Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the regular schedule meeting of the board of zoning appeals. The first item on the agenda will be the approval of the July 16th, 2025 um special call United Unified Development Ordinance of the Work Session minutes. Do you have a copy of the draft? Are there any corrections or additions? I

second that.

Then probably move motion and a second that the minutes from the July 16th, 25th special call unified development session minutes be approved. Do we have any discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor show by raise of the right hand. The minutes are approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda is the July 27 22nd the regular meeting minutes. Do we have any corrections or additions?

Mr. Chairman, I move they be approved as submitted. I second that. It's been properly moved motion and second that we approve the zoning board meeting from July 22nd, 2025. Do we have any discussion hearing? None. Those in favor of the motion show raised to the right hand and we have one abstension. I was absent sir.

He was absent. The motion is carried. The final orders have been circulated and we move directly into new business. We have a various requests to permit reduced side and rear yard setbacks on properties located at 208 Kershaw Street Southeast that is on RML to the city. Has this been properly posted?

Uh yes, Mr. Chairman, it has. Were there any inquirs that you wish to share with the board? Yeah. So, um the planning department did receive two written comments regarding the request. Um one was included in your agenda packet. The other was received after the agenda packet was uh delivered. So, you should have a copy there um in front of you at the Thank you.

presentation. 208 Kershaw Street Southeast is a 0.10 acre undeveloped lot located midb block in the novel Aken neighborhood of the city. The property is zoned residential multif family low density RML. The request is for a variance to city of Aken zoning ordinance sections 4.2.1 2.1 to permit an approximate three foot side and rear yard setback along the southern and eastern property lines for the construction of a new single family residence. Pursuant to section 4.2.1 of the city zoning ordinance, the primary structure on lots zoned RML must be set back from the side property line 10 ft and 20% of lot depth not to exceed 50 feet from the rear property line. Based on the proposed location of the primary structure on the property, compliance with the zoning ordinance would require the home come no closer than 10 feet from the side property lines and 16 ft from the rear property line, thus requiring a variance. Information provided by the applicant about the request as well as an approximate site and floor plan is contained in exhibit A and B of your agenda packet. This is one of two site plans that was submitted. I believe um this is the preferred layout of the site. Essentially, this is the primary structure in question outlined here for floor plan pan. This is the south the rear property line and southern property line and this would be approximately 3 feet from both of these. Um there is an optional detached garage here on the northern side. Um but it's my understanding that this is the preferred site plan and At this time the applicants are requesting only the setback uh variance for the the primary

structure in question. Um as mentioned in the staff report the applicants do own both of these properties here. There is actually another property line that divides this property approximately somewhere in here but they do also own both of these two separate parcels which are developed. Um property to the north also has a home on it. Um that is quite close to the southern property line as well. Um this is the second site plan that was submitted by the applicant. I believe this is the less preferred option um but a alternative site plan that was submitted basically sort of a mere flipping of the the plan having the the detached garage on the southern side. Um this is a floor plan. Um again submitted by the applicant. You see the carport is um on the north side. Just give you a general idea of the the layout of the home that was submitted by the applicant there. Uh as depicted on the zoning map attached as exhibit C in your agenda packet. Adjacent properties are zoned residential, multif family, low density RML with detached single family, excuse me, residential dwellings. Little hard to see here. Um, get a closer picture, but yeah, there doesn't appear to be any sort of multif family um, use. There are some lots that have multiple detached dwellings on them, but there's no sort of like apartments or duplexes. As far as I can tell, they're primarily detached dwelling units. Um, in the immediate area, uh, development along Kershaw Street Southeast in the immediate area, as we mentioned, um, generally consists of a mix Oops, let's go back to this one

