Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll call to order the October 27th ZBA meeting. We'll start off with agenda item number one 88 and a half south a

so you looked at this question back a few different things have you provided additionally that we asked for and I guess I had walk us through that

yeah you should have in front of you we see site plan here yeah for this survey or such things survey. I do have them slightly larger, but I think these probably sufficient here. Well, my own check. Can you refresh my memory and ask and just kind of walk us through what we are looking for you to do and kind of where it is? Uh there used to be a subdivision if approved of the Sterling and that is going to be between the eight south and the other property of 8 and a half.

You were able to get uh the property at 10 on the D down here as well of the driveway shared driveway. Okay, that will be on the other

I think we had a conversation about parking. Was that was that somebody? Yeah. So, the parking is uh those uh lines on the extreme light right and one to the left of the building

this was for eight correct What's What's the address for that parking? Is that four and a half or what does the number go? It's It's uh four and a half. Correct. Four and a half.

Yeah. You're providing six spaces at that park and it's all there. Yeah, that parking about 4 and a half not.

Well, that's what I was asking. He was going to have one of your stipulations should be that he gets an easement of an other property who owns that house separately. Yeah. BT owns it and BT is buying the 88 and a half I think. Is that what that 7 foot right away is that falls out as you look at the would that be what that would be included.

So he's buying eight and eight and a half but you're trying to get the parking currently now for 8. That's uh one of the requirements that there's enough parking spaces for eight. So he owns those properties. He can uh use them for any properties he wants. So you do in your words what was the legal term that you would I think it's a charity. Yeah. Correct.

Yeah. But I mean, if it's if it's going to be owned by the same property, they don't have to give an ement to themselves. But currently, it's not correct.

Technically, it's not yet, but he has a substantial deposit down on the property. He's not going to back out of it. Does that change what I really want the wording that as far as easement on that two different Yeah. So the agreement between those two properties and in that form of legal

I Yeah, I would think. Yeah, why not? Yeah, it's not it's not technically that difficult, but it's just a question initially.

So, I just want to make sure that we went over all the other concerns. I know we table this um fairly quickly each time we didn't discuss because we just were working for the basics of of a site plan. Um so I mean let's just make sure we gone over all the things the county has recommended make sure [clears throat] we apply or are addressing what they have stated. Um, so I remember we we looked at the code of considering an existing use existing legal use. Yes, we confirm that. Um, Other variances that they're looking at is your front yard, side yard, rear yard, vegetation strip, and then your parking area design.

Do we miss anything with the county or is that kind of the big one? Did we miss anything? equals.

The big thing to remember is you got two properties there that are getting area bears, not just one. You have one whole one right now. Once they break off, you're going to have a whole barrier. So as far as um variances would this be once it's approved to be subdivided [snorts] is it a matter of going back and getting approval again or is it like they just they say you already got it right sometime

they can't divide your cross Unless she pre-given and I know this sounds weird. Yes. Think which one must but yeah this is what they unless those properties are legal to be divided even though they're not divided yet they can't divide the properties. Okay. So because I was not here on September 8th I'm asking Andy if he can rehold bits of the September. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Not aware of what we know.

Yeah. So September 8th um ZBA considered and at the time denied it with the understanding that it' be it would come back. But so Mr. Benedy seeking variances for the purpose of subdividing the property into two lots at the respective addresses. The parcel as is has multiple pre-existing nonconformities. Mr. Venity has an application pending before the planning commission to subdivide 8 and 8 and a half south a consisting of three residential rental structures and two out buildings. The proposed new lots will consist of eight South A parcel A with one mixeduse structure with commercial operations downstairs and an 11 unit roaming house upstairs. eight and a half uh and a currently unnumbered residential structure [clears throat] being referred to as parcel B. We'll have a two-unit residential structure in the front and a single unit residential structure and two existing out buildings in the rear of the property along with two existing out buildings at the rear of the parcel. The proposed subdivision of the 32 acre parcel with five separate structures requires several variances due to the proposed lot line and existing site conditions. Um I did not site in the minutes uh each of those variances. Um [clears throat] there was no one uh present to speak on it other than the applicant. In response

to the five factor questions, um the ZBA responded no to each. A motion was adopted to deny the application with an understanding that the board will reconsider the application if the applicant provides scale drawings of the existing property inclusive of driveway, parking area, and easement as well as manner of proposed subdivision. Um, and that uh um easement had to do with uh driveway access to which 10

the 10 um where uh meeting before the September 8th one short sleeve who lives there uh spoke seeking assurance that that easement would remain in more questions that they had of course was currently because of the ownership. I understand the ownership still hasn't done yet. This is a um part of the kicker being able to go through the deal. I think that should also be part of the motion as well.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's important when you answer your questions to answer them as if the property, the subdivision was going to go through. So, when you when you grant your variances, you're granting them respectively for the planning commission to be able to subdivide. So, look at it as if it's already three parcels and then say, would we grant these Thank you everyone. Thanks understood.

Any more questions? Sit down. I think we will discuss. You want to know what the error variances are for each one? Are you all set down there? Yeah, I think we have them here. It was use provided as part of the minutes or the agenda package. Use non-conforming minimum front yard, minimum sideyard, minimum rear yard, 4 foot vegetative, front lawn, 65% vegetative parking area does not meet design requirements. Anything else I'm missing? Right.

Right. I don't think so. the um yeah I mean I guess it could be broken up a little bit more as far as what is 8 and a half front yard what is eight front yard you have it written out as 5.5 57 11.5 as in maybe it's a one property right now um so as far as being more clear of like hey is asking for Six 8 and a half is asking for five.

And both uses are pre-existing parking. Both uses. Yes.

