[00:00:01]
AND WELCOME TO[CALL TO ORDER]
THE CITY OF DUBLIN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.YOU CAN JOIN THE 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 CASES.
UH, WE'LL BEGIN BY PERFORMING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY, JUSTICE.
UH, NOW WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE, UH, ROLL CALL, UH, MS. MAXWELL, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL? YES, MR. ANDERSON HERE.
MS. ALESSANDRO IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.
MR. LINVILLE PRESENT MR. MURPHY HERE.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
WE WILL MOVE ON TO, UH, ACCEPTANCE OF THE, UH, DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORDS AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025 MEETING? SO MOVED.
UH, WE WILL PROCEED, UH, WITH, UH, UH, THE GENERAL, UH, RUNDOWN OF THE, UH, PROCEDURES FOR THIS EVENING.
UH, EACH CASE THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
UH, THE BOARD WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST, AND THEN THE APPLICANT, UH, ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE INVITED TO COME FORWARD UNDER EACH APPLICATION.
UH, PLEASE ENSURE THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON THE, UH, MICROPHONE, UH, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, WE REQUEST THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS, UH, FOR
FOR THOSE IN, UH, THE AUDIENCE, WE, UH, WE ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM SIDE OF CONVERSATIONS, UH, PAUSE OR ANY AUDIBLE REACTIONS, UH, SHOULD ANY ARISE.
UH, SO WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE, UH, SWEARING OF, OF WITNESSES.
UH, ANYONE INTENDING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OR PROVIDE COMMENT ON ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CASES, UH, MUST BE SWORN IN.
UH, SO ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE, UH, UH, DOING THAT THIS EVENING OR INTENDS TO DO THAT THIS EVENING, UH, WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
UH, DO YOU SWEAR TO SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? YOU MAY BE SEATED.
[Case #25-104V]
I BELIEVE THE PLAN IS TO, BECAUSE THE, UM, MATTER AFFECTING THE, UH, GRAM RESIDENCE, THAT'S CASE NUMBER, UH, TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 4 V IS, UH, IS TABLED DURING OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.UH, WE WOULD, UH, UH, HAVE, WE WOULD, WOULD HAVE, UM, UH, THAT MOVED UP, UH, TO BE THE FIRST CASE THIS EVENING, UH, THAT WE WOULD JUST NEED TO, UH, HAVE A FORMAL MOTION FOR THAT.
SO, UH, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO, UH, STATE A MOTION TO HAVE, UH, CASE TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 4 V, UH, BE MOVED TO THE FIRST CASE TO BE REVIEWED THIS EVENING? SO MOVED.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE, UM, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION.
UH, BUT, UH, AS, UH, BA MR. CHAIR, UH, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE.
IT CAN BE A VOICE VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
BUT IT, UH, WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING RECORDED.
UH, NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE, UH, UH, PRESENTATION, UH, OR RATHER, UH, UH, GENERAL RUNDOWN OF THE, UH, THE CASE.
UH, IT'S FOR THE GRAM RESIDENCE FOR A NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE.
UH, IT'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS TO ENCROACH INTO A REAR YARD SETBACK.
THE 0.52 ACRES ZONE, UH, SITE IS ZONED PUD, THAT'S PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, ALAY R DASH ONE, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED AT 47 89 KERRIGAN RIDGE DRIVE.
UH, WE WILL BEGIN, UH, BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION BY TAMMY NOBLE.
UH, THE CASE BEFORE THE, UH, BOARD TONIGHT IS A NON-USE, UH, AREA VARIANCE FOR
[00:05:01]
SPECIFICALLY RETAINING WALLS, UM, FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 47 89 KERRIGAN RIDGE COURT, AND AGAIN, THE, UH, SINGULAR, UH, REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR A REAR REAR YARD VARIANCE.
IN TERMS OF PROCESS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THIS IS A SINGULAR STEP FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE, UH, REVIEW PROCESS IS TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY, ANY TYPE OF NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PROPERTY, AND IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES UPON THIS DECISION BY THE BOARD.
THIS WOULD EITHER BE, UM, A REVIEW BY OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, EITHER WITH, UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS BOARD OR MEETING THE CODE.
UH, THE SITE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS APPROXIMATELY A HALF ACRE SITE.
IT'S LOCATED IN THE AMMAR LEE, UH, SUBDIVISION.
IT'S LOCATED OFF CARRIGAN, UH, RIDGE COURT, AND IT DOES, UH, FACE THE SCIOTO RIVER.
THERE IS, UH, TOPOGRAPHY ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE, UH, BASED ON ITS LOCATION WITH THE RIVER, AND IT IS PART OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY A 4,600 SQUARE FOOT, UH, SITE, AND THE SITE IS CENTRALLY LOCATED WITH A DRIVEWAY ACCESSING OFF THE MAIN, UH, ROADWAY.
UH, THESE ARE PICTURES THAT WE SHARED WITH THE BOARD, UH, PREVIOUSLY, UH, IN, UH, IN DECEMBER, UH, THE SITE DOES HAVE SEVERE, UH, CONTOUR CHANGES, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE REAR OF THE SITE AND THESE PICTURES, WE DO ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO VISIT SITES, BUT AGAIN, WHEN IT'S A REAR ELEVATION, WE, UH, PROVIDE, UH, PICTURES TO SHOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF.
BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE WITH THESE ELEVATIONS, THERE'S A SEVERE, UH, CONTOUR CHANGE AS YOU LOOK TOWARDS THE RIVER.
UH, THE ORIGINAL, UH, PROPOSAL ACTUALLY HAD TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS.
ONE WAS FOR A OUT OUTDOOR SHED THAT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE SETBACK, AS WELL AS THE RETAINING WALL.
UH, BASED ON THE INPUT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD RECEIVED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THEY DID REMOVE THE SHED FROM THE SETBACK.
AND SO THE SINGULAR ISSUE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING TONIGHT IS THE RETAINING WALL.
UM, THE HOUSE IS LOCATED IN THE CENTER PORTION OF THE SITE, SO IT DOES PUT THE APPLICANT AT A SLIGHT DISADVANTAGE FOR THE REAR YARD SPACE.
UM, THEY ARE TRYING TO, NUMBER ONE, UH, GRADE THE REAR YARDS TO MAX TO, UH, PROVIDE SOME OUTDOOR SPACE FOR THEMSELVES.
UM, THEY ARE DOING AN AT GRADE PATIO THAT YOU SEE IN THE DARK, KIND OF SHADED AREA THAT DOES MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND IS NOT AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, BUT IT IS RELEVANT IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS, UH, DICTATING WHERE THOSE RETAINING, UH, WALLS WILL BE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE, UH, SITE ITSELF, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY A 20 TO 25 FOOT CONTOUR CHANGE FROM THE REAR OF THIS BUILDING, UH, TO THE RIVER.
UM, SO WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT IS A UNIQUE CHARACTERISTIC, AND THESE ARE JUST ELEVATION CHANGES THAT WE HAVE, UH, UH, PROVIDED TO SHOW THOSE ELEVATION CHANGES.
THIS IS ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT TO THE BOARD.
AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR RETAINING WALLS.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY REVIEW FOR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
SO WE DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THESE PARTICULAR RETAINING WALLS ARE BELOW GRADE.
THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF A RETAINING WALL, IS THAT IT'S SECURING THE, UM, SOIL AILMENT AND PROVIDING SECURITY, UH, FOR THE SOIL, UH, TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION.
SO IF YOU LOOK BELOW, UM, THE SHADED AREA, ALL OF THAT IS BELOW GRADE.
SO WHAT VISUALLY WILL BE IMPACTED IS ABOVE, UM, THAT RED DASH LINE.
SO THIS IS UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT MOST OF IT WILL BE NON-VISIBLE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IN TERMS OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS, WE DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SITE IS, UM, AGAIN, HEAVILY CONTOURED, UH, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE RIVER.
SO WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FIRST CRITERIA IS MET IN THE SECOND CRITERIA.
WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH, INCLUDING, UH, WHAT WE BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
BUT IN ONE SENSE, THE APPLICANT IS DICTATING THE LOCATION OF THE RETAINING WALLS BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE, UH, PROPOSED PATIO.
AND THE SECOND SENSE, THE SEVERE GRADING CHANGES DO DICTATE THE, UH, DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE RETAINING
[00:10:01]
WALL.SO WE'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER.
UM, INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, UM, WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE, UM, WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER, UH, PROPOSALS FOR THE, FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT AGAIN, WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE SECOND CRITERIA BEFORE WE GET TO THE THIRD CRITERIA.
IN TERMS OF CRITERIA B, UM, FOR THE BOARD'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THE FIRST CRITERIA, ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA NEED TO BE MET, AND THE, UH, CRITERIA B TWO OF THE FOUR NEED TO BE MET.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE THEY HAVE.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CRITERIA, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
BUT IN TERMS OF OUR ANALYSIS, THEY'VE MET THAT CRITERIA.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL WITH THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE SECOND CRITERIA THAT WE MENTIONED.
UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME FURTHER INFORMATION THAT COULD PROVIDE SOME ANALYSIS FOR THE BOARD, BUT AT THE, UM, UH, TIME AND PLACE THAT WE PRESENTED THE REPORT, WE WERE WANTING MORE INFORMATION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UH, NECESSITY.
SO AT THIS POINT, I'D GLADLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLICANT'S HERE TO, UM, ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.
SO, FOR CRITERIA A NUMBER THREE, UM, YOU GUYS, IT SAYS, UH, A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON THAT.
WE WERE BASING THAT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE GENERAL INTENT OF A CRITERIA IS THAT IF THEY CAN, IF THEY CAN MEET THE CRITERIA IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, THAT WE WOULD PREFER THAT OP THAT OPTION.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, ON ONE HAND, WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE, THERE'S LESS SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S BELOW GRADE, BUT IN THE, IN THE OTHER INSTANCE, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO AGAIN, WE, WE WANT THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO ADDRESS THAT COMMENT.
ARE YOU, DID YOU SAY THAT THERE'S MORE INFORMATION THAT COULD BE PART OF THE RECORD TONIGHT THAT HASN'T BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD YET? YES, AT THE, OKAY.
IT, IT, AND TO BE FAIR, IT'S JUST A LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL THAN WE'RE USED TO ADDRESSING WITH THIS BOARD.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESSS THE BOARD.
