* 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. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:02] UH, GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. YOU CAN JOIN THE MEETING IN PERSON AT 5 5 5 5 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'RE GONNA START OUT WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SO IF YOU PLEASE, PLEASE RISE IF POSSIBLE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO, TO THE FLAG, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NOW WE'RE GONNA TAKE ROLE. MS. MAXWELL, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? YES. MR. ANDERSON? HERE. MS. ALESSANDRO? HERE. MR. LINVILLE? HERE. MR. MURPHY? NOT YET. MR. SNICK? HERE. HERE. UM, [ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES] NOW WE'RE GOING TO, UH, VOTE ON LAST MEETING'S MINUTES. UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 29TH MEETING? I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT, ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 29TH MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND PLEASE. CALL ROLL. YES. MS. DEANDRO? HERE. MS. SNICK? YES. MR. LINVILLE? YES. MR. ANDERSON? YES. THANK YOU. AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT, UM, OUR TRUSTEE LEADER, PATRICK, HAS ARRIVED AND, UH, I'M GONNA BE HANDING IT OFF TO HIM IF HE DOESN'T CARE. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY TARDINESS AND I DO APPRECIATE THE, UH, MORE. WELCOME. UH, SO WE'RE, WE JUST VOTED OFF. OKAY. UM, IN THAT CASE, CAN WE AMEND THE, UH, ROLE TO NOTE THAT I AM ACTUALLY, INDEED PRESENT? YES, WE CAN DO ANOTHER ROLE. MR. ANDERSON? HERE. MS. DEANDRO? HERE. MR. LINVILLE? HERE. MR. MURPHY? HERE. MS. TISK HERE. THANK YOU. AND WE'VE, UH, MOVED TO ACCEPT THE, UH, MEETINGS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IN TERMS OF PROCEDURES THIS EVENING, EACH CASE, UH, THIS EVENING WILL BE, UH, WE'LL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT'S APPELLANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. THE BOARD WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST, AND THEN THE APPLICANT, ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT, WILL BE INVITED TO COME FORWARD UNDER, UH, EACH APPLICATION, PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON THE MICROPHONE AT THE PODIUM. UH, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. WE REQUEST THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. UH, ANYONE INTENDING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OR PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CASE, UH, OF CASES MUST BE SWORN IN. UH, ANYBODY, UH, DOING THAT THIS EVENING, UH, ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TO END, UH, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE MAKING A, UH, STATEMENT, A SWORN STATEMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE THIS EVENING, UH, WE ASK THAT YOU STAND. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. UH, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? YES, LET ME SAY IT. THANK YOU. SO, IF WE'D BE [Case #26-002V ] MOVING ON TO OUR FIRST CASE THIS EVENING, THAT IS CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 0 2 V, UH, FOR THE HOGAN RESIDENCE, UH, INVOLVING A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE, UH, REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A, UH, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR A SHED TO ENCROACH THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK. THE 0.30 ACRE SITE IS ZONED R DASH FOUR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED AT 56 13 ADVENTURE DRIVE. UH, STEP PRESENTATION WILL BE PERFORMED BY, UH, TORI, UH, BRUBAKER. UH, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. THE CASE BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT IS A REQUEST FOR A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR A SHED THAT ENCROACHES 17 FEET INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK. IT'S LOCATED AT 56 13 ADVENTURE DRIVE. AS FOR THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE PROCESS, THIS IS A SINGULAR STEP FOR THE APPLICANT. THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ASSOCIATED [00:05:01] TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER THERE ARE ANY NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE SITE, AND WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT CAN APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD IF DISAPPROVED. THE APPLICA APPLICATION WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS ZONED R FOUR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HEMINGWAY VILLAGE SUB SUBDIVISION WEST OF COFFIN ROAD IN NORTH OF TARA HILL DRIVE. HERE WE HAVE SOME IMAGES OF SOME OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE SHOWING WHERE THE SHED IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE POOL. FOR SOME HISTORY OF THIS CASE, CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ABOUT A SHED BEING BUILT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. CODE ENFORCEMENT CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT AND CONFIRMED THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND NOTIFIED THE RESIDENTS OF THIS VIOLATION. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH WAS DENIED BY CITY STAFF ON JANUARY 5TH OF THIS YEAR, AND THE DENIAL REFERENCED THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. THE VARIANCE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW A SHED TO ENCROACH 17 FEET INTO THE 30 FOOT REQUIRED WEY YARD SETBACK. AND THIS SETBACK REQUIREMENT COMES FROM BEING THE REQUIRE OF IT BEING 20% OR MORE OF THE REAR YARD. A COMPLIANT LOCATION HAS BEEN INDICATED BY THE APPLICANT AND IS SHOWN IN PAGE TWO OF THE PACKET. AS FOR VARIANCE CRITERIA A, ALL THREE OF THE CRITERIA ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET. NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND FOR THE SITE. THIS CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET. THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTING THIS SHED IN THE REAR ITS SETBACK CONSTITUTES ACTION BY THE APPLICANT. SO THIS CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET AND GRANTING THIS REQUEST WOULD RESULT IN NEGATIVE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND WOULD IMPAIR THE INTENT OF THE CODE. SO THIS CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET FOR VARIANCE CRITERIA. B, AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOUR CRITERIA ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET IN THE APPLICATION MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT. WITH THAT PLANNING RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO PROVIDE A PRESENTATION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? ANY CLARIFYING? OKAY. UH, AT THIS TIME, WE ASKED FOR THE, UH, UH, APPLICANT'S, UH, MARQUETTE HOVAN, UH, PROPERTY OWNER TO PLEASE APPROACH, UH, ENSURE THAT THE, UH, GREEN LIGHT IS ON THE MICROPHONE. UH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND, UH, PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. MY NAME IS MARQUETTE HOVAN, AND I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 5 6 1 3 ADVENTURE DRIVE. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MY HUSBAND AND I ARE RELATIVELY NEW TO COLUMBUS, AND WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS APPROVAL PROCESS BEFORE PURCHASING THE SHED. IF WE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED FIRST, WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS BEFORE MOVING FORWARD. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT CITY PLANNING HAS BEEN KIND AND HELPFUL IN WALKING US THROUGH THE PROCESS ONCE WE BECAME AWARE OF IT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE SHED IN OUR REAR YARD. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN BEFORE THE BOARD IS WHETHER THIS REQUEST MEETS THE STANDARD FOR A VARIANCE, AND I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY I BELIEVE APPROVAL IS REASONABLE IN THIS CASE. WHILE OUR LOT MAY APPEAR LARGER ON PAPER, THE PRACTICAL REALITY IS THAT THE USABLE BACKYARD AREA IS HEAVILY CONSTRAINED BY THE EXISTING POOL, THE SURROUNDING CONCRETE AND PAVER AREA, THE DECK, THE FIRE PIT, THE REAR EASEMENT, AND THE SHAPE OF THE LOT ITSELF. IMPORTANTLY, THOSE LIMITATIONS WERE ALREADY IN PLACE WHEN I MOVED INTO THE HOME. THESE ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT I CREATED, BUT EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT AFFECT HOW THE BACKYARD CAN REASONABLY BE USED. SO ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE TECHNICALLY ANOTHER COMPLIANT LOCATION, THAT LOCATION WOULD TAKE UP MUCH OF THE REMAINING FUNCTIONAL BACKYARD SPACE AND MAKE THE YARD SIGNIFICANTLY LESS USABLE FOR NORMAL RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A RELATIVELY SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A 160 SQUARE FOOT SHED LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD. IT IS NOT AFFECTING THE FRONT STREET SCAPE TRAFFIC OR PUBLIC ACCESS, AND EVEN THE STAFF REPORT NOTES THAT IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. I WOULD ALSO RESPECTFULLY [00:10:01] POINT OUT THAT THE REPORT STATES THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, BUT IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC HARMS SUCH AS DRAINAGE ISSUES, SAFETY CONCERNS, BLOCKED ACCESS, OR OTHER MEASURABLE IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS A LOW IMPACT REQUEST FOR A STRUCTURE THAT IS TUCKED INTO THE BACKYARD AND RELATED TO THE NORMAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT THE SHED WAS INSTALLED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. HOWEVER, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE ACTUAL LAND USE QUESTION BEFORE TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHETHER THE SPECIFIC LOCATION IS REASONABLE AND WHETHER GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD CAUSE MEANINGFUL HARM. I BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IT WOULD NOT. THIS REQUEST IS NOT ABOUT SEEKING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF A BACKYARD THAT ALREADY HAD SEVERAL FIXED IMPROVEMENTS AND LIMITATIONS WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOME BECAUSE OF THE POOL HARDSCAPE EASEMENT AND LOT CONFIGURATION. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT CREATES A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY HERE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM A MORE OPEN OR REGULAR SHAPED LOT. FOR THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. UM, NOW WE WILL, UH, PROCEED WITH, UH, QUESTIONS TO, WELL, I GUESS WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE BOARD AND, UH, UH, BUT WE MAY HAVE SOME, UH, FOR YOU, UH, FOR YOUR CONTEXT. SO ANY QUESTIONS TO, UH, START WITH, I SUPPOSE, UH, TO START? UM, THEY, UH, IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, THEY MENTIONED, UM, THE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. COULD YOU, UH, SORT OF ELUCIDATE ON AS TO, UH, WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE? I THINK THE PRIMARY ASPECT TO FOCUS ON IN MEETING THIS CRITERIA IS WHETHER THIS WOULD IMPAIR THE INTENT OF THE CODE. IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD, I CAN'T THINK OF THE RIGHT WORD, BUT GIVE LEEWAY OF GRANTING SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THE COMMUNITY. HENCE, IF ONE SHED WAS GRANTED IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK, PEOPLE MAY INDICATE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE ALL OTHER SHEDS IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT IN THAT SETBACK AS WELL. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER INITIAL QUESTIONS THAT WE'D LIKE TO? OKAY, UH, PLEASE. YOU CAN. YEAH. UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, AS A BOARD WE'RE CONSTRAINED TO CERTAIN CRITERIA. WE HAVE TO FIND THAT CRITERIA TO BE SATISFIED. AND CRITERIA A, THERE'S, UM, WELL, WHAT'S ON THE BOARD RIGHT NOW IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND THE APPLICANT ACTION SLASH INACTION. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UM, THAT EXIST FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. AND, UH, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE NUMBER TWO AS WELL, UM, HOW THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS VARIANCE, UM, IS NOT NECESSITATED BY ANY ACTION OF YOURSELF. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. YEAH, I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON A FEW OF THESE WHEN YOU WERE DOING YOUR, YOUR INTRO, BUT I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THIS. THANK YOU. WITH REGARDS TO WHAT IS UNIQUE OR A SPECIAL, SPECIAL CONDITION, THE CONDITION OF THE POOL HARDSCAPE DECK, FIRE PIT REAR AS ASSESS REAR EASEMENT AND LOT SHAPE CREATES A SITE SPECIFIC LIMITATION ON WHERE A SHED CAN REASONABLY GO. AND THEN AS FOR INSTALLING THE SHED, UM, FIRST I DO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. HOWEVER, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER, WHETHER THIS LOCATION IS REASONABLE AND WHETHER IT CAUSES ACTUAL HARM. THE BACKYARD LIMITATIONS THEMSELVES WERE ALREADY IN PLACE WHEN I MOVED IN. AND THEN FOR THE SECOND ONE, UM, THAT ONE'S A DIFFICULT ONE BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE COULD BE THE ASSUMPTION THAT HAD YOU HAD THE SHED NOT BEEN BUILT OR PUT THERE, UM, THAT THAT'S TECHNICALLY ACTION BY YOU AND THEREFORE THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD A RESPONSE TO THAT AND HOW THE, THE CITY'S VIEW ON THIS. CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE THE QUESTION? I, YEAH, SORRY. SO THE CITY, THE CITY'S VIEW ON, ON THE SECOND CRITERIA IS THAT YOU CAN, THE, THE, THE SHED WAS CONSTRUCTED IN, IN WHERE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN. AND SO THEY, THEY BELIEVE THAT'S ACTION BY THE APPLICANT THAT NECESSITATES THE VARIANCE. SO I JUST WANT TO HEAR, UM, MAYBE IF YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL TO THAT POSITION, [00:15:02] YOU CAN SPEAK, I HAVE TO BE SWORN IN. UH, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND . UH, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TO THIS BOARD THIS EVENING? I DO. OKAY. UH, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOU YOURSELF, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. UH, YES. UH, I'M BRANDON STARR. I AM, UH, MARQUETTE'S HUSBAND. I ALSO LIVE AT 56 13 ADVENTURE DRIVE. OKAY. UM, IS, IS THE, UH, APPLICANT ACTION OR INACTION, UM, UH, IS, IS IT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHETHER IT WAS INADVERTENT OR, OR PURPOSEFUL IN THAT ACTION? SO, UM, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANNA PERFORM A, A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION HERE, BUT I THINK, UH, THE CODE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR WHETHER IT WAS INADVERTENT OR NOT. UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR JUST YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, THIS CRITERIA REGARDLESS. YEAH, SO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF ACTION WAS TO AVOID THE EASEMENT AT WHICH WE, WHICH WE KNEW HAD EXISTED. AND THE EASEMENT IS 10 FEET ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S A UTILITY EASEMENT. AND SO WE, WE DID MOVE IT FAR ENOUGH FOR THAT. BUT AS WE WENT THROUGH THE FORMAL, UH, CZPA PROCESS, WE HAD RECOGNIZED THAT WITH THE CODE THERE WAS ALSO A, A SET A 30 FOOT SETBACK AS WELL. UM, AND SO WHEN WE HAD, YOU KNOW, SUBMITTED OUR, OUR APPLICATION, WE HAD SHOWN THAT HEY, WE'RE WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT, THEN IT WAS DENIED AND IT WAS, HEY, HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE ACTUAL CODE. AND SO ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHEN WE KIND OF HAD THEN ESTABLISHED WHETHER WE NEEDED A VARIANCE OR NOT. AND THEN WE, WE EVEN TOOK THE EXTRA STEP TO SAY, IF, IF YOU WERE TO PLACE IT IN THE OTHER LOCATION, UM, AS, AS MY WIFE HAD STATED, IT BECOMES A REALLY IRREGULAR FUNCTIONAL USE IN THE YARD AND, AND BASICALLY TAKES UP A, A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THERE. OKAY. UM, SO I WOULD SAY, UH, ADMITTEDLY WE PROBABLY INADVERTENTLY CREATED THE ACTION, BUT IT, BUT IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY OR THIS, MY, I THINK THIS IS FOR THE CITY. UM, THE, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, THIS GOES TO WHETHER THERE'S OTHER PLACES ON THE LOT WHERE THE SHED COULD BE COMPLIANCE, UM, MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT LOOKING AT THESE MAPS, IS THERE, IS THERE, CAN YOU GO WITH A SIDE WITH THE SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS? AND, UM, I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAP THAT, UM, THAT THEY PROVIDED WITH THE LOT AND THEN THE PHOTOGRAPH ON IT AS WELL. YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S ROOM, THERE ARE OTHERS PLACES ON THE LOT BESIDES WHERE THEY'VE INDICATED IT WOULD HAVE TO GO. UM, IS THERE ROOM ON EITHER SIDE ON THE, LIKE, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE POOL, OR IS THE FIVE FOOT, UM, SETBACK REQUIREMENT NOT GONNA BE MET OVER THERE? MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THAT'S FINE TOO. , THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON EACH SIDE IS FIVE FEET WITH A TOTAL MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE CONDITIONS OF WHETHER THEY CURRENTLY HAVE ANYTHING AT THE SIDE OF THE POOL, BUT FROM MY INDICATION, I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH ROOM THERE. BUT I'M SURE THEY CAN SPEAK FURTHER ON WHAT THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE ARE. WELL, LET ME CLARIFY THAT. MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET, BUT A TOTAL OF 15. SO, UH, FIVE, IF IT'S FIVE FOOT ON ONE SIDE, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 10 FROM THE OTHER SIDE. IS THAT WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY, OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF? YES. OKAY. AT LEAST FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE WITH A MINIMUM TOTAL OF 15 FEET. SO FIVE FEET ON ONE, 10 FEET ON THE OTHER COULD BE POSSIBLE. OKAY. I GUESS I'LL, I'LL ASK YOU THE SIMILAR QUESTION. LIKE, WERE THERE OTHER LOCATIONS BESIDES THE ONE YOU PUT ON THIS MAP HERE? THAT'S RIGHT IN THE, LIKE BY THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF THE, BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE POOL SOMEWHERE OR UP AGAINST THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD'VE, UM, ALSO BEEN IN COMPLIANCE, OR HAVE YOU EXPLORED THAT ALREADY? AND WE DID EXPLORE THAT, ESPECIALLY ONCE WE LEARNED OF THE 30 FOOT SETBACK. AND AFTER HAVING MEASURED, THE ONLY OTHER COMPLIANT LOCATION IS ACTUALLY WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH OF THE FIRE, EXISTING FIRE PIT. SO THE BACK OF THE SHED WITH WHERE THAT I HAD SENT IN [00:20:01] A PICTURE, BUT IT'S NOT IN THIS ONE. SO IF YOU TAKE THE YELLOW BOX, PUT IT UP AGAINST THE FIRE PIT, THAT BOX OF THE YELLOW SHED LINE HAS TO BE LINED UP WITH THE BACK OF THE POOL. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COULD YOU PUT UP THE, UH, SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE, THE PROPERTY, THE, THE, SO WE CAN SEE THE, THE TOP SO WE CAN VERIFY LOCATIONS AND EVERYTHING? THIS SLIDE, OR I HAVE THE IMAGE THAT THEY SUBMITTED AS WELL SHOWING THE OTHER COMPLIANT LOCATION, IF THAT WOULD BE EASIER. UH, YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE FINE. MY PRESENTATION DID NOT UPDATE MY EDITS, SO THIS IS THE BEST WE WILL HAVE AT THE TIME. OKAY. I'LL MAKE DO I SUPPOSE. UM, SO IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S ALSO SOME VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY. UH, LOOKS LIKE SOME, SOME TREES, UH, MAYBE SOME BUSHES THAT, UH, AREN'T ACCOUNTED FOR, UH, IN THE, UH, THE, THE SCHEMATIC. UM, UH, HOW MUCH OF, UH, THAT THAT AREA IS, IS COVERED BY LIKE, BRUSH OR TREES OR A GOOD PORTION IS THERE ARE TREES LINING THE WHOLE POOL, THE WHOLE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND SOMEWHAT AROUND THE FIRE PIT AS WELL. OKAY. AND NOT TO ASK TOO BROAD OF A QUESTION, BUT WHAT IS, IN YOUR WORDS, WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE SHED? WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING TO USE IT FOR? IT IS JUST FOR A STANDARD STORAGE SHED, UM, IN OUR POOL, UH, FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, A SCHEMATIC OR DRAWING SHOWING WHERE THAT 30 FOOT LINE IS AT THE BACK OF THE YARD? DO WE KNOW HOW FAR OR HOW CLOSE TO THE POOL THAT GOES? I SEE THAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT, BUT I'M NOT SEEING IT AT THE BACK OF THE LOT. I CAN PULL UP A SEPARATE IMAGE. THANK YOU. I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION, DO WE KNOW, UM, WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE, WAS THE COMPLAINT MADE BECAUSE THE SHED WAS INSTALLED AT ALL OR BECAUSE THE SHED WAS INSTALLED IN THAT 30 FOOT SETBACK? I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS. WE HAVE RECEIVED OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE POP IN THE PACKET, UM, SIMPLY STATING THAT THE SHED WAS BEING BUILT AND THEY DID NOT KNOW IF SHEDS WERE ALLOWED ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR EITHER CITY OR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. UM, IN THAT CASE, UH, YOU MAY BE SEATED FOR RIGHT NOW. UH, WE MIGHT CALL YOU BACK UP, UM, FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENT. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS CASE? OH, SAY, OH, UH, YEAH, PLEASE POACH. APPROACH THE PODIUM. YEAH, PUSH THE BUTTON, MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT'S ON, ON [00:25:01] THE MICROPHONE. UH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. YES. MY NAME IS NICK ELAINE. I'M THE, UH, I LIVE AT 56 0 3 ADVENTURE DRIVE. I'M THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO, UH, UH, BRANDON AND MARQUETTE. UM, WE WERE SURPRISED WITH THE REALLY, WHEN THEY PLACED THERE, THE, UH, THE SHED THERE. IT IS VERY INTRUSIVE. WE COULD REALLY SEE IT FROM ANYWHERE FROM OUR WINDOWS AND ANYWHERE IN THE BACKYARD. THERE WERE SOME FIVE, SIX TREES IN THAT, AND I HOPE I'M CORRECT, UH, IN THAT AREA. THEY CUT IT OFF EARLIER, AND THEN THEY HAVE, UH, THEY PUT THE SHED LATER ON. WE WERE CONT CONTENT WITH THE FIRST SHED. THEY HAVE, AND THEY HAVE ONE, UH, INSIDE THE PYRAMID, THE FENCE OF THEIR SWIMMING POOL. IT'S ABOUT THREE BY FIVE FEET AND IT'S ABOUT SEVEN FEET HIGH. I HOPE I'M CORRECT IN THE PRESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION. BUT THIS SHED IS, IS VERY HUGE. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE REALLY A MINI HOUSE AND YOU CAN'T MISS IT ANYWHERE. AND THE WAY THEY PUT IT, AND YOU COULD REALLY SEE, UH, UH, I MEAN, SOME OF THE PICTURES REALLY YOU HAD, THAT'S WHAT WE SEE. THEY PLACE IT IN THE FAR SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEY HAVE, AS MARQUETTE SAID, THEY HAVE TREES AROUND THEIR SWIMMING POOL. SO THEY PUT IT IN A WAY AND THEY CAN BARELY SEE IT FROM THEIR HOUSE OR THEIR YARD FOR THAT MATTER, BUT WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT EVERY DAY. UM, I COULD SEE NOW REALLY THE WISDOM WHY DUBLIN CITY, SORRY, HAS SUCH A CODE TO HAVE IT INSIDE 30 FEET INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE. HOW ABOUT NOW, IF EVERY NEIGHBOR, IF WE ALLOW THIS, HOW ABOUT LIKE, IF EVERY NEIGHBOR NOW DECIDED TO DO THE SAME, ESPECIALLY PUT IT IN THE FACE OF OTHER NEIGHBORS, WHAT, UH, ARE WE GONNA ALLOW THAT? AND THEN IF WE ALLOW THAT, WHAT WOULD THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK LIKE? UH, I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THAT HOUSE FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS PLUS, AND I'VE BEEN TO MANY HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. NONE OF THEM HAVE SUCH A LARGE SHED OR ANY SHED FOR THAT MATTER. UM, AS FAR AS A, ACTUALLY THE, ALSO THE OWNER, THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE HOUSE MANAGED THE SWIMMING POOL WITHOUT ANY SHED. UH, AND SORRY, THAT IF I, UH, CUTTING MY, UH, THINKING. SO IF, UH, THE, UH, SORRY, CAN I PUT MY ABOUT THAT? REALLY? AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HOLDING YOU ABOUT THE, IN TERMS THAT THEY NEED THE SPACE MORE SPACE. PART OF THAT IS REALLY THEIR DOING. THEY HAVE A VERY NICE BACKYARD. IT'S ALMOST A SQUARE. THEY HAVE A SWIMMING POOL, AND THEY SEEM TO ENJOY IT. WE NOTICE THAT IN THE SUMMER, AND THEY HAVE A NICE DECK, BUT I GUESS THAT WASN'T ENOUGH. THEY DUG PART OF THE SPA, UH, THE GRASS AREA, AND THEY PLACED THE ROUND THE TABLE WITH AR WITH THE CHAIRS AND ARMS AROUND IT. AND NOW THEY WANT MORE SAFE OR SPACE FOR, FOR THEIR YARD. AND THEY STILL ACTUALLY HAVE A NICE, NICE YARD. SO I BELIEVE REALLY IF WE, IF SOMEBODY WANNA HAVE A CHANGE IN THEIR PROPERTY, THEY SHOULD LOOK AT THE CITY CODE FIRST. AND THEN, UH, AND I THINK AS A COMMUNITY, WE SHOULD ALL FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE CITY. THAT'S ALL WHAT I HAVE. AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. UH, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON, OKAY, UH, YES, PLEASE. YOU MAY, UM, AGAIN, ASK THAT YOU APPROACH, MAKE SURE, WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THE GREEN LIGHT IS STILL ON. JUST TO INTRODUCE YOU, YOURSELF, UH, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. UH, THANK YOU, UH, MITCH KAUFMAN. I LIVE AT, UH, 7 68 ENSEMBLE COURT. JUST, JUST DOWN THE, DOWN THE STREET. I, I WALK MY DOG, MY FAMILY AND I WALK. WE, WE DON'T FIND THE SHED INTRUSIVE. UM, IT, IT BLENDS IN WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S VERY TASTEFULLY DONE. UM, AND, AND FITS WELL. IT WAS PLACED WELL. SO IT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M BY THERE EVERY DAY. UM, THEY HAVE A DOG AS WELL, SO MY DOG KIND OF WANTS TO GO OVER TO THEIRS, BUT, UH, I DON'T, I, I FIND NO PROBLEM WITH THE SHED, UH, AS, [00:30:01] UH, STREET APPEAL. IT DOESN'T AFFECT IT AT ALL. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OR SHOULD WE PROCEED WITH, UH, OUR DISCUSSION? OKAY, UH, PLEASE. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE, OR THIS IS A CASE WHERE, UM, I THINK WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS AND WHAT THE CITY CODE, UH, DEPENDS ON IS CONSISTENCY IN ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RULES. AND, UM, WHILE INTENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, MIGHT NOT BE THERE, I DON'T SEE ANY WAY, UH, TO GET AROUND THE FACT THAT THIS WAS PUT THERE WITHOUT A PERMIT. AND, UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S NOT, THEY CAN'T PUT THIS WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT IT, OR IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WHERE THEY HAVE IT NOW, RATHER. BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS. AND I MEAN, THE FACT THAT, UM, THE POOL IS THERE, IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST FACTOR WHY THE SHED DOESN'T FIT WHERE THEY WANT IT. UM, SO, UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T, EVERYONE'S HOUSE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CONDITION OF THE SHED OR THE LOOK OF IT DOESN'T REALLY COME INTO PLAY BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HELD TO THESE CRITERIA THAT, UM, I DON'T THINK THEY'VE MET IN CRITERIA A, UM, THAT THIS WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY OR NOT BY THEIR ACTIONS, BY PUTTING IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT. AND THERE'S JUST, I DON'T SEE ANY WAY AROUND THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ARGUMENTS TO BE MADE, WHETHER IT'S, UM, THE EXTENT OF THE ADVERSE EFFECT OR THE EXTENT OF ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS. BUT, UM, I THINK UNFORTUNATELY, OR THE FACTS ARE THAT IT'S, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET OVER CRITERIA A TWO, AND IN MY MIND, THANKS. UH, SO I, UH, IN TERMS OF THE, SO TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT, UH, ALL THREE OF THE, UH, CRITERIA ARE MET, UM, AS, UH, DESCRIBED BY, UH, THE CITY. UM, SO THE, UH, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, WHILE I AM, UH, UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACT THAT, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A PRETTY BUSY, UH, BACKYARD WITH A LOT OF, UH, UH, PREEXISTING STRUCTURES THAT, UH, CAME IN PRIOR TO THE, UH, UH, APPLICANT'S, UH, UH, TAKING UP RESIDENCE AT THE PROPERTY, AT THE, THE UNIQUE CONDITION THAT IT IS A, A LARGER LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION. UM, THE THING THAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE OTHER PROPERTIES WOULD ACTUALLY WORK IN THE, IN THE FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT IN, UH, UH, PLACEMENT OF, OF A POTENTIAL SHED. UH, BUT I THINK THE, THE MAIN STICKING POINT, AT LEAST, UH, FROM, FROM MY VIEW, IS THAT THE, UH, UH, VARIANCE IS NOT NECE, UH, NECESSITATED, UH, BECAUSE OF THE ACTION AND ACTION OF THE APPLICANT. UM, SO THE, THIS, THE POINT THAT I, UH, UH, KIND OF FALL BACK TO IS THE, UH, IS THE SHED NECESSARY, UM, OR, AND IS ITS LOCATION NECESSARY? SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, STORAGE IN, IN YOUR BACKYARD, UH, AND FOR, YOU KNOW, ANY MYRIAD REASONS, UM, AS, UH, THE APPLICANT SPECIFIED, UH, SO I WOULD UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE SHED, BUT, UH, ITS SPECIFIC LOCATION, ITS SIZE, ITS DIMENSIONS. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE, UH, WOULD RISE TO THE, UM, UH, THE LEVEL OF BEING, UH, NECESSARY IN ITS, IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THERE ARE A FEW, UM, ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS WHERE IT COULD BE, COULD BE LOCATED. AND, UH, THE UNDERLYING STATUTE ITSELF, THE, THE PURPOSE OF THESE, UH, UH, SETBACKS IS TO KEEP AN OPEN, UH, AREA. [00:35:01] UH, AND A, A SHED IS, IS FAIRLY, UM, UH, OBTRUSIVE, UH, IN THAT REGARD AND, AND WOULD UNDERMINE THE, UH, UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF, OF THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE. UH, SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHERE I AM ON THOSE FIRST TWO ELEMENTS. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR, I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU. I THINK I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING OVER THAT A TWO CRITERION. UM, JUST DUE TO THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT, UNFORTUNATELY, I MEAN, I'M SYMPATHETIC AGAIN, TO WANTING THE, THE STORAGE AND HONESTLY, AESTHETICALLY, I THINK I'D PROBABLY PREFER IT WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY AT, RATHER IF I WAS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR THAN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD. BUT, UM, YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY I JUST DON'T SEE THAT, THAT THESE THREE CRITERIA ARE MET. YEAH, I'D ECHO THE SAYING SENTIMENTS THAT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO MEET THE CRITERIA. AND SO I'D AGREE WITH THE, WITH THE, UM, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. ANYONE ELSE WANNA MAKE A COMMENT OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? ? OKAY. UM, OKAY. UH, DO, SO, UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO A APPROVE A NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE TO CODE SECTION, UH, 1 5 3 0.023 C FOUR TO ALLOW A SHED TO ENCROACH 17 FEET INTO THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK? SO MOVED. OKAY. UM, SO IT'S, IT WOULD BE, UM, IF WE ARE MOVING TO APPROVE, UH, THEN YOU WOULD SAY YES. AND IF YOU'RE AGAINST APPROVAL, THEN IT WOULD BE A NO. SO, UH, IF YOU COULD CALL ROLL PLEASE. I NEED A SECOND. OH, IS THERE A SECOND? YEAH, SORRY. SECOND. THANK YOU MR. LINVILLE. NO. MS. TISK? NO. MR. ANDERSON? NO. MS. ALESSANDRO? NO. MR. MURPHY? NO. THANK YOU. SO SORRY. UM, SO WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO OUR [Case #25-116AA] SECOND CASE THIS EVENING. THAT'S CASE NUMBER TWO FIVE DASH ONE 16 AA, UH, FOR THE KAUFFMAN RESIDENCE. UM, AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION REGARDING WHETHER A NEW FENCE IS CONSIDERED A REPLACEMENT FENCE. THE 0.26 ACRE SITE IS OWNED R DASH FOUR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SCRIBNER WAY AND IN SELMA COURTS. UM, UH, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM STAFF ON CASE NUMBER 25 DASH 16 AA, UH, BOARD'S LEGAL COUNSEL HAS ASKED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE SCOPE AND PROCEDURES OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. SO I'D LIKE TO PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I KNOW THAT NO ONE ON THIS BOARD HAS DONE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL BEFORE BECAUSE THE LAST ONE OCCURRED IN 2022. UH, SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WANTED TO GIVE AN OUTLINE OF WHAT THE CODE SECTION TALKS ABOUT AND WHAT YOUR OBLIGATIONS ARE HERE. I UNDERSTAND YOU PROBABLY WOULD'VE REVIEWED THOSE BEFOREHAND, BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVEN'T, HERE'S A GOOD REMINDER, UH, FOR THE RECORD, I WILL DO THIS BEFORE THE NEXT CASE AS WELL. IT WILL BE REDUNDANT, UH, BUT FOR CLARITY AND THE RECORD PURPOSES, IT WILL MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR US. ALRIGHT, UNDER CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 C ONE, THIS BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO HEAR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS FOR MANY PERSON OR ANY GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED, OR TO REVIEW ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION WHERE IT IS ALLEGED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS AN ERROR OR MISINTERPRETATION IN ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION GRANT OR REFUSAL MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR BODY CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF CITY CODE, THE APPELLANT HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THEIR APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED. CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 F SETS OUT THE PROCEDURAL GUARDRAILS FOR EVERY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. THE OFFICER FROM WHOM THE APPEAL IS TAKEN SHALL TRANSMIT TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. ALL THE PAPERS CONSTITUTING THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ACTION WAS TAKEN. I UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF HAS DONE SO FOR THIS CASE UNDER CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 F FOUR. IN DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE BOARD SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE WAS DONE. SO USING THE PROPER REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS IN THIS CODE, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS LIMITED TO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR BODY WHO MADE THE DECISION [00:40:01] BEING APPEALED. CODE SECTION 1 53 2 3 1 F FOUR THEN STATES THAT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY IS NOT APPROPRIATE. IT'S THE LAW DIRECTOR'S OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT THE PHRASE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REFERS TO TESTIMONY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL DECISION UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED RATHER THAN TESTIMONY THAT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE. THUS, THE BOARD'S PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO ALLOW BOTH STAFF AND THE APPELLANT OR THEIR COUNSEL A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR THEIR RE RESPECTIVE POSITIONS AND RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THOSE POSITIONS. THE BOARD MAY NOT, HOWEVER, CONSIDER TESTIMONY THAT ADDRESSES MATTERS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL DECISION UPON WHICH THIS APPEAL IS BASED. AS SUCH, TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ACCORDINGLY AND AS NECESSARY, THE CHAIR MAY INSTRUCT THE DEPONENT TO CEASE ANY LINE OF TESTIMONY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RECORD AND DIRECT THE BOARD TO DISREGARD IT DURING DELIBERATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, IF AFTER SUFFICIENT WARNING, THE DEPONENT CONTINUES TO DEFY THE CHAIR'S INSTRUCTIONS TO PROVIDE ONLY APPROPRIATE TESTIMONY, AND THE CHAIR MAY INFORM THE DEPONENT THAT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THEIR POSITION IS CONCLUDED. AFTER THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED ANY APPROPRIATE TESTIMONY, THE BOARD SHOULD THEN DELIBERATE. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE BOARD TO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT. IN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CODE SECTION 1 5 3 2 3 1 F FIVE STATES THAT THE BOARD MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM WHOLLY OR PARTLY OR MAY MODIFY THE ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION APPEALED FROM AND MAY, MAY MAKE ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION OR DETERMINATION AS OUGHT TO BE MADE. GRANTING THE APPEAL WOULD MEAN THAT THE BOARD AGREES WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE DECISION THEY'RE APPEALING FROM THAT WAS INCORRECT. UNDER CITY CODE, THE BOARD MAY MODIFY OR FULLY REVERSE THE DECISION. IN SUCH CASE DENYING THE APPEAL MEANS THE BOARD AFFIRMS THE DECISION AS IT WAS ISSUED, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN NO REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION. AFTER THE BOARD IS FINISHED DELIBERATING, AND FOR THE SAKE OF A CLEAR RECORD, THE LAW DIRECTOR RECOMMENDS THAT A MEMBER MOVE TO EITHER A GRANT, THE APPEAL IN WHOLE, WHICH WOULD REVERSE THE APPEAL DECISION ENTIRELY, OR B GRANT THE APPEAL IN PART, AND ALSO SPECIFYING THE DECISION, UH, HOW THE DECISION SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR PARTIALLY REVERSED. IF THE MOTION CARRIES, THEN THE BOARD'S FINAL DETERMINATION IS A GRANT OF THE APPEAL IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS SET FORTH IN THE MOTION. IF THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY, THEN THE RESULTING DETERMINATION IS A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL IN WHOLE. UNDER CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 E THREE, THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION IS EFFECTIVE. ONCE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AT WHICH THE FINAL ACTION ON THE REQUEST WAS TAKEN ARE OFFICIALLY APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THE BOARD MAY FIND, HOWEVER, THAT QUOTE, IMMEDIATE EFFECT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION OR RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC AND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TO BE MAINTAINED. IF THE BOARD SO FINES, THEN THE BOARD MUST CERTIFY THAT FINDING ON THE RECORD THROUGH A MOTION TO GIVE THE DETERMINATION IMMEDIATE EFFECT. IF THE MOTION CARRIES, THEN THE DETERMINATION IS IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE. IF THE BOARD HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THAT GOVERN THIS APPEAL, PLEASE ASK AT ANY TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO START? OKAY, UH, IN THAT CASE, UH, WE WILL MOVE TO, UH, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION BY, UH, ZACH COUNCIL. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH. AND GOOD EVENING. UM, AS, UH, MR. SEVERN HAD TALKED ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE VARIANCE PROCESS. I AM NOT GOING TO, UH, GO OVER THIS SLIDE. I DID THROW IT UP WHILE YOU WERE DISCUSSING THIS, AND WE'LL SHARE THIS WITH THE SECOND APPEAL IS, WELL, SO THE SITE IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. UM, THIS IS IN THE HEMINGWAY VILLAGE, UH, SUBDIVISION ZONED R FOUR. YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE EXISTING FENCE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THIS CASE OR THIS PROPERTY, UM, WAS BEFORE THE BOARD BACK IN NOVEMBER, 2024. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MR. KAUFMAN FOR A WHILE NOW. UM, AND THIS STARTED IN THE SPRING OF 2024. AGAIN, THIS BACKGROUND IS ALL IN YOUR REPORT. UM, THIS HAS ALL BEEN PROVIDED AHEAD OF TIME. IT JUST HIGHLIGHTS KIND OF WHERE WE, WHERE THIS STARTED AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY. UM, IT STARTED IN SPRING 2024 WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER INSTALLED A FENCE, UH, IN THE REAR YARD WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE, OF A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL. CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS ENGAGED AT THAT POINT, AND THEY ENGAGED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE. UM, IN NOVEMBER, 2024, A VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTED FENCE [00:45:01] TO ENCROACH BOTH SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. UH, THE BZA DID REVIEW THAT APPLICATION AND DISAPPROVED THE REQUEST FOR BOTH THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS. UM, FOLLOWING THAT AND AROUND APRIL, 2025, STAFF RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL REQUEST FROM THE, UH, FOR A DETERMINATION FROM STAFF FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A REVISED, UM, FENCE PLAN. THAT IS, WAS ALSO PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKETS WHERE THE SIDES WERE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE REAR YARD WAS STILL WITHIN THE REAR SETBACK. AND I'LL GET INTO THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. AND IN OCTOBER, 2025, STAFF ISSUED AN OFFICIAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE EXISTING FENCE NOT BEING CONSIDERED A REPLACEMENT FENCE. UH, FROM THERE, THE APPLICANT DID REQUEST AN APPEAL, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY. SO THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL, UM, BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO STAFF IN APRIL, 2025. SO WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED, THE, UH, APPELLANT HAD STATED TO STAFF THAT AT SOME TIME BEFORE 2024, THE REAR LOT LINE WAS LINED WITH EXISTING VEGETATION, WHICH INCLUDED TREES, FLOWERS, VINES, AND OTHER VEGETATION SUPPORTED BY ROPE IN SIX FOOT STAKES. UH, THE APPELLANT ALSO STATED THAT THEY UNILATERALLY INTERPRETED THE ZONING CODE, THE SECTION LISTED ON THE SCREEN, TO ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE THE EXISTING OR THE PREEXISTING VEGETATION AND ERECT A NEW FENCE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE REPLACEMENT AT A LATER DATE. UM, THE TWO IMAGES THAT ARE PROVIDED ON YOUR SCREEN WERE PROVIDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THEY DATE BACK TO 2000 TO SHOW THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. UH, THE REAR OF THE SITE IS TO THE RIGHT OF YOUR SCREEN ON BOTH OF THESE IMAGES. SO, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS PROVIDED IN YOUR MATERIALS, UH, IN PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING. SO, STAFF'S DETERMINATION, AND WE HAD PROVIDED A LETTER, UH, TO THE APPLICANT IN OCTOBER. UH, AND A LOT OF THIS IS PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THAT LETTER. SO I WON'T GO WORD FOR WORD OVER THIS. I'LL HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS. IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DETERMINATION, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. UM, BUT WE'LL, I'LL TRY AND KEEP THIS HIGH LEVEL WHILE STICKING TO, UH, HOW STAFF HAD DETERMINED THIS. SO, THE DEFINITION FOR OFFENSE IS LISTED ON YOUR SCREEN. UH, THE FOCUS IS THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION WHERE IT SAYS, TRELLIS OR OTHER STRUCTURES SUPPORTING OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING VINES, FLOWERS, AND OTHER VEGETATION WHEN ERECTED IN SUCH POSITION AS TO ENCLOSE OR PARTIALLY ENCLOSED OR SEPARATE, ANY PREMISES, UH, SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD FENCE. SO WHEN STAFF'S APPLICATION OF THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION, UH, WHERE IT STATES THAT TRELLIS OR SIMILAR STRUCTURES THAT SUPPORT VEGETATION TO ENCLOSE OR PARTIALLY ENCLOS, ANY PREMISE SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION. WHAT WE'RE TAKING, WHAT WE HAVE APPLIED THIS AS, IS THAT VEGETATION DOES NOT COUNT, UH, TOWARDS THE DEFINITION OF A FENT FENCE. THIS IS ADDRESSING, UH, STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO HOLD, UH, VEGETATION. UM, ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE FENCE CODE IN 1 53 0 8 3, THERE'S A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT, UH, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FENCES THAT WERE ERECTED PRIOR TO, UH, THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 75 93 SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE REPLACED IN THE SAME LOCATION AND AT THE SAME OR LESSER HEIGHT AS EXISTING AS EXISTED ON THE, UH, EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS ORDINANCE. UM, ADDITIONALLY, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL. BUT WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS ANY FENCE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE MAINTAINED, UH, OR REPLACED IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION, OR SAME OR LESSER HEIGHT. AND THAT IS PART OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS, UH, IS SAYING THE STAFF DID NOT APPLY CORRECTLY, AND THAT WAS LISTED OUT IN THEIR MATERIALS THAT THEY HAD SUBMITTED AS PART OF THEIR APPEAL REQUEST. SO, UH, THAT BOTTOM PARAGRAPH AGAIN, IS INCLUDED IN THE, UH, STAFF'S DETERMINATION WHERE IT DOES TALK ABOUT HOW STAFF DOES AGREE THAT THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO HAVE VEGETATION NEAR THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AS WAS INDICATED IN THOSE TWO IMAGES. HOWEVER, WHILE THE AEL PHOTOS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAINS VEGETATION, UH, STAFF DID NOT FIND THAT THEY, THEY PROVIDE PRO, UH, PROB, PROBATIVE, PROBATIVE, SORRY, UH, EVIDENCE OF A QUALIFYING FENCE STRUCTURE FOR THREE SEPARATE REASONS. UH, THOSE THREE REASONS ARE SPLIT OUT INTO PARAGRAPHS IN THAT, UH, IN THAT LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF WHAT THOSE THREE POINT POINTS ARE. UH, SO THE DISCERNIBLE VEGETATION IN THE AERO PHOTOS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITHIN VEGETATION WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF FENCE. VINES, FLOWERS, OR OTHER VEGETATION ARE NOT CONSIDERED [00:50:01] FENCE, UH, UNLESS THEY'RE GROWING ON OR SUPPORTED BY TRELLIS OR OTHER STRUCTURES SUPPORTING OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPORTING SUCH VEGETATION. AND THEN THE STRUCTURES THAT SUPPORT THE VEGETATION, UH, WERE NOT ERECTED IN SUCH POSITION AS TO ENCLOSED OR PARTIALLY ENCLOSED OR SEPARATE ANY PREMISE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, UH, AS LISTED STAFF HAD MADE THEIR DETERMINATION AS TO WHY THE FENCE WAS NOT, UH, CONSIDERED A REPLACEMENT FENCE PER THE CODE. SO AGAIN, THIS LIST, UH, THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION WHICH ANTHONY WENT THROUGH, UM, WHAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS CONSIDERATION OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION, UM, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE APPLIED AT THE CODE CORRECTLY. SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO A FIRM STAFF POSITION, UM, WITH THAT, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HERE TONIGHT, AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR, OR ADDRESS THE BOARD BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. UM, HAPPY TO ALSO ANY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS FOR CITY AT THIS TIME? OKAY. UH, SO APPLICANT, UH, IF YOU WOULD APPROACH, LOOKS LIKE THE MICROPHONE IS STILL ON FROM BEFORE, JUST FOR CLARITY, UH, ASK THAT YOU AGAIN, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CERTAINLY, UH, MITCHELL KAUFMAN, UH, 7 0 6 8 ANSO COURT, DUBLIN, OHIO, 4 3 0 1 7. THANK YOU. AND, UH, GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN AND APPRECIATE IT. UM, AND GOOD EVENING. FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA, UH, I WANNA COMPLIMENT ZACH IN WORKING WITH HIM. HIS COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN REFRESHING, CLEAR, CONCISE, AND TO THE POINT, UH, PRIOR, PRIOR TO ZACH. UM, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF THAT COMMUNICATION WAS JUST, JUST THE OPPOSITE. UH, I DO HAVE A COUPLE, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD. UM, DOES THE PLANNING BOARD AGREE THAT ZONING LAWS SHOULD BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO ALL SIT-INS OF THE CITIZENS IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN? I'LL TAKE THAT AS A YES. UM, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE EMAILS SUBMITTED BY NEIGHBORS? I BELIEVE THEY WERE INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET. YEAH. SO, YES, UH, YOU DID THE ONES THAT WERE REPRESEN PRESENTED TO US. YES. AND THEN ALSO I SUBMITTED A, UM, UM, AN EMAIL ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025. SUBJECT WAS, UM, KAUFMAN FENCE FOLLOW UP, AND, UH, A SPREADSHEET OF THE SQUARE BLOCK. AND YOU DID RECEIVE THAT AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, AND, AND THANK YOU. UM, I WANNA KEEP THIS AT A HIGH LEVEL, BUT WE DO NEED TO DIVE IN A LITTLE BIT TO A COUPLE ITEMS. UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE REASON FOR THE BUILDING OF THE FENCE, UM, WE HAVE, UH, TWO DISABLED, UH, INDIVIDUALS ON EACH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. ONE BECAME DISABLED IN 2018. THEY'RE SEVERELY DISABLED. UH, THERE'S EMERGENCY VEHICLES THAT COME AND GO THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT. UH, THE REASON FOR THE FENCE WAS FOR THE SAFETY. THEY HAVE DOGS. I HAVE DOGS. THE DOGS CAN GO AT EACH OTHER AND THE CHILDREN ARE OUT IN THE PATIO OR IN THE YARD, AND THEY COULD BE, COULD BE IMPACTED. SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE FENCE, WAS THE SAFETY OF THE USE. TWO DISABLED INDIVIDUALS ON, ON, ON EACH SIDE, UM, IN THE PERMITTING, UH, THE PERMIT APPLICATION SYSTEM PROCESS, UH, AT THAT TIME, AND I THINK IT HASN'T BEEN CORRECTED YET BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING, DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO SELECT A FENCE. REPLACEMENT IS A NEW FENCE. SO IT'S A VOID OF ANY QUESTIONS OF, OF A REPLACEMENT FENCE, WHICH WOULD, EXCUSE ME, WHICH WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO THE CITIZENS IN APPLYING, PROVIDING INFORMATION AND EXPEDITE THE PROCESS. AND ALSO OUR DECISION PROCESS. AND I, I BELIEVE THAT STILL HASN'T BEEN CORRECTED OVER, OVER THREE YEARS. UM, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO THE, TO THE SITE, UM, AND A PERSON WAS SENT OUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO THE SITE, EXPECT IN SITE EXPECT INSPECTION. UM, HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED. HE WAS NOT TRAINED IN DOING THE SITE INSPECTION. AND HIS SITE INSPECTION CONSISTED OF DRIVING INTO THE COURT AND PEERING THROUGH A WINDOW WHEN IT WAS DAMP AND RAINING. WE WERE OUT ON THE SITE, UH, WE WERE JUST, COULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT, DONE A PROPER SITE INSPECTION, LOOKED AT THE VEGETATION RATHER THAN RELY UPON ON PHOTOS FROM HIGH ALTITUDES, BUT FAILED TO DO A PROPER SITE INSPECTION. AND THE PLANNING BOARD EVEN, UH, SAID THAT, UH, HE, HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO DO IT. HE IS NO [00:55:01] LONGER WITH THE, UH, WITH THE PLANNING GROUP. ADDITIONALLY, THE COMMUNICATIONS, UH, WAS ERRATIC. UH, WE'D GET INITIAL COMMUNICATION, UH, WAS ADDRESSED TO MY WIFE. IT STATED THE WRONG ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT. WE HAD TO DO FOLLOW UP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU CONSISTENTLY BREATH. THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. UM, THE COMMUNICATION WAS INITIALLY BY MAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL, AND THEN I WAS RECEIVING EMAILS FROM DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS AND, AND NOT RECEIVING THOSE. AND I SAID, PLEASE CONTACT ME, UH, BY WRITING AND LET ME KNOW. UM, AND SO THERE THAT, THAT THOSE NOTIFICATIONS WERE INCONSISTENT AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE HAD SOME EXTENSIONS, WHICH I, I, I GREATLY, UH, APPRECIATE. UM, AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO NOT GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL. I DON'T THAT, THAT AND NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. UM, SO WITH THAT, IN ALSO IN THE, I WAS HERE IN THE, UH, JANUARY 24TH, 2025 ZONING COMMITTEE. AND I BELIEVE, UM, UM, UH, PATRICK, YOU, I HAD STATED THE QUESTION THAT 10% OF THE, OF THE FENCES IN THE SQUARE BLOCK, 10% OF THE HOMES HAD FENCES. THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE SAID NO. THAT WAS WHEN SPOKE UP AND SAID, NO, THAT'S INCORRECT. THERE ARE ONLY LESS, 5% OR LESS, PROBABLY MORE, ACTUALLY TWO TO 3% ACTUALITY OF THE SQUARE BLOCK THAT I LIVE IN. THERE ARE 66 HOMES. AND IT'S, THAT'S ALL DETAILED IN THE EMAIL OF THE 66 SUMS. 21 HAVE FENCES. THIS IS NOT INCLUDING MY FENCE. OR 30 32%. AND ADDITIONALLY, WHEN LOOKING, LOOKING AT THAT, UM, EIGHT OF THE PROPERTIES DID HAVE A FENCE PRIOR TO THE 2000 MARCH CODE CHANGE. SO, WHICH IS, AND THEN 13 OF THE 21 PROPERTIES DID NOT HAVE A FENCE PRIOR TO THE JANUARY CODE CHANGE OR OF THE 21 FENCES, 61% OF THEM DID NOT HAVE AN EXISTING FENCE. AND THESE ARE ONLY FENCES ON THE PROPERTY LINES. AND THESE, AND THESE 13 FENCES ARE ON, ON THE PROPERTY LINES. UM, THIS WAS VERIFIED GOING TO THE AUDITOR'S SITE BECAUSE THE CITY OF DUBLIN COULD NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION. SO I WENT TO THE STATE AUDITOR'S SITE. UH, THEY INITIALLY DID NOT HAVE THE FILES AVAILABLE. I SPOKE WITH HER TECH DEPARTMENT, THEY WERE ABLE TO RELOAD THE FILES, AND I WAS ABLE TO RESEARCH THOSE. AND EACH OF THE PARCEL NUMBERS OF THESE PROPERTIES, ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE FENCES IS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET ALSO OF PROPERTIES THAT WERE NONCOMPLIANT WITH THE CODE ARE PROVIDED IN YOUR, IN YOUR, YOUR PACKAGE. AND SO WITH THIS, MY REQUEST, I'M NOT SEEKING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THAT ARE NOT PRESENT, THAT ARE PRESENT WITH 20% OF THE HOMES IN MY SQUARE, UH, BLOCK, UH, WHICH IS 13 OF THE 66 PROPERTIES HOMES SQUARE. NO FENCES EXISTED. NO VEGETATION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE TWO 2000 MARGIN CODE. UM, AND SO I, THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS. AND SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU, DO YOU APPLY THE ZONING LAWS CONSISTENT ACROSS DUBLIN CITY RESIDENTS? AND WITH THE ONE BLOCK IS APPARENT THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOT. ADDITIONALLY MY, I DID PROVIDE THAT VEGETATION EXISTED. INITIALLY, THE REQUEST CAME FROM THE PLANNING COMMITTEE SAID, YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU HAD VEGETATION. SO I APPROVE THE VEGETATION. UM, THEY DID NOT DO A SITE IN INSPECT. THEY DID A SITE INSPECTION, BUT WAS A, IT WAS A FAULTY SITE INSPECTION AND THEY CAN'T EVEN RELY UPON IT. AND THEY SAY A PICTURE WHEN THEY HAD SOMEONE DOING THE SITE INSPECTION AND THEY FAILED TO DO IT. A ADDITIONALLY, AFTER I PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, NOW YOU'VE GOTTA PROVIDE, THE VEGETATION EXISTED PRIOR TO TWO THOU MARCH, 2000. I BOUGHT THE HOME IN 2006. THAT'S WHERE I WENT TO THE AUDITOR SITE. 'CAUSE DUBLIN DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION. I DID PROVIDE THAT, UM, THE, UH, INFORMATION AND IN, IN OUR INTERPRETATION, VEGETATION EXISTED AND NEIGHBOR'S, UH, INTERPRETATION [01:00:01] VEGETATION EXISTED THAT QUALIFIED FOR PREEXISTING FENCE, A FACT THAT A PROPER SITE INSPECTION WAS NOT DONE, AND THAT TERMINATION WAS NOT MADE BY THE SITE INSPECTION IS BEING RELIED UPON FAR AWAY PITCHERS IS, IS CHALLENGING. PLUS THE FACT THAT I DON'T SEE THAT THESE ONLY LAWS ARE BEING CONSISTENTLY APPLIED. AND ADDITIONALLY, THAT THE REASON FOR THE FENCE IS A SAFETY OF TWO DISABLED CHILDREN. I'M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT. IF, IF THOSE SITUATIONS SEE THAT SITUATIONS CEASE TO EXIST, I'LL TAKE DOWN THE FENCE IMMEDIATELY. 'CAUSE IT'S A PAIN IN THE BUTT TO MOW AROUND. I HAVE TO KEEP IT UP AND I'M, AS SOON AS I GET DETERMINATION HERE, UH, I'M GONNA DO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, BUT I DID IT FOR THE SAFETY OF THEM. AND SO THAT WOULD BE A REQUEST. WHEN THAT SITUATION CHANGES, I WOULD GLADLY REMOVE THE FENCE BECAUSE IT WAS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE TWO NEIGHBOR CHILDREN. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY REMIND THE BOARD THAT THE QUESTION HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FRAMEWORK IS WHETHER, UH, THE NEW FENCE THAT THE APPELLANT PLACED IN THE REAR LOT LINE CAN BE CONSIDERED A REPLACEMENT FENCE UNDER THE CODE SECTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN STAFF REPORT. SO, YEAH, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, THERE WERE A LOT OF, UH, UH, MATTERS THAT, UH, YOU, YOU PRESENTED, UH, TO THE CITY AND YOU PRESENTED YOUR PRESENTATION. BUT, UH, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS, UM, APPEAL, UH, WE ARE VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE. SO, UH, IT'S, IT'S MORE ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHETHER, UH, OF, OF A REPLACEMENT FENCE AND WHETHER THE UH, UH, STRUCTURE OR, UM, UH, ITEMS THAT WERE, UH, IN PLACE THERE, UH, WOULD MEET THAT DEFINITION. SO, UH, UH, BUT YEAH, ANYTHING WITHIN THAT AREA, UH, OF, UH, CONSIDERATION, UH, IS THE, THE SCOPE OF THIS. NO, AND I DO UNDERSTAND, AND, AND ZACH WAS PRESENTING A, THE HISTORY, SO I, I PRESENTED THE HISTORY AS WELL. SO NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I FELT THAT THAT WAS, YOU, YOU, YOU NEEDED THAT BALANCE PRESENTATION. UH, AGAIN, IT, WE DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A OFFENSE REPLACEMENT. UM, THE FACT THAT THE INSPECTOR, UM, THE SITE INSPECTION WAS NOT DONE BY A QUALIFIED PERSON, DID NOT DO A SITE INSPECTION, DID NOT COME OUT OF, OF THE VEHICLE TO EVEN LOOK AT THE, LOOK AT THE PROPERTY. I THINK DUBLIN FAILED ITS DUE DILIGENCE IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION. AND SO NOW IT'S A POINT OF, I BELIEVE IT WAS THERE, DUBLIN DIDN'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND DETERMINATION AND, AND THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO A SITE INSPECTION AND THEY DID NOT DO IT PROPERLY. UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, I, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, SOME QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT AND THE CITY. SO PLEASE PROCEED. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THAT. I CAN TELL YOU'VE, UH, PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO THIS AND, UH, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TRYING TO GET, USE ALL THE, UH, AVENUES AVAILABLE TO YOU TO, TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES. NOW, UM, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT OUR, THE SCOPE IS LIMITED TO THE, WHETHER THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FENCE AND WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT VEGETATION IS THE THEORY. AND I GUESS I'LL ASK, I'LL ASK YOU FIRST, AND IF YOU CAN, AND IF YOU DISAGREE, UM, MR. KAUFMAN, PLEASE SPEAK UP. BUT ARE WE DETERMINING THAT THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FENCE? BECAUSE THERE WAS A VE WHEN YOU SAY THERE WAS VEGETATION THERE, WE MEAN THERE WAS VEGETATION WITHIN A STRUCTURE WITHIN IT HOLDING IT UP. AND THAT IS WHAT MADE IT A FENCE THAT WE ARE DETERMINING IF IT OR THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DETERMINING. IF THAT VEGETATION HELD UP BY A TRELLIS OR I THINK IT'S A ROPE AND THINGS WAS A FENCE THAT HE'S JUST REPLACING, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE WAS JUST VEGETATION THERE BEFORE. IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? SO, EXCUSE ME. SO STAFF MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE FENCE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE WAS NOT PERMITTED, UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FENCE THERE PREVIOUSLY. UH, THE DETERMINATION FOR US WAS NOT ABOUT VEGETATION. AND THAT'S WHAT THE, THE SLIDE UP, I CAN PULL IT UP HERE, THIS SLIDE, AND THERE'S A, THERE'S TEXT IN THE STAFF DETERMINATION AS WELL AND JUST HOW WE INTERPRET WHAT IS A FENCE AND WHAT IS NOT A FENCE. SO THE [01:05:01] PREMISE OF LOOKING AT THIS AS VEGETATION IS A CONSIDERED TO BE A FENCE THAT'S NOT WHERE, WHERE STAFFS CURRENTLY AT. AND THAT'S NOT HOW WE HAVE APPLIED THE FENCE CODE PREVIOUSLY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR, YOUR QUESTION? OKAY. YEAH. SO YOU WERE, UH, DETERMINING IF THE FENCE WAS VEGETATION ERECTED TO ENCLOSE A PREMISES OR WAS THERE A TRELLIS SITUATION THERE THAT COULD ALSO BE CALLED A FENCE? CORRECT. AND YOU, THE CITY FOUND THAT NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS WAS THE CASE? CORRECT. SO WHEN WE HAD MADE THIS DETERMINATION, WE HAD WORKED WITH MR. KAUFMAN AND, AND ASKED FOR, UM, EVIDENCE OF A TRELLIS OR OTHER S UH, STRUCTURE SUPPORTING FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPORTING VINES, FLOWERS, VEGETATION. SO MEETING THAT CRITERIA, WE'D ASKED FOR THAT EVIDENCE, UH, BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THAT EVIDENCE PRIOR. UM, SO THAT'S WHAT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH THE IMAGES. AND AFTER REVIEWING WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY MR. KAUFMAN, THAT'S WHERE WE HAD LANDED ON OUR DETERMINATION THAT WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY A FENCE. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS A REPLACEMENT FENCE, UH, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SETBACKS. MAY I COMMENT? YEAH, SURE. UM, THE INSPECTION WAS DONE, IT WAS AVAILABLE TO INSPECT THE PERSON DOING THE INSPECTION, WAS NOT COMPETENT TO DO INSPECTION, SITE INSPECTION, WAS NOT TRAINED AND PHYSICALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THIS. THE FAILURE OF DUBLIN TO DO PROPER DUE DILIGENCE OR PROPER SITE INSPECTION AND FAILING TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, SHOULD NOT JUST NEGATE MY CLAIM THAT THIS VEGETATION WAS THERE EXISTED, MET THE DEFINITION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE CODE. THEY NEVER DID A SITE INSPECTION, PROPER SITE INSPECTION, NEVER WALKED THE PROPERTY, DID IT FROM A CAR IN THE COURT, WHICH YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE SITE. AND SO THAT'S A FAILURE ON DUBLIN'S PART TO DO DUE DILIGENCE AND TO MAKE DETERMINATION WITHOUT DUE DILIGENCE, I THINK IS JUST WRONG. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, WHEN WAS THE VEGETATION REMOVED? IT WAS REMOVED AT THE TIME I WAS DOING THE FENCE. OKAY. AND SO, SO IT WAS TIME TO INSPECT IT, HAD IT BEEN REMOVED ALREADY WHEN THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED? NO. OKAY. SO I I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, THERE'S TALKS OF ROPES AND STAKES AND THERE'S TALKS OF, I THINK TREES BACK THERE. COULD YOU JUST DESCRIBE, BECAUSE, UM, FROM THE AERIALS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST MAYBE TREES YOU, THERE'S ALSO MENTION OF ROPES AND STAKES. I JUST WANT A VISUAL, IF YOU CAN DESCRIBE IT, OF WHAT WAS BACK THERE. YEAH, THERE WAS, THERE WAS, UM, UM, SHRUBS, HIGH BUSHES, ROPES AND STEAKS, VINES, UH, FLOWERING, OTHER, OTHER, OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN THAT, ALONG THE BACK, THE WHOLE BACK LINE OF THE PROPERTY. COULD YOU WALK THROUGH? NO, YOU COULD PROBABLY CLAW YOUR WAY THROUGH. I I, I THINK THIS QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR STAFF OR ANTHONY. SO, YOU KNOW, I I THINK WE, WE STARTED OUT SAYING THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FENCE OR NOT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A FENCE THERE IN ORIGINALLY IS, AND THEN IS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION WE HAVE TO ANSWER AFTER THAT OR IF WE DETERMINE THERE IS THERE WAS A FENCE THEN DOES IT GO BACK TO I, I'D JUST LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. YEP. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, TRY TO TAKE US, UH, AS A REMINDER, THE APPELLANT ALWAYS HAS THE BURDEN OF PRESENTING PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR APPEAL IS TO BE GRANTED. THE QUESTION BOILS DOWN TO CAN THEY HAVE THEY, HAVE THEY PRESENTED EVIDENCE, IT'S PROBATIVE THAT THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD MEET THE DEFINITION OF OFFENSE SUCH THAT ANY REPLACEMENT OF THAT STRUCTURE ALONG THE REAR [01:10:01] LOT LINE WOULD JUSTIFY THE TERM FENCE UNDER THE STATUTE OR THE, THE ORDINANCE SECTION WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT, UH, 1 53 0.083 C. DOES THAT HELP? YES. THANK YOU. ONE QUESTION AND THE DEFINITION OF FENCE UNDER SECTION, UH, 1 5 3 0 7 9 ALSO MEETS THE DEFINITION OF FENCE AS A PRE DEFINITION, DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE. THEN THE VEGETATION, THE VEGETATION MEETS THAT DEFINITION OF FENCE. UH, ADDITIONALLY, THE FACT THAT DUBLIN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, HAD A SITE IN PERSON INSPECTING THE SITE, EXCUSE ME, WAS NOT COMPETENT OR QUALIFIED, AND DUBLIN FIRST SENT THEM OUT THERE, DID AN INVALID SITE INSPECTION, SHOULD NOT BE SHIFTING THAT PROOF OF EVIDENCE TO ME WHEN DUBLIN FAILED TO DO THE PROPER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A SITE INSPECTION. JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, THE APPELLANT ALWAYS HAS THE BURDEN OF PRESENTING PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED REGARDLESS OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT SUGGEST OTHERWISE OR THAT THEY WANT TO DISCUSS. THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY, THE STRUCTURE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL BEFORE THIS BODY, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I WOULD EXPECT DUBLIN TO DO THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES IN A COMPETENT AND COMPLETE FASHION, NOT HAVE A PERSON NOT TRAINED OR COMPETENT INSIDE INSPECTIONS TO DO INSPECTIONS. ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR. UH, SO FROM THE PHOTOS THAT WE HAD IN THE, IN THE RECORD, UH, IS, IS THERE ANY, UM, ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE? HOW, HOW LONG? SO YOU, YOU MOVED IN, IN 2006. UM, YOU SAY THAT THE, UH, FENCE PREDATED THAT, UH, FROM AROUND 2000. UH, SO DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, PHOTOS, UH, ANYTHING THAT WOULD, UM, SHOW THAT THE, UH, UH, STRUCTURES THAT EXISTED, UM, PRIOR TO THE NEW FENCES CONSTRUCTION, UH, WOULD MEET EITHER THE DEFINITION OF, OF FENCE OR THE, UM, UH, THAT, THAT THERE WERE THESE TRELLIS SUPPORT STRUCTURES OR, UH, ANY OTHER, UH, ITEMS TO SUPPORT THOSE THAT, THAT, THAT VEGETATION? I, I CAN, I CAN SEARCH MY PHOTOS. I DON'T HAVE THEM ON ME OR, OR PRESENT. OKAY. SO NONE WERE PRESENTED PRIOR TO THE APPEAL? PARDON? UH, NONE WERE PR PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THIS APPEAL BEING, UH, SUBMITTED. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. NONE WERE EVER ASKED FOR. OKAY. AND THE FACT THAT A SITE INSPECTION WAS DONE, I WAS ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE RELI ON THE SITE INSPECTOR AND, UH, SO THE NEW FENCE, UM, WE, WE DO HAVE PLENTY OF PHOTOS OF IT. UM, HOW, UM, HOW SIMILAR TO IT, UM, TO, TO THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURES? UH, THE PREVIOUS FENCE, UH, IS, IS THE CURRENT FENCE, CURRENT TRUCTURE? YEAH. THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE WENT UP BY OVER 17 FEET. AND SO THIS IS MUCH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S DOWN AT THAT FOUR FOOT LEVEL. IT'S CLEAR. YOU CAN SEE IT'S A CLEAR PATHWAY THROUGH VISUALLY. IT'S A VERY ATTRACTIVE OFFENSE, ATTRACTIVE, ACCORDING TO MY NEIGHBORS, EXCUSE ME, VERY OPEN, DOESN'T IMPEDE VISION ACROSS THE, THE LAWNS. AND SO, UH, UH, IT'S MUCH LESS IN INTRUSIVE. YOU SAID THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE WAS, UH, 17 FEET. IS THAT IT AT, ITS, YEAH. PARTS UP 17 FEET TALL? YES. OKAY. UM, ABOUT ON AVERAGE, HOW HIGH UP WAS IT? I WOULD PROBABLY SAY AROUND EIGHT FEET. OKAY. UH, AND DID IT CONSIST OF, UM, LIKE TREES, BUSHES, LIKE WHAT SORT OF VEGETATION ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? ALL THE THINGS UP IN THE DEFINITION THERE OF THE FENCE, IT CONSISTS OF ALL THAT, UH, SUCH AS JUST, UM, THERE WAS, UH, EXAMPLE, TREES, BUSHES, FLOWERS, VINES, ROPES. THERE WAS STICKS IN THERE, UM, UH, PULLING UP THE, UH, SUPPORTING THE DIVINE STRUCTURES. EXCUSE ME. [01:15:04] YOU HAVE ANOTHER, THE OTHER, WAS THIS STRUCTURE THERE WHEN YOU MOVED IN, IN 2006? UH, YES, I WAS. OKAY. UH, HAD YOU PERFORMED ANY SORT OF MAINTENANCE ON, UH, THE STRUCTURE, UH, AFTER YOU, YOU TRIMED IT? YEAH, IT, YEAH, TRIMED IT, I TRIMMED IT, MAINTAINED IT. OKAY. UH, DID YOU EVER REPLACE ANY, UH, ANY OF THE STRUCTURES, THE TRELLIS, ANY PORTIONS OF, OF IT? NO. THEY DIDN'T NEED REPLACING? NO. OKAY. UM, AND, UH, WHAT, WHAT MATERIAL WERE THE SUPPORT STRUCTURES GENERALLY MADE OUT OF? THERE WERE WOOD. I'M NOT SURE THE MAKE OF THE WOOD. OKAY. UM, I MEAN, IT WAS WOOD. THERE WAS NO, I MADE SURE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO METAL OR, UM, ALUMINUM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT SOMEONE GET HURT ON. I, IT WAS ALL, IT WAS, IT WAS WOOD IN NATURE. AND, UH, HOW CAN, UH, CONSISTENT, UH, WAS WAS THE WOOD? IF, IF THERE'S LIKE A VARIATION OF THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE, UH, THE, THE STRUCTURE, THE, THE, YEAH. VEGETATION. THE LOWEST POINT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT SIX FEET. OKAY. UM, AND GOING UP TO ABOUT 17 FEET BY, I, YOU ASKED ME AN AVERAGE, I JUST WAS CONSERVATIVES AT EIGHT FEET. OKAY. AND OKAY. AND WAS CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BACKYARD. OKAY. YOU KNOW, COULD NOT SEE THE HOUSE BEHIND ME. YOU COULDN'T PASS THROUGH IT. UH, SO WHAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE THIS STRUCTURE FROM SAY JUST A, LIKE A, A SERIES OF SHRUBS OR BUSHES OR, UH, HOW MUCH? IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE ROPE SUPPORT THE VINES. I MEAN, IT WAS AS, AS MUCH DIFFERENT STRUCTURE THAN JUST HAVING, UH, BUSHES, BUSHES THERE. UH, SO WITH THE, THE DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE UNDER, UH, 1 53 0.08, ZERO C, UM, SINCE TRELLIS OR OTHER STRUCTURES SUPPORTING, OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPORTING, UH, IT, SO IF IT'S, WERE THESE, LIKE, WERE THE VE, WAS THE VEGETATION ROOTED, UH, WAS IT ROOTED INTO THE GROUNDS? UM, AS IN, I'M, I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP A BIT. OH, I'M SORRY. UH, IT, WHAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF VEGETATION ROOTED INTO THE GROUNDS? LIKE, UH, WERE THEY SHRUBS, BUSHES, TREES? UH, THERE WERE VINES COMING UP FROM THE GROUND AS WELL AS THERE WAS TREES THERE AND, AND, AND, AND, UH, AND BUSHES. BUT THEY WERE COMING UP FROM THE GROUND THROUGH, THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE, THE WOOD AND, AND CLIMBING UP AND SUPPORTING THAT, AND THE WOOD SUPPORTED THEM. OKAY. SO THE THERE WERE PORTIONS OF IT THAT WERE TRELLISED AND PORTIONS OF IT THAT WERE ROOTED? YEAH, IT WAS KIND OF THROUGHOUT. SO I CAN'T SAY THIS SECTION. WAS THIS, THIS SECTION? WAS THIS? IT WAS, IT WAS THROUGHOUT THE, THE BACKYARD. OKAY. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY HERE? YEAH. COULD, COULD WE PULL UP, UH, ARIEL OF THE, THE HOUSE? DO WE HAVE ONE OF THE, UH, 2000 QUOTE UNQUOTE 2000? I THINK THAT WAS THE YEAR. YEAH. SO, UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO ON THE RIGHT, RIGHT IMAGE WHERE IT SAYS 70, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S WHERE THE, THE STRUCTURE AND VEGETATION WAS MM-HMM . YES. UM, THE, WE WILL SAY THAT'S EAST. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS EAST, BUT SO THAT STRUCTURE WAS ONLY AGAINST THE EASTERN LINE, CORRECT? I'M SORRY, I IT WAS ONLY AGAINST THE EASTERN LINE. IT WAS ONLY SEPARATING THE, THE LOTS BEHIND YOU AND NOT THE LOT TO THE NORTH OF YOU. WELL, BEHIND THE HOUSE, I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF EASTERN WEST OF LOOKING AT THIS. SO I GUESS LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE, THE FIRST PHOTO, UM, THERE'S TWO HOUSES THERE. WAS THE STRUCTURE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO HOUSES, OR WAS IT NO, NO, IT WAS IN THE BACK. OKAY. IT WAS BEHIND MY HOUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. AND, UH, FROM THE IMAGE, UH, FROM THE IMAGES THAT ARE, UH, UH, ON SCREEN RIGHT NOW, UH, WAS THAT SORT OF, UH, REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THE, THE STRUCTURE LOOKED LIKE, UH, PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW FENCE? NO, UH, THAT'S TWO BACK IN 2000. SURE. UH, HOW, HOW DID IT DIFFER THEN FROM, FROM OH, IT WAS, IT WAS COMPLETELY, UM, ACROSS THE BACK OF THE YARD. THERE WAS STRUCTURE. I MEAN, WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, IT WAS THERE, THERE WAS, UH, WOOD STRUCTURES IN IT. THERE WAS VINES, YOU KNOW, LIKE A TRELLIS, YOU KNOW, VINES WITH WOOD ALL ACROSS. UM, [01:20:01] AND THAT'S WHERE THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WAS MORE THAN EIGHT FEET. OKAY. ARE WE SAYING THOUGH, THAT THE FENCE WOULD'VE HAD TO BE THERE PRIOR TO THE CODIFICATION OR THE, SO IT WOULD'VE NEEDED TO BE THERE PRIOR TO 2000? IS THAT WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS, I THINK THE EFFECTIVE DATE WAS AROUND MARCH 20TH, 2000. OKAY. ANY DAY BEFORE ABOUT THAT TIME. OKAY. SO THEORETICALLY THEN TO BE ABLE TO FIND THAT THERE WAS A FENCE, IT WOULD'VE NEEDED TO EXISTED IN THESE PHOTOS. AND, AND JUST TO, I'M NOT SEEKING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES HERE. THIS, THEY ARE PRESENT WITHIN 20% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITHIN MY SQUARE BLOCK, 13 OF THE 66 HOMES HAVE FENCES THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 2000. AND SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, THOSE FENCES HAVE BEEN NOT IN COMPLIANT, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION, GO 2000. IF WE EXTRAPOLATE THAT ACROSS, UM, THE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 559, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THIS WOULD BE 90 HOMES THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS WELL, THAT HAVE EXISTED. SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU FAIR AND AN EQUITABLE APPLICATION OF ZONING LAWS ACROSS ALL RESIDENTS. SO YOU WERE JUST SAYING THAT THOSE HOUSES HAVE FENCES, THOUGH WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA THAT THOSE FENCES WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN SETBACKS WHERE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED. I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST STATING THAT THAT ALSO HAS FENCES. NO, I PRESENTED THAT INFORMATION WITH PARCELS OF PROPERTY. IT WAS IN YOUR FILE, AND THE PARCELS ARE CITED, THE INFORMATION CITED, AND THAT'S BASED UPON THE AUDIT STATE AUDITOR'S WEBSITE. MR. PELLAND, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS BOARD IS NOT AN ENFORCEMENT BOARD, BUT IS HERE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER STAFF'S DECISION WAS MADE PROPERLY UNDER THE ZONING CODE AS IT SHOULD BE APPLIED. NOTHING FURTHER, AND THANK YOU. AND I, AND I THINK STAFF'S DECISION WAS IMPROPERLY MADE DUE TO, UH, A FAULTY INCOMPETENT INSPECTION BY A PERSON WHO WAS NOT TRAINED INCOMPETENT, DO INSPECTIONS. SO THEREFORE, I THINK THAT PUTS THAT, THAT PLACE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATION. SO, MR. KAUFMAN, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING, UH, FULLY THE, UH, EXCUSE ME, WHY YOU THINK THIS DECISION WAS IMPROPER IS BECAUSE, UM, THE INSPECTION THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE, THE PERSON DIDN'T GET OUTTA THE CAR AND WASN'T QUALIFIED, OR THEY WOULD'VE SEEN THIS 10, 15 FOOT VEGETATION WITH ROPES AND POSTS, UM, WHICH YOU THEN REMOVED, AND THEN BY THE TIME THE HEARING CAME AROUND, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT TO PRESENT OTHER THAN THESE PHOTOS. AND SO, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IF THEY'D HAVE DONE THE INSPECTION, THEY WOULD'VE SEEN WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS THE VEGETATION AND ABSOLUTELY. ALRIGHT. AND THEN, AND ADDITIONALLY, IF THEY WOULD'VE, AND THEN THAT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT WHATEVER WAS, THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A TRELLIS, NOT JUST VEGETATION, A STRUCTURE LIKE A TRELLIS, NOT JUST VEGETATION WITH A POST IN IT OR WHATEVER YOU HAD BACK, THERE WAS A STRUCTURE, NOT JUST THAT THEY'RE WRONG TO SAY THAT ROPE IN SIX FOOT STAKES IS NOT A TRELLIS, AND IF THEY'D HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE, THEY WOULD'VE THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY. THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. YEAH. I GUESS I JUST WANNA CLARIFY SOMETHING. DID YOU, DID YOU SAY I THINK MS. DEANDRA HAD, HAD ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS, THE, THE PICTURES WE'RE LOOKING AT, OR YOU SAID WHEN YOU MOVED IN, THE STRUCTURE WAS THERE PICTURES WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW THE STRUCTURE'S NOT THERE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU SAID THESE ARE FROM THE AUDITOR'S WEBSITE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. [01:25:01] SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WITH THE CITY, YOU DIDN'T, DID THE CITY MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT ROPES AND WHATEVER WAS THERE WAS NOT A TRELLIS BASED ON ANY OF THEIR OWN EVIDENCE OR JUST BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED? 'CAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US AS EVIDENCE. WE DID NOT FIND THAT WHAT WAS PROVIDED WOULD CONSTITUTE A REPLACEMENT FENCE OR WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AS A FENCE TO BE REPLACED. THAT IS THE DECISION THAT WE HAD MADE. MAY I COMMENT DURING, DURING THIS PROCESS, THE CITY DIDN'T ONCE ASK ME FOR, WOULD YOU COULD PRODUCE PICTURES? COULD YOU SHOW US? THAT WAS, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SEVERAL, SEVERAL MONTHS, AND I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD'VE ASKED FOR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT AS HAS BEEN STATED, THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ANY OF THIS IN TODAY'S HEARING, OR I BELIEVE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE VERY INITIAL VARIANCE HEARING IS ON THE, THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION. MAY I, SIR? SURE. UM, IN A, UM, UH, A NEIGHBOR WHO WAS DOING A REPLACEMENT FENCE, BECAUSE THE DUBLIN, UM, UH, SITE DOES NOT ALL HAVE REPLACEMENTS. SO SHE HAD TO DO AS A, AS A, JUST A NEW FENCE, UH, UM, AND SHE WAS ACTUALLY REPLACING A FENCE. DUBLIN CAME TO SEND HER CERTIFIED LETTERS THAT SHE NEEDED TO TEAR IT DOWN. AND, UM, AND WHAT THEY SAID IS, IF YOU CAN GET TWO PEOPLE TO, TO CERTIFY THAT YOU HAD A FENCE PRIOR, THEN WE'LL ACCEPT IT. SO IF THAT'S THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE YOU WANT ME TO PRESENT, I CAN, I CAN GET TWO PEOPLE TO CERTIFY THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS ACCEPTABLE IN, IN THAT CASE, BY THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S TRUE OR NOT OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THIS. IT'S, IT'S TRUE, SIR. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, PAT, ISN'T THAT JUST, YOU JUST FOUND THAT OUT, YOU SAID, RIGHT? I, I JUST, YES, I JUST, I JUST FOUND THAT OUT TWO DAYS AGO. OKAY. AND, UH, I THINK UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT REALLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S HEARING, BUT I APPRECIATE, APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION. I I WOULD BE GLAD TO FILE AN APPEAL AND PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION IF IT WOULD HELP THE BOARD CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 F FOUR STATES. IN DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE BOARD SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE WAS DONE. SO USING THE PROPER REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS IN THE CODE, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS LIMITED TO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR BODY WHO MADE THE DECISION BEING APPEALED. ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY IS NOT APPROPRIATE. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR? OKAY. UM, SO, UH, YOU, UH, YOU, WE MAY BE SEATED AT THIS TIME. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE? NO. OKAY. MR. CHAIR, PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT, UH, APPROPRIATE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. THANK YOU. YES. JUST MAKING, JUST CROSSING ALL OF OUR T'S AND I'S AND ALL THAT. UM, SO I SUPPOSE IN TERMS OF OUR, WE'LL, WE'LL ENGAGE IN OUR DISCUSSION AT, UH, AT THIS TIME. UH, SO, UM, DESPITE WHAT MUCH OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED, UH, BY THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING, UNFORTUNATELY MUCH OF, UH, THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF OUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. AND, UH, WE ARE, UH, LIMITED TO THE, UM, EVIDENCE THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE RECORD. AND THE SCOPE OF OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION IS A, UH, UH, REPLACEMENT FENCE WITHIN THE, UH, DEFINITIONS OF THE, UH, UH, CODE OF ORDINANCES. UM, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHERE WE, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO, TO LAND HERE TONIGHT. UM, I, UH, UH, AS, AS, UH, POINTED OUT, UM, AND, UH, AS, AS WE OBSERVED FROM THE, UH, UH, PHOTOS FROM 2000, UH, THAT THE, UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED, UH, THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO [01:30:01] BE, UH, A OFFENSE, UH, WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS, UH, E EITHER THE, UM, UH, 1 53 0.080, UH, DEFINITION, OR THE, UM, UH, UH, THE NO UNDER 1 53 0.080. UH, THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY TRELLIS OR STRUCTURE SUPPORTING ANY OF THE VEGETATION. IT JUST APPEARED TO BE, UH, AN ORCHARD, UM, OR NOT AN ORCHARD, BUT MAYBE A, A A SERIES OF TREES, SHRUBS, BUSHES, AND VEGETATION WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING STRUCTURE, UM, THAT, UH, THAT WERE OBSERVABLE FROM THOSE, UM, FROM THOSE PHOTOS. UM, AND SO IN THAT REGARD, AND, UH, IN CONSIDERATION OF HOW THE CURRENT STRUCTURE, UH, APPEARS AND LOOKS, UM, AND THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD'VE BEEN GRANDFATHERED INTO THIS, UH, THE, THE PREVIOUS, UH, UH, CODE INTERPRETATION, UH, FROM THE YEAR 2000, UH, THAT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS WOULD NOT FALL IN LINE WITH THE DEFINITION OF A REPLACEMENT FENCE. UM, SO IN, UH, I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARD , UM, UH, UH, UH, UH, DENYING THE APPEAL, UH, ALTHOUGH, UM, WE'RE STILL OPEN TO, UH, FOR DISCUSSION. YEAH, I, I THINK, UM, NOW I THINK STAFF HAD INITIALLY DENIED IT BASED ON THEM NOT THINKING THE STRUCTURE DESCRIBED BY APPLICANT WAS A FENCE. I THINK I, I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE INTERPRETATIONS THEY'VE DONE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A FENCE, BUT I THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO GET THERE BECAUSE AS MR. MURPHY SAID, UH, 1 5 3 0.083 C REQUIRES THE STRUCTURED TO HAVE EXISTED ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE 75 DASH 98. AND I THINK WE HEARD TESTIMONY TONIGHT AND SAW AERIAL FOOTAGE THAT THE STRUCTURE, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A FENCE, DID NOT EXIST AT THAT TIME. AND SO THAT'S LEADING ME TOWARDS DENYING AS WELL. I AGREE. UM, I THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A DISPUTE AS TO WHAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE CURRENT FENCE BEING BUILT, BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS AS OF 2024. AND THE QUESTION REALLY IS WHAT EXISTED AS OF THE DATE OF ORDINANCE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE, I THINK JUST THE BURDEN HASN'T BEEN MET. THE PICTURES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN FROM 2000 FROM THE AUDITOR'S SITE, UM, YOU KNOW, SHOW VEGETATION, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A FENCE. YOU CAN'T SEE ANY SUPPORT STRUCTURES. UM, SO I WOULD ALSO, UM, LEANING TOWARDS AFFIRMING STAFF'S DECISION. AND I AGREE, I'M LEANING TOWARDS AFFIRMING STAFF'S DECISION ABOUT JUST NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT HASN'T PROVIDED THE, THE PROOF, UNFORTUNATELY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, OR ARE WE, UM, PREPARED FOR A VOTE? YEAH, I JUST THINK, UM, IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHATEVER HAPPENED WITH THE INSPECTION THAT THEY DIDN'T DO IT TO THE APP APPELLANT'S LIKING, AND THAT THERE WASN'T REALLY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS THERE, UM, AT THE TIME THE FENCE WAS BUILT AND THE INSPECTION OCCURRED. BUT I MEAN, IF WE'RE BOUND BY THE DATE OF 2000, AND THAT'S THE DATE THAT THIS PHOTO IS FROM, FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, I MEAN, THERE'S DEFINITELY NOT ANYTHING TRELLIS LOOKING THERE AT THAT TIME. AND EVEN IF YOU TAKE THE, UH, APPELLANT'S WORD FOR WHAT WAS THERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS WITHIN THE BOARD'S, UH, RIGHT. TO DECIDE IF THAT WAS A TRELLIS THAT WAS THERE OR NOT BEFORE. AND, YOU KNOW, NOT HERE TO SECOND GUESS THEM, JUST TO DECIDE IF THEY WERE WITHIN THEIR, UM, THE SCOPE OF, OF THEIR AUTHORITY AT THE TIME IS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE CONUNDRUM I THINK WE'RE IN. YEAH. UM, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT, UH, BEYOND, UH, UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEED FOR, FOR THE FENCE AS, AS THE APPLICANT DESCRIBED IT, AND, UH, UH, JUST, UH, THESE ARE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT, UH, YEAH, WE WOULD, YEAH. UM, UH, AND, AND, YEAH, UH, UNFORTUNATELY FOR HIS, HIS PRESENTATION SAKE, UH, WE, WE DID ONLY HAVE A LIMITED SCOPE OF, UH, UH, MATTERS TO, UH, TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING. UM, SO, UH, WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE'S [01:35:01] ANYTHING ELSE, UH, WE CAN, UH, MOVE FOR A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, DOES THE BOARD NEED A REMINDER OF WHAT THE SUGGESTED MOTION IS SINCE IT WAS PROBABLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET TONIGHT? UH, YES. OKAY. UH, FOR CLARITY, THE LAW DIRECTOR RECOMMENDS THAT A BOARD MEMBER MOVE EITHER A, TO GRANT THE APPEAL IN WHOLE, WHICH WOULD REVERSE THE APPEAL DECISION ENTIRELY, OR B, GRANT THE APPEAL IN PART, SPECIFYING HOW THE DECISION SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR PARTIALLY REVERSED. IF THE MOTION CARRIES IE, IF THREE OF FIVE BOARD MEMBERS VOTE YES TO GRANT THE APPEAL, THEN THE FINAL DETERMINATION IS A GRANT OF THE APPEAL. AND IF THE MOTION DOES NOT CARRY, THEN THE RESULTING DETERMINATION IS A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL AND STAFF'S DETERMINATION WOULD STAND AS WRITTEN. OKAY. UM, CAN I SAY SOMETHING NOW OR SAY SOMETHING? UM, UNFORTUNATELY AT THIS TIME, WE ARE ABOUT READY TO MAKE OUR FINAL DECISION. SO, UH, JUST SAY ASPECT. UH, UH, AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF, OF OUR, UH, CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. SO, UH, YEAH, WHILE AGAIN, WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEEDS OF, OF, UH, THAT, THAT YOU'VE EXPRESSED, UH, TO HAVE THE FENCE. UH, WE, YEAH, WE, AGAIN, WE, IT'S THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FENCE AND, AND, UH, UH, THAT'S THE SCOPE OF OUR DETERMINATION THIS EVENING, THE PLANNING. WELL, AGAIN, WE ARE, WE'RE LIMITED IN SCOPE TO, UH, I UNDERSTAND THESE DEFINITIONS, UNFORTUNATELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, SO WITH THAT, UM, UNDER ADVISEMENT OF, UH, UH, COUNSEL, UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO DENY OR IF IT WERE FIRM MOTION TO GRANT? OKAY, I MOVE, UH, TO, UH, VOTE TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF, UH, THE KAUFMAN MATTER. SO, UH, FOR, FOR CLARITY TO, UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO AFFIRM STAFF'S DETERMINATION THAT THE EXISTING FENCE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A REPLACEMENT FENCE? I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIR, THAT'S INCORRECT. I'M SORRY. A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL WOULD REVERSE STAFF'S DETERMINATION, BUT IT'S AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION, AND IT HAS A CLEARER RESULT IF THE VOTE IS NOT CARRIED. SO A VOTE TO GRANT WOULD REVERSE STAFF'S APPEAL, AND IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE NOS, IT WOULD DENY THE APPEAL AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR, UH, DECISION WOULD STAND AS WRITTEN. OKAY. UM, , I'LL REAFFIRM I'D LIKE TO MOVE, UM, TO GRANT APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN FULL. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. MR. MURPHY? NO. MR. LINVILLE? NO. MR. ANDERSON? NO. MS. SNICK? NO. MS. DEANDRO? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE, UH, UH, MOTION WAS NOT, OR, UH, OR THE, UH, THE APPEAL WAS NOT, UH, OR APPEAL WAS, UH, NOT GRANTED. . UM, SO, UH, MOVING [Case #26-007AA] ON TO, UH, OUR FINAL CASE THIS EVENING. IT'S CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 0 7 AA, UH, FOR THE BORA RESIDENCE, UM, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION REGARDING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BEING PERMITTED ON THE SITE. UH, THE 0.34 ACRES SITE IS ZONED TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, UH, DONAL CLIFFS, AND IS LOCATED AT 49 67 GALLWAY DRIVE. UH, AS WITH A PREVIOUS, UH, APPEAL, UH, BEFORE WE HEAR FROM STAFF ON THE CASE ON CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 0 7 AA, THE BOARD'S LEGAL COUNSEL HAS ASKED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE SCOPE AND PROCEDURES OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. MR. CHAIR ON SECOND THOUGHT, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU NEED ME TO DO. SO, ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS OR FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE SCOPE OF EITHER A MOTION OR THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL? AND VERY GOOD. YOU SHOULD PROCEED. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION WILL BE UP BY, UH, UH, ZACH COUNCIL. UH, PLEASE PROCEED. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, SO AGAIN, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. UM, THE BOARD HAS LOOKED AT TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION MADE BY STAFF, UM, NOT TO APPROVE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE THAT WAS APPROVED, BUT TO AFFIRM OR DENY, UH, THE APPEAL ABOUT STAFF'S DETERMINATION. THE SITE IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON YOUR SCREEN. [01:40:01] IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE DON CO CLIFFS NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SOME OF THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS SITE, SO THE CITY ISSUED A NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, AFTER IT WAS REPORTED TO THE CITY ABOUT AN UNPERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE DONGLE CLIFFS DEVELOPMENT TEXT. UM, FOLLOWING THAT, IN NOVEMBER, STAFF HAD RELEASED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT IT REPLACED, UH, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHILDREN'S CLUBHOUSE. UH, THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL IS THAT THE APPELLANT, UH, ARGUES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT IS SILENT ON REPLACING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAYHOUSE, AND THAT THE CITY FAILED TO APPLY THE PROPER STANDARDS FOR THIS DETERMINATION. UM, AGAIN, I WILL NOT GO THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE PLANNING REPORT, WHICH OUTLINES STAFF'S DETERMINATION. I'LL TRY AND GIVE VERY HIGH LEVEL, UH, SYNOPSIS OF WHAT IS THERE AND HOW STAFF CAME TO ITS DETERMINATION. AGAIN, ALL THESE MATERIALS WERE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKETS AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS AND THEIR REASONING FOR THE APPEAL. SO I WILL NOT, UH, TRY AND, UH, HIGHLIGHT ALL OF THAT. I KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HERE TONIGHT, AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT THEY'RE, UH, STILL WITH US TONIGHT. UM, BUT JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT, THAT BACKGROUND. SO, UH, TO MAKE STAFF'S DETERMINATION, UH, WE USE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION OF THE CODE, WHICH IS 1 53 0 7 4 A FOUR A, WHICH ADDRESSES WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. UH, SO WHAT WE HIGHLIGHTED THERE WAS SHEDS. THIS IS BASED ON THE, UH, COMPLAINT THAT THE CITY RECEIVED, WHICH DID INCLUDE AN IMAGE, UH, THAT SHOWED, UH, THE STRUCTURE BEFORE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, AND IT DID SHOW THAT IT WAS A STORAGE SHED. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT, UH, SHOWED. SO THAT WAS THE BASIS BEHIND KIND OF WHERE WE STARTED WITH THIS, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT. AND THEN LOOKING AT OUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTION, UH, SHEDS ARE CALLED OUT AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND THEN WE WOULD LOOK TO THE DONAL CLIFF DEVELOPMENT TEXT, WHICH DOES CALL OUT ACCESSORY USES INSTRUCTURES, UH, AND IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT OR DOES NOT ALLOW, UH, FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT IS HOW STAFF CAME TO THE DETERMINATION THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS, UM, BUILT OUT THERE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE PERMITTED FOR THIS SITE. UM, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SAID WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY, CITY STAFF TO DO, UH, UH, RESEARCH ON THIS, AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY RECORD OF AN APPROVED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THE SITE. UM, AND THEN THERE WAS NO F NO EVIDENCE OF THE RECORD THAT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH THE PROCESS. UH, AGAIN, THE BASIS OF DECISION IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN PLANNING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM STAFFS DETERMINATION THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS NOT PERMITTED ON THE SITE. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THIS EVENING? NO. UH, SO THE APPLICANT, OH, PLEASE, UH, NO, GO AHEAD, . OKAY. UH, UH, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD, UH, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM, UH, ENSURE THAT THE MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON, AND, UH, IF EACH OF YOU IS SPEAKING, UH, JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GIVE YOUR ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? IT'S COMING THROUGH? YES. UM, SHANE BOFF AND, UH, MY WIFE SAMANTHA, OWNERS OF THE HOUSE AT 4 9 6 7 GALWAY DRIVE, UH, LOCATED IN DONNA CLIFFS. THANK YOU. UM, DO YOU WANT TO SWEAR IN, IN CASE YOU WANT TO TALK? UH, SURE, PLEASE. I DIDN'T. OH, UH, PLEASE, YEAH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YOUR NAME. OH, UH, SAMANTHA SCAR, PETTY SHANE'S WIFE. AND, UH, YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE, UH, AND PLEASE LIST YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD, SORRY. OH 4 9 6 7 GALWAY DRIVE. DUBLIN 4 3 0 1 7. I MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THE DECOR ROOM. UH, YES, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. SORRY, MR. CHAIR. I DON'T BELIEVE SHE WAS SWORN IN. OH, OH, YOU WERE, YOU NOT. OKAY. UH, IN THAT CASE, UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TO THIS BOARD THIS EVENING? YES. THANK YOU. RIGHT NOW, YOU MAY PROCEED. GREAT. UM, THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME. AND, UH, MR. ZACH, THANKS FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE PROCESS. YOU'VE BEEN GREAT. UM, WE UNDERSTAND STAFF'S POSITION, PARTICULARLY THE FOCUS ON THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION, ESTABLISHING PRIOR APPROVAL OR PRE 2001 EXISTENCE. HOWEVER, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS APPEAL DOES NOT TURN ON THAT ISSUE. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT IS WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPLIED THE PROPER REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS OF THE CODE. IN THIS CASE, THE DETERMINATION [01:45:01] TREATS THE STRUCTURE AS A NEWLY INTRODUCED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY A SHED FOR CLARITY. THERE'S NO INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS NOT EXISTED PRIOR FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION, FORM, OR USE AS A CHILDREN'S CLUBHOUSE. UH, WE'VE PURCHASED THE HOME IN JULY OF 2016. THE FIRST TIME WE SAW THE HOME, UH, THROUGH THE BUYING PROCESS WAS MAY OF 2016. AND THE STRUCTURE WAS LOCATED IN, IN THE SAME LOCATION AS IT IS TODAY. WE'RE NOT SURE HOW MUCH FURTHER BEFORE THAT IT WAS INSTALLED. UM, DURING THIS TIME, THERE HAS ALSO BEEN NO DETERMINATION THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS NONCONFORMING FOR THESE REASONS, EVEN WITHOUT DOCUMENTATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS WHETHER THIS STRUCTURE SHOULD BE EVALUATED AS A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE RATHER THAN A NEWLY INTRODUCED STRUCTURE. THIS ANALYSIS IS SEPARATE FROM DOCUMENTATION, AND THAT STEP WAS NOT COMPLETED IN THE ANALYSIS. THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT ITSELF PROVIDES THAT, WHERE IT IS SILENT, THE DUBLIN CODE SHALL PREVAIL. NEITHER THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT NOR THE SIGHTED CODE PROVISIONS EXPRESSLY ADDRESS REPLACEMENT OR CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT STEP IN THE ANALYSIS WAS NOT COMPLETED. IF THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT IS SILENT ON REPLACEMENT, THAT QUESTION MUST BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CODE RATHER THAN ASSUMED. ADDITIONALLY, FOR CONTEXT, AS REFLECTED IN THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PRESENCE OF SIMILAR RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FURTHER REINFORCES THAT THE INTERPRETATION APPLIED IN THIS CASE IS NARROWER THAN HOW THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, TEXT HAS FUNCTIONED. IN PRACTICE, THE STAFF REPORT MENTIONS THE PACKAGING OF THE STRUCTURE AS A STORAGE SHED, BUT MAKES NO MENTION OF THE ACTUAL USE OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS AS A PLAYHOUSE, THIS IS OFFERED ONLY AS CONTEXT REGARDING HOW THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT HAS BEEN APPLIED OVER TIME AND IS NOT A REQUEST FOR ENFOR ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER CLUBHOUSES IN USE TODAY IN DONNA GOLD CLIFFS. FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DID NOT APPLY ALL REQUIRED STANDARDS AND REVERSE THE DETERMINATION. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. NOW, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPELLANT START WITH? YEAH, I THINK FOR THE APP, THE APPELLANT, I GUESS I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, MAKE SURE I HAVE YOUR ARGUMENT, UM, CORRECT. SO IN THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT FOR, UM, WHAT'S THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DONNA CLIFFS? YEAH. IT SAYS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE OTHERWISE PROHIBITED AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S A DELINEATION THERE BETWEEN WHETHER, I GUESS, ANY STRUCTURES BEING GRANDFATHERED IN OR I JUST WANNA KNOW WHAT YOUR RESPONSE IS TO THE, THE PROHIBITION ON ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR IF THE, IF YOU THINK THE, UH, THE FACT THAT ITS REPLACEMENT OVER SUPERSEDES THAT I DON'T, COULD YOU MAYBE CLARIFY? Y UH, YES, SIR. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT LIMITS NEWLY INTRODUCED STRUCTURES. IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ADDRESS REPLACEMENTS. AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT DISTINCTION WAS PROPERLY ANALYZED. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PHOTOS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT THIS REPLACED? WE, WE DO HAVE, UM, PHOTOS. I DON'T, WE DON'T, WELL, WE MAY HAVE ONE ON OUR PHONE. YEAH. BUT, UM, WE DEFINITELY HAVE PHOTOS OF THAT, BUT THERE WEREN'T ANY IN THE RECORD. FIRST, I GUESS MAYBE THIS IS THE QUESTION FOR, UH, FOR YOU, WERE THERE ANY, IF IT WERE, IT WAS IN APPENDIX A, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN THERE OR NOT THROUGH THAT APPENDIX. WAS IT JUST PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOT YOURS? OR DID IT ALSO INCLUDE THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU THAT'S WHAT, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE INCLUDED IT IN THERE OR NOT. [01:50:11] UH, I, I GUESS WHILE THEY'RE, UH, LOOKING THAT, UH, COULD YOU, UM, SORT OF DESCRIBE THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT IT WAS REPLACING AND ANY DIFFERENCES OR, OR CHANGES OR THE REASON PURPOSE BEHIND THE, UH, REPLACEMENT? YEAH, WE TRIED TO FIND BASICALLY A DIRECT ONE FOR ONE. THIS ONE IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER. IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT, UM, A FOOT NARROWER, UM, TWO FEET SHORTER, UH, OR, UH, SHORTER IN DEPTH. I WOULD SAY IT'S ROUGHLY SIX OR SEVEN FEET HIGH. UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS A MIX OF PLASTIC AND WOOD. UM, THE NEW STRUCTURE IS PLASTIC. THANK YOU. I CAN PULL UP THE APPENDIX IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO LOOK THROUGH AND YEAH, I CAN, I CAN LOOK THROUGH AND CONFIRM IF PERFECT. KEEP GOING. THAT WOULD BE THE LAST PAGE WITH THIS. UH, THOSE, THOSE WERE NOT THE ORIGINAL. OKAY. SO, UH, THE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THOSE WERE OTHER EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURES SIMILAR TO THE, THE ONE THAT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY? YES. OKAY. UM, SO, UM, WHEN WAS THE, UH, UH, STRUCTURE, UH, WHEN DID WELL, HOW ABOUT HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING AT THE RESIDENCE? WHEN, WHEN DID YOU MOVE IN? UH, IN JULY. OKAY. SO 2016. UH, THE, AND DID YOU CONSTRUCT THE ORIGINAL, UM, ITEM THAT, OKAY, SURE. OKAY. PARDON ME. JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU COULD TURN THE MICROPHONE ON AS IT'S BEING THE, UH, UM, MENTION IN, IN ZACH'S PROPOSAL THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND DOCUMENTATION OF APPROVAL. UM, IT WAS THE PRIOR OWNERS THAT TOLD US THAT AT TIME OF CLOSING, UH, VERBALLY. UM, SO WE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THAT. OKAY. SO THE, UM, THE RECORDS THAT YOU HAVE HAVE AVAILABLE, OR WOULD, WOULD BE, UM, FROM YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS IN, UH, JULY OF 2016, UH, AND CONTENTIONS BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER? THE ORIGINAL OWNER, UH, BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, UM, UH, MR. AND MRS. BONNIE AND RICK MAILER, AS WELL AS THEIR, UM, AGENT, WHICH I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THEIR REAL ESTATE AGENT. OKAY. AND THE ORIGINAL SHED WAS, UH, I'M, I'M GUESSING, DID, DID THEY, HOW DO THEY CONVEY TO YOU, UM, THE YEAR OF ITS CONSTRUCTION OR HOW THEY COMMUNICATE THAT TO YOU? OR HOW DID YOU COME ABOUT THAT INFORMATION? SORRY, REPEAT. DID YOU, WE DIDN'T ASK THEM WHEN THEY CONSTRUCTED IT. OH, NO, SORRY. WE, WE DID NOT ASK THEM WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. SO WE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH BEFORE 2016 IT WAS INSTALLED. OKAY. WHEN, WHEN YOU SAY IT WAS PRI PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT DETAILED, DID THEY, WAS IT, DID THEY SAY MAYBE IT WAS A VARIANCE THEY HAD OR IT WAS JUST THE CITY HAD WROTE OFF ON IT? I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PARTICULAR METHOD OF APPROVAL. UM, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THEY SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, UM, THAT IT WAS APPROVED ONLY FOR A CLUBHOUSE, PLAYHOUSE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE, UM, WAS NOT APPROVED AS A STORAGE SHED. AND THAT'S HOW THEY USED IT. AND THAT'S HOW WE'VE USED IT SINCE WE'VE OWNED THE HOME. AND WE DID PROVIDE, UM, ZACH AND THE CITY PICTURES OF INSIDE OF THE CURRENT SHED OR STRUCTURE SO THAT THEY COULD SEE HOW IT WAS USED. UM, IT [01:55:01] WAS SET UP, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROVIDED EITHER EARLIER THIS MONTH OR FEBRUARY, UM, IT WAS STILL SET UP FOR HALLOWEEN DECORATIONS. 'CAUSE WITH, WE DON'T REALLY USE IT IN THE WINTER. SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE LAST TIME IT WAS USED. THANK YOU. AND ZACH, THIS QUESTION FOR YOU, WOULD, WOULD THAT APPROVAL IF, IF IT WAS RECEIVED, WOULD THAT, HOW WOULD THAT COME? WOULD THAT BE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WOULD THERE BE VARIANCE OR IF IT WERE TO BE SUBMITTED AND VIEWED AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? WE WOULD'VE REVIEWED IT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, WHICH STATES IT'S PROHIBITED. SO IF, IF IT WERE TO COME THROUGH AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE THAT BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT. OKAY. OKAY. AND LIKE THE STAFF WOULDN'T, AND IF IT WASN'T APPROVED BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT TEXT, THERE COULDN'T BE AN APPEAL? OR IF THERE WAS APPEAL, WOULD IT BE FUTILE? I'M NOT AWARE OF AN APPEAL OR A VARIANCE FOR THIS. OKAY. BECAUSE THE TEXT IS VERY SPECIFIC IN BEING PROHIBITED. UM, A VARIANCE COULD BE REQUESTED, BUT ALTERNATIVELY A DEVELOPMENT TEXT MODIFICATION WOULD, WOULD BE CONSIDERED. BUT I HAVE NO RECORD THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING FOR THE SITE FOR A VARIANCE OR APPEAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS FOR THE STAFF, SO THIS IS BEING ASSESSED AS IF IT WERE A SHED AND NOT AS IF IT WAS A LIKE PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WHAT ARE WE, UH, ABLE TO ASK THE QUESTION? UH, YES. UM, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AS A PLAYHOUSE BECAUSE OF HOW, BECAUSE OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS PUT UP OUT THERE, THAT'S WHAT LED US TO ASSESS THAT IT WOULD BE A SHED. SO BASED ON OUR ASSESSMENT, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULDN'T VIEW IT AS A PERMITTED STRUCTURE OUT THERE. AND, AND THAT BASIS, UM, BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING IN THE REPORT WAS BECAUSE THE, UM, NEIGHBOR THAT MADE THE CLAIM TOOK A PICTURE OF THE PACKAGING MATERIAL BEFORE IT WAS ERECTED, AND THE PACKAGING MATERIAL SAID SHED, THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION, UH, IN OUR OPINION BY THE STAFF AS TO ITS ACTUAL USE OR TO INVESTIGATE HOW IT WAS USED, UM, WHICH IS WHY WE SUBMITTED THE PICTURE OF THE INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL. SO FOR THE APPLICANT IS, IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT A PLAY PLAYHOUSE WOULD NOT BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? UM, WELL, , PRIOR TO BEING EDUCATED ON THIS PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND CODES THAT HAVE A LOT OF NUMBERS AND SQUIGGLY LINES IN THEM, UM, AND BASED ON CONVERSATION, AGAIN, VERBAL CONVERSATION WITH, UH, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHEN WE RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IN, I, I THINK IT WAS SEPTEMBER. KEEP ME HONEST ON THAT, ZACH. UM, WE DID HAVE A CONVER A PHONE CONVERSATION, UH, WITH THE PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME. HE WAS TOLD BY THE PERSON THAT MADE THE CLAIM THAT, UM, IT'S A STORAGE SHED. WE EDUCATED HIM AND SAID, IT'S, IT'S A PLAYHOUSE. FEEL FREE TO COME LOOK AT IT. UM, AND AGAIN, VERBALLY IN HINDSIGHT, OF COURSE WE WISH WE HAD HAVE ALL OF THIS IN EMAIL, UH, BUT VERBALLY, HE SAID, AS LONG AS IT IS A PLAY STRUCTURE, THEN YOU SHOULD BE FINE. THERE'S DOZENS AND DOZENS OF THOSE IN DONAL CLIFFS. I GUESS, IS THERE ANY MECHANISM FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, RESUBMISSION OR RE UM, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, FOR STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AS A PLAY STRUCTURE? UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURE FOR THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I LIVE IN THAT AREA AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PLAYHOUSES. MY CHILDREN PLAY IN THEM. WE DON'T HAVE ONE, BUT I, AND I, AGAIN, AS YOU KNOW, OUR LAW DIRECTOR HAD POINTED OUT THAT WE'RE [02:00:01] NOT, YOU KNOW, A JUDICIAL BODY. WE'RE NOT HERE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER THOSE PLAY STRUCTURES ARE PERMITTED, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M HUNG UP, IS THAT IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, BEING USED AS A PLAY STRUCTURE, I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, FROM THERE I'LL LOOK TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL TO ANSWER THAT. GIMME 15 SECONDS TO PUT MY THOUGHTS FULLY TOGETHER. AND JUST, JUST WHILE YOU'RE SEARCHING FOR THAT, UM, IT MAY, IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO POINT OUT OUR HOME. IT'S LOCATED IN THE BACK OF THE HOME. IT'S A VERY WOODED LOT. UM, WE, WE PURPOSELY PUT IT IN THE EXACT LOCATION, THE ORIGINAL ONE IS, SO IT'S BARELY, ESPECIALLY AS LEAVES COME ON, LIKE WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING BY, YOU'RE NOT REALLY GONNA SEE IT. OUR IMMEDIATE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WOULD SEE IT. UH, BUT AGAIN, IT'S IN THE EXACT LOCATION. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. UM, AND THE PERSON THAT MADE THE CLAIM IS A BACKYARD NEIGHBOR, SO THEY MAY BE ABLE TO SEE THE BACK OF THE SHED, BUT AGAIN, THERE'S, THERE IS A NUMBER OF TREES AND IT'S NOT, UM, I DON'T KNOW, PURPLE OR , LIKE, I MEAN, IT, IT FITS WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE QUICK QUESTION. UM, BUT THERE WEREN'T ANY PICTURES OF THE PREVIOUS PLAYHOUSE SUBMITTED IN THE, OUR PACKET, CORRECT? UNFORTUNATELY, APPARENTLY NOT. IT WASN'T ASK FOR, AND I GUESS WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT. OKAY. WE DID, UM, AND FOLLOW UP, WE DID SUBMIT THE CURRENT, UM, STRUCTURE TO ZACH, BOTH EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR. THANK, I DON'T KNOW, ZACH, IF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN INCLUDED IN THEIR, IT WAS INCLUDED. OKAY. YEP, WE HAVE NOW. ALRIGHT. THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL, AND I AM GOING TO WORK THROUGH IT WITH YOU. UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF WHAT YOUR QUESTION'S ASKING IS THAT YOU'RE, YOU WANNA KNOW THE PROCEDURE FOR LOOKING AT THIS DIFFERENTLY AT A STAFF LEVEL, RIGHT? YES. SO I GUESS IF WE, CAN WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION OR COULD WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, UM, RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THIS AS A SHED, IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED, BEEN LOOKED AT AS A PLAY STRUCTURE. SO YOU AS A BOARD ARE BOUND BY THE LANGUAGE THAT THE APPELLANT STATES IN THEIR APPEAL. THAT'S THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR ANY ACTION YOU TAKE. YOU ARE ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THEY HAVE SET OUT A, YOU KNOW, MISINTERPRETATION OR AN ERROR IN INTERPRETING THE CODE. UH, ZACH, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THE BASIC APPELLANT LANGUAGE THAT THEY USED FOR HOW THEY CHARACTERIZE THIS APPEAL? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND. UM, THERE ISN'T A CLEAR PROCEDURE FOR AN APPELLANT AMENDING THEIR LANGUAGE IN THE APPEAL, UH, WHICH PROBABLY SUGGESTS THAT THERE ISN'T A PROCESS TO DO SO UNDER THE CODE. ADDITIONALLY, ANY DECISION THAT THE BOARD MAKES, UM, HANG TIGHT. AND ZACH, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, I HAVE IT ON MY COMPUTER. OKAY. I DO HAVE THE NARRATIVE. OKAY. I CAN PULL THAT UP. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. THIS IS AT 1 53 0.23, ONE E FIVE. 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 A FAVORABLE ACTION UPON RESUBMITTAL. AND, OKAY, I THINK THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO DIRECT YOU TO FOR RIGHT NOW. UH, THE SHORT VERSION IS THERE'S NO CLEAR PROCESS FOR AMENDING AN APPEAL. UM, THE APPLICANT APPELLANT HAS ONLY 20 DAYS TO STATE AND PERFECT THE APPEAL AFTER THE DECISION THAT THEIR APPEALING WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN. UM, SO IN ONE WAY, THE CODE SUGGESTS THAT THERE'S REALLY ONE BITE OF THE APPLE FOR THE, UH, THE LANGUAGE OF THE APPEAL. SO THEN I GUESS THAT, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL APPEAL LANGUAGE WAS? [02:05:06] IT? I CAN PARAPHRASE. IT WAS BASICALLY WHAT I READ HERE, THAT IT'S REPLACEMENT OF A PLAY STRUCTURE AND, AND WE STILL CONTEND THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT ONLY ONLY APPLIES TO NEW STRUCTURES. IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY STATE HOW REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES SHOULD BE HANDLED. SO PULLED UP IS THE, THE NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY, UM, MR. BOOF AND WHAT'S SHOWN IS THE CONCLUSION, WHICH DOES GENERALLY CAPTURE, UM, WHAT IS BEING APPEALED TONIGHT. AND IF IT HELPS, AT LEAST TWO OF THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING THIS LIVE STREAM, . SO WITH, UH, THE CONTENTION THAT THE, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION FAILED TO APPLY, UM, DEVELOPMENT TEXTS, PREVAILING CODE PROVISIONS, OR IDENTIFYING APPLICABLE CODE STANDARD GOVERNING SUCH REPLACEMENT, UH, ARE WE TO, UH, ARE WE GIVEN LICENSE TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ZONING CODE SECTIONS THAT, UH, MAY BE APPLICABLE OR THAT, OR THE, UH, THE ONES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, UH, OR THAT ARE, UH, ADDRESSED IN THE, UH, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, PACKET? THE BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO, TO INTERPRET THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL AS IT SEES FIT, BUT IT MUST DO SO IN A WAY THAT'S REASONABLE, NOT ARBITRARY, NOT CAPRICIOUS BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEFORE YOU, UH, IN THE SUBMISSION. THANK YOUR MICROPHONE'S. SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT KEEPS GOING OFF. UM, I GUESS JUST A QUESTION I'M MAYBE CONFUSED ON, UM, BEFORE YOU GUYS DECIDE TO VOTE OR WHATNOT, UM, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, ZACH, BUT I THINK YOU SAID IT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED AS A PLAY STRUCTURE. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAD HAD SAID. OKAY. SORRY. BASED ON, YEAH, BASED ON WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE CONTEXT THAT WE UNDERSTOOD IT IN, THAT'S WHAT IS ALLOWED US TO ASSESS IT AS A SOLUTION. OKAY. BETTER, BETTER EXPLANATION. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED THOUGH, AFTER READING THIS AND THEN MAKING A DETERMINATION WHAT APPEARS TO BE ONLY ON THE PACKAGING THAT THE NEIGHBOR TOOK A PICTURE OF. UM, I, I FEEL LIKE I, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY THE STAFF STOPPED AT THAT PICTURE AFTER READING THE NARRATIVE THAT WE PROVIDED ANTHONY WOULD DO. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT DO YOU MIND ADDRESSING PLAY STRUCTURES AND, AND THOSE, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. UM, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING UNDER SECTION 1 53 0.074, UH, UH, SUBSECTION THREE, THERE IS A SECTION OF ACCESSORY USES THAT, UH, UH, FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE. UH, IT DOES INCLUDE STORAGE AND THEN, UH, RECREATION, CHILDCARE, HOME OCCUPATIONS, ET CETERA. UM, FIRST IS THAT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR CONSIDERATION? AND SECOND, UH, WOULD A, WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED RECREATIONAL OR CHILDCARE, UH, FOR OUR PURPOSES? SO I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE DONE ON SOME GENERAL PLAY STRUCTURE QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THIS. HOWEVER, UH, I'M GOING TO DO SO ONLY IF THE [02:10:01] BOARD IS DETERMINED THAT THAT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS PURVIEW HERE. THANK YOU. UM, YEAH, I, I'M THINKING THE QUESTION HINGES A LITTLE BIT MORE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A, A REPLACEMENT OF, UH, OF THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE. AND, UH, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD FOCUS OUR ATTENTION. SO UNLESS, UH, THERE ARE, I'M OPEN TO OPINIONS TO THE CONTRARY, BUT, UH, IF, IF THERE AREN'T ANY THAT WE, WE CAN SORT OF FOCUS MORE NARROWLY ON THE, THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OR THE, UH, UH, REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS, IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW, WE RECOMMEND A ROLL CALL VOTE ON, UH, TO DO SO. THANK YOU. I THINK BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE EXPANDING AND WHY WE'RE DOING IT. UM, IS IT, I MEAN, I THINK, AGAIN, I DON'T PLEASE, UH, ANTHONY STOP US IF STOP IF WE'RE, IF I'M INCORRECT, BUT LIKE, ARE WE DETERMINING IF THIS, UH, IF WE DECIDE THEY USED THE WRONG STATUTE TO REVIEW THIS, ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE'S IS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME IF THEY USED THE OTHER STATUTE? OR ARE WE NOT DETERMINING THAT RIGHT NOW? THIS IS WHERE YOUR POWERS GET A LITTLE MURKY BECAUSE THERE ARE CLEAR ANSWERS WITH GRANT IN WHOLE AND DENY IN WHOLE. BUT FOR THE MOTION PURPOSES, WE TALK ABOUT GRANTING IN WHOLE. WHEN YOU'RE DOING THAT, YOU CLEARLY HAVE ONLY ONE QUESTION, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO REVISE, MODIFY, REVERSE, OR AFFIRM IN PART, ET CETERA. AND SO THE WAY THAT THAT SHOULD WORK IS IF YOU FEEL THAT EITHER STAFF USE THE WRONG PROVISION AND YOU'D LIKE TO ENGAGE IN YOUR OWN ANALYSIS NOW BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU, YOU CAN MOVE TO MODIFY. BUT I RECOMMEND ANY DISCUSSION BEFOREHAND ON THAT BASIS BEFORE DECIDING FINALLY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO MODIFY THE DETERMINATION OF STAFF. YOU MAY STILL DETERMINE THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY USE THE WRONG LANGUAGE, THE WRONG APPLICATION, WHAT YOU ANALYSIS, THE ANALYSIS YOU DO HERE RESULTS IN THE SAME ULTIMATE DECISION, WHICH IS TO SAY THE STRUCTURE ISN'T PERMITTED ON THE BASIS OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE APPEAL. BUT LIKE I SAID, IT GETS PRETTY MURKY AT THAT POINT. DID I HELP BRAD? YES, I UNDERSTAND THE MURKINESS OF IT NOW. VERY GOOD. SO IS THIS ESSENTIALLY JUST LIKE A PARTY PRESENTATION ISSUE WHERE IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE APPEAL THEY'VE BROUGHT AND WHETHER WE WANT TO GO EITHER EXPAND IT? 'CAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GET INTO DISCUSSION YET BECAUSE THE CORE OF THE ARGUMENT DOES SEEM LIKE IT'S ABOUT REPLACEMENT, BUT IMPLICIT IN THAT ARGUMENT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS A PLAYHOUSE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE PROPERLY PRESENTED THAT ARGUMENT. UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR OTHER BOARD MEMBERS' THOUGHTS. THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO CHARACTERIZE THE QUESTION, I GUESS, IS THERE, ZACH, CAN YOU PULL UP WHAT THE, WHAT YOUR DECISION WAS LIKE? COULD, DO WE HAVE THE WORDING OF THAT THAT WE CAN HAVE PULLED UP AGAIN? WOULD YOU LIKE WHAT WAS SHARED WITHIN THE PRESENTATION? SO I GUESS GOING TO GARRETT'S QUESTION, LOOKING AT THIS, UM, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IS SHEDS. AND SO I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ON MY PART THERE BECAUSE I THINK WAS THAT INTERPRETATION CORRECT THAT IT'S A SHED OR SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN UNDER LIKE THE SECOND, UM, UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT, IT SAYS IT DOES ALLOW PLAYGROUND OR INGROUND POOLS, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, SWING SETS ARE PERMITTED. SO I GUESS DID STAFF, WAS STAFF UNDER THE RIGHT [02:15:01] DEFINITION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? SORRY, I DON'T KNOW IF I STATED THAT CLEARLY. I I I THINK WE, I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. UM, THE WAY I THINK THAT STAFF HAD SEEN IT WAS THEY, THEY FELT THE STRUCTURE DIDN'T FALL INTO IN-GROUND POOLS AND WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SWING SETS. SO THEY WENT TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHICH THEY THEN JUMPED TO THE ZONING CODE TO SAY THIS IS A SHED, BUT THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SOMETHING BESIDES A SHED. UM, SO SAY THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A SHED, THAT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT HAD TO HAVE BEEN RAISED BY APPELLANT OR ARE WE TO SAY THAT ANALYSIS WAS FLAWED FROM THE GET GO? I THINK I'M HEARING YOU ASK WHETHER IT'S PROPER TO, TO, TO WONDER WHETHER STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND THE APPEAL LANGUAGE PROPERLY WHEN IT'S PUTTING THE STAFF REPORT TOGETHER AS WELL AS ANY DETERMINATION THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THAT AS A REMINDER, THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION THAT'S BEING APPEALED WAS FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT, IS THAT RIGHT ZACH? UM, SO ANY ANALYSIS THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT IS SECONDARY FOR YOUR, IN, YOU KNOW, INSTRUCTION HERE BASED ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT DID. UM, IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO DISCUSS THE, THE CONCEPT OF HOW A SHED IS BEING USED VERSUS IF A SHED HAS INTANGIBLE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM HOW ONE USES IT, THAT WOULD QUALIFY IT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE VERSUS A PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, UM, THEN PLEASE, YOU KNOW, DIRECT ME TOWARDS THAT. UH, I WOULD PREFER A MOTION TO DO SO, BUT YOU HAVE POWER AND I'M HERE TO SERVE YOU AND NOT TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE. UM, BUT THE OTHER POINT WE MADE IN OUR ORIGINAL APPEAL IS NOT ONLY IS IT NOT A STORAGE SHED, IT'S A, IT'S A PLAYHOUSE. UM, BUT THIS TEXT AGAIN ALSO ONLY APPLIES TO NEW STRUCTURES, NOT REPLACEMENT STRUCTURES. SO I, I'M, I GUESS NOT TO MAKE ANY THINGS EVEN MURER, I THINK WE RUN INTO THE SAME REPLACEMENT DEFINITION AS WE DID IN THE LAST CASE ON THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF OF THAT. IT WAS EXISTING AS OF THE ORDINANCE DATE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY POSITION I GUESS ON THE REPLACEMENT SITUATION. UM, ON THIS ONE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT, UH, UH, ANOTHER STRUCTURE EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY. IS THAT OKAY? INTERPRETATION? OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, I GUESS TO CLARIFY, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I WAS BEFORE WE GOT REAL MURKY, IS THAT THAT, UM, IF WE'RE TO, IF IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DETERMINED AS A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE, NOT A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WE'RE, THERE HAS TO BE EVIDENCE OF THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STRUCTURE THERE THAT THEY'RE REPLACING. AND OTHER THAN SOMETIME AROUND THE CLOSING, THE PRIOR OWNERS TOLD THEM, YEAH, THAT WAS APPROVED. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT EVIDENCE. UM, SO I GUESS, I GUESS I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF REGARDING THAT, THAT, UM, FACT THAT THERE WASN'T ANY EVIDENCE OF, OF PRIOR APPROVAL. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE KEPT AND IT'S JUST NOT IN THIS CASE? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT IF IT, IF IT HAPPENED, YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE IT? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT, UM, I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION. WE DO LIKE, ARE THE RECORDS LOST FROM THAT TIME ALTOGETHER OR JUST THERE'S NOTHING SHOWING ANYONE EVER APPLIED FOR ANYTHING FOR THAT BEFORE? WE DO HAVE HISTORIC PERMITTING ARCHIVES THAT SHOW PERMITS DATING BACK, UM, INTO THE NINETIES AND EIGHTIES. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT TYPICALLY REQUIRES A PERMIT. SO WE WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF A RECORD OF, OF AN APPROVAL. AND [02:20:01] WAS THAT DETERMINATION THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY, YOU LOOKED AND DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE MADE PRIOR TO THIS, UM, THIS DECISION THAT, THAT ZONING MADE BEFORE OR CODE ENFORCEMENT MADE THROUGHOUT THIS, THE PROCESS? WE HAD DONE THE RESEARCH TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BEING REPLACED. I, AND WHETHER IT WAS PERMITTED BY STAFF. UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM HAD RESEARCHED, BUT I KNOW THROUGH THIS APPEAL PROCESS THAT IS RESEARCH THAT OUR TEAM HAD DONE, UH, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A PERMIT PREVIOUSLY FOR THE SITE. OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, AM I TO, TO MY PEERS HERE, I THINK WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A LEAP THAT THIS WAS A PRIOR APPROVED OR PERMITTED STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO REPLACE AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS, SO THAT'S GONNA BE TOUGH FOR ME TO, TO GET AROUND. IF WE DO DECIDE IT, IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER THOSE STANDARDS. YEAH, SO THE, UH, STANDARD AS, UH, WE ADDRESSED IS, UH, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO, UH, DEMONSTRATE OR, UH, TO, TO PROVE THEIR, PROVE THE, THE CASE THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED. UM, AND, UH, IF THERE IS, IF THERE ARE, IF THERE'S AN ABSENCE OF THAT EVIDENCE, UM, THEN WE WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THEY, UH, ARRIVED WITH THAT THRESHOLD OR NOT. UM, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, I'M, I'M, IF THERE ARE PHOTOS AND, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE THAT'S MATERIALIZED SINCE THE APPEAL, UH, THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF, OF THIS, UM, BUT THERE ARE, UH, CONSIDERATIONS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RECORD THAT, THAT AREN'T THERE. I DON'T WANNA, UH, UH, FOCUS TOO MUCH ON, ON THAT OR, OR SPECULATE TOO MUCH BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY, I, I'D RATHER FOCUS ON WHAT'S THERE THAN WHAT ISN'T. UH, BUT WITHOUT A, UM, UH, AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE, UM, PRESENTED BY THE, THE APPELLANT, THEN IT'S GONNA BE TOUGH FOR US TO, TO GET TO THAT, THAT POINT WHERE WE WOULD, WE WOULD SEEK TO, TO GRANT THE APPEAL. I GUESS, OH, SORRY, JUST A QUESTION ON THAT. WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING THERE, THAT WAS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE? UH, THE, YES. THE, THE, UH, UH, STRUCTURE THAT EXISTED WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED YEP. WHETHER IT WAS, UH, GRANDFATHERED IN WHETHER THERE WAS AN APPROVAL, UH, AFTER THE 2001, UH, CHANGES TO THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT TEXT. UM, OKAY. BE, UM, BECAUSE THEY, THERE ARE PICTURES OF THE NEW STRUCTURE AS A PLAYHOUSE, SO THAT WOULD STILL BE PERTINENT IN SCOPE TO THIS HEARING. YEAH, YEAH. UH, WE'VE, WE HAVE THOSE IN OUR PACKET. SO WE, WE HAVE SEEN AND REVIEW THOSE, THE, THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT, UH, YEAH, WE'RE KIND OF STUCK ON, I GUESS LOOKING AT STAFF DETERMINATION. THAT'S ON OUR SCREEN THOUGH, UM, THAT BULLETED POINT IN THE MIDDLE. IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T REFERENCE ANYTHING ABOUT REPLACEMENT OR LOOKING INTO THAT, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THEY JUST SAID THAT IT WAS DETERMINED BY CITY STAFF THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS INSTALLED WAS A SHED AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO AGAIN, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE REPLACEMENT WAS EVEN IN STAFF'S PURVIEW OR IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, MINES WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THIS DETERMINATION. I GUESS, I'M NOT SURE. SO REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT REPLACEMENT WAS CONSIDERED, THAT IS A ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT IN 1 53 0 0 3 4, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT NONCONFORMING FOUR THANK YOU, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. SO IN THAT SENSE THERE, WE WOULD'VE NEED, NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF, UM, EITHER A PERMIT THAT SHOWS THAT THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY, OR IF IT PREDATED THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT FOR DONVILLE CLIFFS, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2001, THERE WOULD'VE, WOULD'VE NEEDED TO BE EVIDENCE PROVIDED THAT THAT WAS THERE BEFOREHAND. UM, [02:25:01] SO THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, THOSE ARE TWO THINGS THAT WE'VE LOOKED INTO WITH THIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND EVIDENCE OF, OF EITHER. UM, SO THAT CODE SECTION IS STILL APPLICABLE REGARDLESS, UM, OF THE PROCESS. UM, BUT WHAT IS SHOWN UP ON THE SCREEN IS, IS BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE PRIVY TO AT, AT THAT TIME. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF AND I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE ASKED IT ALREADY TONIGHT, BUT IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE IF THE APPLICANT OR IF WE WANTED TO TABLE THIS AND IF THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? LIKE NO. OKAY. TO BE CLEAR, THIS DECISION TONIGHT MUST BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, UH, OF THE DETERMINATION. SO UNFORTUNATELY, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NOT PROPER TO BE BROUGHT IN, SO NO ABILITY TO VACATE AND REMAND. IT'S NOT CLEARLY STATED, SO I DON'T THINK SO. BUT YOU ARE THE BOARD INTERPRETING THE CODE AND I'M PROVIDING ONLY ADVICE. MY ADVICE IS THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THAT DIRECTLY. UH, BUT THAT WOULD BE YOUR DETERMINATION TO MAKE. WELL, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE AT THE TIME OF THIS, UM, VIOLATION WAS REPORTED OR CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTIFIED THEM OF A VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PRIOR STRUCTURE WAS PERMITTED. AND UM, SO THEY COULD ONLY GO BY WHAT WAS THERE AT THE TIME, WHICH WAS NOT. SO THE, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND AT THE TIME IT WASN'T SAID THIS IS A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE. IT WAS LIKE, THIS IS JUST A THING HERE. SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO, TO USE THE REPLACEMENT CODE LANGUAGE AT THE TIME. AND ANYTHING DISCOVERED AFTER THAT, I MEAN, WASN'T PART OF THE RECORD AT THE TIME, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING, UM, WHAT WE'RE HELD TO. RIGHT. TO CLARIFY, THE, THE, THE TIMELINE, THE APPEAL IS OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER. IS THAT RIGHT? UM, BEFORE THAT, THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION BETWEEN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THE USE AND A, A PROVISIONAL NOTICE, I BELIEVE THIS IS EXPLAINED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT AS WELL, UH, BEFORE THE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION. SO THERE WAS A BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE OWNERS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY HAVE COVERED THE INFORMATION YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT. UH, IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT, UH, ZACH, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER, THAT PART OF THE CODE REQUIRES YOU TO, I'M, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I THINK YOU SAID THAT LIKE PART OF THE PROCEDURE FOR A CODE VIOLATION IS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A RE EXISTING PERMITTED STRUCTURE THERE THAT THEY WERE REPLACING. SO THAT WOULD'VE BEEN DONE IN THAT IT WOULD'VE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN, IN, DURING THAT BACK AND FORTH BEFORE THE VIOLATION WAS ISSUED. IS THAT CORRECT? THE PROCESS TO THE POINT OF AN APPEAL WAS STAFF WAS NOTIFIED OF A VIOLATION. THERE WAS A NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS ISSUED BY STAFF ABOUT THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS LATER FOLLOWED BY A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. SO TYPICALLY WHEN WE RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT. THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL REQUESTED WITH OR SUBMITTED WITH THIS PROCESS. SO PART OF THIS HAS COME UP THROUGH THE APPEAL BEING SUBMITTED AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH BEING DONE. SO WHAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WERE OFFICERS TO, MY UNDERSTANDING, WERE BASING IT OFF OF IS WHAT THE VIOLATION CALLED OUT IN THEIR APPLICATION OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN THAT MOMENT. DOES THAT ANSWER SOMEWHAT THE QUESTION? YES, I THINK SO. AS BEST YOU CAN. THANK YOU. [02:30:03] SO THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE NOVEMBER NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THE, THE, THE THING, THE DECISION YOU'VE APPEALED HERE TODAY, DID YOU CONVEY THE USE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THAT IT WAS A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE TO THE CITY AS WELL AS THEY, THEY ALSO CHARACTERIZED IT AS A SHED, AND WE ALSO, UM, BASICALLY INFORMED THEM THAT IT'S NOT A STORAGE SHED, IT IS A PLAY STRUCTURE. THANK YOU. I KNOW, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE BACK TO IS THIS REPLACEMENT OR NOT? AND THAT'S WHERE I KEEP COMING ROUND TO, IS IT NEW OR REPLACEMENT? I GUESS I THOUGHT ZACH HAD SAID THAT IN THEIR ANALYSIS THAT THEY FIRST LOOKED AT WHETHER IT WAS A REPLACEMENT AND BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T DETERMINE THAT IT WAS FOR SURE, THEN THEY JUST LOOKED AT AS IT IF IT WAS A NEWLY INSTALLED STRUCTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? REGARDLESS, REGARDLESS, WE WOULD VIEW IT AS A, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. YEAH. UH, I THINK THERE'S THE UNDERLYING ISSUE THAT IT CAN'T BE A REPLACEMENT IF IT WAS NEVER AN APPROVED STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE. RIGHT. SO I GUESS THAT'S RIGHT. NOW WE DON'T HAVE RECORDS, AND I THINK HEARSAY IS CURRENTLY THE ONLY SUPPORT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROVED. SO CAN'T BE A REPLACEMENT IF IT WASN'T INITIALLY APPROVED OR COMPLIED WITH, UH, PREVIOUS EXISTING GRANDFATHER, THEN. YEAH, LISA. I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT TONIGHT IS I THINK THE FACTS THAT ARE IN THE RECORD AS OF NOW, UM, I'M READY TO VOTE ON THE APPEAL, BUT IF WE THINK SOME, UM, THE WRONG STATUTE WAS USED OR THINK WE CAN AMEND OR LIKE GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN OTHER PARTS OR , THEN WE CAN DISCUSS DOING THAT. BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE IT GETS MURKY. I DON'T WANT TO, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING PRETTY FAR OUT OF WHAT THE SCOPE WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT IS TO DO THAT IF THERE'S NO WITH NO, NO GUIDANCE FROM THE CODE. SURE. THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. UM, SO, UH, NOT TO GET TOO FUNDAMENTAL, UM, BUT THE STRUCTURE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, UH, HOW DID IT, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT? WAS IT FROM A KIT? WAS IT FROM, UH, WAS IT CONSTRUCTED WHOLESALE FROM JUST SCRAP PARTS OR, UH, DID IT COME OUT OF A BOX THAT SAID PLACE THAT, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES? UM, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE WAS, UH, PURCHASED FROM MENARDS. UM, I, I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE BOX SAID. I'M ONLY GOING OFF THE REPORT BY THE STAFF THAT SAID THE REASON THEY LABELED IT A SHED WAS BECAUSE IT SAID SHED. UM, I DON'T RECALL THAT. I NEVER SAW THE PICTURE THAT WAS TAKEN IN REPORT OR SUBMITTED. UM, I'M JUST TAKING THAT OUTTA THE REPORT. SURE. UH, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SOME CONFIRMATION, UH, JUST TO ENSURE THAT, I MEAN, DEPENDING ON HOW, IS IT LIKE A, DEPENDING ON, ON THE USE OF THE, THE STRUCTURE, UH, HOW MUCH OF THAT WE WOULD, UH, CONSIDER, UH, UM, OR HOW IT MIGHT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM ANOTHER SORT OF PLAY PLAY SET, LIKE A, LIKE A SWING SET OR, OR, UH, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE STRUCTURALLY DIFFERENT. UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO, TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY, UH, CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER IT IS, WAS SPECI, UH, SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED AS BEING INSTALLED, UH, OR BEING MASS PRODUCED, MANUFACTURED AND SOLD AS A, AS A PLAY SET. SO, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, STAFF OR THE, UM, THE APPLICANT OR THE, UH, THE APPELLANT? [02:35:04] YEAH, I, I GUESS HOW YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AND, UH, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE ALREADY SORT OF BEGUN OUR DISCUSSION, I GUESS WE WILL COMMENCE OUR, UH, FORMAL DISCUSSION HERE, UH, AS TO OUR NEXT STEPS AND, UH, OUR DETERMINATIONS. UM, SO WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO FEEL LIKE I'M HOGGING THE MIC? YEAH, I GUESS IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE DECIDING ANOTHER, UM, IF WE'RE DECIDING IF THIS WAS A REPLACEMENT PROPERTY AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THAT, THEN WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF, UM, IT WAS A PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED STRUCTURE AND THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE APPELLANTS, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A PREEXISTING, UM, PERMITTED STRUCTURE. SO I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE CAN EVEN GET TO PART B IS LIKE, IS THIS A REPLACEMENT OF IT? IF IT, THE ORIGINAL THING WASN'T PERMITTED EITHER. UM, IF THERE'S SOME STATUTE THAT SAYS PLEA , THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE IS FINE AND DOESN'T NEED PERMITTING, OR, I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN ALLEGED EITHER OR, OR ASKED FOR EITHER. BUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO, UM, AGAIN, LIKE DENY IN PART AND MODIFY TO DO THAT, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT WE CAN EVEN MODIFY THAT WILL CHANGE THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME AT THIS POINT. SO, I DON'T KNOW. PLEASE, IF YOU GUYS DISAGREE, FEEL FREE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I'M OFF TRACK HERE. BUT THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'RE AT. I THINK I AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT ASPECT OF IT. I THINK WHERE I'M GETTING HUNG UP IS THAT I THINK CLEARLY STAFF COULDN'T DETERMINE THAT IT WAS A REPLACEMENT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT IT HAD REPLACED, IT HAD EXISTED PREVIOUSLY. SO INSTEAD THEY LOOKED AT, WOULD THIS STRUCTURE BE PERMITTED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT AS IT IS NOW SINCE IT HAD BEEN, UM, ENACTED. AND IN THAT CASE, THIS SAYS THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS INSTALLED WAS A SHED. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING HUNG UP, IS THAT, THAT THAT THAT DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS A SHED AND SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER IT WAS A SHED OR A, UM, CLUBHOUSE PLACE, PLAY PLACE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S KIND OF A CARVE OUT FROM ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR IN-GROUND POOLS AND PLAY SETS THAT ARE ALLOWED, BUT A SHED WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. AND I THINK THAT TAKES US BACK TO THE ISSUE TOO, OF IS THAT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL THAT THEY MADE? UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE IF WE WERE TO GO THAT ROUTE. AND ARE WE THEN DETERMINING IF THIS IS A SWING SET, OR, OR IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO, TO THROW THIS IN WITH THE SWING SET AND WOODEN SWING SET, I THINK WAS WHAT THE, UM, CODE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO SAID? YEAH, LIKE, DOES IT FALL UNDER LIKE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT? YOU KNOW, I THINK SOMEWHERE IN HERE, AND I'M NOT SURE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CLUBHOUSES OR PLAYHOUSES, UM, THERE WAS MENTION OF POTENTIAL OTHER ZONING CODE SECTIONS THAT MAY HAVE APPLICABILITY THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY THE DONVILLE CLIFF'S DEVELOPMENT TEXT. SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE WERE SAYING, SHOULD WE WADE INTO THAT ANALYSIS? AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE THERE OR NOT, BUT THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION KIND OF IS. YEAH, I, I AGREE. BUT I MEAN, I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN OR HEARD OF A STRUCTURE THAT REFERENCES PLAYHOUSES WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT STATUTE THAT SAYS WOODEN SWING SETS, OR IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS A PLAYHOUSE? OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WHERE THAT WE'RE ANOTHER STATUTE OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT, THAT, UM, THAT I'M MISSING MR. LINVILLE IN, IN CASE IT'S HELPFUL. I BELIEVE YOU'RE REFERENCING THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT FOR DONVILLE CLIFFS, WHICH STATES, QUOTE, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES IN GROUND POOLS AND WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SLASH SWING SETS ARE PERMITTED AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE OTHERWISE PROHIBITED. SO [02:40:01] THIS WOULD'VE TO BE A WOODEN PLAYGROUND OR SWING SET. THAT'S WHAT THE TEXT SAYS. OKAY. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T WANT TO, I WANT TO OBVIOUSLY GIVE THE CITIZENS EVERY BENEFIT OF, OF THE DOUBT THAT WE CAN AND, AND INTERPRET THE STATUTES AS AS WE SEE FIT. BUT AGAIN, NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DETERMINE THAT THIS PLASTIC, UH, PLAYHOUSE IS A WOODEN PLAY. WHAT IS THE WORDING? A WOODEN, THE DEVELOPMENT SAYS PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, A WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SLASH SWING SET. RIGHT. AND IT IS ON YOUR SCREEN, IT'S FULLY LISTED OUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SO I, I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, DOES IT, DOES THE STRUCTURE AS WE, AS IT IS, AS WE'VE SEEN IT, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REPLACEMENT COMPONENT OR, OR ARGUMENT, UH, DOES IT RESEMBLE MORE, UH, SHED, UM, GAZEBO, UH, PORCH PATIO DECK, UM, PERGOLAS AWNINGS, CANOPIES, GREENHOUSE, UM, WOULD IT RESEMBLE THAT, UH, MORE THAN IT WOULD IN GROUND POOLS AND WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SWING SETS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT IT'S JUST THESE, UH, THIS TYPE OF COVERED STRUCTURE, UM, WOULD FALL IN LINE WITH THE, UM, UH, THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION, AND IT, IT WOULD COMPORT MORE WITH A, UM, THE, A, A, UH, TRADITIONAL SHED. UM, THEN IT WOULD SAY A SWING SET OR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. QUESTION. I ACTUALLY DUNNO IF THIS HELPS US, UH, HOW WOULD IT COME TO THE MICROPHONE? THANK YOU. SORRY, UH, MR. CHAIR, AS A REMINDER THAT THIS IS THE BOARD'S DELIBERATION TIME, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE SPEAKING, YOU MAY, UH, BUT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE REQUEST AT THIS POINT BECAUSE YOU ARE IN BOARD DELIBERATIONS ONLY, UH, JUST IF YOU CAN KEEP IT BRIEF. OKAY. UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW METAL TRAMPOLINES SOCCER GOALS, UM, SMALL PORTABLE BASKETBALL HOOPS THAT ARE NOT WOOD, UM, DOES EVERYTHING FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY? UH, UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE, UM, BOUND BY THE, UM, UH, EITHER THIS LANGUAGE OF THESE SELECT CODE SECTIONS OR WE CAN, UH, IF, IF YOU SEE FIT TO, UH, APPLY A DIFFERENT, UH, STANDARD FROM ADDITION PART, UH, A SEPARATE PART OF THE ORDINANCE, THEN THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER STEP THAT WE MIGHT ENTERTAIN. SO I GUESS THIS IS MY THOUGHTS. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FOUND IT WAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE PROHIBITED UNDERNEATH THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT. WELL, THEY DETERMINED IT WASN'T ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS ALLOWED. AND, UM, THE APPEAL HERE WAS PREMISED ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A REPLACEMENT OF SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED. WE'VE DETERMINED, I MEAN, IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE SOMETHING WAS PRIOR APPROVED. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE. ALSO IN THE, UH, SECTION PRIOR TO THE, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UH, WHERE WE HAVE THE, UH, DEFINITION OR THE, UH, EXAMPLES OF SHEDS AND, UH, GAZEBOS, ET CETERA, UM, UNDER ACCESSORY USES THE PREVIOUS SECTION, UH, WHERE THESE, UH, UH, UH, ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES ARE, ARE, UH, SET OUT UNDER THE ORDINANCE. UH, IT DOES LIST STORAGE, RECREATION, CHILDCARE, HOME, OCCUPATION. UH, NOW I KNOW IT'S NOT A, UH, ONE-TO-ONE COMPARISON TO SAY IT'S FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES OR I DON'T THINK IT WOULD FALL UNDER CHILDCARE PURPOSES PER SE. UH, BUT THAT, I THINK THAT'S A, A CONSIDERATION AS WELL THAT THE, UH, THE STRUCTURE DOES RESEMBLE, UM, UH, SHEDS THAT'S COVERED. UM, IT DOES HAVE, YOU KNOW, A, A, A CANOPY, UM, OR A, A ROOF, UM, AND IT'S PRESUMABLY USED [02:45:01] FOR, YOU KNOW, CHILD RECREATION, BUT FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. SO, UM, I THINK IT DOES ALIGN, UH, WITH THE, THE, UH, DEFINITIONS OF A, UH, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT IS, UM, FUNCTIONALLY USED CURRENTLY FOR THE, UH, MORE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF, UH, UH, BEING A, A PLAYHOUSE, UM, STYLE STRUCTURE FOR, UH, THE USE OF CHILDREN. UM, SO IT'S ONE WHICH SECTION MIC, IT'S, UH, WHICH SECTION ARE YOU LOOKING AT? SO UNDER STAFF ANALYSIS, THEY'VE GOT, UH, ZONING CODE SECTION 1 53 0.07, FOUR A FOUR A. THIS IS, UH, ZONING CODE SECTION, UH, 1 53 0.07, FOUR A THREE, UH, A THREE A. SO 1 53 0.074, UM, GOVERNS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES. SO JUST TO SPEED THINGS UP, ARE WE SAYING THIS, THESE ARE APPROVED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THIS SECTION? WHICH, WHICH WORD? I STILL DON'T SEE WHERE IT SAYS RECREATIONAL. SO, SO THESE ARE IN THREE, THOSE ARE ACCESSORY USES, RIGHT? AND SO STORAGE, RECREATION, THE RECREATION, OKAY. SO, SO IT'S NOT A STRUCTURE, IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE THAT'S ALLOWED. YEAH. WHETHER AN ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE OR, OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD BE PERMITTED WOULD BE GOVERNED UNDER A, A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE, OF THE CODE. BUT THIS, THIS IS JUST KIND OF DEFINITIONAL, UH, SETTING UP THE PURPOSE AND FOUNDATION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IF IT HELPS THE BOARD. A LAW DEPARTMENTS SUGGEST THIS INTERPRETATION. ACCESSORY USES OF PROPERTY IS A BROADER CATEGORY THAN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY AND USED IN THE KINDS OF ACCESSORY USES, LISTED IN PART A THREE. SO IF THERE'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S USED WITHIN THAT PROCESS, BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF DOESN'T COMPLY WITH EITHER THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT TEXT OR THE CODE, IF THAT'S WHAT SPEAKS, UH, THEN THE STRUCTURE ITSELF WOULDN'T SATISFY THE STRUCTURE COMPONENT, EVEN IF IT'S USED FOR A PERMISSIBLE USE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, A SHED, EVEN IF IT'S USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE PERMITTED USE ACCESSORY USE OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO THE CODE PERMITS SHEDS AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS LONG AS NO OTHER PROVISION THAT'S NARROWER, LIKE A DEVELOPMENT TEXT PROHIBITS THEM. THE OGLE CLIFFS DEVELOPMENT TEXT DOES NOT PERMIT SHEDS, AT LEAST END THE LAW DIRECTOR'S OPINION BASED ON THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE ACCESSIBLE ACCESSORY USES OR STRUCTURES THAT ARE PERMITTED THEREIN. RIGHT. IT ONLY PERMITS WOODEN PLAYGROUNDS AND SWING SETS. SO I THINK WE'VE SUFFICIENTLY SPUN OURSELVES INTO CIRCLES THIS EVENING. UM, SO I, I GUESS MAYBE FOR CLARIFICATION, CAN WE, UH, MAKE A, UH, CAN YOU LAY OUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE, THE, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT, WHAT WOULD, UM, GRANTING THE APPEAL ENTAIL? WHAT WOULD, UM, UH, NOT GRANTING THE APPEAL, WHAT WOULD THAT ENTAIL? YES. [02:50:01] UH, GRANTING VOTING TO MOVING TO GRANT AND VOTING TO GRANT AN APPEAL WOULD GIVE THE APPELLANTS, UH, APPEAL. IT WOULD SAY THAT IT HAS MERIT, AND THEN YOU WOULD BE DECIDING WHETHER IT'S REVERSED ENTIRELY IN WHOLE OR PART MODIFIED TO SOME EXTENT. UH, THAT WOULD BE GRANTING THE APPEAL. IF YOU VOTE NO TO GRANTING THE APPEAL AS A MOTION, THEN IT DENIES THE APPEAL AND INTERPRETATION, UH, FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD. THANK YOU. SO DOES, IF WE GRANT THE APPEAL, DOES IT GO BACK TO BE REVIEWED AGAIN UNDER A DIFFERENT STANDARD BY CODE ENFORCEMENT? OR DO WE DECIDE TONIGHT WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR MOTION? ? UH, SO MEMBER ANDERSON ASKED A QUESTION THAT WAS SIMILAR BEFORE, AND LET ME READ THE CODE SECTION TO YOU THAT APPLIES, UH, FOR YOUR DECISIONS, AND YOU CAN MAKE YOUR INTERPRETATION. IT MIGHT BE BROADER THAN I INITIALLY DESCRIBED IT, BUT THAT'S YOUR DECISION TO MAKE CODE SECTION 1 53 0.231 F FIVE STATES THAT THE BOARD MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM WHOLLY OR PARTLY OR MAY MODIFY THE ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION APPEALED FROM AND MAY MAKE ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION AS OUGHT TO BE MADE. I GUESS ONE OTHER QUESTION, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OR TAKE A VOTE TONIGHT? OR CAN IT BE TABLED FOR THE NEXT MEETING? UH, IF THE BASIS FOR TABLING WOULD BE TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER, UH, IF IT IS TOO IF SCHEDULES DON'T ALIGN OR THAT THE HOUR IS TOO LATE THAT MAYBE THERE'S A REASON TO DO SO. UH, BUT THE PROPER DECISION, PROPER APPROACH WOULD BE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE INFORMATION'S PROVIDED, OR POTENTIALLY, IF YOU READ THE CODE THIS WAY, UH, GRANT THE APPEAL IN PART OR MODIFY IT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ISSUE AN ORDER THAT REQUIRES STAFF TO PROVIDE SUP, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL, UH, SUPPORT OR, UH, CONTEXT FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU THINK ARE STILL OPEN THAT YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON. BUT TO BE CLEAR, YOU DO NEED TO MAKE SOME DETERMINATION TONIGHT. IT, BUT DO WE STILL COME BACK TO, WAS THERE SOMETHING THERE BEFORE? UM, IT DEPENDS. UH, SO IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER WE DETERMINE IT IS, IS IT A SHED? UM, OR IT WAS IT, I I, I GUESS IT IS DETERMINATIVE IN WHETHER IT FALLS OUTSIDE OF, UM, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, THE, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DEFINITION, UH, THIS, THIS LIST UNDER 1 53 0.07, FOUR A FOUR A, UM, THEN IT WOULD, UH, BE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. UM, BUT SO, AND THEIR CONTENTION IS UNDER THE DONAL CLIFFS DEVELOPMENT TEXT. UH, IT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IN-GROUND POOL, WOODEN PLAY, GROUND EQUIPMENTS SWING SET, UM, AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS, AS A, UM, AN EXCEPTION TO, TO THAT GENERAL RULE. YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK I JUST WANNA PLAY IN THE PLAYHOUSE AND I WANT THE KIDS TO PLAY IN THEIR PLAYHOUSE . AND, UH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. 'CAUSE, UM, I THINK WE'RE HELD TO UNFORTUNATELY THESE, UH, TWO DIFFERENT STATUTES, AND I'M NOT SURE THIS CAN BE SHOEHORNED INTO EITHER ONE OF THEM AS PERMITTED MYSELF, UM, WHETHER WE REMAND IT OR NOT. UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT DESPITE [02:55:02] WANTING TO, TO HAVE A PLAYHOUSE . SO, UM, YEAH, I, I GUESS WE'RE RUNNING INTO THE SAME SORT OF ISSUE WE DID WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE. AND, AND I GUESS WE KEEP HITTING IT, UH, EVERY TIME TONIGHT, IS THAT WE'RE LIMITED BY THE, THE SCOPE OF THE, UM, EVIDENCE THAT'S, THAT'S BEFORE US. AND THE, UH, UH, UNLESS WE HAVE, UH, SOME COMPELLING REASON NOT TO, UH, COMPLY WITH THE DEFINITIONS WE ARE PROVIDED, UH, OR IF THERE'S A, A MORE APPLICABLE OR, UH, APPROPRIATE CODE SECTION, THEN WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, UH, APPLY THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE. UM, I, I WOULD SAY THAT, SO JUST FOR, FOR CLARITY, UH, ZACH, UH, THE, ARE WE DETERMINING IF IT'S JUST A SHED OR THAT IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 1 53, 0.07? FOUR A FOUR A AS, AS IT'S CURRENTLY STATED, THAT IT IS CONSIDERED A SHED? THAT IS THE BASIS THAT WE WERE MAKING OUR DECISION ON. OKAY. BECAUSE THERE'S A CATCHALL AT THE END OF THIS, UH, AT THAT SECTION THAT SAYS, AND OTHERS SIMILAR STRUCTURES. SO, UH, NOT LOOKING AT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE, LOOKING AT ITS GENERAL COMPONENTS, UM, THE WAY IT LOOKS, UM, AND, AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT, THAT DOESN'T MORE RESEMBLE A WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SWING SLASH SWING SET. I MEAN, THERE, THERE'S A SLASH THERE. UM, UH, I, I'M INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS, THE, THE, THE CHARACTERIZATION WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THAT CODE SECTION, UM, GIVEN THE, UH, UH, STRUCTURE AND THE, UH, GENERAL AESTHETICS OF THE, OF THE SHED ITSELF. UH, SO IN THAT REGARD AND, AND LACKING ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT REPLACED A, UM, A PREVIOUS, UM, COMPLYING, UH, COMPLIANCE, UH, STRUCTURE, UM, FROM, FROM THE RECORD, UH, OF, AGAIN, WE'RE THAT WE'RE LIMITED, UH, TO THE SCOPE OF, UH, I'M INCLINED TO, TO, TO SAY THAT, UH, THE DETERMINATION WILL NOT PERFECT DOES FALL WITHIN A, UM, OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURE, UM, TO, TO A SHED TO A PORCH OR A GAZEBO OR, UH, SOMETHING ALONG, UH, ALONG THOSE LINES. SO, UM, UNLESS OBVIOUSLY I'M OPEN TO, UH, OTHER INTERPRETATIONS, BUT IT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT, UM, THE, UH, CODE SECTION AS, AS APPLIED, UH, WOULD BE APPLICABLE, ALBEIT SOMEWHAT CLUMSILY IN, UH, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE. SO WILLING TO HEAR ANY, UH, OTHER ARGUMENTS, ANY, UH, COMMENTS ON THAT OR ANY, I MEAN, I, I AGREE. I ALSO WANT THE KIDS TO PLAY IN THE, IN THE PLAY SETS THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE, THAT THIS WAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN VIOLATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEXTS. THE DEVELOPMENT TEXTS GIVES US TWO CAT CATEGORIES IN GROUND POOLS AND WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SLASH SWING SETS. THOSE ARE PERMITTED, ALL OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT PERMITTED. THIS FALLS, THIS IS NOT IN THE FIRST CATEGORY, THIS IS IN THE SECOND CATEGORY. SO I, I CAN'T, CAN'T GET PAST THAT. SO I GUESS IN THAT REGARD, UM, SWING SETS OR , UM, SOME OTHER SIMILAR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT COULD, COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY, UH, BEEN THE REPLACEMENT. BUT GIVEN THE, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE, THE SIMILAR, THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND, UH, THE, UH, THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE, UM, DEFINED UNDER THE, UH, PREVAILING, UH, THE, THE APPLICABLE CODE APPLIED CODE SECTION, UM, UH, YEAH, I'M, I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARD THAT IT WAS, [03:00:01] UM, UH, NONCOMPLIANT, UH, UH, AND THAT'S ALSO IN LIGHT OF THE, UM, UH, LACK OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT, UH, THE, UH, THAT THIS HAD BEEN A REPLACEMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STRUCTURE. AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE, THERE ISN'T ANY. UM, BUT, UM, YEAH, THE, WE'RE KIND OF HAMSTRINGED IN, IN THAT REGARD. AND, UH, UH, YEAH, UH, I'M, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE I AM. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE IS, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M, I'M WITH YOU GUYS AND I REALLY WANNA ALLOW IT. I'M THE WORD WOODEN IN FRONT OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT HERE, I THINK IS WHERE I'M STUCK. NOW, IF THAT WASN'T THERE BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK I WOULD, I COULD GET TO A DIFFERENT POINT POTENTIALLY, UM, BUT BECAUSE DONALD G CLIFF'S DEVELOPMENT TEXT IS SO NARROW, I CAN'T GET AROUND THAT RIGHT NOW. AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S A DONALD G CLIFF'S ISSUE AND NOT AN ISSUE FOR US. YEAH, I AGREE. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S A JUDGMENT OF WHETHER THIS LOOKS GOOD AND LOOKS LIKE A PLAYHOUSE. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. IT'S JUST, WE'RE SORT OF STUCK BETWEEN THIS IS EITHER A SHED THAT'S, THAT'S NOT PROHIBITED OR IT'S A NON WOODEN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT THAT'S ALSO NOT PROHIBITED. SO, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW, , I DON'T THINK WE'RE, IT'S IN OUR, WITHIN OUR SCOPE TO REWRITE THE CODE OR EXPAND ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT THERE. UM, SO, AND I GUESS HE EVEN MENTIONED THAT THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE WAS WOOD IN PART, AT LEAST. SO IF IT WAS PERMITTED , WHICH WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER, SO I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. UH, UNFORTUNATELY, YEAH, THE, UM, THERE'S GOTTA BE A CERTAIN EVIDENTIARY THRESHOLD FOR THE, UH, REPLACEMENT TO, UH, TO, TO BE PROVEN. AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, FROM THE RECORD THAT WE'RE STUCK WITH, UH, THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE TO, UH, UH, COMPEL US, UH, COMPEL ME, UH, IN MY OPINION, TO, UH, UH, SAY THAT THE, UH, PREVIOUS STRUCTURE HAD, HAD BEEN IMPROVED, HAD HAD COMPLIED. UM, SO, UH, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S, THAT'S AN EXCEPTION THAT, UH, WE'D BE ABLE TO, UH, UH, UH, GRANT, UH, OR A A AS, AS PART OF THE APPEAL. UM, SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHERE I AM. UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO WE DO, I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, I MEAN THE, THE SUM OF ALL THAT, WHAT I SAID IS THAT I THINK THE, THE STAFF WAS WITHIN THEIR JUDGMENT TO COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT SORT OF WE JUST DID IN, IN A REVIEW OF, UM, I MEAN, IF THEY, SO I MEAN, I'M READY. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OF SOME SORT HERE. SURE. UH, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? GENERAL. OKAY. UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET THE WORDING RIGHT. UM, SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO RANT THE, UH, APPELLANT'S APPEAL, UH, THAT THE ACCESSORY OR THAT, THAT THE, UH, UH, UH, STRUCTURE IS, UH, PERMITTED ON, ON THE SITE? IS THAT SUFFICIENT? OKAY. SO MOVED. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. GREAT. MR. ANDERSON? NO. MS. ALESSANDRO? NO. MR. LENVILLE? NO. MR. MURPHY? NO. MS. SNICK? NO. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC COMMENTS OR LES ANTHONY, YOU HAVE NOTHING FROM THE LAW? OKAY. UM, IS THERE BEING NO OTHER, UM, UH, BUSINESS BEFORE THIS BODY, UH, OR THIS BOARD? UH, WE [03:05:01] ARE ADJOURNED. * 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.