[00:00:01]
EVENING AND WELCOME TO[CALL TO ORDER ]
THE CITY OF DUBLIN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.YOU CAN JOIN THE MEETING IN PERSON AT 55 55 PERIMETER DRIVE AND ALSO ACCESS THE MEETING VIA THE LIVE STREAM ON THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S WEBSITE.
WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CASES.
NOW, IF, UH, YOU'LL JOIN US FOR THE, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEASURE OF ALLEGIANCE.
UH, MS. MAXWELL, YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES ]
BUSINESS IS THE, UH, ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS, UH, FROM THE LAST WEEK'S MEETINGS.UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 27TH MEETING? MOTION? SO MOVED.
[Case #26-035V ]
THIS EVENING WE'LL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, SLASH APPELLANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.THE BOARD WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST, THEN THE APPLICANT, ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, WILL BE INVITED TO COME FORWARD UNDER EACH APPLICATION.
PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE GREEN LIGHT ON THE MICROPHONE IS, UH, TURNED ON.
AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WE REQUIRE THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS.
UH, ANYBODY, UH, SEEKING TO, UH, UH, SPEAK THIS EVENING, UH, INTENDING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, UH, OR PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CASES.
MUST BE SWORN IN IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
UH, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ENTER 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.
UH, WE BE MOVING ON TO OUR FIRST CASE THIS EVENING, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 3 5 V.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR A SHED TO ENCROACH INTO A THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
UH, THE 0.23 ACRE SITE IS ZONED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BURLINGTON BRANDON, AND IS, UH, LOCATED AT 75 63.
ASHLEY LORD COURTS, UM, STAFF I BELIEVE IS, UH, UH, TORY BAKER WILL, UH, HE MAY SPEAK, HE MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND GOOD EVENING.
BOARD MEMBERS AS STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TONIGHT FOR A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SHED TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE PROCESS.
THIS IS A SINGULAR STEP FOR THE APPLICANT.
THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW DEVIATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHERE EVIDENCE OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR A SPECIAL CONDITION MAY APPLY.
AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR TONIGHT INCLUDE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIC TO THE PROPERTY CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO REVISE THEIR CERTIFICATE OF ZONING PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION INDICATING THEY HAVE RECEIVED BZA APPROVAL FOR THE SHED LOCATION, AND IF DISAPPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO MODIFY, REMOVE THE SHED OR MODIFY ITS LOCATION TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE LOCATED AT 75 63 ASHFORD COURT.
THE SITE'S APPROXIMATELY 0.23 ACRES IN SIZE IN HIS ZONE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ARLINGTON.
BRANDON, THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF DUBLIN SHIRE DRIVE IN DIRECTLY EAST OF THE DUBLIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
THERE'S ALSO A SHARED USE PATH LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SITE.
THIS CASE PREVIOUSLY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD ON JUNE 25TH AND WAS TABLED AT THAT TIME AS A REMINDER OF SOME OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE, JUST SHOWING WHERE THIS SHED IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE SITE.
AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE MIDDLE IMAGE THERE SHOWING THE SET THE SHED LOCATION FROM THE SHORT SHARED USE PATH THAT'S LOCATED BEHIND THE SITE.
AS FOR SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE, ON APRIL 3RD OF THIS YEAR, CITY STAFF RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ABOUT A SHED BEING BUILT
[00:05:01]
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 THEN DENIED BY CITY STAFF ON MAY 14TH DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE DENIAL REFERENCE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS BACKS.
SO THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A SHED TO ENCROACH 12 AND A HALF FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
AS FOR SOME UPDATES SINCE OUR LAST MEETING DURING OUR LAST MEETING, THE BOARD GENERALLY FOUND CRITERIONS ONE AND THREE TO BE MET, BUT THE BOARD WAS SPLIT ON THE ANALYSIS OF CRITERION TWO.
THIS REQUEST WAS TABLED AND THE BOARD ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANTS TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES FOLLOWING THE BZA MEETING STAFF WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE OPTIONS AND THE APPLICANT OPEN CHOSE TO MORE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL AS IS STAFF CONTINUED TO REVIEW HOW WE APPLIED VARIANCE CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, UM, APPLICANT ACTION OR INACTION AND FOLLOWING INTERNAL DISCUSSION AND INPUT FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT PLANNING STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THIS CRITERION SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY LOOKING TO ANY PRIOR CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE APPLICANT EITHER CREATED OR FAILED TO ADDRESS, THAT ARE AN UNDERLYING REASON OF WHY THE APPLICANT NOW SEEKS THE PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE CRITERIA.
ALL THREE OF THE FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE.
STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF CRITERION ONE AND THREE HAVE NOT CHANGED.
WE STILL FIND THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE AS THE LOT IS ONE OF THE SMALLEST IN THE SUBDIVISION AND HAS VERY MINIMAL REARED SPACE DUE TO ITS UNIQUE HIGH SHAPE THAT IS A CHARACTERISTIC ONLY APPLICABLE TO A SMALL SECTION OF THE SUB AREA.
THE LAW ALSO BACKS UP TO A CHURCH PARKING LOT AND A SHARED USE PATH AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL TO THE REAR.
AND SO WE FOUND THIS CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET FOR A CRITERIA.
NUMBER THREE, THE REAR SETBACKS ARE INTENDED TO PRESERVE CLEAR OPEN SPACE BUFFERS BETWEEN PROPERTIES, AND STEPH HAS FOUND THIS REQUEST WILL NOT MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
SO WE FOUND THIS CRITERION HAS NOT BEEN MET FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA.
TWO, WE DID CHANGE OUR ANALYSIS OF THIS CRITERIA.
WE FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT CREATED OR WORSENED THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE THAT ARE AN UNDERLYING REASON FOR THIS REQUEST.
STAFF HAS FOUND THIS ACTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACTION BY THE APPLICANT IN THIS CRITERIA AND HAS BEEN MET FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA.
B, AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOUR FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET AND THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET FOR THIS.
WITH THAT PLANNING RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SHED TO ENCROACH 12 AND A HALF FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK, UM, THANKS FOR THAT PRESENTATION AND THANK, UH, THANK YOU FOR LOOKING INTO THAT, UM, THAT, UH, SECOND CRITERIA A LITTLE FURTHER.
I KNOW WE WERE ALL WRESTLING WITH THAT, NOT JUST WITH THIS CASE, BUT SOME OTHER ONES TOO.
AND, AND THAT'S, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF NEW LANGUAGE IN THERE, I THINK, AND, AND HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE INTERPRETED, UH, WILL HELP US, UH, GOING FORWARD A LOT.
SO I APPRECIATE THE EXTRA EFFORT ON THAT.
UM, SO THAT SAID, UM, I COULDN'T FIND, COULD YOU SHORTCUT US TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE HAD ON THERE? I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THIS AND I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND WHAT PAGE THAT'S ON.
I DO REMEMBER THERE WAS SOMETHING FROM THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR ON THERE, IF I'M, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
UH, IN THE MEANTIME, UH, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THAT UP, UH, COULD YOU SORT OF ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON WHAT, UH, SORT OF, UH, DELIBERATIONS OCCURRED THAT THAT CHANGE THE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT, UH, SECOND PORTION OF CRITERIA A? YEAH.
UM, SO WE, WE HAD A CHANCE TO, TO KIND OF DIVE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO, UH, THAT, THAT
[00:10:01]
CRITERIA.AND ULTIMATELY, I, I THINK WHERE WE LANDED ON ON THIS WAS WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO, TO, OR I GUESS THE WAY WE'RE APPROACHING IT IS WE'RE REVIEWING IT AS IF THE STRUCTURE IS NOT ON THE SITE TODAY.
UM, ESSENTIALLY IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT IT IN EVERY CASE WHERE SOMEBODY BUILT SOMETHING AND THEN THERE WAS A COMPLIANCE ISSUE THAT CAME FORTH, THE VARIANCE, IF WE WERE TO APPLY IT THAT WAY WHERE THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT, THE VARIANCE WOULD GET DISAPPROVED EVERY TIME, EVEN THOUGH, UM, THE CONDITIONS ON THE SITE MAY WARRANT ITSELF TO A VARIANCE IF, UM, THE STRUCTURE WERE NOT BUILT.
SO BASED ON THAT, THAT'S WHY WE LOOK AT IT AS IF, YES, THERE'S STILL A CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OUTSIDE OF THIS PROCESS NEEDS TO BE.
UM, IT STILL NEEDS TO BE BE MET AND, AND BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
UM, BUT IN, IN TERMS OF JUST CLARITY AND HOW WE REVIEW THE, THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IN THIS, WE ARE LOOKING AT IT AS IF THERE IS NOTHING THERE AND, AND LOOKING TO SEE HAS THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER DONE ANYTHING TO CREATE A CONDITION ON THE SITE WHERE A VARIANCE IS NEEDED.
UM, SO I, I THINK A EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE IF, IF THERE WERE, LET'S SAY THEY DID A PATIO ADDITION AND THEY DID A BUILDING ADDITION, AND THOSE THINGS STILL MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, THE SET REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKS.
AND THEN THEY SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY ON SITE, THEY MEET, AND WE DON'T WANNA REMOVE THOSE, SO WE WANNA PUT THIS SHED, UM, WITHIN THE SETBACK.
SO IT'S OUTSIDE OF THOSE, THEY'VE KIND OF CREATED THAT CONDITION ON THE SITE WHERE, UM, THEY, AND BY THE WAY, I'M SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY HERE, UM, THAT EVEN THOUGH THOSE THINGS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, THEY'VE CREATED THIS CONDITION WHERE THEY CAN'T FIT THE SHED.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST.
UM, HOPEFULLY THAT DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S, I THINK IT, YEAH, IF YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THAT, I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO ADD ABOUT THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION.
I THINK YOU GUYS ARE TRACKING WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS.
MY PERSONAL FAVORITE EXAMPLE WAS SOMEBODY WHO GROWS A LARGE, UH, WONDERFUL GARDEN IN THE MAIN AREA OF THEIR YARD AND THEN DECIDES, WELL, I WANT TO PUT A SHED IN AS WELL, AND I'M NOT GONNA MESS WITH MY GARDEN.
IT WOULD BE PRETTY EASY FOR THEM TO, YOU KNOW, SHIFT A PART OF THE GARDEN IF THEY WANTED TO.
THEY'RE CHOOSING NOT TO, THEY WANNA PUT THE SHED IN THE SETBACK INSTEAD SEEKING THAT, UH, VARIANCE IN THAT CASE PROBABLY WOULDN'T SATISFY THAT CRITERIA IN A TWO BECAUSE THEY'VE TAKEN THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE CAUSED, UH, THAT UNDERLYING CONDITION TO BE PRESENT.
SIMILARLY, IF THEY HAVE AN OVERGROWTH OF, UH, SHRUBBERY, LET'S SAY, AND ASSUME FOR NOW THAT IT DOESN'T SET, UH, FAIL ANY SORT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, BUT IT'S STUFF THAT THEY COULD CLEAR OUT AND THEY'RE CHOOSING TO LEAVE IT AND ASKING TO PUT A SHED IN A DIFFERENT PART, THAT'S IMPERMISSIBLE, UH, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THE CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THE LAND THAT COULD EASILY BE REMEDIATED, AND THAT COULD PROVIDE SPACE FOR WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
WE ASKED, UH, STAFF TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A DIVE BACKWARDS AT PREVIOUS CASES FROM THE LAST FEW YEARS TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY INSTANCES IN WHICH CRITERION A TWO WAS THE SOLE FACTOR THAT WOULD'VE CAUSED A APPLICATION TO BE DENIED.
UM, ZACH AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN UPDATE THERE, BUT MY SENSE WAS THERE HASN'T BEEN A CASE WHERE THAT'S, UH, BEEN THE TRUE DISPOSITIVE FACTOR.
THERE HAVE BEEN, USUALLY THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST TWO OF THE CRITERION A, UH, FACTORS THAT ARE, UH, MISSING IN THE APPLICATIONS WHERE THIS ALSO CAME UP AS A, SOMETHING WAS BUILT BEFORE THE VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED, AND THEN THAT WAS, UH, PRESUMABLY HELD AGAINST THEM THAT IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY INTERPRETED.
AND, AND FOR CLARITY, THE, UM, UH, THAT THAT PREEXISTING CONDITION WHILE NOT BEING A GARDEN IS, IS MIGHT BE THE, UM, THE, UH, THE DECK, THE, UH, OTHER STRUCTURES THAT WERE, THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ON THE, THE PROPERTY THAT SORT OF NECESSITATED THE, UH, THE SHED BE PLACED, UH, IN A, UH, NON-CONFORMING, UH, AREA.
IS THAT SORT OF WHERE WE'RE, WHERE THE ANALYSIS LED JUST FOR CLARITY? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
WE WANNA BE CAREFUL WITH, UH, CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE CURRENT OWNER TOOK THE PROPERTY ON THEMSELVES.
THERE ARE INSTANCES WE'VE ADDRESSED WITH THAT, AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN HELD AGAINST THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THAT'S THE CONDITION THAT THEY INHERITED, ESPECIALLY WITH A PERMITTED STRUCTURE, BE IT ALREADY A SHED, A POOL, A PATIO.
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH PROPERTY TRANSITION, YOU TEND TO GIVE A BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE APPLICANT.
IT'S THE THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE OWNERSHIP, PRIMARILY THAT, THAT TEND TO FALL INTO THIS BUCKET.
AND, AND TO GO BACK TO, TO MR. LINVILLE'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE DIDN'T MAKE IT OVER INTO THE ONBOARDS, BUT THERE WERE TWO COMMENTS, UM,
[00:15:01]
THAT WERE PROVIDED AHEAD OF TIME AND THEY WERE BOTH IN SUPPORT OF, OF THE REQUEST.UM, SO THAT'S, THEY'RE NOT, WE CAN'T READ THEM IN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SWORN TESTIMONY.
UM, BUT I, I CAN SAY THAT THEY WERE BOTH SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST.
YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OR ARE WE READY FOR THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION? OKAY.
UM, AT THIS TIME, YOU MAY, UH, PROCEED TO THE, UH, PODIUM.
MAKE SURE THAT THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON BEFORE SPEAKING.
UH, AND INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, UH, YOUR NAMES AND YOUR ADDRESSES.
HI, CHRISTY HICKS, UM, LIVE AT 7 5 6 3 ASH LORD COURT, DUBLIN, 4 3 0 1 7.
MATT VITA LIVED THERE AS WELL.
UM, AND NICE TO SEE MOST OF YOU AGAIN, NICE TO MEET YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME.
UM, JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UM, TO REFRESH SOME OF YOUR MEMORIES AND WHAT WOULD BE NEW INFORMATION FOR YOU IS THAT WE, WE, UH, SOUGHT TO GET A SHED ORIGINALLY BECAUSE MY PARENTS WERE PLANNING ON MOVING IN.
