Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

very tall, beautiful, mature tree. White oaks last forever. So, this tree could easily last 100 or 200 years planted in the right place. Um, this is the kind of tree that you you don't plant for yourself. You plant for your children. It takes them a long time to grow. They're not fast growers. Uh, but they stay very strong. They don't drop limbs. This tree is going to have beautiful red fall color. And it also produces a nut, uh, which is really important for wildlife. It is deciduous, so it's going to drop those leaves in the, uh, winter. And as it matures, it has a really beautiful flaky bark that that is only found on a white oak. It's a really beautiful tree, one of our great natives and uh one of the one of the best performing oaks in the Auburn area. [Music]

Citizen survey presentation. I'll turn this over to you, city manager.

All right. this evening. Well, two years ago, you had a presentation about the citizen survey that was just videoed. We were in the thick of COVID. And this time, uh, we have Jason Marado who's joining us from ETC Institute. He's joining us via Zoom. This is a 15 to 20 minute presentation. Um, and I didn't want him to have to travel here from Kansas City for such a a short presentation. So, he's going to go over everything. You'll be able to interact with him. He can't see you, but he can hear you. Um, and so you'll be able to ask questions and interact as if he's in the room. Uh, just a just a quick note, the the survey, as I mentioned late last week, was nearing ready to go. We didn't have it quite finished for today. I anticipate it being ready tomorrow to distribute. Um, I'll offer you both print versions and links to the website and for the general public. This presentation is being recorded now and anybody can watch it, but we'll also edit it and put it on the citizen survey site just for this piece. So, all that will be released. It is likely tomorrow if it is not.

Recording in progress. Well, there we go. Recording in progress. Greg is making sure and we will uh we will be able to uh get this out uh very publicly this week. Perfect. So, Jason, if you are ready. Okay. Yep, I'm ready. Um my name is Jason Morano. I'm with the ETC Institute and today I'm going to go through the the results from the 2022 community survey that we just finished conducting for the city of Auburn. Um, we most recently conducted your survey in 2020 right before the pandemic in February of that year and we first conducted your survey way back in 2006. Um, so we've been doing

Um, good evening everyone. We're going to call our board of zoning adjustments meeting for Wednesday, October 1st to order at 4:30 p.m. Will Faulner here. Mary Boyd here. Emmy Sorrels. Leticia Smith here. Marty Hefren here. Elizabeth Strain here. Charles D Baron Jr. here.

All right. We have the minutes from September 3rd that has been disseminated. Can I get a motion to accept the minutes as printed? Motion to approve minutes. Second. Will Faulner? Yes. Mary Boyd? Yes. Leticia Smith. Yes. Marty Hefren. Yes. Elizabeth Strain. Yes.

Okay. I will now read my opening remarks. Any persons agreed by any decision of the board made within 15 days after such decision appeal to the circuit court having jurisdiction according to section 908.02 of the zoning ordinance of the city of Auburn, Alabama. The board consists of five regular members and two supernumeies. the super numerous participate in all discussions but only vote when necessary to assure their four voting members and have a board consisting of five members when possible. All decisions are made with a roll call vote and a concurring vote of four members is required to approve an application for a variance. Our regular members and super numerous in attendance can participate in discussion but only regular members can vote unless called upon by the chair to vote. Thank you. All right, ready for our first order of business. Thank you. Can y'all hear me? Okay,

barely. Yeah. Okay. No. Okay, we can now. Maybe I need to raise it some more.

Too tall. Okay. Um well, good evening, guys. We have two cases on the board of adjustment uh meeting. So this is the first case right here. Um it is labeled under new business. So this is a board of zoning adjustment request for case number BZ2025006. The applicant is Joby Watson. Uh he is requesting a variance to section 511.03-J which is accessory use limitations. um which also states that the total floor area of all accessory structures are limited to maximum of 50% of the floor area of a principal structure per the city of Auburn zoning ordinance. The property is located at 8342 Oyola Court and it is located in the rural district with a conser conservation overlay uh for the lake ogle tree wershed. So just keep that in mind. This is a proxy map kind of just showing the area and surrounding location of Ocola Court. You can see the highlighted area is the property in question. Excuse me. You can kind of see in the vicinity map the area or property is kind of located near Society Hill Road Sand Hill Road. So kind of think southsoutheast Auburn uh pretty far away from the core of the city. And this is kind of just the whole um proxmap slashbuilding site in question of the property. If you could zoom in for me, please. I'm going to kind of just give you all a little bit of discussion around this case. Okay. So, the main discussion here is the applicant is requesting a variance for an accessory structure. This applicant has received a variance

