Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

It's supposed to be here tomorrow. The rest of the house is together. Except it's called to order the December meeting of the local planning agency. Could I have a roll call, please? Uh Steve Coats, Sam King Kade, James McFersonen, Todd W, Rob Ray, Jamie Ciphford. Stand force to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And should I have a motion to approve the agenda, please? Motion to move to approve the agenda. Sorry.

Motion carries. Zero. And a motion to approve the minutes. Move to approve the minutes of November 6th, 2025.

Renie seconds. Motion carry six to zero. And there are any public comments not on tonight's agenda. All right. Heardial hearings. This is uh number 6.1. a request for the bearings to reduce the rear setback at lot of the lot at 342 Okaloosa Road Northeast. And if this is your case and you're here for that, if you could please stand right now and Amy as well. Do all swear to tell the truth. If you raise your right hand, do all swear to tell the truth. Hold your thumb. The truth shall be done. Okay, you're on the road. So if you come up here, you'll be able to provide actual testimony.

Okay. Well, good evening. This request is for a variance at 342 Oak Road Northeast to reduce the rear setbacks to uh 12.2 ft. This home was built back in 1951 and it sits at an angle on a corner lot. Um it was purchased back in September of 2025 by Stephanie Smith and Pauline Ferguson. And back on October 2025, a building permit was submitted for garage enclosure, a new porch, roof, windows, doors. And since they are adding 2 feet to their garage area, they want to enclose that to make a master bath, master bed, and then also they want to add 2 feet to their front porch and put a porch cover over it. Um, that would be changing the footprint of of the property and the structure. Um the staff does not uh did not approve this um based on the fact that the southwest rear setback is at 12.2 ft and according to LDC 8.01.02 A2 anything that is over the 10% um encroachment is considered a detrimental nonconformity and this encroachment uh of the rear setback is at 51.2%. So in November of 2025, the property owners requested a variance to allow for the continuation of their improvements. So based on the LDC 8.02.02, no expansion can be made on the detrimental nonconformity and must be presented to the local planning agency and meet the following requirements. Is this an unusual or unique condition? The staff finds that while the overall shape and lot size is not unusual, the configuration of the angled house uh

towards the corner of the lot does pose challenges not typically seen on normal lots in the city. Is this a hardship? Hardship uh staff finds that this would result in a hardship. The house was built in 1951 and as previously stated, the angle of the house causes one corner of the structure to be closer than the allowed LDC requirements. As this causes a detrimental nonconformity, the owner is restricted from adding onto the house despite the alteration meeting the LDC requirements. Results created by the owner. staff finds that it is not created by the owner as the condition predates the current owner owners who purchased this uh property in September of 2025. Is there any special privileges? That means that it will not provide special privileges that are improvements still met by the LDC standards. Is this the minimum necessary for our variance? The staff finds that the variance granted is the minimum necessary to afford the advocate reasonable use of their land, building or structure. Is it uh compatible with the neighborhood staff finds that the proposed improvements fit existing residential character and does it consist with the LBC and the comp plan. Staff finds that the proposed proposal meets both the specified intentions of the LDC and the comp plan. And staff finds that to continue improvements to this house will continue to restore and rehabilitate the neighborhood. Staff finds that there is no negative impact on the health uh public health or safety. And with that um in addition to the the required findings set forth in the 8.02.02

02 LD LPA. Um they need to also make the following findings when the variance is requested in an area of a flood hazard zone. And this property is in a shaded X flood zone, but there's no increased uh risk to the life property, no uh CRS uh impact or no special flood hazards. And for a special um shaded X flood zone that is a 500year flood plane which basically equals uh 0.2% of an annual chance of flooding. Um typically in that area flood insurance is not mandatory but it is encouraged and recommended. Um so with that based on the findings of fact staff uh recommends that the local planning agency approve the variance request for 3 42 Oak Loose Road Northeast to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to 12.2 ft. Um we've had something similar in the past to this to where uh you could go in I guess four different directions. One, approval for the minimum rear setback reduction to 12.2 feet or of course denying. Um, wave the expansion to the modification of the nonconformity or of course denial of that. All right. Any discussion questions? Would uh anybody else like to speak on this matter? Thank you, Amy. U my name is Stephanie Smith. I'm one of the owners along with my um spouse, Paulie Ferguson. We really just want to thank you for your time for reviewing this. Um we went over our plans and went over them and went over them and and we didn't want to we don't

have much of a backyard. So, the only other was to kind of expand in the front. And this would allow not only to keep the charm of the 1951 home, but also allow for a little bit bringing it into the future. we're modernizing it and allowing us to get out of the rain of course, but overall we didn't want to further detriment um into any of the LDC code. So when we looked at it, we made sure that when we did expand into the front, we didn't get any closer to our front step back um for that allowance as well. So with that being said, we want to thank you again and ask one clarification question to Amy. Amy, there's only one varian requested, right? If you posed it is the only thing in the recommendation was

it is for the side. Okay. Okay. Any more questions discussions? All right. I'll make a motion to approve the variance to reduce the setback to 1.2 ft. Second. Is that based on all the criteria found in the LEC? It is. All right. You know, open any public comment.

Public comments. Public comments. No public comments. All right. And motion carries. Six to zero. All right. Next is another variance. This is 6.2 or request for variance at 34 Deal Avenue Northwest. And if you're here for this case stand up, sir. Yes. Okay. So, your carrier, you'll be providing testimony under.

