE AND THE BACKYARDS WITH THEIR CARE PROVIDERS TO PROVIDE THERAPY AND BREAKS FOR THE, FOR THE TWO DISABLED EVENTS ON EACH SIDE OF MY HOUSE.
ALL OF US HAVE DOGS WHO ARE ACTIVE AND MAYBE A LITTLE TOO ACTIVE TO EACH OTHER.
AND SO PART OF THE REASON FOR WHICH, WHICH COULD CAUSE HARM, UM, TO, TO THE CHILDREN DURING THEIR, UH, THERAPY IF, IF THE DOGS WERE GETTING, UH, RUSTLING AROUND WITH NEARBY.
AND SO, I DISCUSSED WITH MY NEIGHBOR, JILL, KEVIN, AND WE TO PUT UP A FENCE DUE TO THE SITUATION OF THE TWO CHILDREN FOR, FOR SAFETY REASONS AND TO, AND TO HELP THEM.
THE OTHER REASON WAS FOR THE FENCE WAS, UM, AFTER CONSULTING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES, UH, SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR MY FAMILY, THE DEFENSE ADDS A LAYER OF SECURITY.
THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WHERE I'VE HAD NON-SPEAKING ENGLISH MEN IN MY BACKYARD THAT I'VE ESCORTED OFF MY PROPERTY NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
I'VE HAD MEN COME TO MY BACK DOOR WHEN MY DOGS AND I APPROACH.
THEY ABRUPTLY LEAVE VERY QUICKLY.
THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS THREATS PASSED AND PRESENT, REPORTED TO THE DUBLIN CITY POLICE AND FORWARDED ON TO THE FBI.
ADDITIONALLY, EACH MORNING WHEN FAMILY MEMBERS LEAVE FOR WORK, I ESCORT THEM TO CAR THEIR CARS TO ENSURE SAFETY.
THE TRAIN OF THE PROPERTY, THE BACKYARD IS A LITTLE UNEVEN AND IT FLOODS, AND THERE ARE SOME TRIPPING HAZARDS.
SO THIS IS GONNA BE A NEXT KIND OF A SUMMARY
[00:20:01]
IN HITTING POINTS OF, OF INFORMATION THAT I'VE SUBMITTED TO YOU.AFTER EVENTS, I'VE CONSULTED WITH MY NEIGHBORS LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT BUILDING A FENCE TO MITIGATE THE RISK AND PREVENT BAD EVENTS FROM HAPPENING BOTH TO ME AND THE DISABLED CHILDREN.
RESEARCH, UH, I RESEARCHED CONTRACTORS SELECTED AND MET WITH THREE, WITH A PLUS BETTER BUSINESS RATINGS.
FEBRUARY 24TH, THE CONTRACTORS SUBMITTED PROPOSALS.
I SELECTED L SMITH, LARRY, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, AND OWNER OF THE BUSINESS, UH, RENDERED FINAL DESIGN AND DRAWINGS.
AND WE AGREED UPON DESIGN AND THE FINAL COST OF THE FENCE, WHICH IS $5,400.
LARRY SMITH HAD CANCER AND WAS TERMINAL, AND WAS HOSP AND WAS IN THE HOSPITAL AT THE JAMES CANCER CENTER.
LARRY PASSED AWAY APRIL 19TH, 2024.
ROGER, HIS WORKER AND I ASKED LARRY, MARCH 20, 24, IF WE WERE ALL SET AND APPROVED TO SCHEDULE AND BUILD DEFENSE.
LARRY CONFIRMED, YES, EVERYTHING IS COMPLETED.
'CAUSE THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS NEVER ISSUED BY THE CITY.
DON'T KNOW IF LARRY SUBMITTED IT.
UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
WE THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED.
ROGER AND I SCHEDULED THE START DATE OF MID-APRIL AND PLAN TO ACQUIRE MATERIALS.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD DEPOSIT 30% AND THE REST UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE FENCE.
A NEIGHBOR DOYLE, UH, TWO HOUSES AWAY, UM, AND DOYLE'S BACKGROUND, UH, PROJECT MANAGER ACTUALLY BUILT AND TORE DOWN CITY CENTER, UH, INQUIRED IF A PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED.
UH, THIS TRIGGERED JAY HENDERSON, UH, TECHNICIAN PLANNING TO DRIVE BY, UH, MY HOUSE.
THE FENCE WORK STARTED WITH MATERIAL DELIVERY ON APRIL 15TH.
ON APRIL 17TH, ROGER AND I NOTED A DOUBLE VEHICLE, PAUSED A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN DROVE OUT OF OUR COURT.
HE, HE REFERRED TO THE DRIVE BY AS A SITE INSPECTION.
IF HE WOULD'VE GOTTEN OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND SPOKE WITH US FOR THREE MINUTES, WE WOULD'VE IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE AND WE WOULD'VE STOPPED AND COLLABORATED WITH THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO ADDRESS AND RESOLVE.
I THINK THIS IS AN ERROR AND A NOT PERFORMING A PROPER SITE INSPECTION.
AND SINCE BOTH ROGER AND I WERE PRESENT, A THREE MINUTE CONVERSATION FORMING US OF THE SITE MODIFICATION PERMIT WAS NOT ISSUED.
WE WOULD'VE STOPPED THE WORK AND ADDRESSED IT BEFORE PROCEEDING.
IF NOT APPROVED, THIS WOULD'VE PREVENTED THE SPENDING OF MORE THAN $3,000.
WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CITY OF DUBLIN J HENDERSON ON APRIL 30TH.
THE LETTER WAS DATED APRIL 25TH IN THE LETTER, THE ADDRESS WAS 6 0 8 8 ASH LIAM COURT, WHICH IT REFERRED TO AS I STATE THE OPENING.
MY WIFE AND I WERE REALLY CONFUSED BY THE LETTER BECAUSE IT WAS A BIT DI THREATENING AND IT DIDN'T HAVE OUR ADDRESS, AND WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS.
SO REACHED OUT TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO SCHEDULE A MEETING, AND WE GOT THAT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 14TH TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK WAS GOING ON, UH, DUBLIN PLANNING, UH, TO, UH, THIS, THIS, UH, THEN IN THE MEETING, UH, WHAT ACTIONS WERE NEEDED TO, TO GO FORWARD, RETURN, WE NEED TO FILE A SITE MODIFICATION PERMIT.
IN THE MEETING, JAY SAID, A NEIGHBOR CALLED IN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FENCE.
HE WAS REFERRING TO DOYLE, UH, ABOVE DOYLE.
AND I SPOKE, HE'S, HE'S A NEIGHBOR, TWO HOUSES OVER.
AND I SHARED WHAT EM THEN REPRESENTED THAT HE FILED A COMPLAINT.
UH, DOYLE SAID, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
THAT WAS NOT, THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT.
I THINK YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFUL FENCE.
IT'S THE BEST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I JUST INQUIRED IF A PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED, UM, FILING FOR A PERMIT.
UH, I APPRECIATE JAY DID ASSIST ME IN FILING FOR A PERMIT.
HOWEVER, THERE'S AN OMISSION IN THE A CA PORTAL WEBSITE, UH, AND THAT ONLY NEW FENCES CAN CAN BE CHECKED.
THERE'S NOT REPLACEMENT FENCE.
AND PART OF THE FENCE IS REPLACEMENT, WHICH WE'LL WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE.
UH, I NOTED THAT OMISSION TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THAT THAT OPTION IS NOT
[00:25:01]
THERE.AND IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED BY JAY DURING THE FILING OF THE PERMIT.
ALTHOUGH NOT CITED IN THE PLANNING REPORT, THE BACK PART OF THE FENCE IS A REPLACEMENT.
THE FILED SITE MODIFICATION PERMIT WAS DENIED.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOU AND ASK THAT A PERM, PERMANENT, OR TEMPORARY PERMIT, UH, FOR AS LONG AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT, UH, BE GRANTED.
PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE DUBLIN PLANNING WITH A 20% SETBACK WOULD ACTUALLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PROPERTY USE BY PLACING THE FENCE DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKYARD OFF MY PATIO, THEREFORE, CUTTING OFF THE USE TO THE REST OF MY YARD.
UH, THE FENCE ADJUSTMENTS AND LANDSCAPING PERMITS.
UH, PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS, OF THIS, I HAVE SCHEDULED OAKLAND NURSERY TO DO A, A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE BACKYARD OF THE FENCE TO DRESS UP THE FENCE.
UM, AND I PLACED THIS ON HOLD PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING.
I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH GARY, UH, BROWNING, OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATOR OF STREETS AND UTILITIES OPERATIONS OF DUBLIN.
WE, BECAUSE THERE'S A MANHOLE IN THE BACK OF THE FENCE.
AND GARY'S TEAM CAME OUT AND THEY SAID, NO, WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE MANHOLE.
I SAID, HOWEVER, IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY, 'CAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME BAD STORMS, AND YOU NEED EMERGENCY ACCESS WITH THE, WITH THE FENCE, IMP IMPEACH YOU.