The commercial rooming on a and the the the two family and the one family on a So on on the individual variances um I'll note from the county planning uh board. So you know the first is the parking area layout design uh variance uh which is straightforward. The next is um chapter 300-121 existing nonconforming lot uses and structures. Um [clears throat] so the code reads no parcel or lot after the adoption of this chapter or amendments there too shall be used or divide in a manner which prevents or diminishes compliance with the requirements established by the chapter. And uh the planning board in its uh return memo says, "Therefore, it's recommended that the city determine whether the proposed subdivision prevents or diminishes compliance with the requirements established by this chapter as per that section of the code. Um the other one that they uh that's I guess more than just straightforward is uh chapter 250-13 lot requirements A throughF uh which indicate the lot requirements for a subdivision A the lot arrangement shall be such that there with no foreseeable difficulties or other unnatural conditions And the planning board uh notes the

proposed subdivision leaves the proposed 8 South AB 11 unit housing struck dwelling with little or no access for off streetet parking. It is recommended that the city request the applicant provide more detail regarding the proposed parking plan for proposed parcel A and its 11 unit. Um, so you can look to his revised plan there. Partial A1 units or partial B1. Uh, A.

Well, okay. Cuz under partial B is the actual unit that's going to have the 11 upstairs. Correct. B. I'm not sure what you say A and B to be honest. Um,

um, so that was on there, man. A and B was the way they drew it. I I don't have glasses. B, that's eight. Yeah, this is eight. So, this is where you're having your 11. SP okay so beef is the 11 unit but that's the county has I think the county transposed it when they did their status

uh they also know here from the county strategic development plan um that the 11 rooming unit represents important source of affordable housing offering accessible and stable accommodations for indiv individuals from marginalized or economically vulnerable populations. They play a vital role in addressing the community's need for inclusive and coste effective housing options. And that speaks to a particular section within that uh strategic development plan that I won't go on to quote unless you want for language. Um when we refer to properties, it's better to refer to it as um the eight cell that not being a thing kind of confusing. Throw that out there and just leave that eight and a half. I would follow the PL plan that Mr. Benedy filed with the ZBA. Don't worry about what the county called it. That's what's in our record. They kind of they kind of they called it both.

They called it both in here. So So just follow what what the the one he gave you most recently. They have they have A and partial B on. Yeah. So either or. So I'll refer to part what we've been referring to. Partial B I will refer to as eight. Yeah. So and where we refer to parcel A that'll be uh

eight is it? Okay. days. So, well, uh,

right with the, uh, eight and a half, right? Is it meeting the excuse me, eight, is it meeting the parking standards? I don't see where it is. It's it it's not. But keep in mind that as many as he's given is probably more than he needs because as he states and I believe that can be true, the majority of tenants you have in that building don't have access to vehicles. They're more apt to use public transportation or other other transportation

or are they more apt to maybe use partial A for their parking needs as well? Uh partial A. No, I think they'd be more apt to use uh a parking outlined uh at four and a half. Yeah. How many? Eight. Huh? Six. Six. There's only six. I mean, you guys could always tack on an additional variance for not meeting the minimum parking

or or make the new owner. No, cuz they can't. The non minimum parking is already prior non-conforming use. It is. So, I don't know if you need to address that. He's more parking now than they've ever had. There has

I see. Thanks. Oh, you just fix just shift down.

Yeah, we can see if anyone else if else. So, anybody else want to speak regarding this? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close. I have a second. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. I. So um just addressing the agenda the board shall discuss the need for use variance and we're saying it's not needed right is it was illegal use one undated.

Oh yeah, I think is what that's what we discussed. Did we we looked at this in the code section, right? I remember the date what we're looking at for when it was when it became that use it was legal use or before the date things as far as this telling us to discuss the need for use. Yes. Right. It's prior. Yes. Right. Fine.

Um, would you like to make a formal motion on uh that we you decided yes or no? Yeah, I think that would be the entire motion. Right. I'd say let's take two one motion on this on the use variance and then separate on the area variances. Yeah. Do you want to do a separate area and variance for both properties as well or just

I would just do one area variance that grants the area variance over all of the the subdivision. I don't think you need to break it up into three separate options. So, I guess don't really know what you want to make a motion on as far as it's

uh a motion to uh determine that the property does not require a uh special use or a use variance. Um yeah, make the motion that the property at the new 8 and 8 and a half south path does not require a use as it was a legal pre-existing use. Okay. Is there Yeah, I'll second. All those there say

I one day on that. Was it?

Yeah. I think now we will look at our questions. um for both. Then doing a eight a and a half and then just as we read through them about [clears throat] both properties and then we'll answer those questions addressing both. The following tests will be considered by the zoning board of appeals to determine whether the variance and weighing the granting or denial the area variance request. First question, whether undesire undesirable chain will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or determent to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. They won't say yes. No, I don't think so.

No, they just Yeah, I agree. One for one whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area of various I say yes to that no whether requested area variance is substantial that's a yes for me Yes. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I think it's saving way. But no, I'll say yes. No. No. For me, I would say no. Well, the alleged difficulty of selfish consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. Yes.

Number three being yes. Number five being yes. The others no. Correct. So just before just to confirm, we're looking for we talked about it. We're looking for an ease meal to agreement with lot eight or eight south a with four and a half south. to use the parking. Bring any rest of that part from your end with is it four, four and a half. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve the requested area variances for the new 8 and 8 and a half south a with the condition that an easement is created between new 8 South A and 4 and a half South A to allow lot eight access

to parking on lot 4 and a half parking area both parking are both new 384 receive a year by the new owner. And that is paid.

With the same um additional of paved parking with that bringing it into compliance within one year of the granting of the very All right. So, motion to approve variances for both properties conditioned on an easement uh with four south a what is it we're asking? The easement is in place.

An ement allowing eight or eight have eight, right? Eight cell to have access to the half cell just which is a legal.

Yeah. Yes. All right. uh that the parking areas on both properties be paid uh compliant with code within one year of this approval. Um 384 letter C to be good.

Yes. Okay. Where is the parking brake currently now for eight? You said in both locations. So I see the one where it's got five spots on four and eight and a half's got it in the back between the two houses. So 8 and a half is being used for parking for eight. Not that but it will be with this. It's eight's going to have its own parking. That's what I'm saying. for eight uh where an eight because right now I'm looking on four is eight is having access through four and a half for parking. [clears throat] Okay. Which will only have six spots.

Well, when you said both there was another spot. So I think it means the parking at 8 and a half and the parking at 4 and 1/2 ft eight. There you go. Also got to code that alleyway down. You can only have one access to the parking. Sorry, I just said eight eight and a half access to the parking. There's two driveways there. I'll leave it as to close the one driveway down. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was my thought.