All right. Uh this variance is a request for 340 Avenue Northwest uh related to a driveway that was installed without a permit. The work increased the impervious surface to 67.2% and expanded the driveway to about 39 ft. Both of which exceeds the limits allowed for the R1 uh zoning district. Um back on May 15th, code enforcement discovered that the driveway was put in and at that time uh the property owner Scott um Remedias uh installed who installed the new driveway was um informed that they would need to submit a for a permit for after the fact. At that time on May 19th, the permit had been submitted. But on June 17, 2025, the property owner was informed that the permit would not be approved due to the excessive impervious uh and ratio at that time of 67.2%. Which uh the maximum for R1 is 50%. Also, the driveway design standards exceed the engineering manual maximum of 24 ft. And looking at the surveyway and the driveway width, it it did increase it by 39 ft by 39 ft or 239 ft.

239 ft approximately 39 ft and the standard is at 24 ft.

So based on the criteria in LDC 8.02.02 um you go through the criteria of if if it's a unique or unusual uh shape or size and there is nothing unusual um about this site. It's roughly the same dimensions as other properties in the area and the staff finds that it is not unusual and that it does not meet the criteria hardship caused by the LD uh LDC requirements. stat finds that all R1 properties must meet the same impervious and driveway whip limits. So, stat finds that it does not meet um it has not been met. Conditions that caused by that were caused by the owner of the driveway installed without a permit creating the issue. Staff finds that it is not met. Is there any special privileges granted? This variance would allow 1,713 plus square feet extra impervious area and so staff finds that it's not met. The minimum variance is necessary. The applicant conducted the work without the permit. Therefore, there was uh no staff review and without the lack of the review on the permit which led to the impervious surface and driveway being in the excess of it is uh staff finds that this has not been met. Is it compatible with the neighborhood? Nearby homes do not have um similar driveways this width and the excessive imperate imperous surface increases storm water runoff which does not meet the standard. So we uh staff feels that it has not been met. Is it consistent with the intent of the LDC? The LDC aims for equity, consistency in storm water

protection. Uh this request has conflicts with that goal, those goals. So staff feels that it has not been met. Consistent with a comprehensive plan, it conflicts with policy D3.1 storm water management and flood reduction. Staff feels that it has not been met. Is there any harm to the health and safety of the public? Not directly harmful, but it still does not meet the criteria. So again feel uh staff feels that it has not been met with the variance not meeting the required criteria in LDC 8.02.02. Uh we staff recommends that the local planning agency deny the variance requested for 34 deal avenue northwest to allow an imperous surface area of 67.2% 2% and driveway design standards to exceed the 24 ft in the R1 zoning district. Um, this is also another one that was uh just similar to when they started out. Um, their impervious surface was at 62.5% already before going up to the 67. Um, back in August of 22, there was an accessory structure put in at that time and there was notes made um, in the application that it would be approved at the 62.5% but that was under the impression that there was uh, there was pvious uh, permeable pavers being put in and that the request for an invoice and any paperwork and documentation proving that um, would need to be submitted. which we did not receive. So, um I'm going to go back and and and state that we would probably need the 62.5 impervious

approved or denied. Um approval of the 67.2% 2% or denied of course the increase of the impervious surface altogether improve um approval of a waiver for the paving specifications for the driveway or of course a denial for the waiver for the driveway designs question. So, I was reading this uh a

the 24 foot width is for a twocar garage. Mhm. Looking at the house, they don't have a garage. I understand that there's now a garage in the backyard. Yes. I'm sorry. So for a house that doesn't have a garage, they're still held to the same standards at 24. If they do have Yeah. Now, if they just happen to have a a three uh car garage, that would that would go to a maximum of 36 ft. But unfortunately, it's the 24T.

And is that because of the impervious impervious code? This is through the engineering um standards manual for um it's we have that available online but that is under their standards. Yeah. I just I was kind of lost because I was like the code st specifically for a twocar garage it's 24 ft. For a threec car garage it's 36 ft. But it doesn't say anything for a house that doesn't have a garage that it's still 24 ft. Right. Tim, this is where I'm going to refer to you to see if you have any knowledge of that.

Yeah. Can I just swear in uh the truth? Old truth. I'm curious what we got.

Tim Gibson, growth management director for the city. Um I can pull it up in here for the engineering standards manual, but basically the standard is across all residential properties is 24 ft. Then you can get the exception up to the 36 ft. It's not really 24 foot for a car two-car garage. If you got a onecar garage, you're limited to 12 foot. It's 24 foot is the standard for all residents regardless. Then if you have the threecar garage facing the street, then you can go up to the 36 ft. So even if you had a threecar garage or like a side facing garage, you'd still be limited to that 24 ft. So basically all residentials are 24 ft unless you have that threecar front facing garage. Yep. And that's at the street

basically like it wouldn't be able to go 24 street and fan out. You you can do that. So it it's basically what our stuff um the way the engineering standard manual works is basically for um so the land development code discusses the development of the individual's property and the engineering standard manual more points towards the public rightway and everything. So that 24 ft restriction is at the public rightway. So theoretically, if you took a 24 ft um from the street up to your property line and then flared out, that would be allowed. Um but at the intersection of your property line and rideway, it would have to be no more than 24t there. Um and we have seen that before where people will do that.

So So in theory, you can come up with package property line just fan out. Well, but that's just the driveway with that doesn't address the impervious. Yeah. Yeah, I had a question. This is not papers. This is poured. As far as I know, we haven't received anything stating that it was right here. It's all papers. It's pictures. Yeah, there's the pictures. Any other questions for staff right now? If you Yes, it is all papers.