AND HE SAID, IT MIGHT SLOW US DOWN.
SO WITH THAT, I OFFERED TO GARY AND HIS TEAM TO EITHER PUT AN ACCESS POINT IN OR CHANGE THE DESIGN SO THAT THERE'S FREE AND COMPLETE ACCESS FOR ALL EQUIPMENT OR WHATEVER MAY BE NECESSARY, AND A PERMIT.
UM, GARY REALLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT I CAME TO HIM AND OFFERED THAT BECAUSE MANY TIMES IT'S, HE SAYS, IT'S A CHALLENGE TO, TO, TO, TO GET THOSE THINGS DONE.
THIS, I WOULD TAKE THE DESIGNS TO GARY AND HIS TEAM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET THEIR NEEDS FOR FENCE ACCESS.
NOW, IN THE CODE OF, UH, IN THE DUBLIN CODE, THE DEFINITION OF A FENCE GENERAL, UM, THE WORD FENCE SHOW, SHOW, IT'S, UH, 1 5 3 0 7 9 DEFINITION OF FENCE.
GENERAL, THE WORD FENCE SHALL, IN GENERAL TERMINOLOGY MEAN ANY STRUCTURE COMPOSED OF WOOD, METAL, STONE, PLASTIC, CELLULAR, VINYL, OR OTHER NATURAL AND PERMANENT MATERIALS ERECTED AND POSITIONED AS TO ENCLOSE OR PARTIAL ENCLOSED ANY PREMISES OR ANY PART OF THE PREMISES, TRELLIS AND OTHER STRUCTURES SUPPORTING OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING VINES, FLOWERS, AND OTHER VEGETATION.
WHEN IN REC, WHEN ERECTED IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO ENCLOSE A PARTIAL ENCLOSED OR SEPARATE, ANY PREMISE SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION, DEFINITION OF THE WORD FENCE.
AND ZACH SAID THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE DUBLIN CODE.
SO, AND THIS, THIS IS A REPLACEMENT.
NEXT, I'D LIKE TO, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME AT THIS TIME? OKAY.
GOING TO THE PLANNING REPORT, NOT SO FAR OF YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE EXPLAINED TO IN THIS PROCESS, LIKE THE TEMPORARY PERMIT, UH, YOUR REQUEST FOR THE CODE WE HAVE ABOUT THIS MUCH WE CAN DO IN THE CRITERIA THAT TAMMY PRESENTED TO YOU.
ALL YOU NEED TO PRESENT TO US IS DO YOU MEET THOSE? SO UNFORTUNATELY, FOR YOU AND FOR US, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF EVALUATING THESE CRITERIA.
SO I THINK TAMMY, JUST PUT THEM UP.
SO IF YOU WANT TO JUST, WE'VE READ ALL YOUR MATERIALS SO WE ALL HAVE THEM, AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PRESENT WHATEVER YOU WISH.
AND I DON'T WANNA STOP YOU, BUT I JUST WANNA TELL YOU TO FOCUS ON, IT'LL HELP US IF YOU'VE MET THESE CRITERIA AND HOW YOU'VE MET THEM, IF THAT WORKS.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE HAVE.
WE HAVE A VERY, VERY, VERY NARROW SCOPE, AND WE JUST HAVE TO SAY WHETHER YOU MET THESE OR DIDN'T MEET THEM, AND THEN APPLY THAT.
THE OTHER ITEMS I THINK TAMMY'S PROBABLY TAKING NOTE OF IN, IN ZACH IS, UH, AS IS AS WELL.
AND I'LL MAKE SURE TO, TO, UH, SHARE THAT SAME INFORMATION ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION AND, AND THE, UH, CODE, THE INCORRECT ADDRESS ON THE PAPERWORK.
BUT AS FAR AS WHAT THIS BODY CAN DO, IS ALL WE CAN DO IS EVALUATE WHETHER THE CRITERIA IS MET OR NOT MET, AND THEN RULE ON THAT.
SO JUST REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU'RE GIVEN SOME OF THIS PRESENTATION, BECAUSE I, I, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU IS WHETHER YOU THINK YOU'VE MET THESE AND HOW THANK YOU.
AND THAT WAS NOT EXPLAINED TO ME.
AND ADDITIONALLY SAID, IN, IN, AND IN TAMMY'S OPENING, SAID THERE WERE NO CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND HAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED THE WHY,
[00:30:01]
WE WOULD'VE GOT INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES.AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY DIDN'T PRESENT THEM.
BUT GOING TO THE PLANNING REPORT, UM, UH, THE PROJECT, UM, IT SAYS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO NON-VA NON VARIANCE USE AREAS FOLLOWING CODE SECTIONS.
AND IT'S, UH, NUMBER 1 1 5 3 0 2 3, THE REQUIREMENT, UH, FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR ASSOCIATED, UH, ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY BUILDING.
THERE SHALL BE A TOTAL OF 15, UH, A TOTAL OF SIDE YARDS OF 15 FEET OR MORE, THE MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE TO ALLOW THE FENCE APPROACH.
AND THEN THE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO APPROACH APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE OF THE YARD.
ON ONE SIDE, UH, IT'S 6.6 FEET FROM THE, UH, AS WE MEASURED.
AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IT'S EIGHT FEET.
SO WE'RE A TOTAL OF 14.6 FEET.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S IN MEASUREMENTS.
UM, AND THE, AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS 1 5, 3, UH, EIGHT ZERO.
NUMBER TWO, THE MAIN BUILDING THERE SHALL BE A NEAR YARD OF 20% OR MORE OF LOT DEPTH, EXCEPT THAT THE REAR YARD OF MORE THAN 50 FEET SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO FENCE APPROACH APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET INTO THE YARD.
UH, AND A REPLACEMENT YOU CAN DO REPLACEMENT FENCES IN THE EXACT POSITION AT, AT OR LESSER HIKE IN THE BACKYARD IS A REPLACEMENT UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT I PROVIDED UNDER YOUR CODE OF FENCING.
THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE PLANNING REPORT.
AND THEN ALSO THE WEBSITE DID NOT OFFER THAT OPTION TO SELECT.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY.
UM, AND THAT'S ON PAGE 10 OF MY APPLICATION.
JOE, DO YOU MIND IF I RESPOND REAL QUICK? NO, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA ASK IF YOU MIND ME INTERRUPTING IT TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO US IF THERE'S A A, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME THINGS IN THE PAST ABOUT REPLACEMENTS, AND IT'S ABOUT LOCATION, NOT ABOUT HEIGHT.
BUT IF YOU COULD TELL US THAT, PLEASE.
SO I THINK THIS WILL BE HAP UH, HELPFUL FOR BOTH THE BOARD AND THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE WHERE YOU CAN REPLACE, LIKE FOR LIKE, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
AND WE TALK ABOUT ON PAGE FOUR, ESSENTIALLY WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THE LANDSCAPING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FENCE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T ENCLOSE.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING TO THE BOARD, AND WE, WE DID CLARIFY THAT WE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT THAT WAS CLASSIFIED AS A FENCE.
IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
SO THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT.
UM, AND AGAIN, WE'VE TO BE DELICATE, WE'VE BASICALLY ARE SAYING TO THE BOARD THAT'S WITHOUT PURVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR BODY, BUT WE DID TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION.
WELL, IF I CAN ASK, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A LOGAN QUESTION, MAYBE NOT A TAMMY QUESTION.
BUT IS IT IT FOR THAT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS? IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME, THAT WOULD NOT BE BEFORE US TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IS THAT RIGHT? IT, IT WOULD BE BEFORE THIS BOARD NOT, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF APPLICATION.
AND THE, AND THE CRITERIA IS MUCH DIFFERENT.
BUT THERE IS A PRO, MY MAIN POINT IS THERE IS A PROCESS, BUT IT'S, I STATED THAT WRONG, THAT IT'S NOT BEFORE US TODAY.
WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON TODAY.
SO EVEN IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO SAY, HEY, I THINK I DID HAVE A, AS AS HE SAID IN IT, PUT IT IN HIS MATERIALS, I THINK I HAD A FENCE THERE.
THE, IT'S, IT'S IN THE NOTE AFTER OF, OF THE SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT OF THE BOTH VARIANCES, THAT BECAUSE OF THE VEGETATION, THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WAS THERE.
IF THE APPLICANT DISAGREED WITH THAT, THERE IS A PROCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPEAL THAT, BUT JUST NOT THE, THE PROCESS THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.
IS THAT FAIR? AND WE, AND WE CAN HELP YOU IF YOU DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
AND, AND JUST, UH, JUST BE CLEAR, THERE WAS NO SITE INSPECTION DONE BY JAY.
SO IT'S, AND ADDITIONALLY, GOING BACK TO, UH, 1 53, 0 7 9 DEFINITION OF A FENCE GENERAL, THE WORD FENCE SHALL, IN GENERAL TERMINOLOGY MEAN ANY STRUCTURE COMPOSED OF WOOD, METAL, STONE, PLASTIC, CELLULAR, VINYL, OR OTHER NATURAL OR PERMANENT, UH, PERMANENT MATERIAL ERECTED AND POSITION AS TO ENCLOSE OR PARTIALLY ENCLOS, ANY PREMISE OR ANY PART OF THE PREMISES.
