Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good evening, and welcome to the September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Town of Chapel Hill's Board of Adjustment. It's now a little after 6.30, so the meeting will come to order. With Mr. Taz LeGue working remotely this evening, we are graced with Mr. Alex Holloway's presence, and he's going to serve as the staff board liaison this evening. And serving as the board's attorney this evening is Mr. James Baker.

Mr. Holloway, if you would, would you call the roll? Certainly. Emilio Garza?

Present.

Alan Fishkin?

Here.

Joe Weiner? Here. James Bartow? Here. BJ Warshaw? Here. Dr. Wartman? Here. Chair Grasty? Here.

All right. With six members present, the chair declares that we have a quorum and we can conduct our business. So the first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. It was sent out to us by TAS on Friday, August 28. And I just wanted to make sure everyone had an opportunity to look over it. And if they did, does anyone have any objections or amendments to tonight's agenda?

Move to approve the agenda.

Second.

OK, we have a move to approve and second. Mr. Holloway, could you call the roll? Certainly.

Emilio Garza? Yes. Alan Fishkin? Yes. Joe Weiner?

Yes.

James Bartow? Yes. BJ Warshaw? Yes. Dr. Wartman? Aye. Chair Grasty? Aye.

Great. Let's see. Are there any announcements from the board or from the town?

No?

Great. Seeing none, we'll now go ahead and review the minutes of our last meeting, which was on July 2 of 2026. First of all, I hope everyone has had a chance to look those over. And assuming that they have, anyone, again, have any objections or amendments to the draft

Do I hear a motion to move forward and approve? Move to approve.

Second. OK. We have a motion to approve, and it's been seconded. Mr. Holloway, could you please call the roll?

Emilio Garza? Yes. Alan Fishkin? Yes. Joe Weiner? Yes. James Bartow? Yes. BJ Warshaw? Yes. Dr. Wartman? Aye. Chair Grasty?

Yes, affirmative. Motion carries. The minutes from July 2nd have been added to our official record. And now with all of our housekeeping portions of the agenda behind us, and there are no pieces of old business on the agenda, let's move to address our pending petitions. Are there any petitions before the board tonight? Good. Seeing none, we'll now turn to the first order of new business on our agenda. That is a dimensional variance for 219 Glen Hill Lane. Mr. Holloway, if you've prepared something, you want to go ahead and swear them in first, or do you want to do your prepared remarks?

Sure, we can swear them in. And is there anyone else from the audience that intends to speak tonight? Do you swear to the best of your knowledge that the information you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. I do.

OK, great. Thanks, Mr. Holloway. We look forward to hear your presentation.

I appreciate it and a pleasure to be here. As mentioned, my name is Alex Holloway. I'm with the planning department. And before I begin my presentation, I ask the chair to enter my presentation and all materials previously shared with the board into the record for this case. So moved.

It'll happen.

So the case before you this evening is a request for a dimensional variance to the property located at 219 Glen Hill Lane. So if you look to the screen here, the property we're talking about is outlined in yellow and the subject property is located in a single family neighborhood east of Franklin Street. The property includes one single family home and is subject to street bed setbacks from both Glen Hill Lane and Glen Hill and Glendale Drive. The property is subject to 26 feet street setbacks, and the applicant requests a variance to reduce the street setback to 20 feet to allow for construction of a storage shed. As usual, you can vote on one of the two resolutions this evening. Resolution A will direct staff to draft an order granting the variance, and Resolution B will direct staff to draft an order denying the variance. And with that, I will pass it over to our two applicants.

Before you bring up the applicants, I need to do one last quick thing, piece of business on my side. There are three things we, of course, always talk about before we hear a case. And that is, does anyone have any relationship, any conflicts of interest with the presenter's financial obligations with him? Good. Anybody, has everyone had a chance to review the site? Had a chance. Don't necessarily have to have gone, but I want to make sure everyone had a chance to do that. And has anyone had any ex parte communications regarding the matter outside? Good. Great. Well, now that we've done that, we'd love to hear from you guys.

