THIS MEETING OF THE AUGUST 19TH
[00:00:01]
MEETING WOULD BE THE RECORDER.[Board of Zoning Appeals on August 19, 2025.]
UM, KELLY, CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? YES, SIR.UH, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR PRIOR MEETING, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY.
UH, EVERYBODY HAS 'EM IN THE PACKETS, SO I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
UH, THE MAIN POINT OF OUR HEARING HERE IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION WHERE PROPERTY OWNED BY ORANGE CREEK, LLC, LOCATED AT 15TH AND 17TH WEST 11TH STREET IDENTIFIED.
UM, I KNOW THE TOWN HAS SOMETHING THEY WANT TO PUT ON, THEN WE'LL ASK THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIRS AND THEN THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO GET THEIRS AND WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AFTERWARDS.
PRIOR TO YOU OPENING UP A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH A TIME LIMIT FOR SPEAKING.
TYPICALLY THREE MINUTES THE APPLICANT SPEAK OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, YOU WANT ME TO GET EVERYTHING DONE IN THREE MINUTES? IT'S NOT US SPEAKING IN THREE MINUTES.
DO I HAVE TO GIVE EQUAL TIME TO BOTH? SO IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SORRY, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, OH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT? NO.
BUT BEFORE YOU OPEN IT, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE A PROCEDURAL.
THEN DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT AND THEN NO.
SO JOHN, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SET IT FOR FIVE MINUTES FOR PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC TO SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT.
THAT WOULD BE AFTER OUR QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH BOTH PARTIES.
SO IS THAT AND THEN YOU HAVE A POWERPOINT OR, YES.
SO WE HAVE A VARIANCE APPLICATION, 25 0 0 3 3 5 SUBMITTED BY ORANGE CREEK, LLC FOR A VARIANCE FROM TOWN CODE 1 75 DASH 24 A, UH, PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT THE PROPERTY AT 15 AND 17 WEST 11TH STREET.
THAT'S TAX MAP 28 2 DASH FOUR DASH 43, LOT 24.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE R TWO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE VARIANCE WOULD EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THE APPLICANT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8.7 FEET.
UH, THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IS TO ALLOW THE SETBACK OF LESS THAN 10 FEET FOR RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED TWO FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING.
TOWN CODE 1 75 22 FOR SETBACKS IN THE R THREE FOR THE FRONT.
THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED 30 FEET OR MORE FROM A STREET RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS 50 FEET OR GREATER.
HOWEVER, THE SECOND PART DOWN THERE, NO BUILDING NEED TO BE SET BACK MORE THAN THE AVERAGE OF THE SETBACKS OF THE IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING STRUCTURES ON EITHER SIDE.
AND WE'LL POINT THAT OUT ON THE PLAQUE ALSO.
THE FRONTAGE, THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT THE SET SETBACK LINE SHALL BE 70 FEET AND 1 75 24 A IS, WHICH THEY'RE ASKING THE VARIANCE FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR SIDE SETBACKS.
EACH SIDE YARD SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET.
UH, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING LOT, 1 75 1 28 B.
HOWEVER, IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MAY BE ERECTED ON ANY SINGLE LOT OF RECORD, NOT WITHSTANDING LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.
THIS PROVISION SHALL APPLY EVEN THOUGH SUCH LOT FAILS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT AREA OR LOT WIDTH.
SO ESSENTIALLY, IF THE LOT IS LEGALLY NONCONFORMING, UH, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD ON THE LOT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
UH, ANOTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND, 1 7 5 8 70 A NINE PARKING AND LOADING AREAS
[00:05:01]
BY TOWN CODE REQUIRES IS PARKING SPACE TO BE AT LEAST THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY LINE.UH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND.
YOU RECEIVED A, UH, STAFF REPORT, UH, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WE'LL GO OVER, WE WON'T GO THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE PART OF THE, UH, FOR TONIGHT, BUT IT'S IN YOUR PACKET TO REVIEW.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO HIT SOME HIGHLIGHT POINTS HERE.
SO THERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE LOT THERE AT WEST 11TH STREET.
THERE IS A ALLEY HERE TO THE EAST AND AN ALLEY IN THE REAR TO THE NORTH AND A FRONT ON 11TH STREET.
THERE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG THE STREET.
AND THIS IS NORTH ROYAL AVENUE HERE.
SO THAT GIVES YOU AN AERIAL VIEW WHERE THE LOT IS LOCATED.
UH, THERE'S THE STATUS AT THE TIME THAT WE ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER ON THE STRUCTURE THAT IS THE WEST ELEVATION.
THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THIS SIDE RUNS HERE AND THIS IS THE VARIANCE, UH, REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE.
AS FOR THIS LEFT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, UH, THERE'S THE EAST SIDE.
THIS IS THE ALLEY HERE, UH, WITH THE, UH, DWELLING UNDER CONSTRUCTION THERE.
ANOTHER VIEW OF THE DWELLING ON THE EAST ELEVATION AND THE STOP OR ORDERS THAT WERE ISSUED BACK IN MAY.
UH, WE, WE PUT ONE ON EACH, UH, ADDRESS AT, AT 15 AND AT 17 WEST 11TH STREET TO PUT A STOP WORK ORDER ON IT.
UH, THERE IS THE STOP WORK ORDER WE ISSUED ON 5 23.
UH, THE PLAT DATED FOR THE WALL CHECK WAS DATED 5 21.
REVIEWED THE WALL CHECK OF THE FOUNDATION LOCATION AND DISCOVERED THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SETBACK PER TOWN CODE REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET.
UH, THERE IS THE APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
UH, SO YOU'RE HERE TO DECIDE, UH, WHETHER TO GRANT OR DENY THE VARIANCE.
