Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Miss Rodek, would you please call the roll?

Yes. Mister Dyer? Here. Mister Scott?

Present.

Mister Jones?

Here.

Mister Carl? Here. Chair Bronstein?

Here. I would like to identify city staff present tonight. We have Mary Rodak, associate planner. We have Nick Sugar, city planner. We have Marshall Pitchford, city solicitor and we have Samantha DiRamo who is our city council representative to the BCBA. A little different tonight, doing the swearing in of anybody who will be addressing the board, we actually have a new member that needs to be sworn in. So our solicitor, Marshall Pitchford, will swear in Mr. Dwyer.

Please raise your right hand. I speak

to him. I, Robert Dyer.

Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. That I will support the constitution of

The United States. That I will

support the constitution of The United States, the constitution of the state of Ohio, the constitution of the state of Ohio,

and the laws of the city of Hudson,

and the laws of the city of Hudson.

And that I will faithfully, and I will faithfully,

honestly, and impartially, honestly, and impartially discharge the duties, discharge the duties

of the office of member, of the office of member, of the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Of the City of member. Of Hudson. Of the City

Of Hudson. County, Ohio. During

my continuous office. During my continuous office. Congratulations.

Congratulations, welcome to the board, we're happy to have you.

Thanks, great

to be here. Yeah.

We have to swear in staff and anybody who is going to be addressing the board tonight. So if you intend to make remarks on new business, please raise your right hand and affirm the following for me. Please stand, sorry. Please stand and raise your right hand, thank you. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony that you will provide is the truth?

Thank you.

Alright, now moving on to approval of the minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes from the last meeting and does anybody have any corrections or additions?

I didn't find any this time.

In that case, can I have a motion and a second?

I move to approve the minutes.

Second.

Alright miss Rodak could you call the roll please.

Mister Dyer?

Yes.

Mister Scott?

I'm staying.

Mister Jones?

Yes.

Mister Carl?

Yes.

Chair Bronstein?

Yes. All right, thank you. Moving on to new business. We have in front of us BZBA25Dash813. The subject of this hearing is a variance request of 43 feet from the required minimum yard setback for corner lots of 50 feet resulting in a seven foot setback pursuant to section 1205.06D5D5, minimum side yard setbacks, residential corner lots in order to construct children's play equipment.

Miss Rodak, would you please provide the staff report?

Yes. State this property is located in District 3 along Evergreen Road and Harlan Road. It is located in the East Hudson subdivision is approximately point nine seven acres. Applicant is requesting to construct play equipment along Harlan Road and our LDC has the following regulation relative to side yard setback my apologies for the typo. Residential corner lots 50 feet for street side not designated as front.

The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance of 43 feet from the 50 feet resulting in a seven feet setback. The application does state 25 feet. I'm looking on our GIS the constructed playhouse is approximately 25 feet from the road and not from the property line. The proposed play equipment would meet the requirements of section 1,106.03 which regulates children's play equipment. However it does not meet the 50 foot setback requirement for corner lots.

The 50 foot setback is also depicted on the nineteen fifty four East Hudson Hills subdivision plat and staff notes the location of the children's play equipment is directly adjacent to a public street and staff has not identified other examples of similarly placed structures in the neighborhood. Staff questions if the play equipment could be relocated further north in the side yard to listen to variance request. However this would still require some kind of variance request. Staff did conduct a site visit with the property owner and the elevation drop in the rear yard would make it quite difficult to relocate this playhouse. The applicant is here for any questions the board may have.

Thank you, Ms. Rodak. Would the applicant please step up to the podium, please state your name and address

and make your case. Hi, good evening. I'm Julia Carr, this is Brian Carr, we live at 6751 Evergreen. So a little bit of background, we moved to the neighborhood in 2006, we're Hudson school teachers and I had to live in Hudson because the value of the school education was so important, but we also really appreciated the neighborhood for being such a laid back relatively unassuming place in a city that had some other neighborhoods that were not so laid back. We have joined the HOA and paid our HOA dues every year.

We moved from Harlan Drive at the corner of Harlan in 03/2003 about a year

Year and a half ago.

Year and a half ago on Thanksgiving Day and we were not aware and I know that ignorance is absolutely not an excuse, were not aware of an application fee or any regulations regarding the side yard. We were aware that the play structure could not be in the front of our house, so we made sure that when we moved our play structure which did exist already within the neighborhood since about 2018.

I think it was '19.

2019 which predates the 2022 implementation of the play structure application requirement. So we moved our play structure six houses down and we had it professionally moved because we wanted it to be safe and the people who installed it set who are the same people who bought it from said that it was not able to be located further north on the property due to the need for less than four inch drop from one side to the other. And that's actually not lengthwise that's just going from you know the width of the swing set which is maybe what 10 feet. So we put it in the only spot that was available on our entire property. This swing set was a gift from our children's grandmother in the month before she died and they connect the swing set to the memory of their grandmother, they're very devoted to having it.

We're very devoted to having it, it cost a thousand dollars to move it from the other house, so that's how devoted we are and our kids are to having it, and they find it therapeutic to swing on it. As far as the neighborhood having any other structures that are within the same distance from the road, if I don't know if you can see. Right here is our property and there's the swing set.

Was gonna move it out like if you're moving.

Oh I'm sorry,

here I

can stand in front of

it and

I can just point it's

really not

a large point.

Yeah, the other one.

Okay,

thanks. Okay,

play equipment in question is right here and there, there and there are three picnic tables and I understand that they're not play equipment per se, but they are absolutely neighborhood structures and so when we placed this, we even commented, oh, how nice, it mirrors the picnic tables that are already there that people already use. So as far as keeping the look of the neighborhood, we understand that it is unusual to have play equipment at such a extreme end of the property, but again, they're 22% of our property is water. So, it can't go in the water, it can't go on the slope, it can't go in front of the house which would be absolutely fine as far as stability and we actually have trees that would cover it, but that breaks your guidelines. It also cannot go on the side right here because there's an underground

Trench system. Trench?

I forget.

We're English teachers, we are not engineers.

No.

So, we have explored every option available, there just is not another option. And again, we profoundly apologize for not following the rules initially, we are rule followers all the way, we just didn't know the rules were there in regard to this. So, as far as our neighbors, we are we sit and read books a lot. We do not go around making a lot of contacts, but we do know some of our neighbors and the neighbors that we know have been fully supportive. We've talked to pretty much everyone that we could come in contact with around that area.

We have a collection of signatures if that's interesting to you. We've received emails of support and then I know at least one person emailed you. We have two people from our neighborhood here to support us. One is the vice president of our HOA. And so, we've we also have reached out and made new friends using the swing set.