Okay. So, three conditions. The third being you understand uh that pursuant to code allowing only one use or drive one access. Yeah, it's 385. Is that the code? Only one exit. Uh yeah, I'm guess what approach is that's not a variance that we're giving. So that

395 is that 380 3-85 is that public says you can only have one one access off off the street. So it would be the one to the the west. Keep that one. get rid of the one that's between 8 and 8 and if you guys don't sense. So what you're recommending is that Yeah. So between eight and a half and 10 or eight and a half leading.

So that one you keep between eight and a half and 10. You get rid of the one the one that the the alleyway there between eight and eight and a half. Yeah. Okay. [clears throat]

Okay, they have a motion with those three conditions. Do second. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I approved for South I'll type that up for you. Quick question. Can the vice chair of the signature on the plat or does it have to be the chair chair? Okay. Can I ask a question? So he has to come back and when no it's never mind. Yeah,

Joe will need to sign that ab plan in the marri the 8 and 12 and AP in the form of a gate in case the new owner wants access through that driveway to his property. It have to be permanent. Has to be permanent. Correct. Yeah. Would have to be permanent. I'll pick up sometime afternoon tomorrow. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Number 252 Clayton here. If I could press you guys really quickly. I need to get to another meeting. So yeah, sure. Um, just wanted to make sure that we were clear on this one. My understanding is this is only coming before the committee for a couple of area variants. Is that is that right, Roy? Yes.

I know last time it came in front of the committee for a whole bunch of things. So, I just want to make sure we're only focusing on the things that are in front of you folks tonight, not the stuff that was here before. It's there's only Are there three variances like two? two and they are lots.

This is for 52. Correct. 52. Uh, lot width and bed strip.

Okay. So, those are the only two things we're looking at tonight. Just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page because I know last time was a whole bunch of stuff muddying it up. So, okay. If there any questions, you can hold me, but I need to run. Thank you. Thank you. Was this also September?

Yes. Okay. And that's why I asked you to read the minutes again. Yeah. So to update you, we looked at this one last time. I don't see it here, but there was a hard copy plan. Do we have Yes.

But we're only focusing on two items. Yeah. You're hearing us all over again, but Mr.

So, this revisions the change from the application last time was for eight spots and this one reflects a change to six. And there was a few uh neighbors that came and talked about concerns for parking and even knows in the backyard was not um on board with that idea. There's a couple survivors that Mr. B have anything you have anything right now or

there? Yeah. Do you want to come up and speak and talk about what what changed from last time? What you're adjusted differently from last time and speak. No, I mean it changed from 8 to six when 81 ft length six discussed was why we all said no six. So guys,

I believe you had asked him to the six, but he didn't quite understand going on or something. So,

so at the last meeting the um it was four eight and um um number of individuals uh living in the immediate neighborhood spoke in opposition. um expressing concerns centered on impact of added parking capacity in vehicles uh green space reduction, water runoff and effects on character of the neighborhood. Um, Councilwoman Silman submitted a letter uh expressing similar concerns uh as did uh residents at 22 Stevenson Street, Caris Freeze and Jim Hawinson. There was a petition received of 16 individuals living in proximity um in opposition and kind of an unstated uh online petition relating to parking. It had a number of uh names attached, but no addresses or real statement. And um uh the chair asked the applicant if he would consider amending the application to accommodate less vehicles. Uh at the time the applicant did not agree to that. Um and it was denied. Uh well I shouldn't say that. Um well, a motion was made to table the application without a second that was withdrawn and a motion was adopted to

deny the application. It was understood that the applicant may resubmit an application. What you got here?

Questions or anything for yet or you want to go into discussion? Yeah, we have to ask to talk. If anyone else is here to speak on it, feel free to jump up. So, for the record, can we get you in station A? Um, yeah. Can I just sign I I can't do two things at once, especially. [laughter] It's okay.

Okay. Right. So, my name is Carrie Pings and I'm at 22 Davidson Street. Um, talking about this um application of Mr. Peace. Um, we live right above it, so we see everything that happens. Um, we provided photos last time of our lovely view now um outside our window, which is of like parking. Um, so just want to be sure because this is really hard for us distinguish between what zoning board does and what plan board does and all this fun stuff. So we're just going to throw it out there and whatever I can't get through, my husband can come up and finish and um fill in any blanks that I I might have missed. Um, so we have this this this drawing and it's still, you know, I mean it's reduced but it's still significant. So, um, it's a parking lot. Um, and I guess the concern you're talking about is that while it meets the 60% coverage, like you can do whatever you want, right? Like with your lot, as long as it's less than 60%, we can cover it is our understanding. Um, however, we're also under the assumption or the understanding based off the code that you can't have more based off this residential R1 zoning. you can't have more than six spaces. And currently this plan, I mean, it looks lovely with six little lines. Um, but there's garage and there's a bunch of other spaces. And we talked about this last meeting that there's plenty of space already and we we just determined all this already. So now we're seeing this again, but there's still all these SPs plus six. So that means we're looking at still a lot more based off the zoning law. That's not okay. In fact, it says it's like 382 um letter D that residential districts which garage space is provided. The

garage space may be considered in determining whether required parking has been met. Um so if it's there it can be offered and that should be considered as two spaces. In addition, there's plenty of other spaces as well. So, while it's not on, I understand that it was not on the letter we said, it still should require a variance based off of this drawing that was submitted. Um, our understanding just reading this really long um but very clear, I guess. Um, so I'm hoping just to to make sure that we're not minimizing um as as the attorney said, muddling things up. I don't I don't feel like that's muddling things up at all. I think this is very relevant um to what's being presented um by Mr. Case. Um we have other thing I don't know because the planning board was supposed to be first so we don't really know honestly where to go with this. Um and I appreciate I just have to say qualify I appreciate as a business person I I really appreciate your your diligence and you're a good business person. Um but we're neighbors so um I don't know. Do you want to present the alternative hearing.

I I had trouble hearing my hearing's not good and I had trouble hearing um what you were saying about um some area being taken into consideration. the garage space.