I am trying to switch it over to present. It appears not to be. Transition.

That's a really pretty picture.

Slideshow? Did you try that? I did.

Let me exit out of this and see if that...

Hi, everyone. Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to present to you tonight. I'm Coulter Brinkley. This is my wife, Kelsey. And yeah, we live at 219 Glen Hill Lane here in Chapel Hill. Moved here a little over two years ago, and we're requesting zoning variance for a shed. So yeah, essentially what we're asking for is to allow the construction of a 10 foot by 12 foot shed to be placed around six feet within our 26 foot mandated front setback within our home's R1 zone. We believe that the variance preserve the intent of the ordinance and will not adversely affect any of the neighboring properties or general public safety. Here's kind of a survey that was done when we purchased our home. I guess one thing to note on this survey, I think it is a little dated and shows a 28 foot setback. But anyway, the proposed location of the shed is shown in the green rectangle. I don't know if there's any questions about that. If not, we'll move on. Just some additional photos of our home. And just kind of a visual representation of where the shed would be placed within the six foot encroachment of the setback from Glendale Drive. I think one of the unique parts of our property is the topography of it. So the variance, we believe, is necessary primarily due to this topography. It's very hilly. There's a significant grade and changes within the grade that have required retaining walls by previous occupants. And so that severely limits the location of an accessory structure. I guess financially it restricts that. The proposed location is really the only flat area on the property that is outside of the fenced yard and directly accessible from an existing driveway. allowing for safe and practical use without additional grading, retaining walls, tree disturbance, and also moving of earth to create a flat area. And we believe that the strict application of the 26 foot street setbacks would render a significant portion of the flat land between the shed and the retaining walls unusable and inaccessible.

So you can see on the topographical map, the only flat part is where the house actually is. And all the other raster lines are a hill. So what we're looking for is that other place with the little gap there you see between the lines to the right of the house is where we're hoping to put the shed. OK, yeah, so a secondary factor y'all noticed when Alex shared, we have that irregular corner lot, right? So the geometry of the lot creates that dual street frontage. So if we didn't have the triangle lot, we would have a 10-foot setback on the side. So that's why we're up in front here. And because that's applicable for the 26-foot setback, really limits our placement options and why we're here to request that. Because we have three of the four sides, it's a disproportionate part of our total property due to the triangular nature of our lot. So the six foot encroachment represents really a minimum variance that would allow us to accommodate that modest accessory structure while, again, maintaining the intent of what the setback's there for. And then really wanted to demonstrate the sight lines here. So it's consistent, we believe, with the spirit and purpose of the setback, because it will have minimal visual impact on any neighboring properties or the public as they transit or walk on the streets. You'll see there from the corner, you will literally see trees and hillside. And that's without adding the shed will have zero disturbance to the existing trees. So along the portion of Glendale Drive, where the shed would encroach onto the setback, there's no residences facing the proposed location. So it really wouldn't alter the streetscape, as I mentioned there. And current vegetation would remain a screening. It also really wouldn't limit any of the sight lines. for cars, but you also wouldn't have any sight lines really to the shed from any of the streets or nearby properties other than the straight on view from the driveway. And that's all we have. Thanks. Questions? Do we take questions?

You do take questions. You do take questions. Do we have any? First of all, thank you all. And kudos to your daughter as well.

Civic TV right here already. So you're planning on filling that shed with toys then?

She's part of the reason the shed's in here.

Anyone have any questions that they would like to ask? I have a couple.

I always have a couple. You do. So get us started. OK. Again, thanks for coming. Good presentation. Very succinct. Just a few questions so that I can make sure we cover our bases. Did you consider any other spots for the shed that definitely were like, this isn't going to work? And can you elaborate on what those spots were and the challenges that they specifically presented?

Sure, so if you look at these photos here, we looked at any other places in the backyard, and it is also a giant hill. There is a slightly flat area off to the right of the deck, but then we would be competing with the 10 foot on the other side, so it wouldn't allow us to put the shed that we were interested in putting on. I don't have a...