We've reached out to some new families in the neighborhood who have small children and we've actually become social with them because we want to be able to share what we have. So, at the time that we had kids that age, there's no way we could have afforded to have a nice play set and so we want to be able to give other people the opportunity. The placement right next to the neighborhood beach makes it an ideal place for families who are already playing on the beach to maybe lure their kids out of the water and say, hey, we're gonna go home right after you go down the slide or something like that. So, that's our case I guess. Did I miss anything?

I don't think so other than, I mean, we apologize.

Yeah we apologize, we understand it's a big deviation from what you're used to and we wouldn't ask for that much if we could change it at all, we just can't.

Thank you, we're gonna now take questions. If you guys could stay up there, we'll take questions from the board. Bob, start with you. Do you have any questions for the applicants?

Well, yes. Well, maybe this, yeah, the the first thing, 'm gonna

there's a

posted sign about the private lake behind your house that that apparently subsumed some of your property. And the sign said, our vest visitors must be guests of EHHCA member. What is the EHHCA?

East Hudson Hills Community Association. East Hudson Hills Community Association. So, every house in our development, most houses pay dues in to take care of the lake and then the lake is the public property of the people within our development, and so we don't want outside people coming in to fish or to use the beach unless they are explicitly invited by neighborhood people.

How many houses does that include? 50. Meandering roads all around the neighborhood. There are. I just wondered which houses are included?

Actually, Ms. Loftus would be a better person to answer. She's the vice president of our association. I do not play a role in the association other than writing the check and

So that's just the house is contiguous to

No, absolutely not, no, it's everyone, in fact we were part of that when we lived on the other house on Harlett Drive as well. Okay,

The second thing, I wanted to, and maybe the staff ought to answer this, but when I drove it, I noticed that this thing is not seven feet from the road, it's seven feet from some arbitrary line. Correct. There's another, I don't know, 10 feet or so from

the edge

to the road. So really, we're dealing here with say maybe 18 to 20 feet from the playground equipment to the edge of the actual road, is that right?

Yes sir, actually the right of way I think is about 10 feet right here, and that is what city owned or I know that we're not to build on that, And so then, the 50 feet that you're stipulating begins right there and is supposed to go all the way up here. So, you're saying we're seven feet off of the line. The line is the right of way line, not the road line. But you're correct that it creates an extra buffer. You're correct that it creates an extra buffer. There's about is it 10 feet, the right of way?

It's 10 to 15.

15 feet.

It's 10 feet.

Okay, so there are 15 feet and then as you correctly noted, there are seven more feet, so that's 22 feet and so your committee is asking or the regulations ask us to start at the red line, which is where the property that's ours begins because this is city property, because it's the right of way.

It's like a tree

Is it just like a tree lawn without a sidewalk?

Disturb when I read the material because I said, geez, having a piece of playground equipment, you know, seven feet from the road is terrible.

It sounds dangerous. It's not dangerous.

Went there this afternoon and looked at it, I thought, hey, this isn't so bad. I mean, you know, from a safety and and visual standpoint, it's not nearly so bad because there's a lot more grass between the playground equipment and the road. That's what trying I'm to figure out was

We appreciate your due diligence. That's great of you to have gone there.

Satellite picture of the Show that on the screen. Now move around so you can see actually how far the playground equipment.

This is an older, it's only goes to

twenty twenty. You can't see it at all from the road.

Would be I guess approximately here

or something. Yeah, okay, there it is. How'd you get this? Oh, that's great, alright. That's what I saw. You.

Any

other questions?

Alright, Corey, do you have any questions for the applicants?

I have a question for staff on the evaluation of the, that it met the requirements for children's play equipment, where it states that children's play equipment shall be at least set back at least 10 feet from any adjacent property line. If we go and we look at that red line that was there, has it not 10 feet away from any adjacent property line, looks like.

Oh, it's 10 feet. Yes,

my apologies. We based that off of the 11 feet after for the review. We included the slide, the slide adds an extra three and a half feet or so so it's seven feet.

Seven feet is

From the property line.

Right but it states in nine the children's play equipment shall be set back at least 10 feet.

Yeah we felt that was intended to be a neighbor's property line and the 50 foot corner lot setback covers the corner.

Okay.

That was our interpretation of that. The intent of that section was to if there was a neighboring property line to have a separation for the play equipment between neighbors.

That's fine as long as we're clear on that because it does say any adjacent.

That's a good thought and yeah we did kind of walk through that on our end.

So then the plat line, and maybe this is a similar component, plat mount shows a 26 feet from the road, but it's not 26 feet from the road. It's

Are you talking about this plat?

No. If you look at the one that has the kind of the drawings in the lower right hand corner. Topography. With the topography on it.

Yeah if

you zoom kind of into the lower right it says 26 feet.

Yes this was, I'm not sure if you can speak to that.

Yeah, this was, I didn't understand the process at the time, so I took this survey that the original builder, owner of the house left us and had the topography and I measured that and I was not clear on the when I did that I think like what the city owns, what we own and things like that. So I think that was a measurement possibly from the road.

The playset drawn you drew,

correct?

Yeah, this is not This a was rejected or I was told, it told me.

Right, yeah so this was just the applicant wanted to show the evaporation trench and the grading for the board to review.

So it's not part of the application.

So that is just for reference to understand the grade drop to the pond. This is our stamped surveyor.

Correct.

Which

shows although it is 25 feet approximately from the street edge, it is seven and a half approximately from the property line.

And so what are the measurements of eleven point two and eleven point six?

That was the survey who took the measurement from this side right here of the play equipment. So any encroaching play equipment, that's where we're taking it from. Looking to zoom in further?

I know, I see it so That was the point the surveyor chose to show the distance but we took the closest point of the structures. We were conservative.

So you went out and measured it?

We just took it from the survey but he just chose another point to show the distance.

Yeah, I'm just trying to do the math here of where the seven is.

I think maybe he was measuring the part that intersects the actual support of the playground, not any little offshoots because the actual structure is these two large squares and then there's a tower or a bridge thing that goes between the towers so that doesn't actually have contact with the ground at all.

So one of the things that we look at when we look at variances are, know, if there were other options and obviously because of the structure of the property and the poly You did kind of dismiss the front yard installation because it was also in violation.

Correct.

But in that case, that one, that's covered. Right? It would be covered by trees.

It is covered.

As opposed to this one, which is is is is is pretty exposed.

Sure.

I'm sorry.

I just wanted to note the front yard is significantly wetter. It does not have the drainage that this has. This is far and away the highest and flattest part of our entire property. The front yard right now is pretty soggy and I would not love to see what would happen with something of that weight sinking down. There actually is a storm drain right, I would say here.

The topographical map

will Yeah, this display black line right here.

Yeah, there's a storm drain right there. So in order to put it in the front yard, it really would have to go sort of right immediately in front of the house. I don't believe it could fit right here and it also would be unreasonably wet and soggy.

