* 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. WE READY? [00:00:02] GOOD EVENING, [CALL TO ORDER] AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. UH, YOU CAN JOIN OUR MEETING IN PERSON AT 55 55 PERIMETER DRIVE AND ALSO ACCESS THE MEETING VIA THE LIVE STREAM ON THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S WEBSITE. WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ALL CASES. UH, SO I GUESS WE'LL MOVE ON WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. UM, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, WHICH IT STANDS. ONE ANDERSON UNDERGROUND, INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND JUSTICE RAL. THANK YOU. UH, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, ROLL CALL. UH, MS. MAXWELL, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL? YES. MR. ANDERSON IS ABSENT THIS EVENING. MS. ALESSANDRO? HERE. MR. LINVILLE? HERE. MR. MURPHY? HERE. AND MS. SNICK HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO [ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES] THE ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES. UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. UH, PLEASE. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE. YES. GREAT. MS. DALESSANDRO? YES. MR. MURPHY? YES. MS. TISK? YES. AND MR. LINVILLE? YES. THANK YOU. UH, EACH CASE THIS EVENING, UH, WE'LL 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. UH, THEN THE APPLICANTS ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS, UH, WILL BE INVITED TO COME FORWARD UNDER EACH APPLICATION. UH, PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON YOUR MICROPHONES OVER THERE. UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IT REQUESTS THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. UM, NO. DO WE HAVE AN AUDIENCE HERE? . UM, SO, UH, SO WE MOVE ON TO, UH, SWEARING IN WITNESSES. UH, ANYONE INTENDING TO, UH, ADDRESS THE BOARD OR PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CASE MUST BE SWORN IN. UH, SO ANYBODY WHO SEEKS TO DO THAT, UH, PLEASE STAND AND, UH, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? OKAY. UH, WE'LL BEGIN WITH OUR FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. UH, WELL, APPARENTLY THE FIRST CASE HAD BEEN POSTPONED, SO WE WILL MOVE ON, ON TO THE, UM, UH, SECOND CASE, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH ZERO TWO V CHAIR. EXCUSE ME. PARDON THE INTERRUPTION. BECAUSE THIS WAS ADVERTISED, WE DO STILL NEED A MOTION FROM THE BOARD TO POSTPONE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT JUST REQUIRED MORE TIME TO PREPARE HIS CASE. SO IF WE COULD JUST GET A MOTION FROM THE BOARD TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING. SURE. UH, DO WE HAVE A [Case #25-102V] MOTION TO POSTPONE THE FIRST CASE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING? I MOVE TO POSTPONE CASE 25 1 0 2 V. I'M SORRY. CONTINUE. UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. UH, WE HAVE A VOTE IN AFFIRMATIVE. MR. LINVILLE? YES. MS. TISK? YES. MS. DEANDRO? YES. MR. MURPHY? YES. THANK YOU. SO, WE'LL, UH, MOVE ON TO [Case #25-103V] THE, UH, SECOND CASE ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 V, UH, REGARDING THE HOPKINS RESIDENCE, UH, PER GOLA, UH, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PARLA TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. UH, THE SITE IS ZONED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, TARTAN RIDGE, AND IS LOCATED AT 93 76 NICHOLSON WAY. UH, WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE, UM, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'VE BEEN INTRODUCED TO EVERYONE, BUT I'M TAMMY NOBLE. I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, AND I HOPE ZACH HANSHAW, WHO'S THE LEADER OF THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, AND WE WORK COLLECTIVELY TONIGHT OR, UM, WITH THIS BOARD, AND I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT TONIGHT. THE FIRST CASE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD IS, UH, THE HOPKINS RESIDENCE. THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERGOLA THAT EXTENDS INTO A REAR YARD SETBACK. THE CHAIR MENTIONED THE ADDRESS, BUT I'LL MENTION IT AGAIN. IT'S 93 76 NICHOLSON WAY. UM, AND THIS IS TO ALLOW THE PERGOLA TO EXTEND INTO A REAR YARD SETBACK APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET. [00:05:01] IN TERMS OF PROCESS, AGAIN, THIS IS A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. UM, THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, UH, SITE SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ANY TYPE OF ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF, UM, ANY TYPE OF TOPOGRAPHY OR NATURAL FEATURES OF THE SITE, CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THIS IS A ONE STEP PROCESS THAT CONCLUDES WITH THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, AND IF APPROVED, IT WOULD THEN PROCEED TO BUILDING PERMITS, WHICH WE WOULD ADMINISTER THROUGH, UM, OUR BUILDING DIVISION. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY OUTLINED IN YELLOW. IT'S APPROXIMATELY, UM, SLIGHTLY LESS THAN A QUARTER OF AN ACRE IN SIZE. THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT BOTH TO THE NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST. SIMILAR SIZE, LOTS, UH, FAIRLY, UM, RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE. ALL HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG PUBLIC, UH, RIGHTS OF WAY. THE SITE IS ZONED PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT. IT'S PART OF THE TARTAN RIDGE SUBDIVISION. AND THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS DONE IN A CONSECUTIVE TIMEFRAME WHEN WE DID, UH, SEVERAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAD MORE CHARACTERISTICS OF A MORE URBAN TYPE OF SUBDIVISION. UM, IT FOLLOWS A PATTERN CALLED A CONSERVATION DESIGN, WHERE YOU INTENTIONALLY GIVE DENSITIES TO A DEVELOPER, ALLOW THOSE DENSITIES TO BE CLUSTERED IN CERTAIN AREAS, UM, BUT THAT YOU ALLOW NATURAL FEATURES TO WRAP AROUND THE LOTS TO GIVE IT, UM, CHARACTER AND UNIQUENESS. AND AGAIN, IT'S A EXCEPTIONAL SUBDIVISION THAT WE'RE PROUD OF. UM, AND THE APPLICATION, AGAIN, IS TO THE CENTER PORTION OF YOUR SCREEN. UM, THIS IS JUST SHOWING A BROADER VIEW OF THE AREA. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE HOLISTIC TO TALK ABOUT THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES AROUND THE SITES. UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS TO THE EAST. UM, THERE ARE SOME NATURAL BASINS AROUND THE PROPERTY, BUT AGAIN, IT'S MOSTLY OPEN SPACE. THERE ARE SOME MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OPEN SPACE, BUT IT'S MOSTLY MANICURED OPEN SPACE. THERE'S NOT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN MOST OF THE AREAS, UM, BUT IT PROVIDES NICE, UH, VIEWS FOR THE RESIDENTS. IN TERMS OF THIS APPLICATION AND THE HISTORY, UM, FOR, UM, THIS PARTICULAR SITE, UM, WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS SINCE THE EARLY PORTION OF 2021, OR I GUESS LATER PORTION OF 2021, WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT, UM, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION REGARDING THE PERLA THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF. IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, A VIOLATION WAS, UM, SENT TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, AND WE PROCEEDED AS WE WOULD FOR ANY TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION. UM, WE DID NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE, UM, REAR YARD SETBACK, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH OPTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SINCE THAT TIMEFRAME. IN FEBRUARY OF 2022, THE APPLICANT AND, UM, HIS TEAM A, UM, APPLIED FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. AND I'M NOT SURE, PATRICK, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN HERE AT THAT TIMEFRAME. UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IS A, A DETERMINATION BY AN APPLICANT THAT, UM, A DECISION BY THE CITY HAS BEEN ERRONEOUS OR IN FAULT. UM, SO WE SIMPLY PRESENT OUR ARGUMENT. THE APPLICANT DOES THE SAME. IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE DEFINITION OF A PROVISION OF THE CODE THAT'S CALLED OPEN AND UNCOVERED. AND I MENTIONED THIS BECAUSE THE BOARD WILL HEAR THIS TERM A LOT, NOT JUST FOR THIS APPLICATION, BUT WE USE IT IN OTHER APPLICATIONS. UM, IT ALLOWS PROPERTY OWNERS TO EXTEND INTO THEIR SETBACK FIVE FEET. IF IT'S DETERMINED TO BE OPEN AND UNCOVERED. WE USE IT, UH, PRIMARILY FOR TIGHTER SUBDIVISIONS WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT BE DOING AN RI PATIO AND NEED ADDITIONAL SPACE TO MAKE IT A FUNCTIONAL SPACE. UM, WITH THIS DETERMINATION, THE BOARD SUPPORTED STAFF'S DECISION THAT IT WASN'T OPEN AND UNCOVERED, UM, THAT DID PROCEED TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN APPROXIMATELY 2024. UH, THEY DID, I GUESS I MAKE SURE I'M SAYING THIS CORRECTLY. THEY DID AFFIRM THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S DECISION AND THEIR DETERMINATION, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO, UM, COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS SINCE. SO IN TERMS OF A SITE PLAN, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED. WE DID DO SOME RENDERINGS JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE VISIBLE. YOU CAN SEE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN THE CENTER PORTION OF THE SITE. WE CHOSE YELLOW AS A, UH, A COLOR TO HIGHLIGHT THE PROPERTY. THE AREA AND GREEN IS THE PERCOLATE WE'RE THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF EXTENDING INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE REAR YARD IS FAIRLY OPEN, UM, AND THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SITE ARE PRETTY, UH, STANDARD FOR SUB, UH, SUBDIVISION. THIS IS SHOWING THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE, UM, APPLYING [00:10:01] TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. UH, AND AGAIN, THE PERGOLA EXTENDS ABOUT SIX FEET INTO THE SETBACK. WE DID TAKE, UH, PICTURES FOR THE BOARD'S, UM, EDIFICATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. AGAIN, IT'S AN OPEN AIRED PERGOLA WITH TWO, UH, POSTS THAT EXTEND TO ABOVE A AN AT GRAD PAID AT GRADE PATIO. THERE ARE, I'M GONNA CALL THEM AWNINGS THAT DO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FROM, UH, WEATHER ELEMENTS THAT I BELIEVE BELIEVE CAN BE RETRACTED. UM, BUT THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PERGOLA, THE ENTIRE, UH, WHITE STRUCTURE, IF YOU WILL. SO IN TERMS OF NON-USE AREA VARIANCES, I'M SURE THE BOARD KNOWS THIS, BUT I'LL REITERATE FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, THERE'S TWO SETS OF CRITERIA. ONE IS CRITERIA A, ONE IS CRITERIA B, THE FIRST SET OF CRITERIA A, ALL OF THE, THE, UM, UH, CRITERIA NEED TO BE MET FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR DETERMINATION. AND THE SECOND CRITERIA, TWO OF THE FOUR NEED TO BE MET. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE EVALUATED THE SITE. UM, WE DID DETERMINE THAT IN TERMS OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, THE LOT SIZES AND CONFIGURATIONS OF THESE SITES ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER AS WELL AS THEIR SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S, UH, FAIRLY CONSISTENT SIZE AND SHAPES OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE SUBDIVISION WAS EXCEPTIONALLY DESIGNED FOR SMALLER LOTS THAT WOULD THEN HAVE SMALLER OUTDOOR SPACES. UM, THAT WAS AN INTENTIONAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE APPLICANT EITHER THROUGH ACTIONS OR INACTIONS, UM, RESULTED IN, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST. WE SIMPLY HAVE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT, UM, THEY DID CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AND, UM, AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH COMPLIANCE. THE THIRD AND LAST CRITERIA OF CRITERIA A IS ESSENTIALLY WOULD APPLYING THESE REGULATIONS DO CAUSE IMPAIRMENT TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, APPLYING THE SAME STANDARDS WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT. WE WOULD DETERMINE THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED IF WE WERE TO ALLOW, UM, PRIVILEGES, UH, FOR THIS SITE AND NOT OTHERS. AND AGAIN, RECOGNIZE THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE, OF THE SUBDIVISION. IN TERMS OF, UH, CRITERIA B, THESE ARE A LITTLE AWKWARDLY WRITTEN, BUT THE TWO THAT WE FOCUS ON THE MOST ARE THE FIRST AND THE LAST. THE TWO IN THE MIDDLE ARE BASICALLY ENSURING THAT IF THE PROVISION WERE REOCCURRING IN NATURE, INSTEAD OF PURSUING A VARIANCE, THAT THE CITY WOULD TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO ACTUALLY DO A CODE MODIFICATION SO THAT WE'RE NOT BURDENING, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS. THE THIRD IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T PROHIBIT OR IMPACT GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. SO TO FOCUS ON THE FIRST CRITERIA, IT'S ASKING IF, UM, APPLYING THE REGULATIONS OF THE CODE IS, OR I SHOULD SAY, GIVING THEM ANY TYPE OF RELIEF FROM THAT, THOSE PROVISIONS WOULD ALLOW SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, UM, TO THE APPLICANT. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD GIVE SPECIAL PRE PRIVILEGES TO THE APPLICANT, SO THE CRITERIA IS NOT MET. UM, THE LAST IS SIMPLY SAYING, IS THERE ANOTHER METHOD OR OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THE OBJECTIVE OF THE APPLICATION IN ANOTHER WAY? UM, WE'VE DETERMINED THAT PERHAPS EITHER ONE, UH, MODIFYING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO MEET THE SETBACK WOULD, UM, ACCOMMODATE THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS OR PURSUE OTHER TYPE OF VIABLE OPTIONS FOR SOME SORT OF COVERAGE. SO BASED ON NOT MEETING CRITERIA A AND NOT MEETING, WELL, I SHOULD SAY FOR NOT MEETING CRITERIA, A, WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL FOR THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. AND AGAIN, THE PURPOSE IS TO ENCROACH IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I KNOW THE APPLICANT AND THEIR TEAM ARE HERE. UM, SO I'LL, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS TO START WITH? UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. UM, I GUESS IS THIS, WHAT TYPES OF, YOU KEEP MENTIONING THAT YOU'VE, I GUESS, WORKED WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT ON THIS ISSUE. UM, IS THAT PART OF THIS HEARING? LIKE WHAT TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS HAVE YOU HAD OR WHAT OPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED? [00:15:01] I CAN ASK THEM, I GUESS, TOO, WHEN IT'S THEIR TURN, BUT YEAH, MOSTLY IT'S WORKING THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND EXPLAINING WHAT THE OP, UH, APPLICATION APPLICATION OPPORTUNITIES ARE FOR THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS, UM, COMPLYING WITH ANY TYPE OF TIMEFRAMES THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD'VE ESTABLISHED. UM, AS WELL AS, I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN TO MAYOR'S COURT AS WELL, SO JUST MAKING SURE THE TIMEFRAMES ARE MET AND THAT WE'RE PROVIDING ANY OPTIONS TO THE APPLICANT THAT ARE, THAT ARE AVAILABLE. OKAY. UH, THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION THAT, UM, UH, ANTHONY MIGHT BE ABLE TO, UH, UH, FOLLOW UP ON. BUT, UM, SO GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS SPECIFIC, UM, UH, MATTER, UH, IT ESCALATED TO THE, UH, COMMON PLEA COURT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, UM, AND THE OUTCOME OF THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY AFFIRMING THE, UH, BOARD'S ORIGINAL DECISION? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UM, AND I GUESS, UH, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY, UH, MATERIAL CHANGES, ANY, UH, MODIFICATIONS TO THE, UH, PARLA, UM, SINCE THE INITIAL, UM, HEARING, I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO CONFIRM, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY MODIFICATIONS YET. OKAY. UM, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY, UH, MODIFICATIONS TO THE DUBLIN CITY, UH, ORDINANCES, UH, ZONING ORDINANCES THAT WOULD, UH, APPLY HERE? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY THAT CHANGED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE QUESTION. NO. OKAY. UM, WHAT I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COULD YOU CLARIFY, UM, YOU SAID THAT, UM, SORRY, YOU WERE TALKING IN THOSE MAPS THAT THE PATIO ITSELF WAS BUILT IN COMPLIANCE, BUT THE PERGOLA ON THE PATIO MAKES THE ENTIRE ALL OF IT OUT OF COMPLIANCE, OR IS IT JUST THE PERGOLA ITSELF THAT IS THE PROBLEM? OR IS IT THE PERGOLA MAKE THE PATIO NONCOMPLIANT TOO, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OH, I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. SO THE PATIO WAS BUILT AT GRADE AND DOES MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. IT'S THE PERGOLA THAT DOES NOT, SO THE PATIO IS ALLOWED TO CRO ENCROACH OR ON THE ZONE BECAUSE IT'S JUST FLAT AND OPEN OR, YES. OKAY. OPEN AND UNCOVERED. AND THE, WOULD THE, UH, ACCORDING TO THE CITY, WOULD THE PERGOLA BE ALLOWED IF IT WAS SMALLER OR NOT? IF IT WAS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE PATIO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD IT BE FINE? OR IS IT JUST BY NATURE NOT ALLOWED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? EXCUSE ME. YEAH, IT WOULD NEED TO MEET THE SETBACK. SO IF YOU, MAYBE A VISUAL WOULD HOPE SO. AND I, I DIDN'T, I WOULD NEED TO SCALE THIS, BUT I'M SENSING THAT PERLA PROBABLY IS ABOUT, I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA ESTIMATE AGAIN, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT CLARIFY, BUT I'M GONNA SAY IT'S ABOUT 10 FEET AND AND WIDTH. SO FIVE FEET OF IT ENCROACHES INTO THAT SETBACK, ABOUT HALF OF IT'S IN THE APPROPRIATE AREA. COUNSEL, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THE, UH, SPECIFIC CODE PROVISION READ INTO THE RECORD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION? YEAH. OKAY. PLEASE. THIS IS AT CODE SECTION 1 5 3 0.071, SUB PART B ONE C, WHICH STATES PATIOS AND SEAT WALLS NOT EXCEEDING A COMBINED 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK, A DISTANCE NOT TO EXCEED FIVE FEET STRUCTURES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PORTICOS, PERGOLAS, AND CANOPIES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR SETBACK. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? ANYTHING ELSE? OR? I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. OKAY. UH, AT THIS TIME, UH, IF THE APPLICANT, UH, WOULD APPROACH THE, UH, UH, PODIUM, UH, ENSURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON, IT SHOULD BE A GREEN LIGHT INDICATING AS MUCH [00:20:04] THOMAS MCC, OH, THE MICROPHONE'S NOT ON. THANK YOU. PUSHED IT AND IT DIDN'T GO ON. UH, THOMAS MCCANN 0 0 5 9 0 7 9. AN ATTORNEY WORKING WITH, UH, DAVID AND BELL HOPKINS. UH, DO WANT TO, JUST BECAUSE, UH, THE ORDINANCE WAS REDDIT TO THE RECORD, THE LAST PART OF THAT ORDINANCE ABOUT STR, WHERE IT SAYS STRUCTURES, PERGOLAS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT DIDN'T EXIST WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE THIS BOARD IN 20 21, 20 22. THAT WAS ADDED IN 2023 AS A RESULT OF THE LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON WHAT OPEN AND OBVIOUS, UH, OPEN AND, AND UNCOVERED SOME OTHER TERMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THE BOARD, UH, UNFORTUNATELY NONE, NONE OF YOU WERE ON AT THAT PARTICULAR HEARING. UM, BUT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON THAT. THERE WAS EVEN CONFUSION ON THAT BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE BZA AT THE TIME. UH, I THINK THERE WERE ONE OR TWO PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS OPEN AND UNCOVERED, UH, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY WE WENT TO, UH, COMMON POLICE COURT, UH, ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE TO SAY, HEY, HERE'S CONFUSION ON THIS. WE THINK IT'S OPEN UNCOVERED, AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE PERMITTED, UH, UNDER THE CODE, UM, PIECE THAT WAS ON IT. BUT TO GET GET TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, UM, THAT'S BEFORE YOU, UH, IT IS A LONG HISTORY. THE BACK IN 2021, THE HOPKINS DID APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, AND THERE WAS A STAFF REPORT THAT WAS DONE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. UH, I GOT INVOLVED, UH, AFTER THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE IT KIND OF CHANGED TO GO TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, APPEALS DECISION ON THAT. AND THEN WE WENT THAT ROUTE, WENT THROUGH THE COMMON POLICE COURT, AND THEN NOW WE'RE BACK HERE ON A VARIANCE. WE REAPPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE OLD VARIANCE, THEY HAD CLOSED IT OUT. SO WE'RE BACK HERE ON THAT. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS WAS A PERGOLA, THEY PURCHASED IT FROM A COMPANY CALLED SHADETREE, UM, STRUCTURES. UM, THEY APPLIED FOR APPROVAL TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WHO GAVE THEM APPROVAL ON THE PERGOLA, AND THEY HAD SHADE TREE STRUCTURES WAS TO APPLY FOR BUILDING PERMITS. SHADETREE TOLD THEM THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED A BUILDING PERMIT, SO THEY RELIED UPON WHAT SHADE TREE WAS TELLING THEM. THE CONTRACTOR WAS TELLING THEM THAT SINCE THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT. SO, OKAY. SO IT GOT CONSTRUCTED, AND SHORTLY AFTER THAT, THEY FOUND OUT THAT THEY, A, HAD PUT THE PERGOLA OF ONE OF THE POSTS ACTUALLY ON TOP OF THEIR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE THAT SERVED THE HOUSE, UH, WHICH THEN CAUSED, UM, IT TO SHORT OUT, UH, AFTER ABOUT A MONTH OR OR TWO OF, UH, BEING THERE. UH, AND THEN THAT HAD TO BE REPLACED. UH, AND THEN THAT CREATED SOME SITUATIONS WITH HAVING TO RE DIG AND, AND PUT, PUT NEW LINES IN THERE. THERE WAS, UM, LEGAL ACTIONS, STUFF THAT WAS ADDRESSED WITH SHADE TREE BECAUSE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION. UH, THEY'RE NO LONGER IN BUSINESS AROUND TOWN HERE. UM, BUT THERE WAS, THERE WAS AT LEAST A SETTLEMENT, PARTIAL SETTLEMENT ON DEALING WITH THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. BUT THE ISSUE OF NOT HAVING A BUILDING PERMIT, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO RESOLVE THROUGH HERE. AND UNFORTUNATELY, UH, MY CLIENTS HAVE SPENT $12,000 ON A PERGOLA AND , AS YOU SEE, WE'VE BEEN FOUR OR FIVE YEARS INTO DEALING WITH THIS. SO THAT GIVES YOU KINDA A LITTLE HISTORY ON WHY THE PERGOLA IS EXISTING, IS THEY JUST DIDN'T SAY, I'M GONNA BUILD A PERGOLA AND NOT COMPLY WITH IT. THEY TRIED TO COMPLY WITH DIFFERENT PROVISIONS, THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING IT BECAUSE THEY GOT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION APPROVAL, UM, RELIED UPON THE CONTRACTOR WHO SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT. AND THAT'S HOW IT GOT IN HERE. BUT AS FAR AS THE, UM, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THE, AND, AND TAMMY DIDN'T SHOW THIS, BUT THERE IS, BUT SEVERAL LOTS THAT WERE THE SAME SIZE. THERE WAS THE, OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, UH, WHICH WE'D SUBMITTED AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, I DUNNO IF YOU'RE PULLING THAT UP, WAS IN OUR APPLICATION PACKET. MM-HMM . SHOWED, I SHOWED MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IN THE METCALF PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. IS IT THE NORTH NEIGHBOR OR THE SOUTH FACING NEIGHBOR? WHAT'S THAT? UH, WHAT, UH, IS IT THE NORTH FACING NEIGHBOR OR THE SOUTH FACING NEIGHBOR? THE SOUTH NEIGHBOR. OKAY. [00:25:04] OKAY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE, IF YOU COULD JUST DIRECT ME A BIT, IT SAYS AERIAL SCALED PERGOLA CAD DRAWING. THAT WOULDN'T BE IT. HOLD ON. I'M ASSUMING OUR ENTIRE PACKET WAS, IT WAS GIVEN TO THE, THE MEMBERS. SO YOU MAY HAVE THE, AN AERIAL THAT JUST SHOWS TWO HOUSES ON IT IN YOUR PACKET, UH, THERE WAS AN AERIAL MAP. IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING? NO, IT'S A ZOOM IN ON THAT. JUST THOSE TWO HOUSES. YEAH. SORRY. THERE'S, THESE FILES ARE BIG. MR. ASH? YES. THIS SH THIS SHOWS THE, UH, THE PROPERTY THE SOUTH, UH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS OWNED BY A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF METCALF. UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN, UH, MY CLIENT'S HOUSE AND THE METCALF HOUSE AND THE PERGOLA AND MR. METCALF'S, UH, AWNING AND PATIO, WHICH IS EXTENDS 10 FEET OUT FROM THE FACE OF HIS HOUSE. MR. METCALF'S PROPERTY AND MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. THEY'RE IN THE SAME ZONE CLASSIFICATION WITHIN TARTAN FIELDS. THEY HAVE THE SAME 25 FOOT YARD SETBACK. MR. METCALF HAD APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR A PATIO, AND HE, FOR A 10 FOOT PATIO, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH FOUR FOOT MORE INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK THAN MY CLIENT'S PATIO AND MY CLIENT'S PERGOLA, THAT APPLICATION WAS DENIED. HE WAS TOLD THAT HE CAN ONLY DO A SIX FOOT PATIO, AND HE GOT APPROVED FOR A SIX FOOT PATIO. YOU HAVE THE APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED IN YOUR PACKET. 'CAUSE WE PROVIDED THAT WHAT'S ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED OUT THERE IS A 10 FOOT PATIO WITH A RETRACTABLE AWNING THAT GO, EXTENDS OUT 10 FEET. WE HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP BEFORE WE HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP TO THE CITY STAFF, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME TERMS AND, AND, UH, PROVISIONS THAT BEING APPLIED TO MY PARTICULAR CLIENT. RIGHT NOW, THIS PATIO IS MR. METCAST PATIO AND AWNING IS FOUR FOOT CLOSER TO THE BACK REAR YARD THAN THE MY CLIENT'S PERGOLA. IN HIS PROPOSED APPLICATION, YOU ASK WHY HASN'T THE CITY DONE ANYTHING WITH THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION OR IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE? WELL, THE APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED FOR THE 10 FOOT PATIO WAS FILED WITH THE APPLICANT, JOHN REINER. JOHN REINER IS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN. SO SOMETHING HAS GONE ON ON WHY MR. METCALF HAS NOT BEEN ENFORCED WITH THE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT MY CLIENT IS. WE'VE ASKED THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO, TO RESPOND TO THAT. SO IT'S INTERESTING THAT THAT ONE PARTICULAR APPLICATION AND ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO BE CLOSER TO THE REAR, UM, INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK THAN WHAT MY CLIENT IS. AND THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT, UH, PROVISIONS THAT ARE ON THAT. SO WE, WE THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING, UH, INTERESTING ISSUE THAT'S ON HERE. BUT AS YOU COULD SEE FROM THE SAME AERIAL, WHEN IT COMES TO THE DIFFERENT VIEW SHEDS THAT ARE ON HERE, THE METCALF PATIO AND AWNING [00:30:01] IMPACTS THE VIEW SHEDS MORE THAN MY CLIENT'S PERGOLA DOES. MY CLIENT'S HOUSE SITS FARTHER AWAY FROM THE REAR YARD. BOTH PROPERTIES FACE THE CITY OF DUBLIN OPEN SPACE THAT'S BEHIND HERE. MR. METCALF IS ACTUALLY EXTENDED AND AND PLANTED WITHIN THE CITY'S PROPERTY AND HAS EXTENDED HIS IRRIGATION SYSTEM INTO THE CITY'S PROPERTY BY ABOUT FIVE OR SIX FEET. AGAIN, THE CITY DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT. SO SOMEBODY IS GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT, BEING MR. METCALF AND MY CLIENT IS TRYING TO SIMPLY GET A, A PERGOLA WITH A SIX FOOT ENCROACHMENT THAT DOESN'T IMPACT THE ADJACENT, UH, ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN YOUR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CASE WHERE STAFF HAS SAID THAT WE DIDN'T MEET THE THREE CRITERIA OF CRITERIA. A AS SOMEBODY HAD ASKED, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE 20 22, 20 21? NOTHING HAS CHANGED. PERGO HAS BEEN IN THE SAME LOCATION. THERE'S BEEN NO MODIFICATIONS TO IT, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. SO IN THE 2025 APPLICATION FOR THE THREE CRITERIA, WE DON'T MEET ANY OF THEM IN THE 2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION WHERE STAFF DID THEIR STAFF REPORT SAME CRITERIA, THE DONE THESE CRITERIA HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE, THE 2021. IN THE 2021 STAFF REPORT, WE ACTUALLY MET CRITERIA NUMBER THREE. SO A THREE WHO WE DON'T MEET NOW, WE DID MEET IN 2021. SO IF WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING, WHY IS IT THAT WE MET IT AT ONE TIME, BUT NOW WE DON'T MEET IT? IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE APPLICATION OF THESE CRITERIA CAN BE SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IN AT ONE POINT. IT, YOU MEET IT AND ANOTHER POINT YOU DON'T MEET IT. IS IT BECAUSE WE DID THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND NOW THIS IS BEING VINDICTIVE BACK TO, TO MY CLIENT FOR TRYING TO EXERCISE HIS, HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL RIGHTS. WE DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT, THAT IS A CONCERN. NOW, THE STAFF HAS MADE PROVISIONS AS, AS FAR AS NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF CRITERIA NOT MET, UH, AS TALKED ABOUT THIS AS BEING A, UM, UH, A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT. WELL, THIS ISN'T THE ONLY UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY THAT FOLLOWED THIS SAME STANDARD AND THESE SAME GUIDELINES. OAK PARK UP NEAR TARTAN FIELDS WAS ALSO DONE THE SAME WAY. AND THERE WAS SOMEBODY YOU JUST RECENTLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, YOU WERE MEMBERS OF DOING THIS. 25 DASH 0 3 2. IT'S, UH, 2 7 0 0 7 PINROSE COURT. IT'S A PATIO HOME IN OAK PARK. THE LOT SIZE IS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THIS. AND IN THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE, ALL THREE OF THE CRITERIA, A CRITERION WERE MET. AND IN PARTICULAR, THEY TALK ABOUT THE HOUSE SITS FARTHER BACK INTO THE LOT FOR CRITERIA A ONE, THE HOUSE SITS FARTHER BACK INTO THE LOT, WHICH AFFECTS THE USABLE SPACE THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. WELL, THEY MET THE CRITERIA. STAFF SAID THEY MET THE CRITERIA IN THAT, THAT IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE AND CONFIGURATION, WE DON'T MEET THE SAME CRITERIA. AND IT'S AN EXACT SAME SITUATION. AND IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE THAN OUR PARTICULAR CASE. WE'RE ACTUALLY FARTHER UP. SO WE HAVE MORE, MORE SPACE THAT'S ON THERE. WE HAVE LESS OF AN ENCROACHMENT. THEY WERE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR, I THINK, A, A 10 FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR YARD. WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR THE SIX FOOT. SO THE CRITERIA WAS MET IN THAT ONE, BUT IT'S NOT MET IN OURS. ONE HAS TO ASK, WELL, WHAT, HOW, HOW DOES THE STAFF REALLY APPLY THESE CRITERIA? IF IN ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE WITH ALMOST IDENTICAL SITUATION, YOU'RE SAYING THAT CRITERIA IS MET, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE CRITERIA IS NOT MET. SO WE BELIEVE THAT CRITERIA [00:35:01] A ONE WE DO MEET BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER LOT SIZE AND BECAUSE THE HOUSE SITS ON THE LOT, AND IT TAKES UP A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE BUILDABLE AREA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE OTHER, OTHER CRITERIA, MET PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN THIS, UH, OAK PARK SITUATION. SO IF WE TAKE AND APPLY THOSE CRITERIA IN THE, THE SAME WAY, STAFFED IT IN THERE TO THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, WE WOULD MEET ALL THREE CRITERIA OF, OF ITEM A. AS FAR AS CRITERIA B, WE'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO BE TWO. WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT WE PROBABLY MEET THREE OF THOSE THAT ARE IN THAT VERY SIMILAR TO THE SAME PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THIS, THIS OTHER, UH, OAK PARK DEVELOPMENT, UM, AS FAR AS THE, HOW THOSE CRITERIA ARE, UH, ARE HANDLED. BUT THIS HOUSE, MY CLIENT'S HOUSE SITS 31 FEET BACK FROM THE REAR YARD. IT FACES OUT TO THE OPEN SPACE, JUST LIKE OTHER VARIANCES, THERE WAS ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT WAS, UH, THE ZOBEL RESIDENCE, 25 DASH 0 5 3 V WHERE THE CRITERIA WERE MET BECAUSE THE REAR PROPERTY, THE HOUSE FACED THE OPEN SPACE. AND THAT WAS, UH, A CRITERIA WHERE THE STAFF SAID IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ODORS BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROPERTY THAT'S, THAT THAT DIRECTLY BACKS UP AGAINST THAT. SO WE HAVE THAT SAME SITUATION HERE. IT BACKS UP AGAINST IT. THE, THE ZOBEL RESIDENCE LOT DEPTH WITH A WAS 130 FEET, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN, IN THIS CASE, LOT DEPTH AT 125 FEET. THAT'S ON IT. SO WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT HOW THIS CRI THESE CRITERIA ARE APPLIED IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT CASES, IT SEEMS TO BE ARBITRARY AND IT CHANGES DEPENDING ON WHAT THE APPLICANT OR, OR HOW, HOW IS IT DETERMINED? THE ONE THING IS BOTH OF THESE CASES WERE DONE BY A DIFFERENT PLANNER. SO IS ONE PLANNER, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS PLANNER, BUT IS ONE PLANNER APPLYING THESE DIFFERENTLY THAN ANOTHER PLANNER? OR HOW ARE THEY COMING UP WITH THIS, THESE CRITERIA? SO, LIKE I SAID, WE BELIEVE THAT WE MEET THIS, THE CRITERIA. WE BELIEVE THAT THE, THE VARIANCE, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE DOES NOT IMPACT THE, ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE VIEW SHEDS. UH, IT'S A VERY MINIMAL VARIANCE, UH, REQUEST. UH, IT DOESN'T GRANT MY CLIENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OTHER AR OTHER, UH, APPLICANT OR OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE AREA HAVE. THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE APPROVED PATIOS, PERGOLAS, UH, TRELLIS THAT ARE WAY CLOSER THE REAR YARD THAN OURS. WHETHER OR NOT THEY DID IT BY A VARIANCE, WHETHER THEY DID IT BY APPLICATION, THEY DID IT BY SIMPLY BUILDING IT, UH, LIKE THE METCALF DID. UH, AND THEN THE CITY'S NOT ENFORCING IT. THE REASON WE'RE IN HERE IS BECAUSE MR. METCALF COMPLAINED BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE MY PARTICULAR CLIENT, AND THAT'S WHY THE, THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND THIS, THIS PROBABLY WOULD'VE NEVER BEEN BEFORE THE CITY IF THAT, IF THAT COMPLAINT ACTUALLY HADN'T BEEN BEEN FILED. SO, BUT WE WOULD ASK THAT THE, THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AND GRANT THIS VARIANCE THAT WE DO MEET THE CRITERIA AND YOU START APPLYING THE CRITERIA UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE CITY, UM, AND HOW THAT'S DONE. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD, THERE'S ONE QUESTION HERE, AND IT'S WHETHER THE CRITERIA FOR THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THROUGH THEIR SUBMISSION AND ALSO THROUGH THEIR PRESENTATION. TO THE EXTENT IT, YOU KNOW, EXPANDS ON THAT, THERE ARE SOME EXTRANEOUS, UH, THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL IS BROUGHT UP. BUT IF THOSE DO NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU, THEN THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL TO THE QUESTION YOU'RE HERE TO SOLVE. ADDITIONALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME, UH, COMPARISONS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO TALK WITH THE STAFF ABOUT ANY COMPARABLE THINGS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT HAVE COME UP. AND I INVITE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE DID SHOW THAT THE CRITERIA WERE MET. I READ THE CRITERIA FROM THOSE OTHER CASES. THOSE, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PARTICULAR SITUATION, WE MEET THE SAME CRITERIA. IT'S JUST THAT IN THIS CASE, THE STAFF HAS SAID NO, BUT IN THE OTHER CASES, FOR THE SAME EXACT CONDITIONS, THE STAFF HAS SAID YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO WE WILL MOVE TO, UH, ARE YOU [00:40:01] INCLUDED? CORRECT, YEAH. OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, UH, QUESTIONS. UH, FOR, FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, YEAH, I DON'T WANNA OVERSIMPLIFY, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA, UM, ON THE CRITERIA, A ON NUMBER TWO, UM, IT'S THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT CRITERIA COULD EVER BE MET IN THIS SITUATION, GIVEN THAT YOUR CLIENT INSTALLED THE PERGOLA, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO OBTAINING, YOU KNOW, BUILDING PERMITS OR A VARIANCE. IF YOU TAKE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE ISSUE OF THE PERGOLA BEING BUILT, UM, WITHOUT A PERMIT, WITHOUT APPROVAL. IF YOU TAKE THAT, THAT ISSUE OUTTA THE WAY AND JUST SIMPLY LOOK AT IF WE WERE APPLYING FOR THE, FOR A VARIANCE NOW TO BUILD THE PERGOLA, THEN IF I LOOK AT THE PRIMROSE COURT PATIO WHERE THEY WERE ASKING FOR, FOR PERMISSION TO BUILD INTO THAT, THE CRITERIA IN THAT CASE, STAFF SAID THE EXISTING HOME IN THE LOT OCCUPIES MUCH OF THE BUILDABLE SPACE ON THE SITE, ELIMINATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADEQUATE AND ME MEANINGFUL PATIO SPACE, THUS REQUIRING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FUNCTIONING PATIO THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE SIMPLE PATIO AMENITIES. WELL, IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE, HE HAS A PATIO THAT MEETS THE, THE, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. HE DOESN'T HAVE THE, THE SHADE STRUCTURE, UM, TO PUT OVER THAT, THAT PARTICULAR PATIO. THAT'S WHAT THE PERGOLA DOES. IT PROVIDES THAT FUNCTIONAL, THAT ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONAL PIECE OF THAT PATIO ON THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE. SO IF WE WERE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT BEFOREHAND AND APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE, WOULD STAFF USE THAT SAME CRITERIA THAT WAS MET FOR THIS PARTICULAR PATIO TO SAY IT WAS OKAY, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EXISTING PERGOLA, IS IT NOW THAT THEY'RE USING THAT TO SAY WE DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THEY BUILD IT WITHOUT A PERMIT? UH, IF YOU APPROACH AND, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I'M, I'M DAVID HOPKINS, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, I DO APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. UM, MY ONLY POINT IS THAT WE, WE APP APPLI, WE APPLIED FOR THE VARI, OR WE APPLIED WITH THE HOA AND GOT THE APPROVAL. I THINK THIS IS TO YOUR QUESTION, WHAT, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? WELL, I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. YOU'RE CORRECT. I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO CORRECT IT. WE APPLIED WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A, HAD APPROVAL TO DO THIS PROJECT. UM, WE GOT THE APPROVAL OF THE HOAI SAID, WE ARE GONNA COVER THE PATIO WITH THIS PERGOLA. I GAVE THEM PICTURES OF THE PERGOLA, AND, UH, THEY SENT ME A LETTER THAT SAID IT WAS APPROVED, BE IT NAIVETY, BE IT WHATEVER. THE CONTRACTOR SAID, YES, YOU KNOW, NO PROBLEM. WE CAN DO THIS. WE WENT AHEAD WITH THEIR WORD MISTAKENLY, OBVIOUSLY. UM, IF WE COULD CHANGE IT AND STILL GET UTILIZATION OF IT, WE WOULD CHANGE IT, UH, TO CHANGE IT BACK TO SIX FEET OR FOUR FEET. IT'S, IT'S NOT VERY PRACTICAL AS FAR AS, UH, WE HAVE AN INVESTMENT. THAT'S NOT YOUR PROBLEM. THAT'S OUR PROBLEM. BUT WE, THERE WAS NO INTENT WHEN THIS WHOLE STARTED TO CREATE THIS PROBLEM. ALL WE WANTED WAS A COVERED PATIO. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DISTURB ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, OR MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE NOT DISTURBED. I, MR. METCALF'S SITUATION IS, MR. ME, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO WHAT MR. METCALF DOES. IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME. I DON'T THINK MY PERGOLA BOTHERS ANYBODY ELSE, BUT IF I'M BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY, THEN I WONDER. BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, THAT QUESTION, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING BECAUSE I LITERALLY, OTHER THAN TEARING IT DOWN, THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY ALTERNATIVE. I'M ASKING YOU THE BOARD TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, UNDERSTAND A VARIANCE. [00:45:01] UH, I DON'T THINK IT IMPACTS THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, MOST OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE THINK IT'S, IT'S A, A GOOD THING. UH, BUT THAT, THAT'S TO ANSWER, TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, I GUESS FOR YOUR ATTORNEY, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MENTIONED THE 2021 STAFF REPORT AND THAT THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A VARIANCE APPLIED FOR THEN, BUT IS IT CORRECT, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STAFF REPORT WAS ISSUED AND THEN PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL BZA HEARING ON THAT VARIANCE REQUEST? IT WAS CHANGED INTO AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WAS FILED. THAT VARIANCE APPLICATION STILL WAS OPEN AND REMAINED OPEN, AND THEN THEY, THEY EVENTUALLY CLOSED IT OUT BECAUSE OF THE TIMING AS IT WENT THROUGH THE, THE COURT SYSTEM. BUT THEY ACTUALLY DID THE FULL REPORT. IT WAS, IT WAS READY TO BE PRESENTED TO, TO BZA. AND IN THAT REPORT, AT LEAST A THREE CRITERIA WAS MET AND NOT, THEN THE CRITERIA HAVEN'T CHANGED. THAT SECTION OF THE CODE HASN'T CHANGED. NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE SITE. NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE PERGOLA, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS CHANGED. IT'S EXACTLY THE WAY THAT IT WAS BACK WHEN THE STAFF REPORT WAS DONE IN 2021. SO IF IT MET IT, THEN WHY DOESN'T IT MEET IT NOW? SO I GUESS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, I GUESS, WHAT WAS THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION THOUGH OF THAT 2021 REPORT? WAS IT APPROVAL OR NON-APPROVAL? IT WAS, AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. IT WAS ALSO AS DISAPPROVAL BECAUSE IT SAID THAT A ONE AND A TWO WERE NOT MET. OKAY. AND THEY WOULD SAY, YOU OKAY, YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL THREE. BUT WE MET ONE OUT OF THE THREE BACK THEN IN THAT PARTICULAR TIME. BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO BEEN OTHER CHANGES, AND I START LOOKING AT, AT HOW THESE CASES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF SINCE THEN. AND THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CASE, IN OTHER CASES, THE CRITERIA IS MET, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY'RE SAYING THE CRITERIA IS NOT MET. THAT'S WHERE THE, THE ARBITRARINESS OF HOW THOSE CRITERIA ARE APPLIED TO PARTICULAR CASES IS CONCERNING. DO YOU MIND IF I ADD SOME CLARIFICATION TO THIS? SO I ACTUALLY WORKED ON THAT ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION. IT WAS NOT FI FINALIZED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT WASN'T PRESENTED TO A BOARD. ONCE I STARTED LOOKING AND I WROTE THE REPORT, ONCE I STARTED LOOKING AT THE VARIANCE, WHEN I STARTED, UM, UNDERSTANDING WHAT I THOUGHT THE, MAYBE THE CRI THE UNDERLYING CRITERIA OF THE APPLICANT WAS, I TALKED TO THEM IN ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND WE DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD GO FORWARD WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. THE VARIANCE WAS NOT PRESENTED TO A BOARD. I THAT IS, I WOULD SAY THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT. YOU ACTUALLY ISSUED A FORMAL STAFF REPORT ON THE VARIANCE. IT'S RIGHT HERE. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WAS NOT, IT WASN'T A DRAFT. IT WAS THE ACTUAL FI, IT WAS THE ACTUAL VARIANCE APPLICATION. IT WAS THE ACTUAL REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED REVIEWED. I BELIEVE IT WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN TO THE BZA AT THE TIME. AND THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT, OH, WITH MAYBE THIS IS REALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL ISSUE ON THE OPEN AND UNCOVERED, BUT A STAFF REPORT WAS ACTUALLY PREPARED. IT, IT WAS NOT FINALIZED. I CAN TELL YOU THAT I DOESN'T SAY DRAFT ON IT ANYWHERE. COUNSEL, IF I MAY, UH, AS A REMINDER, THE APPLICANT IN THEIR SUBMISSION AND ALSO THEIR PRESENTATION HERE TODAY, BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY HAVE MET THE CRITERIA. THE STAFF REPORT IS MERELY EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE CITY OF THE CRITERIA THAT YOU ARE DECIDING ON. BUT YOUR DECISION IS THE ONLY DECISION THAT HAS BEARING ON THE QUESTION TODAY. SO THE STAFF REPORTS ARE GUIDANCE AND EXPERT ANALYSIS, BUT THEY ARE NOT DISPOSITIVE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, S SO, UM, THE, UH, THE, THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE NOT BEING, UH, MODIFIED, I DID SEE THAT THERE WAS, AND, AND YOU ADDRESSED THIS EARLIER, THAT, UM, IT WAS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE, UM, SPECIFICALLY, UM, UH, THE, UH, PERGOLAS, UH, AND THAT WAS ADDRESSED ALSO BY THE, UH, COMMON POLICE COURT IN THEIR DECISION. SO THE, UH, CODE SECTION, UH, 1 5 3 0.071, UH, ACTUALLY PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE, UH, GUIDANCE TO US AND, UH, UH, NARROWS DOWN THE, THE DEFINITION. UM, SO THERE WOULDN'T BE THESE, UH, VARYING DEGREES OF, [00:50:01] OF INTERPRETATION AT, AT THIS POINT, AT THIS CURRENT TIME. UM, SO I MEAN, THAT COULD VERY WELL BE A REASON FOR A CHANGE IN THE, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE, THE CITY. BUT AGAIN, AS ADDRESSED BY, UH, OUR CITY COUNCIL, UH, THE, UH, OUR, OUR, UH, ASSISTANT LAW DIRECTOR, UM, IT'S, UH, REALLY GOING TO COME DOWN TO OUR DISCRETION IN MAKING THE DECISION BASED ON OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE, UH, THE CODE AND THE YES, AND, AND THE, THE CHANGE IN THAT PARTICULAR SECTION, ADDING THE PERGOLAS AND STRUCTURE. MM-HMM . PART OF THAT BECAME, 'CAUSE THE LENGTHY DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED HERE BEFORE ON OPEN AND UNCOVERED, AND THERE WAS RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE THERE WAS CONFUSION IN BZA THERE ON THIS, HOW THE, THE PARTICULAR SECTIONS WERE, THEY RECOMMENDED STAFF GO BACK AND LOOK AT VARIOUS DIFFERENT PROVISIONS ON IT. AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THE 2023 CHANGE OCCURRED, TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. THEY DIDN'T CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF IT. THEY DIDN'T ADD DEFINITIONS FOR OPEN AND UNCOVERED, WHICH THEY PROBABLY SHOULD, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT STAFF DEC DECIDED WAS THEIR WAY OF ADDRESSING IT IS WE'LL JUST PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN JUST THAT SECTION THERE. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY SECTION THAT CHANGED OUT OF ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT HAPPENED IN THE, IN THE PRIOR DECISION PIECE. AND TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD COUNSEL, THE APPLICATION FOR THIS VARIANCE IS BASED OFF OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE CODE AND NOTHING ELSE. YEAH, REALLY, MY COMMENTS, UH, SPEAK TO THE, UH, THE SCOPE WITH WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO, UH, TO, TO ACT AND INTERACT. SO, UH, THAT ALSO SPEAKS TO, WELL, I, I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO SAY CON A LITTLE BIT CONTRARY TO THAT IS BECAUSE THIS, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON THEN, AND THIS, THIS PERGOLA HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE, AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT. THE RULES HAVE CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. AND THAT I THINK IS UNFAIR TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICA APPLICANT IS HE'S CONTINUING TO TRY TO, TO RESOLVE A SITUATION THAT WAS BACK IN 2021 AND 2022, THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING PERGOLA. THE RULES CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE 11, AND YOU GO, OKAY, NOW YOU DON'T GET YOUR VARIANCE BECAUSE WE CHANGE THE RULES THAT THIS IS UNIQUE TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS ISN'T UNIQUE TO, OR THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GONNA RUN ACROSS. YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY NOT, NOT ANY ADDITIONAL TIMES HERE, BUT WHEN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THIS PARTICULAR CASE HERE, IS DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, RIGHT? IT WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE RULES CHANGED. AND TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, THE QUESTION BEFORE, COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY IS BASED OFF OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE, UH, THE CODE. AND THAT IS IN PART BECAUSE AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUEST EXPIRED AND A NEW VARIANCE REQUEST WAS RECENTLY SUBMITTED. THAT'S THE CASE YOU HAVE TODAY. AND THE REASON THE OTHER ONE EXPIRED WAS BECAUSE OF THE TIMING THAT WAS GOING THROUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS PROCESS. THE STAFF CLO, THE STAFF CLOSED IT OUT BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME. WELL CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY, UH, CONSIDER THAT. BUT AGAIN, WE ARE BOUND BY THE CASE AS IT'S PRESENTED TODAY AND THE CODE SECTIONS AS THEY ARE, UH, CURRENTLY DRAFTED. UM, SO, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR TO THE, UH, OKAY. UM, UH, I BELIEVE, UH, YOU MAY BE SEATED. UH, WE CAN BEGIN WITH, UM, UH, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MATTER? THERE WAS A PETITION IN YOUR PACKET. UM, ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE IT, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF, IF YOU HAVE ANY. UM, TO THAT END AS, AS WELL, I DO SEE THE, UM, APPLICATION, UM, FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IT DOES SAY THAT IT'S A, UH, IT'S APPLICATION NUMBER 17 DASH 6 2 75 0. UM, UH, THE PROPOSAL SAYS THAT IT'S TO PUT A PATIO SLAB, UH, BUT NOT A PERGOLA. UH, IS THAT ACCURATE? I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE PETITION SAYS, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, WE WILL COMMENCE OUR DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN REMINDED, WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING [00:55:03] BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOW AND THE RULES AS THEY ARE NOW. UM, APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION, THE HISTORY THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED BY STAFF. UM, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE JUSTIFIED TO PASS. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ANYTHING THAT WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? I GUESS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA, A YOU KNOW, I'M STILL, YOU KNOW, I STILL, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE THAT WAS POINTED OUT BETWEEN STAFF THIS TIME AND LAST TIME. I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL THREE CRITERIA, AND I THINK I CAN'T, I CAN'T GET THERE ON, ON THE FIRST TWO. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE LOTS ARE VERY SIMILAR, UM, IN THAT SUBDIVISION AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, I CAN'T FIND THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL CONDITION. AND THEN AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, APPLICANT ACTION BY INSTALLING, UM, A NON-CONFORMING PERGOLA. SO, UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT ON, ON THOSE. YEAH, I GUESS, I MEAN, I OBVIOUSLY WE'RE OUR JOBS JUST TO SEE IF THE CRITERIA ARE MET AND, UM, WE'RE SORT OF BOUND BY BY THOSE. AND I, A COUPLE OF THINGS STICK OUT TO ME FROM, FROM THE PRESENTATION AND, UH, REGARDING CRITERION A TWO. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE GIVEN SOME, APPARENTLY SOME BAD ADVICE FROM YOUR CONTRACTOR, AND THERE WASN'T ANY INTENT TO BREAK OR TO BE NONCOMPLIANT. UM, BUT YET HERE WE ARE, INTENT ISN'T REALLY ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THIS. IT'S JUST WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T, UH, BUILT WITH A PERMIT OR NOT. UM, I MEAN, IT ALSO SAYS, I MEAN, I, I'M NOT TELLING YOU ANYTHING YOU DON'T KNOW. IT SAYS ON THE DRAWINGS, YOU SAID IT REQUIRES HOA AND CITY APPROVAL FOR THINGS, UH, STAMPS RIGHT ON. DOESN'T SAY JUST HOA. UM, SO, AND AS ONE DOES, YOU RELY ON YOUR CONTRACTORS WHEN THEY SAY IT'S ALL GOOD, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT, OR WHATEVER WAS SAID. I CAN SEE WHY YOU WOULD FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE, UM, THAT IT WAS THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE HOMEOWNER, BASICALLY, AND IT WAS BY FOLLOWING THAT ADVICE, YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THIS SITUATION. AND, UH, I CAN'T SEE HOW WE GET AROUND THAT A TWO, UM, CRITERIA, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. I'M ALSO, I GUESS, NOT REALLY CONVINCED THAT THERE'S ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE TYPE THAT WE TYPICALLY C AND IN CASES WHERE IT PASSES THAT WITH YOUR PARTICULAR LOT, UM, IT SEEMS WHILE YOUR HOUSE IS IN A DIFFERENT SPOT ON THE LOT THAN YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND, UM, THAT DOESN'T SEEM MATERIAL, LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE ON THE SAME BOAT AS ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND AGAIN, UM, THE GOAL IS LIKE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THIS. SO IF YOU'RE, THERE'S NO LIKE, TERRAIN ON YOUR BACK PATIO THAT'S CAUSING YOU TO PUT THE PERGOLA WHERE IT IS THAT I CAN SEE. UM, IT'S JUST AN UNFORTUNATE DECISION THAT YOUR CONTRACTOR MADE, AND I CAN'T SEE, UM, HOW EITHER ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET IN, IN A, WHICH IS SORT OF DECIDING FOR ME. OKAY. UM, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT, UH, WE'RE NOT UNSYMPATHETIC TO THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE PLACED IN. IF YOU, UM, WERE ASSURED BY YOUR HOA, UH, BY, UH, THE, UH, SUBCONTRACTOR, THE BUILDING COMPANY THAT, UM, YOU WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH THESE CODES, UM, IT'S, UH, A VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT, UH, IT, THAT WAS NOT ULTIMATELY THE CASE OR THAT, UH, SOME AREA OF DUE DILIGENCE WASN'T PERFORMED, UH, BY THEM, THAT, THAT LED US, UH, TO THIS SITUATION HERE. UM, I'LL, I'LL, UH, STATE THAT WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS HERE. UM, LIKE MOST OF US, MANY OF US ARE HOMEOWNERS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN. UM, SO WE, WE DEFINITELY WOULD BE, UH, VERY SYMPATHETIC [01:00:01] TO, UH, A SITUATION, UH, LIKE YOURS, UH, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. BUT, UH, AGAIN, WE ARE BOUND BY THE CODE. UH, AND FROM WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, IF I'M READING EVERYONE'S, UH, DECISIONS, UH, CORRECTLY, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE AIMING FOR MAYBE A DISAPPROVAL, UM, AT THIS POINT. UH, WE COULD PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE IF YOU'D LIKE. UH, HOWEVER, WE COULD ALSO TABLE THE MATTER AND YOU COULD HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY. UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S, UM, AN APPROACH THAT YOU'D BE LOOKING TO TAKE. UM, BUT, UH, WOULD YOU PREFER US MOVE ON WITH THE VOTE? GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT AND ADDRESS IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, IN THAT CASE, UM, UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO, UH, APPROVE OR I GUESS APPROVE THE NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE? YEAH. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. SECOND. YEAH. UH, MOVE ON. UH, SO THIS WOULD BE, IF YOU WERE APPROVING IT, IT WOULD BE IN THE POSITIVE IF YOU'RE NOT APPROVING IT IN THE NEGATIVE. SO, UH, YOU CONTINUE WITH ALL. THANK YOU. WAIT, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT AGAIN? YES. UH, . SO IT'S, UH, UH, MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SO IF YOU'RE SEEKING TO APPROVAL, YOU WOULD SAY YES. UH, IF YOU ARE, UH, NOT, UH, VOTING FOR APPROVAL, THEN IT WOULD BE A NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. MURPHY? NO. MR. LINVILLE? NO. MS. SNICK? NO. MS. DEANDRO? NO. THANK YOU. UH, UH, THANK YOU FOR TIME THIS EVENING. UM, SO, UH, WE'LL BE MOVING ON TO THE, [Case #25-104V] UH, NEXT CASE AT THIS TIME. UH, THAT IS CASE NUMBER 25 DASH ZERO FOUR V. THAT'S THE GRAM RESIDENCE. IT'S A, UH, UH, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. UH, IT'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, UH, TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS AND A SHED TO ENCROACH INTO A REAR YARD SETBACK. UH, THE 0.52 ACRES SITE IS ZONED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, ALAY R DASH ONE, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED AT 47 89, UH, KERRIGAN RIDGE DRIVE. UM, WE WILL MOVE ON TO, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME. UM, TAMMY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, THE SECOND CASE BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT, AGAIN, IS A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. UM, THIS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT DOES DEAL WITH A REAR YARD SETBACK. IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, WE ARE, UM, ASSESSING A SHED AND RETAINING WALLS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION THAT, UM, ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK. AGAIN, THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE PROCESS THAT I JUST DESCRIBED, BUT ESSENTIALLY, IF APPROVED, THIS APPLICATION WOULD MOVE TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PERMITTING. THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS SLIGHTLY LARGER. IT'S ALMOST A, UM, HALF OF AN ACRE. UM, IT'S LOCATED ON A CUL-DE-SAC, UM, KERRIGAN RIDGE COURT. UM, IT DOES HAVE A SLIGHTLY AWKWARD SHAPE BASED ON THE, UH, FRONTAGE ALONG THAT CUL-DE-SAC. UM, IT DOES BACK UP TO AMBERLEY PARK. YOU CAN SEE THE SCIOTO RIVER, UM, JUST EAST OF THE SITE. UM, THAT DOES DICTATE SOME CONTOUR, UH, CHANGES ON THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND IT IS OWNED A-P-U-D-A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, CALLED AMBERLEY. UM, SOME EXISTING PHOTOS OF THE SITE. AGAIN, WE TRY TO GIVE SOME VIEW SHEDS, UM, WHERE WE THINK THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN BEST, UM, BENEFIT FROM THOSE VIEW SHEDS. UM, AND THIS BEING TOWARDS THE REAR, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE, TO THE FARTHEST RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY. IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION, THE, I'LL DESCRIBE WHAT'S AROUND THE SITE BEFORE I DESCRIBE WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING. BUT IF YOU SEE A SHADED AREA ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY, THAT'S ACTUALLY A NO BUILD ZONE THAT THEY'RE NOT ENCROACHING INTO, BUT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD SHALL TALK ABOUT. UM, THE ACTIVITY THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF IS DISSECTED WITH A RED LINE, WHICH IS A SETBACK, UM, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THE GRAY-ISH AREA IS A PATIO THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE BUILDING. THAT PATIO IS NOT BEYOND THE SETBACK, SO THAT'S A LEGAL PATIO. UM, [01:05:01] THE PROPOSED SHED DOES ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK, AND THERE ARE RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THAT CONSTRUCTION THAT EQUALLY, UM, EXTEND INTO THE SETBACK. UM, FROM THIS PARTICULAR, UM, SITE, JUST GENERALLY DESCRIBING THE SITE, THE HOUSE IS LOCATED IN THE, THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE SITE AND ALL THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING TO THE REAR. I HAD MADE A CONTOUR MAP, UM, OF THE EXISTING SITE. WE TYPICALLY WOULDN'T SEE CONTOURS OF THIS MAGNITUDE, BUT THESE ARE ONE FOOT CONTOURS AS YOU'RE MOVING EACH ONE OF THOSE LINES AS A ONE FOOT CONTOUR CHANGE. AND IF YOU MEASURE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROPERTY TO THE, UH, FAR END OF THE PROPERTY, THE EASTERN, UM, PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S ABOUT A 24 FOOT, UM, DESCENT. UM, IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, WE LOOKED AGAIN ABOUT PARTICULAR, UM, ELEMENTS ABOUT THE PROPERTIES. UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS, UM, SITE IS, UM, TYPICAL OF A SUBURBAN LOT. IT HAS AMPLE SPACE IN THE REAR, UH, FOR OUTDOOR SPACE. AGAIN, I DID MENTION THE CONTOUR CHANGES, BUT WE'RE NOT EQUATING THE CONTOUR CHANGES TO THE, UM, CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. UH, THE APPLICANT'S, WE'VE SPOKEN TO THE APPLICANT'S AGENTS AND TALKED ABOUT, UM, ACTION OR INACTION OF THIS PARTICULAR, UH, REQUEST. THIS REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH THEIR DESIGN TEAM TO, UM, PLACE THE ELEMENTS, UH, WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. UM, IN TERMS OF GRANTING, UM, OR INTENDING ANY TYPE OF INTENT OR, OR, UM, ILL PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT, WE ARE STATING THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR THIS, UH, PREFERRED DESIGN ELEMENTS WOULD PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL, UH, REMEDIES FOR THE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS IMPAIR THE INTENT OF THE CODE, WHICH THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO MEET THE REAR YARD SETBACK. AND BEFORE I MOVE ON, SO THERE'S AGAIN, THREE CRITERIA. ALL THREE NEED TO BE MET. WE TRANSITION TO CRITERIA B, TWO OF THE FOUR ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT TWO OF THE FOUR HAVE BEEN MET. UM, IT'S, WE'VE DRAWN ATTENTION TO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND OTHER METHODS, UM, PROVIDED FOR THE APPLICANT. IN TERMS OF OTHER METHODS, WE'VE TALKED TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT POTENTIALLY, UH, RELOCATING PRIMARILY THE SHED OUT OF THE, UM, REAR PROPERTY SETBACK. WE STILL, THAT WOULD STILL INFLUENCE THE RETAINING WALL, SO WE MAY HAVE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO, UM, ACQUIRE MORE DETAILS FOR, FOR THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE SUBMISSION. BUT BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THOSE TWO CRITERIA, WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL, THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. UM, WE BELIEVE THAT CRITERIA A, NONE OF THE THREE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ELEVATION MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU SAID THEY'RE, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE TWO FOOT LINE, I THINK YOU SAID EACH LINE'S ONE FOOT AND DROP, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT THAT THIS IS MAYBE MATERIAL OR NOT, BUT YEAH, JUST TO MAKE THE RECORD, UM, ON THAT ELEVATION MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE EVERY LINE'S TWO FEET, NOT ONE FEET. I'M TRYING TO SEE, MY, MINE IS VERY, UM, BLURRY. I THOUGHT, HOLD ON FOR A SECOND. IS IT, HOLD ON. YOU ARE CORRECT. THOSE ARE TWO FOOT CONTOURS. I THINK OUR GIS SYSTEM USES ONE, BUT THAT IS TWO FOOT. OKAY. I STAND CORRECTED. AND, UH, SO WE'RE CLEAR. THERE ARE TWO STRUCTURES THAT WE ARE, UH, BEING LOOKED TO REVIEW. IT'S THE MM-HMM . OKAY. SO YES, THERE'S A PROPOSED SHED AND RETAINING WALLS. OKAY. AND, UH, WOULD WE BE VOTING ON THOSE SEPARATELY? ON THIS, ON THIS MATTER? OH, I'M SORRY. UH, WOULD THAT, THOSE REQUIRED SEPARATE VOTES, WOULD, UH, UH, VIOLATION OF ONE, UH, STRUCTURE, IF, IF ONE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN VIOLATION, WOULD IT, UH, ENTAIL A VIOLATION OF THE OTHER? YES, YOU COULD VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY IF YOU WISH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO GIVE ANY MORE GUIDANCE FOR, UH, THE BOARD? PLEASE VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY SO WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH, IF ANY, ARE APPROVED OR DENIED. YES, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR, BUT YES, THANK YOU. UH, YES, CONTINUE. SO ALSO, JUST CONTINUING ON THAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT. SO YOU'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT [01:10:01] ON, OR STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT ON OTHER LOCATIONS FOR THE SHED, BUT YOU SAID, UM, THERE MIGHT STILL NEED TO BE, EXCUSE ME, WORK DONE ON THE RETAINING WALL TO FIND A DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR THAT SO THAT IT DOESN'T ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, WHAT I'M, YES, I WOULD, WE WOULD BENEFIT FROM MORE CONVERSATIONS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M SAYING, BECAUSE THE RETAINING WALLS HAVE A FUNCTIONALITY TO THEM. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLACED MOST LIKELY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WHEREVER THE, THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OCCURS. SO IF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MOVES, THE RETAINING WALLS MAY AS WELL. BUT I WANNA DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR EXPERTISE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OR STAFF? OKAY. NO. OKAY. . OKAY. UH, WELL AT THIS TIME, UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT, UH, PLEASE APPROACH, UM, MAKE SURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON, THE GREEN LIGHT WOULD INDICATE THAT, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. TYLER GRAHAM, 4 7 8 9 KERRIGAN RIDGE COURT. THANK YOU. NAME'S JEFF HAUSLER. UH, I WORK FOR, FOR, UH, HITTING CREEK LANDSCAPING. DO YOU WANT THEIR ADDRESS? UH, YEAH, THE BUSINESS ADDRESS WOULD BE FINE. SURE. ALL RIGHT. 3 9 4 ZEROS DARBY CREEK ROAD IN HILLIARD, OHIO. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED. I DON'T HAVE ANY GRANDIOSE OPENING STATEMENT OR ANYTHING. I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GET INTO THE CRITERIA, AND HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU'D LIKE. UM, I DID WANNA STATE, UH, FIRST I THINK MI MS. NOBLE, WHEN WE SPOKE LAST WEEK, YOU TOLD ME THAT THIS VARIANCE WAS ONLY FOR THE SHED, NOT THE RETAINING WALLS, BECAUSE THE RETAINING WALLS WERE FUNCTIONAL. DID THAT CHANGE AT SOME POINT? NO, I JUST, I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR A MOMENT. SO, THE RETAINING WALLS WE DID, WE ARE HAVING, OR WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT IF THOSE RETAINING WALLS ARE, HAVE A FUNCTIONALITY TO THEM, WOULD WE APPLY A SETBACK? AND WE SIMPLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR. BUT THAT IS A QUESTION THAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH OUR STAFF FURTHER. OKAY. UM, TO CONCLUDE THAT CONVERSATION. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY 'CAUSE I WASN'T PREPARED FOR THAT TO BE PART OF IT. UM, BUT STARTING WITH CRITERIA, OBVIOUSLY IN CRITERIA B. PARDON? YEAH, I APOLOGIZE TO INTERRUPT YOU, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR. YOU'VE ASKED ONLY FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SHED TONIGHT, CORRECT? THAT WAS, I, I I THINK IT, I MEAN, DO WE APPLY FOR, I THOUGHT THE RETAINING WALLS WAS APPROVED. THE RETAINING WALL HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED YET, BUT, SO, OKAY. SO I THINK WHAT WE APPLIED FOR BOTH, AND THEN WHEN I TALKED TO MRS. NOBLE LAST WEEK, SHE CONFIRMED THAT THE RETAINING WALLS WERE FUNCTIONAL. SO I THOUGHT THIS WAS JUST ABOUT THE BUILDING. UM, BUT NOW I'M FINDING OUT, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE STILL DEBATING IF IT IS OR NOT. SO I GUESS WE'RE GOING FOR BOTH. YOU HAVE THE OPTION HERE TO CLARIFY IF YOU'D LIKE THE BOARD TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER ON ONE OR BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. IF YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE ONLY THE SHED, JUST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR A DECISION ONLY ON THE SHED TONIGHT. IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION TO YOUR QUESTION, UH, IF THEY ARE STILL DEBATING WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS FUNCTIONAL, IT WILL BE APPROVED, HOW WOULD THEIR DECISION AFFECT IF THEY ARE GOING TO SAY IT'S FUNCTIONAL AND IS APPROVED BEFORE A VARIANCE IS EVEN NEEDED? SO I MIGHT BE, YEAH. I MIGHT BE PROVIDING, I MIGHT BE CLOUDING THIS CONVERSATION MORE THAN NECESSARY. OKAY. WHAT I'M SAYING, THE, THE SHED. ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A STRUCTURE IN A SETBACK. OKAY. WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE RETAINING WALLS THAT THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE NOT, OR AT LEAST A ELEMENT THAT WE'VE NOT HAD BEFORE THIS BOARD, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT IN MOST INSTANCES, RETAINING WALLS ARE GOING TO HAVE A STRUCTURAL COMPONENT. WE ADDED IT TO THIS APPLICATION. GOT IT. 'CAUSE IF YOU JUST GET THE SHED AND YOU DIDN'T APPLY FOR THE RETAINING WALLS, THE RETAINING WALLS WOULD HAVE TO BE OUTTA THE SETBACK. SO WE CONCLUDED THAT BOTH OF THEM WOULD BE PRESENTED. OKAY. THE, IN THAT CASE, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO FOR BOTH TONIGHT. YEAH. SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. I JUST WAS THROWN OFF A BIT. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. OKAY. SO IN CRITERIA B, WE, WE MET TWO OF THE FOUR. SO I THINK CRITERIA IS A REALLY ALL WE WANNA DISCUSS. FOR THE FIRST ONE, UH, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS WITH PECULIAR LAND. IF, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE SITE, GREAT. AGAIN, UM, THERE ARE TWO REALLY THINGS THAT I THINK MAKE OUR PROPERTY PECULIAR. AND IT'S THE TOPOGRAPHY, UH, THE, THE GRADE IS EXTREMELY STEEP. AND THEN THE ANGLE OF THE HOUSE. SO WHILE 0.5, TWO ACRES DOES SEEM LIKE A LOT OF LAND, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACK, A, UH, MOST OF IT IS UNUSABLE WITH THE, WITH THE GRADE DOWN TO THE, TO THE RIVER. AND THEN THE OTHER HALF THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHERE COULD WE PUT THE SHED. UM, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN NUMBER THREE FOR CRITERIA A REALLY PUT IT IN A SPOT THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET [01:15:01] AND THE ONE AND ONLY NEIGHBOR, UH, HERE TO THE SOUTH TO BE ABLE TO, TO VISIBLY SEE THE SHED. SO I THINK WHY WE SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR NUMBER ONE IN, IN SCENARIO A IS REALLY BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE ANGLE. IF YOU COULD GO BACK ONE MORE JUST, SORRY. THE ANGLE OF OUR HOUSE AND THE, AND THE, UH, NEIGHBOR BEHIND US, WHERE A LOT OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT WE DO HAVE FOR A A, A BACKYARD WE'RE TRYING TO SET UP IS, IS REALLY BEHIND OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID, IS TO NOT BE COMPLIANT IN NUMBER THREE. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT AS AESTHETICALLY, UH, UH, APPRO, UH, AESTHETICALLY APPROVAL FOR THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ONE AND ONLY NEIGHBOR THAT CAN REALLY SEE THE, THE BACKYARD. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. UM, OBVIOUSLY I HAVE OUR DESIGNER HERE WHO TOOK ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION FOR WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHERE ELSE CAN WE LOCATE THE SHED AND WHERE IS PRACTICAL. AND IT REALLY IS WHERE IT IS NOW TO BE ABLE TO BE FOUNDATIONALLY SOUND WITH THE, THE TOPOGRAPHY, OR IT'S DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PLEAD FOR AESTHETICALLY A NICE BACKYARD OR ANYTHING. 