here. um generally consists of a mix of mid to late 20th century as well as some late 19th century single excuse me century era single family construction on lots deeper than they are wide. Um several other homes in the area also appear to be located in required setbacks but given the age of the neighborhood they would be considered legal non-conforming. Um, you can kind of see here we mentioned that the property to the north. Um, the structure is probably closer than 10 feet to the property line. This one here as well looks like they probably would have needed a little bit larger setback in the rear. Um, again, pretty typical for the neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood, so some of these setback standards um weren't in place at the time. So, but they're considered legal non-conforming because predate the the ordinance. Uh exhibit D in your agenda packet contains photographs of the property taken by staff depicting the existing conditions of the property. This is just a picture of our notice in the front yard rather probably the rightway but adjacent to the front yard. Uh this is just a picture of the site. Um looks like there was some some grading or vegetation removal but um as you can see it's primarily um just just grass and an empty lot there. These are the two homes to the south that I mentioned that are owned by the applicant applicants. Um, and presumably the request is going to be in this approximate area here. So, shifted back again towards that southern southwestern property edge with the proposed garage probably going somewhere in here. And just to give you an idea of the existing structures to the south, this is the home to the north there. Just to give you some context of the

surrounding uh properties that would be impacted by any setback variance. Um, planning staff's evaluation of the request as well as the applicant's response to the required six variance criteria can be found starting at page two of your agenda packet. This concludes staff's presentation. Questions, be happy to answer them.

Questions from the board to the city? Let's see. Uh to the cities, uh the the lot size is what size in terms of the square footage or the dimensions? The dimensions of the lot?

Yeah, I believe it's it's about 55 by 80, I think. So, it is sub 60 ft wide. Um so, it it without objection to the city, it would default to the seven and a half ft. Yeah, there is a section in the ordinance um that allows for a reduction from that 10 foot to seven and a half. Um that's primarily I guess under the purview of the building official though. Okay.

So yeah, if it is sub 60 ft, it can be reduced. Um the building official would ultimately have to make that call. I believe there are additional requirements for fire suppression um as far as meeting that code to reduce that distance. So changes to the material perhaps. Um I think also like restricting the number of openings in the wall, that kind of stuff, but that comes from the building official if he determines that it's possible. They're going to have to meet the same code with the with the with a granted variance anyway. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Um and then the rear wouldn't change regardless. It would still be the 20% or the 80t, which is the 16.

Correct. Yeah. There is no there is no section of the ordinance that exempts certain depth um from that. set back. Final question. The second lot that's in the rear that that property is what goes all the way to the um what's whatever the that street is it comes out on. Right. That's got basically a long Yeah, that's my understanding. It's a little hard to see here um because the outlines in gray um but yeah, essentially it's sort of like a T-shape. It kind of but then proceeds all the way out to the all the way to the right here. Yeah. So, it does not Hershaw Street access. That's all that's all the property of that house. Yes. It's all one parcel here. Yep. And then this is a separate parcel.

Yep. As well. Yeah. Got it. No further questions. Thank you. Go ahead.

To the city. Clarify for me. The question before us is whether we grant a variance for three feet. Is that correct? Yeah, it's approximately three feet. Um this the site plan didn't have an an exact scale. Um um but yeah, it's approximately three feet along this this property line here and this property line here. Um now, since the applicant does own both of these properties, there was some mention of basically sort of increasing the rear like depth here. Um so potentially that that could be an option. they would still be required to meet that 20% uh threshold. So that would increase but also decrease at that ratio. But as it's currently configured, yeah, it's approximately three feet. Um meaning they would need to be I guess seek relief from about 13 feet from the standard. Standard would be 16 feet as as it's currently configured. The standard is 16 feet rear set back.

Correct. 10 feet side set back. Correct. Unless the building official allows Unless the building official allows seven and a half. Correct. But the question before us is whether we grant a variance for three feet. Period. Is that correct? Yeah. On on both the the southern side property and the rear property. These two property lines here. Are there any guidelines for fire safety distances for fire safety or public safety?

Um, yeah, typically that's that's 15 foot building separation. Um, yeah, it sort of depends on the configuration of the the pre-existing homes material they're made out of, but I assume that any reduction would also require some additional code compliance from the building official or building department. I'm not familiar with with our building code. Um, but yeah, typically if it if it gets into a question of if the structures are too close, there has to be additional code requirements in place. And that is related to fire suppression. One more question. Back to the city.

I'm I'm still hung up a little bit on this 7 and 1/2 foot 7 and 1/2 foot side set back versus 10. Uh if an applicant came to us, same size lot 55 by 80, tenth of an acre and had a layout not showing 10t set back side set back but 7 and 1/2t set back would they still have to come before this uh group?