And so I've looked at other variances of similar nature and in many cases one of the kind of the compensating factors is there was some coverage either by fencing or shrubbery of some sort. Would you be amenable to putting some type of landscaping or something?

We would be amenable. We actually offered that to one of our neighbors and they didn't actually They like that said, you know, if it's gonna be there then it won't necessarily help or hurt anything to have bushes put there. I think a fence, it would just be a small section of a fence, which would look pretty weird. Actually, I don't know even what you approve. I know there are some pretty steep guidelines for things in Hudson regarding fencing and we certainly don't want to fence our entire property because we already have an electric fence for our puppies so we're amenable of course but I don't prefer that solution.

We've used, we've seen either fencing or landscaping used as a way to

I would be amenable to adding landscaping. Right. If that were a stipulation for the variance to be approved.

It would be closer in line with the other variances.

I understand. Are those in neighborhoods that are similar to ours?

Yes.

Okay.

There was a shed for example on your previous street that was approved, part of the conditions around there was a good amount of trees and shrubs covering that. So when you viewed it from that street, it was at least partially covered in obscure areas.

Do you mind

if I ask, is that a request that the neighborhood put forth, is that something that you

No, it happened during the variance request.

The neighborhood asked for it?

No, not We asked for

Oh, okay. Because one of the things we really pride ourselves on in our neighborhood is how laid back people are and not asking for things like that. So I feel that it's within the nature of our neighborhood to leave people to their own property as much as possible, but again, if you require it, we will do it, we really, really want our kids to be able to swing on the swing set. We have gone to a pretty large expense though to already get this far beyond what I think a lot of rational people would spend on trying to have a swing set for their kids. Don't, kind In astounding the same neighborhood. I

understand but to be clear we haven't approved a variance of this percentage in size.

Understandable.

That street particularly that's so exposed to the street. I'm trying to find.

Thank you.

We understand. Thank you.

Any more questions?

No. Alright, Keenan, your turn.

Yes, thank you. You mentioned that you had signatures from neighbors.

Yes.

I don't believe that's in evidence yet. So is there a way that we can accept that into the record?

Where are you showing them over there?

I left them over there.

I mean if you'd like I can read them into evidence but I can also hand them to you.

I think handing them to us would be fine.

I thought we had one, there was one person who

said There

was, yes. Actually and that is a person I don't even know. He lives across the street from us, it was very kind of him without our solicitation to send an email. I don't remember his name, I just saw that it was there. So, here are some, I started out by collecting, I was going to collect people adjacent to the property and then not, and I ended up absolutely just having anyone sign anywhere, so there is not organization, I apologize.

I did not ask everyone in the neighborhood. We've been at work most of the days and we just haven't gotten a chance to go around. There is one neighbor across the lake, so he would be maybe here who asked specifically, don't let them tell you you have to move it here because I don't want to see it in front of your house, I like looking at your house across the lake. I said, hey, if that's something you care about, you should write it there so that they can read it. And so he did and that's on the loose sheet of paper.

Have you come across any neighbors that do not want it where it currently is?

Yes. I met one neighbor who is directly across from it and I said, could you sign my request for variance and he said, no, don't think I can do that and I asked if I could ask why and he said, well, it just, I don't like the way it looks and I said, could I tell you why I want to have it there and he said, sure and I told him all of the points that I told you and he said, oh, you've given me a lot to think about and I said, thanks and he said, I appreciate you being civil, this is what we need and I said, I love this conversation, is there something I could do like for example, we have a whole row of trees right here, I could take out the whole row of trees and you could see the lake better and he said, no, no, no, you don't need to do that and in fact, I ended up standing in front of his house and taking a picture and it turns out he can actually see the lake perfectly from his front step, it's just that his driveway comes out right there and he doesn't like the way it looks when he pulls out of his driveway to leave.

And, I said, I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks when you pull out of your driveway, my kids really love playing on it, one of my kids is neurodivergent, he goes out there and swings every single night in order to unwind and it's been incredibly therapeutic. My other kid has type one diabetes and he uses it to regulate his blood sugar, like, this is really important to my kids and he said, oh, I didn't know that about your kids, you know, nice to meet you. So, we had a really nice talk, I asked him if he was planning on coming to the meeting or writing a letter to oppose us and he said, no, I don't think so and then the next day, we talked to his wife and she said, it's your property, you should be able to do whatever you want on it and again, we offered to play in bushes and she said, that would be a large expense and I said, we've already gone to a large expense. So, that is the only neighbor adjacent to the property in any way who has expressed dissatisfaction. There were two people who, one lives all the way over here and one lives across the lake, like I can't even see her house.

Wait, here, I'll show you. I think in here some more. So, it has nothing to do with her. I asked her if she would support me and she said she didn't feel comfortable because she didn't want to get in the middle of anything and that is our HOA president, so instead I have the vice president who is willing to support me publicly. She did state private support, but she didn't want to go on record for that.

The property that is immediately to the east, that.

Oh that one? That's the guy. Maybe

I've got my directions wrong. Oh

east, I'm sorry. The east is the lake.

And that is who owns that piece of property?

The association.

This the beach. Correct. Okay. And that's where the three picnic tables are.

Okay. This is a question for staff. Mr. Scott may have a better command of the database that was shared with us. Has this board ever granted a variance with respect to play equipment?

I don't believe so, I'm not sure, I don't believe so.

I did not find one.

Not in my tenure.

The other thing that I look for is a variance of something that was essentially exposed directly to the street and there was also no variance of something like that.

Would that database have shown the zoning certificate that is required for play equipment? If I searched for play equipment which is what I searched, would it have shown anything or only variances?

It will only show variances. Agreed.

This is another question for staff. How did the city become aware of the issue?

Department of Community Development received a complaint I believe either by phone or someone walking in. I believe it was from the HOA. HOA.

They were representing the HOA?

I believe so, yes. Okay.

Any other questions Keenan?

I might.

Do you

want me

to come back to you? No rush we can come back to you.

I don't think I do but let me check real quick. I think that's it for now. Thank you.

Thank you. And our newest member Bob, do you have any questions for the applicants or city staff?

Sure. It's a beautiful sling set.

Thank you.

I wish I had that when I was growing up. We played on Chucker Bartus' Jungle Gym and there were broken teeth and broken arms and all those sorts of stuff. Could you tell me a little bit about the when you went, you said it was about 2018, 2019 that you purchased a swing set for the property on Harland And it was through a family member.

Was financed by a dying family member. We purchased it from Playground World and they installed it professionally and then when it was time for us to move and we decided that we were wanting to keep it, we had the same company come and move it.