back in 2016 regarding an accessory structure already. That accessory structure is highlighted in yellow. So that highlighted yellow box is already an accessory structure existing on the property in 2016. The applicant did receive a variance, two variances actually. one for the accessory structure to be located in front of the property because usually the structures have to be located behind as well as a variance of 7.2% the maximum 50% allowed of accessory floor structures. So in this 2016 case the applicant was proposing a 768 square foot accessory structure. Now, he already had a 359 foot shed that's now not located on the property, but at the time it was. So, it was factored in the total calculations of accessory structures. So, in total combined in this 2016 case, the applicant had 1,127 square foot of accessory structures and his actual square footage of his house was 2012 square foot. Meaning that he needed a variance of 7.2. to of the allowed maximum 50% square footage to allow the sexy structure to be here. This was granted in 2016. So, kind of just giving you some details on a previous case regarding this property. Now, since the 359 foot structure has been demolished, the 768 footage air structure still remains. And now the applicant is wanting to build a 1,440 foot shed kind of highlighted in this red box right here. So this is the proposed accessory structure right here. The applicant also has highlighted in blue right here a 9 by10 shed which is

about 90 square footage. Um, the applicant has stated that he does plan to tear down this shed, but at the time of this case, I'm considering it just because it I'm not sure if he's demolished it, you know, either yesterday or today. I just don't have all the information there. So, that's why I included it. So, with that being said, the total square footage of all the accessory structures combined is 2,298 square footage, which is 114% of the entire square footage of his house, which again is 2,112 square foot. So, he's requesting a variance of 64% I think like 0.21 percentages. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. So the blue box is still there, but it is being proposed to be demolished. Is that what you said?

Yes, ma'am. The application or the applicant has stated that he does plan on demolishing that structure, which gets it right about uh 90 ft of square footage, but it would still be I think with that calculation be about 109% variance requested with that. Can you repeat your number one more time of all the structures added together? Yeah, you're But I know it's a little much. Yes, it is. So, yeah. So, the variance request is 64.21%. Mhm.

And that is calculating 2,298 square footage combined accessory structures. That also includes the 90 foot shed. Now, if we get rid of that, that goes down to about 109%. Right. Okay. So, do we know anything about what this accessory structure is or is not? We do. Okay. The applicant has stated in his application that he intends to store his uh vintage vehicles and his boat. He recently has lost access to store those boats and vehicles. So, he is looking to store them on his property.

That shed is on the property line uh adjacent to the other property. Yes, sir. And was that a wooded area? Can the neighbor see that shed if it was there? That would be a question for the applicant, I would say. So, I haven't really done any site analysis in person. And so, to that point, did we hear anything from have we received anything from any of the neighbors about in favor or not? I have so so so I met with the applicant last week and I think the two adjacent neighbors, two or three adjacent neighbors uh sent an email saying that they really they were really unaffected by it. And I guess kind of if you go back to the prox map of it, they were unaffected by it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They were not affected by it.

Okay. Um not that one that shows his owner. All right. There we go. As you can see, uh, one of the since with with it being on the periphery of of the town, some of some of his neighbors are in the city, some of his neighbors aren't. And so from a use perspective, I mean, that matters a lot. But regulations, I guess, kind of from what we have versus what is in the county, as you all know, um, vary greatly. So, versus there are really no regulations in the county about what you can't really have on your property. So, okay. So, repeat that one more time. can go back to the other picture or other or layout and zoom in a little bit.

Yeah. So, so, so yes. So, I received I think two or three emails just from people who live over there. Um, just kind of email on his behalf that they were they were that they were not opposed to the granting of the variance. Uh, I think kind of like the applicant may may mention with him living on the periphery of the city, they live in a neighborhood where some of the people on the street do not live in the city. They live in the county. They have not annexed yet. We don't have any pending applications for this area or anything. Um, and I guess I don't it's not really really relevant just kind of from our standpoint, but that's it's worth mentioning that some of those people are not bound by city regulations. So, right now looks like there's a driveway that goes back to where that shed is.

Yeah. And I Yeah. And I I guess the the applicants here, I mean, he he'll definitely kind of get into it. I think is for some of you who who received his email um and in my conversation with him he's pretty passionate about the things that he does and his intent with the the with the assessor structure. So speak oh I I I guess so how this will work planners present the case they ask questions of the planner and then they'll open the public hearing and so during the public hearing anyone who wants to speak for against can speak and then also the applicant speaks during the public hearing as well. Mhm.

So the 50% rule for the square footage, is that across the board in the city of Auburn? Does it like for you could have a huge lot and a huge house or a small house on a big lot? I'll answer that correct. All right. Blanket rule.

Yeah. So great question. So yes, with the exception of places that are rule that meet the lot minimum. And so that's one of the distinctions about Mr. Watson's property. This is a non-conforming rule lot. it does not meet the 3acre minimum. And so if he was threeacre lot wouldn't matter just because I guess if you live in a rural area and you do meet the minimum then you can have a barn. As we know barns are normally dwarf houses. Um but that's that's in a situation where you're threeacre lot probably out once again on the periphery of town but this is this is odd and I guess kind of where this is kind of and I guess this isn't recently annexed or anything. this has been in the city for a while. But so so I will say the blanket 50% does apply and I think in other areas like when there's in traditional subdivisions I I would say probably doubly enforced by an HOA not really just us. So

how does this take into effect the impervious surface for the lot? They well under the ratio for that with the new structure right? Uh ISR was not considered for this case. It was strictly looking at the floor area ratio. footprints of everything. Um, what kind of hardship is he claiming other than just financial not being able to store his vehicles in a storage bed?