It's my understanding that that would not be the case. The zoning ordinance does exempt lots that are sub 60 ft from that 10 foot standard as long as the building official signs off on it. It's my understanding that they won't sign off on it unless certain building code standards are applied. Um but yeah, I believe you know they have the ability to do that if it's sub 60 ft. you uh know the width of the building, the proposed building. I don't um the applicant might be able to verify that. Um

sorry, it sounds like about 28 ft. 28T I came up with 30 and seven in inside to inside. That's approximate. I mean there is a there is a floor plan.

So if they placed this house in the middle of the lot, it would be with the exception of the rear yard setback, it would be legally conforming because that would be about 12 and a half feet on either side to the north and to the south. Right? So if if it were a 10 foot if the building official required a 10 foot setback, then they would essentially have what's that? 35 feet of width to work with, right? It's 55 ft wide less 10 and 10 minus 20 that's 35. So they would have up to a 35 foot. If it's 28, it falls within that, right? Yeah. It would it would be a little bit wider there. It could go a little bit wider.

So then then the issue would be just the rear yard setup. Correct. Yeah, the length of the structure, proposed structure would also, you know, as as proposed, you know, does get into that that portion of the yard. So, yeah, it would, you know, if it were centered on the lot, yeah, really there they would still need relief from the rear yard setback though based on the length of structure. What what is the what is the current proposed setback from Kershaw and what's the requirement from the roadway or sorry from the front property line so the ordinance standard is 20 ft um now there's currently laid out how

position on that lot in respect to the 20t I'm not sure um what again the applicant may be able to clarify the exact distance but there is another section in the ordinance that if it is zoned residential multif family low density and it's infill they can essentially meet the building lot line of the adjoining property. So that I think that is a little bit less than 20 ft but basically they can match that you know the existing like frontage of the adjoining property or adjoining structure. Um I think in this site plan it's uh a little bit less than that. Well the way the way it's laid out on this thing it's actually in front of those two edges anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean that that may be the case. Again, this I don't know how. So, I'm just curious what what of the 20 ft they're not asking for a front setback variant. So, are they right at 20 or is it um I'm not sure. The applicant may be able to to clarify that. But yeah, um I'm just trying to see what there's a play with because if he's if he's pushing it all the way back to three feet, does he have anything going forward to stay within the 20 ft with the proposed layout? That's what I'm trying to get after.

Right. Yeah. Again, the applicant may be able to provide more clarification on that. In discussing their proposed footprint, it was only ever a question of of side rear. So, presumably, it either a met the setback standard or basically aligned with the surrounding property

in a a garage or carport. Where would that fit in this? Um so if it were attached to the structure that would also be required to um basically get a variance if it were sub 10 ft. If it's a detached accessory structure there is an administrative waiver process by which they can seek relief from that standard um as long as surrounding property owners are okay with that request and there is no conflict with um engineering or again a concern from the fire department. um as proposed it's detached. Um but yeah, one way or the other, you know, based on the site plan, they would need to come back for some approval for that location of that,

but it's not part of this application.

That's my understanding that there is some flexibility in their site plan proposal. Um it does note on there it's, you know, optional, I believe, in in one or two of the documents submitted. Um, so yeah, I believe it's something they'd ultimately like to, you know, put on the site, but for now I think they're just primary concern is the Any other questions from the board to the city? Thank you. The applicant State your name and address and read yourself into the minutes, please.

Morgan Milner, 836 Lree Road, Aken, 29803. Mr. Milner, you receive a copy of the staff report. Do you wish to embellish that or just respond to and from question from the board?

I'll just go over some of the things you guys have been discussing. Um, first, China does own the properties and the the requested setback is mostly the rear. Um, in the uh home plan, you can see there's probably a way to shorten the the house a few feet, I don't know, six, seven feet without any big losses in the house. Um, so there's a few feet that we could get rid of there to and I think what we did discuss when we were first filling this application out rear setbacks look around town there is no 20% that's just something that was made up if you go to her home there's that that it would be I don't know it might be 10% the rear setback the other home that she owns. No telling what that distance is. It's not much though. Um so exhibit B is the the preferred plan. Um and as another discussion that Max and I had was about detached um structures that that I believe you said it was a zero lot line.