TRESTLES AND OTHER STRUCTURES SUPPORTING THE PURPOSE OF VINES, FLOWERS, AND OTHER VEGETATION WHEN ERECTED IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO ENCLOSE OR PARTIALLY, PARTIALLY ENCLOSED OR SEPARATE, ANY PREMISES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE TERM DEFINITION OF OFFENSE.
AND ALSO IN MY FILINGS, I INCLUDED THERE IS A REPLACEMENT
[00:35:01]
AND THAT THAT WAS IN THERE.I DON'T KNOW WHY THE PLANNING BOARD FAILED TO ADDRESS IT OR NOT PERMIT THAT HERE, BUT I DID IN MY APPEAL, THAT WAS CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN, IN DETAIL ON A COUPLE OCCASIONS.
THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, UH, A CRITERIA NOT MET.
IT SAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES EX WISHED, WHICH ARE PARTICULAR TO LAND OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED, WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE LANDS OR STRUCTURES OF THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREBY LATERAL ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER WOULD INVOLVE PARTIAL DIFFICULTIES, THE PROPERTY, AND THEN IT SAYS, NOT MET THE PROPERTY WAS HONORED TO CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE NO NATURAL FEATURES THAT IMPACT THE ABILITY OF FENCE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FENCE.
THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, CIRCUMSTANCES PARTICULAR TO THE PROPERTY.
UM, THE TRAIN IN THE BACK OF THE LOT IS, IS VERY UNEVEN.
UH, UH, IT, IT FLOODS 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T DRAIN PROPERLY.
UH, I'VE, I'VE TRIPPED AND HAVE FALLEN.
I ALSO, IN MY FILING, STATED I'VE HAD CERTAIN MEDICAL CONDITIONS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT CAUSED ME TO HAVE BALANCE AND ISSUES.
AND THIS FENCE NOW PREVENTS THAT AND IS A SAFETY FACTOR FOR, FOR MYSELF.
ADDITIONALLY, OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SAFETY OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY FROM CRIMINAL ELEMENTS, I THINK ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEN THE NEXT VARIANCES NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INITIATION OF THE APPLICANT.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NECESSITATED BY THE APPLICATION, INSTALLING AN NONCOMPLIANT FENCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
ONE IS THE BACK OF THE FENCE, UH, IS A REPLACEMENT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF THE REPLACEMENT.
IN MY REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, I CLEARLY CALLED THAT OUT THAT IT WAS A REPLACEMENT, THE DEFICIENCY IN THE DUBLIN PLANNING PROCESS THAT DIDN'T ALLOW FOR ME TO SELECT REPLACEMENT.
WHEN I DID MY INITIAL, UH, UH, PERMIT REQUEST, THERE WAS A BROUGHT TO ME BY THE, UH, THE DUBLIN PLANNING STAFF.
UM, BUT IT, IT WAS A REPLACEMENT, UH, THREE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL, UM, ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE VICINITY OF NOT, WILL NOT MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE, THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE REQUIRED BEING.
VARI, UM, BEING VARIED, UH, NUMBER ONE AND TWO CRITERIA NOT MET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCE REGULATIONS ARE TO PREVENT FENCES ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR OF THE PROPERTY LINES THAT CLOSE OFF PROPERTIES FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IT'S ALSO INTENDED TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN OTHER CORRIDORS OR IN VIEW SHEDS UNRESTRICTED BY THE BUILDING OR FENCES.
THEIR PRIMITIVE FENCE WOULD IMPAIR THE INTENT OF THE REQUIRED CIRCUMSTANCES.
UM, WITH, AS I MENTIONED, UM, WITH, WITH GARY BROWNING, UH, TO ENSURE THE ACCESS TO THE MANHOLE, UH, I WOULD SHOW HIM TWO DESIGNS AND HE WOULD APPROVE THEM.
SO THERE WOULD BE NO IMPEDIMENT IN THE CASE OF EMERGENCY.
RIGHT NOW, NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, THERE IS NOT AN IMPEDIMENT, UH, OF THAT NEXT ONE.
UH, THE, UM, UH, B CRITERIA B THAT A LITTLE INSPECTION OF THE PROVISIONS, THE ZONING CODE WOULD NOT COUNTER, UH, CONFER ON THE APPLICANT OR SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OR DEPRIVED THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY EMPLOYED BY THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SAYS CRITERIA NOT MET THE VARIANCE WOULD GRANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, ALLOWING 'EM TO UTILIZE AN AREA OUTSIDE THE BUILDABLE AREA, THE, AND USE A MATERIAL NOT CURRENTLY PERMITTED BY THE, THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
UH, THE REQUEST HAS GENERALLY BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR DISAPPROVAL IN THE PAST WITH FENCES OF VARYING APPLICATIONS.
UH, THE FENCE IN THE BACK IS A REPLACEMENT FENCE.
AND ALSO THE PROPOSED, UM, FENCE BACK FENCE LINE BY THE PLAN COMMISSION WOULD BE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKYARD, WHICH WOULD REALLY IMPEDE THE USE OF THE, THE BACKYARD FOR, FOR, FOR EVERYONE.
UH, THE VARIANCE RE NUMBER TWO, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT ONE WHERE THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY, UH, ARE SO GENERAL OR REOCCURRING IN NATURE AS TO MAKE A, THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL REGULATION FOR THOSE CONDITIONS PROPERLY APPLICABLE CRITERIA MET.
OKAY, SO I MET THE, I MET THE CRITERIA SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE FENCE CODE IN 2000.
[00:40:01]
NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED, WHICH METS ADHERE TO THE FENCE CODE, WHAT THE PROPERTIES ARE, PREEXISTING LEGAL NON-COM FENCES ALONG PROPER LINES.A VAST MAJORITY OF THE PROPERS IN W HA HAVE NO OFFENSE OR A FENCE THAT MEETS THE CODE.
STAFF DOES NOT CONSIDER THE REQUEST RECURRENT IN NATURE.
NOW, UH, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION OF, THEY SAID THERE, THE VAST MAJORITY, I I JUST TOOK A WALK AROUND MY BLOCK AND I, UH, HAVE PICTURES AND I'LL SEND, SUBMIT THIS EXHIBIT OF NINE HOMES WITH FENCES AND JUST, JUST IN MY BLOCK.
SO IT, IT'S A REALLY LARGE PERCENTAGE.
SO THAT REALLY CONTRADICTS THE FACT THAT THE, THE VAST MAJORITY AND CERTAINLY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND, AND, AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THREE VARIANTS WOULD NOT ADVERSE AFFECT THE OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES CRITERIA MET, UH, THE REQUEST WOULD NOT IMPACT DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE THE WAY THAT'S PRESENTLY DESIGNED IN EMERGENCY, UM, IN, IN, IN SPEAKING WITH GARY, UH, I THINK I WOULD NEED TO MODIFY THE FENCE SO THAT HE HAD UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE MAT HOLES.
BUT ON A REDESIGN, WE WOULD GRANT ACCESS AND I'D GET GARY AND HIS TEAM'S APPROVAL ON THAT.
NUMBER FOUR, THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY COULD NOT BE ELIMINATED BY SOME OTHER METHOD.
EVEN THE SOLUTION IS LESS CONVENIENT OR MORE COSTLY TO ACHIEVE.
THE APPLICATION COULD CONSTRUCT A FENCE THAT MEETS THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND MATERIALS OF THE SITES.
AND THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS ON SITE WOULD PROHIBIT THIS.
WELL, THE FENCE WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BACKYARD, WHICH IT'S A SMALL BACKYARD AND IT WOULD CUT THE YARD IN HALF.
AND, AND IT, IT WOULD REALLY PROHIBIT THE, THE USE OF, OF THE PROPERTY AND, AND REALLY, UH, LIMIT IT.
ADDITIONALLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT PAST OWNING APPROVALS OVER THE YEARS.
UH, I'VE SEEN VARIANCES APPROVE FOR SAFETY REASONS, UM, AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS WHETHER A PERMANENT VARIANCE OR A TEMPORARY VARIANCE.
I THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISABLED CHILDREN VEHICLES COMING AND GOING 24 HOURS A DAY, MULTIPLE EMERGENCY VEHICLES BEING, BEING, UH, THERE TO, UH, PARK PEOPLE TO THE HOSPITAL, UM, IS, IS IS CERTAINLY A VIABLE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PROTECTING OF, OF THOSE CHILDREN.
AND ALSO PROTECTING ON MYSELF.
UM, AND IN, UM, 2017 I HAD A, A STROKE.
AND SO I HAVE SOME BALANCE AND COGNIZANT ISSUES THAT IMPACT ME.
AND SO OFFENSE OFFERS SAFETY FOR MYSELF.
ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE CRIMINAL THREATS AND JUST RECEIVING A CRIMINAL THREAT ON THE 18TH, AND THE FACT THAT DUBLIN POLICE SAID IF WE DO A REPORT, IT'S JUST GONNA GET FILED.
IF YOU'RE IN A COUNTY NORTH, THEY WOULD TAKE MORE ACTION.
THAT, THAT WAS JUST, THAT'S ONE ASPECT OF THE SECURITY FOR, FOR MY FAMILY.
AND ADDITIONALLY, IT ALSO ALLOWS ME TO TAKE THE DOGS OUT AND IT DOESN'T PUT ME AT RISK OF, OF FALLS.
AND SO UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AND OTHER EVENTS HERE, THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SITE INSPECTION COULD HAVE BEEN A SITE INSPECTION, UH, A THREE MINUTE DISCUSSION, WE COULD HAVE CLEARED UP.
THERE'S INACCURACIES IN THE REPORT.
UM, WE MEASURED 6.6 FEET ON ONE SIDE, EIGHT FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND I, I INVITE THE PLANNING PEOPLE COME OUT, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE FENCE.
AND NO ONE LOOKED AT THE FENCE.
NO ONE DISCUSSED THE VEGETATION AND THE FENCE, THE BACKYARD FENCE AND THE DEFINITIONS AND THOSE HEIRS AND OMISSIONS.
UM, UH, I A VARIANCE BEYOND REQUESTING ONE.
UH, I THINK IT'S MORE THAN WARRANTED.
AND I THINK IF FOR YOUR TIME, I KNOW THIS IS BEYOND YOUR DAY JOB, AND I'M SORRY I WAS SO LENGTHY.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, EACH OF THESE ARE, IS IMPORTANT TO US AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET TO PRESENT EVERYTHING.
UM, IF YOU WANNA REMAIN AT THE PODIUM FOR ONE SECOND, I'LL SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
AND I HAVE ONE FOR TAMMY THAT YOU MAY WANT TO COMMENT ON AS WELL ARE, AND I HATE TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT IT'S PART OF YOUR JOB, SO
CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THE PART WHERE HE'S CLAIMING THE CITY DIDN'T, THAT NO ONE REALLY SHOWED UP TO DO THIS? BECAUSE I MEAN, I SEE SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS WITHIN A HALF OF A FOOT FROM THE CITY, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THAT INFORMATION CAME FROM AND IF SOMEONE DID GO THERE AND IF THEY SPOKE TO
[00:45:01]
THEM OR NOT.IF YOU COULD JUST ANSWER THAT PART.
UM, SO, SO I WOULD RESPOND, THE REASON WHY WE ASK FOR PERMITS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE IS SO THAT WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE MET.
UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THERE WERE NOT PERMITS.
AGAIN, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE, THERE WAS NO PERMIT.
JAY IS GENERALLY A PERSON FROM OUR OFFICE THAT WAS SIMPLY, HE ACTUALLY ISSUES THE PERMITS.
HE WAS SIMPLY CONFIRMING THAT THERE WAS FENCE ACTIVITY BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE GOT A CALL, UM, WE DID FOLLOW UP.
THAT'S WHAT THE LETTER WAS IN RESPONSE TO ANY TYPE OF MEASUREMENTS WE WOULD HAVE USED FROM THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO US.
WE DO NOT MAKE THOSE NUMBERS OURSELVES.
SO IF THOSE ARE IN AIR, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT WE WOULD TABLE THIS APPLICATION, GET THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS, AND THEN PROCEED AT ANOTHER MEETING.
BUT THOSE ARE NOT, THAT'S NOT INDICATIVE OF, OF INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD'VE PRODUCED.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS WONDERING.
WHEN YOU SAY THE MATERIALS THEY RECEIVED, YOU MEAN FROM THE APPLICANT? SO THIS IS DEVELOPED ON THE INFORMATION THE APPLICANT GAVE YOU? YES.
AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, SO I MAKE SURE I HEARD IT CORRECTLY, UH, JAY, THE PERSON WHO WAS JUST REFERENCED BY MR. KAUFMAN THAT WENT OUT THERE IS NOT FOR A ZONING PERSON.
HE'S NOT THERE TO CHECK THE FENCE.
HE'S TO SEE ARE THEY PUTTING UP A FENCE AND DO THEY HAVE A PERMIT? AND THAT BASICALLY SATIS FROM MY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LAYMAN'S TERMS SATISFIES WHAT HIS RESPONSIBILITY IS.
DOES ANY BUT HE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE, IF I MAY? YEAH, PLEASE.
UM, UH, JSI DID A SITE INSPECTION AND THE DEFINITION OF EXP INSPECT AND THERE'S A VERY DEFINITION OF CHECKLIST OF, OF AN INSPECTION.
AND JUST THREE MINUTES, THREE MINUTES WALKING AND TALKING TO ROGER, MYSELF, THIS COULD HAVE ALL BEEN AVOIDED.
AND THE MEASUREMENTS WE DID YESTERDAY.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS, AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS FOR.
IT'S TO MAKE SURE BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE, THAT WE ENSURE THAT THAT FENCE IS WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE.
WE DID DO A PERMIT AFTER THE FENCE WAS BUILT AND I INVITED THE PLANNING PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND TAKE A LOOK.
NO ONE CAME OUT AND WE DID THE, WE DID A PERMIT, THE PERMIT WAS DENIED.
SO THERE WAS THAT OPPORTUNITY, WHICH WASN'T DONE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? OKAY, TAMMY, DO WE HAVE, DO YOU HAVE, I'M SORRY.
DO YOU, UH, WELL, ONE THING I, I JUST WANNA GET ON THE RECORD HERE.
UM, SO ON THE, UM, THE PLANNING REPORT, THERE'S, UH, I GUESS IT'S JUST A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, UH, UNDER NUMBER TWO PROJECT.
UM, THE SECOND VARIANCE IS CODED UNDER, UH, SECTION 1 5 3 0 8 0 C4.
THAT SHOULD BE 1 5 3 0.023 C4.
AND, UH, UH, IT IS CORRECTED UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION SECTION.
I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE, ON THE RECORD TO, UH, TO MOVE, UH, UH, MOVE TO HAVE THAT ON THERE.
UH, I, I SUPPOSE, UH, MY QUESTION WOULD BE RE WITH REGARDS TO THE REPLACEMENT, UM, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY, UM, BEFORE IT WAS REPLACED? UH, CAN GO TO EITHER OF YOU.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THAT? THE STRUCTURE THAT, UH, THIS FENCING IS REPLACING? YES.
UM, UM, FROM THE APPLICANT'S PERSPECTIVE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE WAS A LINE OF VEGETATION ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THAT IN THEIR INTERPRETATION ACTED AS A FENCE.
AND SO WHEN THEY CONSTRUCTED THIS FA THE FENCE, AT LEAST THE REAR PORTION OF THE FENCE THEY'RE CLAIMING IS A REPLACEMENT.
UM, SO ONE WE WOULD SAY THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT, BUT AGAIN, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT WE, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT IF THE APPLICANT PROCEEDS, AND WE CAN, IT WOULD JUST BE A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
SORRY, JUST, JUST TO, THAT WASN'T QUITE A COMPLETE RESPONSE.
I ALSO STATED IN THERE THAT THERE WAS STRUCTURES IN THERE, UH, WOULD, AND FRAMES TO SUPPORT VEGETATION AND GROWTH OF VEGETATION, WHICH MEETS THE DEFINITION OF THE CODE OF A FENCE, GENERAL FENCE AND THE DUBLIN CODE DEFINITION.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR US, YOU'RE SAYING THERE WAS, THERE WAS LIKE TRELLIS TYPE FENCING TO SUPPORT THE VEGETATION ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BACK.
THERE WAS, THERE WAS, THERE WAS, THERE
[00:50:01]
WAS VEGETA, YES.THERE WAS STRUCTURES IN THERE SUPPORT THE VEGETATION AND THE GROWTH OF VEGETATION.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT THOSE WERE? I MEAN, WERE YOU TALKING THEY WERE, UM, WITHOUT GAPS, WE'RE TALKING SOLID TRELLIS ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BACK.
WE'RE ALL WAY ACROSS TWO FOOT TALL, ALL ALL THE WAY ACROSS PROPERTY AND WENT UP ANYWHERE FROM SIX TO NINE FEET.
AND I, I DID, I DID TEAR THAT OUT A NUMBER OF, OF, OF YEARS AGO THAT I, SO THIS, YOU DIDN'T REPLACE IT, YOU TORE IT OUT AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY YEARS LATER, PUT SOMETHING IN.
I TORE IT OUT WITH THE INTENT TO REPLACE IT, BUT I, BUT IT WAS THERE, IT WAS PRESENT.
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO TIMELINES ON THE CODE HERE.
AND SO IT, IT EXISTED, IT UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR THE STAFF? DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO NOT, BUT JUST A CLARIFICATION, PLEASE.
AND THIS IS MORE BECAUSE WE HAVE NEW BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE.
UM, FOR MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE.