The garage space. I mean, it's I mean, there's a They had taken away a garage. There was a garage. Our old neighbors had a garage that was like taken down. Um there still remains a two-car garage. And then all the space within that area that is in front of the two-car garage. It's all dotted. It looked like there's little dots here and ambush shape that's in front of the garage. So, this is all discussed last time that there's plenty of space. So major concern which should also be for you and again for the planning board I I just don't know but like Clayton is a mess. Um I I was walking Saturday. It was 10:00 a.m. I went to the post office, walked down West Court. It came out late and and there was like a little vodka like can and um a garbage can um thrown. I'm just going to show you. But this is like what I this is what's so little kids and this was like trunk and trunk and treat or something happening and little kids were like seeing this and um it just so all this density and all this these new students you know coming in and with six more spaces eventually that's going to total as we discussed last time like 10 to 12 spaces um and it's hard as hard as um right Roy, right? Right.

That's Roy.

Roy um stated to like follow up on this stuff. There's not enough people to go around and see like are people following the code or not. And so we're just trying to prevent that when that comes and all of a sudden there's all these people in the house and 12 cars and because there's space and um we've called the police probably in the last 20 years five times. I called him two in the last month for Clayton. Um because there's a big parking lot now. Um is it Jed Seals owns it? I don't know. And it's like they're on they're partying on this like great lot that they've got. It's literally a platform and so we're just inviting this chaos. Um and and you know Saturday little kids are now like seeing the result. It's just silly. Um anyway, so I we feel like there definitely should be a variance based off that code and we don't see that here. um as part of the the letter we got. So, we just want to make sure that that I guess is is considered. Um and yeah, I heard you guys talking to this last person um about condition. So, maybe some of this is conditional um also based on some of this stuff. I mean um this this plan looks so beautiful um with the um the wells that were on bedwalk. I mean, the ability to even put in a well is like questionable. So, of course, this looks wonderful in the plan and it's approved and great, but then when we can't actually get the the well because there's bedrock and then there's even more as as Mr. Larson was talking about last time, there's even more like all these things to think about and consider. So, maybe we think about like some of these variance approvals are conditional um based off of certain things happening um at certain points like in time and this written communication

I'm not getting that.

Let's go. Do you want to turn this one? So, Okay. It says now two just I I'm having trouble here spaces.

All right, go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Uh, my name is Jim Hopinson and I was here our last meeting as well reside with my wife at 22 Stevenson and so just a port of point of order and just asking Carrie was asking the same thing. So I don't know if these discussions are here for this zoning board or we or do we save these for a planning board? I mean for zoning board are we talking about the specific variances that are in this request or yes yeah okay and what and and maybe can someone can refresh us what are those specific variances oh okay so

just to let you know the biggest one is 300-83 correct Rick

no issues gone gone Okay, that's what he came for last time. 383 is no longer that's why you went to that was six death. So they are requesting table 300-14 lot width um 4 G5 and BP50 um and then the four vegetation strip uh from the existing driveway And last time we were looking at max of parking but that is gone per code 383 F one A maximum should not apply to Jimmy district.

Correct. So, we'll we'll bring up our arguments with the planning board in terms of parking and reviewing this plan that's been put forward. Correct. Well, some varants. Well, the variance that the applicant is asking for is lot size, I guess. But then also this fourth this buffer area the forestation sh correct so that's the discussion this evening

that's the the only two things we're discussing and so we'll save other discussion for later the one discussion we do have um and I can ask for clarification about this is where the the variance for the buffer and I understand the driveway coming in to the back of the house there there is no buffer there with our neighbors yet. There is a point where um where the in the um drawing that we've got where the driveway turns into the existing garage that that there's some amount of buffer. But so I wonder if that meets the co wonder if that meets the guidelines for

something we take into consideration that that buffer. So that sort of is in this just where our property meets 52 Clayton. And and I'm only saying this because in the past um cars have pulled off of that driveway and have been into the grass and into our property. So that's that buffer is only the pre-existing driveway.

Correct. Um yeah, I mean it's just the idea of maintaining a 4 foot vegetate vegetation strip and we've had we've done other conditions where we've fired um fence to be put up for to block headlights, vegetation trees be put up to block headlights. So I mean it's all taken into just that 4 foot for the whole property. And then what they they're asking is there's an existing zero basically. Um so can they do that? Um, and then yeah, we can say a bunch of different things with as far as yes or no or do you just think with that? Sure. Right. Excellent.

Well, at least for this 4ft variance that they're asking, we would like to make sure that that the space that is on our property that cars are not pulling in our property. I guess that's what we're asking. We want to make sure there's a 4ft lever. We don't want a variance on that. Right. They're asking for they're asking not to have they're asking a variance. So there isn't that buffer. We want to make sure there is that buffer. Correct. That's not what I see here. They're asking right now. They're asking for five foot currently right now. But what I'm looking at right now says five foot ve vegetative buffer on the east preserve hedges.

Right. He That's right. So they're just saying like and and we're and we're agree with you. We're not going to allow them to do less than four right up here properly. But right now it's they have it set here at five according to the plan here. They have it at 52 or 62. It's number six. Number seven. It says 5 foot vegetated bumper. I think that's Yeah. What this what? So we can't put an art. I don't want us to take that and put that.

No, it's both sides. So it's 8 foot this kind. [clears throat] This is what I'm asking where this the area I'm pointing about and this is where we have a concern. So just where this driveway pulls in this little space right here. I know where you right

and so sort of that one end of that space does not have a buffer um and the other end of that space would be considered that buffer but historically cars have pulled in and pulled in on onto our property. Yeah. I mean we can can look at some design.

Um so we we were some neighbors have developed um concern neighbor so we got a lot of concerns. So that trash stuff I showed you that's kids. They're concerned about all this like density. We have another neighbor who was concerned and provided an alternative solution that we will not show you. Um, and I don't know give that to you. Maybe not this time discuss. Yeah, because right now we can only address the two items. That's unfortunate. You know, that's the only thing we can address right now. But you can just put in notes though that you actually have another one of these for their hands. that we can

we don't want it to stimulate debris all over the it. So, we would request the zoning board to look at that one space. Yeah. Um because it's maybe partially has a 4 foot buffer, but part of it. Yeah. To clarify, you're talking about the the corner where the fence the chain fence there comes down towards the right direction. Yeah, there's also a fence that they're calling out on plan. So, so this sort of space right here,

right? So, this is our property and this is just a driveway. So, people have pulled in pulled and had canal wheels up here on our properties. There's nothing that there's no fairly no proposal. Exactly. Yeah. And we can discuss. Yeah, which we've done. Yes, I remember that.