Okay, and I'm not familiar with Playground World, when you went to Playground World, did they have a number of designs that you looked at and then you could pick the one that seemed the most appropriate for your site plus what you wanted in a swing set, is that how that?

Yeah, we actually custom selected components because our kids were already older, a little bit older than your average playground kids, but this was the first time we could really finance that much for them and we wanted them to have something nice so we got towers that include a rock wall and the tunnel or what? Two slides. The bridge that goes across

and Two slides.

Two slides in the swings. We had no idea the swings would be such

a hit but they are.

Yeah. They

can. But, it's it's big enough to still keep a 14 year old and a 11 year old and their friends happy. And I just really appreciate that I have boys who wanna go play on a swing set instead of doing all host of other things that they could be doing. So I wanna support their childhood as long as we can possibly do it.

Understood. So at the time that when you moved it was in your backyard, you said it was behind the house on Yes. And so you wanted to keep it, it had sentimental value and it's a great swing set.

Thanks.

And so this was according to what you saw and according to the playground company, this was the best place on your lot to locate that. Maybe maybe one of the only places.

It it's the only. It wasn't one of the only because otherwise I'd be more flexible. Right. But, yeah, it's the only place with enough drainage, enough room for them to run around. It's not too close to the water where they would slip and fall in.

Else? The slope.

It's not on the slope. It's not in the drainage trench or whatever the trench is that has PVC pipe underground that's just to the west of it.

I actually when they installed it suggested that as a possibility and they looked at that and they're like no you cannot I do was like okay and then we asked him about the place like nope not safe not level this is

It looked to me and again, grade is really difficult to understand. You can stand there and look and it's something looks flat and it actually changes by a number of feet. But it looked to me like the section that sticks out towards your house which has some swings on it actually drops down a little bit if I'm not mistaken.

That's correct.

Okay.

It's no more than it's possibly two inches from this side to this side, but it begins to slope considerably more within two feet.

Okay. And is that it's when you say when you purchased it you purchased it was like some you were picking components Correct. To put together. That a component that sticks out towards your how the swing part is that a separate

I think if it were to be taken apart, that could be.

Adrian's favorite swing.

The prime part that he uses.

I just wanted to get a better understanding of how that all went down. This is more for I guess the city. There was, some of you will probably remember this very well, you handled, it was case 25928 back on August 21, and it was where there was a pool and a pool house built that extended three feet into the And I started listening to that last night not realizing how long it went

on. Oh that

was a

fair I felt sorry for everyone in attendance, but there was something that was said struck me as incredibly important, and I don't know what member said this, but the board emphasized that the application must be evaluated as if the shed had not yet been constructed. That was another incident where something was built first, and certainly those folks, there were other issues as you remember, the property line questions and whatnot. So I was trying to look at that, remembering that in this perspective, and say okay, let's pretend that that's not there, and you're coming in for a variance without it being there, and the only thing I could think of, you have a beautiful yard, the view at the lake is fantastic and I'm assuming it's it's too big to be put behind your house between the back patio and the water.

It's it's also the ground is silt there and it's not recommended to put something of that weight on that spot.

And also have

And it's too close to the yes. Doesn't allow for so you're not just looking at what's the footprint of the structure, you're looking at people running around it. So I don't want them running on the edge of the water. So,

but if you were moving if you hadn't if you didn't have a swing set and you were moving into this house and you wanted you wanted a swing set, I'm thinking you would go to the company and you would say, okay, we've got this unique yard we need to work around, how can we design a swing set that will fit this yard, work with the slope, etcetera. And you didn't do it or you couldn't do it because you've already invested the money in the And existing again, in my strange way of thinking about things, thinking, okay, when you move to a like a new house, you sometimes you don't take the drapes because they don't fit the windows, you know, that that type of thing. And the swing set worked really well on Harland. And again, it's a lot invested. It doesn't work on it really doesn't if you're going to follow the setbacks, it doesn't work on this site.

But that's not to say that another swing set might not. Again, I'm not a swing set designer. It just that Would would you agree with that or

Well, as far as costs, you know, I don't wanna talk about the cost of the swing set. It was pretty extreme. It cost a thousand dollars to move it, And we've now put $2,000 nearly into this application. And that, to me, is quite a lot.

Includes the survey and

the Yes. And so now you're asking if I by the way,

I'm I'm completely not asking anything.

I absolutely respect the way that you're thinking because I think that way also, you have to consider every option even if you think it's not the option you want because that's the way that solutions are found sometimes. I don't think I would be willing to take it down and then also buy another swing set because this is kind of the end then. I know that especially my less flexible thinker, he cried when we took the brick veneer off of our old house. He really he still has his toddler bed. He's 14.

It stays in his bedroom because he doesn't want it to move. So if we said, let's take this down and buy a new one, that would not happen. Additionally, your question about, well, it worked there, it doesn't work here. What do you do if the property doesn't fit what you have? To be honest, I don't know if I would have agreed to buy the house.

And if I had known that Hudson had such stringent rules, I don't know if I would have chosen to live here instead of maybe Streetsboro or somewhere else that has nice houses and is close to my work because I care a lot about just the quality of life and people taking care of each other. And I want to live somewhere where families can move in and have swing sets. I don't want to have to quibble over things that are minute.

Totally understand. And then one other question with regards to the to the distance from the street. Bob, you were saying you were it was much wider than you had thought when you thought it was seven feet from the pavement to the to the structure. I think it's 22. I actually measured the street. Correct. The street is the street is 20 feet wide. The right of way is 50. The street is centered in the right of way. That's 15 feet on each side.

So it'd be 22 feet from the edge of pavement to the closest part of the swing set. When I looked at it, I had a different feeling about it, it seemed a little tight to me, but they're your children, you would know way more than me about what you consider safe or not, you feel obviously that that's not an issue with the distance?

It's not an issue at their age. If they were three and five, I would be concerned. I would there's no way I would put it there. If they were younger, but they're not younger and no child is using that without parents present ever.

Okay.

And my kids are 14 and 11

Okay.

At the moment.

Well then I have one question, I guess this would go to

the

city solicitor. This is gonna show my naivety about how this works, but can you do something like make it a non conforming use that the right to it, the property would change hands, that the swing set would have to be removed.

Yeah, I understand the question. Typically, what you variances tend to run with the land, right? It would go with the land. I think we could talk about whether or not we could put a time limit on it. There are certain conditions, those kinds of things that we would be able to put in.

You.

Thank you, I like that idea. Thanks

Bob.

I have some of my own questions. I wanna say I appreciate everything that you've said so far. I have a swing set in my backyard and it was being used when I left to come here tonight.

Ours is probably being used right now.