IF YOU WERE TO MAINTAIN, LET'S SAY, A DECK OR A FENCE OR WHATEVER YOUR STRUCTURE MIGHT BE, YOU CAN DO THAT.
BUT THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF, UH, MAINTENANCE THAT YOU CAN DO AT A TIME.
IF YOU COMPLETELY REMOVE IT, THEN UM, YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO MEET THE CRITERIA.
AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION.
WE DO NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS EITHER PRIOR TO THE MEETING OR DURING THE MEETING.
COULD I GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WAS JUST THAT I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T HEAR ALL OF IT.
THE LAST QUESTION I ASK IS, WE ALWAYS HAVE A PLACE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH DURING THE MEETING AND PRIOR TO THE MEETING RESIDENTS, OH NO.
USUALLY NEIGHBORS CAN SUBMIT INFORMATION.
NO, WHAT TAMMY SAID, TAMMY'S RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION THAT, MY QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH, BUT SHE SAID SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT MAINTENANCE OR SOMETHING.
THERE'S MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY DO HAVE A PERCENTAGE OF HOW YOU CAN MAINTAIN A STRUCTURE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE REPLACING, LET'S SAY A DECK, YOU CAN DO THAT AT, YOU CAN DO IT IN INCREMENTS OF 25% OF THE STRUCTURE.
YOU CAN'T COMPLETELY REMOVE SOMETHING AND REPLACE IT.
TWO, EVEN IF WE WERE TO CONCLUDE THAT LANDSCAPING AND HARDSCAPE MATERIALS WERE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING THAT'S NOT A FENCE.
'CAUSE IT DOESN'T ENCLOSE THE PROPERTY.
THEY, THEY WEREN'T LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.
THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEFINITION OF WHAT OFFENSE IS.
THEY WEREN'T LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.
YEAH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S YOUR POSITION.
I THINK JUST FOR THE, THE, THE NEWER BOARD MEMBERS, SINCE WE'RE MOVING INTO THE DISCUSSION PORTION, WE'VE HAD, I THINK PATRICK'S WAS ACTUALLY THE ONE WHO HAD IT.
IF YOU HAVE A FENCE AND UH, A PANEL FALLS OFF YOUR FENCE, YOU CAN REPLACE IT WITHOUT HAVING TO APPLY TO PUT A NEW FENCE UP.
YOU COULDN'T, YOUR WHOLE FENCE CAN'T FALL DOWN OR YOU COULDN'T TAKE DOWN A WHOLE PORTION OF YOUR FENCE AND REPLACE IT BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE.
SO IF YOU WERE LIKE, SAY GRANDFATHERED IN, YOU COULD, YOU COULD STILL FIND A WAY TO DO IT IF YOU WERE JUST REPAIRING A POST ON YOUR FENCE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
I THINK IT'S LESS THAN 25%, I THINK IS WHAT IT IS, 25% OR LESS.
BUT IF YOU SAY LIKE THE WHOLE BACKYARD FELL OVER, YOU THEN HAVE TO APPLY IT AND CONFIRM WITH OCCURRING CURRENT CODE SECTION.
SO WHAT, WHAT THOUGHTS DO EVERYBODY HAVE SINCE WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO, TO LOOK AT THIS? I GET, I'LL GO FIRST.
I MEAN, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR SITUATION AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU'VE PROVIDED AHEAD OF TIME AND THEN AGAIN THIS EVENING.
AND, BUT I JUST GOING BY LIKE WHAT WE HAVE WITH OUR SCOPE SIX WAS EXPLAINED EARLIER.
I MEAN, I I DO AGREE WITH, WITH THE PLANNING REPORT THAT IT DOESN'T, THAT IT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION.
THE, IT WAS SUBMITTED IN MY RE IN MY RESPONSE THAT IT WAS A REPLACEMENT.
THE PLANNING BOARD CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT IN THEIR REPORT, BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED IN MY RESPONSE.
SO THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN, IN, IN THIS MEETING, UM, BECAUSE THAT WAS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION TO FILE THE VARIANCE.
AND ADDITIONALLY, ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION WAS DEFICIENT IN THAT IT ONLY HAD NEW FENCE AND NOT A REPLACEMENT.
AND THE PLANNING TECHNICIAN DID NOT INFORM ME OF SUCH.
AND THAT, AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN, THAT COULD, COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT THE PLAN COMMITTEE CHOSE TO LIMIT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT.
I'M ASSUMING IT WAS A MISTAKE, BUT I DID RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A REPLACEMENT AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES I FEEL DO WARRANT NOT, I'M, I DON'T MEAN TO BE SHORT OR CURSE.
AND SO JUST TO BE CLARIFY FOR THIS PROCESS, THIS ISN'T A, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT PORTION.
YOUR, YOUR PORTION, YOU'VE MADE A PRESENTATION, WE'RE NOW DOING OUR DISCUSSION.
SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO REMAIN AT THE PODIUM, BUT THIS ISN'T A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR YOU TO WEIGH IN.
[00:55:01]
DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT.SO JUST, JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT.
SO THIS IS OUR DISCUSSION AMONGST US AT THIS POINT.
SO PATRICK, ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAVE, UH, THERE WAS, UH, MENTION OF, UM, OTHER FENCES ON OTHER PROPERTIES, UH, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
UH, UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE FENCES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT COMPLETELY ENCAPSULATE THAT WOULD MIRROR THIS ONE? I MEAN, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS THEY'RE, IN MUCH OF OUR OLDER COMMUNITIES, EITHER THEY PREDATE THE CURRENT ZONING AND SO THEY ARE LEGALLY CONSTRUCTED OR THEY SIMPLY HAVEN'T OBTAINED PERMITS AND THEY COULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ILLEGALLY.
WE, WE WOULD NOT DENY THAT THERE'S FENCES THAT COULD NOT MEET THE CURRENT CODE, BUT THERE'S REASONS WHY THEY DON'T MEET THE CURRENT CODE.
JUST, JUST CHECKING, THIS IS FOR ME, FOR THE PROCEDURE OF GETTING NEW MATERIALS.
IS THIS A COPY THAT WE CAN KEEP SO WE CAN ADD IT AS PART OF IT? OKAY.
SO, AND, AND THOSE FENCES, BOARD OF THE PROPERTY LINES, AND TAMMY, IF YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE NOT, BUT WAS ANY OF THIS MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO YOU TO BE ABLE TO CONFIRM IF THEY WERE ON THE PROPERTY LINES PRIOR TO TONIGHT HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING? THAT'S OKAY.
WAS ANY OF THIS SUBMITTED TO YOU PRIOR TO TONIGHT SO YOU COULD CONFIRM IF IT'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE? HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THESE PICTURES AT ALL? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S MEETING.
ITS ALL, I BELIEVE THAT'S ANOTHER HANDOUT THAT YOU, THAT THE APPLICANT CREATED.
THAT, THAT, THAT WAS AN ADDENDUM.
AND, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, DID NOT STATE THAT I COULD NOT BRING AND PRESENT INFORMATION AT THE APPEAL MEETING.
AND SIR, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THESE, IT, IT HAS NUMBER TWO ON ONE OF 'EM.
UH, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE CERTAINLY PICTURES.
JUST SO I, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THEM SO I CAN IDENTIFY THEM, SO WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF THEM.
THERE'S, IT APPEARS TO BE MULTIPLE RESIDENCES.
I SEE A, UH, GRAY PICKET FENCE, A WOODEN FENCE, AND THEN A, A METAL FENCE.
AND THEN I GUESS THERE'S A SOLID, UH, PICKET FENCE.
DOES THAT SEEM ACCURATE? CORRECT.
AND THE, AND THE METAL FENCE WAS ERECTED ON THE PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND THERE WAS NO REPLACEMENT.
NONE OF THESE INDICATE THEIR ADDRESSES.
DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PROPERTIES? I, I, I CAN, I WILL PROVIDE THEM, I WILL NOT PROVIDE THE ONE WITH THE METAL FENCE BECAUSE IN THE PLANNING MEETING, THE ZONING TEAM SAID, WELL, IF YOU FIND PEOPLE IN VARIANCE, TURN 'EM OVER TO US AND WE'LL, AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF 'EM.
SO I I DON'T DO THAT TO MY NEIGHBORS.
AND I AND SINCE YOU LAST KEEP THESE, I ACTUALLY, YOU GAVE US YOUR NOTES TOO.
I'M GONNA HAND THOSE BACK TO YOU THOUGH.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, WHILE YOU DO, SO IF I MAY, UH, JUST REMIND EVERYONE OF RULE NUMBER FOUR FOR THE BZA, IT IS ABOUT APPLICATIONS AND MATERIALS.
UH, SUB PART B SAYS QUOTE, TO ENSURE THE MATERIALS FOR CONSIDERATION AT AN UPCOMING MEETING ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND INSPECTION AND ARE FULLY REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC MEETING.
NO ADDITIONAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS, AMENDMENTS, DOCUMENTATION, OR CHANGES TO ANY APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED LESS THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING DATE.