THEY ARE NOT APPEALING THE DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION IF THE APPLICANT MET ALL THE REASONS FOR GRANT A VARIANCE OR TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE CONDITIONS TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
SO THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ADMINISTRATIVELY TOWN STAFF CANNOT RAN A VARIANCE.
THIS IS WHY IT COMES THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, UH, FOR YOU TO MAKE A DECISION.
WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY OR THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.
SO THEY'RE NOT APPEALING OUR DECISION.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF TOWN CODE AND THEY, UH, 1 75 24 A IS THAT'S THE, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST PER TOWN CODE.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT SETBACK.
AND THEY LISTED THAT THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET TO READ WITH THEIR EXPLANATION ON EACH OF THOSE FIVE POINTS THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT MET THAT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE OR THEY DID NOT TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
UH, SO A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THIS PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY.
SO TYPICALLY THIS, THIS DARK LINE HERE IS THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE IN THE FRONT.
TYPICALLY, THE HOUSE NEEDS A SET BACK 30 FEET TO THE REAR.
HOWEVER, UH, TOWN CO DOES ALLOW THAT.
IF WE GET THE AVERAGE OF THE ADJOINING, WHICH THEY HAVE 14 FOOT NINE HERE, THEY COULD SET THE HOUSE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE OTHER HOUSES ADJACENT TO IT.
SO THEY CHOSE TO STEP THE HOUSE BACK 16 FEET EVEN THOUGH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 30 HERE FOR THE FRONT, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE 10, 10 FEET ON THE SIDE AND ALSO 10 FEET ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
NOW IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PACKET, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE.
THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS THREE FEET.
THEY HAVE TO BE THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE DRIVEWAY.
THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO BE NINE FEET.
THEN THE REMAINING THREE FEET IS FOR LANDSCAPING.
THE THREE FEET FOR THIS PER TOWN CODE, THE NINE FEET PER TOWN CODE FOR THE PARKING.
EVEN THOUGH THE SETBACK LINE IS IN THE DRIVEWAY, THIS PART OF THE TOWN CODE ALSO IS ENFORCEABLE.
NOW WE GET TO THE WALL CHECK WITH A LOT OF OTHER INFORMATION NOT ON HERE.
SO THERE AGAIN THE SETBACK LINE
[00:10:01]
ON THE FRONT 30.BUT POUND CODE DOES ALLOW THEM IN THIS DISTRICT TO HAVE THE AVERAGE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE HOUSE IS SET BACK, WHICH THEY PUT IT AT 16.4 FEET.
THE ADJOINING HOUSE IS AT 14.9.
SO IT SETS BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN THE ADJOINING HOUSE.
THE LEFT SIDE HERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 10 FEET.
THE LEFT FRONT CORNER OF THE HOUSE IS 9.4 FEET IN THE LEFT REAR AT 8.7.
AND THEY HAVE A 10 FOOT SETBACK HERE.
UH, THE HOUSE SETS AT 15 FOUR AND AT 16 ONE HERE.
BUT TAKING ACCOUNT THE THREE FOOT FOR THE, UH, DRIVEWAY AND THE NINE FOOT FOR THE, UH, WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY.
SO THE LOT IS NON-CONFORMING, UH, TO BEGIN WITH.
SO THE REQUIREMENT IS 70 FOOT WIDE, BUT THE LOT OF RECORD IS 50.
SO IT'S LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.
IT WAS APPROVED AT 50 FOOT CODE CHANGES OVER THE YEARS.
NOW WE REQUIRE A NEW LOT TO BE 70.
SO THIS IS A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING LOT.
THEY CAN BUILD ON IT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
UH, SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE FOUNDATION HERE AND HERE, WE DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR THE WALL CHECK OR THE FOUNDATION LOCATION.
THE HOUSE IS NOT, UH, ACROSS THE SETBACK LINE REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE.
UM, THE LOT IS RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE, A TRUE RECTANGLE, 50 FOOT IN THE FRONT, 50 FOOT IN THE REAR, AND 150 ON EACH SIDE WITH 90 DEGREES, UH, CORNERS.
SO IT'S A TRUE RECTANGLE ONE 50, UH, DEPTH BY 50 FOOT WIDE.
UM, SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF 10 DOWN TO ESSENTIALLY 8.7.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE, ESPECIALLY ON THIS OTHER DRAWING THAT THAT'S WHAT WE REQUIRE FOR TOWN CODE.
ALL THIS INFORMATION HAS TO BE ON THAT PER TOWN CODE, BUT THE WALL CHECK KIND OF CLEANS THAT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE TO SHOW, UH, WHAT THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES.
UM, WITH THIS HOUSE, UH, BUILDING SITUATED ON THIS LOT, A TRUE RECTANGLE, UH, 50 BY ONE 50, UM, AND IT HAS THE SETBACKS THAT RE ARE REQUIRED.
THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY, YOU HAVE A 10 AND A 10 ON THE SIDE.
IT GIVES YOU THAT, WHAT WE REFER TO AS A BUILDING ENVELOPE.
THE BUILDING HAS TO SET INSIDE THIS DASH LINE EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT, WHICH WE HAVE A CONDITION THAT THEY CAN INCREASE IT CLOSER IF THEY WANT TO BASED ON THE ADJACENT UH, PROPERTIES.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY DID THERE WITH THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF? YEAH, MY QUESTION IS THE 1.3, AM I CLEAR THAT IF THEY HAD JUST PUSHED THE, LIKE IF THEY HAD JUST POURED OVER LIKE A SMIDGE TO BE AT THAT DASH LINE, THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE 1.3 FEET.
LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM LIKE THEY, IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE, WITHIN THE BUILDING.
SO HERE THEY HAD THE BUILDING SITUATED.
THE PROPOSED HOUSE WAS AT 10 FEET ON THE SIDE AND 15 HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE REQUIREMENT WAS 10, BUT 15 HERE, 10 THERE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY THE BUILDING'S KIND OF AT A SKEW AS YOU, IT IS NOT PARALLEL TO PROPERTY LINE 'CAUSE IT'S NINE SIX UP HERE AND EIGHT SEVEN HERE AT THE REAR.