BUT THE DEPARTMENT, YOUR, YOUR DEPARTMENT HASN'T FULLY CONSIDERED THIS NEW INFORMATION EITHER OR HASN'T HAD IT YET.
IS THAT CORRECT? OR, OR YOU'VE HEARD YOU'VE HEARD THIS ALREADY AND WE'RE JUST HEARING IT.
WE, WE DO REVIEW THE INFORMATION AND I'VE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW IT.
UM, WE TALKED AS EARLY AS THIS AFTERNOON, AND I JUST BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN EXPRESS THE, UM, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE SITE BETTER THAN, THAN I CAN.
UH, AT THIS TIME, UH, WE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, PLEASE APPROACH, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THE LIGHT IS TURNED ON.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD.
JASON CROMLEY, HIDDEN CREEK LANDSCAPING, JEFF HAUSLER, HIDDEN CREEK LANDSCAPING.
AND WE'RE AT 3 9 4 0 CIO DERBY CREEK IN HILLARD, OHIO.
SO, MOST OF THE CONSTRAINTS, UM, AS TAMMY MENTIONED, ARE GONNA BE, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OF THE, UH, SITE.
UM, MY GOAL WITH THE RETAINING WALL IN THIS CURRENT LOCATION IS, UH, LIKE TAMMY MENTIONED, OBVIOUSLY TO RETAIN THE PATIO, CREATE SOME USABLE SPACE.
UM, BUT THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING IT INTO THE SETBACK, UH, IS REALLY TO KIND OF GIVE US SOME, UH, BUFFER ZONES TO, TO EASE THE, THE SLOPE, THE, THE NEW GRADE, UM, INTO THE BACKYARD.
IF I WERE TO EXTEND THAT WALL FURTHER DOWN THE SETBACK LINE, UM, IT HAS A POTENTIAL FOR SOME OF THAT DRAINAGE FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, UM, TO BLEED INTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO MITIGATE.
UM, BY BASICALLY CREATING THAT LITTLE JOG IN THE WALL INTO THE SETBACK, IT ALSO GIVES US THE CAPABILITY TO DO A BETTER JOB WITH RETAINING THE DRAINAGE.
ANYTIME THE RETAINING WALL IS BUILT, AS YOU SAW FROM THE ENGINEERING PLAN,
[00:15:01]
IT'S BACKFILLED WITH GRAVEL AND WE USE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF WHAT'S CALLED GEOGRID.THOSE LAYERS OF GEOGRID DO A GREAT JOB OF ACTUALLY HELPING TO HOLD THE WALL BACK.
THE FURTHER THAT WE ARE ABLE TO GO OUT, THE LESS IMPACT WE HAD TO HAVE ON THE CURRENT NATIVE SOIL THAT'S THERE.
THE LESS EXCAVATION WE'LL HAVE TO DO, THE LESS REMOVAL OF CURRENT SOILS.
SO BY PUSHING THE WALL OUT, APPROXIMATELY, I THINK EIGHT TO 10 FEET GIVES US A CHANCE TO PUT IN MORE GRAVEL, SLOW THE WATER DOWN FROM DRAINAGE AND NOT REMOVE SPOILS FROM THE PROJECT ITSELF, GIVING US A MUCH BETTER ADVANTAGE TO UTILIZE THE SITE.
I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
SO IN HAVING THE WALL EIGHT FEET BACK OR SO, THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN MORE, MORE OF THAT MATERIAL IN BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE, WHERE, WHERE WOULD IT BEGIN THAT, THAT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL THAT WOULD HELP ABSORB THE WATER AND THE BUFFER? SO ANYTIME YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN A WALL, PROBABLY FAIL.
UM, IT'S MOSTLY 'CAUSE THE AMOUNT OF SOIL THAT'S BEHIND IT IS PUSHING IT FORWARD.
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO BEHIND A RETAINING WALL IS PUT IN MORE GRAVEL.
UM, AND WHAT THAT GRAVEL DOES IS ALLOWS THE WATER TO NOT DIRT WILL GET HEAVY WITH WATER AND PUSH AGAINST A WALL.
THE MORE GRAVEL WE HAVE BEHIND IT, WE'RE ABLE TO SLOWLY CAPTURE THAT WATER, PUT IT INTO A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, TILE BEHIND IT, AND PUT CERTAIN RELIEF POINTS THROUGH THE WHOLE WALL.
SO THE BEND IN THAT WALL GIVES US THAT CAPABILITY TO HAVE SOME MORE PRESSURE POINTS, ANY ELONGATE THE WALL AT THE SAME TIME.
AGAIN, IF THE WALL WERE TO FOLLOW THE EASEMENT LINE ITSELF, WE WOULD'VE TO BE EXCAVATING FURTHER AND FURTHER BACK NOW, CREATING MORE OF A PROBLEM AND MORE OF A BACKFILL ISSUE OR THE PATIO ITSELF AND THE STRENGTH OF THE PATIO.
AND SO BY YOUR ESTIMATE, THE, UH, THE, THIS PROPOSED LOCATION WOULD PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF, UH, DRAINAGE NECESSARY FOR, UH, FOR THIS, UH, UH, STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT HERE IN, IN THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, JUST WITH THE DESIGN THAT YOU SAW EARLIER IN THE ENGINEERING, THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF GEOGRID ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF DRAINAGE IN THEM.
SO BY SLOWLY CAPTURING THE WATER, SLOWLY RELEASING IT, WE'RE NOT CREATING FAST RELEASE POINTS FOR THIS WATER.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE KEY COMPONENT.
THE FURTHER THE WALL CAN BE OUT, THE MORE CHANCE WE HAVE TO SLOW IT DOWN.
AND, UH, I SUPPOSE WE SHOULD ASK THE QUESTION, EVEN THOUGH I, I, I THINK YOU MAY HAVE COVERED IT ALREADY.
UH, IS THERE A CONCEIVABLE WAY THAT THIS COULD BE DONE WITHIN THAT SETBACK AREA? CAN THE WALL BE BUILT IN THAT SETBACK OR NOT IN THE SETBACK AREA? YEAH.
UH, ON THE, THE PROPERTY ITSELF WITHOUT ENCROACHING IN THE SETBACK, THE REAR YARD SETBACK, STRUCTURALLY, YES, THE WALL CAN BE BUILT TO THE GREATEST ADVANTAGE, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
YOU HAVE ANY OTHER, AND THAT WOULD BE THE ADVANTAGE TO, NOT REALLY THE HOMEOWNER, BUT TO THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT, AND OBVIOUSLY THE ENTIRE FLOW.
SO BECAUSE THEIR WHOLE BACKYARD, EVERYTHING DRAINS THAT WAY, IT'S REALLY THE HARDEST THING IS WE'RE IN A LOW SPOT, AND ANYTIME YOU CAPTURE WATER IN A LOW SPOT, THE SOONER YOU CAN GET IT OUT, THE BETTER.
WE'VE NOW ELONGATED ONE SPECIFIC AREA AND NOT TRAPPED IT SO CLOSE TO THE PATIO ITSELF.
SO NOW WE'LL BE ABLE TO DRAIN FROM THE PATIO, I'M JUST GONNA CALL IT TO THE EAST, UH, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE, RATHER THAN THAT PINCH POINT WHERE THOSE TWO WALLS AND THE PATIO WOULD HIT.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER, OH, JUST CONTINUE.
UM, COULD YOU, I GUESS, GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT IT? IT LOOKS LIKE IF WE COULD GO BACK TO MAYBE THE LAST YEAH.
THAT ONE WHERE IT SHOWS THE PREVIOUS DESIGN NEXT TO THIS ONE.
SO, AM I CORRECT IN THAT, LIKE, THIS WALL IS, LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT AS INTRUSIVE INTO THE, INTO THE, UH, SETBACK AREA AS THE PREVIOUS DESIGN? AM I READING THAT RIGHT, OR IS THIS YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
JUST, UH, BUT IT'S, YOU SAID YOU ELONGATED IT.
WHICH PART WAS, WHICH PART ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS DESIGN, OR IS IT JUST BEING EXPLAINED BETTER RIGHT NOW THAN IT WAS LAST TIME?
AND THE PART THAT'S RETURNING AND FOLLOWING THE SAME LINE AS WHAT THE EASEMENT IS, HAS GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
SO WE, IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE SAME LENGTH OF WALL.
WE JUST SHORTENED ONE AND, AND ELONGATED ANOTHER ONE.
[00:20:01]
AGAIN, BY DOING THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BRING BACK INTO THE PROPERTY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.SO WE DID TRY TO BRING IT BACK AWAY FROM THE ENCROACHMENT AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY COULD.
MOVING THE UTILITY SHED AS WELL TOO, COMPLETELY OUT OF THE EASEMENT.
AND EITHER WAY, THIS WALL WILL STILL BE THE SAME HEIGHT.
UM, IT WAS GONNA HAVE THE SAME FINISH HEIGHT NO MATTER WHERE IT WOULD BE.
SO WHETHER WE FOLLOWED THE EASEMENT LINE OR NOT, THE, THE FINISH HEIGHT IS ALWAYS GONNA BE THE SAME.
SO FROM LOOKING TO THE STREET DOWN, YOU'LL REALLY NEVER SEE THIS WALL.
THIS WALL WOULD ONLY BE VISIBLE FROM THE SCIOTO RIVER.
COULD YOU ELABORATE TOO ON, LIKE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT HAVING TO DO MORE EXCAVATION.
IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS THE RETAINING WALL WAS TO BE FULLY IN, UH, WITH OUTSIDE OF THE, THE SETBACK AREA, BUT IS IT NOT DOABLE OR IS IT LIKE, UM, A MAJOR COST ISSUE OR IS IT A EFFECT ON, COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE MORE ON LIKE THE OTHER OPTIONS YOU CONSIDERED AND WHY THIS IS THE BEST IN YOUR OPINION? SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION EARLIER, IT CAN FOLLOW THE EASEMENT LINE.
UM, IT COULD BE BUILT THAT WAY.
STRUCTURALLY, THE WAY WE BUILD OUR RETAINING WALLS, WE STILL WOULD USE GRAVEL.
WE STILL WOULD HAVE DRAINAGE IN IT.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE HOW WE BUILD THE WALL BY PUSHING THE WALL OUT.
WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE A LESS OF AN IMPACT ON THE CURRENT NATIVE AREA, AND WE'RE ABLE TO NOW REITERATE, NOT, SORRY, NOT REITERATE, MOVE THE WATER FLOW AND HAVE A BETTER CONTROL OVER IT.
SO WHILE IT COULD FOLLOW THAT LINE, IT WOULDN'T BE THE BEST INVESTMENT LONG TERM FOR WHAT IT WOULD BE, NOT REALLY FOR THE CLIENT, BUT REALLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S COMING THROUGH THIS AREA AND WHERE IT'S GONNA END UP THERE, THERE WOULD BE A COST CHANGE TOO.
IF WE WERE TO STRAIGHTEN THAT WALL OUT IN A ELONGATED IT, UM, IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE BACKFILL, GRAVEL BACKFILL AS WELL.
SO THERE WOULD BE A COST DIFFERENCE AS WELL ON THAT.
MORE EXCAVATION WOULD HAPPEN, MORE SOIL WOULD LEAVE THE SITE.
I, I THINK I HEARD A MENTION ABOUT EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? IT WAS THAT, YEAH.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT PART AGAIN PLEASE? YEAH, SO IF YOU, UM, THE CONTOURS, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT 'EM, THEY OBVIOUSLY SLOPE MOSTLY TOWARDS THE RIVER.
YOU SEE THAT THEY ACTUALLY, UM, HAVE A BIT OF A LINE KIND OF WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE AT, UH, 8, 8, 3, 4, 8, 3 2, THEY, THEY TURN TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UM, SO IF WE WERE TO EXTEND THAT WALL INTO THAT AREA, IT WOULD THEN ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME OF THAT, THAT WATER, UH, RUNOFF, IT WOULD GIVE YOU THE POTENTIAL TO, TO INFILTRATE INTO THE NEIGHBORING BACKYARD AS WELL.
SO WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING TRYING TO DO IS MITIGATE THAT BY JUST JOGGING THE WALL A LITTLE BIT, SHORTEN THE OVERALL LENGTH OF IT, UM, AND BE ABLE TO KIND OF WORK WITH THAT DRAINAGE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
COULD YOU SHOW THAT SLIDE AGAIN, TAMMY? THE ONE THAT WAS, YOU JUST FLIPPED THAT, THAT ONE.
SO AGAIN, TO REITERATE, THE GRAY AREA WOULD BE BELOW GRAY, AND, UH, THE REMAINING PART WOULD BE ABOVE.
IS THIS WHEN WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF YOU TWO TAMMY, IN THIS PORTION? YES, OF COURSE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THEM RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, THIS INFORMATION THAT WE WERE JUST GIVEN, I MEAN, IS THAT, UM, DID THE CITY OFFER ANY OTHER, LIKE, SOLUTIONS BESIDES, IT EITHER HAS TO BE ALL BEHIND THE WALL OR IS THAT WHAT THE CITY WANTS FOR THE RETAINING? BECAUSE LAST, IN OUR LAST MEETING, UH, BEFORE IT WAS TABLED, UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE A KIND OF SEPARATE, THERE WAS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BESIDE, BESIDE STRUCTURAL OR ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR RETAINING CERTAIN RETAINING WALLS.
I MIGHT BE REMEMBERING THAT WRONG, BUT DOES THIS SOLUTION NOT WHAT THE CITY SUGGESTED, OR IS IT, UM, DID YOU, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT ANY OTHER OPTIONS THE CITY OFFERED? SO THE APPLICANTS ADDRESSED WHAT
[00:25:01]
WE WANTED THEM TO ADDRESS.THE, THE MEETING THAT WE HAD LAST MONTH.
WE FELT LIKE THERE WAS, IT NEEDED TO BE A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF WHY THESE RETAINING WALLS WERE DESIGNED AND LOCATED WHERE THEY ARE.
I, I JUST, WE WERE CONCENTRATING ON THE, THE, UM, OUTDOOR SHED AND THE RETAINING WALLS.
AND IT SEEMED AS IF THAT, UH, CONVERSATION NEEDED TO BE, NEEDED TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS DONE EXACTLY WHAT, QUITE FRANKLY, I FEEL THE BOARD HAD ADDRESSED THEM TO DO, MOVE THE SHED OUT OF THE SETBACK, WHICH I, I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS IMPERATIVE.
I, I THINK THAT THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO BUILD IN A LOCATION THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
I GUESS THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT IS, UM, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO REVIEW IS WE FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION BEFORE THE BOARD IS, IF THEY WERE, THEY, THEY COULD, THEY'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY COULD DESIGN THE, THE RETAINING WALL TO BE LINEAR WITH SETBACK.
THEY COULD DO THAT, BUT, AND THIS IS PARAPHRASING, AND I, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
UM, BUT THEIR CONCERN IS THAT THAT WOULD THEN HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, I HONESTLY, I BELIEVE THAT CONVERSATION NEEDED TO BE HAD AT THE BEGINNING PART OF THE APPLICATION.
AND I BELIEVE IT'S IMPERATIVE TO YOUR DISCUSSION, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UM, THAT WE CONSIDER THAT WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT TO NEGATIVELY IMPAIR OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO IF THAT'S DICTATING THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THIS WALL, WE THINK THAT THAT'S A RELEVANT CONVERSATION TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? PROBABLY, PROBABLY ANSWERED MULTIPLE QUESTIONS.
UH, I THINK SO, BUT AGAIN, ARE YOU JUST BASICALLY SAYING LIKE, THE REASONS THAT THEY GIVE FOR PUTTING IT HERE AS FAR AS THE, THAT THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS IF THEY AS OR REDUCE THE RISK OF AFFECTING THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY BY WATER FLOW IF THEY DO IT THIS WAY, AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING IT BEHIND THE SETBACK? YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT THAT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF MEETING THE CRITERIA? 'CAUSE TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT GOES TO THE FIRST CRITERIA TO THIS, TO THE UNIQUE, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE CONTOUR OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
WELL, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, AGAIN, ASSUMING THEIR ASSESSMENT IS CORRECT, IF IT, IF THEIR DESIGN IS CORRECT AND WOULD WOULD IMPACT NEIGHBORS TO A LESSER EXTENT, WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT IF THEY BUILD IT THIS WAY, IT WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR.
BUT IF THEY BUILD IT BY EXCAVATING MORE AND MOVING THE WALL BEHIND THE LINE, THEN IT COULD IMPACT THE NEIGHBOR.
I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
I THINK WE'RE SAYING, OR I'M SAYING LET'S JUST
UM, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THIS DESIGN IS GOING TO BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY.
SO, SO AGAIN, GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, AND THIS IS INFORMATION THAT WE'VE JUST KIND OF ALLUDED TO, UM, I BELIEVE THAT GIVES MERIT TO THE APPLICATION.
BUT DOESN'T IT SAY THAT THEY DO NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA? NUMBER TWO, BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN, OR NUMBER THREE, BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN THAT THEY'VE CHOSEN? WE, WE WANTED THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THIS A BIT FURTHER BECAUSE QUITE FRA FRANKLY, WE DIDN'T GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE BEING OFFERED TONIGHT.
SO WE WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN IT A BIT FURTHER.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT SURE.
SO DOES, ARE YOU SAYING THAT, I'M SORRY TO KEEP BELABORING THE POINT.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO DO, AGAIN, YOU'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPLICANT.
[00:30:01]
IF, IF THE CONTOURS ARE THE SPECIAL, LET'S, LET'S GO FROM THE BEGINNING.IF THE CONTOURS ARE THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE SITE, THEY'RE DESIGNING THIS WALL BASED ON THE CONTOURS, THEN WE WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THEN, THEN THEY'RE NOT DICTATING THE CONTOURS OF THE SITE.
MY ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN OF THIS WALL ENOUGH TO SAY, IF YOU'RE CHOOSING THAT PATIO TO GO TO, TO THE SETBACK AND YOU'RE CHOOSING THAT OPTION, THEN YOU'RE DICTATING THAT SPECIAL CONDITION.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THEY'VE GIVEN US MORE INFORMATION TO SAY, IF, IF GIVEN THESE SEVERE CONTOUR CHANGES, WE CAN'T DESIGN THIS WALL ANY DIFFERENTLY, THEN YES, I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT WE WOULD CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR A NUMBER TWO TO SAY IT'S NOT AN ACTION OR AN ACTION OF THE APPLICANT, MR. LINVILLE, IF IT'S HELPFUL, A REMINDER FOR THE WHOLE BOARD THAT STAFF'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS ONLY EXPERT GUIDANCE BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY'VE RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT AT THAT TIME.
AND IT'S PUBLISHED WELL BEFORE TONIGHT'S DATE.
YOUR JOB IS TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AND TO ASSESS THE CODE LANGUAGE AND SEE IF AS IT'S PRESENTED TODAY, THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE, UH, SHOULD BE GRANTED.
SO IF STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, YOU STILL TO GET TO DECIDE WHAT THE RIGHT OUTCOME IS BASED ON WHAT WE HEAR TONIGHT.
I GUESS THE BASIC QUESTION I WAS ASKING IS, DOES, DO YOU THINK ANYTHING THEY SAID TONIGHT CHANGES THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION? YES.
SO TO THAT END, UH, DOES THE CITY HAVE, UM, ANY GROUNDS, UH, UPON WHICH IT WOULD, UH, DISPUTE THE, UH, CONTENTIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE PRESENTED? UH, OR WOULD, UH, IT HAVE, UH, AN ALTERNATIVE, UM, COMPOSITION THAT WOULD EITHER, UH, FALL THAT WOULD NOT, UH, UH, WARRANT GRANTING OF VARIANCE OR WOULD BE LESS, UM, UH, LESS OBSTRUCTIVE OR, UM, UH, THAT THAT WOULDN'T, UM, UH, GO SO FAR BEYOND THE, UH, THE REAR FOOT SETBACK? WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION FOR THE, FOR THE PROPOSAL.
I'M SORRY, ONE MORE THING, TAMMY.
EARLIER YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'D WANTED TO ADDRESS, UH, CRITERIA A TWO BEFORE WE ADDRESSED THREE.
IS THIS, HAVE WE, HAVE YOU DONE THAT TO YOUR SATISFACTION AS TO CRITERION THREE? YEAH.