UM, THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER SUSPENDING RULES IF YOU THINK THAT THERE'S A REASON TO DO SO, AND I'M HAPPY TO READ WHAT THAT SECTION SAYS.
UH, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE RECORD FOR YOU.
AND JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT, THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELPED ME, UH, PREPARE THE, THE, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND THEY DID NOT STATE SUCH THAT ALL MATERIALS HAD TO BE SUBMITTED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
THE, THE LAW DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE A PARTICULAR RESPONSE EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE RULES OF THE BZA GOVERN THE B Z'S ACTIONS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THE BZA TO BE MINDFUL OF AND TO TAKE INTO ACCORD.
WELL, AND, AND HERE'S WHAT MY THOUGHT IS ON IT, AND WE CAN, CAN BE SCOLDED IF I'M WRONG, BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC ADDRESSES.
I WOULD TAKE IT AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT THAT THESE ARE HOMES THAT HE SAYS ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IF ANYONE IS GOING TO MAKE A VOTE, AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T WANNA TRY TO EXCLUDE YOU.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BE AT MY MICROPHONE.
BUT IF ANYBODY'S GOING TO, TO EITHER VOTE TO RELY ON THESE, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, IF IT'S MERELY CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT AND WHAT HE BELIEVES ARE PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HE WANTS TO RELY ON.
I, I, I GUESS I, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE WE COULD INCLUDE THEM IN OUR DISCUSSION AS PART OF IT WITHOUT MAKING THEM A FORMAL PART OF THE RECORD.
JUST AS HIS STATEMENTS THAT HE MAKES HERE ARE THINGS THAT WEREN'T SUBMITTED AHEAD OF TIME INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY WE CAN RETURN THESE TO HIM AND, AND TALK ABOUT THEM AS PART OF, AS IF HE SAID, I KNOW NINE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I BELIEVE WAS THE NUMBER HE SAID THAT HAVE, UH, SIMILAR
[01:00:01]
FENCES.SEEING THESE PICTURES ARE JUST KIND OF A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF HIS STATEMENT.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IF THAT, THAT'S, IF THAT ANYBODY HAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT, LET ME KNOW.
BUT THAT'S HOW I WOULD INTERPRET THAT.
ANY, I KNOW YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF KIND OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS OR, UH, I'M, SO, I MEAN, I GUESS ONE THING THAT WOULD BE, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST, UH, A PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
IT'S LIKE A VISUAL AID OR SOMETHING TO HELP US OUT.
THAT'S, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
UH, BUT I MEAN, THERE IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER LIKE THE AGE OF THESE FENCES, UM, WHETHER THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WAS, UH, ENACTED.
UM, SO I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WOULD REMAIN, UH, EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, THESE WERE INCLUDED, UH, IN THE, IN THE, UM, APPLICATION MATERIALS.
SO, UM, YEAH, IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE A DECISIVE FACTOR.
UH, IT'S MORE ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE OUT OF PLACE FOR A FENCE TO BE ON THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE ON THIS, ON THIS, UH, SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
SO, UM, THAT WAS REALLY KIND OF WHERE I WAS, UM, GOING WITH THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING.
AND I WOULD LOVE YOUR INPUT ON THIS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS, WE KIND OF DISCUSSED IS THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT, I KNOW THE CITY PUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE, IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, X NUMBER OF HOUSES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE FENCES, IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR US TO FIND THAT IT'S, IT'S A NON RECURRENT OR A SPECIAL CONDITION.
ANYBODY HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? THAT'S ONE OF THINGS THAT I LOOKED AT IT IS IF, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE 20 HOUSES AND, AND THEY WERE ALL ON THE PROPERTY LINE, IF THAT'S EVEN ENOUGH FOR, UM, THE, THE, THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET.
SO I GUESS, UM, I'LL JUST GIVE MY GENERAL THOUGHTS ON ON WHAT I'VE BEEN THINKING.
UM, AND I THANK YOU FOR COMING.
UM, I SYMPATHIZE WITH WHAT YOU'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT NEED TO BE MET, UM, IN CRITERIA A, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, IT DOES SPECIFY IT HAS TO BE PECULIAR TO THE LAND OR STRUCTURE, UM, WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES.
AND I THINK A LOT OF YOUR SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UM, ARE PECULIAR TO PEOPLE.
UM, AND SO I HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING PAST THAT.
ALL OF THE, THE, THE WAY THE LAND IS, UM, THE HOUSE AND EVERYTHING, IT JUST SEEMS NORMAL.
UM, AND THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST SO THAT ONE ALONE HAS GOT ME, UM, KIND OF TRIPPED UP AND, AND I I CAN'T GET PAST THAT ONE.
SO, SO IT, IT, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL KIND OF AT THE POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO VOTE.
IS ANYBODY NOT AT THAT POINT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS EVERYBODY POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO VOTE? YEAH, I MEAN, I, IT SHARE THE, SHARE THE SAME THOUGHTS.
THE PROBLEM WAS FOR US TO GET THROUGH THIS, WE'D NEED TO HAVE ALL OF CRITERIA MET.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY RECOMMENDS THAT NONE OF THEM ARE MET.
I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME COMPELLING ARGUMENTS THAT A PORTION OF THEM CAN BE MET, BUT I JUST CAN'T FIND A WAY THAT WE COULD MEET ALL OF THEM, IN MY OPINION.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, WHAT WE NEED IS JUST A, A MOTION TO APPROVE.
AND THEN IF YOU WERE FOR APPROVING IT, YOU WOULD VOTE YES.
IF YOU WERE AGAINST IT AND BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE NOT MET, YOU WOULD VOTE NO.
BUT IT'S THE MOTIONS BE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ASK.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD? YES, PLEASE.
UM, THE, UH, PLANNING, THE ZONING COMMITTEE CONSTRUCTION OF, OF THE MATERIAL, UM, THERE WAS NOT DONE BASED UPON A SITE INSPECTION.
I INVITED THEM OUT THERE TO DO A SITE INSPECTION AND THEY, THE SIDES EIGHT FEET AND 6.6 FEET, AND THE REPLACEMENT FENCE, WHICH, WHICH WHICH WAS OMITTED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.
UM, UNDER, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE ARE IMPORTANT.
AND HAD A SITE INSPECTION BEEN DONE, THIS WOULD'VE ALL BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND I, I DON'T THINK WE'D HAVE THESE INACCURACIES IN WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
UH, ADDITIONALLY, WE WOULD'VE NEVER GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.
AND THERE WERE SOME, YOU KNOW, EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES CALLED ERROR ON MY PART TO NOT HAVE A, UM, A PERMIT, UH, A ZONING, OR EXCUSE ME, A PERMIT TO BUILD A FENCE SUBMITTED THAT WAS DUE TO THE DEATH OF THE CONTRACTOR WHO WAS TERMINALLY ILL.
BUT, UH, YOU'RE RELYING UPON INFORMATION WHEN NO ONE CAME TO THE SITE AND INSPECTED IT.
NO ONE DID A PROPER INSPECTIONS.
AS I SAID, THEY DID AN INSPECTION IN THE, IN THE REPORT, AND I JUST, I, I THINK THAT'S A, A FALSE PREMISE TO RELY UPON IN, IN MAKING DECISION NOT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME MAKE COMMENT.
AND, AND I WILL TELL YOU BEFORE WE GET THE VOTE
[01:05:01]
PORTION, UM, TAMMY, JUST AS A SUGGESTION, I'M, I'M, AND I'M SURE YOU ALREADY DO THIS, BUT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED WITH MR. KAUFMAN ABOUT THE INSPECTION, IF YOU WOULD PASS THOSE ON TO, WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PURVIEW OVER, OVER THE, THE INSPECTION PROCESS, BUT IF YOU WOULD LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THE SITUATION, ABOUT HIS COMPLAINT, ABOUT HOW THAT WAS DONE AND THE COMMUNICATION, SO THE CITY'S AWARE OF THAT, WOULD YOU, YOU WANT TO DO THAT FOR US? AB ABSOLUTELY.DO WE HAVE A MOTION BY ANYONE? UH, BEFORE ANYONE MOVES, I WOULD, LAW DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THAT WE MOVE FOR THE FIRST REQUEST ON ITS OWN, FOLLOWED BY A SECOND VOTE AND A SECOND MOTION ON THE SECOND REQUEST.
UM, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW OFFENSE TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MR. MURPHY? NO.
THEN THERE BE, WOULD THERE BE A SECOND MOTION FOR THE SECOND REQUEST? UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MS. SNICK? NO.
SIR, YOUR, YOUR, UM, BOTH OF YOUR REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE BOARD.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, UM, QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT IN THE PROCESS, I'M SURE THE CITY WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU TO THANK I I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT YOU'RE, UM, RELYING ON INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT OBTAINED FROM A, A SITE INSPECTION AND IS NOT ACCURATE INFORMATION.
UM, IT'S, IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIDN'T PUT IN THE, THE FACT ABOUT A FENCE REPLACEMENT.