I don't Yeah. So, in talking talking Mr. Watson, so what we kind of walked through the hardship was really just more so from this is something that he enjoys doing. This is something that that he wants to do, something that he was doing at another location. He didn't disclose just kind of what happened and why that why that situation changed, why he needs to do this. Um, and I guess just kind of in the moment when we were talking, I think he's included it in his presentation. Uh, we looked at the possibility of connecting, I guess, the existing garage that's currently detached from the house that's on, I guess, what's I guess what's the north? I guess that's the Yeah, I guess on the south side of the property. If he were to connect that, um, then that would get rid of that square footage and then he have room to build it. I guess there's a significant grade change. Um, so really I guess from a hardship standpoint, from the city's eyes, house is already occupied. He already has accessory structures. Um, there's really no hardship to adding it. I guess you're not really entitled to that. Um, so I guess technically speaking, from our from our legal lens, there would be no hardship. What if he expanded his roof line a little bit to get up the the percentage up or what if he had does he have plans to expand his house?

No, I No, I guess he he can talk about that. I said that's that was one of the scenarios that that we worked through. And I guess he said he he'd entertain it because I guess under under the as with applying for the variance, there's a possibility that you all could deny the variance. And then for him to do this, he would have to entertain connecting uh the current detached garage to his house to get rid of that to make that no longer an accessory structure that then add the accessory structure to his property. So that is something that I guess he I don't know how much he's exported. Like I said, we we had that conversation last week. Uh, but I guess just kind of from my context, if he is planning construction of one thing, I imagine, like I said, I mean that a home renov is very cumbersome. And then also when you're talking about that, I'm very sensitive to, well, why don't you just connect it to the house that does cost money, that is effort. Um, so I mean I I don't want to be uh flippant about that,

right? And I know one case is not predicated upon another, but in 2016 we just approved a variance. uh is it be I guess I I I'll say just kind of I think the tenor of the board uh has changed greatly and and I I think there was a propensity to see a lot of a lot of gray in areas and kind of rectifying things in in the in the in the zone A ordinance from the BZA. But I guess kind of that's that is not the role of the BZA. The BZA is just much more is this a hardship? What does this what does the code say? Not necessarily. Should the code say this or not? or like do I think this code needs to be different?

And I and I absolutely agree with that. And the reason I asked that question because I noticed that we were making a distinction that this was a rural property and Yeah. And so and so like I said from a rule standpoint, this is currently a non-compliant lot from a lot size standpoint. Like so the minimum lot lot size and rule is threeacre lots. But to annex into the city upon annexation, every single property is given the rule designation. Even if there was something kind of in the I guess immediate proximity of town that was not annexed, it would be given the rule of designation by default a hardship though.

Uh I would say no. So so I guess kind of like if you you can reszone out of that you can but I guess kind of in this situation that it's not really necessary like like so for a lot of people who are just residential for what they want to do. If you have any ambitions to farm or do anything, one, why would you annex? Like I mean like like I mean because you're opting into a lot of regulations that you don't really need. I think Mr. Watson when he bought this house, I think this this property is already annexed. It's not like he annexed his property in himself. Um and so I guess kind of it's a non-compliant lot and the only thing that it affects would be this because I think the from an accessory structure size standpoint like I said if you meet the 3acre minimum it does not apply to you anymore. So that's that is that is the out of it. And so I guess even though he would still be kind of considered a large lot neighborhood, I said this is really kind of barely a neighborhood with half these houses not really being in the city.

Any more questions? All right, we'll open the meeting up for the public hearing. If anyone would like to speak, please come forward and make sure you sign in if you haven't already done so. Um, I'm Donnie Spears. I'm honestly don't have much to say. I am a neighbor of his and I just wanted to come in person to say I don't have any issues with him expanding uh his his story. And I actually hope to do the same thing myself future. So, I'm want to see how the process works. That's all I got.