Thank you. Like I said, I I uh requested I tore down my garage in my backyard. Permitted all that, built a garage with mother-in-law's court. This all started moving my mother-in-law in with us. She needed to go into to assisted living. So, we decided instead of putting her in assisted living, we're going to build a mother-in-law's quarters and did that. And like I said, and then they approved, what was that? 62% 62.5

62.5 that was approved. I thought the permit would extend to the driveway. I did not not pull a permit on purpose or anything like to deceive or anything. Then as building it, she's on a walker. So we're she takes her out the front door. We didn't have nothing coming out our front door where she could get on a walker. So that's why when I originally my original driveway that I replaced cuz when I had to bring the sewer in, I had to come down the side of my house, go across my original driveway and cut it out to tie into the sewer cuz you only can have one. It's got to tie into your existing. And my existing driveway at that time when I cut through it that was there was at approximately 34T. So I only added four maybe five foot to it which would have been coming out of my house for because that's where she needed to park. Like I said I got I got an RV. I know it's excuse me but I got an RV. I got four vehicles, you know, trailer and all that. You know what I mean? I was just trying to make it to where she could come out of the out of her house with her walker and stay on, you know what I mean? Where she's not going across grass or anything like that. And just so on page 45 of the packet has a picture of the house. It'd be 45 the PDF 44. It's number 44, but it's 45. questions.

Is this if I don't know if I can ask this, but if this gets denied, is it going to cause you a hardship? Yep. Yep.

I mean, you haven't replaced your pavers with some pvious pavers instead of your impervious pavers. Well, I mean, I don't even think it's possible for me to do that because the price is about quadruple. You already know the price of a paper is is way higher than the concrete is. And like I said, I can tell you that the papers that I got in there are definitely not concrete. They definitely the water seeps through into them. You know, it just doesn't run off like concrete does, you know. There's no doubt about that, you know. But the price of an impervious papers would would cost me approximately probably $40,000 to do that and I don't have that money. It's as simple as that.

So you didn't put any are the pavers increased in front of the house moving towards Yeah. to right in front of my front door where front door is is where I I went over. All the rest was already existing. All the rest was there. I have approximately 4 foot somewhere in that area is what I added to the driveway of the existing drive. So for staff, we had this was already at 62 and we that was already approved. It was approved pending him turning in some paperwork and stating that they were imper they were permeable papers. Would you receive that?

I do not remember or have knowledge of that. I I do not. I just know I was approved is what I thought at the 62.

So if you took some of those papers away, you wouldn't meet the front door. Is that correct? Yes. And she wouldn't be able to come out the front door, you know, to go to her doctor's appointments or anything like that with her walker. We're we're dealing with two things here. the the percentage increase and 39 ft also. Correct. Now, what if he was to cut like a strip in that making a halfin sidewalk to the front door? I guess that would be up to you. We would still need to make I would have to do the calculations again to see where that would

blow. Well, right now he's over he's over it at this point. Let's say he didn't put in the driveway. He's over it at this point at 62. I'm not talking about the 62%. I'm just talking about the 39 ft in the front. What if you you cut it cut a strip in there and now you've got a driveway at 34 whatever the 28 whatever it is. And that's still standard. That'll still be over the standard 24. So it's not driveway sidewalk. I I can answer your question if you like.

Excuse me, sir. I can answer your question. Uh you can uh you can do that. You can figure out a way tonight to because first off, you're going to have to prove anyway. It sounds like staff saying the 62.5% was never actually formally done to turn the paperwork in allegedly. So, at a minimum, you're going to have to do that today. Uh if you don't want to give him the additional 5%, but make want make him kind of draw out a little bit so his mother-in-law can still get out the front door. make our way to the car, but it doesn't go all the way. He he could he could reduce the size of the driveway down creatively. Is that what you're saying? Right. Yeah. That's just but I was at the existing like I said already had a driveway existing there at 34 ft.

Mhm. So I got to shrink my driveway by 10 ft from what I mean I would have kept concrete would have done that. Theoretically, you'd be doing you wouldn't be decreasing it because you're just saying this part of it isn't a driveway anymore. This part of it is a sidewalk. That's all. I'm just looking at some solution here. Is there anything in the record of the house that shows a driveway about 34? My my original survey original driveway. the picture of that but the full charging would be able I see the picture but I mean they're saying they're saying no he's saying yes

so the property appraisers website you can go to it and pull up the aerial I have it right now but there's I think there's the three cars or two cars and a RV but there's no way that I can that we can say this is no this is Yeah, sorry. So, if you go on our GIS, I just did it on my iPad here. Um, we can actually measure out on there based on the satellite imagery on there. And just measuring it on here. Again, this is not survey grade or anything like that. We're just looking at our GIS. Um, when I measured it, it came out about 29 ft wide. Um, the original concrete driveway that was there about 29 ft. And Tim, that would be that right there. Uh, that is correct.

That's correct. So, I mean, I can show the board members if you want or whatever, but yeah, just through our GIS. Um, you can just measure on there. So, so we're approving potentially three things. 62 and A2, 67.2. If you go there's if you decide you want to do the 67, there's no reason to take a vote on the 62 because you just go straight up to 67. But if you don't want to get the 67, but you do want to give them something, you need at least approve the 62. And then of course there's the other thing about the permeability.