THE IDEA WITH, UM, CRITERIA THREE, THE PAIR INTENT OF THIS CRITERIA, I THINK IS EASILY ADDRESSED WITH THE IDEA THAT THE RETAINING WALLS ARE LESS EVASIVE THAN A NORMAL OR TYPICAL STRUCTURE.
SO I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CRITERIA THREE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? I'LL, I'LL JUST DO ONE.
HOW HOW MUCH DO YOU GUYS DEAL WITH RETAINING WALLS IN YOUR PROFESSION? LIKE, IS IT A FREQUENT THING THAT COMES UP OR, I MEAN, I, I'M NOT A LANDSCAPING EXPERT, SO IT'S DAILY FOR US, UM, 27 YEARS IN BUSINESS, UM, CERTIFIED TO INSTALL THESE RETAINING WALLS, WORK WITH ENGINEERS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BOTH DESIGNING THEM PROPERLY AND INSTALLING THEM PROPERLY.
I, I BELIEVE YOU MAY BE SEATED AT THIS TIME.
UH, WE'LL ENGAGE IN OUR, UH, DISCUSSION AND, UH, LET YOU KNOW HOW THINGS, HOW WE, UH, GO FROM THERE.
UH, FIRST, DO WE HAVE, UH, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER? I DO NOT.
[00:35:01]
DO I NEED TO TURN ON MY MICROPHONE FOR CONVERSATIONS? YES, I THOUGHT SO.UM, SO I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THESE, UH, UNDER CRITERIA B, THE CRITERIA NOT MET.
UM, THE ONE THAT STATES, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE, ANOTHER CRITERIA B I'M LOOKING AT THE ONE ON THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT.
UM, AND ACTUALLY ON OUR DOCUMENTS, IT SAYS AT LEAST TWO OF THE RIGHT CRITERIA REQUIRED TO BE MET.
AND THERE'S ONLY ONE CRITERIA LIST, BUT PAGES.
UM, WELL, THE ONE ONE THAT SAYS, UH, THE CRITERION IS NOT MET BECAUSE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REAR YARD IS COMPARABLE, IF NOT LARGER THAN MANY SUBURBAN LOTS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE OUTDOOR SPACE.
DESPITE THE CHANGING GRADE, GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD CONFER SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO THE APPLICANTS THAT WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, I JUST FEEL, BASED ON EVERYTHING WE JUST HEARD, I FEEL LIKE THAT CRITERION IS MET, UM, BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE GOT ABOUT WHY THEY WANNA PLACE THE RETAINING WALL IN THE NEW PLAN SO THAT IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY AND, UH, REQUIRES LESS, UM, EXCAVATION ON THE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.
UM, I GUESS I'LL JUST GO THROUGH MY THOUGHTS ON THE APPLICATION.
UM, FOR CRITERIA, A, I AGREE WITH THE REASONS SET FORTH BY STAFF, AND NUMBER ONE, UH, FOR NUMBER TWO, WITH THE INFORMATION WE WE'VE RECEIVED TONIGHT, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THIS IS THE MOST FEASIBLE OPTION.
UM, THE OTHER ONE COULD BE MORE COSTLY, COULD BE MORE DAMAGING TO, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND SO, UM, I DON'T THINK THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE CHOSEN THIS LOCATION, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT MEETS THE NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION.
I ALSO THINK THEY'VE MET NUMBER THREE.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE PROPERTY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD ACTUALLY, UH, BE, UM, BE BETTER THAN IF THEY WERE TO BUILD ALONG, UM, AND OUT OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK.
AND ALSO, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S IMPAIRING THE INTENT OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
UH, ONE IT SOUNDS LESS DESTRUCTIVE AND TWO, UM, THE HOUSE BUTTS UP AGAINST, BUT WOODS.
AND TYPICALLY WHEN I THINK OF A SETBACK, I'M, I'M THINKING IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, PARTIALLY, UM, KEEPING, UH, THE DESIGN AND, AND WHATNOT OPEN, BUT ALSO NOT INTRUDING ON, ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT ONE HAS MET AS WELL.
AND THEN I, I AGREE WITH BRIDGET ON CRITERIA B NUMBER ONE, AND THEN I AGREE ON, UH, WITH THE STAFF'S POSITIONS ON TWO AND THREE AND CRITERIA B.
SO, UM, I THINK I WOULD, UH, I WOULD TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE.
YEAH, I THINK, UM, UM, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE COVERED MY CONCERNS, AND I'M PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU SAID.
I THINK THEY'VE MET AT LEAST TWO OF THE CRITERIA IN SECTION B, AND THAT'S ALL THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO ON THAT, ON THAT SECTION.
AND I AGREE THAT THIS DESIGN SOUNDS LIKE, UM, NOT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TOO VISIBLE BY ANYBODY.
IF IT'S ONLY THREE INCHES ABOVE GRADE, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE WALL.
AND IF IT AVOIDS POTENTIALLY A WATER ISSUE WITH THE NEIGHBOR, THEN THAT'S EVEN BETTER.
UH, I'M IN LINE WITH EVERYBODY, UH, IN YOUR COMMENTS.
UH, I WOULD, UH, ALSO LIKE TO UNDERSCORE SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE LAST MEETING.
LIKE REALLY THE PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO ESSENTIALLY FLATTEN OUT THE, UH, THE BACKYARD.
UM, AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO, UM, CRITERIA, A SECTION TWO.
UH, 'CAUSE THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION OR INACTION BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE, UH, SIGNIFICANT CONTROL OVER THE, UM, SIGNIFICANT SLOPE OF THE, UM, OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
IT'S A, A TOPOGRAPHICAL ISSUE THAT'S, UM,
[00:40:01]
UH, PREDATED THEIR, UH, OCCUPANCY OF THE, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.UH, AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY
AND IT WOULD, UH, ELIMINATE SOME OF THOSE, THOSE HAZARDS ON, ON THEIR BEHALF.
UM, AND YEAH, IT'S REALLY THE, UH, THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
UH, IF IT GOES INTO A WOODED AREA, IT DOESN'T REALLY, UH, INTERFERE WITH THE AESTHETICS, UH, OF THE, UM, UH, NEIGHBORS.
JUST OVER YOUR FACING NEIGHBORS, IT'S WOODS.
AND THEN I BELIEVE THE RIVER, UM, NOT TOO FAR FROM THERE.
UM, SO FOR THE, UM, UH, FOR THOSE REASONS AND THE REASONS, UH, STATED BY, UH, THIS BOARD, UH, I'M INCLINED TO, UH, TO MOVE TOWARD, UM, UH, APPROVAL.
UH, ARE WE READY TO, UH, TO HAVE A VOTE? OKAY.
I I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE COMMENT.
UM, I JUST APPRECIATE HOW QUICKLY THEY WERE ABLE TO TURN AROUND A NEW PLAN AND GET IT TO US, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PROBABLY TOOK A LOT OF WORK TO COME UP WITH SOME NEW DRAFTS AND, UM, YEAH.
SO I THINK THEY REALLY DID MEET THE SPIRIT OF GETTING US THE INFORMATION WE WANTED, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
ESPECIALLY, UH, WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PATIO FROM THIS SCENARIO TOO, IT MAKES THINGS A LOT EASIER.
UH, IN THAT, UH, IN THAT CASE, UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR A RETAINING WALL TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 4 V.
CAN YOU, UH, CALL, ROLL, PLEASE? MR. MURPHY? YES.
[Case #25-102V]
WE WILL BE, UH, MOVING ON TO THE, UH, SECOND CASE OF YOU'RE, YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE, UH, UH, SECOND CASE OF THIS EVENING.IT'S NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH ZERO TWO V.
UH, IT'S THE, UH, SHOAT MARE SHOT, SORRY, UH, RESIDENCE, UH, FENCE.
IT'S A NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE, UH, REQUEST FOR, UH, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO ENCROACH INTO A SIDE YARD SETBACK.
UH, THE 0.18 ACRE SITE IS ZONED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, SHANNON PARK, AND IS LOCATED AT 69 23 KILLARNEY COURT.
UH, WE'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, STAB PRESENTATION AGAIN BY TAMMY NOBLE.
UH, SO AGAIN, THIS, UH, APPLICATION IS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, UM, A SINGULAR LOT THAT'S DEALING WITH, UH, FENCE PLACEMENT IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
UM, AGAIN, THE, UH, PURPOSE AND THE DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WILL BE THE, UH, FINAL DETERMINATION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THIS WILL THEN PROCEED TO BUILDING PERMITS, UM, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT THE, UH, REQUEST GRANTED, UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF A CUL-DE-SAC, UM, CALLED KILLARNEY COURT.
I HOPE I'M SAYING THAT CORRECTLY.
UH, THE SITE'S OWN POD AND IT'S, UH, THE SHANNON PARK SUBDIVISION.
UH, THE SUBDIVISION'S ACTUALLY A, A HOUSING TYPE THAT WE DON'T SEE VERY OFTEN IN, UH, THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
BUT IT'S A, WHAT, WHAT WE WOULD REFER TO AS A DUPLEX.
BUT THEY'RE SINGLE, UH, FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT, UH, SHARE A COMMON WALL.
UM, THE, UH, SUBDIVISION WAS BUILT IN THE 1980S, AND THE COMPLETE SURROUNDING AREA IS A SIMILAR HOUSING TYPE.
UM, THE APPLICANT'S SITE IS INDICATED IN YELLOW.
UH, THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE SITE.
AND THE, UM, APPLICATION IS BASED ON A FENCE TO THE REAR.
UH, THESE ARE PI UH, PICTURES OF THE EXISTING, UH, FENCE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE TO THREE AND A HALF FOOT FENCE, UH, OPEN, UM, BEYOND THE, UH, BASIS OF THE OFFENSE.
UM, IT IS LOCATED FURTHER INTO THE REAR YARD STRUCTURE, WHICH I'LL OR REAR YARD SETBACK, EXCUSE ME, UM, WHICH I'LL DISCUSS FURTHER.
UM, AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
UH, IN TERMS OF HISTORY, WE HAVE, UM, BEEN HELPING THE APPLICANT WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UM, ISSUE SINCE APRIL AND APRIL.