BUT THE LOT IS A TRUE RECTANGLE.
BUT IT, IT LOOKS BASED ON THIS THAT IF IT WAS JUST SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ROTATED AT LEAST 1.3 FEET TO THE RIGHT.
A BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE PULLED THIS DIRECTION.
OKAY, SO, BUT WHERE'S THE PARKING AT? UH, THE PARKING IS THIS HASH LINE HERE THAT GOES BACK THROUGH HERE.
THAT'S THE NINE FOOT REQUIRED.
BUT TOWN CODE TO GET TO PARKING, THEY WOULD ENTER OFF 11TH STREET, TWO PARKING SPACES HERE AND TWO HERE.
BUT TOWN CODE REQUIRES THAT TO BE THREE FOOT OFF THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE PARKING NINE FOOT WIDE.
WHAT'S YOUR REASONING? WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE TOWN'S REASONING FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THESE LAWNS? IS THERE A THAT'S FOR TOWN CODE,
[00:15:01]
CORRECT.BUT, BUT WHY 10 INSTEAD OF EIGHT? OR IS THERE LIKE A FIRE? IS IT, IS IT, IS IT FOR SAFETY, IS IT FOR SOMETHING OR IS IT JUST AN ARBITRARILY PICKED NUMBER? THAT IS THE DISTANCES THAT THE, THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES FOR THE R TWO SET BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOTS.
SO IN THE R TWO DISTRICT, ALL OF 'EM NEED TO BE 10 FEET, UH, ON BOTH SIDES, DEPENDING ON THE ZONING DISTRICT, THOSE VARY BECAUSE THE LOTS INCREASES IN THE SIDE.
YARD SETBACKS INCREASE USUALLY IN THE R TWO DISTRICT.
IF YOU THINK R ONE, SINGLE FAMILY BIGGER LOTS, R TWO, EITHER A DUPLEX FOR TWO OR A TWO FAMILY.
AND R THREE WOULD BE THOSE THAT WERE ALLOWABLE FOR MORE THAN THREE OR MORE UNITS, DWELLING UNITS ON THE LOT.
SO USUALLY ONCE YOU GET TO THE R TWO AND R THREE, THE SETBACKS ARE SMALLER, MORE DENSITY IN THAT TYPE OF ZONING.
SINGLE FAMILY R ONE, YOU THINK OF THOSE MORE OF SUBDIVISIONS, BIGGER LOTS, UH, IN TOWN THE DENSITY INCREASES.
SO THERE GOES TO R TWO OR R THREE AND THE SETBACKS DECREASE AS YOU GO IN THE DISTRICTS.
I GUESS MY QUESTION REVOLVES AROUND THIS BUILDING IS NOW AT 8.7 INSTEAD OF 10, UH, I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR THE REASON FOR THE 10.
IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND IT'S NOW AT 8.7, DOES THAT VIOLATE THE INTENTION OF THE SETBACK OR IS IT JUST VIOLATING THE TECHNICALITY OF THE SETBACK? IT IS IN VIOLATION OF TOWN CODE.
TOWN CODE REQUIRES IT TO BE 10.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE REASON FOR THE CODE IS DOES NOT PERTAIN TO OUR DECISION.
LIKE I, I THINK I, FROM OUR TRAINING, I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONSIDER THAT.
IT IT, WE HAVE TO DECIDE BASED ON WHAT CODE, WHAT THE REASON FOR THE CODE IS, IS THE MATERIAL I THINK.
NO, I'M ASKING LIKE THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE, I MEAN I WAS, I WAS ARGUING FOR WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IN THE LAST, WHEN WE DID OUR LAST TRAINING AND THE LAWYER WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT LIKE IT KIND OF DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE REASON WAS.
TYPICALLY ZONING IS BLACK AND WHITE.
IT IS, THIS REQUIREMENT IS 10.
IT HAS TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHEN THE, THE ZONING APPLICATION WAS SET IN, I GUESS IT HAD THE DESIGN TOO.
DID IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THEN THE PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY, WHICH IS REQUIRED, BUT TOWN CODE SITUATES THE BUILDING WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.
AND THEN WHEN IT WAS BUILT, IT UNFORTUNATELY IT DID NOT FIT WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LOT OF THE SETBACKS.
IS THIS THE PART OF THE MEETING WHERE WE ARE GOING INTO DISCUSSION OR ARE WE GONNA HEAR HIM BEFORE WE GO INTO THIS? IS WE ASK IF YOU ASKING TOWN STAFF CLARIFICATION ON OUR PRESENTATION? I SEE.
THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO YOU WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ONCE SEAN IS DONE.
SO THIS IS JUST FOR IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR PRESENTATION IN THE ZONING LAW IN CODE.
UH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR TOWN.
UM, HAS THERE BEEN SITUATION LIKE THIS IN TOWN, THAT TOWN HAS ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN? OH, LIKE, UH, GONE WITH IT.
GRANTED THE VARIANCE HAS THIS, HAS THIS HAPPENED IN OTHER INSTANCES AND THE VARIANCE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY BEEN BOARD? IT DOESN'T MATTER, DOES IT? IT WELL THAT ACTUALLY DOES.
SO IF IT'S COMMONLY HAPPENING, YEAH, WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER THINGS ARE HAPPENING.
MY UNDERSTANDING SINCE WE'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN HERE THAT THE BZA HAS NOT GRANTED ANY, ANY VARIANCES AS OF SUCH.
I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR THE FOUR YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T YEAH, I AGREE WITH GIVING IT TO ONE PERSON BUT DENYING IT TO ANOTHER PERSON LIKE US TO BE THE SAME.