I mean, he had the chance to have the 62 approved and he didn't turn in the proper paperwork. Well, I thought it was under the the original permit cuz cuz he knew that when I submitted it that I was going to have to cut through the driveway, you know, and like I said, I had to do a 5ft 4T cut, you know, to get get the in the permit when a permit was approved, was it written in there that he must show? Yes, that was back in uh August 10.

Yeah, I'm sorry. August 23rd of 2022 is when that was sent to him about him being over the impervious and that he needed to submit the documentation. Has this ever been in front of us before? This one? No, not to my knowledge. Why did you read that comment? I did earlier. Yeah. And Amy, do you have the actual communication? Yes. Would you like me to read that needs to be entered into the record since y'all are relying on? I read that earlier, but I will read it again. Well, it also needs to be passed around so they can see it, too. Oh, okay. That pass document if there's a permit. What you're saying?

Yeah, it's from the original permit for the structure. This portion And he'll have to have a chance to look at it too after that. Absolutely. So this work was done in 2022. Well, the original 62.5 22 62.5. This is um this is what they're reviewing right now. And this the one this is the one that was signed by both parties.

Yes, this was the permit back from uh August of 2022. It was sent out uh via our software and and said regarding the approval and then what was required for that approval. So I'm just asking company insurance. Did he sign this saying that he read that comment or was this signed and then he there was no signature. There was no signature during that that period. You get those comments whenever you're submitted with your B building permit at that time to move forward. Oh, I'm sorry.

How is this approved? The way this is worded, it says per LDC property is allowed maximum 50%. Right. We know that the property is currently at 62. So long as this new structure does not increase your impervious service above 62, this is approved. So what this is saying is this was approved already 62.

So that's what it gets a little complicated and there's a little background. So before this and before the new accessory structure was built there, there was another building back there already. They were over there impervious before any of the new um work on the property had been done. And that's what they were saying. So when they submitted that application in there with those documents, it was going to take them um above whatever that 62.5 was what they originally started at. Like you're approved at the 62.5. If you're going to go over that, you have to and they had indicated that they were going to use the pvious papers um in the back for some of the additional areas like the walkway um where the twotory garage is. There was an accessory structure there. However, the the the walkway around behind it was not all the way to the fence. When they were going to increase it, they said they were going to use pvious papa there. So, they started out coming in on day one with a 62.5% impervious be. And so, that would be what we consider to be an existing nonconformity, which is why whenever that permit was issued, it's like you're good to stay at that 62.5% because when you came in day one, you were already at that 62.5%. So that's really considered to be an existing non-conformity. Technically, we don't need the variance for that because it is an existing nonconformity. Since we're here today already, we figured why not go ahead and just formalize it and that way if they have documentation in the future if this ever comes up again, if there's ever a question with it, it's just formally documented. Since we were here, we figured we'd go ahead and do that. But that really is an existing nonconformity at the 62.5%.

Does that understand? Okay. But again, if y'all approve the 67.5, it moves that need to do. I'll get back and let make sure.

So, just out of curiosity, if they were to go back to back to the intersection and get a fan out, That takes care of one of the school. But I mean I I was trying to figure out what what can be done. I'm thinking out loud here. I understand. Is there a way to remove the papers behind the garage to help bring down the impervious? Yes, sir.

I don't know if that would help bring down

how much are we talking where the pool is um on the sidey yard right there. Um, there's a concrete that comes out. You see where the concrete comes down the side of the house on the be at the bottom of the of the page there. I can remove that concrete right there, too. You know, partial of that. I can put in, you know, I can put in, you know, rock, stone, or whatever was pertinent. You know what I mean? To do that. So, I can do that footage in behind the garage. I don't know how much talking there are talking with. I got an 8T bearing 7 and 1/2t bearings there or off the fence and I bearing off the fence whatever got 7 1/2 ft by I don't know whatever the length of that is 20 so it' be 20 30 foot so that would be we do math we' be doing 7 1/2 * 30T

yeah so if he removes this removes that okay doesn't bring it to the 16.5 which still doesn't So that tackles problem number one. And then problem number two is the 30 minutes he's talking about. I think he needs to solve his problem. We need to either approve or deny the variance and let him figure out how to bring two and then do a fan out. That might be enough.

But I don't I'm not a surveyor. And his his mother-in-law I mean honestly his mother-in-law doesn't need 37 feet or six however wide that driveway is to walk from her back thing to her car I can pull up four within within two blocks of my house of driveways as big as mine. I was almost going to bring pictures of them, you know, but I don't want to be be that guy. There's four right in my neighborhood that are that are as wide as mine, if not wider, you know. Yeah.

If you want I'm not sure, but this is the whole area. So, if you want one you're talking about, but I can tell you right by Home Depot. It's a yellow house right here. Right there. I mean, I would deny it to 67.5e. That's I guess once he's done presenting before we all make a motion once he's finished. Go ahead. You're done, sir. I make a motion. Ma'am, if you want to testify, we can put you under. You can stand.

I was going to say that we paid for all that extra drainage, too. I don't know if they're aware we did that. which helps. Yeah, that's true, too. Under all the of the papers that I did put in the backyard, I did run drainage on all that, you know. So, watch the same. Raise your hand. You tell the truth. Tell the truth. Tell the truth. Hope you got it. I do.

Okay. Yeah. Come up here so we can actually hear what you're saying. Thank you. I I was just saying that we were thinking ahead also because of the papavers and we did pay the company extra quite a lot extra to install all extra drainage all through there to allow any water that runs off to to drain properly as well. Did you did you submit that to the city for the permit that was previously Well, they didn't have a permit at first. Well, that was back in 2022. Those Yeah, that was that was in the backyard with that with the with them papers.