UM, SO WE NEEDED A SPACE TO STORE THEIR ITEMS. MY MOM HAS SINCE PASSED, SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING OVER AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
UM, AND IN, IN PREPARATION FOR GETTING THE SHED, WE DID WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE'RE PART OF LIKE A TRI SUBDIVISION.
IT'S BRANDON ARLINGTON, HEMINGWAY AND TARA HILL.
UM, AND NOTICED THAT NUMEROUS PROPERTIES HAD THE SAME SITUATION.
THEY HAD A SHED, THEY HAD A FENCE AT THE VERY BACK, FAR BACK PART OF THEIR YARD.
UM, SO WHEN WE WERE RESEARCHING AND KIND OF FIGURING OUT WHAT WE WERE GONNA DO, WHAT SIZE WE NEEDED, OBVIOUSLY WE NEEDED A LARGE SIZE.
WE MADE SURE THAT THERE WASN'T ANY KIND OF BUILDING PERMIT NEEDED FOR THE SIZE WE WANTED, WHICH IS 200 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND AS WE WERE PLANNING ON THE LOCATION, WE SAW THAT SO MANY OTHER PEOPLE DID THE SAME THING.
WE FOLLOWED SUIT, UM, WE GOT IT IN PLACE.
WE CHECKED ACTUALLY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, UM, DIRECTLY I GUESS TO THE SOUTH, SOUTH OF US
AND THEN WHEN IT WAS DELIVERED, THEY HELPED US PUT IT INTO PLACE WHERE THEY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
UM, THEY DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS ANY KIND OF, UM, TAKING AWAY FROM THEIR PROPERTY WHATSOEVER.
IT'S, IT'S THE WAY IT IS SET RIGHT NOW, AND WE CAN SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES.
UM, IT'S KIND OF HIDDEN BETWEEN A ROW OF PINE TREES BETWEEN OUR PROPERTIES.
SO IT, IT'S IN NO INTERFERENCE TO THEM WHATSOEVER.
UM, IT WAS THERE FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS, SEVEN MONTHS UNTIL WE RECEIVED THE LETTER OF COMPLAINT.
UM, AND SO THEN WE LOOKED AT EACH OTHER AND WE STARTED THINKING, WELL, LET'S WALK AROUND AGAIN AND MAKE SURE LIKE WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING WHAT WE SEE.
AND DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE NOTED AND TOOK DOWN ADDRESSES, PUT IT ACTUALLY IN THE APPLICATION.
THERE ARE 171 OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THOSE THREE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ALL HAVE FENCES OR SHEDS WITHIN THAT 25 FEET SETBACK.
UM, SO WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
UM, AFTER DOING A LITTLE BIT MORE DIGGING AND WHEN WE, WE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION THE FIRST TIME, FOUND OUT THAT IT'S ONLY BASED ON COMPLAINT.
SO IF SOMEONE DOES NOT MAKE A COMPLAINT AND DOESN'T SUBMIT ANYTHING, THEN NOTHING IS REALLY LOOKED INTO.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR,
UM, BECAUSE IT, IT, IT DOES, IT'S, IT'S A NICE COMPLIMENT TO OUR HOUSE.
IT'S IN A PLACE WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY ENJOY THE SMALL PART OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE MUCH ON THE BACKYARD BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT WALKING PATH.
UM, BUT IT GIVES US ENOUGH SPACE THAT WE CAN MAXIMIZE THE OPEN SPACE THAT WE DO HAVE.
UM, I KNOW MENTIONING WITH THE CRITERION, UH, AND JUST THE CONCERN OF THE OPEN SPACE, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE WITHIN THAT 12 AND A HALF FEET OF THE WALKING PATH, RIGHT BEHIND THE WALKING PATH IS A SEMI-COMMERCIAL LOT, WHICH IS THE DUBLIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
AND FROM THE BACK OF OUR SHED ALL THE WAY TO THE GREEN SPACE OVER IN THE CHURCH, THERE'S FOUR ROWS OF PARKING AND 163 FEET, I THINK IS WHAT I WROTE, 163 FEET OF OPEN SPACE.
UM, ASIDE FROM WHAT YOU HAVE FOUND, I THINK IN THE LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THE FIRST TIME I DID GO BACK OVER BASED ON YOUR REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION, UM, TALK TO THE CHURCH.
I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TODAY, AND I DON'T THINK IT WENT THROUGH, BUT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
THEY HAD NO ISSUES WITH IT WHATSOEVER.
UM, THEY WOULD BE DIRECTLY BEHIND US BEHIND THE WALKING PATH.
UM, AND I THINK THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT SHUT DOWN FOR OPEN COMMENTS, BUT I KNOW SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE SU SUBMITTING OTHER LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
I, I THINK THAT IN SUMMARY, IT WAS, WE, WE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING A GOOD JOB OF CHECKING THE SIZE, CHECKING THE NEIGHBOR AT HOW IT WAS, UM, OUT.
[00:20:01]
THE SETBACK, UM, BUT FROM WHAT WE SAW IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE A BUILDING THAT WAS TOO BIG, UH, VIA THE CODE, WE THOUGHT WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE.WE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND IT WAS THERE, AS CHRISTIE MENTIONED, IT WAS THERE FOR SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE WE HAD A COMPLAINT ON IT.
SO IT REALLY TOOK US BY SURPRISE A LITTLE BIT THERE.
AND BEING SO CLOSE TO THE WALKING PATH, WE'RE ALWAYS OUTSIDE.
WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PATIO, AND NOBODY HAS EVER MADE ANY KIND OF NEGATIVE REMARK.
EVERYONE ACTUALLY COMPLIMENTS ANYTIME WE'RE OUT THERE WORKING IN THE YARD OR SITTING, EVERYONE COMPLIMENTS THE BACKYARD IN THE PATIO AND THEY LOVE LOOKING AT IT AS THEY WALK PAST.
SO I DON'T THINK IT HAS DOWNGRADED THE LOOK OR THE AESTHETIC APPEAL OF OUR PROPERTY OR THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
UM, AND TORI, IF YOU WANNA, I HAD SUBMITTED SOME PHOTOS JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A STORY AND SUPPORT.
WOULD IT BE HELPFUL IF I JUST WENT THROUGH EACH PHOTO? OH, SURE.
SO THAT VIEW IS FROM OUR NEIGHBORS.
SO THEY, THEY ARE THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR TO THE FARM, TO THE SHED, AND THAT'S THE VIEW FROM THEIR DRIVEWAY.
SO KIND OF HIDDEN BEHIND THE PINE TREES.
THERE'S ANOTHER VIEW FROM THE PATH.
AND TO THE LEFT IS WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS, AGAIN, FOUR ROWS OF PARKING, 165 FEET.
UM, THAT IS A VIEW FROM OUR PATIO JUST TO GIVE A DIFFERENT GLANCE.
YOU CAN SEE THE PINE TREES THAT HIDE IT FROM THE PROPERTY NEXT TO US, AS WELL AS THE WALKING PATH IN THE PARKING LOT BEHIND US.
AND THAT'S ANOTHER VIEW FROM OUR FIRE PIT.
YOU CAN SEE THE PINE TREES AGAIN BEHIND US, SEPARATING US FROM THE NEIGHBOR.
AND SO WHAT, WHAT OUR PLANS WERE.
UM, THIS IS AN ACTUAL PICTURE, UM, AND
AND THEN I, I DID A LITTLE BIT OF AI BASED ON WHAT WE WERE PLANNING ON, UM, DECORATING AND LANDSCAPING AROUND IT, BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY FROM FRONT SIDE AND BACK ALL VERY WELL LANDSCAPED, UM, VERY APPEASING TO LOOK AT.
AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE PLANNED.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF HOLDING OFF ON, ON DIRECTION.
UM, BUT WE'VE GOT THE LANTERNS.
WE HAVE THE TWO LANTERNS ON THE END ALREADY THERE.
WE WERE GONNA ADD MORE LANTERNS.
SO AGAIN, THAT PROVIDES A NICE LIGHT ON THAT DARK PATH AS PEOPLE ARE WALKING PAST AT NIGHT, WHICH SURPRISINGLY, PEOPLE WALK THROUGH LIKE 2:00 AM THERE'S PEOPLE WALKING THROUGH.
UM, AND THEN THE NEXT TWO PICTURES ARE, ARE GONNA BE THE SAME THING.
SO ONE IS A, A VIEW THAT WOULD BE THE AI VERSION, SO WHERE WE HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING PLANTED AROUND IT TO KIND OF TUCK IT AWAY AND HIDE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THE BIKE PATH, SO IT BLENDS IN MORE WITH OUR PROPERTY.
AND I THINK THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW.
WANNA LEAVE IT THERE? YEAH, I THINK SO.
WE HAVE A FEW MORE, BUT WE'LL HOLD OFF FOR NOW.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR THE APPLICANT? I THINK I ASKED LAST TIME, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER, UM, THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A SMALLER SHED.
I KNOW YOU EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR WHY YOU'RE WANTING TO GET ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT WHAT ABOUT A SMALLER SHED THAT YOU COULD MAYBE MOVE IT? SO IT IS WITHIN COMPLIANCE? YEAH.
WE, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE IT FULL NOW, AND WE
WE CAN'T EVEN USE THE GARAGE SPACE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL OF THEIR FURNITURE IN WITH US AS WELL AS THE BASEMENT.
SO WE'RE COMPLETELY MAXIMIZED RIGHT NOW.
AND WE HAVE TWO KIDS LIVING AT HOME STILL TOO.
SO, AND EVEN IF, EVEN IF WE, IF WE GOT A 15 FOOT LONG ACCOMMODATE, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO MOVE IT UP EIGHT OR NINE FEET, WHICH THEN THAT GOES TO THAT PICTURE FROM THE DRIVEWAY, THEY'RE GONNA SEE THE, SOME OF THE SIDE OF THE SHED WHERE IT'S HIDDEN BEHIND THE PINE TREES NOW.
SO WHEN WE ASKED THE NEIGHBOR IF, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE IT UP, THEY WERE NOT A FAN.
UH, SUPPOSE WE'LL OPEN UP TO BOARD QUESTIONS GENERALLY FOR THE CITY AND THE APPLICANTS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANYTHING FOR EITHER THE BOARD, THE CITY, OR APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OKAY.
UM, I GUESS, UH, YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT RIGHT NOW.
WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP IN CASE SOMETHING DOES COME UP.
BUT, UH, AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO, UH, OUR BOARD, UH, DISCUSSION, UM, WITH REGARD TO, UH, THANK YOU, UH, WITH REGARD TO THOSE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
UH, WAS THAT FOR THE ONES FROM LAST WEEK, OR HAVE ANY COMMENTS SINCE THEN? JUST TO BE FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, WE RECEIVED TWO COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS PRIOR TO THE AUGUST MEETING WHEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE AUGUST MEETING,
[00:25:01]
AND THEY WERE BOTH SUPPORTIVE OF THE SHED.UH, ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.
LIKE, I APPRECIATE THE SITUATION, HOW IT IS NOW WITH THE NEIGHBOR.
IS IT THE CURRENT NEIGHBOR OF THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IS OKAY WITH THE SHED BEING WHERE IT IS, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING MORE LONG TERM, AND THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE SETBACKS IS TO HAVE THIS, THIS CLEAN VIEW OF SIGHT.
SO WE'RE A DIFFERENT NEIGHBOR IF THE PINE TREES DIE AND THE SHED IS THERE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING LONG TERM, IF, IF I MOVED IN AND I HAD THIS SHED NEXT TO ME, AND I MIGHT NOT BE REAL HAPPY WITH IT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE WHOLE AESTHETICS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THESE, THESE EASEMENTS WERE CREATED FOR A REASON.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M STRUGGLING WITH.
I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION NOW, BUT I'M THINKING KIND OF BIGGER PICTURE, LONGER TERM.
UM, WE, WHILE WE OBVIOUSLY ARE, OR, UH, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT THAT A, UH, GRANTING OF VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ON THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, UH, WE DO THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT TO POINT OUT THAT THESE CHANGES WILL RUN WITH THE LANDS POTENTIALLY, UH, UH, BASED ON DIFFERENT, UH, SORTS OF CHANGES THAT MIGHT OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE, UH, UH, INCORPORATE INTO OUR, OUR SORT OF MENTAL CALCULUS AS WE MAKE THESE, THESE DECISIONS.
UM, SO, AND, AND KIND OF LOOKING AT THE BROADER PICTURE OF, UH, I SUPPOSE THE, UH, THE THIRD CRITERIA, WHICH IS THE, UM, UH, WHETHER IT WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY, UM, OR MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE REQUIRED, UH, REQUIREMENT BEING VARIED.
UH, SO THE REALLY, THE, THE INTENT, I BELIEVE, OF THE SETBACK IS TO KEEP THAT THESE SPACES OPEN AND, UM, PRESERVE A CLEAR SORT OF, UH, BUFFER SPACE.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, THE, UH, UH, THE REASONING FROM THE, THE CITY FOR THE, UH, UH, WHY THAT THEY WOULD SAY THAT THAT CRITERION IS, IS NOT MET.
UM, AND I THINK A A, A BIG SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THAT ANALYSIS IS BASED ON, UM, NOT JUST HAVING THE, THE OPEN AREAS, BUT THE, UH, UH, BASED ON THE AESTHETICS OF THE, OF THE AREA AND THE, THE PROPERTIES.
SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANNA HAVE, UH, A NUMEROUS, UH, UH, STRUCTURES BUILT IN A SMALL CRAMPS VICINITY.
AND, UH, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A, A CONSIDERATION MOVING, MOVING FORWARD FOR, UH, UH, ANY SORT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT SEEK TO REPLICATE, UM, A, A, UH, SHED OF THIS SIZE AND IN AN AREA THAT, UH, WOULD, UH, GO INTO A NON COMPORTING
UM, UH, BUT I WOULD EMPHASIZE THE APPLICANT'S, UH, UH, INTENTS TO, UH, MAKE IT AS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AS AS POSSIBLE.
IT ISN'T, UH, UH, UH, A LARGE AND OBTUSE IT, IT IS, IT DOES MATCH THE, UH, THE HOUSE THAT IT'S A, A PART OF OR AN EXTENSION OF.
AND, UH, IT IS, THE COLOR IS WHITE, SO EVEN AT NIGHT SHOULD BE ABLE TO, TO SEE IT.
SO THERE'S NO, UM, REAL OPEN CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SAFETY OR HAZARDS, OR NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT.
IT IS ADJACENT TO A PARKING LOT, WHICH, UM, WOULD BE THE, I, I PRESUME, ASIDE FROM WALKING, UH, THE, THE, UH, MOST, UH, TRAFFICKED AREA OF, OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
UH, SO THERE WOULD BE AN EASING, UH, OF ANY SORT OF, UM, UH, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA AS WELL.