Anyone else? Motion to close public hearing. Anybody else wish to speak? I'll make a motion to close public hearing. Second. All those in favor.

So I mean I do share that concern of yeah driving into the neighbor's property, you know, lights. And there's a few different properties that we have called for like a six foot privacy plants being installed or just sanitation or shrubs something to address that matters not being shining your back. Well, we have to address the left, right? Yeah. So, Mark, we're discussing the idea of just of having you install a uh six foot privacy fence just to um stop your tenants from possibly driving on the property or having their headlights shine into their property. um just to minimize the disturbance to the that area and then we can give you um

I would prefer rolling [clears throat] six foot

in other situations I've is providing rain. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I guess that too is is fine as well as as planting um the AR grow over six feet. Oh, definitely. So, it'll actually be better because it'll grow because they're the neighbors are up on a hill. It'll be it'll be better than I can still see over central plants. You know, you do know the area we're speaking of though, right? Okay. Just want to make sure you clarify that as well.

Yeah, it makes sense to provide a little more concealment to the area. You have questions or

No, I haven't yet.

We'll go through some questions. Okay. The following test will be considered by the zoning board of appeals to determine whether the variance in lane or the granty or denial of the area variance request. Whether undesirable change will be reduced to the character of the neighborhood or turn it to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Um there are existing properties around similar there is there's a concern with parking in the backyard. Um there is the need for parking in the city in general. I think it's one was weighing weighing the pros and cons of of each and determining whether yes or no depending on what you see. As far as overall I could say what was saying what do you think yes to that or no?

Okay say yes. Yeah. Whether the benefit by the applicant can achieve by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than area variance. Nothing. whether the requested area variance is substantial.

Yeah, it's exceptional. I'd say

yeah six eight spaces and then um to the vegetation strip will be zero included whether proposed varants will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions to in the neighborhood or district. No, as far as following the engineer type of design whether the alleged difficulty was self-created which should consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. Yes. Yes. So yes, no. Yes. No. Yes. So, as far as I'm looking to word this vegetation requirements of shrub barriers, distance-wise, we're like to maybe say excuse you speak up regard

um yeah I'm looking just to kind of word a condition of vegetation be planted um starting at the property of 39 what it is 22 starting to the rear end of 22 Stevenson Street they have to make sure that wherever he finds those trees, it leaves room for them to do maintenance on their fence at 22 or any any fence along that line. Well, they currently have a fence there. There's no fence there at all. They don't have anything there. No, you do.

No, but you are correct. There's no fence. Yeah, there's no fence. That's why they're going into their driveway. So, they can chop that right on the propert. Yeah. or or maybe we have them leave a space so if they decided in future they want to put a fence in that spot themselves they can yeah whatever I'm just I'm just saying usually if there was an existing structure fence you want to leave it in at least a couple feet we may I think that's what we should be doing anyways is giving them that opportunity because we don't want to put it right on their property have put it right on the property line and then one day we want to put up a nice fence

there is a chain link fence links correct I just stops about like half or quarter up the garage. But not just on you want that whole the whole west side of the problem. Yeah. Not just that little spot, the whole section all the way down. Yep. Um and I'm fine with going from just basically the whole [clears throat] I think. Is that there to there? I think so. The whole property that went to Yeah, that's exactly what it is. It's your chain link fence goes the whole length of your property. Correct. halfway, right? Yeah. Endsum that James is talking about. It goes the whole length of the property, but that ends right where we were talking about.

Correct. At the end of the garage, that little tiny garage. Yeah. So, I'd say the whole whole property. Yeah. Except where the driveway is. Well, you can't, right? No, the whole property at 64. Well, the driveway is just a dead. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, up until the driveway just started. Mhm. Um, okay. I'll make a motion to approve the request of variances with from the new changes.

Yeah. at 52 Clayton A with the conditions of a 4 foot vegetation strip consisting of shrubs uh etc that provide a barrier to the neighboring property that's 22 Stevenson year round yes year round year round why he's trying to say is that our providing sill will not shed

um or privacy fence is um yeah basically along that property line and the only the only variance you're granting for that strip is the pre-existing one that exists with the driveway up to that point

could you put in six foot fence too just in case something or somebody um so with the condition that a 4 foot uh vegetative strat consisting of year round shrubs or a sixoot put privacy fence be put in place that extends the length of the 22 Stevens 22 Stevens adjacent 22 Stevens property line

and uh was there some further condition on the about the 4 foot or qualification about the 4 foot yeah that I mean that's up to you guys but that 4 foot I'm alluding to what what the jump the people trying to But that 4 foot resitative strip variance is only for the pre-existing conditions, not for anything there. Correct. It just means they can't put a new parking span of parking into anywhere else. Just just for what is pre-existing, which is the driveway.

I believe that's what you're talking about. You didn't want it. It doesn't count for anything else but the the driveway part. So is there some other vegetative strip that's going in that to which the variance does not apply? Well, yeah, they got the the new the new part has to comply. This is just the where they drive up to the Yeah. And he's already got that and he's already got that with sketch here. Yeah, he's got it right here. Has a five foot Uh, I just I wanted to add it just because I believe that was one of their concerns. Let's see. Yeah.

Did we get a comment on this one? First. Yeah. After Okay. Um, any other additions or just that pre sustained strip? That is it. Those are the only two things that we were second. One second. Second. All those in favor say I. I.

