Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Hey, let's start the regular meeting of the Cold Spring Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm Eric Worth, the chair. With me is Maryann Remy and John Martin. Three members constitute a quorum. Billy Field said he could not make it and Robert Ferra will be here later. Two items on the agenda. uh two public hearings. Let's start with one depot square. Let me um look here at uh we have a affidavit of the sign placement. You completed that.

There's one right next to you. Uh, is it something that that's actually my address? Oh, maybe you both need to. Yeah. Okay. Um, it's simply a statement that attesting that the sign the noted sign was placed front of the property up until today. I I certainly can attest to it. It went up.

Okay. So, we just need a I need you to sign. Can we get a print out of that? And the other formality involves the mailing receipts for the second round of mailings. Did you turn that in or

It should be at the bottom of your file. Ah, here we go. stamp July 8th. Was that the first round of mailing or the second? There would have been a second round. Um, thank you.

Want to know something? You're correct. I Are you aware if they sent out a second time of those? I want to hold on that. Okay.

I believe they They were proceeding. Yeah. Yeah. Would you mind filling in the um property location at the top there? Those two

boxes, property location and date, approximate date of beginning is it only needs to be 10 days in advance of the hearing. Yeah.

That's what's on here. Beautiful. Thank you. Great. Okay. The notice of this hearing was published in the August 6th issue of the PCNR satisfying the notice requirement. Mailing receipts um are in order. U the sign affidavit is received and um this proposal concerns a setback variance. So it's a type two action under SRA by definition and exempt from environmental review. Cold Spring law requires that all ZBA applications be referred to the planning board for comment and the planning board has responded with this comment about this application. The planning board supports the variances sought for the current site plan. We find it both reasonable in scope and unlikely to negatively impact any villager given the rear setback is against MTA property. I Jesse St. Charles chair anymore. Um, right. And were there any written comments from the public?

No. Comments. All right. Um, so Jamie, um, would you mind introducing yourself and giving us a presentation of what what's involved this proposal?

My name is Jamie Copeland. I'm an architect with Hudson Design. U, the owner has asked that uh we present location for a pavilion um that is respectful of the the margin that is uh in front of the the right of way. So we took the profile of the front of the building and used that same margin as sort of the authentic u recreation of the streetscape.

Uh what what it did require is that the back corner extend into this uh setback 3 ft. As you can see though, the depot building itself is quite a bit. It's about 10 feet back into the setback. Uh we thought that maintaining u the streetscape was important just for the the nature of the neighborhood and the fact that this is a historic building.

All right. So um just to be clear um the required setback here is 10 feet and you're proposing a 7 foot setback. So a variance of three feet is about yes at the closest corner of that building further. Yeah, that's a good point. It's actually it's at a little bit of an angle. So it's yeah this is this is the most most that it right it extends is 3 ft tapers to the dimension at the other end setback uh it actually meets the uh let's see it tapers down and it meets the u the existing

jam it's it's approximately three feet into it at at the southwestern end we go we go over at about three feet from front of the the it's on the average of about can and you can see this line right goes to the corner. Yeah. Um and and the part that uh extends in it's the at its most most extreme is three feet. Right.

Yeah, I think you have this. That's the pavilion that's going in. It's uh roughly in the same era as the as the station itself. Well, that's is that mostly um oak glass that or open um uh it it's meant as an outdoor. It is all all the glass is removable. So let's see it does have a number of doors and vents and so about

it looks like a lot of windows. What all this is that is that correct? That would be glass or open if it's if they removed it's it's all open. That seems relevant to the question of um intrusion intruding to the setback. The building is largely windows. It definitely reduces any

the visual impact. Yeah. Yeah. It's the original survey and that's the actual image that's taken. Um there was a request from Alinsky that it could could be a little subdued. So we've gone back and reduced the the filigree and the amount of trace that's on the building. But the length of it is what faces the street. The length of the structure

which is pretty obvious.

I don't have really any question. Yeah, it's pretty um Yeah, straightforward. And so it's that that entire side is MTA property behind the rear of the pro behind the rear of the rear property line. It's all MTA. And yet they deal with a a building that's almost twice its length in the main structure that's right on the property line. And this and and the other structure is mostly a brick structure, pretty solid as compared to this. It'll be sort of more of an open view skate. You plan on using the structure in the winter time with the windows and everything?

Yes. Okay. Um, are there any members of the public attending by Zoom?

Okay. So we can conclude there are no public comments either in writing or in person.