Yeah, there was one other flat-ish area of the yard. But as she mentioned, I think we would be.

Yeah, I don't know if I can use the pointer. Oh, yeah.

So I think we initially considered this area here. But I think to be outside the 10-foot setback, we were going to be in existing exterior stairs, which limited our options quite a bit.

So you would say that regardless of topography, we're going to be running into this setback issue one way or the other?

No, the topography, I would say, is the primary issue because, I mean, well... Right? I think so.

I mean, in an ideal world, if the whole property was flat, there would be other areas that we could consider. But I think the financial burden of creating a flattened space within the setbacks was pretty significant just because of the amount of trees and grading and earthwork that would be required. There were really only two

Flattish areas that we looked at Sorry, thanks you actually answered my second question and the answering that one so that's that's all I've got anybody else anything else I

I did have a follow-up question for clarification. Toward the beginning, you mentioned the variance request was about six foot. Can we just get a confirmation that it is six foot? Six feet. Yes, six feet.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I work in marketing, so everything's about.

Did you talk to the contractors who would be building the shed about leveling? Did they give you quotes on, you know, it would be this expensive to get it done?

We met with the folks that are building it. Do you provide, like, leveling blocks? But it would be pillars that would have needed to be installed and would have made the project just probably unfeasible for them, at least for a standard check.

Yeah, I think it would be outscan the scope of the services that this contractor provides.

OK, and so then filling those needs would create additional financial burden for the two of you? Yes. OK, correct. Significant.

Yeah.

Yes, please BJ. Thanks for coming. There's a photo that you had of the shed. I'm looking at it on my screen. Actually, you just went past where the blue block was, so up the driveway. Go back a couple.

Oh, I'm going the wrong way. Sorry. No, it's OK.

It was a photo of the driveway. There you go. This guy. So from this view, I gather that the purpose of putting it against the fence that in this photo is to the right, to the eastern property boundary, is just to try to preserve as much space between the shed and what looks like a garage and the other driveway turnaround. Is that right? Yes.

And if we were to put the shed in the dead middle of the driveway, which we wouldn't, I don't even know, might have still required some form of variance. It would have rendered the other part behind it unusable as well. And certainly we'd be able to intend to be able to use it as a driveway at that point.

Got it. And then did you consider smaller shed? I mean, you already have a very, like 10 to 12 feet is a small footprint. Was there anything, is there any compromise to, what are you planning on using it for, just in short?

I have an e-bike that I'd like to put in there, as well as her trailer for it. So that was part of it. So I could leave the trailer attached to the bike was the primary reason for the larger footprint.

I do have a follow-up question on that point as well. The driveway as shown, did you all install that driveway, or was that pre-existing?

Pre-existing.

OK.

I'm sorry, just for a little bit of clarification. You said if you moved that over to the middle of the driveway, it would render what unusable? Like if we were to just, just from what it looks like, if you were to just slide the box over to the left 10 feet or whatever that would be, tell me again what that would do to the driveway, how that would impact?

I think you wouldn't be able to put a car in there. And I don't think you'd be able to back a car Oh, I see. So that's a garage there on the bottom left. Yeah, it's a side street garage.

It would be difficult to navigate.

No, I see it now. I see it. Thank you.

And that's a fence, right? Correct.

And there's a big fall off. There's a large retaining wall also where that house is. Got it. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Another follow up question on this image. It's difficult to evaluate the grade from the image, but it does look like your driveway significantly slopes up and kind of ends at a, is that an accurate description of kind of what we're seeing here? There's a decent gradient there?

It goes up, yes.

It's not significant, I wouldn't say. There is a very large gradient past this fence where, I guess, I'm not sure if a retaining wall was placed presumably years ago.

Actually, could we just step back to the elevation map and just take a look at that one more time? Okay.

So yeah.

I guess it would be.

Sorry, I'm trying to drag. That's the wall right there where it all falls off. I'm sorry. Whether or not my box that says house is exactly proportional to the space is, you know.

No, thank you. I've got my question answered.

OK, great.

Sorry.