I. They approve the way conditions seem for the shield. Yes. Question. Go ahead.

You know, I just um just considering this is a hill. We talked about a little bit, but like um you know, those a hill buying property on a hill, you're going to see all this stuff. So these buffers and stuff just to just throw out there. I know it's not on a on a current, not on the important. Um, but six feet like you said, I mean, I don't know what that I guess if we're down on his property, you won't see it or we're on ours, you know, we're just looking right down. So, as long as like I don't know, someone wants to I'm going to make sure that like a 6' five is never going to see this craziness. Um and uh uh

yeah, I think we were just going back highlights that you've used for other other places of like you know your car headlights are going to be pointing 15 feet up in the air. So it's the idea of stopping it there. Um as far as driving on right there just need something to stop the driving which is addressing those concerns. Okay. I would actually say that the city should require retaining walls so that when it come Oh, the other thing I was gonna bring like shade and stuff. You start putting big massive trees or something and you start to get shade. You know, it's just becomes crazy on him. So, I want you guys to consider the location of this as well that's not just flat space.

Well, that's why he I think also wanted the stipulation of maybe the fence as well. All right. So I think it's retaining wall then our words where is level and the six foot fence would actually prevent us from seeing stuff. Right now the our yard in their yard is about 5t or six feet. So it's not prevent us from seeing um chain length fence you see through right. So we are seeing everything right now but it's on our property. Um it goes down even more. And so what do you actually Yeah. So it's it's getting improved. Yeah. too to I had the same type of hedges behind my house and they they grew about 8 to 10 feet. Yeah. I mean this that's like a minimum type of thing, right? These shrubs can grow.

They didn't go any higher, but you know, until I took them down, I I didn't see anything to my neighbor and I sit up higher. So, as long as you're just adding like 10 foot hedge, right? So, actually in there, so it's not however high he he grows them. So, but I'm sure he he sounds like he's workable with this. It's something that he has to mean there's been some history that that's not so tree that's disappeared after a couple branches were going to be cut down and the next day the whole tree was gone. So, we're we're talking about things that we don't you know, we want to make sure this is all I guess is we appreciate the effort and we appreciate the do. We really do. Um, but you just want to make sure it's on there.

Excuse me. We had a tree, a big tree right on the line. I went over and told her and I said, she offered it 50. I said, I would I would have it cut down. Well, we voted on it. So let's get in line there. So

we'll continue on to agenda number three which is now 139 street. All right. So yeah. Yeah. Agenda item number 31 139 North North Main Street Syracuse Recovery Services is seeking to relocate its substance use disordered outpatient treatment offices from this current location.

My name is Megan Styles and I am the applicant on behalf of Sirius Recovery Services. a clear what you're what we do. We provide outpatient treatment for people that are trying to get better.

I know that you guys know that Portland has a serious need for services. Um I'm actually from Portland. Well, hopefully my husband's from Maryland. We've lived on UPLID. this matters to us and I understand that like not everybody loves that population but they exist and we have to feed them.

Yeah. So from my understanding I guess when you say can you give me a little more explanation of what what it is you guys do therapy assessments um medication management that's pretty much is there a list of their experiences that I ask why they're Yeah, I'm curious. I mean, that's why I was like, wait. Yeah, they have for special use for a cyclone. It's uh It says um area variance. Area variance, but it doesn't it's not required.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what I think. I think it might have been a misprint. I didn't see these. I thought they went out because I was curious, too. That's why I was looking it up and I was like, "I agree." So that uh could be a mistake on my part. So uh in looking at was it a site plan view is what I wanted especially just is there anybody staying there or will they be there overnight? No no this is just a change that will be just a ch it was just a a dentist office. Yeah, that used to be the dental work.

Forgive his name there. So anyway, it was supposed to go to plan commission. So I do apologize on next week's agenda. It's a special use permit or site plan because they're changing the use from a dentist office where you have drive-in people. Yes, she's going to have more foot traffic. More foot traffic and mass transit, stuff like that. So it's it's a change of use. It was it was supposed to go by intermission. It's not a use. So they're just talking about use the building. Yeah. Either one's a model use. It's just they're just changing the changing the pedestrian traffic. It's helpful. Okay.

Well, my apologies. Uh as I was going together the two agendas, I myself made a mistake following you into this. I was going to say congratulations. through the building. Thank you. I do apologize if you I can get you through this. You don't want to You're more than You're more than welcome to come back in two weeks. Two weeks. No, we next week if you want to. If not, I can get you through it. It's not problems. It's no big deal. Okay. Sorry you had to sit through all that. No, it was good with you guys.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay, with that being said, let's go to the next one. 73 North Main Street by see if you sell vehicles on site currently used for automotive services. This is so I listed Brian Ricardi as the applicant. Brian is the owner of the property.

Yes. And your name is

My name is Ke C. So I guess explain to me what like the existing uses as far as So they have a special use permit that was granted to Mr. Ricardi, who is the current owner on September 5th, 2000 for a manual car wash and auto detailing business.

Yeah. Um, oh yeah, I sure do. So, which is so they are currently using it for that, but now he's using it to to sell vehicles. Um, vehicle sales is not allowable use in that zone. And uh that's why I say did you did you say a special use permit was issued that year? Okay. Um it says here that you won't be repairing vehicles but normally with car sales there is also getting inspections. Will you become an inspection facility?

We utilize a few shops around town for all that. Um Morris and Homer. and [clears throat] help you guys in court here. So you will care. No, we we don't plan on doing anything. Okay. We actually don't do any mechanical work there. Sure. You did provide them documents to show this the the inability to sell vehicles will prove financial hardship. Okay. So he did provide the documents for that and that's like one of the major requirements for use.

No, this is because he doesn't own the property, it still will be a special use, right? No, this is a use range. So even if he leaves, he'll stay with the property. So I've actually put a a deposit down on the property. Uh the current owner and myself have the deal worked out. So Okay. Uh, I don't don't plan on going anywhere anyways. So, truthfully, this is something that should have been caught a long time ago. He's been selling vehicles there forever. Yeah. And just I mean, it's something that that slipped through the cracks like other things that we

just full disclosure, he's clean vehicle. He probably don't realize again it cleaning it. He has his fresh and the vehicle sales is what we're talking about. And I don't think he's hovering the neighborhood. I think he's been doing it for a very long time. I just And and he clearly shows that the the inability not to sell vehicles is going to be a financial part. Well, the other thing I think too is you keep your property pretty clean. I try to try to keep it nice and nether. Yeah.