BUT WHAT, WHEN THERE'S A LIKE CONSISTENT ISSUE, LIKE WE HAVE INSTANCES WHERE THE LOTS ARE TOO, LIKE IF THE LOT IS TOO SMALL FOR DEVELOPMENT TO EVEN HAPPEN ON THAT MM-HMM
THAT WOULD TELL US THAT THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN AND THEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION TO SAY, HEY, MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS BOAT.
UM, OH, I THINK THAT'S THE TERM.
IT'S NOT, HEY, IF WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, WE NEED TO LET IT GO.
I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE ANY WHAT, UH, SLIDE WOULD YOU LET THIS BACK ON? DO YOU NEED TO, THAT
[00:20:01]
YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT? I CAN LEAVE IT ON ANY SLIDE YOU'D LIKE.SO APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE A INFORMATION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT FOR YOUR CASE? YEAH, SO THE, THE PROPERTY THAT'S TO THE, THE LEFT OF THIS WHERE THE PROPERTY HE WAS POINTING AT THAT SAYS 14.9, THAT'S THESE TWO PROPERTIES.
THE THE TWO FAMILY THAT WE'RE CONSTRUCTING AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT OF IT ON THE SCREEN ARE OWNED BY THE SAME BROTHERS.
AND SO WE WERE HOPING THAT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE, ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THIS.
UM, AND IF, IF THE SPIRIT OF THE SETBACKS IS THAT THERE'S 20 FEET AS A MINIMUM BETWEEN HOME, 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THIS PROPERTY AND 10 FOOT SETBACK ON, ON THIS PROPERTY, 20 FEET BETWEEN THE HOMES.
WE HAVE 20 FEET, A LITTLE OVER 20 FEET AND FIVE INCHES BETWEEN THE, THE STRUCTURE THAT WE WE'RE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY NEXT TO IT.
UH, CERTAINLY NOT DENYING THAT THE PROJECT MANAGER INVOLVED IN BUILDING THIS HOME BUILT IT IN THE WRONG SPOT.
UM, HE'S NO LONGER WITH OUR, OUR ORGANIZATION EITHER.
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND APOLOGIES.
I, BRENT HENDERSON WITH MOSS BUILDING AND DESIGN.
AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, CORRECT? YES.
SO THAT'S, IT'S REALLY MORE OF JUST A TRULY AN APPEAL 'CAUSE UH, RECOGNIZE THAT WE, WE ARE OUTSIDE OF THESE SETBACKS.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, UM, WE'RE HOPEFUL.
AND IS THERE A, 'CAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE TAUGHT IS TO SORT OF EXPLORE THOSE OTHER OPTIONS LIKE OTHER THAN GRAD VARIANCE, IS THERE A POTENTIAL TO HAVE THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTED? SO THERE IS, YOU CAN JUST LIKE LITERALLY BY HOWEVER LONG IT IS TO THE POINT OF YOUR, LIKE HE'S WITHIN THE, FOR HIS STRUCTURE, RIGHT? EVEN IF YOU ADJUSTED JUST SAID 2025, RIGHT? POINT FIVE.
YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE, THAT'S ONLY FIVE INCHES.
NO, HE'S SAYING BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES CURRENTLY YEAH, THERE'S 20.5 FEET.
SO YOU JUST WOULD ADJUST THE, SO YOU WOULD LINE JUST MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE OVER JUST THE, SO THEY BOTH STRUCTURES ARE, AND THEY BOTH END NOW IN, BUT THEN THE OTHER ONE IS A FOOT AND SOMETHING, SO THAT STILL DOESN'T, BUT THERE'S NO OTHER BUILDING.
SO YEAH, THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT IS ANOTHER AVENUE THAT WE'VE BEGUN TO PURSUE.
IT'S JUST A, UH, VERY, VERY LENGTHY PROCESS WITH THE LENDING INSTITUTION.
I I DO KNOW WHAT A HEADACHE IT IS.
SO, SO WE'RE WE'RE MONTHS INTO THAT? YEAH.
CURRENTLY, UM, AND, AND REALLY DON'T HAVE AN END SITE.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GET BACK WITH US IN 45 DAYS FROM MONTHS AGO.
AND THEY DID GET WITHIN THAT TIME, UM, JUST TO, TO NEED MORE INFORMATION THAT KIND OF RESETS THE CLOCK.
AND THAT'S BEEN, THAT'S BEEN THE RECURRING STORY THERE.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR SIDE? I DON'T.
UM, SO I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UM, I'M FAMILIAR WITH CONSTRUCTION.
WHY ONE, WHY WAS THE WALL CHECK NOT DONE AT FOUND LIKE AT FOUNDATION ONCE? IT WAS AT ONCE, IT WAS AT THE ROOF.
I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS THE JEFF SIDE.
UH, SO SINCE LET'S GONNA GO THERE, UM, THERE'S CLEARLY NO WAY OF ADJUSTING THE BUILDING.
LIKE THAT'S PROBABLY COMPLETELY COST PROHIBITIVE.
SO I GUESS ADJUSTING THE BOUNDARY LINE IS YOUR BEST OPTION.
UM, ARE YOU, I'M, LOOK, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE FRONT AT 9.6 AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S 20 AND A HALF BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, BUT THAT BUILDING SKEWS.
SO YOU'RE CERTAIN THAT IF YOU ADJUST THE LOT LINE, YOU'LL END UP WITH 10 FEET, BOTH SIDES AND DOWN YOU GO.
SO THAT MEANS YOU HAVE AN OPTION.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO YEAH,
IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD, THEN WE'LL OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF THERE ARE ANY USEFUL YOU SIR, YOU'D LIKE TO TALK? UH, NO
[00:25:01]
SIR.SO OBVIOUSLY BEING NO ONE PRESENT, WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING AND THAT MEANS IT COMES BACK TO US, THE BOARD, TO DISCUSS AMONGST OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
ANY COMMENTS, ANY THOUGHTS? UM, I'D LIKE HIM TO CONTINUE THE, UM, THE WORK ON TRYING TO GET THE, THE BOUNDARY LINE MOVED.