IT'S, IT'S ALL, UM, VERY DISAPPOINTING THAT THE CI UH, UH, AN OFFICIAL OF DUBLIN WOULD, WOULD SAY THEY DID A, A SITE INSPECTION AND DID NOT PERFORM THAT TASK AT, AT MY DETRIMENT.
IT'S JUST, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT PALATABLE, UH, AND ALSO MISREPRESENTATIONS, UH, THAT A COMPLAINT WAS NOT A COMPLAINT, IT WAS AN INQUIRY.
UM, IT'S, IT'S THOUGH ATTACKING DUBLIN RESIDENTS AND IT'S HIS POINT.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, APPROVING SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN'T MEASURE, THEY DIDN'T MEASURE, THEY DIDN'T DO A SITE INSPECTION, AND YOU'RE NOT APPROVING IT.
WHEN I DID THE MEASUREMENT, AND I'M, I'M UNDER OATH AND I'M ALSO A CPA, IT'S, IT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING THAT YOU WOULD APPROACH IT THAT WAY.
I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
NO, WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION, AND THANK YOU AGAIN WAS MENTIONED EARLIER FOR ALL THE MATERIALS YOU SUBMITTED AHEAD OF TIME, AND IT WAS, UM, IT, YOU'D BE SURPRISED HOW MANY TIMES WE DON'T GET THAT.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY HELPFUL TO, TO HAVE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS.
AND, AND LIKE I SAID EARLIER, AND I, UM, GENUINELY MEAN THIS.
I I THINK THE CONCERNS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP ARE NOT UNHEARD.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY, THEY WERE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO ADDRESS THEM, BUT I CERTAINLY WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO, UH, UH, AREN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND LOOK INTO THAT FOR YOU.
WELL, BUT, BUT YOU MAKE, YOU MAKE DECISIONS ON THEIR PRESENTATIONS, WHICH WERE HAD ERRORS, OMISSION, AND INACCURACIES TO ME AS A CITIZEN IS INTOLERABLE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
[Case #24-139V]
THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO OUR SECOND CASE TONIGHT, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER 24 1 3 9 V, WHICH IS THE BAXTER RESIDENCE.UH, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO DEVIATE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS.
THE 3.09 ACRE SITE IS ZONED PUD OR PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S IN THE DEER RUN ESTATES AND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DEER RUN COURT AND DEER RUN ROAD.
TAMMY WILL BE PRESENTING FOR THE CITY FOR THIS AS WELL.
APPEARS, UM, THIS APPLICATION, AGAIN, IS A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE.
UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, WE ARE REVIEWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT DOES NOT MEET TWO SPECIFIC CRITERIA DEALING WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS, UM, SPECIFICALLY A FOUNDATION REQUIREMENT AND A TRIM AND SHUTTLE REQUIREMENT.
IN TERMS OF PROCESS, AGAIN, THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WILL BE THE, THE DETERMINING, UH, FACTOR IN THE APPLICATION.
IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED,
[01:10:01]
THE APPLICANT WILL PROCEED TO BUILDING PERMITS AS THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION STANDS.IF THE APPLICATION IS DISAPPROVED, THE APPLICA, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO MODIFY THE APPLICATION TO MEET OUR CURRENT CODE AND THEN AGAIN, PROCEED TO BUILDING PERMITS.
THE SITE BEFORE YOU IS APPROXIMATELY A THREE ACRE SITE.
YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION IS, UM, EAST OF DUBLIN ROAD.
THIS IS CENTRALLY LOCATED FROM DUBLIN ROAD AND THE SCIOTO RIVER LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA TEND TO BE LARGER IN NATURE.
UM, THE SITE DOES HAVE ACCESS OFF OF, OFF OF DEER RUN COURT, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS ESSENTIALLY CUL-DE-SAC SITES CURRENTLY VACANT.
IT DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT FEATURES, UM, INCLUDING A FLOODPLAIN THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEER RUN, WHICH IS A TRIBUTARY OFF OF THE SCIOTO RIVER.
THERE'S ALSO MATURE VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
AND AGAIN, THE SITE IS VACANT.
UH, THESE ARE EXISTING CONDITIONS, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE ENTRANCE WAY INTO THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS A RATHER SMALL SUBDIVISION, AND THEY HAVE A MYRIAD OF, UM, TYPES OF HOUSING PRODUCT.
THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS IN THE LARGER LOT SECTION TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBDIVISION.
THERE'S SOME SMALLER SITE OR LOTS TO THE SOUTH.
UM, AND THEN THE SECOND PICTURE IS JUST ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
THE APPLICATION IS FROM A SECTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2004.
IT'S CALLED A, A RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS.
UM, THE SECTION OF THE CODE WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF COLUMBUS OR COLUMBUS, GEEZ, UH, DUBLIN, WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO PROMOTE A, A MINIMUM, UH, STANDARD OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, UM, INCLUDING MOSTLY SUBURBAN, UH, TYPES OF, OF APPEARANCES, INCLUDING A PITCHED ROOF.
UM, FEATURES THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD ADD TO THE DIMENSION OF THE EXTERIOR, INCLUDING TRIM.
UM, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE FOUNDATION IS NOT BARREN.
UM, SINCE 2004, QUITE FRANKLY, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS HAVE DRAMATICALLY, UH, DIFFERED.
UM, WE HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE COMING IN FOR PUDS AND INCLUDING A MUCH MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.
SO THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE ZONING CODE IS NOT USED AS MUCH.
UM, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, APPLICATION, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT DON'T MEET IT, WE DO NEED TO DISCUSS IT AS A BOARD.
UM, AGAIN, THE TWO REQUIREMENTS.
THE FIRST IS THE FOUNDATION OR THE CONDITION OF THE FOUNDATION WALLS.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS, UM, ASKING THAT THERE NOT BE AN EXTERIOR, UM, I GUESS TRIM TO THE FOUNDATION.
AND THEN SECONDARILY THAT THE TRIM ALONG THE WINDOWS EITHER NOT INCLUDE TRIM OR NOT INCLUDE SHUTTERS.
AND THIS IS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, WHICH IS A MUCH MORE MODERN DESIGN THAT WE, THAT WE MAY SEE IN A SUBURBAN COMMUNITY IN DUBLIN.
UM, AND WE'VE HAD SIMILAR REQUESTS BASED ON, UH, DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
UM, IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS, UH, AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA, UH, BOMBARD THE BOARD WITH CRITERIA, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION, ALL THREE OF THE CRITERIA ARE NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL.
FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITE.
UM, THE SITE, AGAIN, IS, IS VERY RURAL IN NATURE.
IT DOES HAVE SOME NATURAL FEATURES THAT KEEP IT WOODED AND SECLUDED.
UM, BUT MO MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT THERE'S A CUSTOM, A CUSTOMIZED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT WOULD, IN MY, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD SUPERSEDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE, UH, STANDARDS.
AND THEREFORE WE BELIEVE THE FIRST CONDITION IS MET IN TERMS OF ACTIONS OR INACTIONS OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INDICATIVE OF AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND NOT NECESSARY INDICATIVE OF AS ACTIONS BY THE APPLICANT.
SO WE DO BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN MET AND THAT THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE CODE ITSELF IS BEING MET.
UM, AND AGAIN, IN THIS, UM, APPLICATION, WE BELIEVE THAT HIGH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE BEING ACHIEVED.
IT'S, THEY'RE SIMPLY BEING ACHIEVED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.
IN TERMS OF THE SECOND SET OF CRITERIA, AGAIN, TWO OF THE FOUR ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET.
UM, IN TERMS OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, WE DO NOT, UH, BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD SECURE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES BY, UH, SECURING APPROVALS BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
[01:15:01]
UM, IT'S NOT RECURRENT IN NATION IN NATURE, UH, PROMPTING, UH, THE CITY STAFF TO ADDRESS A CODE MODIFICATION.UM, IN TERMS OF DELIVERY OF SERVICE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOME HAS ANY TYPE OF IMPACTS ON GOVERNMENTAL, UH, SERVICES.
AND IN TERMS OF, COULD THE APPLICANT ACHIEVE THEIR PURPOSE THROUGH OTHER METHODS? AGAIN, IT'S INDICATIVE OF AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THE HOME.
HAVING SAID THAT, WE DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, THIS APPLICATION DOES MEET BOTH OF THE SUBSECTIONS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, FOR BOTH FOUNDATION AND TRIM REQUIREMENTS.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UM, YEAH, I HAD A, I HAD A QUESTION FOR TAMMY.
UM, ARE YOU ABLE TO SHOW US ON A MAP THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THIS, THIS, UH, LAND IS IN? YEP.
I'LL TAKE YOU BACK TO THE, OR THOUGH, IT'S ACTUALLY, EXCUSE ME.
IT'S A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MEANS WHEN THE APPLI WHEN THE DEVELOPER CAME IN, THEY, UM, SECURED A DEVELOPMENT TEXT THAT WOULD BE INDICATIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.