At all times hurts forever. The other thing I would like I would I would add is that um just so he doesn't have to go back to the site plan there is a limit to the amount of vehicles that I think I have address that like was estimated um but yeah try to avoid it having to go back to cycling and you can limit that here we can we can talk about variance of parking well yeah and that's going to be my next question is is how many spaces Are you thinking about having Well, he's allowed

two per he's allowed two per bay for a repair garage/vehicle or whatever. Yeah, but he's not a repair facility. He's not, but he's an auto detailing. So, it's kind of Okay. One half a dozen of the Yeah. So, your property is right next to it used to be Dexter's. We actually own that property. That was my next question. Yeah, but are you asking? I don't want to put anything out there. So, there'll be nothing into that property there. We We use that for parking for our personal vehicles while we're at work and uh some of our work vans. Um but as far as customer vehicles or retail vehicles, there won't be anything out there.

Okay. So, I don't know if you guys know the area, but right next to it, there used to be a store um years ago. So my question for him was this. He's going to use that as part of his parsel as well.

So you're familiar with the corner. So grew up in the area. On the front side that faces family video and on the side that faces Pudgies. I I typically like to put like four vehicles on each side. So I'm kind of asking for eight um if if we are granted the permission. Um, I'm not looking to overload the corner. We also need room to uh to work, you know, dayto day. We're not trying to crowd the corners so that way we can't move in there. Cuz I know you've done boats and Yep. seen them out.

We do sometimes stage boats out and things like that. If something's too big to pull out there, there's nothing for sales for sales. It's only and it's not too extreme per day. Okay, that's odd. And that's the minimum and the maximum of that's 200%. So he's allowed 1212 but and he's asking for eight. So no range requirement, but that that a would also include when he has parked on 30%. Mhm. But remember too, he owns the property next door that used to be the store and that's where he purchased his employee vehicles. So,

okay. Not not against trying to make it right. Yep. Yep. That's why I asked him. He's not going to put cars there for sale. He said, "But are you looking for specific language what the business is when you grant this use is this use the use variances for vehicle sales of up to number of vehicles. So you can't My My point is I want him to be able to do this, but I don't want him to have the whole place lined up with a good sales, you know. So is four or five reasonable? Can we do Can we do six? Three on each side. I think that's reasonable.

I'd be happy with that. Yeah. I'm just I'm confused as far as what is he allowed. So what is it allowed or how many is he allowed per zoning or So you're allowed six for I mean you're he's allowed 12 spots on that property. He has two I have four four bay doors. It's four bay doors. Yeah. So you're allowed three per bay. So I mean he's got enough park. Yeah. So, do you you want us to minimize that or are you saying No, I minimize the sale. So, this we're talking about the sale. We're not talking about the existing use. Correct.

But since he's here, instead of sending the site plan, I would say bring it in a little bit and have him present me with a parking plan that we can use. Mhm. Yeah. I'm looking at it now. So, you get one, two, three, four, five, six. It looks like you can have one at the corner. Then we'll go with that parking. Yeah, that would be seven. Actually, I'm okay with seven. I'll just give him I mean I'm not going to be getting a lot of stress. I'm not against it. It's just this is his table.

Five, six, seven. And his bay doors are still there. He still has access in and out on the side. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, makes sense. There was probably not the way they told story to be. Right. Okay. And the only other thing I would say then is just to make sure the the the signage in the vehicle windows are tasteful and not I don't know if that's possible on the other street. I will try to keep they're usually bright yellow.

Yeah. So the other problem is right is it's a near a New York state. It's right on a New York state. Yes. Yes. What we're trying to avoid is attention from the DOT. Gotcha. I noticed you use the little stickers. Not that it's just part of But do you use the handwritten markers? I used to use those. People can't read my writing. So I started getting Yeah, I think we're all good. I'm good.

Anyone else? You're good. We'll we'll you can sit down. We'll go through some questions and motion. I make a motion to close the public hearing. No one else has it. No. Second. All those say I five. I'm sorry.

Okay. The following test can be considered by zoning board of appeals determined whether variance in weighing the granting or denial of the area variance requests. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or turn into nearby properties by the grant of area. No. No. Other than the cheating person method feasible for the other. Yeah, this is use not a special use. This is a question. Does anyone have special questions?

Yes, there was there we go to the second page. Awesome. He's answered them. Those are the questions about some new questions, use variance questions. The applicants did not realize a reasonable return as shown by financial evidence. The lack of a return must be substantial proof. Yes, he has shown. Yep. It's very good with his one is yes.

Yes. The alleged har hardship related legal copy is unique. The hardship may not apply to a substantial portion of the zoning district or neighborhood.

Um, it's currently Yeah, it's unique. It's currently a car garage in first place. Something that regards this to be felon or pleing. Something that was ruled before just slightly different could easily look the same if you had those cars out there for Washington. Right. He's just hoping to sell them quicker. Just sell unique. Yes. The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Just also if I could add, we have more trouble across the street at at at the 7-Eleven. Yeah. Than we've ever had with that property. So I want to add that

No, it won't alter it. Last question. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. Um, it was a car lab. Yeah. I I don't see where Yeah. It's my opinion. So, our answers were No, but one top down. Yeah. was yes. It has to be.

Yes. Yes. Yes. And then all those.

So, I'll make a motion to approve the requested use variance to sell vehicles with the Seven conditions to not exceed seven parked vehicles for sale. Second I think do you do you see Um, sure.

That's right. Thank you. Um, who would you assign? Agenda item number four, 28 Madison Street interpretation cast 6 CBA enforcement officers interpretation which goes Did you out?

Did you X out? It was X out here. Oh, uh, no, we're doing uh, we're doing 28. I'm moving 212 to the end. This my that's what my scribble means. Okay. Zoning enforcement interpretation with a code allows staff utilization of accessory dweller office.

So if you read the next so I understand which one that's you just gave us. know the interpret interpretation package should be in your paper. Oh yeah. You look at page two of that

I want you officer based on sections interpretation is that the proposed offices are used to maintain the residents in France. Look at the look at the definition of n of accessory specifically number three then accessories instructions in the table. It says if you sign there it's just saying it was approved with the additional That's with vague for us to agree.