Can you tell us? Can we ask questions? Yeah. Oh. Oh, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, wait until the public hearing's closed. Gotcha. Okay. My turn. All right. Bear with me. I'm Mr. Watson. Hello. Hey, Mr. Watson. So, so I guess can you stop the clock? No. All right. Um, okay. So, I imagine if if so, you have three minutes to speak, but I guess they can ask you questions for clarity afterwards. So, don't feel like I guess if you don't get through all of your stuff, they can ask you questions that way. I can still kind of further elaborate. Okay. Um, so it is three minutes and so I some sometimes I just have to cut people off and I feel really bad about it. So, there you go. So,

okay. So, this is a a very rural part of town. Um, I don't know if y'all did get my email or some some did, some did not. I've inherited some old vehicles. My passion is keeping these things alive. Um, my kids are part of it. We were leasing a building in Opaikica. We recently lost that lease and we can't afford to store rent a commercial building to store these things. I can't do U lockets, any of that. This was kind of our only option. It's the smallest footprint where we can fit everything in it, protect it. Um, I've talked to all the neighbors. Every neighbor I've talked to has no problem with this. And our our restriction is not the property, it's the smallness of our house. Um, if we had a 4,000 square foot house, which is normal for these times, and don't live in a little humble home, um, we wouldn't even be here. So, that's that's what not my argument is, but my argument is we live in a little house. We heat it with wood burning stove. Like, we're simple people. I want to build a really nice shop. It's going to match the house, and we're limited to our small home, not the lot. So, with that being said, I've got some pictures of the neighborhood of the street. I don't know if you did get those. Oh yeah,

you can even see how wooded it. See if you can pull those up. And any questions that y'all have? Yeah, I guess just Yeah, just just keep talking. Don't wait for me to do that.

Um we really don't have any any other option. Um we can't afford to like again lease a building. This is the the restriction is not the lot. be different if we were trying to get over the lot line or, you know, right right on the property. We're well within that. We just we we can fit it. It's going to be great other than the limitation of our 50% ratio. And there's in the neighborhood there's several large, not that that helps, but several large accessory structures that dwarf ours whether they're in the city and they have a bigger home or our neighbors are in the county and the guys cost street are in the county. And so, um, yeah, we're we're just really hoping we can get this.

There's some much bigger houses out there, too. Yes. Yeah. We have one of the smallest homes in the neighborhood. Yeah. Is there an accessory structure that you can build that would be compliant? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's 42 seconds. That's Yeah, I guess I I guess. So, we got to fill up the whole three. No, no, no. You're good. I I guess Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so I guess if you're done talking, I guess we assuming he was Okay. I I think you guys understand what I'm trying to do here. Um it it's going to do nothing but help the property. It's we're not it's just to literally house my family heirlooms. I mean, as silly as that may sound, it that's a big part of it. Working on these things and keeping them alive is a big part of what I want to do.

Okay, that my question. Is there an accessory structure that can be built that would not require a variance? Have you considered that? No ma'am. Can you explain?

Yes. So, so any we're we're already any sort of accessory structure would not be able to house I mean we could could do a I mean someone mentioned a carport that's not going to be able to house these vehicles. Um the garage we have now it's air conditioned. It's set up. That's where, you know, I restore them all myself, do all my own engine work and things. That's where where I've been doing that. Um, but but this new structure would have to be able to house these vehicles. Um, and there's I don't know a possible option to be able to do that and not have to get a variance. So, is this your hobby or your primary career? No, man. 100% hobby. Okay.

Yeah. I wish I could make career of it. No, just a hobby. So both my grandfathers were big in it. Mainly my my father's side and yeah, we just we try to keep them in the family. How many vehicles does this you talked about boats? Is it just a boat and a It's two boats and then it's 1930 model A. Uh it's a 1971 CJ5, 1966 Apache K10. Um and then an old vintage aircooled Porsche. So it's a year uh 86 is it for sale?

No sir. No sir. It might be if I can't find a place to keep them but that's about seven vehicles. Six. Seven. Five. Six. Yeah. So you were planning on having lifts in there to kind of stack them. No sir. I don't I don't want to try the building has to be so tall. Yeah. I'm trying to keep the footprint down. Gotcha. It's it's easy to go up. I don't want to do that. Got um with that next to the house. It would just dwarf Gotcha. the house and we'll do a really pretty like decorative roll up doors look like an old carriage house. Um it's it's it's going to be beautiful. It's just get getting the okay to do this.

Yeah. And so I I guess we we have the they're working they're working up the pictures now. Okay. Okay. But our lot's extremely wooded. Um Yeah. So it's all the pictures. Extremely wooded. Like I said, we're just we're limited due to the small home and we could say, "All right, we're gonna expand the house just to get but that doesn't make sense. I mean, we obviously couldn't afford." Yeah. Yeah. So So I'm sorry. Yeah. So it's it's all the it's all the pictures that say front yard, porch view, sideyard. Yeah. I labelled Yeah. It's all of those. Yeah. Yeah. So they it's I know I know you can't see what they're doing, but

you see the street view as well. Yeah. Yeah, I took that as well. So, that's the the the garage now. And to attach that, there's a a probably five foot grade difference. And that just that would look terrible, I think. Um there you go. So, the proposed new garage would match the look of that one in the house. Yes, sir. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to do Cedar Post out front and Yeah, it's cool. Cool. You ever use your cars in like Auburn parades or anything like that?