SO THERE'S, UH, NOT MUCH OF A RISK FROM THAT.
UM, SO REALLY I THINK IT DOES KIND OF COME DOWN TO SOME OF THE, THE BROADER AESTHETICS OF KEEPING THE OPEN SPACE.
UM, SO THAT'S, UH, SORT OF WHERE I AM, BUT OBVIOUSLY I'M OPEN TO OTHER COMMENTS OR CRITICISMS. YEAH, I'M KIND OF ALONG THE SAME LINES AS YOU WERE JUST MENTIONING, AND, AND I'VE RIDDEN MY BIKE ALONG THAT PATH MANY TIMES WITH MY FAMILY, AND YOU GUYS DO HAVE A BEAUTIFUL BACKYARD.
I ALWAYS LIKED YOUR MULTICOLORED CHAIRS.
UM, AND SO I SEE THE POINT, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, YARD BEHIND YOU.
YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR BACK THERE THAT'S LIKE STARING AT THE BACK OF YOUR, UM, SHED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK MY CONCERN, UM, SIMILAR TO YOURS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THE SETBACK IS THERE FOR A REASON TO, TO, TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, A CLEAR OPEN SPACE AND THINKING ABOUT THAT WALKING PATH AND LIKE KIDS ON IT AND BIKING AND, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO KEEP SOME VISIBILITY AS YOU'RE MOVING ALONG THERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOURS IS NECESSARILY IMPEDING THAT, BUT
[00:30:01]
WE'RE, WE'LL ALLOW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE TO PUT SHEDS ALONG THERE, THEN THAT DOES BECOME AN ISSUE.SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.
WHILE, YOU KNOW, I DO APPRECIATE THE SITUATION YOU'RE IN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPLY THIS CRITERIA, UM, AND, AND FIND THAT THIS IS MET.
I GUESS I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THERE.
UM, HAVE WE, SO THE APPLICANT DID MENTION THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SHEDS IN, IN THE AREA.
UH, I KNOW WE DISCUSSED WHETHER THEY, UH, HAD BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES OR IF THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN BEFORE, UM, THIS SPECIFIC, UH, CODE SECTION WAS ADOPTED, UM, PREVIOUSLY.
UH, IS THAT A CONSIDERATION THAT WE MIGHT IMPLEMENT IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS? UM, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA, WITHIN THE VICINITY, UH, WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT TO DEPRIVE THESE APPLICANTS OF, UH, HAVING ONE, UH, AS A, AS A, UH, RESULT OF THE ACTION OF OTHER NEIGHBORS.
I BELIEVE THAT DURING, UH, THE, THE STUDY OF THIS, THIS APPLICATION, WE DID LOOK AT THOSE PROPERTIES AND SEE WHAT, UM, AT LEAST IN THE, THE VICINITY, IF THERE WERE ANY VARIANCES REQUESTED, AND, AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY IN THOSE CASES.
SO, UM, IN THE EVENT OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION BASED ON THE MERITS IN THE CRITERIA THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD, UM, IT'D BE LOOKED AT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WITH, UM, THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE AND THE STRUCTURES AND, UH, HOW THOSE CRITERIA APPLY TO IT.
AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION ON LOOKING AT NUMBER THREE WITH CURRENT CONDITIONS, UH, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT FALL UNDER, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE BEFORE US, BUT IT, THE BEST APPROACH WE BELIEVE IS TO SEPARATE THEM AND TO LOOK ONLY AT THIS STRUCTURE AND HOW ITS IMPACT WOULD AFFECT OTHERS.
UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO JUST JET AND EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW ABOUT THE SITE.
UM, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE STATUS OF THOSE, AND IF THEY AREN'T COMPLIANT, THEN THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A REASON TO SUPPORT, UH, A FINDING THAT IT WOULDN'T IMPACT IT HERE, UM, FROM THE CITY'S AND LATO DIRECTOR'S, UH, OPINION.
ANOTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? YEAH, I, I GUESS I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I'M NOT REALLY SWAYED BY THE, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS ONE TWO ARGUMENT IS BASICALLY WHAT THAT IS.
UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS ONE.
SO, UM, THAT SAID, I GUESS, UM, I APPRECIATE, UM, WHERE YOU GUYS ARE COMING FROM ON THE IS ON CRITERIA A THREE.
I THINK FOR ME IT'S A LITTLE MORE, UM, WHETHER THIS CREATES LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL, UM, I FORGET WHAT THE EXACT LANGUAGE WAS IN HERE.
SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT.
UM, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE CITY THAT THE LOT IS VERY SMALL AND HAS A DIFFERENT SHAPE THAN THE OTHER ONES ALONG THAT PATH.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER FACTORS, LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT, I THINK THE ENCROACHMENT ISN'T WITH THE NEIGHBOR HERE, IT'S WITH THE BACK ONLY.
SO I GUESS THE CHURCH IS A NEIGHBOR, BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST THEIR PARKING LOT, WHICH, UM, IF IT WAS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD THERE, I'D BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT ENCROACHING INTO THIS TYPE OF SETBACK.
UM, BUT SINCE IT'S A, AND I DO ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT WALKING PATH IS A PUBLIC SPACE THAT, THAT YOU DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING UNSIGHTLY THERE OR TOO MUCH CLUTTER AROUND THAT.
SO THAT'S, I, I AM STRUGGLING WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I THINK LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER PATHS I SEE WHERE THEY'RE JUST OPEN TO PEOPLE'S BACK PATIOS ARE THE AESTHETIC VALUE IS
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA SEE WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE AND IF EVERYONE'S HOUSES ARE ALONG A PUBLIC PATH.
UM, SO, UM, IT'S MORE OF AN AESTHETIC
[00:35:01]
THING THAN A, UM, THAN A SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT TO ME, IN MY MIND.UM, SO I GUESS IN MY MIND WITH THE, UH, SMALL YARD SPACE, THE SMALL LOT SIZE AND PIE SHAPE OF THIS ONE THAT, UM, I'M LEANING TOWARDS THAT FOR ME, THAT I THINK THREE HAS BEEN MET, UM, DUE TO THOSE UNIQUE FACTORS THAT I THINK, AND I, FOR ME, UH, I, AGAIN, I, ANYTHING WE DO HERE SETS SOME SORT OF PRECEDENT, AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE A ROW OF SHEDS ALONG THE PATH OR IN THIS SITUATION OR ANY SITUATION.
BUT I THINK, UM, NOT ALL THE OTHER HOMES ALONG THIS PATH HAVE THE SAME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS AS THIS LOT.
SO, UH, FOR ME, I'M KIND OF LEANING THAT THREE IS HAS BEEN MATT.
UH, I, SO I, I SUPPOSE
UM, I THINK HAVING A SHED, UH, IN AN AREA THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, UH, RELATIVELY OPEN, LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE, RATHER THAN HAVE A, A FENCE ALONG THE END OF THE PROPERTIES, IT'S A BUNCH OF, UM, EVERGREEN TREES, UH, THAT ARE SPACED OUT.
THEY'RE NATURAL, SORT OF JUST GROWING VEGETATION.
THEY'RE NOT, UH, SOMETHING THAT, UH, WOULD BLOCK, UH, ANY SORT OF, UH, IT, IT ISN'T A, LIKE A VISUAL STRUCTURE THAT BLOCKS YOUR, UH, YOUR VIEW OF, OF EVERYTHING.
UM, UH, BUT THE, THE LEVEL OF IMPACT, UM, HOW SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE THE EFFECT WOULD BE ON THE, UH, UH, A PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, I, I, I THINK IT WOULD, I MEAN, IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE OPEN AREA OF THE, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, GIVEN THE SORT OF OPEN, THE, THE EASEMENT, THE, THE PARKING LOT, WHICH, UH, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING WOULD BE BUILT ON TOP OF THAT.
UM, AND FROM THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PRESENTED, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THIS STRUCTURE BY ITSELF WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT PERHAPS THE, UH, UH, PRECEDENT, IT MIGHT SET TABLING THAT, UH, IN AND OF ITSELF, I, I DON'T BELIEVE AS THINGS ARE CURRENTLY, UH, THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY, UH, EVEN THOUGH IT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT, IT DOESN'T, UM, THERE'S NO, UH, IT DOESN'T PRESERVE A CLEAR AND OPEN, UH, UH, SPACE FOR BUFFERS BETWEEN, UM, BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES.
UM, I, I WOULD
UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WOULD HAVE A, AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND, UH, THE DIMINISH YOUR, UM, UTILITY OF, OF THE BACKYARD SPACE, UH, CONSIDERING THE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY, LIKE THE, UH, THE PATIO.
UM, SO I AM, I'M WILLING TO SAY THAT THE, WHILE THERE IS AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE PRO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE OPEN SPACES OF THE PROPERTY, I DON'T THINK IT'S SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH, UH, NOT TO, UH, MOVE AHEAD WITH THE, UH, WITH, UH, GRANTING, UH, THE VARIANCE ON THOSE GROUNDS.
UM, SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I AM.
UM, OBVIOUSLY I'M OPEN TO ANY SORT OF CRITICISMS OR DISCUSSION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR, UH, UM, YES.
YEAH, I GUESS I WOULD JUST ADD, I REMEMBER LAST TIME I WAS LIKE, LIKE WHERE IF IT WOULD, YOU COULD MOVE IT SIDEWAYS OR MOVE IT FARTHER UP IN THE YARD, I THINK, UM, MOVING IT 45 DEGREES LENGTHWISE WOULD CUT DOWN ON THE, UM, ON THE ENCROACHMENT.
IT WOULD STILL BE SOME SORT OF ENCROACHMENT, I THINK, FOR WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT IT.
BUT THEN YOU'RE LIKE INCREASING THE SITE TOWARDS THE PATH TOWARDS THE END.
LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'D HAVE A 20 FOOT THING YOU'RE LOOKING AT INSTEAD OF A TENT OR WHATEVER IT IS MM-HMM
SO, AND AGAIN, MOVING IT FORWARD, I THINK WE HEARD TESTIMONY AND MAYBE THERE WAS SOME, THE PICTURES LAST TIME THAT YOU COULD SEE IT FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN THE FRONT STREET IF IT WAS MOVED MUCH FARTHER FORWARD.
[00:40:02]
AGAIN, DUE TO THOSE CONDITIONS AND, AND THE WAY THEY HAVE IT, I THINK THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE, UH, WHICH IT WILL IS NOT, BUT IT'S NOT, UH, AGAIN, FOR ME, IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL AS IT COULD BE AND IF IT WERE POSITIONED DIFFERENTLY.UM, YEAH, I'M IN AGREEMENT, UM, IN THAT REGARD.
I ALSO WOULD, UM, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS
UH, BUT, UH, CONSIDERING THAT REALLY THE UTILITY OF THE, THE SHED, UM, YOU'RE, IT'S BASICALLY FOR STORAGE, PUTTING THINGS IN, PULLING THINGS OUT, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ALSO THE, THE IMPACT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE ON, UM, UH, GETTING THINGS THAT YOU NEED FROM, FROM THE AREA.
AND, UH, IF YOU MOVE IT TO A DIFFERENT ANGLE, LIKE ANGLE IT TOWARD THE HOUSE, I SEE THAT MAYBE YOU'RE, YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO BE ON TOP OF THE, UH, UH, THAT YOUR, YOUR, UH, PATIO TO, UH, TO PULL CERTAIN ITEMS OUT OR TO, UH, TO MOVE THEM.
SO, UH, I THINK ALSO THE SORT OF BUFFER SPACE THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO USE THE, UH, SHED PROPERLY MIGHT NECESSITATE ITS SPECIFIC PLACEMENT ON, ON THE, THE PROPERTY.
UM, SO I'M, UH, JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT IS A, A SHED FOR STORAGE AND, AND THINGS HAVE TO GO IN AND OUT OF THE SHED, UH, AND THERE'S SOME SPACE THAT THAT IS REQUIRED, UH, ADJACENT TO THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY, THAT IS A ALSO A, A CONSIDERATION THAT, UH, WOULD NECE, UH, MIGHT NECESSITATE ITS SPECIFIC PLACEMENT, UM, AS ALSO NOT TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE, UM, UH, UH, LIVING SPACE OF THE, OF THE BACKYARD.
UM, SO, UH, UH, OR ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, OR I THINK, WE'RE WE READY TO PERHAPS CAST A VOTE? SORRY, I JUST WANNA REMIND, BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR MEMBERS, UM, YOU WOULD NEED THREE VOTES TO EITHER APPROVE, WELL TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, UM, AND THEN TWO, TWO WOULD BE A DISAPPROVAL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR, FOR THE BOARD.
YOU THINK WE, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA DISCUSS OR ARE WE READY TO GO? OKAY.
YOU HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE A NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE, UH, TO THE ARLINGTON BRANDON DEVELOPMENT AREA STANDARDS SUB AREA A TO, TO ALLOW A SHED TO ENCROACH 12 AND A HALF FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
OH, UH, B OH, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE? OKAY.
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MR. LINVILLE? YES.
UH, ONE WITH THAT, THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED.
UM, AND, UH, YOU MAY HAVE A NICE EVENING.
[COMMUNICATIONS ]
UH, UH, COMMUNICATIONS, UM, UH, THAT WE NEED TO, UH, TO, TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE ADJOURN? YES.SO, UM, WE DO HAVE, UM, A, LET'S SAY A SHORTER LEGAL TRAINING HERE.
UH, ANTHONY HAS PUT, UH, SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR YOU ALL.
SO I'LL, UH, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM AND AFTER THAT WE'LL BE, WE'LL BE ALL DONE.
SO, ANTHONY, YOU WANNA
SO I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE ONLY FOUR MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE FOR THE, UH, THE SHORT TERM FUTURE.
[00:45:01]
I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'LL HAVE A FIFTH TO REPLACE GARRETT, WHO'S GOING TO BE WORKING FOR, UH, NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGE FLOWERS, I BELIEVE AT THE SIXTH, UH, CIRCUIT, WHICH IS AN EXCITING POSITION.UM, WE WILL PROBABLY DO SOME OR ALL OF THIS MAYBE MORE AGAIN, WHEN THAT'S THE CASE.
UM, ZACH AND I TEND TO DO A NEW MEMBER, KIND OF SHORTER ORIENTATION, DIRECT AND IN PERSON.
I THINK SOME OF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT FROM THE PAST.
UH, BUT WE MIGHT COVER THAT AS A FULL GROUP AS WELL.
UH, THIS WILL COVER SOME THINGS ABOUT THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, JUST REMINDERS ON YOUR QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE.
A FEW THINGS ABOUT MOTIONS, GOING BACK AND THINKING ABOUT EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS.
SIMPLE STUFF FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE NOT DONE.