I get it. It's a great outlet for kids to have. So I understand the importance of it. A couple things that I just wanna say not questions but just so that you understand why we're asking the questions we are asking is that a variance is for something that can't be obviated. It's a practical difficulty of the homeowner that can't be obviated in any other way which is why I appreciate the information that you provided about the other areas of your yard, and of your lot of why it wouldn't work in other areas.

And that's why I'm saying this before I ask my questions because I'm asking these to put this on the record as to why there may not be other practical difficult There might be other practical difficulties. One of the first things that I saw well that you had stated and what I was thinking is that I understand that there's a slope going towards the water. And then you had mentioned also that there is that the soil there is has silt in it which causes it to cave in on itself. If you were to put it there, would require you, I would assume, to reinforce you were to move it to that area of the lawn, it would require you to reinforce the soil potentially putting in either a concrete pad or some sort of heavy material and then mulch on top of it, would assume. Have you considered or looked at the cost of any sort of reinforcement to put it in a part of your yard that has a slope?

No.

The area that you're referencing, it still wouldn't have enough room to run around the swing set. It might have enough to squeeze it in there, but not really to play on it. Know I wouldn't want concrete underneath where they're swinging, but something like what you're talking about, I would be open to. However, as far as the slope dealing with the slope, that would require building up some of the land. I'm not really sure how that would work with water flow and so forth. I think also one of the guidelines that you had in the application was that it shouldn't Run off. It shouldn't

Run off in mature trees.

Yeah. Right.

Okay. We saw quite a bit of runoff yesterday.

Indeed. Quite a bit.

Yes. I was driving home through it. This is potentially a question for city staff but the I'm not sure if you can answer this but it's a question about the lot that it abuts. I'm assuming owned by the HOA. What sort of regulations are there for We raised that there's benches and I saw in the Google Maps Maps that there once was a large tent there.

What are the regulations for that area? Because those as as they stated those tables and that seating area seem to be roughly the same distance from the road.

For our children's play equipment that is defined as an accessory structure. These park benches would not or tables would not be an accessory structure. That is maybe some of the confusion about not seeing similar structures in the neighborhood. So although there are tables here, they would not be considered a structure like a play equipment that was redefined back in 2022.

2022. Correct.

By the city council.

What was it what were they defined as previously, if you don't mind me asking?

I don't believe they were defined. I don't think we had any regulations

So there wasn't any regulations prior to 2022 on where to put? Correct. Okay.

All

right. So they would have been regulated like the tables?

Well we likely would have still administered this corner lot section that we're referencing. So any development? It's not specific to any structure. And I was pulling up the plat for the HOA lot, that's a little tricky because there's no principal structure on that. I don't it would be hard to define like a front yard, side yard, rear yard.

Well that's why

I was like I don't understand like what even to apply to. Yeah

I'll see if I see anything on the plat.

And you mentioned that you were amenable to potentially putting in some sort of shrubbery to potentially shield it from the road and our interest in things like that is not necessarily for the homeowner but for everyone else which might not simply be your adjacent neighbors but just because it is so visible from the road. So I just wanted to provide clarity there is that's typically why something like that is to shield something that is is is non conforming with the code.

So we've actually had more compliments from neighbors than complaints including the the private complaint that happened that we still are not aware of who is concerned, which also is another thing that bothers us that it's you know, we try to be really transparent and good neighbors, and it was very shocking to hear that somebody had a problem and never mentioned it to us. And still, one, except for the guy that I solicited the information from, no one has told us why they don't like it or that they don't like it except that one guy. But we have had multiple numerous neighbors say they like where it is, including Kurt Van Blarkem, who used to live across the street from us on Harlan. He was driving through the neighborhood and just pulled over and said, hey, that looks really sharp there. I like the placement.

And we truly had no idea that it was not in compliance, but nobody has expressed to us, I really don't like that, except, of course, the one neighbor who said it wouldn't be mitigated by bushes. But if you'd like, we can plant bushes. The other question I have, though, is

How are you?

Well, we can't plant bushes in your right of way because that's not okay. So they would be very thin bushes if they need to be here but also not take up space. I mean, you can't You could put them here but I guess I'd have to manicure them to make sure they don't get pokey.

Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody to get hurt. Right. I don't actually have, I don't

have any other

questions so I think we will transition to the open meetings with other individuals who might have standing or unless you Keenan

has Everybody's another questions sparked some more questions for me.

Please do.

I apologize.

That's okay.

Going back to the complaint, is that documented anywhere?

I don't believe so. For a lot of complaints we get in CD it'll just be someone calls in, someone walks in, we then we don't write people's down saying this person complained on this date about this thing. We'll say this is an issue, we'll go take a look at it. If it is then we start a code enforcement issue.

Okay.

On the question of the HOA property, if the HOA had said we want a playground on this piece of property, what rules would apply? Could they put let's just imagine the HOA's property extended 50 feet to the west, are we still having the same conversation? Or not because it's not a corner lot?

It's not a corner lot and if they were to meet the setback line

The 10 foot setback

line I think it would be.

Okay.

I was not aware that the city had this zoning certificate requirement for play equipment. I assume it's only for new builds?

Correct.

You may not know this but since the city started requiring that, how many zoning certificates has the city issued for play equipment?

We would need to research that and get back to you. We don't have that on the fly.

Do you do you think it's more or less than 10? No idea? Okay.

Not sure. Yeah.

Okay and this is the last question that came up and this is for the applicant, what's the age range of the neighborhood children that are playing on this equipment?

Our children are obviously 11 and 14 and they have their friends over but we also have

Yeah. We invited two families with younger children. I would say they are three to six. But again, they absolutely do not come without their parents. They don't leave their house without their parents. Yeah. Mhmm.

They were actually Signed

our thing.

Neighborhood this afternoon. Left. We're like, well, a go. You know, mom and dad are here, and they were having at it. And, you know, a three year old, that's a it's a really monstrous slide. And, you know, I'd love to be three again for many reasons. One would be to ride that slide as a three year old.

Mhmm.

Thank you, and thank you chair for indulging. No worries.

I may, one other one. This to the city solicitor, if as Mr. Sugar said, this runs with the land. So if you move away and there's other children younger, maybe they're not being observed the way you observe your kids. This is an extremely large variance from what I can tell, and 80 some percent.

In fact, haven't found any that you've done like this before. If something happened where someone was injured, would there be liability coming back to the city where they granted such a large variance from a safety perspective, someone would say, well why would you do something like that when you're next to the road, and that the city has bears some responsibility for what happened. Is that?