No, sir. Um, we did go to a car show this weekend. I was I'm not really big into showing them. Um uh so so no, we did go to one this weekend up in um North Georgia with some friends, but we didn't didn't take anything. Then maybe some street views. So you're the dead end of the culde-sac. You're the last house.

There's one more that's kind of in the end. So yeah, sure. That's okay. So that's the street. So the culde-sac starts right at that telephone pole on the right on the left uh where the actual turnaround is. So that's looking that's I took a few shots from the house but or from the street but that is looking at the house. Um this was taken two days ago. So you can see that the visibility is minimal. That's probably the last picture is probably where you can see the most down the driveway and it's still minimal. Um and that's the nature of the whole whole neighborhood. Everybody's very wooded and protected I guess off the road. I said, I guess, yeah, it's not the it's not that the lot can't fit it or that we're trying to get over the impervious ratio. It's that our home is small and and and just can't can't get over that 50%. Any other questions? Okay, no more questions.

Is there anyone else to speak? Okay. Well, we will close the public meeting and open up for board discussion. I think he's being punished for having a small house. I think it's stupid. I agree with that. He's got a modest house. It doesn't You don't have a impervious uh surface issue. You if to make it work, you have to build a bigger house, spend more money on fuel, uh energy, materials, all to get a bigger shed. It seems brain dead. It's a roll site with low visibility. Nobody can see the show. If it was me, I'd go and build it anyway if it got rejected.

That might be true, but I have to we have to consider what we're here, who we are, and what our role is. So, I mean, I get that the house is small. I mean, I But is there a hardship? I mean, yeah, I think we have to keep a small house. Who's punishing him? The city is. Any other comments? I mean, I just think we just have to always remember why we're here. We have zoning rules for a reason and we have to make decisions as required and we are here to see if there's any hardships.

Is the non I want to go back to the nonconforming rural deal. So, he was annexed into the city, but it was rural and he has a less than three acre lot.

Yeah. And so like like I said, I think this is probably the only stipulation that would probably affect somebody who had a non-compliant rule lot having a rural area just kind of from a from uh having accessory structures. Um like I said, I think that's and and even from an ISR standpoint, normally when you have houses when you have lots this big, like I said, I think it's still like 1.3 acres. Uh ISR's ISR really isn't a concern. Um, I think this is the one stipulation that if he was three acres that we wouldn't be having this discussion

and I'm assuming a lot of his neighbors are I mean he said that several of his neighbors have large accessory structures because they probably need the three lot minimum.

Yeah. And so yeah. Yeah. So so then this is one one of the things things that we discussed. I know he he mentions that like the actual number is derived from the size of his house. Like I said, I mean, from my perspective, like I mean, we wouldn't like if it was a threeacre lot, this really wouldn't be relevant. Um, and and I guess from him having the smallest lot in the in the neighborhood, and I guess also coupled with them having the smallest house, but also like I said, several of the houses on this street are not in the count, not in the city at all. Um, and so, and so if someone, so from my perspective, if from anyone out there who is like, maybe I want to annex into the city of Auburn and you have uh interests that do not comply with the city of Auburn standards standards, don't do it. Just don't do it. Like you're opting into way more regulations. Um, so yeah, like I said, I think from a rule standpoint, from a non-conformity standpoint, from a lot size, I think the one the one thing that he is asking for a variance for, I think is the only thing that that is you're actually impacted by. It just you wouldn't be able to you would be held to the standard of not being able to exceed 50% of your square footage of of the primary structure.

Any questions? Someone like to put a motion on the floor. I'll make a motion to approve BZ2025006. Approve means pass. Good. Uh, second. Will Faulner? Yes. Mary Boyd? Yes. Leticia Smith, no. Marty Hefren, yes. Elizabeth Strain, yes. Excuse me. The super numeries have not been called to serve, so they can't vote. Do we have enough? How many? You have four voting members. So, we did have four, right? We have four. And four is the forum.

Okay. Let's do it again. Wait, wait, wait. So, hold on. So, I guess for this though, Stephen, so there would have to be So, if there are four, right? like the the chairman still has to call the super numerator to serve before they can exercise the power of a regular member. All right, cool. Okay, so for this and I guess why this is relevant um because if if they need four like you need four votes period it's not like if you because a quorum for the bylaws is four and that but then you would need all you need a unanimous vote unanimous vote for a variance. All right so my point would be you you would need to you need to call one of them up.

Can I Okay, can I do that at this point? I believe it's too since you've already considered the item. I believe it would be too late for this item. Okay. Okay. We can't rewind the tape and revote. Yeah, I guess I would be like, well, I mean, you could revote, but again, the super numearies would not be able to participate since they were not called to serve prior to the or one of the super numer was not called to serve prior to the item coming before you. So, whose fault is that? That is the chair's fault. So,

all right. So, like I said, so on on variances on variances, you need four you need four fundamental votes, period. Whether it's four members, whether there are five, um, y'all can revote or you you can move forward with with the vote that that you can't call because how did she know that she needed to call super numerator? You know what I mean? I probably should have known. Well, how would you know? Well, it's you don't know if you don't know. Yeah, it's it's all in the I would have known. They're in here. I assume they vote. They're in here. So, what do we What do we want to do, Stephen?