YOU PUT A MOTION BEFORE TO DISCUSS.
AND THEN YOU CAN SOME OF THESE SECOND AND THEN YOU, OH, BEFORE WE JUST, SO WE MAKE A, SO YOU WANT THE DISCUSSION TO HAPPEN AS WE MAKE THE PROPOSAL, YOU MAKE A MOTION AND THEN BEFORE YOU VOTE, YOU DISCUSS AND THEN YOU PUT IT TO A RULE.
RIGHT? IT SHE MADE ONE, SHE DIDN'T MAKE ONE.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO MAKE IT THAT DISCUSSING THAT GIVES YOU YOUR CHANCE.
I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FROM THE VARIANCE.
UM, I WILL JUSTIFY MY DECISION.
UNDO HARDSHIP CAN'T BE SELF-CREATED.
THIS WAS ACCORDING TO DARRELL MERCHANT'S ORIGINAL PLAT, THE BUILDING FITS ON THE LOT.
NOW IT DOESN'T FIT BECAUSE IT WAS PUT IN THE WRONG SPOT.
THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS NOT AT FAULT.
THE HOUSE DOES FIT ON THE PROPERTY AND WE CANNOT LEGALLY GRANT A VARIANCE IN THE CLEAR WITH IT BEING A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP THAT WE JUST, WE JUST CAN'T.
NOW THERE ARE, THERE IS ONE COURT CASE THAT ALREADY APPLIES TO THIS STEEL FLUVANNA, UM, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE EXACT KIND OF SITUATION WE HAVE.
BUT THE HOUSE WILL BUILT MUCH CLOSER TO THE LINE AND THAT WAS TURNED DOWN EVEN THOUGH A BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DID APPROVE IT.
SO WE KNOW WHERE IT WILL GO WITH NO CONDITIONS.
BUT THE CODE WAS AMENDED IN 2015 TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE FOR UNDUE HARDSHIP.
AND IT HAS BECOME, WHAT IS IT? RESTRICTED, UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION TO THE PROPERTY.
AND A RECENT COURT CASE HAS WITH COURT SUPERVISORS VERSUS VALERIE DID SIDE WITH VALERIE, EVEN THOUGH HE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, DID A BUNCH OF THINGS HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO DO.
AND THEY BASICALLY SAID IF IT'S GOING TO COST HIM $40,000 TO FIX THIS, THEY SAID THAT IS REASONABLE.
AND THEY WENT ON TO UH, THEY WENT ON TO DEFINE USING BLACK'S LAW, REASONABLE, UNREASONABLE, ALL THAT STUFF.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING JOHN ABOUT WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR THE SETBACKS.
IF THERE IS A PURPOSE TO THE SETBACKS, IE FIRE SAFETY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN WE MUST UPHOLD THAT.
BUT IF IT'S ARBITRARY, IF SOMEBODY 20 YEARS AGO SAID, WHAT'S THE TOWN CODE? BUT I 10 FEET, I PICKED 10 FEET THEN TO SAY TEAR DOWN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS STRUCTURE OR COMMIT $50,000 TO SOME MASSIVE CHANGE OVER ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS REASONS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN VALERIE.
SO I NOW I DID MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY THAT IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THIS TO END UP IN COURT AND BECOME A HUGE PROBLEM.
SO WE COULD APPROVE THE VARIANCE BUT ONLY WITH CONDITIONS.
CAN A CONDITION, LET'S SAY IF VOTE ON YOUR MOTION.
YEAH, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING IT.
IF HE CANNOT GET THE SETBACKS APPROVED OR LIKE WITH THE, OR THE OTHER OWNERS AND THE PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTED, THEY'RE THE OWNERS.
THEY, OKAY, I'M TALKING ABOUT RECIT 'EM LIKE IF THEY CAN'T GET THE UH, PROPERTY LINES ADJUSTED, THEN IT BECOMES A HARDSHIP.
AND WELL THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY THEY OWN BOTH.
THEY OWN THE LOT NEXT DOOR TOO, BUT IT'S TWO.
[00:30:01]
LOTS.THE HOUSE THAT THE ORIGINAL, THE EXISTING HOME.
OH, SO THE LOT LINE THEY WANT TO ADJUST.
THEY WILL AGREE WITH THEMSELVES TO ADJUST.
THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT NOT HAPPENING IF THEY WANT TO DO IT.
WHICH, SO TO YOUR POINT, LIKE, SO I'M ASSUMING IT'S WITH FINANCING.
SO IF WE GRANTED THE VARIANCE LIKE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE CONDITION THAT THE BOND BOUNDARY LINE GETS CHANGED, WOULD THAT BE EASIER ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS FINISHED? YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YES.
BUT THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE BOUNDARY LINE DOES GET ADJUSTED.
WHAT IF WE GET THROUGH THE LEGAL AND LENDING AND IT ISN'T ADJUSTED AND THEN WE'VE CONTINUED IN OUR CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WHAT WE, BUT WHY WOULDN'T IT BE ADJUSTED IF BOTH PARTIES
SO IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEN THEY GET THE VARIANCE.
THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T NEED TO DO THE ADDITIONAL
OTHERWISE YOU JUST DENY AND THEN THEY HAVE TO DO THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD GET THEM, COULD IT BE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE SO THAT THEY CAN THE VARIANCE, THE PROPERTY, OH NO.
ONE ONE VARIANCES MAKE A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION CONFORM FOR THE LAW.
NOW THEY CAN'T BUILD FURTHER INTO THE VARIANCE.
THEY HAVE THOSE, BUT ONCE IT'S THERE IT MAKES IT GOOD.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE REASONING FOR SETBACKS.