So would this end up adding additional seating for the restaurant? It would, but it's going to be used for events. For events, right? And and I guess you know as far as parking is concerned which we're not necessarily dealing with. Yeah. It's not us planning board. Yeah. That's not our problem. Yeah. Well, we have to Well, we we we've settled that with the planning board as well. Yeah. I

Okay. Well, um if board members have no other questions, we can go through the five factors. Um New York law requires us to um look at the application under from five angles. Um number one is um whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties by the granting of the area variance. John, what do you think? Well, haven't really ever said this much, but I I actually believe it'll it'll add to the character of the neighborhood. Uh, you know, most particularly, it it follows virtually the same height of the other structure, if not below it. Uh, it's sort of a passive view, a glass structure that doesn't, you know, allows light through it.

Um, and it doesn't appear to be oversized. It's not substantially into the rear yard set back. the other building is much more so uh but it you know to some extent that's grandfathered in but because it's a new structure we have to consider it uh so I think it's u it's not a detriment Maryanne not a detriment

okay and I I agree with everything John said number two whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area of variance So is there any other um any other way to achieve this goal without an area variance? I I can it seems like the only option would be to reduce the size of the structure uh so that it doesn't intrude into the sideyard. Um and um so I would I would answer yes there is uh and it's uh and you know whether that's even necessary you know whether the gain from doing that is whether the harm from not doing that is make it make it worth reducing the scale is you know um I don't think so. So, but yes, I think there there is um um another method for having a pavilion there without getting variance and also another pavilion could be shifted forward which would mean disrupting the um the the alignment that Jamie spoke of and that's a cost that's a detriment in itself. So although there are alternatives um they are either of very little value or or detrimental themselves.

Go ahead. This uh pavilion is a replica of that era and it's available in this size. That's if we were building it from scratch. Yes. But it's um it is a item that has been replicated and comes in this size. Is that because of the dining use of it or it's just um this is available as a as a prefab or

um yeah well it's a kit but it is based on uh I think it's a a Lord and Burnham um building that is historic. We could note that. Yeah, I think that's important. Maryanne, do you have anything on on this point?

Um, no. I wouldn't have anything to add, but but the question is always could could the result be achieved in another way? And you I think you just answered that. No. So are you saying yes or no under this or whether um the benefit can be sought by some other method? I'd say no.

I believe it could always be sought by some other method to conform it. But in this case it's uh it's going it's taking three feet into the rear yard setback. um it's meeting its design. It's staying flush as you indicated to the uh street side with the other building. So there are some pluses and minuses to that even though it does uh there there are always other ways you can do it. So uh yes there is another method but it is um well said it's um all other methods come with with problems

right but this has fewer problems than most applications we see even though that's a general statement it's true right so that kind of a mixed um conclusion under this but it's also because the metro north is on one side and there's no like residential property or commercial property any other side that's particularly affected by this. So that reduces the need to seek alternative methods. That's my opinion. Yeah. Number three, whether the requested variance is substantial.

No. And I think for the reasons that you were just saying, John, uh because of where you know it backs up to the um the MTA property, it doesn't affect any any residences. It doesn't affect what people see visually when they're in front. So, I'd say no.

Oh, yeah. Okay, John. Uh I would say no because uh you know at one point it's it's 30% into the uh the rear yard setback and while the building is is a is a long one re rectangularly it's also a see-through one with windows. So I I think you know as far as setback concerns and why they're there, I think there's less of a compelling reason uh with the Metro North back there and other structures of either residential or commercial character not being impacted. Uh so I think that you know by measurement it's small and by overall consideration it's even you know less

even. I agree numerically and in its effect it's um not substantial. Number four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I would say no, it will not have any u John. Yeah, agreed. For the same reasons we've really been saying, Marian, no. And again, I think it almost is going to add to a better character of the neighborhood. I think there's even a positive side to the architectural design.

Number five, and last, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created and uh self-creating self-created in the technical sense of um was it imposed on the applicant or did the applicant is it a result of the applicant's choice? Um, and I would say as 90% or 99% of cases, yes, it was self-created because the applicant ch is ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch choosing to build a pavilion. So yes, John, agree.

Agreed. um that though that final point number five is the least influential of the five because as I said almost all applications count as self-created. So in the end um three of the considerations weighed in favor of the application. one was arguably mixed and the the last one number five was against, but that's the weakest of all. So before we proceed to a decision, uh let me close let me make a motion to close the public hearing. Second, all in favor? I.