Well, I mean, they had a vote, the vote, unless somebody wants to make a motion to reconsider. I make a motion to reconsider. I'll second. It would have to be. You were in the You voted yes, though, so you could make the motion. Yeah. But then again this again the vote the people that voting would be the same. Yeah. And then people who voted would not change. Right. All right. So then after that then I think we would need to call up a super numerary for this for the second vote. Not for this vote. Not not for this item. For the second item on the agenda for the second. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There we go. Okay. So Marty Marty So Marty motioned. Will seconded it. Okay. Will Faulner? Yes.

Mary Boyd. S Leticia Smith made a mistake. Okay. Yes, Marty Hren. Yes. All right. Okay. So, now we're on to the second item. Okay. And at this point in time, if you wanted to call a super numemerary, you now would be the time to do so. Yes. For the record, I would like to call supernumeary uh Liz strain to the BCA voting process.

Awesome. I'm just teasing you. You know that. All right. So, this item is a request for variance to section 715. Wait, hold on one second. Just for the record, I want to confirm for the applicant that that passed for him. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry. My ignorance. Thank you.

All right. So, you're good. Uh so, this is an item to uh for a request for variance to section 715, items B and C of the zoning ordinance. Uh this property is located at 2416 South College Street which is um on the offramp of I 85 North and it's located in the comprehensive development district. Uh the applicant has stated that they are looking to replace the sign structure and sign face to allow for easier maintenance um and upkeep of the non-conforming sign. Item B of section 715 of the zoning ordinance states that signs cannot be structurally altered in order to prolong the life um of the non-conformity except to meet safety requirements as specified by the tree building official or engineer. And then item C is that signs cannot be altered as to increase the degree of non-conformity. Um which includes the replacement of sign faces. Uh billboards are although they're not explicitly stated in the zoning ordinance as non-conforming signs, off- premise signs um are prohibited by section 604 of the zoning ordinance. So that's why the billboard is considered a non-conforming sign. Um I can answer any questions. These exhibits are images of the current sign and then uh he's provided the same dimensions that the billboard is currently it would just be replaced um as a new sign. So I can answer any questions you have though.

Why is he needing to expand it to prolong the life? Uh he said I think the applicant stated that it's to uh give him the a better ability to maintain and operate um to a reasonable standard. So is it going to be turned into a LED type of uh billboard or can the same type of structure, same type of material, that kind of thing? Uh same type of structure, same type type of material. Um, if otherwise stated, the applicant can mention that.

Guess I'm not 100% clear about the alterations that are being requested. A replacement to the sign face, which I believe is this portion up here. Um and I guess the structure as well. So the entire thing is being replaced for better. Oh, taking it the whole thing down, I believe. So the the applicant can mention that if um I'm incorrect, but what was that last thing you said? Uh the applicant can clarify on that if if I'm incorrect on that, but I believe they're taking it down and then putting it back up. Okay. So, this is current and we don't have anything that shows us what the future state would look like. No, ma'am.

So, how long do they own that sign? Uh, I'm not sure of the ownership. I know Lamar, I believe, owns it. Um, but it's a little hazy on on what I know sometimes Lamar does rent space land for their signs. If this is a rented space, have we heard from the land owner on? The land owner is Leigga. Thank you. Any other questions for the planning team?

Okay, we will now open the meeting up for the public. Yes. I'm actually um Did you sign in? I didn't yet. Okay. Kevin told me I could do it after. You can. You can. Absolutely. You can. I'm John Benner. Um, thank you for allowing me to come before you today. I'm I'm consulting with Liga. I'm a authorized representative for them. I'm consulting with them. I'm in the real estate business. And

the clarity, you know, got to the the the point the owner of the land does not own the sign. And so he is hindered by not being able to replace the sign to taking care of the sign or doing anything with the sign. And so the objective is for him to be able to go in and put his sign in. And it's not at this point. And I think even on a replacement, it would have to come through the same permitting issues and standards. Yeah, we can talk about it when you're done talking. Huh. Yeah. I'll normally like this in like a Q&A. So, I mean, you just got to have to get through what you're saying. Um,

yeah. So, so it it as to your question, Miss M. Smith, it

yes, it's going to be replaced and you don't have idea now other than the dimensions will be the same, but they would still that replacement sign would have to go through the process and be in accordance with all your current. The only thing that threw me off a little bit, and I think he explained it to me, but I we didn't think we were asking to prolong or increase the degree of nonconformity of the sign. That's really not an objective. I think it I think it's the the replacement makes it non-conforming. I guess sounds like I'm trying to do something more or worse per the code,

and that's not the objective. of this. He is simply wanting to since he does not own that sign, it's on his property and I think some things have occurred with the property since uh he purchased it. I I'm not sure all the history I should be. I apologize, but um he is simply wanting to be able to own that sign as it sits on the property. In order for him to do that, he would have to be able to replace it. It's that's nuts and bolts.