Go ahead, please. Can I follow up on that one?

It is tough to say from here. And I drove by the site so I could see. That is a very steep drop to the right of the fence. And it's already in the setback. Behind the fence where you're nestling in, From this map, is there any flat area to push back further there if you relocated that fence further to the north?

So there's a former little slate patio. Challenges, we did have a structural engineer look at that, and he didn't like the idea of putting a bunch of shed weight. I don't think 10 by 12 would fit back there anyways, but... He also didn't like the idea of putting any additional significant weight on that retaining wall.

Got it.

I guess to follow up on the mention of the structural engineer, you had a structural engineer review this, and this was kind of their recommended spot, it sounds like. Is that an accurate assessment?

It was a text exchange, but he did come by and look at it for us. So I don't have official documentation.

Not an official report issued, I guess more of just an informal opinion. It did us a solid.

Okay, thank you.

I just have one quick clarification. It's almost rhetorical, but on Glendale, is your house visible from Glendale?

Depends on the season.

Yeah, it could be. The back. We've had some tree loss recently. And Chantel. And Chantel. So yeah, I think the top of it, at least the roof.

But would you say that that's primarily going to be blocked by foliage?

Oh, the shed? Oh, the shed would not be visible on Glendale, I wouldn't think.

No, I don't think so.

The house would be still. I mean, this is Glendale looking toward our home.

Yeah, the upper right one.

Well, that's where I was going with this. Would you be able to see the shed?

I don't think so.

Yeah.

Okay.

And there's no, I mean, we don't intend to remove any foliage. No trees would be impacted by this construction.

Are there any other questions from the board? If not, I'm going to, I see a couple of people sitting out there in the, in the cheap seats. And I'm wondering, are you with the public? Would you like to speak on this matter? No, I was just curious about what needed to be presented to the board to request a variance in the process of submitting an application. Oh, well, I'm glad you showed up. All right, good. So it sounds like we don't have any additional questions from the board. There's no public folks having questions.

Move to close the public hearing. Yeah, close the public hearing.

Second. So we've got a motion to close the public hearing and move to board deliberations. Mr. Holloway, could you please call the roll?

Certainly. Emilio Garza? Yes. Alan Fishkin? Here. Joe Weiner. Here. James Bartow.

You shouldn't vote here.

Oh.

I'm sorry. That's an abstain.

We're voting on whether to close the evidentiary portion.

Is that right?

Yes. OK.

Yes, we are voting to close.

Unless you mean to abstain. Thank you, Dr. Worman. I didn't pick up on what you'd said.

Yes, we are closing the evidentiary hearing, and we're going to open up deliberations. So let's go ahead and start the roll again, since there'll be some clarity there.

Emilio Garza? Yes. Alan Fishkin? Yes. Joe Weiner? Yes. James Bartel? Yes. BJ Warshaw? Yes. Dr. Wartman? Yes. Chair Grasty?

Yes. Great. So the motion to close the board deliberate, I'm sorry, to close the evidentiary hearing is passed unanimously. We're now going to go into deliberations. Who would like to kick it off?

Yeah, I got this. Excuse me. I mean, I think this is another easy one. Just going through the four requirements, It creates an unnecessary hardship. They explained pretty clearly how this would be more expensive in order to meet the needs of the setback. It's unique to their property because they're on that corner lot and they have the unique topography with the steep drop-offs. It's not something they did because these conditions already existed. It's consistent with the spirit of the intended ordinance because it's a small variance, minimally obtrusive. just a little scoop. So I feel like this has to be an easy allow, you know what I mean?

I do.

Do the rest of the board members share that opinion?

It was so carefully articulated.

Well, given what seems to be agreement on the part of the board, let me move that we adopt Resolution A and ask town council to...

Before we move, I'm not trying to belabor the point. I do want to focus on the first one just for a second.

Great.

Please. Let me finish the motion.

Sure thing. There'll be room for comment, I think.

And ask staff to prepare documents to grant the variance. Seconded.

So we will take, it's a little bit of a twist, so we'll take a vote on this and then BJ will make his comments.