WE ISSUED A, WHAT WE CALL A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL, AND THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL FOR, UM, SITES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS AND FENCES ARE, UH, THAT,
[00:45:01]
UH, FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY.SO IN APRIL, WE DID ISSUE A DENIAL FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE, NOTING BOTH THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS WERE NOT BEING MET AT THAT TIME.
UM, WE DID TALK TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS WE DID DO AN A SITE INSPECTION TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE UNDERSTANDING, UM, HOW THE, UH, FENCE HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
UM, FOLLOWING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE.
SO WE'RE BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE LOCATION OF THAT FENCE.
UM, IN TERMS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE, I HOPE THE GRAPHIC WILL HELP ILLUSTRATE THIS, BUT WE'RE DEALING PRIMARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
UM, CURRENTLY THE APPLICANT IS, UH, ASSURING US THAT THEY'LL REMOVE THE FENCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK, MEET THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
BUT THE TWO SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THERE'S ALWAYS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR SIDE YARDS.
AND THERE'S A TOTAL SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT IS EIGHT FEET, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING ZERO FEET.
THE TOTAL SIDE YARD IS REQUIRED TO BE 18 FEET AND PROPOSING 11 FEET.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE BOARD WOULD BE RECOMMENDING, THEY WOULD BE ANALYZING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT, BUT IT WOULD IMPACT TWO SIDE YARDS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
I DID WANNA SHOW THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, 'CAUSE I DO BELIEVE THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THIS ISN'T, AGAIN, THESE ARE UNUSUAL CONVERSATIONS FOR THIS BOARD TO PARTICULARLY HAVE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION, IT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE EIGHTIES.
AND THE, FIRST OF ALL, THE DOCUMENTATION IS SPARSE AT BEST, BUT THE IDEA OF THE SUBDIVISION IS THAT THEY WOULD DO, THEY WERE BASICALLY SMALLER CLUSTER LOTS WITH MINIMAL REAR YARD OUTDOOR SPACE.
AND MOST OF THE FENCING ELEMENTS, IF YOU'VE DRIVEN THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION, ARE TO THE FRONT FACADES OF THE HOUSES.
BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THE PATIOS ARE EITHER TO THE SIDE OF THE REAR AND MOST OF ALL OF THE LOTS HAVE EITHER A RETAINING WALL OR A FENCED IN AREA THAT SECURE THE PATIO AREAS.
SO THEY'RE VERY SMALL, UM, AREAS OF CON OF, UM, SECUREMENT BASICALLY.
SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ALLUDE TO THE BOARD IS THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS BASED MORE ON A SUBURBAN TYPE OF, UH, LOT STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.
AND I SHOULD, I'LL GO BACK TO THIS, I WANNA GO BACK TO THIS FOR A SECOND.
SO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS THEY WOULD, AS THE FENCE IS ERECTED TODAY, THEY WOULD ALIGN THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE WITH THEIR ADJACENT NEIGHBOR.
SO THAT WOULD BE A ZERO LOT LINE.
THEY WOULD MEET THE REAR YARD SETBACK, BUT THEY WOULD NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT.
SO THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST IS A SLIGHTLY MORE EXPANSIVE THAN WHAT WE WOULD SEE IN ANY OF THE OTHER, UH, LOTS.
SO THEN TO, UH, PROCEED TO THE CRITERIA, AGAIN, THIS IS A SUBDIVISION.
IT'S, UH, RELATIVELY, UM, COMMON IN, IN TERMS OF THE TYPICAL LOT SIZES AND LOT SHAPES IN TERMS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UM, AGAIN, THE ADJACENT, UH, PROPERTIES MAY HAVE AN ADJOINING WALL, UM, BUT THEY DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE THE FENCES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE SECOND CRITERIA, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED THE FENCE.
UM, AND SO WE'RE SAYING OR ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, UM, TAKEN ACTION UPON THEMSELVES THAT HAVE, UM, THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF TONIGHT.
IN TERMS OF IMPAIRMENT AND INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT, WE DO PARTICULARLY THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.
WE DO BELIEVE THIS FENCE WILL BE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL SET A CHARACTER FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
WE CAN GET INTO WHAT THE PROPER, UM, CHANNEL IS TO ALLOW FOR FENCES.
IF IT'S A, IF THIS WERE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, SUBDIVISION WOULD WANT TO DO COLLECTIVELY THERE'S ANOTHER PROCESS THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE.
THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IS NOT THE PARTICULAR AVENUE FOR THAT, THAT TYPE OF REQUEST.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE SECOND CRITERIA, I'LL JUST REMIND THE BOARD AGAIN, ONLY TWO OF THE FOUR CRITERIA NEED TO BE MET.
WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT TWO OF THOSE FOUR CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT.
AGAIN, SPECIAL PRIVILEGES WOULD BE ALLUDED TO THE APPLICANT IF, UM, RECOMMENDED.
[00:50:01]
AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S OTHER METHODS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT AND THAT WOULD BE, UH, REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE FENCE TO MEET THE CODE.SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, AND WE KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT'S HERE TO, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
UM, I GUESS TO START, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THESE, UH, PROPERTIES TYPICALLY HAVE, UH, ADJOINING WALLS AS OPPOSED TO THE, THE FENCES AS CONSTRUCTED.
COULD YOU, UH, UH, PERHAPS DESCRIBE OR, OR, UH, DISTINGUISH, UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, THOSE FURTHER, UH, WHAT A TYPICAL ADJOINING WALL IN THAT, IN THAT AREA WOULD, WOULD LOOK LIKE VERSUS THE, UM, THE FENCE AS, UH, CONCEIVED OR CONSTRUCTED? SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, UM, ALL OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE ADJOINING WALLS.
THEY'RE ALL, WHAT, WHAT MIGHT BE A COMMON, UH, DESCRIPTION AS A DUPLEX? OKAY.
ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE DUPLEXES, AND THAT INCLUDES THIS PARTICULAR SUB OR SECTION OF THE SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS ALL OF THE SURROUNDING SUBDIVISIONS.
SO THE ESSENCE OF THIS CONVERSATION IS THIS PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC IS VERY COMMON FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION.
I GUESS I'LL DEFER TILL AFTER WE HEAR THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION BEFORE I ASK ANY QUESTIONS,
UH, ANY CLARIFICATION ON ANY OF THE POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, UH, AT THIS POINT, OR I GUESS I WOULD, YOU MENTIONED THAT'S FINE.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO WHERE YOU SAID LIKE THE, UM, ORIGINAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR THIS WERE NOT REAL DETAILED OR SCARCE? I THINK YOU SAID, COULD YOU GO OVER THAT? HOW, WHAT, HOW THE, UM, THE CITY DETERMINED, LIKE WHAT THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN OF THE P OF THE PUD WAS? YEAH, SO, SO MOST PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, WHICH IS VERY COMMON IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DEVELOPED IN MORE CURRENT TIMES, THEY WOULD HAVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THEIR SUBDIVISION.
IN THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION, IT WAS VERY EARLY IN THOSE, IN THE DAYS OF THE CREATION OF PUDS.
AND SO THEY BASICALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS SETBACKS.
SO IN THOSE INSTANCES, WE DEFER TO THE, THE ZONING CODE.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE'RE SAYING THAT THE CRITERIA FOR A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT IS APPLICABLE TO THE, TO THIS DISTRICT.
IT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST A DESCRIPTION OF HOW WE WOULD ADMINISTER SETBACKS.
UM, BUT IF, LET'S JUST SAY WE WERE LOOKING AT OAK PARK THAT WAS CREATED IN THE NINETIES, THEY WOULD HAVE VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF WHERE, WHERE SETBACKS ARE ADMINISTERED AND FOR WHAT TYPE OF MECHANISM, WHETHER IT BE A HOUSE OR A FENCE OR A DETACHED STRUCTURE OR WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE.
SO THEY'RE JUST SLIGHTLY MORE DETAILED IS THE, THE THE POINT.
I THINK YOU MENTIONED THOUGH, THAT LIKE, BUT ARE YOU, DID YOU STATE THAT IT'S YOUR BELIEF, WHEN I SAY YOU, I MEAN YOUR TEAM, BUT THAT THE INTENT OF THESE TYPE OF, THIS TYPE OF SPEC, THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IS THAT THERE WAS A FRONT FENCE AND THAT THEY WEREN'T REALLY DESIGNED TO HAVE REAR FENCES THAT WAS DESIGNED TO BE OPEN AND SHARED PATIO.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THAT'S EXACTLY.
I, I KNOW YOU SAID IT, BUT COULD YOU DO A BRIEF TIMELINE AGAIN OF THE, UM, WHAT WAS IT? UH, THEY, THEY HAD THAT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION PERMIT THEY APPLIED FOR AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE.
SO DID THEY, THEY APPLIED, THEY WERE DISAPPROVED AND THEN THEY BILLED IT, OR THEY WERE BUILDING IT AND THEY APPLIED.
YOUR FIRST ANALYSIS IS CORRECT.
THEY, THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION, WELL, THEY APPLIED FOR, UH, WHAT WE CALL A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL.
WE INDICATED WHAT WE, UH, WOULD REQUIRE AND THEN CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED.
[00:55:04]
I'M SORRY TO GO BACK TO MY QUESTION AGAIN.GIVEN THE STANDARD THAT, THAT YOU BELIEVE APPLIES TO THIS, LIKE YOU DESCRIBED THAT SINCE IT'S SORT OF SILENT TO THIS ISSUE, YOU USE THE REGULAR ZONING, I DON'T WANNA PUT MERGE IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT YOU USE ZONING, YOU WOULD APPLY TO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS SINCE THIS ONE'S SILENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THAT'S, YES, YOU'RE CORRECT.
SO IS THERE A FEASIBLE WAY TO, LIKE, IF IT SHARES A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DUPLEX, YOU CANNOT HAVE A ZERO SETBACK IS THE ONLY OPTION.
SO IS THERE A WAY TO BUILD A FENCE IN THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE OR MM-HMM
I MEAN, YOU SAID THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO DO ALL OF THIS, BUT BARRING THAT IS, WAS THERE OTHER DESIGNS SUGGESTED AT THE TIME THEY APPLIED THAT? I MEAN, I GUESS I DON'T SEE HOW, I DON'T, HAVEN'T HEARD THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY YET, BUT I DON'T SEE IF THERE'S NO, IF THERE IS NO SIDE YARD, HOW CAN THEY HAVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THAT, ON THAT SIDE? LIKE WHERE THERE'S A ZERO SETBACK, THAT CAN NEVER BE ANYTHING MORE THAN A ZERO THERE IN THIS SITUATION.