The short answer is no. There would

not

be liability for the city in that circumstance. This is what we are engaged in here is what's known as a governmental function, and there is a very specific, a high revised code section that talks about burden shifting and whatnot, and this falls squarely in that there would be immunity for the city and for everyone here. To add on to, or to add a comment to what you had just opened with, while traditionally variances do run with the land, my comment was that you could put a fuse on it, you would, you can make it either five years, you can make it seven years, or you could make it if they discontinue use for example, so if their children stop using it, then the variance expires and they would be required to take it down. So there are a number of different ways, the number of ideas that you can condition the variance on and it would expire either on that event or at that time limit, if that was something you wanted to consider. It's not required, that is an option for you.

It could be difficult for the city to track though, just to add it from a staff perspective.

We exist.

Don't wanna be watching the children play and see when they discontinue the

use. We

exist to make it a

lot of challenge.

It's an extra set of

eyes. Exactly what

you wanna be doing. I actually have one more question that this now since we've been going down this line of questioning. You just moved to this location recently. You If you were to move again,

in this house until we are done working. When we are done working, we could potentially move, but we also might just live there till we die because we do like it a lot. We have five kids combined. Our three older ones are in college, and they have, many of them have expressed interest in having this property. However, I also have expressed interest in selling this perfectly resalable piece of equipment because if my kids aren't using it, I'd like to have some of this money back, if only to recoup what we just spent to ask you for the variance. So I do not see this structure staying here beyond the time that we stay in that house. What do you see honey?

See out to my future. No. No. I I just misunderstood the question. I didn't know if you were talking about when the move would occur and if the move occurs when my children are still using it.

Purely hypothetical question.

And again, mean I moved here when I was 18 old and

To Hudson.

Right. And I we're both very tenured teachers who don't wanna move. We love our place. We love this town.

Got it. Wasn't questioning your loyalty to Hudson. It was more of a of of the question of if you were to

I apologize. I misunderstood. I thought it was if you were to move in the next few years. No.

I'm like, well, the kids are still playing

with I'm like, no. We we wanted to.

Yeah. It was more of would this play structure stay at the house if you were to move to a different house?

No. K.

Alright. And then I have a question. If we were to grant a variance that was time bound, what would be your request for the amount of number of years?

Ten.

Okay. We don't have any more, new questions, from the board. We're going to move on to opening this up to individuals who might have standing. So individuals who have standing are anybody who received in the mail a notice about this. Do we have anybody in the public that would like to talk that has standing? In that case, we will move on to opening up the meeting to members of the public. If anybody from the public wants to address the board, you are able to come and make comment now if you you're not required to.

So when you come up

I ask that you state your name and address and I just want to note that comments are not to exceed five minutes. Thank you.

I'm Serena Loftus. My address is 6878 Windsor Road. I'm here in a personal capacity to support the variance application and I'm also here because I have some experience with the EHHCA operations and I'm making myself available to answer any questions that you had about the adjacent property which we call and is plotted as the Lake Block property.

Any board members have any remaining questions about the adjacent property?

I would mention that I do not believe we have any permits for our picnic tables.

With regards to the homeowners association, would the board of the association be willing to essentially sign off on this?

The board of our association doesn't have any latitude related to this area to sign or not sign in our bylaws. So it wouldn't be consistent with our bylaws. We can offer personal opinions but that's not the role of our board. We just administered the EHHCA community assets. And I just want to also say that we don't have any board records of a complaint.

I think that this was a conversation that occurred between a person engaged in business defined as the administration of our community assets with the city mentioning that there has been what I would call chatter in the community about it and seeking clarification. I I don't have any record in my records. I'm the VP and have been on the board for six years. I have no record of a complaint of this. Also, everyone in the community had the all posting guidelines were followed, everyone had opportunity to email, speak, sign. So I just want to provide that insight that I'm not aware that this is anything that I would consider a complaint. I think it was more of an inquiry in the course of business.

Questions from the board? You have anything else that you'd like to say?

Nope. I don't know whether my son wants to say something about his opinions about playground variances but he wants to also be sworn in very briefly. He will keep his remarks very We

can do that.

He needs to be sworn in very briefly.

Okay. Because he did not swear in.

He's a role follower as well.

Alright. Very quickly. Quickly. Yeah. Alright. I'm gonna have you raise your right hand. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that this testimony you will provide is the truth? Yes. Thank you. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

I am Gareth. I live at 6878 Windsor Road. I that's her. I would like to start off by saying that I think it's outrageous that they had to pay $2,000 for this application.

I agree with I

forget who said it, who said that this is probably more of a law for like neighboring properties that built their playsets close together and didn't want them to merge. I think that possibly an exception should be added to the laws for play sets that are not near other property lines. I'm just here to support this.

That's it. Questions? No, go ahead.

Garrett, how old are you?

11.

Thank you for speaking tonight. Thank

you.

Do we have any other members of the public that would like to address the board? I know you were sworn in, just please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Jillanne Grimm. I live at 2606 Harlan Drive. I just wanted to make the comment that there are no sidewalks in our neighborhood, and kids have to convey their play from one house to the other by the street. So I support any in on property type of play equipment that the kids in our neighborhood can access. And that's it, thank you. Thank you, appreciate it.

All right, now I will open this up for final questions from the board for the applicant. I know we've kind of exhausted that, so if we don't have any we can move on to the next section. And then I will open it up. You as the applicants have the opportunity to provide final comments if you see that's necessary, if not we can close the public part

of this meeting. Just want to say that more people

Sorry, I'm sorry. Only ask because and it's we want to be able to hear the recording.

Sorry I want to note that more people offered to come here in support of us and we declined because we said that won't be an issue, but for the record there are other neighbors including David Uline, Barbara Boss and Dave Sonata all offered to come speak to you and I just don't think that having more neighbors speak to you to say it's a great idea is going to say any more than having signatures on a piece of paper.

Okay, thank you. Yes. Alright with that I'm going to close the public part of this meeting and then open this up for discussion amongst board members. Does anybody have comments to make or is anybody ready at this point I to talk about a

have comments. First of all, if you'd asked me twenty four hours ago, where I thought of this, I would have said, oh, gee, why did these people put this equipment eight feet from the road? Well, today, I went out and I reviewed the property in person, and I completely changed my mind. Completely changed my mind. And the reason is that, first of all, there isn't anybody nearby seeing this thing.

Secondly, it's not eight, know, it's not seven feet that we're really dealing with. What we're really dealing with is about 20 feet, not seven feet. As you know, because I've told this group many times, except you, you haven't heard this joke. I do not agree with the idea that a numerical value whether the variance is substantial is a very good test. I think it's a terrible test.

What substantial variance means is, is it substantial in the context of the items that we are dealing with here, not just how many feet versus how many feet the provisions allow. So in this case, I don't think that saying that this is an 86% variance means much, and I wouldn't pay any attention to that, because to me it's far enough from the road to be reasonable. The next point is when I went out and looked, I could see that this swing set couldn't go anywhere else. That's a big drop off. In fact, the swing set is like higher, it's almost to the second story of the house.