I was still deliberating on this issue.

At this point, there's a motion on the floor. With that said, there is still opportunity for deliberation at the chair's prerogative, and he could recognize Mr. Warshaw.

Well, I'd like to hear what Mr. Warshaw has to say.

I'll keep it quick. So the only thing I'm considering here is there is available space within or outside of the setback, rather. So I'm just narrowing in on the hardship aspect of the first question. Certainly trying to build it elsewhere on the property would feel like an unnecessary hardship. I don't like the idea of tearing down trees. I don't like the idea of forcing people to do a ton of grading when there is a space to do it and when the other questions, to me, feel answered. But there is available space. And that's the one thing that I just want to deliberate and make clear. feel like we are within the boundaries here of the decision.

I agree with the idea, but it sounded like there wasn't available space that would not have cost them a significant amount of money. And we could have asked for further details on amounts, but I think.

Just to be clear, I'm not sure about the amount of money of fully relocating it. It's within the driveway space. So within the driveway space. It seems like the hardship that we'd be defining there, I just want to make it clear. that is that by moving it to the left the hardship is it reduces the amount of available parking it reduces the ease of navigating cars in and out of that space yes and we feel that that is a necessary hard garage and and i would also one of the reasons i asked one of the clarifying questions is they did not install the driveway therefore they did not create the situation such that that was used

So just to cover us from the perspective of, did the applicant create the situation? I don't believe they did. Taking up the driveway, in my mind, that was built to be a driveway, not to be foundation for a shed. You're now asking to deviate from the original use the usable land, which in my mind is a hardship. So that's where I land with that. You know, Mr. Warshaw, I agree with you about that.

There probably are other places where the shed could be located.

But the fourth criteria is spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance.

I don't see how granting this variance will affect anybody else's sight lines.

I am strong, yes, on the fourth one. And I drove by the place. And there's no way that this impacts the neighborhood at all. I can see there's nobody in the audience that's clearly going to be upset about the shed or anyone coming in. So it was purely just making sure that we're feeling tight on the first question and that it is an unnecessary hardship to move it to the left or move it elsewhere in the driveway.

I think when I was learning about what we consider an undue hardship, the criteria is very lenient. It could be as little as like, oh, this costs $3. That is a hardship, technically, and it is undue if it's caused by actions that aren't your own. Sure thing. But just from a quasi-legal standpoint, I would say that, yeah, even if it's just we need to do a three-point turn to get into the garage, I think that counts as, for what we need, a hardship. Cool.

Thanks. Yeah, I would concur with that. But I appreciate your bringing that up because it was something that I was thinking about as well.

Yeah, I wanted to make sure that there weren't any misgivings. That was the one thing I was thinking about. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else have any final thoughts or comments before we move forward?

OK.

So we have a motion on the table to grant a dimensional variance for 219 Glen Hill Lane. I think now that we've finished our deliberations, we can go ahead and take a roll on that. Would you go ahead and do that for us, Mr. Holloway?

Yes. Emilio Garza? Yes. Allen Fishkin. Yes. Joe Weiner. Yes. James Bartow. Yes. BJ Warshaw. Yes. Dr. Wartman. Aye. Chair Grasty.

Aye.

So with six ayes, no nays, we are going to grant this motion for the dimensional variance for 219 Glen Hill Lane. It's approved. Point of order.

There's seven ayes, not six.

Thank you. Dr. Wartman always keeps me in line on this, especially with math. There are seven ayes. It is still unanimous and has changed nothing. You're still going to get your variance. Congratulations. Thank you for your presentation. And thank you all for coming in and listening. If you're going to be coming back again, I hope it was helpful. Excuse me. All right. So we do have one other piece of business that we need to go over tonight, and that's board composition. Are you going to do a briefing of the board, Mr. Holloway? You don't need to, necessarily.

No, I was not prepared to.

That's fine. Wanted to make sure, I believe there were, memory serves, there were three applications in front of us today. There's four, no?

I actually had a question about one, because one is ETJ, but there's...