No, no, no. That's that's okay. Thanks for asking. It's already been reported. At least it happens every time we be put on. Don't delete it. [laughter] Um I don't know. We we care, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe we should be asking Ry's question since there's no one here representing. I mean, we agree with Right. Yeah. That's all you got to do. Makes sense to move.

Yeah. Me, too. makes perfect. That's so I couldn't figure out I just So it is an R1 and it is offices in the back of the So just to access this that's just so it it's the the staff that works that house has their offices in the garage out back. So, I'm just I I want you guys to say say, you know, I would we wouldn't even be here if it was a GB1, GB2 or professional office, right?

We're here because it's an R1 and you've seen the way people act about R1 district. So, I wanted to make sure that I wanted affirmation that my interpretation was correct. Yes. Okay. So uh unanimous agreement that uh the CEO's interpretation holding

that the ash is permitted that we are in two days. I'll make a motion to encourage with enforcement officers interpretation. I'll second. Um,

last one 212 Tom Hopkins area approval plans to install a shed to collect clothing donations speak.

There's a party in there. So this is just in the existing non-conformities like up we you know there's four of them accessory structure wasn't there so they they can't add they're not supposed to be able to add to the the the property but they did sign a waiver cuz they had to get the job done. So you guys got that list the four pre-existing knockup parties.

Yes. And so they're requesting the pre-existing area variances, maximum front yard lot, building height, 10 foot buffer to our Ron Joseph streets. No speak. Motion to close public hearing. Second. All in favor say I. I. So is there a photo of this in the word like street or like a site? Yeah. 34 has like a site.

Yeah. Page 34, but it's already there. Structure is already there. It's already put it right where there's there should be a picture on the on the sideline. Ah, I see. It's right next to the house next to it. I didn't I mean so it's it's not that big of if planning board wants to move. Yeah. I mean think about your

it's it's supposed to be for donated donated clothing for veterans I guess or something. [clears throat] The the conformities are all pre-existing like we always do. I I believe that SH is 4T off the property line which which is allowable for a shutter

10 minimum 4. Yeah. Is the house next to them a business? Yeah.

Yeah. But it's not zoned. The Joseph Street property is a zoned R1. So, you need a 10 foot buffer between a commercially zone property and that's what that's for. I think it was a little neighborhood business too there. Is it in the same spot?

Like right here where this red cross. I don't It's It's in generally the same spot, but I say slightly in front of that bas. So it's on the hard surface. Yeah. Yeah. It looks like it's all painted. Okay. That's my little concern. I know questions. Whether the following test will be considered as appeals [clears throat] to determine whether the variance in W motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I.

The following test will be considered by the zoning board of appeals to determine whether the variance weigh in the granting of the area variance request. Whether undesirable change will be produced to the character of neighborhood or to turn into nearby collabor. Whether the benefits of the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible the applicant to pursue other than grants. Wow. I just zest. Um number one. Yeah, I agree. No change.

Number two, what are the benefits by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than in area variance?

No. Other than the requested area variance is substantial. No. The proposed variance will have adverse effect or impact physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No. Whether it be alleged difficulty which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board which shall not necessarily crit. Yes. Yeah. So uh no no no guess. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the requested pre-existing area variances at 212 streets. Second, all say I approve.

I believe this gentleman in the back is for a tobacco license. Main Street. Say that again. 22 Main Street. We don't have anything here. Um, we have not seen an appeal for so there's nothing on our agenda. No, we haven't seen an appeal for

yet. So, um, going back, let me, uh, pull up. So, Bear with me. I'm sure this has been on our agenda already.

Yes. So, you came to us in August, right? Was it is it August that you were here? I came. Yeah. The last I thought it was also last month. Yeah. And um the reason that they le because of they thought that my location is related to the south which is not what was the different so yeah you guys asked for the application. So he was supposed to provide us proof but the process is in a appeal form that we have

which was never ever given to us and then we put it on the agenda for you guys to leave review the appeal. We denied it based on our knowledge. But we need the appeal. Yeah, we need the appeal form. All right. So we need your appeal form. Have you filled out the appeal? I did give it to you. Did you give it to her in the allotted time period? The second day our meeting last time. Do you want me to go down and double check the whole? Do you have proof that you're not affiliated with them? Do I have Do you have proof that you're not ailiated with them at all? Uh, no. Then you got to provide us proof that you're not affiliated with them.

Yeah. Okay. But it's the reason that you guys denied it because like I said this they thought mild is um related to the south which is not. So you have the same name daily grind south and daily grind. So Chris last time came in that the previous owner who told you guys last time that this is has nothing to do with that I sold this one to this and my location is a student finance convenience and this is super lucky it's two different location different company different owners you have a copy of state license one

I mean I have been my son if you can get all that stuff and proof bring it in give it to him so he can bring it to to us at our next meeting. Sure. Yeah, I can give you even tomorrow. And then even now I can go to the store. And then for her, you got to fill out the appeal forms and actually physically give them to her during work hours here. That way she'll give you something that she's received it, right? Yeah, I could do that tomorrow. Let's do this official and proper. Sure. Thank you so much. In the meantime, because you're in you're in a you're in the process of appeal, you're still able to sell your products.

I already took all the glasses. So, how the sort of looks like empty? Well, that's some of them. That's going to be that more than likely is going to be it's a good thing you did because if you see what everyone else had to do, that's probably going to be exactly what you have to. Well, yeah. Yeah, I see the window. I bought organic ships and stuff instead of all the glasses. But you're still able to sell. Yeah, that's No, I'm just saying I'm allowing you to sell.

No, until they determine whe you're not supposed to have it anyways. Yeah, I took them off. you already

um approval of last meeting minutes for September 8th.

Yeah. So, there's a couple things in here where I had some notes to myself that I left in that should be deleted and I have a couple of places where the sentence is not grammatically correct. So I will correct whether some of these run on some sentences are have anything that's additional factual and if you want me if you want to roll this Sure. Motion to give.

Okay.

I motion to be second. Me to vote. Yeah.