The slope is much greater if you take a picture, you can't even imagine how big that slope is. So I thought, you know, it's not just that they can't put a swing set there, they can't put anything on their property, anything, because 50 feet in puts you in a position where you can't have a building, you can't do anything on this property because of the way it's structured. And the next point I want to make is that I believe that a rule about 50 feet for a corner lot is a very unfair rule. And although we have to enforce it, that's the reason why we are allowed to grant variances. We are allowed to grant variances when if you don't grant the variance, people are deprived of something that they ought to be able to have, and people ought to be able to have an auxiliary structure on their property.

There is no way that anybody could put anything on that property in the way of an auxiliary structure because of the topography properties. I think, in spite of the fact that I was

of you, Bob. Does anybody else have anything to say? Corey, do you

have any thoughts that you'd like to share?

Sure. I think I would like to try, if possible, find a way to have this work. I also agree that if it truly was seven feet away from the road, that would be not acceptable. It is a bit interesting though if there was a sidewalk there that was in part of that, would we all still feel the same, know, given that would be a way for an impact on pedestrian traffic or the like. I do have to defer to the architects of the Land Development Code for why they've made the rules that they have, and particularly even create a specific rule regarding play equipment, and I believe that that rule for that type of play equipment is probably necessitated by the increasing size of play equipment that we see in particular in this particular case.

And so

unfortunately, it is something that we're going to have to do. Perhaps we can provide feedback to the Planning Commission or to counsel that perhaps you don't need to get a permit square footage of the plate because that is much smaller, 50 square feet or something like that instead to reduce the burden on I do believe that a percentage guideline for variances determining substantial, you have to have a number. It doesn't necessarily immediately then result in a denial because it goes over a particular number. But I believe that it does start to increase the burden of either the need for conditions or even some time restrictions due to the nature of that. Given that it is completely exposed while you say people can't see it, I see it like in this picture I'm looking at right here, I see a driveway every time that this individual goes in and out of their house, they do see it.

It's in a fairly high traffic area of a intersection. And then it was difficult for them to secure approval from the person who is directly opposite of the property, so it obviously has some type of impact. So what I would propose is some type of obscuring of the structure through landscaping and then a time restriction. I would be supportive of that had those conditions.

House that looks out at the What did they say about it?

That was the one that they couldn't get support.

That was the one that did not sign. Did not sign. But also did not submit any Opposition. Written opposition. Did not

oppose it, but did not sign it. Right. I have, okay. Well, I have to say that I have, in my four years on this committee, I have never seen so many people agree that this very time be granted. I have never seen that many people sign a paper like that or otherwise indicate that they were in favor of this big gun.

Really, this zoning provision is intended to protect the neighborhood. If all the neighbors say it looks great with us, well, we Since we didn't, we can't assume anything.

I mean we have testimony. Can't

assume anything.

But I guess the other aspect is the presidential nature of it, and so the level of detail around community support or neighborhood alignment is a difficult thing to capture. And so and we have had cases in the last case that I was a part of, I wasn't here last time, but the one a pretty significant number of supporting statements. But ultimately, I think we do need to think about how aligned we can be to

response to that, let me just point out, there's a reason why the code provides for variances. But what? There is a reason why, because there are conditions where the code doesn't work very well. That's why we're here. So you can't say, well, since this is outside the code, we shouldn't do anything.

But that's why we're here, to grant variances conditions where it is difficult to comply with the code and do a reasonable improvement to your property. That's why we're here, to grant variances in those conditions. So I don't say it's so important to apply the rule that we couldn't grant variances. I don't agree with that.

I'd like to make some points just on neighborhood support. Sure.

Go ahead.

I don't know if this is a point of order, and maybe I should have asked this before we close public comment, but do we need to do anything to make sure that those signatures are in the record? Do we need to make a motion to accept them as an exhibit or are we good?

When they were handed to us, I was hoping or was and I didn't say it so it was my fault.

Sorry I

didn't catch any eyes that

were in the middle

of this way, I apologize.

But I think just a comment from the chair that we are accepting those would be sufficient.

That be done at this point and okay. I am accepting into evidence the signatures that were received from the neighbors entitled neighbor support petition for zoning variance.

Thank you.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Further to that point, the only evidence that is in the record of any opposition came from the applicant. Being open and honest about their efforts to garner support from their neighbors. Any opposition that was expressed by that neighbor through the applicant was not strong enough for that neighbor to submit written opposition or appear today to offer their own testimony. So if we and if we take the applicant's testimony with respect to that neighbor at face value, which I think we have to, that's all we have, I believe that neighbor also said don't put any bushes or trees in front of it and we can't ask him about it because he's not here. Presumably it's because he'd like to look at only one thing when he drives out of his driveway, not a swing set and new bushes.

So I don't think I would be supportive of a condition for landscaping, but I certainly am supportive of a condition with respect to duration of this variance and I think that we should in any motion to approve this variance explicitly state that this variance does not run with the land, that it is specific to the current owner, and that it expires at the earlier of ten years from the grant of this variance or when this property is no longer held by the current owner.

Do you have any other comments or thoughts?

No, thank you.

You're welcome. Do you

have any comments

that you'd like to make?

A great way to start. I agree, the only way I would vote for this, if there was a duration on it, and Bob, people can look at the same thing and have different opinions. I'm concerned of it, I'm concerned about it, I'm concerned about the safety of it, and I can appreciate living having it in my front yard, and not wanting it right up on the street like that. I think of a playset, it's tucked in back into the yard, kind of works with the rest of the yard, that's not what happens here.

And I agree with you.

Right, and the key is with the folks that have it now, it sounds wonderful, it works great, but if it does run with the land, all sorts of things can change. Kids can be having 20 kids with bicycles and that's not the way it is. I know, but it could be unless we have some type of, I agree with the duration, your language for that, I would support it, but that would be the only way I could.

The setback, I agree with most of what you said, except for one thing. That setback was not put in place to protect children. The 50 foot setback was not put in place to protect children. My gosh, when I was a kid, we walked all the way out to the street.

The street

was our place.

The street was to protect children

by putting them 50 feet away from the road, that's overkill. And

I agree and someone said maybe we should look at that, a 25 foot setback, but there's other things to consider also. It's not just playground equipment.

I have a couple of comments that I'd like to make. First on whether this is a substantial or insubstantial and talking about the substantialness of this request. While it is considered an 86% deviation I believe from the code, Substantialness of a variance isn't the only thing that is the consideration. That's why we have all of the factors and as Corey pointed out, but I think I would add potentially slightly change the thought would be that that's when the other factors have to be more persuasive, which is why I think it will be very important for whoever makes a motion if we're going to make a motion to approve this that we clearly set out why no other place on this property makes sense. And I think that that was determined tonight.