I know, and that came up in...

And we're going to address that right now.

Yeah, four. So again, thank you, Dr. Wartman. That was a math question. So I want to make sure that everyone had an opportunity to look over those applications. And I think the ETJ question, I'll just go ahead and jump ahead on that. What is your question? Do we need to have someone from the ETJ?

Well, I know that we do, but I think we have the seats filled. There's one. It's myself and Mr. Garza, our ETJ representatives. My question was, are we able to have another member from the ETJ in excess of what's required from the board. And I believe in it.

You've asked the question in a different way. We were asking if we were required to have one, and we are not.

Well, we are, but they're filled already.

That's correct, on the alternates. Since we're looking at an alternate, would we be required to have an ETJ? The consensus was no. But you've asked it a different way, and I don't know the answer to that.

Well, I think it's just for purposes of seating, we need to have the seats filled by the ETJ. That doesn't necessarily mean that an ETJ seat needs to be here to have quorum. So there isn't a requirement for one alternate ETJ and other non-ETJ. Sorry, am I making it more confusing? Words are coming out of my mouth. They make sense to me, but...

Well, Mr. Baker, I mean, I guess the question is, we're not mandated to have an ETJ-designated alternate, but could we have one?

The way I think of it is this. We do have, for regular seats, we have those requirements for alternates. When someone on this board is not here, an alternate is filling in, it may be that one of you is ETJ appointed. And that doesn't mean that an alternate from the town itself can't sit in for you. And so I would consider all four applicants to be available for this particular alternate role. Cool. Thanks. It's helpful.

So all four are open. And I know why the question came up, because Trevor Leatherwood is an ETJ resident. But how would y'all like to structure this conversation? Did any of these four people jump to the forefront and you'd like to present them and talk about them?

There was one applicant that I know applied for the Board of Adjustments as their preferred board. I think the other three had planning commission. I'm scrolling to, I think it's David. It was David, yeah. Yeah, David said that was his first choice. I mean. Weiner. David Weiner or Weiner, I'm actually not sure. He spells it a little differently than I do. um that was the one that stuck out to me in a positive way yes yeah i'm sorry yeah the just uh the enthusiasm for picking this board as you know i don't want to make it sound bad but not as a second choice you know what i mean i feel like just sticks out i think you know it having the diversity of a student on the board would be nice as well. That's not him, but just to give the other candidates their credit. But the fact that he chose us as his primary was promising.

I felt the same. The two that felt strongest to me were David and Peter. Peter, mostly due to doctorate in environmental science and just a stronger resume, cost-benefit analysis, seems a very analytical individual.

I think it would be useful for us to have someone with an environmental background sitting here.

but also planning commission was the first choice for that application too so there's a question of whether or not um how how strong they would like to serve for the boa and and david's writing first choice for boa made made a strong case for him as well the planning commission always gets a flurry of applications when they have openings and when you apply as you all know when you apply on that county website you can pick others like as secondary so i i think i don't want to say we're just getting like you know blow over from that but I wouldn't be shocked if we were to interview or talk to some of these candidates that chose us as secondary, that maybe they wouldn't be quick to jump on. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them.

Yeah, I was looking. I was looking at, I believe, Mr. Malinoff's application does seem very geared towards planning commission in terms of just sort of perspectives and focus and yeah.

Right. It's just one of those things where I don't want to not call him because of that. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's like, oh, the Board of Adjustments?

Oh, yeah, I guess that's right.

I did apply for that. So he'd be probably my second choice after David.

Is there a particular reason why no one's mentioned Burt Bennett? and his application standing out. I think that he potentially brings some enthusiasm and some knowledge that could be useful for this board also.

I think the strongest in favor for him is he seemed to have the most board experience of the applicants.

He had the most other board experience of the other applicants.

He's done a lot of public service comparatively, just based on paper.