I'm I'm still je I'm I'm kind of stuck here between words mean things, right? Um, so they've got a permit that says approved and then it's got the conditions that follow. How do we get past that? Wasn't that an after the fact? Are you saying the driveway was after the driveway? Cuz I didn't have the money when I did that. I didn't have enough money. You have the apartment when you put the driveway in. No, I didn't have it. So, were you offering the driveway?

Pardon me, sir. There's a question from board member. Can you say your question again? So, he had to tear up a part of his driveway to put the mother-in-law suite in. He corrected that, which was approved, the mother-in-law suite was approved by the permit. And in that, while he was fixing it, he's like, "Well, let me just add this extra 10 ft. We'll just call it." But the wording in the permit is very vague on what was approved.

And uh so here's the thing. If uh y'all can either approve tonight the 62.5 or 67.5 which would incorporate 62.5 or if you denied everything all together, code enforcement will open up the case against them then at that point proceed forward. uh if they in their discretion think the permit does not uh fit it fit in that fit the 62.5%. There is already a case for it. I was going to say there is there is a code case. Okay. So that answer so code if y'all do deny then the code case will proceed forward. I make a motion to more discussion.

And what does the code case proceed entail? it. I I'm since I don't know about it, that means it probably hasn't even come before the magistrate yet. I only learned about the cases when from the magistrate. So that means most likely the code I'm saying most likely speculation. Uh whoever the investigator is in that case, they're all uh very reasonable individuals. They probably got word of this. They probably maybe suggested he go down and plants. They sometimes do that. And uh so it's probably in the early stages uh to where uh they're waiting to see what happens on this and then if gets denied they they'll go from the magistrate and point out that there was no permit ever issued for this and the magistrate will give them a certain amount of time to bring his property into compliance which would be uh effectively it sounds like if he were to take staff's argument on the code case probably remove uh more than the 62 go under the 62.5 they would probably say uh what what's the what's the code case standard 10? Do you know what they're saying it needs to be reduced to?

615 with the the conditions though, correct? Is that the Well, what's what's the code saying? The code case I guess.

So the code case um I just pulled it up on here real quick. So sorry. Uh but really the code case is for the work without a permit. um that's what they you know they our code enforcement they drive around the neighborhoods is what they do and when they see brand new work they've got their iPads and they can pull up and look and see okay was there a permit for this here and that's what they will typically site the owner with um if there's work ongoing they will give them a stop work order and tell them they need to go ahead and go get a permit that formal case at that point of time they just don't p proceed forward with the case they give the property owners an opportunity to go in apply for the ver apply for the permit. Um in this case they did uh the individual came and applied for permit because code had cited them and said hey you need to go get a permit for this. Um but now as long as the res the property owners are working with um the city and trying to rectify these things um code case will not move forward on that sort of stuff. So basically right now typically especially if it's going to involve a variance um as long as the property owners um are moving forward with that variance um in a timely manner um then code case will just sit back and wait till it it proceeds out. So basically his question though getting back to what his question was his question was what are they citing for so he says the unment of work is that the additional 5%

that took it from so that's what the code case clarification the 5% in and of itself or the 39 ft versus 24 ft

so the code case is simply for doing work without a permit the code enforcement doesn't get involved in 39 ft versus 24 ft percentages of imper is they just site that there's work being done without a permit and then they then that goes through the process to either they get the permit which would mean that they've complied with all the all the requirements or they don't get the permit and then the code case moves forward. Um and at that point they'd work with the magistrate on what they would need to do to solve that at that point in time. So really code enforcement doesn't get into too much anyways on like impervious amounts or stuff like that. They simply cite the work being done without a permit, which is probably because they're not going to issue the permit due to those two reasons.

Correct. But we're speculating at that point because we don't know what the individual the code cases. Okay. I I have two questions if I may. Uh first, um is it um permissible for the staff to determine that the drainage system that was put in on the pool area and the prior garage that was built and the paperwork wasn't submitted reduces the current um

imperous rate to another number. We we don't know what the effect of that work is on the 67%. Is that permissible? Is is that something that the staff would do based on the diagrams provided by either the owner or the construction company that the imperviousness changes from what we believe it is to a new number. Is is that part of the process?

In theory, yes. Um, and that's where kind of on that that note on that permit was please provide your documentation that it's going to be pvious papers. Um, so now if it's just really just normal everyday papers, um, and then there's cuz typically when you do the papers, I don't know if you ever seen any of the paperwork, it's not just the paper sitting on dirt. They have to dig down. They're putting in the gravel and all the other stuff. So just I don't know what exactly they did. like even if they do that and they just put regular concrete pavers um that would not be considered pvious. Um if they have some documentation and that the way that it was installed is in fact pvious then yes that would be considered to be pious areas and we would subtract those areas um that were done that way from their pvious um restrictions. What I'm getting from what he's saying is if so if let's say I have this big square

that is all impervious but in the middle of it I put a drainage pipe that takes it right into the sewer system that doesn't matter that does not the way our code is written is it's 50% simple um and typically I mean and part of the reason is for this is I mean the water unless you're tied in and you happen to have a city storm water pipe running through your property that you can know can tie that drain into. The water is still going somewhere um and it's not being taken off your property through any kind of storm water system. You know, it may drain to another part of your property, but that water is still going to drain somewhere um unless it's going into one of our actual storm water pipes.