SO, SO TO REMEDY THIS APPLICATION, AH, I THOUGHT I HAD THIS, UM, WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO IS, UM, MOVE THE, THE NORTHERN, IF YOU WILL, THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET AN EIGHT FOOT SETBACK AND THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE THAT BY SEVEN.
SO ESSENTIALLY BY MODIFYING THIS BY FEET, THEY COULD MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THEY CAN'T HAVE THE REAR YARD SETBACK, WE'RE SAYING THAT IT CAN'T BE IN THE LOCATION THAT THEY'RE ASKING.
IT WOULD HAVE TO MOVE TO WHERE THE FENCE WOULDN'T BE ENCOMPASSING ALL OF THE PATIO THOUGH.
I DON'T KNOW THE DIRECTIONS ON HERE, BUT THAT 56, 6 LINE NEXT TO THAT WOULD HAVE TO MOVE EIGHT FEET OR DOWN OR WHATEVER.
SO MAYBE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT THE CHART.
UM, SO THIS CURRENTLY IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S A ZERO SETBACK, RIGHT? IF THEY MOVE THIS EIGHT FEET IN, SAY TO WHERE THAT 36, 38, 75 LINE, IF THAT WAS EIGHT FEET, YEAH.
AND THEN IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, THEY'RE 11 FEET, AND HONESTLY, I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE LATITUDE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE IT FURTHER IN.
SO THEY'RE JUST MANIPULATING THESE TWO CORNERS OF THE LOT AND THEN THEY WOULD MEET THE CODE.
IF THE APPLICANT WOULD, UH, UH, APPROACH, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS ON AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I LIVE AT, UH, 6 9 1 OLD BOND.
UM, AND THEN FATHER AND SON, WE WOULD FIRST LIKE TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ON THE TIMELINE.
SO WE DID UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT PERMIT AFTER THE FENCE WAS BUILT.
UM, WE WERE APPROACHED BY JOHN CONWAY, I BELIEVE HIS NAME IS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, MY BROTHER AND I BUILT THE FENCE, KIND OF NOT REALLY KNOWING THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THAT.
AND WE WERE PUTTING UP THE LAST BOARD WHEN HE SHOWED UP TO OUR HOUSE TO TELL US THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF GOTTA GO THROUGH THE CORRECT AVENUES TO GET THE, YOU KNOW, PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO BUILD THE FENCE.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, WE BUILT THE FENCE IN LINE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAD FROM WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE.
THE DEED RESTRICTIONS HAD NO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AT ALL.
THEY HAD A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, THEY HAD SOME OTHER THINGS IN THERE, ALL OF WHICH THE FENCE, UH, MET, UH, THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AMATEUR HOUR FROM US THAT WE WENT AHEAD AND I, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WERE OTHER ADDITIONAL CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE BUILT THE FENCE IN LINE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND, AND THE FENCE WAS DONE.
[01:00:01]
ONLY TOOK ABOUT A DAY TO BUILD.SO THE FENCE WAS COMPLETED, UH, BEFORE WE EVER STARTED ANY KIND OF PROCESS.
IT WASN'T LIKE WE WERE TOLD, OH, YOU KNOW, STOP OR, AND WE KEPT GOING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE PUT THE FENCE UP IN LINE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AT THAT POINT, UH, THE CITY PERSON CAME AND, AND SAID, HEY, YOU THERE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'RE NOT MEETING HERE.
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT ALL STARTED.
AND THEN ANOTHER LIKE, KIND OF UNIQUE THING ABOUT THIS HOME ON THAT ONE STREET IS THE MAJORITY OF THE O THE OTHER DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY DO HAVE AN HOA AND THEY HAVE, UH, TIGHTER RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO.
UM, WHERE OUR STREET APPEARS THAT IT DOES NOT, UM, OR AT LEAST AS FAR AS WE KNOW AND ALL OUR NEIGHBORS KNOW, THERE'S NO HOA OR OTHER GOVERNING BODY BESIDES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, FOR OUR STREET AS, AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE
AND THEN TO CLARIFY, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE THAT HAS THE, UH, LINES ON IT WITH THE MEASUREMENTS? UM, NOT THAT ONE, BUT THAT ONE.
IF WE, THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY I FEEL, OR WE FEEL THAT, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIAL THING ABOUT THE SPECIAL THING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IS THAT IT'S A DUPLEX.
THE, UH, IF YOU MOVE THE UPPER LEFT, UH, FENCE LINE OFF THE PROPERTY LINE IN EIGHT FEET, YOU NOW DON'T ENCOMPASS THE, UM, PATIO, RIGHT.
WHICH IS THE WHOLE, I KIND OF IN ONE WAY, THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE FENCE.
AND IF YOU MOVE THAT ONE EIGHT FEET, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY MEET THE CRITERIA.
THERE'S EIGHT FEET AND 18 FEET COMBINED.
IF YOU DID MOVE THAT ONE EIGHT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO MOVE THE OTHER ONE.
BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALREADY A FENCE ACTUALLY.
YEAH, THERE'S AN EXISTING ALL, THERE'S A 12 FOOT RUN FENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PATIOS.
'CAUSE THE LOT LINE RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO PATIOS.
SO THERE'S ALREADY A 12 FOOT RUN FENCE THERE.
WE JUST CONTINUED THAT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS WHERE THE OTHER FENCE IS FROM, FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE EVEN.
AND, UH, IT, IT JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY REASON THE 18 FOOT RESTRICTION ISN'T BEING MET IS BECAUSE, UH, THE ZERO FOOT, BECAUSE WE HAVE A ZERO ON THE, ON THE ONE SIDE.
SO WE'RE KIND OF, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING PENALIZED.
IF WE, WE WERE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THE ZERO, UH, UH, SETBACK SIDE, UH, I MEAN, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MOVING THE OTHER ONE BACK, UH, A FEW FEET TO MAKE THE 18 FEET JUST, UH, I DON'T KNOW.
IT KIND OF JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
BUT, UM, AND THEN WE, COULD YOU GO TO THE SLIDE WITH THE MAP ON IT? OH, THE, THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY HAS LIKE A SATELLITE IMAGE, SORRY, WHERE YOU CAN SEE.
UM, SO OUR NEIGHBOR WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY AS WELL, UM, THEY HAVE A FENCE AS WELL THAT ENCOMPASSES THEIR, THEIR BACKYARD.
UM, SO WE WERE KIND OF BASING OUR, OUR DECISION ON PUTTING THE FENCE IN A LITTLE BIT ON THAT, NOT ENTIRELY, BUT WE KIND OF SAW THAT RIGHT NEXT TO US AND KIND OF ASSUMED THAT IT WAS.
AND, AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE DO HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT CASE ON THAT PROPERTY AS WELL.
I GUESS, AND THAT'S ONE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY.
I, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, UH, AS YOU SAY, I SUPPOSE, BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE FENCES ALL AROUND IN THE BACKYARDS ALL THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S THE TRUTH.
AND IT'S, IT'S, THAT IS A FENCE IN THE BACKYARD IS NOT A ANOMALY THERE.
I'M, I'M GOING TO POLITELY DISAGREE.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THE PROPERTY? LONG TIME? 97.
AND YOU SAID THERE'S, THERE'S NOT AN HOA FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? THERE IS NOT, THERE'S NOT AN HOA FOR OUR STREET.
SO THE REST, EVEN THE PROPERTIES THAT ADJOIN LIKE THE BACKYARD OF OURS, THEY DO HAVE AN HOA.
[01:05:02]
AND AS FAR AS I CAN TALK TO, JUST TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS AROUND OUR STREET PARTICULARLY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S NOT INVOLVED IN THE HOA.UM, 'CAUSE THEIR HOA DOES STUFF LIKE SNOW REMOVAL GRASS, THEY TAKE CARE OF ALL THEIR LANDSCAPING.
UM, AND A BUNCH OF STUFF LIKE THAT WHERE, YEAH, WE, UH, WE DO ALL THAT OURSELVES.
YEAH, I WILL SAY, JUST TO POINT TO YOUR, SO THERE, THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THE RED IS THE APPLICANT'S SECTION.
AND WE DID CLARIFY THAT IT IS A DIFFERENT HOA, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET TO THE POINT OF WHO IS THE HO REPRESENTATIVE, BUT IT IS A, A SEPARATE, SO WE DID CONFIRM THAT.
I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
I DON'T SEE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS PART OF THE RECORD IN HERE.
DE UH, WHAT ARE, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE DEED OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SEE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS THEY'RE LISTED? I, I DO IN MY EMAIL.
I DON'T HAVE 'EM WITH ME EITHER.
SO ESSENTIALLY JUST, JUST AGAIN, THIS IS EDIFICATION FOR THE BOARD.
DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY.
THOSE ARE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS, UH, BY PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, WE DID RESEARCH, UM, AND IN TERMS OF, I'M, AGAIN, IF I'M MISREPRESENTING, MOST OF THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS IS ABOUT TYPICAL MAINTENANCE AND THERE'S SOME ELEMENTS ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUT FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT WAS SILENT ON THE FENCE ELEMENT.
BUT AGAIN, FOR THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE.
SO THEY'RE A, A SECONDARY ISSUE.
UM, SO THERE'S BEEN MENTION THAT THERE WAS ALREADY AN EX, THERE WAS AN EXISTING 12 FOOT RUN OF PRIVACY FENCES BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.
CAN YOU, IS THERE A PICTURE THAT SHOWS THAT, I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S PICTURES THAT SHOW THE FENCES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE PICTURES SHOW WHAT WAS YEAH, ALREADY THERE WAS THE ORIGINAL FENCE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT MY RIGHT PICTURES CAPTURED WHICH ONE FAR RIGHT PICTURE.
SEE HOW THE, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE, SEE THE FIRST PART OF THAT'S A PRIVACY FENCE THAT'S TALL.
AND BECAUSE THE TWO PATIOS BASICALLY TOUCH EACH OTHER.
AND THE ONLY THING SEPARATING THE TWO PATIOS IS THAT PRIVACY FENCE.