All right. Um hearing is closed and we'll um anyone have a want to um propose a decision based on those right a balancing of those thoughts. Yeah. Balancing of those thoughts when you Right. You want a full balance statement or just simply emotion? If you feel Yeah. Uh if you feel like you have one on the tip of your tongue then we can we can adopt it if it sounds good. Right. I'd simply say that the uh the variance rear yard set back sort of 3 ft at one particular end. It's not as significant at the southwest end.

Uh would be 30% of the rear yard set back at most. Uh but it's sort of offset by the fact that um it's trying to conform with the front of the building. Uh it fits certainly I believe within the the character of the neighborhood as well as uh Cold Spring historic purpose having sort of these antiquated uh design looks. Um uh I I don't believe like I I it's hard to say anything more other than the fact that it's all glass. uh but majority of it's glass. It's just a you know otherwise an iron support structure. So it really doesn't steal too much uh in the way of u pass through light. I you know it just it's not a dense structure. So uh and I don't you know no neighbors are particularly affected by it. No commercial or residential. uh it backs up to uh what would be probably a hazardous location on the railroad tracks. So um I don't know what else to add to if you want to add anything to that.

Um I would only emphasize um more than you did the um nature of the neighbor in this case which is the railroad tracks and how u the whole issue here is simply the setback. We're really not charged with considering anything else. Uh is it a problem that this building is on one corner is three feet over farther than it should be. And when you consider the neighbor, the nature of the neighbor, it's just overwhelmingly makes that concern evaporate because it is so um there is so little um detriment uh given that that neighbor. So I would that alone to me just um makes the the proposal gives me no concern at all.

So I would move to uh grant the variance uh as requested that round up. I second the motion. All in favor? I Okay, it passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. enough. Would you break? Sure. So, I will um we'll we'll draft and at at our next meeting we'll vote on the the formal resolution, but it's been approved. You'll get a copy. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

Did you want to keep any of these extra copies? Uh sir if uh what do you think do we have we don't have given all um I don't know what do you Abigail do you need any of these copies of um you have some we have two copies right so I didn't know if you wanted any extra those but there's four here now so yeah so take those two and we'll save the two that we've handled here right Y

by the way, there is something extra in that packet.

Yeah, one of them is an additional application. You'll see the difference between the two. Oh, that's what Yeah, that's one of them. Yeah, that work. Yeah. You want to check the

Yeah, I don't have the um street anymore. Uh oh. Well, you don't have it. Yeah, maybe I shouldn't. There's probably one here. Yeah, there's probably just one in here. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you again for your time. You're welcome. Bye. Thank you. Good luck.

Hey, we've been joined by Robert Ferrer. We just finished one. One's equal a square, but you're just in time. I still just have everything I have here. I have three copies of one depot square. Hey, what's this? That's what it is. Mine and I could share with John. There should be an extra because you did leave behind everything else. These are all the restaurant. Wall Depot.

Yeah. Why do I hand street? Just parrots. Looks like there's one here. Yeah, I can hand you this if you don't have it. We can marry. So, the next item is public hearing on uh 51 Parrot Street. Um, do we have mailing receipts?

Sorry to stretch over your legs. Okay. Oh, yeah. I have hard copies of receipts if you want. Yeah.

Okay. Donado copies. Oh, yeah. You dropped them right back. Okay. The um mailing receipts are here. They're dated more than 10 days ago. And the Did you have the affidavit for the sign? Right. Um, do you have a copy of this? This affidavit?

I do. Thank you. The affidavit is in. Um, and a notice of this hearing was published in the August 6th issue of the PCNR. The planning board provided its comment on this application which reads the planning board has no comment on this application. Sign Jesse St. Charles chair holds great planning board. All right. Were there any written comments from the No comment.

No written comments came in. So let's open the public hearing. um introduce yourself and tell us what your proposal is. Uh so my name is Matthew O'Donnell and I'm proposing to remove an existing shed I have on my property and install a 17 by 20 garage in the same location. To do so I need to install the garage uh 2 ft within my sideyard setback. Okay. So the setback should be five feet. You'll be going in two feet leaving a set leaving three feet of it of an actual set back.

So tell us um why you could not place this garage farther out by f. So, uh, short answer is I know that my property does not qualify for a narrow yard. I believe is the technical term. Um, however, it is still a slim yard and, uh, moving it further into the center of the property um, drastically takes away from the use of the rest of the space. And also, given that it's a garage, there's still cars in it. And if it's in the middle of the property, I'm not going to be able to get cars in her house.

She'll be extending the driveway to meet this garage. Correct.