A FEW THINGS ON TESTIMONY, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
AND IF THINGS START TO GO OFF THE TRACK, WE BRING THINGS BACK TO THE CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH.
AND THEN A FEW KIND OF TEST CASE SCENARIOS THAT HOPEFULLY ARE FUN.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT, PLEASE BLAME ME.
UM, IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE DON'T COVER THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GIVE SOME QUICK GUIDANCE.
IF NOT, I'LL TAKE SOME NOTES OR YOU CAN GIVE ME AN EMAIL AND WE CAN PREPARE THAT FOR EITHER A FUTURE MEETING, A FIVE, 10 MINUTE SHORTER THING, UH, AFTERWARDS OR NOT.
I HOPE THIS IS NO MORE THAN ABOUT 15 TO 20 MINUTES, BUT I ALSO INVITE YOU TO BE AS ACTIVE, AS ENGAGED AS YOU'D WANT.
AND IT'S MORE FUN FOR ME IF YOU DO SO.
UH, I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT THIS IS THE MOST, I'VE PROBABLY SPOKEN AT ANY MEETING, EVEN WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST YEAR, AND IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE.
SO FORGIVE ME IF IT'S DRAINING, BUT I ENJOY IT.
ALRIGHT, YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE.
I GRABBED THIS FROM MR. THAD BOGGS.
UH, IT'S A LITTLE SMALL, BUT HOPEFULLY YOUR SCREENS MAKE IT EASIER TO SEE.
YOU ARE JUST ONE SMALL PART OF THE VARIOUS DUBLIN BOARDS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES.
UH, THE KEY THINGS YOU WILL DO ARE VARIANCES, OCCASIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND, UH, EVEN I THINK LESS FREQUENT SPECIAL PERMIT REQUESTS.
EVERYTHING ELSE FALLS SOMEWHERE ELSE AND IS ADDRESSED APPROPRIATELY THERE.
AND IF NOT, STAFF WILL KNOW HOW TO HELP NAVIGATE THOSE ISSUES, UH, WITH OTHERS, INCLUDING CODE AMENDMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, CODE ENFORCEMENT, ET CETERA.
SO WE, UH, JUST THE THEME TONIGHT IS WE STAY IN OUR LANE, WE DO IT WELL.
WELL, AND WE GO HOME AS SOON AS WE CAN.
YOU ALL KNOW, BUT I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
YOU'RE A PUBLIC OFFICIAL ON A PUBLIC BODY.
SO YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THINGS LIKE THE OHIO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, OHIO ETHICS LAWS, DUBLIN'S CODIFIED ORDINANCES, AND OF COURSE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES, ZAS RULES AND REGULATIONS.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PHYSICAL COPY OF THAT, BUT YOU'D LIKE ONE, LET US KNOW.
IF IT'S SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT'S IN YOUR TABLETS AND YOU CAN ACCESS, BUT YOU DON'T DO IT, TAKE SOME TIME JUST TO DO IT SOMETIME TO REFRESH YOURSELVES.
IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THING TO HAVE HANDY.
UM, ZONING AND PLANNING ORDINANCES REGULATE PRIVATE PROPERTY, AS YOU KNOW.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF PROVIDING SUFFICIENT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AT ALL TIMES.
WE THINK YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB OF THAT, BUT IT'S WORTH HEARING IT.
IT'S MORE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS COME B'S WAY.
UH, THOSE TEND TO BE ONES THAT GET TOWARDS COURT MORE LIKELY AND MORE OFTEN THAN VARIANCE REQUESTS.
SO WE ALWAYS WANNA BE MINDFUL OF POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, ISSUES WE HAVE ON A GOOD RECORD.
SO YOU HAVE A QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE.
THAT MEANS YOU NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH APPLICABLE EXISTING LAW, WHICH IS PRIMARILY DUBLIN CODE.
NEED TO UNDERSTAND, UH, HOW TO APPLY THAT LAW TO THE APPLICANT'S PARTICULAR SITUATION.
YOU GOTTA BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS YOUR APPLICATION AND ALSO COLLECTIVELY REACH A FAIR REASONED CONCLUSION AFTER A PROPER MOTION.
AGENDA ITEMS, AS YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN, UH, ARE EXPERTLY SPELLED OUT.
WE HAVE A VERY NICE SCRIPT AS WELL.
UH, BUT THEY'RE BROKEN INTO STAGES THAT HELP YOU GATHER INFORMATION TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
YOU GIVE QUESTIONS TO STAFF APPLICANT PRESENTS AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
PUBLIC COMMENT THEORETICALLY FOLLOWS AFTER THAT.
IT'S RARE THAT WE HAVE IN PERSON, BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE DO, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD ATTEMPT TO GO.
AND THEN YOU ALL DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE.
EVENTUALLY YOU MOVE AND, UH, MAKE A A JOINT DECISION.
UH, I JUST WANNA KNOW THAT IT'S, IT IS PROPER TO CONTINUE TO ASK THE APPLICANT AND STAFF QUESTIONS DURING YOUR DELIBERATION PROCESS.
AND SOMETIMES THAT'S CRITICAL TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR DECISION.
BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO ASK SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WHILE YOU HAVE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT UP THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE TRY TO DO SO, UH, JUST STREAMLINES THE PROCESS AND HELPS US ALL KIND OF REACH THE SAME THEMES SOONER.
[00:50:01]
YOU VOTE, YOU DECIDE THE CASE AND THEN WE GO HOME.LITTLE SIDE QUEST FOR YOU, UH, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT MOVING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AFFIRMATIVE.
EVERY MAIN MOTION THAT YOU'LL NEED FOR YOUR CASE SHOULD BE IN THE SCRIPT AND IT'S GONNA BE PRESENTED THAT WAY.
THE AFFIRMATIVE MEANS TO GRANT THE THING AND YOU ALL CAN PROCESS WHY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, HELPFUL.
I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AS WELL, BUT IN CASE THE WORDS ON THE SCREEN HELP YOU TO JUST SYNC AT HOME, WE'LL DO THAT BECAUSE OCCASIONALLY WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME MOTIONS ON THE FLY AND OFTEN IT FEELS LIKE WE SHOULD BE SAYING NO TO SOMETHING.
BUT WE ACTUALLY NEED THE CLEARER WAYS TO SAY I MOVE.
SO A GOOD AFFIRMATIVE MOTION IS SOMETHING LIKE I MOVE TO APPROVE THE FENCE VARIANCE AT ONE DUBLIN WAY, A VOTE ON WHETHER TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION YIELDS AN UNAMBIGUOUS RESULT BECAUSE YES, SIGNALS THAT YOU ARE WOULD GRANT THE REQUEST, WHEREAS A NO CLEARLY SIGNALS THAT YOU WOULD DENY THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST.
THREE YES VOTES AND ONE NO VOTE CLEARLY PASSES A MOTION.
TWO YES VOTES AND TWO NO VOTES.
CLEARLY DOES NOT PASS BECAUSE A MAJORITY ISN'T PRESENT.
BUT IF YOU'RE MOVING TO DISAPPROVE SOMETHING, OUR OPINION IS THAT THIS CREATES MORE AMBIGUITY THAN IT'S HELPFUL.
SOME MIGHT DISAGREE AND I CAN BE CONVINCED TO SOME EXTENT AS WELL, BUT IT SEEMS A LITTLE EASIER TO GET TO YES THE OTHER WAY.
SO A YES VOTE SIGNALS AGREEMENT WITH THE DISAPPROVAL THAT YOU WOULD DENY THE REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THE MOTION.
A NO VOTE SIGNALS ONLY THAT YOU DON'T DISAPPROVE WITH THE REQUEST AND THAT LEAVES OPEN, UH, A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO DO.
SO WHEN YOU APPLY IT THREE YES VOTES ON A UH, NEGATIVE OR DISAPPROVAL MOTION IS CLEARLY A NO RESULT.
UH, I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS IF YOU HAVE ANY ON WHAT A TWO TWO VOTE IS ON A NEGATIVE MOTION.
ANY TAKERS? I WOULD ASSUME IT STILL DOESN'T PASS.
'CAUSE IT'S, YOU NEED A MAJORITY AND THAT'S NOT A MAJORITY.
OKAY, THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE ON THE MOTION TO DISAPPROVE.
IF IT WERE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THE APPLICATION THOUGH, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION NOW? PASS.
BUT YOU DON'T MEAN IT HAS PASSED.
YOU MEAN NOT ME? I, YEAH, I PASS.
ANYBODY ELSE FEELING BRAVE? YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED A LOT TONIGHT.
SO THE, I MEAN, YOU VOTED NOT TO FAIL IT
SO YOU HAVE TO VOTE AGAIN PROBABLY
I THINK THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH AND I, I SEE THAT YOU'RE ALL GENERALLY AGREEMENT.
SO THE GAME IS, YOU KNOW, RUN ITS COURSE AND WE'LL, WE'LL PUSH FORWARD, BUT THAT'S THE CONCERN.
IF THERE'S A NO VOTE ON A NEGATIVE OR A YES VOTE ON A NEGATIVE, SOMETIMES THERE'S LITTLE DISA, YOU KNOW, AMBIGUITY ABOUT HAS THE CASE ACTUALLY BEEN DISPOSED OF.
AND WE WANNA BE VERY CLEAR, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE DENYING A REQUEST THAT'S PART OF THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ELEMENT OF THIS TO ENSURE THAT ANYBODY HAS APPELLATE RIGHTS IF THEY WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE.
UH, AND THAT YOU ALL ARE SPEAKING CLEARLY AND PLAINLY.
SO SOME LITTLE TIPS HERE FOR THE APPLICANT AND STAFF QUESTIONS.
TRY TO START WITH OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS TO THOSE FOLKS WHEN YOU CAN.
THINGS LIKE, WHY DID YOU DO OR EXPLAIN THIS TO US? UH, YOU ALL HAVE DONE A LOT OF QUESTIONING TO FOLKS ALONG YOUR YEARS IN MANY CAPACITIES.
IT'S HELPFUL TO GET THEIR SIDE OF THINGS FIRST BEFORE WE START TO HONE DOWN ON THE MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
TRY TO LIMIT THIS USE OF I STATEMENTS LIKE I THINK I LIKE THOSE TEND TO CREATE LEADING QUESTIONS WHEN COULD SUGGEST, ESPECIALLY WHEN READING A RECORD TWO YEARS DOWN THE LINE, WHICH IS WHAT SOME OF THESE JUDGES IN OUR COMMON POLICE COURTS TEND TO DO.
UH, THAT YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT YOUR MIND IS MADE UP BEFORE THE END OF THE INFORMATION GATHERING STAGE AND ALSO SUGGESTING A PARTICULAR ANSWER EITHER FROM STAFF OR THE APPLICANT TO SUIT THAT OPINION.
UM, OCCASIONALLY WE'LL GET SOME INDIVIDUAL EMAILS WHERE PEOPLE REACH OUT TO YOU IN ADVANCE.
TRY TO PROVIDE THAT TO STAFF SO IT COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
TRY TO, YOU KNOW, JUST DIRECT STUFF TO STAFF AS POSSIBLE.
I HAVE A QUESTION ON, UM, LIMITING THE USE OF I STATEMENTS, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE WITH.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THIS EVENING, I WAS, I USED THOSE STATEMENTS WHEN I WAS SAYING I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE SITUATION.
SO I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT, HOW, ANOTHER WAY TO SAY THAT.
YEAH, I'M NOT SURE HOW I YEAH, THOUGHTS FOR
[00:55:01]
SURE.I THINK THE BIGGEST DIFFERENT, UH, THE WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE IN MY HEAD IS IF YOU'RE SAYING I SYMPATHIZE OR APPRECIATE YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT'S NOT WEIGHING IN ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE THAT YOU'RE DECIDING.
AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE AND I THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL.
A LOT OF TIMES, HONESTLY, UM, I DON'T TEND TO DO IT BECAUSE I'M IN A VERY DIFFERENT ROLE THAN YOU ARE.
UM, BUT FROM YOUR POSITION THAT CAN BE REALLY GOOD.
IT'S WHEN YOU SAY, I LIKE THAT YOU PUT IT THERE, I LIKE THAT YOU PUT THE SHED HERE AS OPPOSED TO IN THIS OTHER POSITION THAT THINGS GET A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THE SHED AND THE POTENTIAL MERITS OF THE CASE, RATHER THAN IT BEING THAT LOCATION IS PROPER AND SHOULD WARRANT A VARIANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING I LIKE IT OR I THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE THERE AND I COULD SEE IN THE FUTURE, FOR INSTANCE, ANOTHER HOMEOWNER SAYING THAT'S GOOD OR THAT'S BAD.
THOSE GET AWAY FROM MORE OF THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, WHICH IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT HERE.
SO YOUR DECISIONS NEED TO BE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED AND THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEAR AND IT'S ELICITED AT THE MEETING.
BUT AGAIN, AS I SAID TONIGHT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO JET US ON WHAT YOU KNOW, IF YOU INDEPENDENTLY HAVE VIEWED A SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOU HAVE SOME INSIGHT BASED ON THAT FROM YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES, THOSE CAN BE HELPFUL.
UM, WE RECOMMEND THAT THEY, THEY NOT BE DISPOSITIVE OR SOURCES OF PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS.
AND THEN IF YOU TALK ABOUT IT, YOU OFFER IT AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION.
UH, BUT NOT AS A, THIS IS SO BECAUSE SORT OF STATEMENT, UNLESS THERE IS A FACT DISPUTE, IN WHICH CASE IT'S WORTHWHILE ASKING THE APPLICANT AND STAFF, UH, IF WHAT YOU SAW IN PERSON, HOW THAT RELATES TO WHAT MIGHT BE THE NUMBERS ON THE PAPER, UH, SETBACK LIMITS, THINGS OF THAT LINE.
TRY NOT TO HAVE CASE RELATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH APPLICANTS, UM, BEFORE THE CASE IS CONSIDERED BY THE FULL BOARD.
IT'S RARE, BUT IT'S ALWAYS WORTH PUTTING IT OUT THERE.
IF SOMEBODY COMES UP TO YOU BEFORE THE MEETING, WE JUST ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THAT SEPARATION.
WE ALL ARRIVE PRETTY LATE, SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD.
UH, BUT SOMETIMES YOU RUN INTO SOMEBODY AND THEY KNOW THAT YOU'RE IN A POSITION, YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THEM, SO THERE'S NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
BUT IF THEY WANT TO ENGAGE ON THAT, JUST DIRECT THEM TO STAFF OR TO ME IF IT MAKES SENSE, IF IT FEELS NECESSARY.
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT WITH THEM BEFOREHAND SO THAT YOUR FIRST REAL IMPRESSION OF THE CASE IS BASED ON STAFF REPORT, THE DOCUMENTS TESTIMONY THAT YOU RECEIVE HERE AND THAT WE JUST KEEP IT CLEAN, UH, TO AVOID ANY SORT OF IMPLICATIONS.