SO IF I WERE TO GRANT IT WITH CONDITIONS, THE CONDITIONS NOW THAT SEE EXACTLY HOW THIS IS SET UP, IT'S SO KIND OF FUNKY.
MY CONDITIONS WOULD BE THAT ALL OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO AGREE THAT'S ALLY ON TWO SIDES.
SO NO PROPERTY OWNERS THERE AND THEY OWN THE OTHER HOUSE.
SO THERE'D ONLY BE ONE PROPERTY OWNER WHO WOULD HAVE TO AGREE, THE OTHER PERSON WHO WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TOWN SOLELY BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN CHALLENGE THE VARIANCE IN COURT ARE THE JOINERS AND TOWN THE PEOPLE AFFECTED.
SO IF EVERYBODY AFFECTED SAYS WE'RE ON BOARD, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING TO COURT OVER IT, THEN IT WOULD BECOME REASONABLE VERSUS CREATING DAMAGING THE BUILDING, WHICH THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO.
WHICH NOW YOU HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DON'T HAVE A STRAIGHT LINE, THEY HAVE SOME WEIRD DIVERGING LINE FOR NO REASON.
WELL THAT HAPPENS A LOT THOUGH.
AND IS IT PLEASANT OR WOULD YOU RATHER IT BE EASY? IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WASN'T.
UM, WE ALL JUST HAVE TREES DOWN THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.
REASONING BEHIND THOSE SETBACKS DOES, WAS IT IT IS GONNA BE NINE PLUS SIX PLUS WHATEVER TO THE OTHER HOUSE.
DOES THAT GET TOWN WHAT THEY NEED OUT OF THEIR SETBACK? IF NOT, THEN IT DOESN'T WORK.
SO WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT DENYING OUTRIGHT OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AGAIN, BACK WITH YOUR, UM, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS? IF WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN WE'RE APPROVING NOTHING.
WELL IF, IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEY WILL PROBABLY NOT GO FORWARD.
WE DON'T THEY DON'T NEED TO DO A VALUE.
IT'S GONNA BE MUCH MORE COSTLY FOR THEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY WENT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THEY CAN BE DONE WITH THEIR PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT THAT THIS WILL BE THE PROPERTY ON, I ASSUME.
WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE HERE BECAUSE THEY'VE NOT GOTTEN WHERE THEY WANTED TO GO WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE ISSUE.
WELL, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
HE SAID THAT IT, YOU SAID YOU IT IS 45 DAYS AND THEN STARTED.
SO YOU, YOU HAVE TRIED, YOU'RE, YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THE OTHER AVENUES.
SO IF WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS AND WE CAN, IF WE HAVE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT ARE, THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE REASONABLE, WE COULD IMPOSE THEM IF ANYBODY HAS ANY, UM, IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF WE WANNA GO THAT WAY, THEN BASICALLY EVERYONE WILL VOTE NO ON THE DENIAL, WHICH IS WHAT I PUT FORWARD THE MOTION.
IF PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE, UM, VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS THAT PEOPLE WILL VOTE YAY ON THE DENIAL.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS RIGHT NOW.
SO, AND WHAT CONDITIONS ARE YOU PROPOSING?
[00:35:01]
UH, IT WOULD BE THAT ALL THE ADJOINERS, ALL THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE AFFECTED, ALRIGHT.HAVE TO SIGN OFF AND SAY THAT THEY'RE GOOD.
THEY'RE OKAY WITH THIS HAPPENING.
BASICALLY THE BUILDING BEING TOO CLOSE, SOMEBODY WOULD'VE TO SHOW 'EM THIS AND SAY, IS THIS OKAY WITH YOU? YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BE YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
IS THIS GONNA BE AN ISSUE FOR YOU? IF THEY SAY NO, UM, THEN CLEARLY IT CAN'T GO FORWARD.
IF THE JOINERS SAY YES, UH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE TOWN WITH SOME PROOF.
WE, WE SPOKE TO THIS PERSON, WE GOT AN OKAY.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO SAY WE'RE OKAY.
THE CHALLENGES, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SAY THEY'RE OKAY.
UH, MAYBE, UH, IN IN THE STAFF, IN THE STAFF REPORT, THEY DID RECOMMEND DENIAL.
BUT THEORETICALLY WE GO YEAH, LIKE OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GONNA SIGN OFF BUT THE TOWN HAS TO SIGN OFF AS WELL.
WELL, WELL HE'S, SO THE TWO PROPERTIES, BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE ISSUED, BOTH OF THEIRS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED.
SO REALLY IT'S THE HOUSE NEXT TO THE ONE YOU, THE ONE YOU CAN'T SEE IS THE ONE OWNER THAT WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY SAY, YES, THIS OVER HERE IS FINE WITH ME.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THE ONE LOT, IT'S THE TWO THAT'S BEING AFFECTED.
SO THEY ONLY KNOW WHERE DO KNOW THE HOUSE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
IT'S BUT THAT'S NOT AFFECTED IS IT? 'CAUSE IT IT'S, IT IS, IT'S A, THERE'S AN ALLEY IN BETWEEN THOUGH, RIGHT? MM-HMM
THE ONLY PEOPLE AFFECTED ARE GO BACK, THERE'S THREE LOTS IN A ROW.
THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE ADJUSTING EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW ARE THE PARENT PARCELS.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE AT ODDS.
SO IT WOULD BE THE ONES TO THE LEFT.
THEY WOULDN'T, THEY'RE NOT AFFECTED.
THE ONES TO THE LEFT IS THE ONE THAT HIS BROTHER OWNS, RIGHT? RIGHT.
WHICH, WHICH IS THE THIRD OWNER THAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S WHAT I, WE HAVE THIS AREA ON OUR PACKAGE.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS A THIRD.
THERE IS, BUT I'M SAYING IT'S ONLY IMPACTING TWO SIDES OF THE HOUSE.
LIKE IT'S NOT, BUT IMPACTING THE BACK PROPERTY THAT LOCK THESE TWO LOCKS ARE THE ONES AT ISSUE.