So um detached structures are required to be 10 foot off of side and rear property lines if they are not automobile related. Um if they are they are that would also be ten and and but they can be in the front yard again they would still be subject to to front yard setbacks. Theoretically there isn't anything stopping you from requesting it be up to or on the property line. Okay.

Um but again that would require approval from our engineering department, the fire department and any neighboring property owners. So, and in the letter I believe that these folks behind this wrote about the um the closeness of the structure, there was a house there. Um don't know when it burned down. I want to say probably in the 90s. Um so they did have neighbors at some point. Um, and if you look at this structure with with the carport, there's around 15 ft between their home and the side of the car or garage, whatever it would be. Um, so to make it uh whatever setback we need to get to in the rear, we could just redraw the line via survey. But we thought we would just come try this route to begin with, which to me makes more sense because we could easily make landscaping and possible fence to make it very appealing for the neighborhood. Explain to me where 15 feet between the garage and and the neighboring house to the north is

I said roughly oh roughly 15 ft but you have according to this that looks like it's the proposed three foot setback the space between I mean there's about seven from their home talking about structure to structure not line to line I'm not talking lines structure to structure okay I would say that according to this it appears to be um four feet maybe three feet from the property line six feet I come up with six seven feet that the garage would be from the neighboring house that's pretty from a is that not enough no I just don't see where you you mentioned

I've seen you said roughly I don't I don't have a tool right here Okay. Is that a 20 foot square garage? What What's the I believe it was and it that could be shrunk as well. We don't have to have a What's the What's the proposed What is the dimension? I don't know what it is on here, but I can give me my phone for a second. I can tell you. It's 55 ft. That's 30 and 22 is that's 22 by 23. 22 by 23. 22 feet and 28.

That doesn't leave much room left over on 55 foot lot width with your house is 28 ft. That's what I'm saying. We can redraw the lines, sir, on other home. I'm just going with what I'm looking at. And that's 51 feet the total. 22 feet for the garage, 28 feet for the house. That leaves that's 51 ft. There's a little bit of variance in 2 and 1/2 ft on either side. The the the Kershaw side of that lot is shorter than the rear side. I don't know by how much.

Okay. Well, like I say, I'm going with what again. We can shrink the garage or whatever carport. I'm not we're not dead set on these dimensions. We can it's nothing we've bought, nothing. We've decided we we're requesting this. Let's work together. Right. Well, there's and to address your point about the 20 foot rear setbacks.

Yes, you're right. There are many many homes that don't meet that but they're legally non-conforming. We've got to go by the existing uh zoning ordinance which requires that. So we don't have the luxury of just dismissing. Sure. Another thought is to to put a driveway on the stop side down the side. There's your setback. I'm not understanding what he's saying. I'm sorry. I'm not understanding.

And that would be the driveway. That would be a to get the set back. You follow me? No. I don't know how you the driveway.

So, you'd create a flag lot. But y'all don't like those. So, why not just Okay, this Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions. Is it okay? Yeah. Um, what is the purpose of the build? Is it something that you're going to be moving into or is it an income property? No, it be a primary primary residence. Yes. Okay. So, it's an owner owner user and the the other properties around it. She owns She owns those two homes and she would rent the one 204

214 is rented now and she would rent her home out. So like 75% of the homes in that block are rentals. Has there been any discussion about going up with the build as opposed No. to to decrease the amount of space it takes on the lot? No. There's not I don't know of another two-story home on that lot. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions from the board to Mr. Milner? Thank you. Do we have others to speak to the the zoning the variance request? Would you state your name and your address, please?