So, can we can we table this? My second question, if I might some city ordinances allow um structures to exist but not to transfer the property to a subsequent owner without redressing the non-compliance to the building code. I don't know what this what the city structure is here. So say you mean city code? You mean right? City code.

Okay. I mean y'all can do whatever condition you want. You you can say the condition doesn't run the land if that's how you feel on the variance here today because y'all can y'all can put all sorts of conditions. Well, I it wasn't not that we were putting in condition, just that I'm aware of other cities if they find a violation and it's not a safety hazard, it doesn't interfere with whatever, it's allowed to exist, but the property can't be transferred to non-family members down the road without correcting whatever the issue is.

That's that's what that's a nonform detrimental non-conformity or or a risk non-conformity. uh that are exist under the code uh I believe and that would be if you fall within the permissible non-conformity and they transfer title typically correct

correct it would be considered an existing nonconformity um and impervious amounts um in excess of whatever allowed there is by definition our code a benign non-conformity um so like the earlier case you heard where was a detrimental non-conformity and you can't expand or any of those kinds of things um this would be considered benign non-conformity but yeah 5 years down I mean a year down the road at this point if they wanted to sell it it would be to considered at that point to be an existing nonconformity and wouldn't be able to continue into perpetuity. So the new the new owners right now saying require them to revert.

I know that the new owners would have the same problem. So what I'm trying to to ascertain is let's say we deny this and the owner the owner says I'm not going to change anything there is the consequence to the owner is that down the road they can't sell the property to a third party without either correcting it at the time of sale or the new owner has to correct it prior to the issuance of a co to occupy the residence pending the the Do I understand that's how how it works? Well, I mean, then you're getting into the variables of a title company might flag it or the new owners might not care. You know, new owners might not buy it.

Well, other jurisdictions prevent the sale because part of the sale is a Okay, I'm just asking. I'm aware of other ways that what could and probably would happen in this case is if you deny the variance um and the property owner said, "I don't care. I'm leaving it." Um, at that point the code case would move forward. And if the special magistrate at that point made the decision that yes, I want to start running fines on this. Um, then that would put a lean on the property uh for whatever those fine amounts are. So at that point in the future, should he want to sell the property, that lean would have to be satisfied.

Okay, that's what I code to allow for certain things like if he's going to sell the property and the new owner is going to bring it into compliance. Sometimes our our city council can wave certain fees or reduce the fees and stuff like that, but the lean would be put on the property based off the judgment of the special magistrate at that point in time. It wouldn't prohibit the sale. It would just have a lean on there.

Am I under the understanding though that 62.5 is approved as long as he brings in his paperwork? really the 62.5 is an existing non40 at this point it's it's approved um paperwork or no paperwork um okay it it's the way that was documented in there it appears to be that you know they were already at that um been several years and we we look at a lot of projects I vaguely recall looking at this many years ago um but there was already a lot of development on that property um so yeah I mean it was it was already over when it came in you can't take that away. Correct. At this point,

yeah, we would not even want to take that away or even consider that at this point. We would have to do that. So, we can approve the 67.2 pending heat documentation about the impervious papers in the backyard which would potentially bring down impervious right whatever. Right. Well, for you approved the variance of 67.2

well then they don't have really anything Mr. Co. What you can do, since I know y'all are concerned about the additional 5%, you could say he's required to change enough of the papers on there to break it down to 5%. And it could be in the back anywhere. He gets dealer's choice on that because he's he's going to hire the contractor to do it. That gives him some flexibility. But y'all could give him the condition as he has to change enough of the pavers out there either by removing them or replacing them with previous papers. Uh, and it could be in the back if y'all want it to be in the back, but I'm not sure the math works out in the back or not. That's why it's less than five. It's just it's less than five, but that's not um

you're not really proving it then. You're denying it. No, no, no. You're bringing conditions. Y'all done that before, right? But we're But if she brings it down to 65, it's not approved. 67. 62. I mean, sorry. He has the option. He has the option uh to either replace it with peries papers or just to take them out. He's like, "That's too expensive. I don't want to put any papers in the back backyard. So, I'm going to remove 2% and replace their 3%." He gives us mix and match. Yeah. I understand why he does, but if he doesn't, then there's no

what you could do, and I think this is going to answer your question, is deny the variance to the 67, approve the variance to 62.5 and approve the variance for the driveway width. That would give him full flexibility on he can keep the driveway, he's got to remove it elsewhere, whatever. Um, if that's what you're looking to, that's kind of what I'm saying. So yeah, you would technically be denying the 67 um variance and approving the 62 variants. That would force them to have to approve the 62 cuz it's already approved. Correct. Correct. 39. All right. The 39 is the only plan. So yes. Okay. And the width is the only thing that you

The width is the only approve at because the 62.5 doesn't have to be in the motion. Correct. That that's correct. Okay. So, the width I would recommend that the board actually do a formal variance approval at the 62.5 just because that it formalizes it. Like I said, it's an existing non-comployment technically doesn't need it. I would recommend it. There were three parts. The width 62.5 and I'm sorry I didn't hear 67. No, 67. Uh, ignore the 67. 60. He p him just asking that you recognize the 62.5. uh along with the 39 uh assuming that you don't want to grant the 67 and the width

that's the 39 ft that's the 39 I mean and I thought up to you guys on how you want to do that you could approve I thought you mentioned something else more than 24 whatever the original width was you could approve you could approve the 39 you could require it to go down to 24 technically because once it's removed it's no longer a non-conformity so you can make it go to the 24 make them reduce it down to what it originally was or approve the 39 ft Any of those are in there, right? So, if I got this right, I know a motion to approve the 62.5% impervious ratio ratio with a 39 ft.