THIS ONE, THIS IS ADJOINING THESE TWO PARTS.
BUT HOW DOES IT IMPACT THEM? THEY'RE NOT ADJOINING BACK THE PROPERTY IN, IN DISCUSSION ONLY, ONLY CHANGING THE SETBACK ON THIS LOT CHANGES THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO BUILDINGS.
SO THESE TWO ARE AFFECTED, THIS WOULD BE THE OBJECT.
BOTH OF THOSE HOMES ARE AFFECTED.
THIS HOME IS AFFECTED BY WHAT THEY DO HERE.
I GUESS THAT'S, I'M NOT TRACKING HOW IS THIS ONE AFFECTED BY THIS? IT'S BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, NO, I MEAN, I'M BEING SERIOUS.
HOW, HOW ARE YOU SEEING THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT THIS PROPERTY? YEAH, I GUESS I'M HA I'M HAVING A HARD TIME EXPLAINING IT IN FROM WHAT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, SINCE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO BUILDINGS IS BEING CHANGED, WHATEVER THE REASONING FOR THIS SETBACK IS AFFECTING THIS BUILDING AND THIS BUILDING.
THAT MEANS THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH THAT.
SO THESE PEOPLE, I I, I GUESS IF THEY WERE IMPACTING THIS SIDE, THEN I WOULD SAY YES.
BUT I'M SAYING THAT THE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO HOMES DOESN'T IMPACT THIS ONE ON THE ADJOINING ON THE OTHER PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT MORE SPACE BETWEEN THOSE TWO HOUSES.
IT WOULD BE THE SAME THING AS IF THERE WASN'T AN ALLEY HERE.
AND THESE LOTS TOUCHED THIS ONE, THIS DISTANCE HERE DOESN'T AFFECT THIS HOUSE OVER HERE.
BUT THEY'RE STILL IN ENJOYMENT.
SO IT'S NOT ABOUT THE EFFECT, IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT TOUCH THE AREA.
BASICALLY, IF THIS CAUSES AN ISSUE AND BOTH OF THE, AND THIS HOUSE CATCHES FIRE AND IT JUMPS THIS GAP BECAUSE IT'S NOW TOO SMALL AND BURNS THIS HOUSE DOWN AND DAMAGES THIS HOUSE, THEN THIS PERSON SAYS, THE REASON THAT FIRE JUMPED TO MY HOUSE IS 'CAUSE YOU MOVED THAT LOT.
EXCEPT THAT IT'S NOT, BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE STILL BE CONFORMING A CONFORMING LOT.
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
IT'S LIKE IT DOESN'T MAKE THIS, THIS CHANGE DOESN'T MAKE THIS A NON-CONFORMING LOT.
IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT A NON-CONFORMING LOT.
BUT WHAT I'M, I'M WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT COULD, IT COULD AFFECT THIS LOT.
NOW IF YOU PUT IT THIS WAY, IF YOU DON'T WANT THIS PERSON TO HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON IT, IT'S FINE.
THEN WE WILL CUT THAT OUT OF THE THING.
UM, SO IT'S FOR FUTURE IT ALL, ALL I WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY OUT HERE IN THIS AREA IS GONNA TAKE IT TO COURT.
I MEAN, YEAH, I, AND I'M PRETTY SURE, I THINK THIS HOUSE JUST SOLD SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS AND THEY'RE GONNA BE LIKE, NOT IN MY BACKYARD.
I GUESS I'M MORE LIKE, I'M, I'M, I UNDERSTAND CONSTRAINTS WHERE
[00:40:01]
IT IMPACTS THE PROPERTY OWNER.I JUST DON'T IF THIS, AS LONG AS THIS ONE DOESN'T GO OUT OF CONFORMING, I DON'T THINK THAT IMPACTS THIS PROPERTY AT ALL.
THEN WE DON'T HAVE THEM HAVE THAT LOT.
WHERE LIKE THIS ONE WOULD, BECAUSE THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING LOT THAT IS ADJACENT TO THEM.
IF, IF YOU'RE SHARING A PROPERTY LINE WITH A NON-CONFORMING LOT, I SEE IT.
BUT IF, IF THIS, AS LONG AS THIS PROPERTY RE REMAINS A CONFORMING LOT, THEN I DON'T THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE IMPACTED AT ALL.
AND IN THE END, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT 20 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDING.
SO WE DEFINITELY HAVE ROOM FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GET IN THERE SEATED BETWEEN BOTH PROPERTIES.
BUT ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SETBACK, I ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SETBACK.
I, I THINK THAT THE SETBACKS ARE CREATED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANAGING DENSITY.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A REASON.
UM, NOT LIKE A, LIKE A SAFETY REASON OR ANYTHING.
SO THAT MEANS THE ONLY PERSON WHO WOULD'VE TO SIGN OFF WOULD BE THE OTHER LOT WHICH THEY ALSO OWN.
UM, AND THE SO, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS IT'S OUT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU KNOW IT'S IN THE SETBACK THAT THE BUILDING'S IN THE WRONG SQUAD.
IT IS, IT IS TECHNICALLY VIOLATING THOSE MM-HMM
SO WE CAN VOTE TO APPROVE IT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.
BUT I HAVE A MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
DO WE, BUT DO WE VOTE ON THE MOTION AT HAND FIRST OR NO? DO WE AMEND IT FIRST? YOU IT, IF THAT'S WHAT, IF THERE'S A MOTION TO AMEND, TO SUBSTITUTE TO AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE, THEN YOU WOULD AND A SECOND THEN YOU'D HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT.
AND IF THAT PREVAILS, THEN THAT IS IN PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADMIT TO INCLUDE THEM.
OR WE CAN JUST GO TO VOTE TO DENY MY MOTIONS ARE
I WOULD SAY DENY AND GET THE BOUNDARY OR THE LINES ADJUSTED.