WAS THAT THERE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE? THAT WAS, YES.
BUILT, THAT WAS BUILT AT THE TIME THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
AND THE ONLY CAVEAT THAT I WOULD SAY IS, THE ONLY THING THAT I WORRY ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADJACENT PROPERTIES IS, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE LEGALLY CONSTRUCTED.
SO I, I WOULD SAY WITH SOME ASSURANCES THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO ENCLOSE PATIO SPACE.
UM, SO I'LL DEFER TO THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, MR. CHAIR.
UH, IF THE BOARD IS QUESTIONING THE PREEXISTING 12 FOOT RUN, THE SECTION, UH, OF THE, UH, DUBLIN CODE WOULD ALLOW THAT TO MAINTAIN SINCE IT WAS ENACTED BEFORE 2000, UH, WHEN A NEW SECTION OF CODE WAS APPLIED.
BUT THAT ISN'T A PART THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED IN THIS, UH, APPLICATION, I BELIEVE, TAMMY.
SO IT, IT ISN'T ACTUALLY CONSIDERED HERE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YEAH.
SO THE ONLY FENCE THAT'S IN QUESTION IS THE NEWEST CONSTRUCTION.
IT ISN'T THAT PRIVACY PORTION.
UM, UH, COULD YOU, SORRY, UH, COULD YOU BRING BACK THAT UH, OTHER PICTURE WITH THE PRIVACY FENCE IN IT.
UM, COULD YOU ESTIMATE JUST ABOUT HOW FAR OVER FROM THE PATIO, THE, UH, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR THE PRIVACY FENCE IS? UM, HOW FAR INTO THE SETBACK WOULD IT TOUCH? IT RUNS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE PATIO.
TOUCHES UP WHERE THE PATIO IS, IT TOUCHES THE PATIO OR RIGHT ALONG THE EDGE.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DAYLIGHT IN BETWEEN.
WHAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS FENCE THAT YOU BUILT? UH, THE MAIN PURPOSE OF IT WAS,
[01:10:01]
UM, I HAVE A COUPLE DOGS AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF BUILDING THE FENCE, WAS TO HAVE AN AREA FOR THEM TO, TO BE AT, AT HOME.WE'LL, UH, ENGAGE IN OUR DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME.
UH, WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? UM, THERE WAS SOMETHING SUBMITTED WITH THE PACKET, UM, AND THAT WAS FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THAT SUPPLIED SOME COMMENTS, BUT NOTHING ADDITIONAL BEYOND THAT.
SO THE THING THAT I'M HUNG UP ON, UM, IS LEMME GET TO IT, CRITERIA A NUMBER TWO.
UM, I, IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF EVENTS, HOW, HOW IT HAPPENED, UM, BUT THIS VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE OFFENSE EXISTS.
UM, AND THAT BEING REQUIRED THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT MEETING THAT KIND OF KILLS THE WHOLE THING.
BUT I MEAN, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE'S THE ABILITY, ALTHOUGH PROBABLY NOT FUN OF MOVING THE FENCE, IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE IT DIDN'T TAKE A LONG TIME TO BUILD.
UM, BUT I CAN'T GET PAST THAT ONE.
UH, SPECIAL CONDITION, UM, IS ALSO A SIMILAR ONE.
I WAS LOOKING AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE THESE LOTS ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY SLICE THE HOUSE IN HALF AND THEY'RE ODDLY SHAPED AND, UM, I, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PROPERTY DIFFERS ENOUGH TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THAT DISTRICT TO WARRANT A VARIANCE HERE.
SO THOSE ARE MY TWO BIG CONCERNS AND I WOULD ECHO THOSE THOUGHTS.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE CITY, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO ASK.
UM, DID YOU SAY THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD MAKE THIS FENCE AS IT IS? OKAY.
AND IF SO, WHAT IS THAT OTHER WAY? YEAH, SO BECAUSE THIS IS A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IF THERE WERE THE DESIRE FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION TO A BASICALLY ATTAIN, UM, FENCES ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES, THEY COULD APPLY FOR SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED AN AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THAT WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IT WOULD BE A MORE HOLISTIC REVIEW OF WHERE THOSE FENCES SHOULD BE AND WHETHER THEY CONSIDER THAT APPROPRIATE OR NOT.
SO IT WOULDN'T BE A SINGULAR LOT GETTING A, A REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD BE THE TOTALITY OF THE SUBDIVISION.
SO THERE IS A PROCESS, IT'S A MORE LENGTHY PROCESS AND IT DOES REQUIRE MORE SUPPORT BY THE COMMUNITY.
UM, BUT IT IS AN APPROPRIATE, AND WHAT WE WOULD SAY, UM, MORE FEASIBLE OPTION FOR THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.
DOES IT REQUIRE, LIKE, COULD YOU ELABORATE? LIKE DOES IT REQUIRE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE ENTIRE P OR THEIR SECTION OR, OR JUST LIKE A MAJORITY OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? YEAH, I WOULD THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
IT'S USUALLY BASED ON THE PHASE OF THE PROJECT, BUT IT WOULD BE A, ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS ASSESSING THAT THEY WANT THAT REQUIREMENT.
UH, THIS MIGHT JUST BE A, UM, SORT OF JUST A CALL FOR AN OBSERVATION, BUT, UH, HOW OFTEN ARE THE, UH, THESE OMITTED DEVELOPMENT PLANS, UM, IMPLEMENTED AND HOW SUCCESSFUL, WHAT, WHAT IS THEIR SUCCESS RATE GENERALLY? SO I'LL SAY THEY'RE VERY COMMON.
[01:15:01]
A COMMON APPLICATION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.HOW SUCCESSFUL THEY ARE IS BASED ON THE TYPE OF PROPOSAL.
SO I, I WILL JUST SAY, JUST FOR EDIFICATION FOR THE BOARD, OUR FENCE REQUIREMENTS ARE STRINGENT.
I, I WILL SAY THAT WE'RE A SUBURBAN COMMUNITY.
UM, OUR FENCE REQUIREMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO NOT ALLOW PERIMETER FENCES, PERIOD.
THEY'RE MEANT, THEY'RE MEANT TO ALLOW SMALL SPACES OF PRIVACY, UM, WITHOUT DOING FULL ENCLOSURES OF PROPERTY LINES.
SO THE SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE SECURED FENCES THAT GO BEYOND THAT WOULD BE PART OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY I WOULD, UH, ECHO SOME OF THE, UH, SENTIMENTS OF, UH, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
UNFORTUNATELY, UH, OUR HANDS ARE ESSENTIALLY TIED.
UH, WE ARE STUCK WITH THE CODE SECTIONS THAT WE, WE HAVE, WE CAN'T MAKE A LOT OF, UH, MAJOR, UH, UH, UH, DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS, UH, UH, THAT WOULD BEND TOO FAR OUTSIDE OF OUR, OF THE PURVIEW OF, UM, UH, OF THE BOARD.
UM, SO, UH, HOW ARE WE FEELING IN TERMS OF VOTE
AND A, UM, A NUMBER TWO IS LIKE THE ACT NOW AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS LATER THAT A LOT OF US GET BY IS JUST NOT SOMETHING ALLOWED BY THE CODE.
UM, SO I GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THAT, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY WAY AROUND THAT GRANTING THAT CRITERIA IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR ANY REAL FURTHER DISCUSSION TO EVEN GO ON TO CRITERIA B.
THAT SAID, UM, ALSO YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE FENCES ALL OVER YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IN VARIOUS FORMS ALREADY.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO THE CITY TO DEAL WITH, BUT IT ALSO MAY PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COULD GET YOUR NEIGHBORS TOGETHER AND, AND TRY TO GO THAT ROUTE.
AND IF EVERYBODY ELSE WANTS FENCES, THERE'S A WAY TO CHANGE IT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE A PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW TO SO THAT YOU COULD DO THAT.
BUT, UM, BUT I'M STILL STUCK WITH THE FACT THAT UNFORTUNATELY THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THEN, AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT
UH, BUT YEAH, AND, AND I MEAN OBVIOUSLY IF THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, FENCES AND A LOT OF THEM ARE NOT IN, UH, NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, THE CODE, I THINK THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE, I MEAN, SEEMS TO BE GROUNDS TO ASSUME THAT, UH, UH, THERE MIGHT BE A, A BIT OF A HUNGER FOR
SO, UH, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO PURSUE, UM, AFTER, UH, AFTER TONIGHT.
UM, SO THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR, UH, ANTHONY.
UM, IF WE WERE TO DISAPPROVE AND THEY SOUGHT TO LOBBY TO HAVE THE, UH, UH, FENCE, UH, FENCES, UH, OR THE, THE CODE SECTION, UH, UH, DEVIATED FROM OR AMENDED IN SOME WAY, UH, WOULD THEY BE PRECLUDED FROM KEEPING THEIR FENCE IF, IF A CHANGE DID OCCUR OR, UH, WOULD WE HAVE ANY DISCRETION, UH, TO, TO TABLE THE, UH, THE MATTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW WITH THE, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION? OKAY.
I THINK I'M TRACKING WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO, WHAT LOOKING TO CONSIDER, UM, THE TABLING POWER REALLY BELONGS TO THE APPLICANT AND THEY CAN ASK THAT YOU ALL TABLE THIS FOR SOME CAUSE OR REASON YOU HAVE TO VOTE, AND IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE THREE TO ONE TONIGHT TO DO SO.
UH, AS FAR AS THE NEXT MEETING THAT IT'S HEARD AT, THAT IS KIND OF A CONSIDERATION BETWEEN, UH, PLANNING AND THE APPLICANT.
BUT THE RULES OF THE BZA SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE HEARD AT THE NEXT HEARING UNLESS THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR IT NOT TO BE.
SO A PERPETUAL KIND OF TABLING ISN'T DESIGNED IT, IT'S NOT THE DESIGN OF THE RULES OF THIS BOARD.
[01:20:02]
IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU WERE TO VOTE, UH, IF THE MOTION WERE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND IT DID NOT RECEIVE THREE OUT OF FOUR VOTES TONIGHT, THEN THE CITY WOULD BE FREE TO ENGAGE IN CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PARTICULAR FENCE.UM, THE CITY COULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO SO.
IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A, A CURRENT EFFORT TO HAVE THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHANGED.