Hi, good evening. My name is Simei Moore. Uh my husband, Bill, is here as well. Uh we own six properties on Kershaw Street Southeast in this block north of Colin. We own 205, 209, 215, 219, 222, and 224. Uh Kershaw. Uh we are in favor of you granting the setback for the construction of a single family uh dwelling. We are opposed to the construction of a garage andor carport because we do not believe that the garage and or carport would be uh beneficial to the block. There are no garages andor carports on that block north of Colatin. However, the majority of the residences are small and uh are have varying setbacks to the lot lines, but we believe that is part of the charm of the historic district that you do have a a villagel-like atmosphere where you have dwellings that are somewhat close to one another. Uh we think that the most important thing is would be the design and the quality of construction of this new residence so that it fits in and complements all the other uh dwellings on the street. Um the ones that we own are about 150 years old and are uh historic. They're part of the original historic Akin overlay. Um some of the other uh residences on the street are from you know 1970 1950 etc. But um we uh think that a new uh tastefully

designed tastefully constructed residence on the lot would be of benefit both to the neighborhood to the street and to historic uh the historic district. uh the current uh vacant lot. It's like a void there. It uh it really looks like something's missing. So, um that's our qualified support for the variance, but we do oppose the garage. Anyone has any questions? I'm happy to question. Yeah, I have a question.

Yes, sir. um of the properties that you own, what what's the average square footage of those properties, would you say, or is it all over the board? They vary from uh I think about 900 square feet to uh maybe 1,600 square feet. Okay, close enough. So, adhering to the variance as it stands, I believe to the city. The calculation was you could probably get about 1,600 square feet roughly if we with no variance. Yeah. Yeah. Was it 186 16- 1800?

Yeah. Using our GIS that was an approximation, you know, as best I could. Okay. The online mapping. Um and again, that's that's centering on the lot. Right. Right. that and with the should should outside of this body should he be granted the seven and a half foot variance? I think we your calculation was about 2,000 square feet upwards. Yeah, at the 7 and 1/2 ft side. I can look in our memo here. Yeah, it looks like with the with the seven and a half foot sideyard setbacks, um the buildable space on the lot approximately 2,000 square feet.

So without without a variance, he's looking at building a structure probably upper twice to your average holding. So yeah, that would be fine. But of course, you have to keep in mind that ours are historic and we're were uh I think they were uh historically they were built to house uh workers for the mill at the time which was over on our part. So, um, you know, conflating the square footage of our cottages to a new structure might be a little uh pressing the point. You know, today in today's age, modern age, people want a little more elbow room, more living space.

Yeah. No, I it wouldn't be holding it to the same standard. It'd be virtually doubling your standard. That's and I think the other thing is if you're opposed to the garage or the carport. Yes. Okay. Eliminating that and they have no need for the variance. That is true. That is true. Okay. But I just think that allowing as I said to us the side variance. Correct. The side variance. Yeah. To us the more the most important thing is the design of the structure and the quality of the construction. Sorry if I may. No no no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I apologize for for omitting this from the staff report, but the the the property is located in one of our historic preservation overlays, the historic district. So, um you know, it would be subject to design review. Design standard. Correct. Yeah, that's part of that permitting process.

Why are you opposed to the garage? Uh because I think the garage uh we are Bill and I are very sensitive to the I guess to the historic nature of the street and to the aesthetics and I just think it would interrupt the the the visual flow and the unity the architectural unity of the of the street even though there are variations into the age of the homes. For example, the one on the corner, I think, is a 1970s uh bungalow that has been very nicely and tastefully redone. And uh I think everyone on the street is very grateful for the very tasteful um restoration or renovation that that's been done. Uh a garage would just be uh you know, something more from u suburbia. nothing against, you know, suburban planning or suburban living, but I just don't think garages are something that you you would uh you would see um and certainly that I would not I do not want to see on uh Kershaw Street. I just don't think it would fit in frankly.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong. If this variance is granted, this has nothing to do with the garage, but they could come and build it if it's granted and we have no control over that. Correct. Okay. No, I understand. I just wanted to go on the record about the garage. Mr. Chair, uh, Miss Moore, you and your husband did an excellent job and thank you. Thank you. Watch it being done for several years. you you've been awarded uh recognized by the city of Aken and so forth with your work and having lived in that neighborhood for a very long time. I appreciate what you've done.

Thank you. But again, you commented that they are historic. Yes, sir. 150 years and and so forth. uh this structure, granted that lot is a vacant lot. And I agree, it'd be nice to have a a building, a a home that would fit in with all the others sitting in there to kind of match what's what's in the general neighborhood. And again,

design review would have to have comment on that. Whether or not we whether or not this board applies the or or passes the variance or not, it still if they plan to build there, it still has to meet design review standards as well as building official u approval and so forth. So just a comment, I appreciate what you said. Thank you. And I kind of agree with you that I drove around for a while this morning and I didn't find a garage anywhere in the immediate vicinity. So, I appreciate what you're saying. Okay. Just a general comment. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, board. Thank you. Need some effort on the bridge now. Okay. An in an an additional question from the board to Miss Moore. Do we have others to speak to the var request? Please state your name and your address, please.