AND, AND SO ON THIS MAP, IF YOU WERE TO CIRCLE THE PUD OR, OR SOMETHING, ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT? WHAT IS ALL IN THE PUD IN THIS? IS IT JUST THIS SITE? UM, NO, IT WOULD BE, IF YOU SEE THIS GREEN LINE, THAT'S THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF IT, AND THEN IT DOES PROCEED SOUTH.
UM, I WOULD SAY THIS IS APPROXIMATELY HALF OF IT.
SO IF YOU DOUBLED THE SIZE OF THIS, THE PROPERTY, SO ARE THE DEER RUN ESTATES PART OF THE PUD? MM-HMM.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE LOOK HESITANT? IF YOU WANNA DO IT, JUST STATE YOUR STATE, YOUR NAME AND, AND BUSINESS ADDRESS AND HI THERE.
I'M DAN MORGAN, 5 5 8 4 WINDWOOD DRIVE, DUBLIN 4 3 0 1 7.
I'M ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS ON THIS PROJECT.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO THE PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT DOWN IF WE, IF IF WE COME UP WITH ANYTHING, WE'LL, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP.
THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? UM, I KNOW THE TWO NEWEST MEMBERS, PATRICK, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN A COUPLE OF THESE THAT ARE ALONG THE, USUALLY ALONG THE RIVER, I THINK IS PROBABLY WHERE THEY ALWAYS ARE.
AND IT USUALLY IS INDICATIVE OF KIND OF UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
UM, ACTUALLY FOR BOTH CASES, I THINK THE STATE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB PROVIDING US OTHER CASES THAT WE'VE DONE THAT ARE, THAT ARE SIMILAR.
AND, UM, TO ME THIS KIND OF FITS IN, IN EXACTLY THE SAME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAD FOR THE OTHER ONES.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CITY, UH, FOR APPROVAL.
SO ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? UH, YEAH.
UH, AS I ALLUDED TO THE, UH, UM, UH, PLANS, UH, UH, UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, UH, TEND TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE LA UH, LATITUDE WITH REGARD TO THEIR, UH, AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS.
SO, UM, YEAH, I, I THINK GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD, UH, UH, KEEP IN, UH, LINE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE, UM, UH, THE ORDINANCE, UH, WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE PROPERTY AND THE, UH, UH, THE AREA WHERE IT ZONES.
SO, UH, I'M INCLINED TO, UM, UH, SIDE WITH THE, UH, UH, CITY'S ASSESSMENT.
UM, AS A NEWER MEMBER, I DO HAVE, I GUESS ONE QUESTION FOR THE SECOND ONE.
UM, FOR IN CRITERIA A, THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION THE APPLICANT.
UM, I, WHEN IT COMES TO NECESSITATED, DOES THAT MEAN, SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO THINK, BECAUSE IF THEY WOULD'VE PICKED A DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, THIS WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY.
TAMMY, DO YOU HAVE KIND OF COMMENT ON THAT FOR US? UM, WE DID DISCUSS THIS AT LENGTH, UH, WITH, WITHIN OUR DIVISION.
AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE APPLICANT DIDN'T, UH, PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT WOULD IMP WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THIS TO OCCUR BEFORE THE BOARD.
THEY SIMPLY CHOSE AN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IN, IN MEETING THAT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
THIS REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE, UH, APPROVED.
SO IT'S KIND OF A, I I THINK IT'S MORE IMPERATIVE THAT WE TALK ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OPPOSED TO WHAT THE APPLICANT'S,
[01:20:01]
UM, DONE OR NOT DONE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.THERE'LL BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS JUST TO, TO CLARIFY THOSE.
AND AGAIN, THEY'RE BOTH IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
SO WITH THE MOTION, IT WOULD BE, UM, TO APPROVE AND IF YOU WISH TO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT THE CITY'S POSITION ON THIS AND APPROVE IT, IT WOULD BE A YES.
AND IF YOU DISAGREED AND WISHED FOR A DENIAL, IT'D BE A NO.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A, THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS.
AND I GUESS I DIDN'T ASK, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I DON'T THINK THERE ARE FOR PUDS USUALLY.
ARE THERE? UM, WE DO OCCASIONALLY, BUT WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN, UM, ANY TYPE OF CORRESPONDENCE EITHER BEFORE OR CURRENT CURRENTLY.
AND, AND KNOWING THAT NO ONE ELSE HAD ANY DISCUSSION, IF THERE'S A MOTION FOR THE, THE FIRST, WHICH IS THE EXPOSED CONCRETE.
UM, MOTION TO ALLOW A SMOOTH CONCRETE FINISH FOUNDATION, UH, PURSUANT TO, UH, ORDINANCE SECTION 1 5 3 1 9 0 E ONE C.
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE MS. TIS? YES.
WHO DID I LEAVE OUT? YOU GOT ALL OF US.
WE'RE, WE'RE MISSING JOEL TONIGHT.
UH, SECOND MOTION, UH, TO ALLOW MINIMAL TRIM AND NO SHADOWS AROUND THE WINDOW OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE SECTION 1 53 0.190 E ONE.
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. NYE? YES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME FOR COMING TONIGHT.
[COMMUNICATIONS]
OKAY.THEN I NOTICE WE'VE ALL BEEN SENT, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM, AT LEAST ONE.
UM, WE HAVE, WHICH IS THE, THE MEETING DATES AND FOR THE NEW MEMBERS.
I REMEMBER, UH, MY FIRST YEAR, THE KIND OF AWKWARD REQUEST TO HAVE YOU APPROVE MEETINGS THAT WERE ALREADY APPROVED PRIOR TO YOU JOINING.
SO SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN LAID OUT FOR NEXT YEAR.
AND THEN, UM, I WILL JUST TELL YOU, 'CAUSE THERE'S A QUESTION I HAD VERY EARLY ON IS IN ASKING US TO APPROVE THE, THE MEETINGS.
UM, IT IS A BIT, I WOULD SAY PERFUNCTORY IN THAT THERE IS A VERY SMALL WINDOW OF TIME IN WHICH THEY CAN BE HELD.
SO ALTHOUGH THEY'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE THEM OTHER THAN, UM, THEM FALLING ON A HOLIDAY OR SOME SIGNIFICANT EVENT, THERE'S A, A, A LIMITED NUMBER OF CHOICES, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE GIVEN TO CHOOSE FROM.
SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENT OR ANY SPECIFIC, UM, CONFLICT, UH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO ATTEND AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.
BUT IT'S CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD IF SOMEONE HAS TO MISS A MEETING HERE OR THERE.
SO, ANY ANY COMMENTS, CONCERNS AT ALL AT THIS POINT? SO FAR, SO FAR OUT? I, I'M, I'M JUST GONNA BET ON BEING THERE.
SO IT'S KIND OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU APPROVE THE, THE, THE MEETINGS INTO THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
SO JUST, WE NEED A, A MOTION AND THEN A SECOND FOR THIS AS WELL.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING DATES NEXT YEAR? MOTION TO APPROVE.
CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MR. ANDERSON? YES.
TAMMY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS OR COMMUNICATIONS? I DO NOT, BUT AT THIS POINT, UH, AT LEAST FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, WE DO NOT HAVE APPLICATIONS PRESENT PRESENTLY.
SO, UM, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WON'T GET SUBMISSIONS WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS, BUT IF WE DO NOT, I WANTED TO WISH THE BOARD, UM, HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND THANK YOU FOR THE NEW MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR BEING PART OF THIS.
AND IF YOU EVER HAVE QUESTIONS, UH, PRIOR TO MEETING, IF YOU, UH, WANT TO REACH OUT TO STAFF, WE'RE HAPPY TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND IT, IT IS PROBABLY FOR JUDY, SO SHE'S PROBABLY GONNA YELL AT ME.
DID WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST TIME THAT I REMEMBER TO DO THAT EARLY ON? YES.
SHE WAS ASKING, I WAS LIKE, I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE DID OR NOT.
AND THEN TAMMY, I'LL JUST SAY BEFORE WE, BECAUSE FOR THE MI FOR MR. KAUFMAN, I KNOW HE WAS STRUGGLING WITH IT AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US.
AND I KNOW THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD APPRECIATE JUST KNOWING THAT, AND I'M SURE IT'S ALREADY BEEN, YOU KNOW, GIVEN TO THE CITY.
BUT IF YOU COULD LET, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WOULD BE, WHOEVER THE POWERS THAT WE ARE KNOW THAT, THE VARIOUS CONCERNS THAT HE HAD AND IF THEY WISH TO REACH OUT TO HIM TO ADDRESS THOSE, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY, I GUESS THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD OFFER THROUGH THE CITY.
AND, AND WE WILL FOLLOW UP, UM, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
BUT OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS, UM, EAGER TO BE RESPONSIVE TO OUR COMMUNITY.
[01:25:01]
WE, WE DON'T, UH, WANT ANY RESIDENTS TO BE, UM, FEEL AS IF THE, THE PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN FAVORABLE TO THEM.SO OF COURSE, WE'LL, WE'LL, UM, TALK AMONGST OURSELVES AND WE'LL REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT.
WELL, I GUESS WITH THAT THEN WE'RE ADJOURNED.