Okay. Are you just saying this or you one now? No, I'm making I'm making I'm talking my head on this. Okay. So, approve the 62.5 with a 39 ft driveway, but you've got to bring down your ears. Well, we don't. You're you're you're denying the 67.5. Denying the 67.5. Yes. So, your motion is to approve the variance uh for the 39T driveway and deny the 67 uh the request for 67.1 whatever ft. But also recognize that he does have an impervious ratio of 62.5%. Yes. Yes. Exactly. Thank you. I'll second that.

Okay. So, is that is that the motion? That's the official motion. Okay. I like it. Did you understand that? I believe so. Are you sure? I'm not sure what I need to do. You got to pull up 5% of 5% of your impervious has to come up. Has to come up or have a drainage system that meets the requirements to lower the imperousness to 62.5. He says I can't. But if I don't tie into the sewer system, then it's not there's nothing I can do to do that. But we're doing

if if that's what they approve, we'll sit down and we'll talk about it and give you your options on there because you could either take some out of the maybe shrink the driveway a little bit and take some out of the back. Maybe like you said, it's $40,000. Replace them all with perview. Maybe you replace some with there's all sorts of there's a bunch of options. I mean, I already got some like I mean I don't know if you I mean I got a lot of money sunk in this truck, you know? I mean $250,000 on this truck, you know? That's why we always pull a permit. We know what we're doing before we get to do anything legal. I did not, you know, I did not I did not try to do anything deceiving me. Just gives you guidelines to work by.

I did not know because like I said, my driveway when I did it, I did not on the first part. I did not mean to go that extra. And then then we started talking about, you know, her getting out with with with the chair and then of course the amount of vehicles I have. You know, I understand it's not, you know, the amount of vehicles probably does not have a, you know, a what, you know, I'm doing, but that's just where my thinking was. You know, we just I just wanted to make sure that you understood what we were designing and approving. Yes, sir. And try trying to work trying to help you. I appreciate you. I appreciate that now. There's not been a vote yet, though. All right.

So, y'all have to vote and then debate and and offer public comment, too, before you actually vote. Oh, yeah. Was that was that motion? Well, somebody already public comments. Public comments in the comments. Other comments from the public. Okay. So that is six

and that is I guess sign on that motion carries this. The next item next I was a little confused. I thought that was over here. So, I guess I can I'll cover real quick. So, what happened? Uh I guess last month u I was not possession of these rules that y'all are going to look at tonight. I but an alternate cannot actually be the chairman of the board because it has to be a voting member and uh you have a chairman who's only will sometimes be able to be the chairman and he's alternate. So, uh, uh, unfortunately we sold Mr. Randle short by allowing him to get nominated in the first place without catching it. And so,

I thought we I thought so too, but apparently bars, I'm still enrolled in it. Oh, right. Yeah, that's correct. And so, for that reason, uh, y'all do have options. One, someone could agree to switch with him and let him be a permanent or or y'all can pick a new chairman. So, Okay. But Mr. Coats is fine. Mr. Coach, so all he's got to do Mr. You're not alternate, right? He's he's fine. He's the vice. We could move him up to president, correct? Okay. Can I make that motion to start with? Well, I was just Well, if he says what he just said, so all he has to do is become a permanent member.

Yeah. Well, I could switch with him then and become an alternate since I'm rolling off anyway, right? and and that's fine and uh and that could be done and and there would be no need to make a motion changing the chairman because he wouldn't be the chairman till next year anyway and so you could just agree to be an alternate member starting 2026 no motion needed I think you just work it I think the council actually has to approve of that council have to approve that so I'll present that at the December 16th meeting should be no problems that flip-flopping with Mr. I was lazy talking. All right. All right. Director reports.

Uh the only thing uh we have is possibly a special meeting in January. Since January 1st is our typical day, uh we're looking at maybe the 8th or the 15th to hold a special meeting. Uh we had uh one of our um ordinance that was brought in last time that went to council and council sent it back for um some changes and modifications. So that'll have to come back to you. So January come back to you. Do I have it yet? Uh no. I mean we we already went through it but the modifications have not been completed yet.

Yeah. So, we have um the option of possibly the 8th or 15th of January. Would the 15th give you more time to work the issue after the new year and the holidays? Yes, it would. But I but your There there is one item um that came before you, the certified recovery residence um item uh that came through in November. Correct.

City council did not approve that item. um they they wanted us to rework some stuff. We're working with Mr. Burns um to clarify some things in there and bring that back to them. Uh technically per state statute, it had to be approved by the end of this year. We're obviously not going to make that, but it does need to come back through the LPA and then go to two city council uh meetings. Um the if it pushes to the 15th, that's going to be after the first city council meeting of the year. So ideally, if we could do it on that 8th meeting, that would let us meet both of those. Ultimately, if it does push that way and we do the the second or the third third day of the month and then we just push it into February, it's not a major deal. That's just why it's there. This was last month. This was in

Well, I have another meeting I need to be at, but this will take this tape. Whatever you guys want. I can meet on the eth. I can meet on the eth. I can do it. I'm returning the sixth. The eth it is or just uh forego the other meeting. I'll see you guys. All right. More member reports. All right. Happy holidays. I guess

before we all stop since it was on the agenda, you pass these out tonight. Did you want to address maybe uh maybe y'all could take this home with you tonight and uh at the next meeting maybe have made some red lines how y'all want to maybe add or change these procedures. So all because these are your your rules or regulations. don't see anything that needs to be changed in your opinion, this would be a good time to do it. Can I can I ask are there is there a listing somewhere that shows permanent and alternate members? Like Sure, we keep a list of it. I can get that for you. Um the two alter members right now are Mr. Reie and Mr. Cannon. Those are the last two that was pointed. I think

Canon I thought Janet Wilson was an alternate. She move she moved up.