SO ONCE AGAIN, YOUR DECISION JUST HAS TO BE BASED ON THE STANDARDS THAT ARE SET BY THE ORDINANCE AND THE TESTIMONY.
ANOTHER LITTLE SIDE QUEST, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR EVIDENTIARY RULES IN THE RULES OF REGULATIONS.
SO RULE FOUR B SAYS NO ADDITIONAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS, AMENDMENTS, DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTATION, OR CHANGES TO AN APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED LESS THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
THE IMPLICATION OF THAT, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A FEW TIMES, IS THAT IT'S NOT STRICTLY PROPER FOR AN APPLICANT TO BRING NEW COMMENTS OR PICTURES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WANT TO BRING IN THAT STAFF HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AND THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC FOR ITS POTENTIAL OPINION.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS 15 DAY PERIOD.
THE 15 DAYS MIGHT BE LONGER THAN IS NECESSARY.
UM, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL LOOK TO REVISE WITH STAFF'S INPUT IN THE FUTURE IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S JUST NOT PRACTICAL FOR THE WAY THAT THIS BOARD OPERATES.
BUT THAT'S WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO CREATE THE STRUCTURE WHERE FOLKS LIKE STAFF AND PUBLIC HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY WRESTLE WITH THAT INFORMATION BEFORE IT'S THROWN AT THEM AT THE LAST MINUTE.
HAVING SAID THAT, AND YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE TOO, UM, I ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT IF THERE'S A REASON TO ADMIT THAT IT'S EVIDENCE OR TO CONSIDER IT, YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO IF YOU SUSPEND THE RULE THAT IT BE SUBMITTED 15 DAYS IN ADVANCE.
IT SAYS THE BOARD BY AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR MODIFY ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AT THE MEETING FOR GOOD CAUSE.
UH, THE GOOD NEWS FOR YOU ALL IS IF YOU HAVE JUST THREE IN A MEETING, IT TAKES ONLY TWO.
IF YOU HAVE FOUR, OF COURSE IT WOULD TAKE THREE.
UH, BUT THERE AREN'T ANY SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENTS LIKE THERE ARE SOMETIMES WITH SUSPENDING RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL, ET CETERA.
IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT.
THE GOOD CAUSE TO SUPPORT THAT TYPICALLY IS WE THINK THAT IT'S RELEVANT TO THE DISPOSITION OR SOMETIMES IT'S JUST GONNA BE EASIER TO, TO RECEIVE IT AND TO CONTINUE THE CASE THAN IT IS TO TRY TO LITIGATE THAT IN REAL TIME.
YOU DON'T NEED ME TO TELL YOU, YES, THE DOCUMENTS ARE RELEVANT OR NOT, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THEM PROPERLY.
SO IF IT FEELS LIKE A REASON TO DO IT, BY ALL MEANS THAT'S SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO DO IT.
AND, UH, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD HOLD IT AGAINST YOU FROM TAKING MORE INFORMATION IN THEN TRYING TO EXCLUDE IT.
[01:00:01]
SIR.UM, BUT UH, CAN ANY OF THE MEMBERS SAY ASK FOR A VOTE AND UH, AND THEN WE WOULD GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS IF THEY WANTED TO INTRODUCE THAT NEW EVIDENCE? I'M SORRY, I COUGHED AT THE WRONG TIME.
WHAT WAS THE, THE IF, UH, SOMEBODY OTHER THAN MYSELF, IF SOMEBODY, UH, WANTED TO, UH, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO ENTER IN OR, OR HAVE THAT CONSIDER, UH, CONSIDERED, COULD THEY ASK FOR THE VOTE INITIALLY? IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE, THAT, THAT PROCESS TO HAVE THE VOTE.
UH, BUT THEN WE WOULD GO THROUGH AND, AND DO THE ROLE AND, AND VOTE AND EVERYTHING.
IS THAT, YEAH, I HEARD A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS.
I JUST WANNA SAY FIRST THAT YOU ALL SHOULDN'T BE BRINGING ANY INFORMATION IN IN DOCUMENT FORM.
SO IF THAT WAS AT ALL PART OF IT, THAT'S NOT A, A CASE THAT STAFF AND APPLICANT SHOULD BE THE ONES BRINGING DOCUMENTS IN.
UM, IF THE QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT WHO'S THE FASTEST, START THE QUESTION OF DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR I MOVE THAT WE ADMIT IT FIRST.
STARTING WITH SUSPENDING THE RULES.
ANYBODY CAN DO THAT AT ANY POINT.
AND JUST AS A PROCEDURAL THING, ONCE SOMEBODY SAYS, I MOVE OR I MAKE A MOTION TO DO X THING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN THE NEXT STEP SHOULD BE, AND IS THERE A SECOND? IF THERE IS THEN ANY DELIBERATION ON THE MOTION AND THEN YOU KEEP YOUR DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON WHAT MOTION IS BEFORE YOU, YOU DISPOSE OF IT, WHETHER IN, YOU KNOW, AFFIRMATIVE OR NOT.
AND THEN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE DEALING WITH BEFOREHAND.
UM, BUT ANYBODY CAN START THAT PROCESS AND ONCE YOU DO, YOU CAN ALL FOLLOW INTO THAT PROCESS AND LOOK TO ME IF YOU NEED ANY CLARIFICATION.
KIND ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, UM, YOU'RE KIND OF GETTING INTO THE MINUTIAE HERE.
BUT, UM, SOME OF THESE KIND OF PREPARED STATEMENTS IN HERE ARE, UM, KIND OF, WHEN WE DO MOTIONS, THEY'RE SORT OF WRITTEN LIKE YOU'RE MAKING THEM, LIKE, ALL WE HAVE TO SAY IS SO MOVED, DOES THAT, WHICH WE TEND TO DO A LOT 'CAUSE IT'S EASIER TO SAY THAT
DOES IT MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? FOR THE RECORD? IF WE JUST DO THAT INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY SAYING LIKE, I HEREBY MOVE WHATEVER IT IS.
YEP, I'M TRACKING, UH, THE ANSWER IS NO.
AS LONG AS WHOEVER BE AT THE CHAIR OR SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? AND THEN THEY STATE THE MOTION FULLY AND YOU AGREE WITH THE MOTION AS FULLY STATED, SAY SO MOVED.
BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST SOMEBODY SAYING, IS THERE A MOTION FOR, OR A MOTION THAT, AND THEN THE SPECIFIC TEXT, IF YOU DON'T AGREE FULLY WITH THE TEXT OF THE MOTION, DO NOT SAY SO MOVED.
INSTEAD, ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION OR SUGGEST AN AMENDED VERSION OF THE MOTION.
THE OTHER ONE WORKS JUST AS WELL.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THERE IS A CLEAR MOTION THAT ANYONE CAN FOLLOW.
YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK TO AMEND MOTIONS AND WORK THROUGH THAT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS PROCESS.
THAT CAN HAPPEN AFTER WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AS WELL.
THEORETICALLY, YOU WOULD WANT A MOTION TO THEN AMEND THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR AND IT GETS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A, A NESTING DOLL, BUT, UH, THAT CAN WORK AS WELL IF THERE'S DIS, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY CONFUSION OR AS YOU DELIBERATE YOU FIND THAT A BETTER MOTION, UH, SUITS THE SITUATION.
HEARING NOTHING FURTHER AS A FINAL THOUGHT.
B Z'S FAILURE TO SUSPEND A RULE DOES NOT TECHNICALLY INVALIDATE ITS FINAL ACTION, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE BZA RULES.
THERE'S THAT CATCHALL THAT IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER AND YOU ADMIT SOMETHING, IT SHOULDN'T NEGATE WHAT YOU DECIDE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, STILL THE BEST PRACTICE IS TO FOLLOW THE RULE, AND I'M GONNA REC RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO SO JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S CLEAR.
AND I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE THAT A COURT WOULD LOOK AT THIS THE SAME WAY AS THE BCAS RULES.
SAY IF, FOR INSTANCE, YOU REFUSE TO ALLOW A PARTICIPANT, AN APPLICANT TO INTRODUCE DOCUMENTS, AND THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF NEW DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'VE, THEIR ARCHITECT HAS JUST PRODUCED, UH, AND YOU SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUSPEND THE RULES OR CONSIDER THEM, AND THEN YOU TAKE AN ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST THEM, YOU REACH A DIFFERENT DECISION THAN THEY WOULD WANT, AND THEY SUE, THE COURT MIGHT LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, THERE IS ARBITRARY UNREASONABLE DECISION MAKING HERE, AND YOU SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE IT WAS HIGHLY RELEVANT AND IT WAS AVAILABLE.
THERE'S NO PREJUDICE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO STAFF OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
SO THERE'S ALWAYS A RISK THAT A COURT MIGHT SEE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT YOUR RULES SAY, BUT IN MOST CASES, SMALL, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE HARM KIND OF ERRORS SHOULDN'T NEGATE YOUR FINAL ACTION.
AS A REMINDER, WE DON'T DO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFTEN, BUT WHEN WE DO, THEY'RE AN AWFUL LOT OF FUN.
YOU ARE SITTING
[01:05:01]
NOT LOOKING AT SHOULD WE GRANT OR DENY A VARIANCE.WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW DID A STAFF MEMBER, A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HOW DID THEY LOOK AT THE CODE IN DUBLIN'S BROADER ZONE AND CODE, BUT SOMETIMES OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE.
UM, DID THEY GET THE INTERPRETATION RIGHT? DID THEY READ IT THE WAY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE? FIRST LOOKING AT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, BUT THEN ALSO CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PARTICULAR APPEAL IS BRINGING TO YOU.
AND YOU HAVE FINAL SAY TO SOME EXTENT TO DECIDE WHETHER STAFF OR CODE ENFORCEMENT OR WHOSOEVER MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.
YOU ACTING TRULY AS A JURIST IN THAT CAPACITY.
SO THOSE HEARINGS SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ELABORATE.
WE HAVE SOME RULES ABOUT THEM THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW AS FAR AS, UH, HOW MUCH ONE CAN SPEAK NEW TESTIMONY, ET CETERA.
UH, I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, AS LONG AS YOU'RE GATHERING INFORMATION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GIVE A FULL THOUGHTFUL, FAIR, WELL REASONED ANSWER ON CODE ANALYSIS, THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE BEST RESULT.
UM, BUT JUST KEEP IN MIND, YOU REALLY ARE PUTTING ON A JUDGE HAT.
UM, SO THERE ARE JUST, THERE ARE HEIGHTENED PROCEDURAL SENSITIVITIES, AT LEAST ON MY END.
OUR GOAL AT THE END OF THE DAY, OBVIOUSLY, IS TO AVOID A REHEARING WHERE THEY HAVE TO COME BACK.
THE COURT LOOKS AND SAYS, YOU TOOK ACTION, BUT IT WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THESE FIVE OR SIX THINGS, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH IN THE COURT'S RECORD TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DETERMINATION TO KICK IT BACK.
UM, IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD IF IT HAPPENS, BUT IT WILL BE A LITTLE FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAPPEN 18 TO 28 MONTHS LATER.
UH, WE STILL HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, UH, PETITIONS THAT ARE WAITING IN THE FRANKEN COUNTY COMMON PLEA THAT ARE NEARLY TWO YEARS OLD.
SO, AND THAT'S AFTER SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS OF A APPELLATE RECORD PROCESS, BRIEFING SCHEDULE, ET CETERA.
SO, UH, NO ONE WANTS TO HAVE TO COME BACK TWO AND A HALF YEARS LATER TO TO DEAL WITH IT JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO CONSIDER THE INFORMATION FULLY.
UM, AS I'VE SAID, THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD YOUR DECISION UNLESS IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, UNREASONABLE LORD, AND SUPPORTED BY THE PREPONDERANCE OR SUBSTANTIAL RELIABLE PROBATIVE EVIDENCE.
I HATE THAT STANDARD BECAUSE IT'S A LOT TO SAY, BUT IT GIVES YOU A LOT OF GRACE.
UH, SUBSTANTIAL IN PARTICULAR IS A LOT LOWER THAN THINGS WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT, AND THERE IS A BIT OF AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION QUALITY THAT'S BUILT INTO THIS THAT'S IN YOUR FAVOR.
AS LONG AS WE'VE LOOKED AT THINGS FULLY REACHED A FAIR CONCLUSION, THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO ASSUME THAT THAT IS AT LEAST REASONABLE, NOT ARBITRARY, ET CETERA.
SO A GOOD RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THE BZA SWORE IN THE PEOPLE OFFERING TESTIMONY.
WE DO THAT AS A MATTER OF COURSE, IN THE SCRIPT.
SO KEEP THAT UP, ALLOWS CROSS-EXAMINATION IF IT'S REQUESTED.
UH, THE BOARD DISCUSSES THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS PRESENTED AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE STANDARDS IN THE CODE.
AND ULTIMATELY, WHEN YOU'RE VOTING, THERE'S A SENSE OF THE, THE DISCUSSION OR THE CRITERIA, UH, ON WHICH YOU'RE BASING YOUR OPINIONS.
THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE MOTION ITSELF, BUT IN THE DISCUSSIONS AS YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO A FINAL, FINAL VOTE, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY CLEAR TO ANYBODY READING THINGS DOWN THE ROAD HOW YOU'RE FEELING AND WHY.
THE WHY IS WHAT MATTERS MUCH MORE THAN THE HOW AND DECISION.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S TALK A LITTLE RULES OF ORDER AND TESTIMONY FROM TIME TO TIME DISCUSSIONS WITH AN APPLICANT OR THE PUBLIC IN VEER OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, UH, OR THE, THE SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE BOARD, IF THAT OCCURS, THE CHAIR OR ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER CAN RESPECTFULLY DIRECT THE SPEAKER BACK TO THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT THE BOARD HAS POWER TO ADDRESS.
AND IF THE SPEAKER IGNORES THAT DIRECTION, IF THE OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION DISRUPTS THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO ACTUALLY CONDUCT THE MEETING, WHICH CAN HAPPEN, UH, THEN THE CHAIR CAN INFORM THE SPEAKER.
THE TESTIMONY CAN BE CUT SHORT AND ACTUALLY CUT IT SHORT IF THAT'S IMPORTANT.
UM, WE LIKE TO KEEP THAT AS A VERY HIGH BAR, MAKE DISRUPTIONS PRETTY PLAIN.
UH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF SOMEONE CONTINUES TO TALK ON A TOPIC THAT'S PRETTY WELL OFF TOPIC FOR 20 MINUTES, THAT'S GONE ON TOO FAR, UM, IT'S A TYPE OF THING THAT WE, WE REALLY LIKE TO FIND WAYS TO CREATIVELY BRING THEM BACK, ENCOURAGE THEM BEFORE CUTTING THEM OFF.