I walked by there and um noticed the it's on this the plan here. There's a frame shed on the neighboring property that's right up almost right up against the property line

and will be directly adjacent to your new garage. So there's essentially the neighbor essentially has a similar building already right there almost the same size. I mean in a sense of going uh what is it be north to south. And when I walk by I also noticed several other properties have accessory buildings like what you were proposing that that kind of garageelike building small garage like building behind the house way over almost on the property line. The common historical features around the area.

Do you know what the height of your existing shed is? Said it was about 7 ft. Uh 9 ft to the beach. 9 ft to the feet and and the the proposed new shed is or the garage new one uh it's in there about 12 ft 12 and 12 and 11 16 is 12 the peak like 3 ft difference and the height of the neighboring

I don't I didn't get a measurement of it but it's about that and I mean the interesting thing I note is that well the way the road the roof is going to go they're not going to face a wall of a roof on the top they're just going to see the slant on the sides near the neighboring propert yeah that's the p pitch of the roof uh yeah it goes north south so the neighboring properties the neighbor will face the gable the gable end which allows more like the area

we able to photograph right here. Great. I try to without going on anyone's property everything. So this is that existing structure they're mentioning. Um one of the things I'm sure you notice pirate streets on a hill. So, their structure uh will be about the same height as mine, but it will be higher up. So, is that this the your neighboring one? Okay. Correct. So, it's looking at 49 Street and relative to this this is this the shed itself your shed? This is my shed.

Oh, that's your shed. Okay. Got it. That's their sting. So, it is actually near 12 feet on their roof. Yeah. cable probably. Uh so this is this is the corner of seven and nine Bank Street. You can see there's other accessory structures here too. How far is that from you? Is that neighbor a neighbor to you? Yes, they're both uh so nine is directly behind my property. Seven's uh just offset of it. So that was this shed right there. You said nine was directly behind your

Yes. And then seven has two other accessory structures right where like the 23 is and another one behind. Um I also have Google satellite and also uh just Google maps in general because they show satellite with all the trees. It's hard to see it. So here is this is me. There's the accessory building at 49 that we were talking about. And then this is seven. This is nine. This is an accessory structure. And so does that as well.

Is that tree on your property? That big tree near that shed behind the current shed. So there's a few. So there's this tree here. Okay. Uh this tree which is on the neighbor's property and then this pine which is also on the neighbor's property.

Yeah. When you're done passive yes is what is this giving you a view of? So this is from I tried to take it from a relevant location. So this is from 49 Par Street. That's again uh that accessory structure, right? Shed to the left now. Right. This is my driveway. Oh, okay. Got it. Um got it. Yeah, I took it from here because if you take it from the street, the driveways rise up. You can't see it at all. Got it. And that again, as you say, is your driveway. We'll be extending that driveway to the Yeah. So this

So this is seven street behind you. Correct. This is his shed currently up against that other

and your existing shed is is it set up properly or it's not? My existing shed is actually on the property line. Yeah. So I'm moving theoretically I'm moving new structure more compar

this is the street. So it comes in here. It's in there. Yep. Not sure.

It's a little bit easier to see if you want to look on just the standard map. Oh, yeah. Because the trees block it all out. So, that's their existing shed. Not that Google's a credible source, but they show kind of straddling property line. Oh, don't even show you, right? This is um that's driveway. Old shed. Okay. Old shed. That's the neighbor, right? I imagine the door will face the driveway into your right. Yeah.

I have a man door on the back of it just honestly more for air flow than anything else.

Sure. But Abigail, has anyone joined the Zoom call? All right. So, we'll conclude again. No comments from the public in writing or in person. this one type two as well.

Yes, I forgot to say that but um in that it's a setback variance. It's by definition type two. SRA does not require environmental review.

Any other comments or questions? Looks straight. Well, yeah, looks straightforward. So, it's well put together. make a motion that we close the public hearing. Second that. All in favor? I I Okay.

Um before we go over the five factors, I'll throw I'll point out it's worth noting that we had a very similar application in 2021 which the board approved and that was um that was on um 15 Orchard Street. also a um accessory building where there was no existing building, a new garage that was just one foot of the property line um behind the house and same almost exactly the same dimensions of a building as well. So every application's unique, but um that's it's noteworthy that we um we approve that one on the argument that um that type of building is in character in the old neighborhoods. It's typical. It's um does not disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood. So um let's go over the five factors. Um number one is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Marian,

say no. It's actually um given the condition of your current shed, it's an improvement and an improvement to the neighborhood. I I can't see how it would be a detriment. John,

uh I wouldn't see any basis to call it a detriment uh to the neighborhood because of the adjoining neighbor that would be most affected because of that location of the setback here has a a similar structure, similar size, similar height. Um, you know, the the only thing you can say is that it adds more bulk to the overall appearance of the neighborhood if you're walking down the streetscape, but on the whole it doesn't outweigh me saying it doesn't really have significant detriment considering the neighbor.