Okay. So, processing sequence of events. So, we're saying that you don't own the sign, you own the land, and you to replace it. You have to own the sign. So, I'm just trying to understand what happens first, second, third, because it sounds like we're getting ready to go into then it's going to have to be another step. So, what is the sequence of events to make this to to to Yeah, just explain that to me. And I don't know who. Me, too. I don't know. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, it's all you. Well, I mean, my understanding is simply that if we got the variance to replace it, then we would have to come back to the city and go through the entire permitting process. Yeah. So, I don't

replace it and then the city gets to say it is going to comply with what the variance states that it and we that's why we included dimensions and everything. Yeah. And so, and so I guess kind of how variances work. You guys grant variances for the minimum of what is required. So, normally what that would mean if somebody needed a variance kind of like last month of 2 feet on the minimum lot width

or kind of like Mr. Watson's situation, he needed to exceed the 50% rule by, you know, however many percentages or whatever like that's strictly defined. I guess that would be defined in this kind of what this is. I guess for those of you who have not looked at our very riveting and engaging signed ordinance, it is signs do not regulate content. Signs, our sign ordinance regulates size and also location. Just kind of like we're like Reed mentioned, you cannot have an off-site premise. You cannot have an offsite sign in the city of Auburn, period. All the ones that are are non-conforming and when they go down, they cannot go back. And so that is what he is talking about. So if you so pretty much every single billboard in town, every single off-site premise sign in town, if it is hit by a car, if it is struck by a tornado or whatever, you cannot build it back. Okay?

And so what they're asking for is they would like to voluntarily take this down and then put one back. And so from so that's what the variance is for. But then I guess on the permitting side from on our end, um I don't know how we would permit this. I guess we would need very strict dimensions of what they could build because like I said, I mean on on our end, this isn't we wouldn't allow this. There's no safety issues with a sign though, right? Yeah, I guess not. No. So, I mean, anybody could just go, "Hey, let's just tear our sign down so it can last even longer."

Yeah. Well, so and I guess kind of from from my perspective, I mean, I I don't know if you've I'm sure you guys have ridden on Opaca Road. I'm sure you guys have ridden on North Dahoo and seen some of the other billboards that are not these. Um I would say this this sign's probably in pretty fair condition. Uh I would say compared to some of the ones that are on old older wooden structures um that are not steel. So I guess I can I'm not a structural engineer or anything, but I mean just just from you know my layman's eye. Uh instead if like a small plane hits this sign it can't go back up. Nobody gets hurt um and it gets torn up that sign can't go back up. Correct. Right. So the it's offsite because the land owner he he doesn't own the land that it's on. No, he owns the land.

No. So what this this is off premises commercial advertisement. The products advertised on that billboard are not sold on the premises. So I think to answering the previous question, the reason they are coming the owner is coming before the board and not the sign owner is because the zoning applies to the property owner. That's right. And so the property owner has to get the variance before the sign owner could then proceed to rebuild the sign if it was torn down. So Lamar's So Lamar's maintaining the prop the sign itself like they're going to retain ownership of it. I missed the first one. Lamar is going to retain the ownership of the sign. Not if we get the variance. So and see Liddigo would like to own his own sign. They want to own the sign. That's right. And the sign's not going to be the sign's not going anywhere unless a plane hits it.

Right. Um it's just a matter who owns the sign. Okay. and the inability to replace it in his mind is a hardship because it's his property and can't really do anything with that sign because he can't replace it. So, are we trying to make a distinction because it's a replacement versus to your airplane hitting and it falling down. I can't put it back up. So, are we trying to distinguish between it's a replacement so it's not coming down? I mean, I feel like we're we're Yeah. I guess so. I think I think what what what what the board is asking for is just clarity on kind of what what what you're asking

and I guess kind of what what is your hardship down? We are not asking for the we are asking to replace the sign. Okay, that that is what we're asking. Okay. So the definition of replacement when you're talking about a sign the signage the structure this wooden structure is there. So what constitutes this? Is it the structure and the current signage that makes the signage or is it just the structure and I can replace a piece of paper in a sheet protector for example. So what is what I'm So I'm looking because I think that's the diff differentiate the how we differentiate because signs

because I guess so are so you're not talking about replacing the advertisement you're talking about replacing the sign entirely that way it changes ownership the totally which would I assume it's going to replace the advertisement too but that's not what I'm asking. Yeah because Lamar did takes that correct. Yeah. If they own the sign, if the owner now gets the sign. So, so this passes for say that's right. And Lamar's take their sign down will put a sign right back up where Lamar had theirs. Next day, 24 hours. He said give them 24 hours. Yeah. And so, and so I guess kind of happen. Is there What's the current lease standard for Lamar's? Is that currently in place for multiple years? Yes. But I don't I don't have that lease.