Good evening. My name is Tim Murphy. My address is 6 Minata Court. Um, I'm here with my wife Amy Murphy. Uh, we own the home at 202 Kershaw Street, the White House that you've been showing in the photos, and sits directly beside the property that they're requesting this variance on. We strongly oppose reducing the setback from 10 feet to 3 feet. Um, the house that we own was built, as you said, it's legally conforming, but it was built before these ordinances were put in place. And as you can It's it's close to the property line there. Not only is the house close to the property line, there's a gas pack unit that sticks out another three or four feet from there. Um, if another home is built about 3 ft away, the gap between the buildings would be about the width of a hallway. Um, that is not consistent with the intent of the setback requirement and would harm both the safety and character of our neighborhood. It would lower my property value and reduce privacy and sunlight, create fire and emergency access concerns, and set a harmful precedent um for future variances. In addition to opposing the setback, we also strongly oppose the garage. Um if you showed that earlier slide of that how close that would be One more is the one that shows the lot lines was the uh one that had the existing structures and the and the planned house on the on the property.

Yeah, that one. Let's suppose the next one with the garage. As you can see the, you know, that house is sitting extremely close to the property line. And as I said, we have a H gas pack unit sticks out the side of the house. So, it would basically be about the width of a hallway between the two houses. Um, as I stated, the house is already positioned very close to the property line. If another home is built 3 ft away, the gap between the buildings would be very narrow. It's not consistent with the intent of this setback. It would lower our property values, reduce sunlight, privacy, and um these changes benefit the property owner, but the permanent damage to the surrounding home and community. I I respectfully urge you to deny this variance. I also would just like to say that, you know, again, I agree that there are no garages on anywhere on these streets. It's just not the character of the neighborhood. There's plenty of ways for them to develop this property without needing this setback. It just requires, you know, a smaller home and and more in keeping with the neighborhood.

Question from the board, too, Mr. Murphy. I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman. We have no say over whether the garage stays or goes, Mr. Chairman. Do we have any we don't have any say so it's an all or nothing right okay and Mr. Frank yes and know if you grant this variance request that garage could be built that close so by granting this you're basically allowing for the garage to be built in the future meeting

just like to clarify if I may um given it's proximity to the property line, it would still probably need to come through our administrative waiver process if it's detached. Surrounding property owners would be notified of that request. And typically, if there's opposition from neighboring property owners, we're not at liberty to grant that administrative waiver. Um, but then it would could theoretically come back through either a variance process or some redesign. But yeah, as as configured, it would probably trigger that admin waiver process if detached. Um neighboring property owners are you know provided that information about the request and are allowed to comment and yeah typically we do not approve those admin waiverss if there is concerns from p neighboring property owners. Does the board have any additional questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you.

Thank you.

Let us speak to the about the garage. happily take that off. Um the only setback that I really want is that rear setback. That's it. So if we don't have it doesn't have to have a garage or carport, whatever. So if that's a determining factor, I'd happily X that off the Just for the record, would you state your name and address? Sure. Morgan Milner, 836 Road Southwest Aken 29.

Thank you. Final call. Do we have others others to speak to the various requests six court? Um, I believe if if the variance is granted tonight, it's for it's not going to just affect the back. I mean, this request is for a three-foot variance on all sides of property. So, you know, what he's saying is is not true because it once this is granted, it's a done deal. Do you understand? But his request is not for just the back or you know it's for all sides of the property.

Thank you. Thank you.

We are now in a period of discussion. Mr. Chairman,

u for the for the sake of discussion, uh I'm going to make a a motion uh uh and I would move to deny a variance to section 4.1, correction 4.2.1 2.1 of the zoning ordinance to permit an approximately three-foot side and rear yard setback along the southern and eastern sides of the property zoned residential multifamily low density RML and generally located at 208 Kershaw Street Southeast track uh tax parcel number 121-30-8-00003 three that the final order shall run with the land and the final order shall be recorded in the county Aken County ROD office.