Yeah, this best picture very helpful. Yeah, I agree. um any detriment is minimal. Um I mean it's always a detriment when you make an exception to zoning and the new code reduced the side setback for this very reason. It used to be 10 it was reduced to five on the grounds that people want to do things like this. Um so um uh we're we're violating even the five here. So that's the only detriment really and it's minimal. So, um, uh, two feet is not,

I forgot to add, if you don't mind me saying, that the current shed structure, although smaller, is closer to the property line and and so there there will be more space actually uh once that shed's removed to the new structure when it goes in more of there'll be more of a angle of view from the street back through. That's that's valuable point. All right. So, um this factor which is one of the more important ones comes down in favor of the application. Robert, what do you think?

Oh, Robert. Yeah. See, there's an improvement to the neighbor the shed there. That's like kind of a disaster. That's right. Um it's got about three walls left and yeah and it heading more in compliance than further away from and has your neighbor been have an opinion on this? No, they're in support of it. They're in support of it.

Great. Um, number two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area of variance. Robert um to the only other thing is if you would cut your car in, you know, to you would be offset, right? I I assume that's why you're wanting to go where you are. Um, I guess you could always say it could be over, but yeah, I I don't know that these couple feet with the neighbor in in agreement with it getting closer to compliance would would warrant having to angle into property. So, yes, but not warranted given the compromise involved.

Yeah, I think it's compromise. Sean. Well, just as Robert said, it can always be done. Yeah.

Differently. There is a yard back there and everybody wants to try to keep as much yard as they want. That usually comes to the detriment of the neighbor in certain as far as you want to push it up, but here you have a structure facing it. So the other whether or not it's feasible if you were to move the garage over further to behind you'd have more black top surface uh back there and um you know I'm not sure if that's an advantage or not and of course it would be more of an expense to the owner. So it would work away from the feasibility.

Yeah. So yeah, the usual yes there is a feasible it's feasible but it carries costs and detriments of its own and it also might be out of symmetry with the neighbors the way they usually put their structures. Right. Right. Maryanne, I would agree with what's been said feasible but I'd say not worth it. not warranted.

I agree with all those comments too. Number three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. area.

When we think about that, do we think about what's there now and compare it to the new plan or just is this substantial? Um, in itself, just in itself, the new structure, the new structure. Oh, it's just it's just um the not the structure overall whether the structure overall is substantial but whether the variance part right like the the three the two feet in to a five foot setback is that substantial

though yes I mean it cutting off to feed a step back and it is it's not a large structure but it is structure that it's

I would agree yes um uh going from five to three is is a large uh proportion um Robert taking into account that that's another structure that's right there Guess two of five is a lot, but you're not encroaching on someone else's playground, someone else's yard. It's just butdding up against another structure, which to me seems Yeah, that kind of gets to the old we often break this down is yes, numerically, but no in its effect. Yeah,

a negligible effect. who's going next to the kids that are playing next door. I would I would be willing to say that it's a lot maybe more to ask. It's a budding another structure. It is 40% into the setback and which is substantial. Um and it runs for a distance of 20 feet. Um so I would say that would be substantial. Um, you know, there are some offsetting points as Robert mentioned. Um, there was something else I was going to add and I'm just blanking on it right now. So,

okay. Well, so generally, yes. Um, substantial. Number four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Um, and I would say no. um nothing worth um dwelling on. This is just not that kind of project. John,

I agree for the you know the same reasons. I again it it's going to add a little bit more bulk to the back, but it's not substantial. It's it it mimics what the neighboring structure looks like. Uh so it's not out of conformity. Robert, it's improvement. Yeah, I don't think it's having a negative impact on the environment of the the neighborhood. No. So, last whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, I know it's your favorite question. No, that's not my favorite one. You like the substantial one?