Yeah. And so so I guess kind of to clarify for everybody, the the advertising on the sign can be changed. Advertising on the sign is currently being changed. It's maintained by Lamar. As I said, all of this would be would be to allow the sign to change ownership pretty much. Cuz I'm a Michael B. Jordan fan. Okay. Good. Why is changing ownership in the variance discussion? Because they want to they want to take down the existing structure. They want to they want to remove the current sign and then put a new one in its place and they can't they can't we can't do that. They can't build a new one. I understand. Okay.

So then so then I'm just want to be clear. So then I don't want us to talk about we just changing ownerships because if a sign comes down it can't go back up. So that's a fact. Correct. So then we start changing things and we start talking about well it's really about the ownership and it's about really a person. So it's not a big fight deal but at the ultimate at the end of the day if a sign goes down it can't go back up. They want the variance to put it back unless we give the variance to dore again to go against what the the code is. Okay. All right. And when they bring it back up they would change ownership. Okay. Got it. All right. Yeah. Any more questions for for him? Are we still in the public hearing? I guess

we're still in the public. Yes. It could be someone else that sit down. Yes. Unless you have Yes, we have no more questions for you. So, I'm just going to let me just beat on this a little bit more. Public hearing is would need to be closed before the Okay. So, we'll close the public hearing open for board discussion. So, there anybody else that wanted to I'm assuming no one else. No one moved. Okay. So if the sign rusts and starts to get dangerous, then the city will come in and take it down. Yeah. And so so I I guess that that that probably question that would be a there is a separate process to deal with that that's not before this board's perview.

Okay. Fine. Let's say a car hits it and it's obviously damaged. It's leaning. It's got to come down, right? So there's one is an accident, one is just naturally falling apart. So before it starts to fall apart, if I'm the sign owner, can I say, "Hey, city of Auburn, I'd like to replace this sign with a safe sign." Justice could correct me if I'm wrong, but again, because this is a legal nonconformity, there is a 50% threshold. So if it if the value of the repair or replacement exceeds 50% of the value, then they would not be allowed to make those repairs or to make that and if it comes down completely, they would not be able to make put up a replacement under the current zoning.

Yeah. So, so, so I guess they would be able to maintain the sign and kind of fix it up into the 50% threshold. That was also another thing that we dealt with at the last meeting. Um, but really this is just about like I said, if it if it were hit and taken completely down, they would not be able to put the sign back up. uh if they would be able to maintain the sign and do regular maintenance and things like that and do I guess like a extensive repair as long as they did not exceed the 50% uh total value of the existing sign. If they take this down in one day and put up the other one then it's just blatantly non complying with the rules. Correct. Because just skip over exactly the same. Right. Yes.

Correct. And so and so that's that's kind of the thing. I mean, for all all the all the billboard owners, all the off-site perma sign people in town, no. Um, someone came in asking about the sign on Noble Like I Road. That's been down for several years. Like, hey, I'd like to put the sign back up. It was a hard no. There was no discussion about it. Okay. Um, and so, and so, yeah, I think all of the all the billboard operators in town are kind of aware that this is that these are the stakes in Auburn, and that's why a lot of them locate outside of the city limits. So, but it's it would still be exp considered expanding a non-conforming use by taking it down, but they could potentially build it the sign a little bit bigger. I guess that wouldn't exceed the 50%.

Yeah. So, so I guess kind of on this um like if technically they could do that and I guess but we have those regulations kind of in place for dwelling units and kind of primary structures like I guess like single family houses and whatnot. But I guess like on a sign, I don't I don't I'd have to look at the code and kind of see if we had anything that spoke to expanding the footprint of a sign like the square footage of it of the facade.

I suspected all the sign on there are looking at this session right now trying to see whether we any other questions coming. I mean any more discussion? Anyone like to put a motion on the table? As a reminder, regardless of how y'all feel about voting, all motions must be in the affirmative. So all motions are motion to approve said item, whatever the item is. And then you can you don't have to vote in line with the motion even if you make that motion. But all motions need to be in the affirmative.

Trying to figure how is that said in my head. Motion to approve BZ 2000 2025007. Second. All right. Will Faulner? No. Mary Boyd. No. Leticia Smith. No. Marty Hefren. No. Elizabeth Strain. No. All right. All right. So that is our last case of the evening. Are there any announcements, staff comments?

Man, I really wish I could tell you I would not see you guys for another several months, but that is not the case. I'm pretty sure we will be meeting again next month. This is fun stuff. Um, so so yeah, I mean the I don't know what's going on. I need to send a variance. I need to send send an email out to some some folks uh that they probably just need to apply for variance for some stuff. So that is where we are. Um I I know we had a bit of a several month hiatus, but that that hiatus is over. Yes, is obviously over. Okay. All right. So this meeting is adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Thank you. See, how would you know to do that? I would.