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE COMMITTEE'S ISSUE, BUT REALLY PUTTING IT IN THAT SPOT, IT WOULD BE. AND I HAVE A PICTURE I TOOK THIS MORNING WHEN I TOOK MY DAUGHTER TO THE BUS STOP. YOU'D BE ABLE TO SEE THE SHED FROM THE STREET AND FROM THE ONE AND ONLY NEIGHBOR WHO, UH, WHO CAN SEE OUR BACKYARD. SO I THINK NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER THREE ARE LINKED, FRANKLY, BECAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU GO TO NUMBER THREE, UH, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE PROPERTY. I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE TRIED TO COMPLY WITH. UH, WE DO HAVE A, UH, AND I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT SUBMIT IT TO YOU SO THE COMMITTEE COULD HAVE IT, BUT I DO HAVE AN EMAIL APPROVAL FROM MY NEIGHBOR. SO THE, THE ONE AND ONLY NEIGHBOR, THE MI HANDS, UH, ARE REALLY EXCITED FOR THIS, THIS PROJECT FOR US. AND HE HAD GIVEN ME A HANDWRITTEN NOTE OR AN EMAIL, UM, STATING HIS APPROVAL FOR THIS. UH, THE, THE LOT, THE WAY WE FACE THE RIVER, WE ONLY HAVE HIM AS THE, THE NEIGHBOR, UM, THAT HAS ANY VISIBILITY INTO OUR HOUSE. AND WE FEEL THAT WE, WE TUCK THE SHED IN THE SPOT WHERE IT'S, UH, LEAST OBTRUSIVE TO HIM OR REALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE DO HAVE HOA APPROVAL AS WELL. UM, SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER THREE, SHOULD I GO TO NUMBER TWO OR DO YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS? I DON'T WANT TO JUST BE UP HERE TALKING. UH, IF WE NEED CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, UM, THE BOARD MAY, UH, BRING THEM UP AS, AS NEEDED. UH, MOST OF OUR QUESTIONS WILL PROBABLY COME AT THE END. OKAY. UM, UNLESS, OKAY. YES, PLEASE CONTINUE. OKAY. UM, IN, IN CRITERIA TWO, , I SAID ONE AND THREE WE'RE LINKED, BUT I, I, I THINK MAYBE I SKIPPED OVER WHERE, UH, WHERE THE CITY SAID, WHERE OTHER OPTIONS APPEAR TO BE FEASIBLE. SO AGAIN, WE HIRED A VERY REPUTABLE COMPANY TO COME IN AND LOOK AT NOT ONLY WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT WE HAVE IN OUR HOUSE OR IN OUR LAND, RATHER, BUT ALSO WHAT'S GOING TO, UH, NOT, NOT STICK OUT LIKE SORE THUMB. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DID, UM, WITH THE PLACEMENT OF THIS. UH, SO AGAIN, I THINK THE COMBINATION OF HOA APPROVAL, UH, I'M SORRY, LEMME START FROM THE BEGINNING. THE NUMBER ONE THING IS THE, THE LOT ITSELF AND THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE, THE, THE SEVERE SLOPE, THE ANGLE OF OUR HOUSE POSITIONS IN A WAY WHERE A LOT OF THE USABLE SPACE WOULD BE DIRECTLY BEHIND OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. SO WE FEEL WE PUT THE SHED IN THE RIGHT SPOT. AND THEN AGAIN, IF, IF WE HAVE TO, UH, CHANGE THE SHED, UM, OF COURSE IT WOULD BE IN A SPOT THAT'D BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET VISIBLE TO OUR NEIGHBOR, UM, WHICH WOULD, UH, MAKE US NOT, IT MIGHT MAKE US CRI UH, UH, MEET THE CRITERIA OF A SETBACK, BUT I THINK MAYBE MOST WOULD AGREE IT WOULDN'T MEET A COUPLE OF THE CRITERIA BASED OFF OF, UM, FEASIBILITY AND, UH, ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO I THINK THAT'S, UH, DO YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING, JEFF? OR NO. YOU, UM, SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IT. WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS AND THEN IF ANYTHING ELSE COMES TO ME, IF YOU, UH, MAYBE I'LL ADD OKAY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. WHAT DO YOU NEED TO SHED FOR THERE? SO, TO ME, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE IF YOU HAVE A PATIO, I DON'T USUALLY SEE A SHED ATTACHED TO A PATIO PERSONALLY. YEAH. SO I HAVE TWO YOUNG KIDS, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, UH, A SWING IN THE FRONT YARD. 'CAUSE AGAIN, THE, JUST TO ADD TO NUMBER ONE, AND I PROMISE I'LL GET TO YOUR QUESTION, UM, UNTIL MY DAUGHTERS WERE ABOUT THREE AND A HALF, THEY COULDN'T WALK IN THE BACKYARD. THEY WOULD FALL OVER. IT WAS THAT STEEP. UM, BUT, BUT , IF ANY OF YOU HAVE KIDS, THEY HAVE A LOT OF THINGS. THEY, TOO HAVE CARS AND TOYS, AND WE, UH, ARE VERY MUCH OUTDOORSY PEOPLE. SO WE, WE WANT TO BE OUTDOOR [01:20:01] OUTDOORS, AND WE WANT TO HAVE PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS. WE LIVE RIGHT ON THE RIVER. SO WE, WE HAVE ANIMALS. WE'VE HAD SKUNK SKUNKS, COZY UP TO OUR FOUNDATION. WE'VE HAD, UH, A LOT OF DIFFERENT WILDLIFE. SO WE WANNA HAVE OUR STUFF PROTECTED. OKAY. THANKS. UM, I MEAN OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. UM, AND YOU SAID THE ONLY, I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS HERE. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, BOTH ISSUES. CORRECT. THE RETAINING WALLS, THE DE WHICH I ASSUME ARE THERE BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN OF THE PATIO. ARE, ARE YOU, TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE LAND BACK THERE. I SEE THE ELEVATION MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE CITY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS TO LIKE RECLAIM OR GET MORE YARD USAGE. YOU SAID IT'S VERY STEEP OR WHATEVER. TELL, TELL ME A LITTLE MORE ABOUT YEAH. WHAT THE, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE WALLS ARE AND WHY THIS DESIGNED THIS WAY. YEAH. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO THE PICTURES, THE, OF OUR BACKYARD THEMSELVES? SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY TO MAKE IT A USABLE BACKYARD. SO I DON'T EVEN THINK THESE PICTURES QUITE DO IT JUSTICE, BUT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S SO STEEP THAT IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR YOUNG CHILDREN TO WALK AROUND. SO WE DON'T HAVE A BACKYARD, REALLY. IT'S JUST ME MOWING IT AND TRYING TO KEEP THE WEEDS AWAY. UM, SO RIGHT OFF THE JUMP, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I SHOULD SAY THIS OR NOT, I BOUGHT THE HOUSE THIS WAY. THOSE STAIRS ARE ATROCIOUS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO FIX. UM, IT'S A, IT IS LIKE A FOOT, FOOT, UH, GAP, UH, FROM THE, FROM THOSE ROCKS TO THE STEPS. SO WE DON'T EVEN REALLY LET OUR DAUGHTERS GO DOWN, UH, THAT, THOSE STEPS AT ALL. SO THOSE WILL BE FIXED AS A PART OF THE DESIGN. AND REALLY IT'S, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE RIGHT HAND, UH, SIDE PICTURE, THE RETAINING WALLS ARE, ARE PROBABLY, I, I'M NOT GONNA BE EXACT HERE, BUT LET'S SAY 10 FEET DOWN FROM THAT GRASS AREA TO MAKE IT SO THAT FROM THE, UH, DOOR ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND THE RETAINING WALL IS USABLE FLAT SPACE. AND IT'S REALLY JUST FOR THE NEXT 13 TO 15 YEARS UNTIL MY GIRLS GO TO COLLEGE. IT'S JUST SO WE CAN HAVE AN OUTDOOR SPACE TO PLAY. REALLY, IT'S THAT, THAT'S THE, THE, SO THE RETAINING WALLS ARE JUST TO FLAT OUT AN AREA THAT'S NOT USABLE TODAY. AND THE, THE SHED IS FOR ALL OF THE STUFF THAT WE'LL, YOU KNOW, GET INTO IT. SO THE PURPOSE IS TO ESSENTIALLY LEVEL THE BACKYARD. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. YOU SAID IT A LOT SIMPLER THAN I DID. . OKAY. I SYMPATHIZE. I LIVE ON THAT SAME SIDE OF THE RIVER, SO I UNDERSTAND THE GRADING AND, YOU KNOW, THIS LOOKS MORE EXTREME THAN SOME I'VE SEEN. I GUESS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT IS, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL UP, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE THE PLANS THAT WERE PUT TOGETHER BY HIDDEN CREEK LANDSCAPING THAT WAS SUBMITTED. IF YOU CAN PULL THAT UP, WE CAN HANDLE THIS ONE OF TWO WAYS. I CAN PULL UP ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY PROVIDED FOR THEIR APPLICATION, OR IF YOU DESCRIBE THE DOCUMENT, I CAN PULL THAT UP. EITHER WAY IS COMPLETELY FINE. OKAY. UM, IT'S THE PAGE APPLICANT IS PAGE THREE OF THE PLANS THAT THEY START WITH GRAHAM RESIDENTS AT THE TOP, AND THEN IT SAYS L TWO IS IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER. OKAY. DOES THAT LOOK TO BE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? CAN, YEAH. COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE IN THIS DOCUMENT THOUGH? THAT ONE? YEAH. UM, SO I GUESS WHAT I, MY QUESTION WOULD BE HERE IS, I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING THAT YOU DON'T WANNA PUT THE SHED ON THE, UM, I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE SOUTH PORTION, BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT KIND OF IN YOUR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD, SORT OF. BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE SHED, UM, LIKE TO THE NORTH THERE IN LIKE CLOSER TO THAT 15 FOOT NO BUILD ZONE? YEAH. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DESIRED. UH, BUT THAT PART OF THE HOUSE, SO AGAIN, SO IF YOU TAKE THE WISH, I HAD A LASER POINTER, UM, WHERE THE PATIO STARTS ON THE, OR MAYBE WHERE THE RETAINING WALL STARTS RIGHT THERE TO THE LEFT OF THE SHED, THAT IS ALL STEEP FALL OFF THAT, THAT'S NOT EVEN YARD, IT'S JUST ROCKS AND SEAT FALL OFF. SO I THINK FROM THE, THE, UM, DESIGN STANDPOINT, AND YOU CAN SPEAK IF YOU, IF YOU WANT, IT'S, IT WOULD BE NOT PRACTICAL TO PUT IT THERE. SO WHEN WE TALK TO MRS. NOBLE, THE ONLY OTHER SPOT ABOVE THE SETBACK IS WHERE IT CAN BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YEAH, IF YOU DON'T MIND IF I ADD [01:25:01] TO, IF YOU GO TO PAGE L ONE ON, UH, THERE'S A PHOTO OF THAT SPECIFIC AREA, AND MY INTENT WITH THE, THE OVERALL DESIGN WAS TO, UH, BE AS LITTLE AS LESS AS INTRUSIVE TO THE SURROUNDING WOODLANDS AS I COULD. UM, SO NOT ONLY, UH, AS MY CLIENT WAS SAYING, THAT PORTION OF THE BACKYARD IS SIGNIFICANTLY STEEPER. WE'D ALSO HAVE TO REMOVE A VERY MATURE TREE AND AS WELL AS SOME OTHER TREES AS WELL. WHEREAS WHERE I PLACED IT CURRENTLY, THAT BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER, UH, IMAGE, IT WOULD BE IN THAT ALREADY KIND OF CLEARED AREA, UM, RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, UM, TEARING DOWN WOODLAND. THANK YOU. YEAH. I GUESS, UM, STICKING WITH DESIGN QUESTIONS HERE. SO YOU SAID THE STAIRS, YOU COULD, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THOSE PICTURES UP, THEY MIGHT HELP WITH MY QUESTION. THESE STAIRS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE, ARE THEY GONE IN THIS NEW DESIGN, OR COULD YOU, ARE THEY, THEY'RE NOT REALLY SHOWN ON THIS MAP THAT I CAN SEE. COULD YOU ZOOM IN ON THE DESIGN? SO, SO THEY, THOSE WILL BE GONE. NEW STAIRS WILL BE THERE, AND BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED, UH, RETAINING WALL, THERE WILL ONLY BE, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN ON THE, THE, THE BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE OF THE REAL PICTURE OR THAT ONE'S, YEAH, THAT ONE'S FINE. SO THE STAIRS WILL BE RIGHT THERE. THERE'S 1, 2, 3, 4, LET'S SAY LIKE EIGHT OR NINE STEPS, AND THEN A FALL OFF. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED WOULD MOVE IT UP. THERE WOULD ONLY BE THREE STEPS OFF OF THAT BACK DECK. AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BACK ENTRY TO OUR HOME. SO ANOTHER REASON WHY WE CAN'T REALLY SLIDE THE SHED OVER THAT WAY TO BLOCK THE ENTRY TO OUR HOME. UM, BUT YEAH, THERE, THERE WOULD BE NEW STEPS THERE. THOSE, THOSE WOULD BE GONE. AND BY THE WAY, I, I THINK THIS IS, UH, WAS STATED, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. UM, I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THE RETAINING WALLS WERE THERE OR NOT, BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. THIS IS ALL, SO THIS IS GOING TO RAISE THE GRADE. AND AGAIN, LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE IN THE MIDDLE YEAH, THE MIDDLE, IN THE MIDDLE THERE UP TO WHERE THERE'S ONLY UP TO THAT, ESSENTIALLY UP TO THAT. UM, LIKE WHERE THE TOP OF THE STAIRS ARE, THREE STEPS DOWN. SO THERE'LL BE THREE STEPS DOWN THERE INTO THE YARD AND THEN INTO THE PATIO. OVER TO THE PATIO PATIO, CORRECT. IS THE RE THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL IS, UH, JUST ABOVE EIGHT FEET TALL. OKAY, GOTCHA. AND THAT'S GONNA GO WELL, KIND ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE STANDING LOOKING IF WE TOOK THIS PICTURE OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? YEAH, RIGHT, RIGHT AROUND THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, UH, I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS SORT OF TO PAINT A PICTURE OF THE, UH, WHOLE PROCESS ITSELF, YOU WOULD PUT THE RETAINING WALLS IN, UH, ASSUMING YOU WOULD BE APPROVED, UH, AND THEN WOULD YOU BACKFILL IT WITH, UH, SOME MATERIAL TO FLATTEN IT? AND THEN COULD YOU POTENTIALLY AT THAT POINT REVISE THESE DECISIONS AND LOOK FOR MAYBE A COMPLIANT AREA WHERE WITHIN THAT AREA WHERE THE SHED COULD BE CONSTRUCTED? SO WE WOULD HAVE TO, UH, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A SEPARATE CONTRACTOR THAT WOULD BE BUILDING THE SHED ITSELF. MM-HMM . UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONSTRUCT THAT PORTION, FIRST PART OF THE FOUNDATION FOR THAT, UH, ELEVATED SHED. MM-HMM . WOULD, UH, BE PART OF THAT RETAINING WALL, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, THE FRONT, TO CLARIFY THE FRONT, FRONT PORTION MM-HMM . OF THE SHED CLOSEST, I GUESS YOU WOULD, UH, CLOSEST TO THE HOUSE, UM, TIES INTO THAT RETAINING WALL. MM-HMM. UH, AND, AND ACTS AS RETAINING AS WELL AS THE, UH, IT'LL BE A UNILOCK ENGINEERED STONE RETAINING WALL. OKAY. SO, SO THE ORDER WAS GOING TO BE SHED ELEVATED WITH THE UNILOCK WALL AND THEN THE, THE WALL, UM, TOUCHING IT OKAY. BEING BUILT INTO IT. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. THE SHED, SO THE SHED ITSELF HAS A FOUNDATION ESSENTIALLY THAT IS A RETAINING STRUCTURE AS WELL? CORRECT. THAT ALSO, SO THAT BOUNDARY ON THIS DRAWING IS ALL WALL ESSENTIALLY [01:30:01] THE BACK OF IT? YES. OKAY. NOT JUST THOSE, NOT JUST THE, NOT JUST THE, JUST THE PART OF THE WALLS THAT GOES INTO THE SETBACK FARTHER TO THE SOUTH THERE EAST. YES. GOTCHA. OKAY. WHERE IS IT THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED FOR THE SHED TO GO, OR HAD YOU ACTUALLY SPECIFIED WHERE, WHERE IT MIGHT BE PLACED? WE JUST TALKED ABOUT OPTIONS. WE TRY NOT TO DESIGN THE SITE, BUT JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT OTHER, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE MM-HMM . SO WE UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THEN TALK THROUGH IF THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE THAT PICTURE? SO THE, UH, STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE SHED SOUNDS LIKE IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE RETAINING WALL, SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CORRECT. OKAY. YEP. SORT OF DIFFICULT TO, UM, UH, DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ONE ANOTHER. UM, SO IF SEEING HOW WE'VE, UH, SORT OF BIFURCATED THE, UH, UH, MATTERS HERE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, IF WE WERE TO, UH, DISAPPROVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHED, UH, WOULD YOU HAVE TO, UH, MODIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALL, UH, THE, THE PLANS FOR THAT? AND, UH, WOULD THAT ENTAIL, UH, HOW BURDENSOME WOULD THAT BE? OR HOW, UH, WOULD THAT MODIFY YOUR PLANS TO A, UH, UH, TO A, UH, LIKE INFEASIBLE DEGREE? YES. THE, THE, THE PLANS WOULD CHANGE. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ASKING LIKE MONETARILY WHAT WOULD IT WOULD CHANGE, BUT IT WOULD, UH, MORE OF THE LOGISTICS, THE THE ACTUAL BOTH LOGISTICS AND COST WOULD CHANGE? YEAH. WITH, WITH, WITH THE, UM, WITH WHAT YOU OUTLINE. OKAY. SO THE, UH, UH, MATERIAL COSTS WOULD, WOULD LIKELY, UH, WELL CHANGE BASED ON THE PLAN AND, UH, STILL LOOK FOR A LOCATION FOR THE, FOR THE SHED, CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. OKAY. SO HERE'S THE, SORRY, I KNOW YOU GUYS CAN KEEP GOING WITH QUESTIONS. HERE'S THE PICTURE I TOOK THIS MORNING, AND IT'S SO FAR, SO I COULD PASS IT AROUND. I'M SORRY. BUT IF YOU CAN SEE OUR ANGLE, AND YOU CAN EVEN SEE IT HERE, OUR, OUR HOUSE, THE FRONT DOOR THERE IS ON AN ANGLE ITSELF, RIGHT? AND SO THE, THE, THE HOUSE POINTS TO THE BACK RIGHT CORNER OF LIKE THIS DOCUMENT. AND SO HERE'S THE LITTLE GAP YOU HAVE AS PEOPLE WALK, WALK THEIR DOGS HERE ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SHED. IF WE WERE TO PLACE IT IN THE, IN, WITHIN THE SETBACK RULES THERE, KIND OF IN THE LAWN SPACE, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE NOTICEABLE FROM, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT WOULD MAKE IT, UH, NON-COMPLIANT TO NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER TWO, UH, OPTIONS APPEAR TO BE FEASIBLE. UM, AGAIN, UH, ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT MOVING IT UP TO THE LEFT, WHICH ISN'T FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF THE GRADE. AND THEN AGAIN, DEFINITELY, UH, COULD BE FEASIBLE RIGHT IN THERE, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD CONTRADICT, UH, SEEING IT FROM THE ONE NEIGHBOR AND THE STREET VIEW. SO JUST TO CON GO LOOP BACK TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, IF IT WAS MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PATIO AND YOU COULD SEE IT FROM THE STREET, THAT WOULD MAKE IT NON-COMPLIANT THEN AS WELL. WOULD YOU NEED A VARIANCE? BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE IT FROM THE STREET? I'M NO EXPERT, BUT NO, IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SETBACK. SO YEAH. I, I THINK THAT IT WOULD GET APPROVED, BUT ANYBODY ELSE HERE CAN COMMENT ON THAT. BUT THAT'S, I GUESS THAT'S MY POINT IS IT COULD GET APPROVED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WITHIN OUR SETBACK RULES, BUT IT WOULD BE UGLY FOR EVERYBODY. . OKAY. BUT RIGHT. WE'RE TRYING TO, WOULD NEED OUR APPROVAL. CORRECT. IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY. RIGHT, RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE, CAN HE SUBMIT THOSE PICTURES SO WE CAN SEE 'EM, OR IS IT PAST TIME FOR THAT OR SOMETHING? IT'S NOT PAST TIME. THE ANSWER IS YES. UH, THERE'S A PREFERRED PROCEDURE TO DO, SO IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, I'LL CALL IT UP, UH, AND EXPLAIN THE WAIVER REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. SURE. SO I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I GUESS FOR THE DESIGNER, IF YOU, AND MAYBE WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT IF YOU BROUGHT IN THAT, UM, THE LIMIT LINE, YOU KNOW, TO BROUGHT EVERYTHING IN CLOSER SO THAT THE SHED WOULD BE WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WOULDN'T BE IN THE SETBACK AREA. WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE? OR DOES THAT, SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY END UP COVERING UP THE, THE DECK STEPS WOULD BE PUSHING IT INTO WHERE HIS EXISTING DECK IS AT. UM, AND THEN THAT WOULD ALSO, UH, CUT DOWN ON, ON USABLE, YOU KNOW, FLAT SPACE FOR THEM TO, UM, [01:35:01] TO ENJOY REALLY. OKAY. THANKS. ALRIGHT. MEMBER LIMBO. I HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. UM, THESE ARE FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RULES, SECTION FOUR, WHICH IS TITLED APPLICATIONS. PART B STATES 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 AN APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED LESS THAN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING DATE. THE RULES ALSO STATE AT PART, UH, 13, SORRY, 14 TITLED, SUSPENSION OF RULES, THE BOARD BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE OF THE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR MODIFY ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AT THE MEETING FOR GOOD CAUSE. SO IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT MATTER INTO CONSIDERATION, WE WOULD RECOMMEND FIRST A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES. IF THE MOTION PASSES, THEN YOU CAN INTRODUCE THE DOCUMENT INTO, AT FORMAL EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION. I REALLY WANNA, WELL, I THINK, I GUESS, LET ME ASK A QUESTION. THOSE PICTURES JUST HAVEN'T BEEN MODIFIED OR ANYTHING. THEY'RE JUST PICTURES YOU TOOK IT JUST PICTURES, CURRENT PICTURES OF YOUR PROPERTY. YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY THAT YOU SEE 'EM. IF I, I WOULD RATHER NOT SUSPEND, BUT, UM, IF YOU LIVE IN DUBLIN, YOU CAN COME WALK BY MY HOUSE, . I DON'T KNOW. UH, YEAH, NO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE JUST PICTURES THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINES HERE. SO YOU, YOU CAN IMAGINE BEING, UH, RIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LINE MEETS IN THE FRONT YARD. THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE PASS ON THE SIDEWALK. THERE'S A LITTLE GAP IN BETWEEN THERE IN BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES. AND, AND WITHIN THE SETBACK RULES, WE REALLY ONLY FEEL IT'S FEASIBLE TO BE IN THAT, UH, OR I GUESS SOME OF THE, THE LAW WOULD BE IN BETWEEN, UH, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. AND REALLY, AGAIN, A LOT OF THE, OUR PROPERTY, UH, ESPECIALLY IN LIKE THE NO BUILD ZONE AND, AND WHERE THE SETBACK IS, IS BEHIND THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO, WE HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, AMAZING PRIVACY, UH, BACK THERE. WE, WE HAVE MOSTLY NO NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE ONE NEIGHBOR AND, UH, AND, AND, AND WE'RE PUTTING IN PRIVACY TREES AS WELL. BUT, UH, THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO AVOID IT IF WE PUT IT, UH, WITHIN THE SETBACK RULES IN BETWEEN OUR TWO HOMES WHERE IT WOULD BE VISIBLE BY THE STREET AND THE NEIGHBOR. WELL, IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA SUBMIT THOSE, IF YOU DON'T THINK THEY'RE HELPFUL. WE DON'T HAVE TO. BUT I, I, I THINK HONESTLY, THAT, UM, YEAH, NO, I THINK WE'VE EXPLAINED IN MY OPINION, WHY THE CRITERIA SHOULD BE MET. I DON'T THINK THE PICTURES WOULD REALLY PERSUADE YOU ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I THINK YOU CAN SEE IT, THE PROPERTY LINES AND THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE. DO YOU AGREE? YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. YEAH. TO THAT END, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD ALREADY IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THAT, UH, DETERMINATION. UH, IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO, UH, UH, GET THE FRONT FACING VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. UH, I THINK IT'S, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE SCHEMATICS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. OH, YEAH, NO, THAT'S FINE. PERFECT. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? UH, OKAY. UM, I BELIEVE YOU MAY BE SEATED. UM, BEFORE WE ENGAGE IN OUR, UH, DISCUSSION, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS, UH, SPECIFIC CASE? I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO NOW WE WILL COMMENCE OUR DISCUSSION. UM, IF WE DO HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP OR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, WE WILL, UH, WE MIGHT CALL YOU BACK UP. I WAS JUST GONNA THANK STAFF FOR PULLING THIS SLIDE BACK UP BECAUSE I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH, UM, WITH ALL THE INFORMATION. UM, IT, UH, YOU KNOW, I DO UNDERSTAND THE, THE EXTREME CONTOUR CHANGES THAT IT HAS IN THE, IN THE YARD. SO I'M TRYING TO WEIGH THAT. SPECIAL CONDITIONS ARE NOT, SO I'M STILL DEBATING. SURE. UH, SO THE, UM, SECOND STANDARD THAT THE, UH, UH, OF THE GRANT, THE VARIANCE THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION OF THE, UH, AT THE APPLICANT. [01:40:01] UM, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, UH, RETAINING WALL, UH, I WOULD SEE, I COULD SEE A, UH, UH, GROUNDS FOR VARIANCE, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, THE TOPOGRAPHY, UH, THAT STEEP DECLINE IN THE, UH, THE BACKYARD, UH, THAT MIGHT, YOU KNOW, RENDER IT SOMEWHAT UNUSABLE, UH, . UM, HOWEVER, UH, THAT STANDARD OF, UH, WHETHER OR NOT IT, UH, WOULD BE NECESSITATED FOR THE SHED, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A, UM, IT WOULD REQUIRE A MODIFICATION TO THE SCHEMATICS OF THE, UM, UH, THE CURRENT PLAN TO, UH, TO ENACT, UH, THE SHED. UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF, UH, ITS CURRENT ITERATION AS A, AS A NECESSITY. SO WHILE THE, UM, RETAINING WALL MIGHT, UH, MEET THAT STANDARD, I'M NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN THAT THE, UH, INCORPORATING THE, THE SHED ITSELF, UH, WOULD NECESSARILY, UH, UH, MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OR WOULD RISE TO THAT LEVEL OF NECESSITY. UM, TAMMY, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU. I MEAN, IS IS FROM THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD AT THE BEGINNING ABOUT SORT OF THIS SCOPE OF THIS AND THE, THE RETAINING WALL, IS THERE, WOULD THIS BE IF THE RETAIN, IF YOU SAID YOU'RE STILL DISCUSSING IT AND STILL TRYING TO, YOU HAVEN'T NAILED IT DOWN ON, ON YOUR END WITH THE RETAINING WALLS, BUT WOULD THIS, WOULD, BUT FOR THIS SHED ENCROACHMENT THIS NOT NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE THE RETAINING WALLS ARE FUNCTIONAL? IS THAT, WHERE AM I TAKING A BIG LEAP THERE? YEAH, I MEAN, THESE WERE RETAINING WALLS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO GET AWAY FROM THAT. I WAS, I, WE HAD HAD DISCUSSIONS, BUT WE CONCLUDED THAT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION. I'M SORRY IF I'VE, I'VE CAUSED MORE CONFUSION THAN HELPED. OKAY. SO, BUT THE PATIO ITSELF, IS IT NOT, IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE VARIANCE AS IT'S SHOWN HERE IF IT WAS JUST A PATIO? CORRECT. OKAY. BUT CAN THE PATIO BE BUILT IF THE RETAINING WALLS ARE NOT ADDED TO BRING THE LAND LEVEL? I GUESS IT WOULD BE OKAY. DESIGN TO HAVE A, YEAH. AT THE GRADE. NOW, WE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD A PATIO WITH, WITHOUT A RETAINING WALL. TO ADD TO THAT TOO, IF WE DID NOT RETAIN THAT BACK PORTION, EVEN IF WE WERE TO MOVE THE SHED INTO THE, UH, THE BUILDABLE AREA THAT WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT BEFORE, UM, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO RETAIN THAT SHED WITHIN THAT AREA TOO. SO I ACTUALLY HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IF YOU DON'T MIND. UH, UM, YOUR DESIGNER, IF, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THE RETAINING WALLS, WOULD THE RETAINING WALLS HAVE TO BE IN THE SETBACK? IS THE NEXT QUESTION TO ACHIEVE WHAT THE CLIENT'S ASKING FOR TO GET A, A, A USABLE SPACE AND TO MAKE IT, UH, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE? UM, I THINK HAVING THAT WALL PUSHED BACK FURTHER AND, AND ALLOWING ACCESS FROM THAT DECK, UM, I THINK THAT WALL, LIKE WHERE I HAVE IT LOCATED, IS GONNA BE A, UH, THE BEST, THE BEST OPTION. SO TO ADD, AND I KNOW YOU'RE MORE OF AN EXPERT THAN ME, BUT I'VE BEEN LISTENING IN OUR MEETINGS, WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE PROPER DRAINAGE TO NOT JUST DUMP ONTO THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD OF THE WATER, THE FALL OFF. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION OF WHERE THE SET, WHERE THE RETAINING WALL ENDS IS, SO THAT WE STILL HAVE, BECAUSE OF WHERE WE LIVE, WE CAN'T JUST FLATTEN IT OUT, AND THEN THE, THE WATER HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. SO WE HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS WHERE IT IS, SO THAT, UH, IF YOU SEE THAT OPEN WHITE SPACE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THE, THE SETBACK LINE IS GOING THROUGH. WE, THEY PLAN FOR PROPER DRAINAGE OF THE WATER, SO THERE'S STILL A SLOPE THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ALL FLAT. UM, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PURPOSEFUL FOR THE, THE WATER TO DRAIN PROPERLY. SO I THINK THAT, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL BEING WHERE IT IS PURPOSEFULLY, YEAH. SO IT'S, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO, [01:45:01] UH, THAT THOSE GOALS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE EASILY ACHIEVED IF, UH, THEY WERE MOVED WITHIN THE SETBACK. CORRECT. OKAY. THEN THE AFFIRMATIVE THERE, UM, OKAY. UH, I, I THINK I'M, THAT WE'VE BIFURCATED THIS. I'M HAVING AN EASIER TIME FINDING SOME OF THESE CRITERIA MET FOR RETAINING WALL AND PATIO THAN I AM FOR THE SHED LOCATION DUE TO THE, THE FACT THAT THERE'S OTHER USABLE SPACE WHERE, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND AESTHETICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, ISN'T IDEAL. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STRUGGLE THAT I'M AT RIGHT NOW. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'M READY TO VOTE ON BOTH, BUT I THINK I WOULD COME TO TWO DIFFERENT OUTCOMES ON THEM. FAIRLY REPRESENTATIVE, OR NO, PLEASE. OH, UH, UM, I'M, UH, SORT OF, OF THE SAME, UH, SAME MIND, UH, WITH, WITH MY, UH, UH, UH, MY THINKING AS WELL, UH, I I WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE, THE DRAINAGE AND THE TOPOGRAPHY, UH, AND REALLY JUST THE USABILITY OF THE BACKYARD AND, YOU KNOW, CHILDREN OBVIOUSLY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A, UH, A CONSIDERATION. UH, YOU WOULDN'T WANT NECESSARILY TO, UH, HAVE A STEEP DECLINE THAT, UH, COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE INJURY OR, UH, MIGHT PREVENT YOU FROM MAKING NECESSARY REPAIRS TO, UH, THE STAIRCASE IN THE BACK. UM, SO I, I'M WILLING TO, I MIGHT BE, I COULD SEE SOME REASON FOR, UH, UH, VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, UH, THE RETAINING WALLS THEMSELVES. UM, BUT YEAH, UH, THE SHED ITSELF, UH, I'M NOT ENTIRELY, UH, NOT ENTIRELY THERE FOR THAT. UH, I'M NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED, UM, THAT THAT IS, UH, NECESSITATED. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A, UH, STRUCTURAL CHOICE. UM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE A FEASIBLE TO PUT IT, UH, LOCATED WITHIN THE, UM, WITHIN THE SETBACK IF, UH, THE, UH, IF THE VARIANTS WERE GRANTED, UM, THERE WOULD BE POSSIBLY MORE, MORE, UH, OPEN SPACE FOR IT. UM, SO YEAH, I, I BELIEVE, UH, WE MIGHT ALSO COME TO, UH, TWO SEPARATE OUTCOMES, UH, NOW THAT THE, UH, DECISION HAS BEEN BIFURCATED. UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? OH, PLEASE. OH, NO, PLEASE, I DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS OF, YOU GUYS CAN TAKEN THIS INTO CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THINGS. UM, MIGHT I ASK, HAS BOTH OF YOU SAID, UM, THAT YOU THINK THERE'S, THERE IS A FEASIBLE SPOT FOR THE SHED. CAN YOU GUYS INDICATE WHERE YOU BELIEVE THAT TO BE? MM-HMM. WELL, I THINK WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT WHAT YOUR DESIGN IS. I'M NOT TRYING TO DESIGN IT FOR YOU EITHER, BUT IT SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT IT COULD BE FARTHER TO THE WEST FROM WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE A LOT MORE COST OR MATERIALS OR SOMETHING TO DO THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT THE ANSWER WAS. OR IT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO YOUR EXISTING PORCH OR SOMETHING. IS THAT CORRECT? OR LIKE, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SAY MOVE IT TO THE LEFT, AND SO IT'S NOT ENCROACHING ANYMORE. YEAH, IT WAS A MIX OF WHAT YOU SAID. AND THEN ALSO JUST BEING MORE, UH, MORE INTRUSIVE TO THE SURROUNDING NATURE OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT ABOUT TO THE SOUTH OF THE PATIO, THE PLANNED PATIO? UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S MORE, YOU KNOW, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, BUT FEASIBLY LOGISTICALLY, YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD POSSIBLY GO THERE. CORRECT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE PLAN THERE TOO, YOU'LL SEE KIND OF LIKE A, UH, A KIND OF CURVED LINE. THAT'S WHERE THE EXISTING TREE LINE IS AT ON THAT TOO. UM, SO WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO TAKE OUT, UM, TREES IN THAT AREA AS WELL. UH, IS, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT, IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, POSSIBLE IF YOU, IF THE SHED WERE SMALLER, IF THAT WOULD BRING IT WITHIN, WITHIN THE, THE ALLOWED SPACE. YEAH. WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE SHED AS PROPOSED? 20 [01:50:01] FEET BY 16 FEET, I RECALL CORRECTLY. AND, UH, WHAT IS THE UTILITY? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE SHED? UH, WHAT SORT OF ITEMS WOULD BE STORED? MOSTLY KIDS, BUT YOU KNOW, MY LAWNMOWER AND, YOU KNOW, ALL MY STUFF TO KEEP THE FOREST AWAY AS WELL. SO WE GOT A LOT OF POWER TOOLS AND THINGS THAT WE NEED STORED. OKAY. MR. GRAHAM, IF I MAY, UH, READ YOU ONE THING FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RULES AND GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT FOR IT AS A, A THING TO CONSIDER AT THIS STAGE. UH, SECTION EIGHT OF THE RULES TITLED, TABLING WITHDRAWAL STATES REQUEST TO TABLE OR WITHDRAW A CASE TOGETHER WITH THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING BY THE APPLICANT TO LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING PRIOR TO THE MEETING, OR VERBALLY BY THE APPLICANT OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE AT THE MEETING REQUEST MAY REQUIRE APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE. A TABLE CASE MAY BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING, OR AT SUCH OTHER TIME AS SPECIFIED BY THE BOARD, OR THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING AFTER THE REASON FOR THE TABLING HAS BEEN RESOLVED AS DETERMINED BY LONG LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING. SOME APPLICANTS LISTEN TO THE CONTEXT FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD AND FEEL THAT WITH SOME MINOR CHANGES, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT, UH, WOULD JUSTIFY A CERTAIN VARIANCE. MAYBE IT'S A CHANGE IN THEIR STRUCTURE. ALTERNATIVELY, THEY MIGHT FEEL THAT WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE WHY THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED IN THE PARTICULAR PLACE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED AND TABLING WOULD BE A, UM, UH, AN ALTERNATIVE TO A, A FULL VOTE, UH, POSITIVE OR IN THE AFFIRMATIVE OR IN THE, IN THE NEGATIVE. SO, UH, YOU WOULD HAVE MORE TIME BASICALLY TO PUT TOGETHER A CASE, POSSIBLY, UH, UH, ENTERTAIN SOME ALTERNATIVES, HAVE SOME COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CITY WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOUR OTHER OPTIONS OR OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS. UH, AND, UH, THAT WOULD BE THE, UH, THE ALTERNATIVE TO, UH, THE, UH, TABLING THE CASE AT THIS TIME. I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, FOR I GUESS THE TWO OF YOU, IF THIS WERE TO BE TABLED, WOULD STAFF GO BACK AND AMEND THIS POTENTIALLY TO LOOK AT, SINCE WE'RE BIFURCATING THE VOTE, WOULD THEY BIFURCATE THE CRITERIA TO APPLY TO THE TWO SEPARATE AS WELL, OR WOULD WE STILL BE USING THE SAME STAFF REPORT AT THE NEXT MEETING? SO GIVEN YOUR DIRECTION TONIGHT, THAT WOULD PROBABLY PROMPT US AT A, AT A MINIMUM, TO ENCOURAGE A SPLIT VOTE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CRITERIA AND SEE IF THEY DIFFER GREATLY FROM ONE FROM THE OTHER. AND IF THEY WOULD, OF COURSE, WE'D PRESENT THE CRITERIA DIFFERENTLY. YEP. ADDITIONALLY, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO CHANGE SOME OF THE DIMENSIONS, THEN THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS POTENTIALLY AS WELL. UH, I GUESS I'D I'D LIKE MORE TIME FOR YOUR MORE TIME QUESTION. UM, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS CORRECTLY. IF, IF WE WENT FOR A VOTE FOR THE TWO, GIVEN WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN DISCUSSING, AND THEN CAN A, UH, PLAY OUT SCENARIOS HERE IF THAT'S ALLOWED. UH, LET'S SAY ONE IS APPROVED AND ONE IS NOT. CAN WE, CAN WE MODIFY CHANGES AND COME BACK FOR A VARI FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE PERMIT FOR THE ONE THAT WAS NOT APPROVED? THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS A CLASSIC LAWYER RESPONSE, MAYBE, AND IT DEPENDS, UH, I'M GONNA READ TO YOU CODE SECTION 1 5 3, 2 3, NOPE, THAT'S THE WRONG SECTION. HANG TIGHT. I WOULD THINK ONE, UH, CONSIDERATION WOULD BE HOW INEXTRICABLY TIED TO THE, UH, UH, THE, THE RETAINER WALLS, WOULD THE, THE SHED BE IN ITS CURRENT COMPOSITION. UH, IF WE DID APPROVE THE, THE RETAINER, UH, THE, THE WALL IN ITS CURRENT STATE, AND THEN YOU COME BACK WITH, UH, A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS FOR, UH, UH, THE SHED. IF IT'S, IF IT'S NOT APPROVED, THEN UH, IT MIGHT, UH, CAUSE YOU TO, UH, HAVE MODIFY A, SUBMIT A, A SEPARATE VARIANCE, UM, UH, IF IT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE, UH, RETAINING WALL, UH, COMPOSITION. SO, UH, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE, UH, HOW, UH, SET THE, UH, THE DECISION WOULD BE, UH, ESPECIALLY IN CONSIDERATION OF, UH, HOW THE, THE SHED WAS, WAS, UH, UH, SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PARTS [01:55:01] OF THE CONSTRUCTION. UH, I WOULD SAY WE WOULD REC, UH, IT'S OBVIOUSLY YOUR DECISION, BUT IF YOU WERE GOING TO TABLE, UH, PROBABLY RECOMMEND TABLING THEM BOTH, THAT WAY WE CAN, YOU CAN CONSIDER ALL OF YOUR OPTIONS IN A MORE HOLISTIC SENSE. UH, MR. GRAHAM, IF I CAN JUST GIVE THE REST OF THE CONTEXT FOR THE CODE HERE. UH, I KNOW IT'S LATE. I'M SORRY. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH, YEAH. I JUST WANNA READ YOU THE PROPER CODE SECTION REAL QUICK SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EFFECT OF EITHER ASKING BZA TO VOTE ON BOTH TODAY, AND IF ONE OR BOTH WERE TO FAIL, UH, WHAT WOULD COME NEXT AND HOW YOU COULD PROCEED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 E FIVE STATES THAT NO APPLICATION FOR ACTION BY THE BOARD, WHICH HAS BEEN DISAPPROVED, SHALL BE RESUBMITTED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF DISAPPROVAL, EXCEPT AS MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING UPON SUBMISSION OF NEW AND SIGNIFICANT FACTS OR CONDITIONS, WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN FAVORABLE ACTION UPON RESUBMITTAL. DO YOU HAVE, UH, THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE THE NEXT HEARING OR IF WE WERE TO HAVE TO MODIFY OUR PLANS AND, AND RESUBMIT, I KNOW IT WOULD GO TO THE SENIOR PLANNER, THE CITY PLANNER. DO WE HAVE AN A DATE FOR WHEN THAT WOULD BE? I'M LOOKING IT UP, BUT FROM MEMORY, I THINK IT'S DECEMBER 18TH. REALLY GOOD AND, AND THERE'S NO OTHER, UM, MODIFICATIONS FOR THAT DATE. I'M GONNA BE OUT OF TOWN ON THE 18TH. OH, OKAY. SO IT'S JUST, I GUESS I COULD HAVE JEFF COME AND, AND MY SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION WAS, IS IT GONNA BE THE SAME COUNSEL DREW, OR IS IT DIFFERENT PEOPLE EVERY TIME THE COUNCIL, THIS BOARD IS SET BY, UH, BY APPOINTMENTS. SO THESE PEOPLE WILL BE HERE UNLESS ANYBODY WERE TO BE ABSENT OR MR. ANDERSON WERE TO SHOW UP, THAT'D BE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. OKAY. BUT THE BOARD IS SET, UM, AND THE DATE THERE, THERE'S A WAY TO REQUEST A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE PRESENT AS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THE RESIDENCE. AS LONG AS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY SPEAKING ON YOUR BEHALF, UH, THEY CAN PRESENT YOUR CASE. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU DON'T NEED TO PHYSICALLY PRESENT A CASE IF YOUR SUBMISSION MATERIALS OTHERWISE JUSTIFY GRANTING THE VARIANCE. GOT IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT MAKES SENSE. I, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE PRACTICAL THING TO DO. I APPRECIATE YOUR GUYS' ADVICE AND COUNSEL. UM, SO I THINK WE WILL, UM, UH, DELAY IS THAT, WHAT WAS THAT? THAT WAS CALLED TABLE. SO YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD TABLE THIS APPLICATION, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THE BOARD, YOU NEED A, A MOTION AND A VOTE TO APPROVE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU DESIRE TO DO, UH, IN THAT CASE, UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UH, TABLING OF THE NON-USE, UH, APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR THE, UH, UH, CASE NUMBER? LEMME LOOK AT THE CASE RIGHT HERE. UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 4 V. SO MOVED. UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, UH, PLEASE CALL MS. ALESSANDRO. YES. MR. LINVILLE? YES. MR. MURPHY? YES. MS. TISK? YES. UH, AND, UH, JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU WOULD JUST RESUBMIT, UH, UH, THE APPLICATION FOR, UH, THEIR NEXT MONTH. UH, YOU CAN HAVE SOMEBODY, UH, COME HERE ON YOUR BEHALF. UM, IF YOU, IF YOU SO CHOOSE, UH, YOU CAN, UH, OR POSSIBLY, UH, SUBMIT PRIOR TO THE, UH, JANUARY MEETING AS WELL. UH, AND WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE MEETINGS AS LONG AS WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO AS LONG AS THREE OF US ARE HERE, UH, WE CAN GET A MAJORITY VOTE AND THAT'S HOW WE WOULD, WOULD PROCEED. UM, ANY OTHER, CAN I ZOOM IN, UH, VIA ZOOM? VIRTUAL ? OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. TO BE CLEAR, YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESUBMIT ANYTHING IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH EVERYTHING AS YOU HAVE PRESENTED IT, BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU WANT TO CHANGE OR ADD INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, CHANGE PLANS, THAT WOULD BE A TIME TO TALK WITH THE CITY AND THE STAFF ABOUT HOW TO DO SO AND POTENTIALLY WORK THROUGH ANY OTHER OPTIONS THERE. COULD YOU RE REITERATE THOSE DATES AGAIN AND DEADLINE [02:00:01] FOR SUBMITTING? YEAH. SUBMITTAL. SUBMITTAL AND ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT I MISSED THIS TIME? OF COURSE. SO, UH, THE RULES REQUIRE SUBMISSIONS WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MEETING. IF THE MEETING IS THE 18TH, THAT WOULD BE THE THIRD, I BELIEVE. UM, BUT PLEASE WORK WITH CITY STAFF ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR DOING SO. UM, AND AS WE DISCUSSED, IF BCA HAS GOOD CAUSE TO SUSPEND THE 15 DAY RULE, THEY CAN DO SO THROUGH A MOTION AND VOTE TO APPROVE. THE EFFECT OF THAT WOULD MEAN IF SOMETHING IS SUBMITTED AFTER THE 15 DAY PROCESS, UH, THEY COULD CONSIDER IT IF NECESSARY, IF THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOOD CAUSE TO DO SO. OKAY. THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL'S TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, HAVE A GOOD EVENING. UM, SO ANY COMMUNICATIONS [COMMUNICATIONS] OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ANYTHING SINCE YOU BEGAN? YES, WE DO. UM, I BELIEVE PLACED IN FRONT OF ALL OF YOU ARE POTENTIAL DATES FOR, AND IF, IF YOU WANNA EXCUSE YOURSELVES, YOU DON'T. THANK YOU. WELL, I'LL, I'LL BE ABLE TO CONTACT YOU IMMEDIATELY. OKAY, THANKS. UM, THESE ARE POTENTIAL DATES FOR 2026. WE TRY TO GIVE THEM TO ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AT THE LATTER PART OF THE YEAR, SO YOU CAN PLAN ACCORDINGLY. UM, ALL WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS LET US OR MAKE US AWARE IF THERE'S A MEETING THAT YOU CAN ATTEND. AND AS THE CHAIR HAD MENTIONED, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WITH QUORUM, WE WOULD THEN, UM, DISCUSS RESCHEDULING. OKAY. UH, ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING. I'M FINE WITH THESE DATES. UH, WOULD WE HAVE TO MAKE A, ANY SORT OF MOTION AT THIS TIME WITH REGARDS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DATES? YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. SURE. I KNOW THAT WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING THESE DATES OUT WITH OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I CAN'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE, BUT JUST IN CASE, LET'S, LET'S LEAVE IT TO THE DECEMBER MEETING PLEASE. GOOD, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. UM, I GUESS WITH NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. * 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.