Yeah, that's my favorite one. Um, yes, because they're bring you so much. Yeah, it is. Yeah, Robert question is was it caused by the owner of the property? Uh, yes. That's been what self-created means, whether um it resulted from a a voluntary choice by the owner to take an action. It's almost always

I want to make sure I heard that right. It seems like there's only one Yeah, in part the the uh it it takes into account that the uh owner bought the property as is, you know, and and now they want to change it. They want to improve it, but they also want to go into a side yard setback. And that's what I wanted to remember before when I talked about the 40%. Used to be 10 yard 10 ft set back. So once we start crouching into a five foot set back by 40%. That's really a lot from what we were used like you said this this law or this code has only been changed about two years ago.

So for like the 16 years prior that I was sitting on the board that would have been 80%. Uh would have been near about 70%. Yeah. You mean if it if it went from the requirement of 10 feet to reducing it to three? Yeah. Oh yeah. But but I'm just saying that's not

that's not applicable for us but it it it that's still you know for me for three feet that's bringing it pretty close and I think that but you know it's for the uh trustees to write the code. Right. Well, they I mean clearly their thinking is we we should not be so stingy about the sideyard. We should allow smaller sideyard setbacks that used they used to be. So that's the direction that they're that the trustees wanted to go which is in keeping with the historical um style historical layout of these old narrow lots. And I think there's another point already brought it up. Yan has said that it this is while it's not by co um definition a narrow lot, it is pretty much narrow.

So it just limits how where you can really put things. Right. And I think we probably add that in somewhere. Just it's a 50 foot lot, right? With Yeah. That's distinguishes this application from the another similar one which is the one on Marion Avenue same kind of request accessory building garage in back close to the setback close to the property line and those two factors you just mentioned were different in that case right

it was a it's a wide lot a modern a more modern wide lot and um it was in a part of a development that's modern and did not have these historical tradition ition of of accessory buildings right up against the property line unlike Parrot Street. So um whereas the garden the orchard street where we did accept it that's those two factors are comparable to parrot street and I think we just make a note of that that the the width of the property while not within the definition arrow is only 50 feet wide it sort of again limits the owner

that falls under the heading of feasible. Yeah. Um it reduces the feasibility of of alternatives. So, uh, number one, weighed in favor. Number two, um um feasible alternatives weighed weekly again in a weak way against in that there are alternatives but they have detriments of their own and they're not which makes them not warranted or not attractive. Number three, weigh against that's the substantiality. Number four, adverse effect weight in favor. Number five, self-created, which is the least significant that weighed against. So um we have two four two against uh and um three against but two of them weak. The only strong against is the substantiality. That's the only the only factor that uh is important. uh comes out strongly against the application. So what is the uh where is which way are you leaning

over grant leaning toward granting mostly because it's comparable to the the rest of the neighborhood. Uh it's right up against another structure. Similarly the lot is narrow. Um the roof line is not that height tall. Um and uh was 17 feet wide. It's not a particularly wide structure either.

Yeah, I think it's the the applicant took pains to keep the project reasonable in scale and modest and within the tradition of the neighborhood, the character, preserving the character, and that's really the ultimate thing here. Um the neighbor has not objected. Uh, and so I I would agree. And one last thing, we're removing an O head that's closer, right? So there's something already there, which he could have he could have just repaired that, kept it there. He has the right to do that. So there's already a building there that could be permanent and closer to the property line. Right.

Right. Right. Okay. Okay, I would move to uh you know under the discussion we just had unless somebody wants to offer anything else that wraps out the conversation. Favor of granting. All right. Um so John has made a motion uh to accept under those um for those reasons. I will second the motion. All in favor? I I I Okay. Unanimous approval. So, um, thank you all very much. Thank you. Still have to go back now. I have the building permit, right?

So, uh, what do I need to do to locate then? um that I've always not really that clear on whether how does the building the CTO or the department do you want that thank you that's the only you would probably like to get going but you can I can more if you want Yeah, I was just going to hold on to this recite

because you heard we were cross I imagine this is a commentary like why did you get that so we have to come up not that I no Jeff because we're paid so much.

Yeah, exactly. From a voice thing, they don't get paid for it to this win at all. I was over. Nice. Good for you, man. We got the scouts before us tomorrow. I do the state park stuff, too. put hundreds of hours into that every hundreds. What I do is I take as you know I I do other things which all there just needs to be a document that's Oh, by the way, should we uh end the hearing or do we have any other business?

Well, yeah, let's um let's um see. Is there any other business? Uh, no. Nope. Nope. All right, then. I move that we close the the uh the meeting. I'll second that. All in favor? I I Okay, meeting over. Thank you, Eric, for putting everything together. Appreciate it. I was just talking with Abigail about your question. Um why don't you um put your uh are you eager to get moving