Do we have to have a second before we can discuss? Yes. Okay, then I'll second that

discussion. We Yeah. Can I'm confused. Can we allow the rear yard setback only? No, that's not what this request is. Okay. I shouldn't make that decision. That's the city.

It's my understanding that you can condition, you know, the approval however you see fit as long as it's enforceable from from an ordinance perspective. So theoretically these these conditions listed here are are strictly for your consideration but they can be changed based on the request. I mean I guess as long as the applicant is is okay with that.

I think we have to be careful with that because we're still setting a precedent of creating a lesser setback within the area. My concern with that is a setting a precedent and b in this particular case the contiguous properties are owned by the applicant which is is is beneficial and great but in a situation where another property owner were to come and apply to that and and they're not the owners conveniently it we are in danger of setting a precedent for someone else to to do the same which would be my reservation to vote for that amendment to the motion. Um and I think at the heart of it, you know, six the six criteria have to be met. Um for number three, realistically, you could build smaller or or go up. Again, I can't speak to that since we're in the historic district. The the DRB would have to rule whether or not that's a favorable design. That's that's not our in our purvey, but I think there are solutions that could be found to decrease the footprint. Obviously, creating a second story would possibly create more space for the homeowner and could be a plus. Um, but even number six, with the authorization of this variance not being a detriment to adjacent property, we have a property owner speaking against the current application. So, just by those two criteria alone not being met. I you know we we can't really vote in favor of the motion as it is as I see it. I think if it was centered on the lot and possibly a smaller footprint maybe in essence of what was previously there before it burned down um

would be more in keeping with the area and the ordinance in my opinion. I wanted to point out that to vote in favor of not the motion but in favor of this request that the six criteria would have to be met and I agree with her especially that uh criteria number three isn't uh it wouldn't restrict the utilization of the property. The property would just have to be built according to the zoning regulations. And then number four, which you didn't mention, but it's just my uh opinion that the conditions are not the result of the applicant's own actions. All this is because what the applicant is wanting to build and so it doesn't meet three, four, and it's debatable about number six, but I'm just saying that three and four are definitely not met. Mr. Chairman, as I made the motion, there is duly seconded and so forth. I want to point out that that uh this board has to determine and express in writing that the criteria that's all criteria one through six, not one, two, and maybe five. All six criteria have to be met. That my understanding that's correct. Is that

that's correct?

Okay. Now given if this is uh voted on and denied or when it's voted on and if it's denied um the the applicant can come back. Can he not u to this is a question to the city. Can he not come back and resubmit a plan not within a year or anything like that, but within some reasonable period of time showing that he the plan could meet the at least the 7 and 1/2t set back on the side and maybe something in the back that the building official and fire department could act upon without coming back to us or would still have to come back to Um yeah, that would sort of depend again on the the reworking of the site plan. Um if if there is an application denial, the applicants are are precluded from submitting the exact same application for a one-year time period. So they could either theoretically rework the site plan still seeking relief from the the zoning ordinance or they could submit a plan that meets the ordinance. um if they are still seeking relief from the ordinance, it would have to be different from this particular request in order to be considered within that one-year time frame.

Okay.

But they could look at it if they can't meet the 10. We we talked about the seven and a half foot setback based on the opinion or approval of the building official and fire department. Is that that understand? That's my understanding of that section of the ordinance that the building official does have the ability to reduce that setback standard from 10 foot side setback standard from 10 foot to seven and a half on both sides um if it meets certain building code criteria and the lot is zoned RML and is sub 60 ft in width which appear to be at least those two cases are approximately 55t in width and is thank I'd like to make one more com.

It's not a matter of what we like, what we don't like about the design or anything like that. It's the ordinance and these six criteria have to be met and they're not. So therefore, there's no way I can vote in this. I can vote in favor of the motion to deny, but there's no way I can vote in favor of reducing property to three

ft for the vote. Those in favor of the motion show by raise of the right hand. The motion is carried unanimously to to deny the various requests. With that, I call for the conclusion of this meeting. That's the last item on the agenda.

So move, sir. Second.