She moved up. she's the one that filled the vacant spot. And the way we move them up is whoever the most senior alternate person is the one who's asked, you know, do you want to fill the position? And that's how it was Janet because she was appointed before Mr. Reini as an alternate. So that's how that works out. And in reviewing this um rules and regs, there's some things in it that I think you may need to go over with the board that maybe need some attention. I'm on a tennis team, so I was not really familiar with what's in place as far as how the alternates sit on the board when they come up. But those details are in these rules. So, I think we need to kind of review what the rules are. So, we're abiding by what it says that we're going to do. It talks about the alternate member not even being a non-moting member and but then why do you have an alternate if you if the alternate can't vote? So, those are things I think that maybe need

to be cleaned up. I know the intent was when they drafted this probably was to say if you're an alternate, you show up and you're sitting up here, you're not allowed to vote that night as an alternate, but you're but the way it reads is you're never allowed to vote. So, yeah, some clean up, but they have when there's only been one time that I came that I when I was an alternate that there wasn't a spot for me to sit and vote and I sat in the audience. Every other time that I've come that I've been an alternate, I have sat and voted. Right. May I vote most? So if you're if you're an alternate sitting up here, you can't vote. That's the way

if you're all right. So let me clarify this. If there's seven of all the regular members are here, you're not supposed to be voting as an alternate member. Why up here? No, we that that's never happened where we've voted more, but it's happened where we've had less than seven and an alternate was here and it vote then you can vote then you're not alternating. Yeah, but you're not. No, he's got but that's what after meeting is called to order roll calls taken absent board member seat an alternate alternate self sit and be allowed to participate as a non- voting member. So they so then they wouldn't even need to make the quorum now if that was the case.

That's what I was wondering if the intent was for if you don't have a quum then the can vote. I don't know what the intent was but I read it just like you did. It says an auction is not allowed to vote. So why would you that

that's a silly rule though. I think it has to be the intent crossed out. Yeah. The intent of this um cuz I'm the one who who did this update on there. The intent was basically that yes, if all of the board members are here, the primary board members are here, then cool. The alternates are more than welcome to be here, they're welcome to discuss and in the discussions on the motions and all that sort of stuff, they just wouldn't vote. Um but if one of y'all was out and there's one alternate here, they would go up there and at that point they're a primary member. They're a voting member. Um, I think the intent on that wording was that as an alternate, you're a non voting member, but once you're seated, right,

in that seat, because of a vacancy, you are now a voting member. There's seven of us up here and alternate sites spot. They're not that contradicts what Yes. And that's something that I believe we have done is like all that and if that's what y'all want, we can update it. Um but okay. So how many four members do we have and how many alternates? Seven and two. Yeah. Seven and two. So y'all can add nine folks up here and so two would be non voting. If all seven regular members were here, the two als could participate but not without. Yeah.

So you want to put that as an agenda item? Yeah. I think that's uh I guess that's section six item B is what in the future. So that's one thing we know we can change. I was thinking maybe to let them figure out what else they want to change though since they're kind of fresh. I think you just take out long voting and that makes it's clear I mean you've addressed it. It's okay. You can only have seven. You're only here the two alternates. You come up here or I'm sorry short one. So the person comes up here but they are they are not participating as a voting member. Yes. As long as we are still at seven no longer. Correct. That's why it needs And we only need four for a quorum. Correct.

Yeah. And yeah, something about I don't see anything about here, but So, do you want us to bring our comments to the next meeting and then there'll be some kind of coallescence? I mean, I think that would be I think one more meeting operating under these rules. We're not going to totally lose our mind, you know. So, I think I think if y'all uh Yeah, bring your changes. I'd like you all to have some time. Could we have this as a word document or is it forever a PDF or you want me to convert it from PDF to Word on my own? Let's look. We can convert what we have probably easily. So, okay. And then we can do track changes. Sure. I think that might just help us.

Reports. I just want to clarify now track changes and stuff like that. That's fine. if you want to do that. We've got to be very clear though that you know you can't communicate with other people on hey here's my recommended changes and stuff like that. That's all going to be through staff and then discuss you um just due to sunshine laws and stuff like that. So you can do the track changes for what you want to see changed um and then share that with staff. Um okay but that's it. So be helpful right email. Now, it according to this, the chair and the vice chair could do track changes between themselves because they're allowed to communicate before a board meeting. No, that's that's Does that say in here? It does. It does. That's We got to take that out.

Glad I It's under two E. That's the very last one. You need a little little sun and a stick with it. Just That's it. Number two. It's got some my phone. Sorry. Did I write that down? Now you got to buy a new phone from I think the intent of that meeting is to say that when you're serving as the chair during the meeting, you can express your opinions of the discussion. That's I think I think that's probably got to be the intent. That's clearly what we during the during the meeting. All matters being presented. All matters being presented during the meeting or something.

Yes. Guess if you'll catch anything else like that, let us know, too. I'll be okay.