IF IT WERE TO BE CHANGED, THAT WOULD BE THE NEW APPLICABLE ZONING CONSIDERATION, UH, FOR THAT PROPERTY.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, CODE ENFORCEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CAN CONTINUE TO DO.
PLEASE, IT CAN, CAN WE DO CONDITIONS ON APPROVAL? YOU CAN.
SO IF WE SAID CONDITIONED ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION, AN APPLICATION BEING APPROVED OR SUBMITTED WITHIN SO MANY CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, IS THAT A PERMISSIBLE CONDITION? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO FOR THEM TO APPLY FOR AN, AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, IT REQUIRES OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO TO BE PARTY TO THAT APPLICATION.
SO IT'S ALMOST ASKING THE APPLICANT NOT THAT IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL, BUT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT FOR THE APPLICANT TO SECURE THAT, THAT CONDITION.
WHAT I, WHAT I WILL SAY TO THE BOARD IS THE APPLICATION THAT I'M SPEAKING OF BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS A FORMAL APPLICATION.
IT'S, IT'S A, A FAIRLY FORMAL PROCESS.
SO WHAT I MIGHT SAY IS YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
ONE OPTION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE APPLICATION AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO EITHER COMPLY WITH THE CODE OR PURSUE OTHER OPTIONS, WHICH WOULD BE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, OR YOU APPROVE IT AS SUBMITTED TO, TO THE BOARD WITH THE SECOND REQUEST.
THE CAVEAT THAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS IF ANY PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN EITHER PHASE OF THE SUBDIVISION WERE TO HAVE A SIMILAR REQUEST, YOU WOULD BE, UM, OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THE SAME TYPE OF REQUEST.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE KIND OF YOUR TWO OPTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONDITIONS.
UM, THIS IS CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 SUBPART E TWO.
IT AFFORDS, UH, THE BOARD THE POWER TO ATTACH ANY CONDITIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION, CHARACTER, AND OTHER FEATURES OF THE APPLICATION, AS IT MAY DEEM REASONABLE TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT, ARE MET.
LITTLE B SAYS, CONDITIONS ATTACHED MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT BE RESTRICTED TO LIMITATIONS ON THE EXTENT OR INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, SCREENING, LIGHT LIGHTING, CONTROL OF ACCESS, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AS MAY BE REQUIRED.
UH, CONDITIONS ATTACHED SHOULD BE STATED IN THE, IN THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL, INCLUDING THE REASONS FOR EACH CONDITION IMPOSED.
I THINK I JUST, AGAIN, WOULD LIKE TO, MY FEELING IS THAT, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE INITIAL PLANS IS THAT THERE WERE PATIOS IN THE FRONT OF THESE HOUSES THAT WERE SOMEWHAT ENCLOSED BY A, A WALL ALREADY.
AND WITHOUT, WITH IT BEING SILENT, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THERE WEREN'T REALLY INTENDING TO BE FENCES IN THE BACK BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BUILD THEM WHEN THEY BUILT THE HOUSE.
THEY, THEY'RE ALLOWED, I GUESS IN THIS CASE, A PRIVACY FENCE SEPARATING THE PATIOS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, WHICH SEEMS OKAY, BUT, UM, BUT THIS TYPE OF FENCE WASN'T CONTEMPLATED IN THE INITIAL, UM, PLANS IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND UM, THAT SAID, THAT WAS, I HATE TO ADMIT HOW LONG AGO THE EIGHTIES WERE BECAUSE I REMEMBER THEM QUITE WELL, BUT, UM,
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE SOME SUPPORT AND REASON TO REVISIT AND UPDATE THE, UM,
[01:25:01]
THE PUD RULES, IF I'M SAYING, USING THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY, UM, TO ALLOW FOR THAT IF THAT'S WHAT A MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS ARE DOING ANYWAY,SO IN ADDITION TO, LIKE I SAID, I STILL DON'T SEE ANY WAY AROUND, UH, CRITERIA A TWO, UM, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT.
I GUESS MY ONLY, I MEAN, COMPROMISING, UH, TO THE EXTENT THERE IS A COMPROMISE IS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BOARD IS PLANNING TO DENY IF IT'S VOTED ON.
UM, BUT I MEAN WE COULD, IF THEY ASKED FOR IT, IF TABLE UNTIL JANUARY, IF THEY WANT TO TRY AND DRUM UP SUPPORT IN THE MEANTIME KNOWING THEY'LL COME BACK AND GET A DENIAL REGARDLESS, BECAUSE SECTION, WE, WE, MOST OF US, ALL OF US AGREE CRITERIA A SECTION TWO, UM, BUT IT WOULD GIVE THEM AT LEAST A MONTH TO TRY AND DRUM UP SOME SUPPORT, MAYBE INITIATE THAT PROCESS A LITTLE EARLIER.
UM, 'CAUSE I MEAN THAT, THAT'S THE BEST I I CAN THINK OF 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE A NO FOR ME, UM, WHENEVER THE VOTE DOES OCCUR.
SO YEAH, I GUESS I WOULD, I SEE THAT AS A, AN OPTION, BUT I ALSO, I GUESS I WOULD, IF THEY ARE DENIED THIS AND WANT TO PURSUE THE OTHER, UH, METHODOLOGY WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THEN I THINK THEY JUST NEED TO STAY IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO EFFECTUATE THAT.
AND, AND THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO, TO PERHAPS PAUSE, UM, ENFORCEMENT IF THEY KNOW THEY'RE ACTIVELY TRYING TO DO THAT.
AND IF THAT'S, I DON'T THINK IT TABLING FOR 30 DAYS, IT'S GONNA ALLOW THEM TO COMPLETE THEIR WORK IN THAT AND WE WOULD ONLY JUST BE DELAYING THE INEVITABLE FOR ONE MONTH.
AND TAMMY, I THINK YOU'D SAID IF WE DISAPPROVE, YOU COULD CITY CAN EITHER ENFORCE OR APPLICANT CAN NEGOTIATE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THE CITY HAS OR WOULD BE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE AND IF THEY DO PURSUE THAT ROUTE OR, UM, IS THAT IN TERMS OF NEGOTIATION, IT'S REALLY NEGOTIATION ON THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY TO MEET THAT THE, THE CONDITIONS.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF THE APPLICATION WERE TO BE DENIED, WE WOULD PURSUE COMPLIANCE.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, THAT WOULD THERE OTHER AVENUES WOULD REQUIRE PARTICIPATION APPLICATION, AND QUITE FRANKLY, EVEN SUPPORT BY EITHER OURSELVES AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THIS ISN'T JUST A CHECK MARK ON A BOX, LIKE THERE, THERE IS A PROCESS.
SO WE WOULD EVALUATE WHETHER WE EVEN THINK REAR YARD FENCES ARE APPROPRIATE AND ARE THEY, SHOULD THEY BE ON THE ZERO LOT LINE.
SO IF GIVEN MY OPINION, WE WOULD STILL ENFORCE IT, ASK THEM TO MANIPULATE THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE.
IF THEY WERE TO GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND GET SOMETHING APPROVED THAT SAID OTHERWISE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CAPABILITIES OF EXPANDING THE FENCE.
SO, SO THE, UH, I GUESS THE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE, UH, TO SEE COMPLIANCE AS, AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
UH, OBVIOUSLY THE PRIVACY FENCE WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED.
UM, THE, UH, AT 18 OR THAT 11? YEAH, THE 18 FOOT, UH, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WOULD BE ENFORCED.
SO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT NINE FEET THAT THE FENCE WOULD MOVE, UH, ESSENTIALLY, UH, FORWARD TOWARD THE, UH, THE PROPERTY.
AND, UH, AND THEN I GUESS THE, UH, THE OTHER, UH, PORTION OF THE FENCE WOULD BE MOVED OVER EIGHT FEET, UH, TO ATTAIN COMPLIANCE OR, UH, WOULD THERE BE A, UM, POTENTIAL VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SAY THE, UM, A PORTION OF THE FENCE TO BE, TO BRANCH OFF FROM THAT PRIVACY FENCE, MOVE OVER TO THE EIGHT FEET, AND THEN BASICALLY ENCOMPASS THE, UH, THE SETBACK AREA.
[01:30:01]
EIGHT FOOT MINIMUM SIDE YARD WITHOUT APPROVALS FROM THIS BOARD, THEY WOULD NOT BE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPROVE THAT.MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE RECORDED IF POSSIBLE.
SORRY, JUST SOME CLARIFICATION POINTS.
UM, BUT YEAH, I, I, UH, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, UM, I BELIEVE, UH, WE'RE READY TO, UH, PUT THE MATTER UP FOR A VOTE.
UH, SO WE CAN, UH, HAVE A MOTION.
UH, SO THIS WOULD BE, IT'LL BE STATED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
IF, UH, YOU'RE SEEKING NOT TO APPROVE, YOU WOULD JUST SAY NO.
UH, SO WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH ZERO TWO V, UH, SHOT MEYER RESIDENCE FENCE, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE, UM, UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS? SO, MOVED.
UH, WHAT, WHAT I MIGHT ASK IS IF WE CAN TALK TOMORROW, I CAN HELP YOU NAVIGATE THE NEXT STEPS.
[COMMUNICATIONS]
WE HAVE SOME COMMUNICATIONS, UM, THE, UH, MEETINGS OR, UH, MEETING DATES FOR NEXT YEAR, 2026.UH, DO WE HAVE COPIES OF THOSE? UH, THEY WERE IN YOUR PACKET, I HOPE.
UM, AND IT FALLS ON THE THIRD THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO DO IS PLAN AHEAD, AND IT'S IF ANY ONE MEMBER IS NOT AVAILABLE, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE IF THERE'S, UM, NOT A QUORUM THAT WE, WE WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
SO WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU APPROVE THE MEETING DATES AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU AS BEST WE CAN.
UH, SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2026 MEETING DATES? SO MOVED.
UH, WITH NO OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THIS BOARD? UH, WE ARE, OH, IS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT? WE JUST WANTED TO SAY HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND WE PRESENTED SOMETHING VERY SMALL JUST TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR VOLUNTEERISM.
WE KNOW THAT IT'S, IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO BE INVOLVED IN YOUR COMMUNITY AND WE DO APPRECIATE IT.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THOSE GIFTS TOO.
YEAH, I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS DO WITH THAT.