BUT THAT'S A POWER THAT EXISTS AND IT'S REASONABLE, UH, AS LONG AS IT'S REALLY IMPEDING THE ABILITY OF THE BOARD TO DO WHAT IT'S HERE TO DO.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, HOW THE EVIDENCE ALIGNS WITH THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTORS IN THE CODE.
SO IT'S EVEN MORE CRITICAL WITH ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A YES OR NO TO A VARIANCE.
IT'S A NUMBER OF LAYERS DEEP IN CODE ANALYSIS.
I THINK YOU ALL KIND OF REMEMBER THAT FROM, UH, WAS IT LATE 25, EARLY 26? WE HAD ONE RECENTLY, AND THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHTS AND PROCESSES INTO IT.
SO HARD TO KEEP IT STRAIGHT, BUT YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB.
[01:10:01]
TESTIMONY GOES ASTRAY, YOUR POWER IS STILL LIMITED TO WHAT'S IN THE CODE.ANOTHER REMINDER TO KEEP THINGS FOCUSED, IF YOU CAN PLEASE STAY FOCUSED ON THE CORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, UH, THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU AND HOW YOU MUST ADDRESS THEM.
AND THAT'S WHY WE USE THE WORD THAT IN WRITING KIDS.
ALRIGHT, LET'S DO A COUPLE PRACTICE SCENARIOS.
I'M GONNA LAY OUT A SCENE AND THEN THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF CHANGING QUESTIONS AT THE END.
PLEASE JUST DISCUSS, THERE ARE NO SIMPLE, EASY ANSWERS, EVEN IF IT FEELS LIKE THERE ARE, THERE ARE ALWAYS TWO SIDES TO THIS, MUCH LIKE A LAW SCHOOL HYPOTHETICAL.
YOU CAN SUPPORT THINGS FROM, UH, MULTIPLE OPINIONS.
AND WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO IS JUST TO GET YOU TO TALK TO EACH OTHER AS MUCH AS TO ME TO THINK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
KEEP IN MIND SOME OF THE STUFF YOU'VE LEARNED TONIGHT AND OVER YOUR LAST PERIODS OF, UH, TENURE ON THE BOARD, AND THEN WE'LL GET TO GO HOME IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
SO AN APPLICANT SEEKS A VARIANCE TO PUT A FENCE INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS.
THE APPLICANT WANTS THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE CONCERN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS WILL ENTER THE YARD AND STEAL THEIR VEGETABLE GARDEN.
I DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS, BUT THAT VEGETABLE GARDEN IS REALLY, REALLY PRODUCTIVE AND VERY WELL PRIZED.
IT'S THE BEST THE APPLICANT VENTS TO THE BOARD ABOUT THE INCREASE IN VEGETABLE THEFT TO JUSTIFYING THE FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST.
DO YOU THINK THAT JUSTIFICATION IS RELEVANT? AND IF SO, SUGGESTS WHAT CRITERIA? IT MIGHT BE RELEVANT TOO.
IS THIS WHERE WE TALK AMONGST OURSELVES OR WE TALK YEP.
EITHER TO ME OR TO EACH OTHER.
WELL, MY THOUGHT GOES TO A CASE WE HAD EARLIER THIS YEAR.
CAN I TALK ABOUT THAT? YOU CAN.
IT REMINDS ME OF THE, THE, THE PERSON WHO WANTED TO PUT UP A FENCE BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS HAD DOGS AND THEY WANTED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND KIND OF PROTECT.
THERE WERE SOME KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO, AND WE DECLINED THAT
THAT WAS A ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THOUGH, RIGHT? MICROPHONE.
SO IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I WAS JUST THINKING THAT TOO AFTER WE FINISHED, KEEP GOING.
I, I BELIEVE THAT THAT SPECIFIC CASE, JUST TO ADDRESS THAT, I THINK IT WAS A, UM, THEY, THEY WERE CLAIMING THAT THEY HAD A FENCE THERE PREVIOUSLY, AND IT, UM, WAS HEAVILY VEGETATED AND THAT BY INSTALLING THE NEW FENCE, THE, UM, VEGETATION, THERE WAS A CARRYOVER.
IT WAS A, YEAH, LIKE A REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FENCE.
UH, I THINK THAT WAS THE, THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECT CORRECTLY.
BUT THE HYPOTHETICAL IS DIFFERENT AND IT'S FOR A VARIANCE.
SO LET'S FORGET THOUGH WHAT WE KNOW AND JUST TRY TO THINK THROUGH.
IT'S ABOUT TO, SORRY, TEAM, I KNOW THE A AND B CRITERIA.
IS THERE ANY PART, AND OBVIOUSLY TRY TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT WHEN YOU CAN.
IS THERE A PART OF THIS THAT COULD BE RELEVANT TO A OR B? AND IF SO, WHICH ONE? WELL, I THINK, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE INFAMOUS CRITERIA TOO, AND REVISIT OF THAT, THAT WE'VE HAD IS, UM, LIKE YOU PUT THE GARDEN THERE, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS UNIQUE TO YOUR PROPERTY BEFOREHAND.
UM, SO THE ACTION OF YOU PUTTING THE GARDEN THERE IS WHAT'S CAUSING THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE, NOT THE FACT THAT THERE'S KIDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND ALSO I WOULD SAY, IS HE, IS HE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE DEER IN DUBLIN TO EAT ALL HIS VEGETABLES?
I, WE GONE WITH DEER, NOT NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS STEALING IF I WAS HIM.
BUT ANYWAY, I THINK, UH, I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE IT WAS ARGUABLY ACTIONS OF THE PERSON THAT ARE CAUSING THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE, NOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE LAND.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY THEN, BRAD, YOU WOULD SAY THAT THAT TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT OR IS NOT RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CHILDREN OR JUST IN THE GARDEN GENERALLY, AND WHY THAT JUSTIFICATION FITS OR DOESN'T? UM, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT.
ANYBODY ELSE? I WAS GONNA SAY THE OPPOSITE.
LIKE IT'S SIMILAR TO THE SCENARIO THAT YOU HAD GIVEN WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CRITERION TWO, WHERE THEY'D PLANTED LIKE A LARGE GARDEN, BUT HERE, UM, THE JUSTIFICATION THEY'RE GIVING ISN'T RELATED TO THAT GARDEN.
IT'S RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS.
[01:15:01]
FEEL LIKE IT'S LIKE AN OUTSIDE INFLUENCE AND SO THE JUSTIFICATION WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE RELEVANT.UM, YEAH, IT, UH, SO HE CAN HAVE THE FENCE FOR WHATEVER, UH, PURPOSE THAT HE NEEDS, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY JUSTIFY WHY THAT FENCE WOULD IMPEDE AND, UH, GO INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK SO THE KIDS COULD, YOU KNOW, PLAY AROUND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT FENCE.
BUT IF, UH, UH, THERE'S NO REAL SPECIFIC REASON, UH, THAT STATED, UH, HERE, UH, AS TO WHY IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE IS WHERE IT IS.
BRIDGET, ANYONE WANNA WEIGH IN? ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.
I THINK THAT YOU'RE ALL RIGHT IN YOUR DIFFERENT WAYS.
IF WE'RE LOOKING STRICTLY AT RELEVANCY, DOES IT, YOU KNOW, HELP TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A FACT THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING? I THINK BRETT ACTUALLY HAS THE STRONGEST POINT HERE AS FAR AS IS IT RELEVANT TESTIMONY? BECAUSE IT CAN BE HELPFUL TO ANSWER THAT CRITERIA A TWO, BUT IT SHOULDN'T RESULT IN CRITERIA A TWO BEING MET, WHICH IS NOT REALLY A RELEVANCY QUESTION, BUT MORE OF A DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE.
SO THIS IS WHY I LIKE THIS QUESTION.
IT'S HARD TO KNOW IN REAL TIME IF SOMETHING IS A KIND OF IRRELEVANT OR NOT SITUATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE CAN GO ON ABOUT SOMETHING LONGER THAN YOU THINK IS NECESSARY BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT WITH THE CODE.
SO IT, IT TENDS TO BE BETTER TO LET PEOPLE SAY SOME THINGS AND PROCESS, WHETHER IT MIGHT CONTINUE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT A DECISION.
BUT IF IT, YOU KNOW, IF ALL YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IS IT DOES OR DOES NOT LEAD TO A, TO BEING MET, THEN CONSIDER EXPANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE AND SEEING IF THE MORE THEY TELL YOU GIVES YOU MORE INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS SOMETHING ELSE IN THAT PROCESS.
SO I THOUGHT INITIALLY NOT RELEVANT, BUT I LIKED BRAD'S ANSWER AND IT GOT ME THINKING.
SO, UH, I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO POTENTIALLY SEE IT THE SAME WAY.
WHAT ABOUT IF THE PERSON PERSISTS AND YOU ALL FEEL THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC TO HAVE COVERED THE RELEVANCY SIDE OF IT AND YOU FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE CRITERIA BEING MET, IT'S ACTUALLY DOING THE OTHER.
WHAT CAN OR SHOULD THE CHAIR DO? THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY THING.
THERE IS, AGAIN, NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE, BUT YOU GUYS CAN ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IN YOUR DISCUSSION.
I WOULD SAY HE CAN TRY TO STEER THE PERSON BACK TO LIKE WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AND THANK THEM FOR WHAT THEY'VE SAID SO FAR, BUT SAY, IF WE COULD STEER IT BACK TO THESE CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, CAN WE MOVE ON FROM THIS POINT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU CAN SORT OF SYMPATHIZE WITH THEM.
IT'S LIKE, I UNDERSTAND THAT KIDS COME IN THERE AND, YOU KNOW, KIDS LOVE VEGETABLES SO MUCH
UH, THEY CAN'T STOP THEMSELVES.
UM, SO YOU CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THEM AND THEN SORT OF GEAR THEM BACK TO, UH, THE ACTUAL KIND OF LIKE THE, THE MEAT OF THE, THE THE, UM, UH, UH, SITUATION, CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ASK THE MORE PERTINENT, POINTED, RELEVANT QUESTIONS IF, UH, IF ARE WE SAYING THAT EVEN AFTER SURE THIS DIRECTION THEY STILL PERSIST ABOUT THESE KIDS? UM, SURE.
WHAT THEN? WELL THEN WE MIGHT HAVE TO, UH, THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE A SITUATION WHERE IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOT GAINING ANY GROUND, THAT MIGHT BE A CUTOFF SITUATION AND UH, YEAH, WE MIGHT HAVE TO SORT OF START TO DELIBERATE AMONGST OURSELVES ABOUT THE CHOICE NOTWITHSTANDING THE UH, UH, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT RATHER THE, UH, EVIDENCE THAT'S IN THE RECORD.
UH, SOMETIMES I FEEL IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO EVERYBODY SHIFT THEIR GAZE TO LEGAL
PREGNANT PODS
AND SO WHAT I LIKE TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO REMIND THE CHAIR OF THEIR POWER TO DIRECT TESTIMONY AS OPPOSED TO PUSHING IT OFF TO LEGAL TO DO THAT.
IT'S ALWAYS BEST IF THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION CONTINUES TO ENGAGE WITH THE APPLICANT OR STAFF ON WHATEVER TESTIMONY IS HAPPENING.
I'M NOT HERE IN ANY CAPACITY OTHER THAN TO HELP YOU NAVIGATE THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES BEFORE YOU AND OFFER ANY SORT OF LEGAL GUIDANCE THAT YOU MIGHT NEED.
AS MUCH AS WE CAN OUTSIDE OF A PRIVILEGED QUESTION, UH, YOUR JOB IS TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THE APPLICANT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE UNLESS THERE BECOMES AN INSTANCE WHERE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE WE'VE SHUT THINGS DOWN, UH, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE NEXT STEPS.
LIKE ZACH DOING THE BOUNCER BEAR HUG.
SO I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR'S THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN ACTUALLY
[01:20:01]
CUT THEM OFF, BUT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE REST OF US IF WE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE JUST GOING ON AND ON TO LIKE, TO TRY TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT STEERS THEM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.AND THIS IS ALWAYS A BOARD RELATIONAL DISCRETION QUESTION MORE SO THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
WHEN THEY SAY THE CHAIR SHOULD AND CAN, YOU ALL CAN AS WELL IF YOU FEEL THAT THE CHAIR ISN'T DOING SO.
UM, BUT THAT'S A BIT OF AN INTERPERSONAL DYNAMIC QUESTION MORE SO THAN A STRICT LEGAL THING.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU SPEAK AS ONE, WHOEVER SPEAKING IS THE VOICE OF THE BOARD IN THAT MOMENT, AND THE BOARD HAS THE POWERS TO TAKE THE ACTION, NOT SPECIFICALLY THE ENDOW CHAIR.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? IT'S BEEN INTERESTING SO FAR.
I THINK YOU'VE ALL SAID GREAT THINGS.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS IF IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'VE HEARD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCY OF THINGS AND TO POTENTIALLY RECEIVE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO SAY YES OR NO ON A CRITERIA.
WHAT ABOUT IF A MEMBER STARTS TO BASE THEIR VOTE DURING THE DISCUSSIONS? YOU LEARN THAT THEY'RE BASING THEIR VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION.
WHAT CAN THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS DO? I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VAGUE QUESTION AND THAT'S NOT THE BEST.
I WISH I'D WRITTEN SOMETHING BETTER, BUT I HAD ABOUT THIS MUCH TEXT THAT I COULD FILL AND ANYTHING FURTHER WOULD'VE BEEN JUST TOO MUCH.
SO YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE A COUPLE INTERPRETATIONS ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BASE THEIR VOTE ON THE JUSTIFICATION IN PARTICULAR CONSIDERING THE DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLY ON ABOUT RELEVANCY AND HOW THIS TESTIMONY COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE A PARTICULAR CRITERIA.
WELL, I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE ADULTS AND PROFESSIONALS
AND, UM, AND THIS IS COMPLICATED STUFF A LOT OF TIMES NOT SOMETHING YOU THINK ABOUT IN YOUR DAILY LIVES GENERALLY.
SO WHEN YOU COME IN HERE, UM, SO I THINK, I THINK THERE'S WAYS TO TO, THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS, EVEN MAYBE NOT EVEN DIRECTLY, BUT IF YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE DIRECT, UM, AGAIN, THAT'S A PERSONALITY THING, BUT TO SORT OF, UM, REMIND EVERYBODY OF WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE OR WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUE IS OR, OR ASK OTHER BOARD MEMBERS LIKE, AM I HEARING THIS CORRECTLY OR DO YOU THINK, UM, AM I, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY'RE SAYING? OR SOME QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE DELIBERATIONS.
YOU'RE NOT YET SUPPOSED TO DO IT IN A, IN A SILO NECESSARILY.