WHAT EASIER WHAT I'M PROPOSING COULD BE EASIER.
WHICH IS WHY THEY BOTHER DEEP AND COME TO THE BOARD FOR THE VARIANCE.
'CAUSE IT IS THE SIMPLER SOLUTION.
I HAVE A FEELING THAT EVEN IF WE DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE, THE TOWN HAS ALREADY SAID THAT THEY RECOMMEND DENIAL, BUT THAT WOULD BE THEIR DECISION.
OKAY, THERE'S ANOTHER SOLUTION WITHOUT US REQUEST OR APPROVING A THERE OR OF VARIANCE.
BUT THE REASON THEY'VE COME HERE IS BECAUSE THAT SOLUTION IS EXPENSIVE AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE UN RECENT.
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR MONTHS.
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE MAY TO TRY TO GET THOSE LINES DONE.
AND THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT, UM, A LENDER ON ONE LOT AND THEN A DIFFERENT LENDER ON ANOTHER LOT AND NEITHER ONE WANT TO GIVE UP ANYTHING AND OR BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THE REWORKING OF THE PAPERWORK IN IT.
THOUGHTS? NO, JUST EXPRESSED MY, IT JUST MAKES SENSE.
IT MAKES SENSE FOR WHAT HE WAS SAYING REGARDING DENYING VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS.
SORRY, I I HEAR HARD, I HARD TO HEARING DENY YOU WOULDN'T DENY IT WITH CONDITIONS.
SO OH, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S UP TO ME? WELL, IT'S UP TO THE, SHE'S SEEMS TO BE OKAY WITH DENYING IT.
I'VE MADE A MOTION TO DENY HE SEEMS TO BE OKAY WITH APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
SO THERE'S TWO MORE THERE SUSSING THAT AND THEN WE'LL TAKE THE ACTUAL VOTE.
WE'LL, CAN I BE RECOGNIZED? YES.
[00:45:02]
NOT FOLLOW THE CODE.SO WE CAN'T AGREE TO, YOU STATED THAT THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NEED TO AGREE AND IMMEDIATE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ALLEYS, WE WOULD NEED TO AGREE WE CAN'T DO THAT.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO IN TOWN.
SO, BUT IF WE APPROVE IT, THEN IT WILL BE APPROVED BECAUSE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE WITH EXCEPTIONS.
THE EXCEPTION IS YOU SAY IT'S OKAY, BUT ONCE YOU GRANT THAT VARIANCE, THEN THERE'S, THEN IT GOES WITH THE LOT AND THE HOUSE STAYS WHERE IT IS LOT LINE STAY WHERE IT IS AND IT'S NOW, BUT YOU DON'T NEED THAT CONDITION AT THAT POINT.
GRANTED IT BECAUSE YOU'VE GRANTED THE VARIANCE WHICH YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO.
NO, IT'S WITH THE CONDITION OF YOU APPROVING.
THEY CAN'T LEGALLY APPROVE IT.
AND WE KNOW, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE THE OTHER SIDE.
I DON'T THINK THE TOWN CAN LEGALLY APPROVE A VARIANCE.
I MEAN IF WE COULD DO IT, THEY JUST WOULD DO IT.
BUT I YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO THEY'RE NOT GRANTED THE VARIANCE.
YEAH, WE ARE, OUR CONDITION IS THAT THEY SIGN OFF ON IT, BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
SO IF THEY CAN'T DO THAT, THEN THIS, I WOULD SAY WE CAN'T, CAN'T, THEY'LL SUE, THEY'LL TAKE IT TO COURT.
IF WE APPROVE IT, IT IF, IF WE APPROVE IT, IT CLEARLY, IT'S CLEARLY THEIR FAULT.
THEY SELF-INFLICTED THE HARDSHIP.
SO THAT MEANS WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT GIVE THEM THE VARIANCE STRAIGHT OUT.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU WOULD, I'M SAYING LIKE WHATEVER, I MEAN, BASED ON THE TRAINING, LIKE IF AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO DO IT, I DON'T THINK WE CAN APPROVE OF THE VARIANCE BECAUSE NOW I DID NOT, I HAD NOT SEEN THAT.
I HAD SEEN THAT OTHER COURT CASE, BUT I HAD NOT SEEN THAT ONE.
THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS SOMETIME THAT I, AND THAT'S RECENT, BUT YES.
AND THAT WENT TO THE APPEAL COURT OF, BUT THAT VIRGINIA, BUT THAT'S THE, THE PLAINTIFF, LIKE THE, THE PERSON THAT THEY, THE TOWN DIDN'T SUE.
RIGHT? THIS WAS ONE THAT YES, THE COUNTY DID.
THAT'S WHY IT'S BOARD SUPERVISOR.
THEY APPROVED IT AND THEN THE COUNTY SUED.
NO, WELL THE BZA DENIED IT AND THEN VALERIE KEPT GOING, TOOK IT ALL THE WAY TO THOSE APPEALS.
AND APPEALS SAID BZA AIRED AND THAT VALERIE GETS THEIR VARIANCE.
BUT I'M SAYING VALERIE INITIATIVE INITIATED IT 'CAUSE THEY TOOK IT ALL THE WAY BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES DENIED.
SO YEAH, I MEAN I WOULD, I WOULD VOTE YES TO THE DENIAL MOTION.
SO WE HAVE A, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE ON TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
EVERYONE VOTES TO DENY MERITS.
SHOULD DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, BUT THEY'VE ALREADY VOTED.
UM, THINK WE NEED TO DO ROLL CALL NOTES IN THE FUTURE.
CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL PLEASE? NOW MR. JACKSON, THIS JUST IS I, YES.
HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ABOUT THE LAST ONE? AGENDA? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I HOPE YOU MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
I SECOND NEED A ROLL CALL PLEASE FOR VOICE VICE CHAIRMAN SCHMIDT? YES.