You know, it's interesting. I'm hearing you all's comment about people putting the Board of Adjustment first or second in their preference. And I don't get hung up. I got a little hung up on that a while back. I don't anymore. I just don't. If they want to be a part of the civic participation, most people tend to get excited when they're on any board. I thought that... So I'm kind of leaning towards David myself, frankly. I felt, interestingly, that Bert's application, we talk about sort of a preference for something else. It seemed to me like he really would like to be on the planning commission, that he would be, on paper, more of a fit for that. He's done it, frankly.

Didn't he talk extensively about downtown development?

Yeah.

His first pick was Downtown Partnership.

Yeah, that's right. And that's what he did in Wake Forest. So my point, sort of a long way around it, was that this is somebody, I think, that probably does have his mind set on Downtown Partnership.

So do we want to, like... agree on David as a board?

Well, we can. I don't want to prolong this, but I am kind of curious just from a matter of point. We have a student, Trevor Leatherwood. We've talked in the past about having someone like that on the board, even as an alternate. But his name hasn't really been discussed a lot tonight. Is there a reason for that? Do we still feel that way?

Well, I can give you my reason my reason is that his application was just rife with misspellings and bad grammar And I think that it's the kind of attention to detail that this board requires that is missing That's not a bad point I mean

speaking as someone who i feel like was chosen for diversity of perspective i would appreciate having a student on the board or somebody even younger you know i'm 36 somebody younger than me but dr wortman's points about the quality of the application matters especially for this board so i don't know if i would vote

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

I just wanted to put it out there. I'm not advocating for Trevor necessarily. Just wanted to make sure we had that discussion. Joe, I liked your thought about elevating perhaps Peter as the top choice. I'd be happy to entertain a motion. Let me see how we would structure the motion.

We were talking about David as top choice. Sorry, not Peter. I'm honestly on the fence between the two. I think they both have outstanding qualities between the two.

It's a good point. Do we want to talk about those two and have a clear? clear person to put up?

I presume we could ask staff to contact them and see if they're still interested. That's a great idea. And then table our recommendation until we hear of their continued interest. Right.

If the other is waiting to hear from Planning Commission, then it would be nice if we could just go ahead with David. It could save us time.

That's right.

Well, yeah, but I like your thought.

we already have two alternates. So it's not like we have to do this tonight. I do think that we learn a lot from asking if they're still interested, because we had someone before, and that person actually left the state. So why don't we, if the board is open to that, do you want to instruct staff to reach out to Peter and to David and see their interest? Maybe have David just send us a resume. Yeah, let's do that.

I don't think that requires movement on our part. Does it?

Do we need to make a motion for that? I don't think we need to make a motion.

You do not, but I would recommend to make a motion to continue this item to a later hearing with a specified date.

Okay, move to table this item to the hearing to be specified at a later date.

But I need you to specify the date, and it could be as simple as the next.

When are we meeting again? The next scheduled meeting is October 1st. October 1st.

Before we put that motion in place, do you think you'll have enough time by October 1st to reach out to both of those gentlemen?

Yes, that seems very doable.

I think so.

Let me suggest, Mr. Weiner, let me suggest you amend your motion to say at the next time we meet. Does that work?

That works.

He asked for a date.

Traditionally, you do specify the date when you're continuing an item from one meeting to the next. In light of the fact that staff will be preparing an order granting the variance for the previous item, that should also be heard on October 1 for efficiency's sake. So I anticipate we will be here on that date, and that will be the next meeting.

OK. Put October 1 in there.

Sure. So I'll move to table this item until our next meeting on October 1. Second.

Great.

With a motion to table until our next meeting on October 1st, let's call a roll on that. Mr. Holloway, if you would.

Emilio Garza? Yes. Alan Fishkin? Yes. Joe Weiner? Yes. James Bartow? Yes. BJ Warshaw? Yes. Dr. Wartman? Aye. Chair Grasty?

Aye. So we have seven unanimous votes on this. And so the motion passes. We will get a report back from town next week. I'm sorry, next month on the 1st. And I think that is it for this evening. We don't have any further outstanding business. So I'm going to adjourn us, if I may. I was going to motion to adjourn.

Second. The adjournment does not require a motion. Second. We're out.