UH, I LIKE I I I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE REAL ESTATE OF TEXT ON THE PAGE.
UM, BUT YEAH, IT STARTS TO BASE THEIR VOTE ON THIS JUSTIFICATION.
UH, IT, SO I, I'M, I'M THINKING THERE'D PROBABLY BE SOME LEEWAY TO, UH, HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE KIDS AND THE FENCE AND EVERYTHING AND, UH, BEGINNING THAT THE, UM, UH, THE DISCUSSION, UH, DISCUSSING THAT.
UM, BUT IF IT DOES APPEAR THAT THAT IS THE, THE CRUX OF ANY ARGUMENT BASED ON OR TRYING TO, UM, CROWBAR THE, UH, THE, THIS, THESE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO THE, UM, JUSTIFICATIONS OR THE, OR THE, UH, THE VARIANCE, UH, UM, APPLICABLE VARIANCE, UH, UH, LANGUAGE, THEN UH, IT, IT WOULD BE PROBABLY BENEFICIAL TO, UM, SORT OF CHIME IN AND, AND DIRECT THEM INTO A, A MORE OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT, UH, THAT MORE CLOSELY COMPORTS TO THE, UH, UH, THE RATIONALE AND, AND JUST, UH, I THINK AS BRAD MENTIONED, THE, UH, UH, GENERAL, UH, RESTATING THE RULE AND, AND, AND MAKING SURE THAT, UH, THEY ARE CONTEMPLATING ALL ASPECTS OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT AND HOW THEY WOULD APPLY TO THE SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.
IF IT HAS MERIT, THEN, UH, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE BEST, UH, APPROACH FORWARD.
AND, UM, YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD A
[01:25:01]
THE VARIANCES WOULD PURPORT TO, UH, UH, ACHIEVE IS THE, UH, THE IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT COMPONENT.ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, I MEAN, I AGREE.
I, BUT I THINK TOO, I MEAN SOME OF THIS IS KIND OF WHAT THE PURPOSES OF OUR DELIBERATIONS ARE TOO.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT HELPED ME TO LIKE TONIGHT MAKE MY DECISION LISTENING TO, YOU KNOW, YOUR TWO DISCUSSION ABOUT SUBSTANTIAL AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I THINK LIKE THAT'S WHY WE GIVE A REASON WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR DELIBERATIONS AND APPLYING THE FACTS TO EACH OF THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THEN I THINK YOU CAN KIND OF HELP DIRECT THAT WAY IF ONE OF THE MEMBERS SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE OFF COURSE.
YEAH, I LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS AS THE, I, LIKE, I DON'T LIKE KIND OF LINE OF DEMARCATION IF THEY'RE BASING IT ON THE JUSTIFICATION IN LIKE, I AGREE, I I DON'T WANT THE KIDS TO BE STEALING YOUR VEGETABLES.
I THINK THAT THAT'S NOT GREAT.
THEN THAT'S THE KIND OF BASING IT ON THAT I WAS THINKING OF AS THIS IS NOT A GREAT THOUGHT.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR IT AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU THINK THAT THAT SUITS THE CRITERIA, BUT THE CRITERIA ASKS WHAT YOU DO OR ARE NOT DOING FOR LOOKING TO A TWO, UH, THAT CREATES AN UNDERLYING CONDITION.
AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS THE UNDERLYING CONDITION THAT GIVES, THAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE RATIONALE FOR WHY WE SHOULD GRANT THIS, UH, REQUEST.
BUT I DON'T SEE THAT THAT SUITS THE CRY, THE CODE CRITERIA.
SO I AM BASING THAT ANALYSIS ON YOUR TESTIMONY BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ME SOMETHING ELSE THAT ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATES WHY A TWO SHOULD BE MET.
AND AGAIN, THE DISCUSSION IS THE KEY.
UM, BRAD, YOU ALSO MENTIONED IF, IF IT'S UNCLEAR OR IF THERE'S ANY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS SAYING, TALK TO EACH OTHER.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEBODY ELSE HAS REACHED A CONCLUSION, UH, IF YOU DON'T GET THEIR REASONING, IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT WAS UNCLEAR, FEEL FREE TO ASK.
IT'S BETTER IF YOU DO BECAUSE END OF THE END OF THE DAY THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO BOTH ARTICULATE A POINT THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HEARING AND CLARIFY MY RECORD SO THAT I UNDERSTAND ON THE BACKEND, UH, IF I'M HAVING TO FIND QUOTES FROM YOU ALL, WHY YOU REACHED THE DECISION YOU DID AND I CAN FIND A WAY TO SUPPORT IT.
ANY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THESE GUYS? ALL RIGHT, UP FOR JUST ONE MORE, THREE MORE MINUTES.
MAYBE THAT TOOK FIVE MINUTES ONLY.
RIGHT? LET'S TALK REAL QUICK ABOUT TABLING.
YOU ALL KNOW THE RULES AT THIS POINT.
WE'VE WORKED THROUGH IT, WHICH IS GREAT.
OFTEN TIMES, UH, THE APPLICANTS DO NOT KNOW IT AS WELL.
SO FROM TIME TO TIME AN APPLICANT MAY WANT TO TABLE A CASE SO THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OR CHANGE THEIR REQUEST RATHER THAN IT BE DENIED TONIGHT.
MANY OTHER APPLICANTS WHOM YOU'VE SEEN DO NOT KNOW THAT TABLING IS AN OPTION FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
EVEN IF THEY HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL OR AN ARCHITECT OR A FAMILY MEMBER WITH THEM WHO YOU HOPE WOULD KNOW THEY OFTEN DON'T OR THEY DON'T FULLY APPRECIATE WHAT IT MEANS AND SOME OF THE STRATEGY, UH, AND WHY YOU COULD DO IT AS A REMINDER.
BZA RULE EIGHT ALLOWS AN APPLICANT BUT ONLY AN APPLICANT TO REQUEST FROM THE BOARD THAT THE BOARD VOTE TO TABLE THE CASE.
YOU CAN ALWAYS RECOMMEND BASED ON THE TEA LEAVES YOU'RE READING OR OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DO SO AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
BUT THE RULES SAY THE REQUEST HAS TO COME FROM THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS WHY SOMETIMES WE DO THE SONG AND DANCE OF GETTING THEM THERE.
YOU COULD SUSPEND THAT RULE IF YOU WANTED TO AS A FINAL KIND OF CATCHALL OPTION, BUT YOU NEED TO DO THAT FIRST TO THEN FORCE A TABLING ON A PARTY.
I DON'T RECOMMEND FORCING A TABLING ON A PARTY UNLESS IT'S PLAINLY CLEAR THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING AND THEY WOULD BENEFIT FROM TIME WORKING WITH STAFF OVER THE NEXT MONTH AND THERE'S NO OBVIOUS PREJUDICE TO THEM IN FORCING THEM TO WAIT.
BUT SOMETIMES THAT CIRCUMSTANCE COULD COME UP, REMINDER THAT TABLING IS EFFECTIVE ONLY IF YOU HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE TO DO SO.
ALRIGHT, PRACTICE SCENARIO NUMBER TWO.
AN APPLICANT SEEKS REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR ONE A RETAINING WALL AND TWO, AN OUTDOOR PATIO.
THE APPLICANT SAYS THAT THE LOCATION OF THE RETAINING WALL IS TIED TO THE DESIRED LOCATION OF THE PATIO.
IE NO PATIO, NO NEED FOR A WALL.
DURING THE DELIBERATIONS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE BOARD THINKS THERE ARE OTHER SITES IN THE YARD THE PATIO COULD WORK IN AND THOSE SITES ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK.
THIS PRACTICE SCENARIO TWO IS GOING TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT MOVE EACH TIME.
THEY'LL BOTH BE COLORED SOMETHING DIFFERENT, YOU WON'T MISS IT.
THE APPLICANT IN THIS QUESTION TOTALLY REJECTS THE BOARD'S VIEW THAT THE OTHER SITES COULD BE PROPER, BUT LACKS DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION RIGHT NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY OPTIONS IN THAT MOMENT? THERE COULD BE MANY.
[01:30:05]
WELL, I GUESS IF THE APPLICANT ISN'T WILLING TO CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS, I GUESS THE BOARD WOULD'VE TO FIND OUT IF THEY'RE ABLE TO.UM, I GUESS WE WOULD REJECT IT.
I MEAN IF THEY DON'T WANNA LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS, SO YOU WOULD PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE AS AN OPTION? YES.
IS THIS A SCENARIO WHERE WE COULD INFORM THEM OF THE RIGHT TO TABLE IT AND THEN POTENTIALLY TRY TO ENCOURAGE THEM DOWN THAT PATH SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE ANOTHER MONTH WITH STAFF AND YOU KNOW, TALK TO THEIR ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER, WHOEVER TO FIGURE OUT FOR SURE WHETHER THAT WAS UM, THE CASE OR NOT? YES, THIS IS DEFINITELY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
YOU ALWAYS WANNA REALLY GAUGE THE APPLICANT, UM, AND IF THEY'RE NOT LOOKING LIKE THEY WANNA RECEIVE THAT, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
BUT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY AND TO GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW THEY HAVE.
UH, I THINK EVEN IF, YEAH, I THINK WE'VE DONE THIS A FEW TIMES AND YOU CAN KIND OF TELL IF THEY'RE UNDER, LIKE I REMEMBER ONE WITH A, LIKE A SHED IN A RETAINING WALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEY WERE LIKE, WE ARE FINE WITH YOUR RETAIN WITH YOUR RETAINING WALL
BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT IF THEY'RE JUST NOT OPEN TO THAT TOTALLY REJECTING OUR THING, THEN I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS YOU COULD STILL DO IT TO MAKE THE RECORD EVEN MORE CLEAR THAT YOU GAVE THEM A CHANCE TO TO CALL TIME OUT AND THEY STILL DIDN'T DO IT, BUT IT'S ALL SITUATIONAL TO CALL.
I THINK I WAS JUST GONNA SAY TOO, I MEAN IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF OUR OPTIONS AND TABLING IT'S ONE, BUT IF THERE'S TWO THINGS AT ISSUE HERE, BOTH THE WALL AND THE PATIO, WE TECHNICALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BIFURCATE, RIGHT? AND DO A MOTION AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE WALL AND THEN LET THEM TABLE A PATIO.
I WOULD SAY YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IT THAT WAY.
IN ANY CASE, WHETHER YOU'RE GONNA SUPPORT ONE OR THE OTHER, THEY'RE SEPARATE ASKS THEY HAVE SOME SEPARATE FACTS, EVEN IF THEY'RE TIED IN SOME WAY, WE'RE GONNA ASK THAT THEY BE SEPARATE MOTIONS AND THE AGENDA WILL HAVE THEM THAT WAY USUALLY TOO.
SO YES, BY ALL MEANS, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SUGGESTING THAT WE VOTE ON ONE TONIGHT AND THEN YOU ALL ASK TO TABLE THE OTHER AND THAT FEELS LIKE BIFURCATING.
THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION AND YOU CAN DO THAT.
UM, IF THAT'S EVER THE CASE, IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO BE UPFRONT WITH THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE THE BOARD IS, YOU KNOW, CONSENSUS IS, IS KIND OF COALESCING AROUND RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND WE'RE GONNA OFFER THIS FOR BOTH THINGS, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THESE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO.
UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, BRAD, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT A CLEARER RECORD, THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY STRICTLY NECESSARY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO OFFER A TABLING OPTION BECAUSE IT'S THEIR APPLICATION AND THEY HAVE TO COME IN PREPARED TO KNOW WHAT THE OPTIONS COULD LOOK LIKE AS WELL.
IT'S GOOD PRACTICE AND IT'S A GOOD COMMUNITY THING ESPECIALLY, AND I KNOW THAT STAFF'S ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF OPPORTUNITIES TO CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS YES, OR MAYBE MORE SO THAN YOU KNOW, SAYING THIS IS A NO BECAUSE, SO GOOD PRACTICE, NOT STRICTLY NECESSARY, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER IT IF IT SEEMS EITHER THAT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T GET IT OR, UH, IS MORE, UH, SET IN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, BUT IT'S JUST A NON UNTENABLE ASK.
WHAT ABOUT IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT TABLING AT ALL, UH, AND HAS MADE IT, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT CLEAR THAT THEY COULD BE OPEN TO MOVING THE PATIO LOCATION A BIT, BUT THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO RIGHT NOW.
ANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS, SAME OPTIONS? HOW WOULD YOU PROCESS THIS ONE? UM, I MEAN I SUPPOSE THIS APPLIES TO THE PREVIOUS SCENARIO AS WELL, BUT, UM, IT WOULDN'T BE A BAD IDEA TO DEFER TO STAFF, UM, FOR AT LEAST A MORE SORT OF A, WELL, NOT OBJECTIVE, LET'S NOT SAY THAT, BUT, UM, A BROADER OPINION OF WHAT THE OPTIONS WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY AND ALSO TO SORT OF GET A, UM, AN IDEA OF THE LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD WITH THE CITY IN, UH, ATTEMPTING TO ARRIVE AT AN AMICABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE, UH, THE, THE CODE, UM, NOTWITHSTANDING, UH, POTENTIALLY GRANTING A VARIANCE.
[01:35:01]
SO, UM, I WOULD SORT OF MAYBE ENGAGE STAFF A LITTLE BIT THERE JUST TO MAYBE GET THE GEARS TURNING.UH, IT IS POSSIBLE AS WE'VE SEEN SOMETIMES THAT, UH, UH, THE APPLICANT HASN'T BEEN AS AVAILABLE AS IDEALLY THEY, THEY WOULD BE TO ARRIVE AT A, UH, UH, A MORE, YOU KNOW, WORKABLE, UH, SOLUTION.
AND UH, I THINK THAT MIGHT AT LEAST, MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T GET TO THIS POINT, UH, BUT, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES BEING WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY ARE, I WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UM, TO HAVE A, HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY AND UH, IF UH, THEY'RE SORT OF TREPIDATIOUS ABOUT IT, THEN STILL IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL TO SORT OF BRING TABLING AS AN OPTION TO THEM.
ANYONE ELSE? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BUT I'M JUST MAKING SURE.
ALRIGHT, SO I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF INCLUDING STAFF, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS ONE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY MOVING TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT THAT CAN COME UP.
EITHER THEY'VE SUGGESTED, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT I WAS THINKING ABOUT PUTTING IT OVER THERE, BUT THEN WE JUST, OUR ARCHITECTS SAID THIS IS BETTER BECAUSE, UM, THERE MIGHT BE A REASON TO REVISIT THAT AND THE ARCHITECT COULD SAY THAT THAT POSITION WILL WORK JUST FINE, IT JUST WASN'T OPTIMAL FOR THE VISION, BUT THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN THEIR CLIENT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THAT YET.
OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, UH, STAFF MIGHT KNOW, MIGHT KNOW WHY THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, AREA IS EITHER COMPLETELY PERMITTED OR WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A VARIANCE AND IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL BENEFIT THAT YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW YET BASED ON WHERE DIMENSIONS ARE, WHAT THINGS FALL, ANY PARTS OF THE CODE THAT AREN'T DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IS ON ONE PART, BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT THING.
SO STAFF CAN BE YOUR ALLY FOR SURE IN THAT SITUATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THE EXPERTS THEY KNOW AND THEY'VE THOUGHT THROUGH A LOT OF THIS STUFF.
THEY MIGHT HAVE TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT A FEW TIMES ABOUT THE SAME THING, BUT THE APPLICANT JUST WENT FORWARD WITH A DIFFERENT VERSION.
SO THEY CAN BE VERY HELPFUL AND THEY CAN ALSO EXPLAIN THINGS ON A TECHNICAL LEVEL, UH, THAT, THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME JARGON READY FOR THAT THEY'RE AT ALL ARCHITECT OR EVEN THEM MIGHT, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO JUMP ONTO QUICKLY.
WHAT IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE TABLING RULE, EVEN THOUGH THE CHAIR HAS SPENT TIME EXPLAINING IT TO THEM? ANY OPTIONS? YES, SIR.
AS IN THE, UH, APPLICANTS, UH, THEY, THEY ARE, THEY, IT'S JUST KIND OF, THEY'RE SORT OF, IT, IT, THE CONCEPT GOES OVER THEIR HEAD.
UH, THEY, THEY WERE COMING IN STRICTLY FOR THE VOTE.
UM, YOU CAN, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN DO TO COMMUNICATE
UH, SO IF, UH, WELL I WOULD, I WOULD DEFER TO MAYBE
AND, UH, IF ALL OF OUR EFFORTS, UM, ARE IN VAIN, THEN AT THAT POINT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO.
AND, UH, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO JUST, UH, FIGURE A VOTE BECAUSE OF THE RULE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO BE, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE WHO HAS TO, UH, VOTE THE IDEA OF, UH, OR SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A, UH, A TABLING OF THE MATTER.
I MEAN, HOW BLUNT CAN WE BE WITH THEM? LIKE, CAN WE BE LIKE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE VOTE NO, NOW WE'RE DONE.
AND IF, OR IF THIS MOTION DOESN'T PASS RIGHT NOW WE'RE DONE.
BUT IF YOU TABLE IT, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITIES
AND IF THEY'RE REALLY, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU'RE JUST SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THEY STILL DON'T GET IT, THEN YOU CAN, LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH, BUT ARE WE ALLOWED TO, IF WE THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER, LIKE MAYBE THEY'RE ALMOST THERE
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CONVOLUTED.
SOMETIMES YOU CAN KICK IT TO ME OR TO STAFF AND WE'LL TRY MAYBE A DIFFERENT TACTIC THAT CAN WORK TOO.
BUT BEING DIRECT AND CLEAR, OPTION A IS THIS, HERE'S THE OUTCOME OF OPTION A, IF IT GOES THIS WAY OR THAT WAY.
OPTION B IS THIS, AND HERE'S WHAT THAT PATH CAN LOOK LIKE IS THE BEST OPTION ALWAYS.
[01:40:01]
DON'T RECOMMEND DOING IT IN A PATERNALISTIC KIND OF WAY OR A WAY THAT MAKES THEM FEEL LIKE THEY'VE NOT BEEN HEARD AND RECEIVED, OF COURSE.AGAIN, THOUGH, IF YOU WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DECIDE THIS TONIGHT AND THE RESULT OF A DENIAL IS FOR THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO BRING THIS SAME REQUEST TO THE BOARD, UH, THEN THAT'S FINE.
AND ON THE OTHER END YOU CAN SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT TABLING IT COULD LEAD TO A CHANGE BECAUSE IF THERE'S GOOD REASON FOR THAT, THAT LAST PART'S THE DANGEROUS ONE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO, LIKE YOU SAID, LEAD THEM ON, BUT ALSO CREATE A POTENTIAL, UH, WAY THAT THE BOARD IS NOW GONNA ACT INCONSISTENTLY FROM ONE MEETING TO ANOTHER.
UM, ESPECIALLY IF ALL THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS MAYBE A DIFFERENT MEMBER TO BE PRESENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S BETTER TO SAY, IF YOU WANT TO TABLE, WE RECOMMEND YOU WORK WITH STAFF ON THESE CHANGES.
THESE ARE THE AREAS THAT WE'RE HAVING THE MOST CONCERN.
IF THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES, RIGHT, RECOMMEND THAT YOU REVIEW THOSE.
IF THE THOSE CONVERSATIONS DON'T COME TO ANYTHING GOOD, YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND ASK US TO DECIDE THE MATTER AND THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE.
YOU COULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, PULL THIS APPLICATION BACK AND CONSIDER A, A MORE HOLISTIC, UH, APPROACH TO DOING SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
UM, BUT IF WE VOTE TONIGHT AND IF WE VOTE NO OR WE DON'T PASS THE AFFIRMATIVE MOTION, THIS IS A RESULT.
FINAL ONE, THE APPLICANT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE TABLING RULE AND STILL WANTS A DECISION TONIGHT.
ASSUME THAT THE BOARD IS PRETTY CLEARLY LOOKING TOWARDS GIVING A NO VOTE TO AN AFFIRMATIVE.
SHOULD WE PASS THIS MOTION? ANY OPTIONS? WHAT DO YOU DO? MY THOUGHTS ARE IF THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULE AND THEY WANT A DECISION THAT WE GIVE THEM A DECISION, YEAH, THAT THAT'S GONNA BE THE ANSWER.
THE ANSWER IS IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR A DECISION AND YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION TO ACTUALLY DECIDE IT, DECIDE IT.
IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU DON'T HAVE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DO SO, THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A, A BIT OF A, A FAILURE ON STAFF AND LEGAL'S PART TO MAKE SURE WE PROVIDE CASE MATERIALS.
UM, SO IT SHOULDN'T OCCUR, BUT IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT DOES AND YOU CAN'T DECIDE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE LACKING CRITICAL INFORMATION, THAT IS A TIME THAT YOU MIGHT WANNA CONSIDER SUSPENDING THE RULES AND ASKING STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO WORK TOWARDS PROVIDING THAT.
IT'S CRITICAL, UH, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARILY ARBITRARY, SO AS LONG AS THERE'S SUPPORT FOR YOUR DECISION, GREAT.
IF NOT, UH, MAYBE THAT'S A TIME WE CAN THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
AND I THINK PART OF THAT IS LEADING UP TO THIS SCENARIO.
UM, THAT'S WHERE DELIBERATION IS REALLY CRITICAL TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT EVERYONE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT.
AND AGAIN, NOT, NOT THAT YOU'RE COMING INTO THE DELIBERATION WITH YOUR MIND MADE UP, BUT AT THE END OF THE DELIBERATION THERE SHOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING FROM ALL, UM, THE BOARD MEMBERS BUT ALSO FOR THE CLARITY OF THE APPLICANT TO KNOW GENERALLY I KNOW WHERE EVERYONE'S AT, SO I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BOARD'S DIVIDED OR THAT THIS IS GONNA BE MORE LEANING TOWARDS DISAPPROVAL OR I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE APPROVING.
SO THAT'S WHERE WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE THE APPLICANT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE TABLING RULE AND MAYBE STILL WANTS TO MAKE THAT DECISION, THERE IS A CHANCE AND HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THEY MAYBE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE EVERYONE STANDS ON THIS.
SO THEY MAY THINK THAT, HEY, THIS IS GONNA GET APPROVED.
I UNDERSTAND THE TABLING STILL WANNA MOVE FORWARD.
SO THAT'S WHY I JUST WANNA MAKE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN WE ARE DELIBERATING, NOT THAT WE NEED TO CONVINCE EACH OTHER OF SEEING THINGS MY WAY AND, AND, AND I GUESS BEING ON MY SIDE, BUT AT THE END OF DELIBERATION WE SHOULD HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF KIND OF WHERE EVERYONE LIES.
UM, SO THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.
UM, AND I THINK THAT JUST MAKES IT EASIER FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED JUST TO KNOW WITH CERTAINTY KIND OF, AND NOT CERTAINTY.
IT'S NOT ALWAYS GONNA BE CERTAIN, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME AMBIGUITY SOMETIMES, BUT UM, JUST MAKES FOR A EASIER AND BETTER PROCESS FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED AS WELL.
SEE THAT'S WHY HE IS THE EXPERT.
YEAH, SOMEWHAT UNRELATED, BUT I GUESS, UM, PROCEDURALLY IF WE WANT TO SUSPEND THE RULES, WHAT, HOW, HOW DO WE BEST GET THAT ON THE RECORD? LIKE DO WE NEED TO CITE BY NUMBER? WHAT SPECIFIC RULE OR DO WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ THAT RULE INTO THE RECORD? CAN WE TURN TO YOU TO TURN, PUT THAT RULE INTO THE RECORD? THOSE ARE ALL GOOD THOUGHTS AND WE CAN WORK THROUGH THE BEST ANSWER AND SEE IF MAYBE JAMIE AND ZACH HAVE ANY INPUT HERE AS WELL.
UM, BUT THERE ARE TWO EASY WAYS FOR YOU GUYS TO HAVE IT HANDY.
UH, THE FIRST ONE IS IT'S IN THE RULES.
[01:45:01]
I ASSUME THAT THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKETS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A PAPER COPY, GREAT.I KNOW THEM WELL ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU THE SITE.
IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO STATE THE RULE, BUT IT'S HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY IN THIS KIND OF SCENARIO, IF YOU WOULD BE TELLING SOMEBODY, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION OR I DON'T THINK YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS DECISION IS, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET YOU THERE.
THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO SUSPEND OUR RULES AND IMPOSE ON YOU A TEMPORARY, UH, YOU KNOW, PAUSE FOR THIS.
THEN WE SHOULD BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
WE COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY HAVE THIS LISTED IN THE AGENDAS, UH, NOT THE AGENDA, THE, UM, THE SCRIPT AT THE VERY END, A COUPLE HELPFUL MOTION FRAMEWORKS, ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE SUSPENDING THE RULES.
ANOTHER WOULD PROBABLY BE ADMITTING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS OR ALLOWING CERTAIN TESTIMONY.
THERE COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE IF YOU THINK IT COULD COME UP, BUT IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WELL AS A CONSISTENT THING THAT SHOWS UP IN THE BOTTOM OF THE SCRIPT, WE COULD, WE COULD ADD THAT.
AND I IMAGINE I'D YEAH, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ADD AT, AT THIS POINT TOO THAT THIS SCRIPT PROVIDED TO YOU IS NOT MEANT TO BE GOSPEL, IT'S JUST TO SUPPOSED TO BE HELPFUL.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE PROFESSIONALS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU NEED TO MAKE A MOTION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ EXACTLY HOW I HAVE WRITTEN IT, IT'S JUST SUPPOSED TO BE HELPFUL.
I KNOW SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE IN FRONT OF A CROWD YOU CAN GET STUMBLE OVER YOUR WORDS AND THAT'S REALLY THERE JUST TO HELP YOU.
SO IF ADDING LANGUAGE AT THE END ABOUT POSSIBLE MOTIONS IS HELPFUL, I CAN DO THAT TOO.
UM, IT'S JUST A TOOL IN YOUR TOOLBOX THAT WE PROVIDE TO CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED TO THE OTHER BOARD.
SO TRY TO HELP YOU DO YOUR JOB AS BEST WE CAN.
BUT TO JAMIE'S POINT, IF YOU END UP GOING ROGUE AND CREATING YOUR OWN MOTION ON THE ACTUAL APPLICATION QUESTION, KNOW THAT WHAT YOU STATE IN THE MOTION IS WHAT YOU'RE ALL VOTING ON AND HAS THE OUTCOME THAT YOU'VE WRITTEN DOWN IN THE LANGUAGE.
SO IT'S VERY HELPFUL FOR THE CASE DISPOSITIVE QUESTION TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE SCRIPT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO ALIGN WITH THE REQUEST LANGUAGE AND ITS, YOU KNOW, PARAMETERS, ET CETERA.
BUT IF WE DO SOMETHING ELSE, WHAT YOU SAY IS WHAT'S BEING VOTED ON AND IS THE ACTION THAT YOU'RE TAKING JUST AS A FINAL THOUGHT.
I TALKED SO MUCH LONGER THAN I MEANT TO.
I'M SORRY, I REALLY THOUGHT WE'D BE DONE IN 20 MINUTES.
I'M SORRY THAT I MADE YOU HAVE FUN AS WELL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY LAST QUESTIONS EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR ME ABOUT ANY OF THIS TRAINING MATERIAL? VERY GOOD COMMUNICATION CONCLUDED.
UH, THE LAST THING I HAD IS, UH, IT WAS ALLUDE TO, BUT MR. ANDERSON IS, UH, TAKEN A DIFFERENT ROLE, WHICH REQUIRES HIM TO, UM, GET RID OF HIS POSITION HERE.
SO HE WILL NO LONGER BE WITH US.
I'M REALLY GRATEFUL FOR HIS TIME THAT HE SERVED WITH US.
UM, BUT WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR THAT FIFTH POSITION AND WE HAVE A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME THAT WE HAVE TO FILL THAT AS WELL.
UM, SO THAT SHOULD BE HERE WITHIN THE NEXT PROBABLY TWO TO THREE MONTHS.
BUT, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS IN OCTOBER, TOWARDS THE END OF OCTOBER.
RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS FOR THAT.
UM, SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS BY THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER, THEN WE WILL LIKELY CANCEL THAT ONE.
ZACH, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR ANY BOARD MEMBER TO POTENTIALLY SUGGEST OR RECOMMEND SOMEBODY FROM THE COMMUNITY? FOR THE OPEN POSITION? YES.
WE HAVE AN OPEN APPLICATION AT ALL TIMES ON OUR WEBSITE.
UM, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE LINK AND CAN, IT'S WWW DOT DUBLIN, WHATEVER OUR WEBSITE IS SLASH SERVE.
UM, SO, SO YES, ENCOURAGE ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO APPLY.
SO IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED, THEY CAN SUBMIT FOR THAT.
UM, THEY CAN SUBMIT FOR THIS SPECIFIC BOARD OR JUST IN GENERAL THAT THOSE THAT WANT TO BE ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND, AND SERVE THE CITY.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THAT, THAT FILLED SOON.
UM, I'M SURE GARRETT WILL BE, UH, WATCHING FROM HOME, UH, FROM NOW ON AS, UH, I'D EXPECT EVERYONE ELSE TO, UH, BUT WITH NO OTHER, UH, BUSINESS BEFORE THIS BOARD.