In my opinion I think we have substantial we had enough testimony to explain as to why this wouldn't work anywhere else. And even if it did, even if it could be put there, it wouldn't make sense to put it there. So I think in the motion we need to be able to set out those explanations to overcome anything regarding the substantialness and it also helps with the concern of potential precedent setting. This is a very unique aside from it being a corner lot which we have plenty of corner lots in Hudson, but aside from it being on a corner lot, it has water encroachment, it has silt, it has infirm land in the back. And as I think Bob Karl mentioned that build any accessory structure like taking out that it's a playground or playset I should say.

If we were talking specifically about just a storage shed, I don't know how they'd put it anywhere else. If we were talking about anything other than a place that I don't know how they utilize the back. I don't know how they put in a patio if they wanted to have a patio. So talking about the homeowner and how they can utilize their land, I think they're very limited based on the topography and the soil composition and the water. So I think that those are all important things to make clear in the motion and again this is the function of why we're here and why there's the ability to grant variances is because of these types of hardships.

In saying all of that, I wanna ask if anybody is able or prepared to make a motion and if not I can give the gavel and I'll do it myself. Do you want to do or do you want me to do

it? Okay.

All right, what do I need to do?

Yeah just for the record, you are tendering the chair temporarily to Mr. Karl who is the vice chair.

Yes, so I the chair am temporarily giving the gavel and assigning to the vice chair the chair so that I can make a motion on this case. Alright, give me a second. I prepared to make a motion in regards to docket number 2025Dash813, in regards to 6751 Evergreen Road parcel number 300001716. We have in front of us, the applicant Brian Carr, property owners are Brian and Julia Carr. The request is or I should say my motion is to approve the variance request in front of us which is a 43 feet variance from the required minimum side yard setback for corner lots of 50 feet resulting in a seven foot setback pursuant to section twelve oh five point zero six D five D five entitled minimum side yard setbacks residential corner lots in order to construct children's play equipment.

I will now go through the Duncan factors. In regards to whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, The property in question will yield a reasonable return and there can be beneficial use without the variance, but I would argue that without the variance, they would not be able to utilize any portion, They would not be able to utilize their yard for this playset and there is no other place in their yard that would make sense to put their playset. Whether variance is substantial, as I just mentioned, while the variance does represent an 86% deviation from the code, it's not seven feet from the road, it is actually I believe 22 feet from the road. And while it represents a numerical deviation from the code which could be considered substantial, with other factors including that the neighboring lot is not inhabited, it is a public or owned by the homeowners association. There's no direct property owner adjacent that is, directly impacted by this variance.

Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. I believe we accepted into, evidence tonight signatures from, countless neighbors in their neighborhood that are in support of this. We did not receive any written or public testimony here tonight that was not in support of the variants. Sorry, give me a second. And while the playset is visible from the road, We have heard tonight that neighbors actually don't mind the playset and would be potentially opposed to adding any sort of shrubs or plants that would divert attention.

Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services such as water and sewer. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirements, the current setback requirements were in place when the property owners purchased the property in 2024. And here we come to the most important whether the applicant's predicament can be obviated feasibly through some other method other than a variance. We've talked at length tonight about the nature of the unique character of this corner lot.

Aside from it being a corner lot, the backyard, is impacted significantly by, a water feature in the neighborhood that takes up over 25 potentially even closer to 30% of the backyard and the soil composition of their backyard and the slope and water drainage piping leave very limited places, in their yard in order to put a playset or any accessory structure. And, we looked also at potentially where it would work in the front yard and there is very limited areas in the front yard that would work without removing or impacting the use of, the front yard. Because

of that,

next to impossible, I would believe to be able to put any sort of accessory structure somewhere in any other zone in the yard without substantial reinforcement and expense. Whether the spirit and intent behind the requirements would be observed in substantial justice done by granting the variance. I believe that granting this variance makes complete sense and is an example of why we should allow variances which is to allow owners to be able to have accessory structures that make sense and there is no other place on this property that makes sense for this play structure. I would also motion that we put a time limit to this variance that this variance should expire at the earlier of ten years, or when the sale of the property to another owner.

I have a second.

Second.

Would that mean the structure would need to be removed? Is that the intent of that?

Yes. You like to move that to you me to amend?

Yeah, that may help.

I would like to amend my motion to clarify that the additional requirement on the variance would be that the place that be removed at the earlier of ten years or the sale of the property to another owner.

And that the variance expires

expires at that moment. Thank you.

Who seconded

I'll accept the amendment. Thank you.

Mr. Dyer?

Sorry. Yes.

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones?

Yes.

Mr. Karl?

Yes.

Chair Bronstein?

Yes. The

motion has been passed. You have your variance with the conditions that we have placed on it. Alright, I hand my gavel back

to you.

Accepting back the gavel, congratulations. We'll now move on to other business. Miss Rodek, are there any staff updates that you would like to provide?

We still have a week for any applications to come in. We have discussed with someone who went to ArcBoard an appeal but they have not submitted as of today.

Thank you.

We have an event coming up.

Yes we do. Do you have any updates or would you or Nick or Marshall like to provide any information on the

The board training that's scheduled for the twenty seventh at six p. M. So we're preparing for that and yeah we'll be talking about that tomorrow in the office.

Two separate meetings planned for tomorrow and then on Monday to walk through. There is an agenda that is kind of etched out, but it's still in working form. But we are going to specifically address some of the concerns that have been stated here with respect to findings of fact and how that looks. I'll be talking about the concept that is currently being drafted to require written findings of fact only in the event of an appeal. We'll be talking about civility for the board and how city council is putting together rules that they already have upon themselves that will be also extended to the board and commissions.

And it'll be just generally the roles and responsibilities of each of the three primary boards and discussion on what I refer to as mission drift. If it's not exactly the right legal term, but I think everybody understands what I mean. Play in your sandbox, not as someone else's. So we'll be discussing those kinds of things.

Okay, and Marshall this is for you just do we have an update on the draft of that memo regarding

variances? That will be coming out tomorrow actually.

All right, And can you provide a little bit of an explanation to our new member on what that will be about?

I actually pulled it up while we were going through the motion to kind of look through it. We prepared a, I guess it's a high level, maybe not so high level, but it's a legal memorandum that talks about exactly the things that we went through tonight, the Duncan factors are and how the board should try to apply each factor. We talk about in particular factor number three, which is always I think the one that gives this body the hardest time, which is the whether or not a variance is substantial. We have found my office, put together this memo. State The of Ohio is divided into a number of jurisdictions and we happen to live in what's called the ninth District Court of Appeals for those of you who are not lawyers.

And we found a case from the ninth District that specifically speaks to the third factor and it says that it is not numerical, that is that you take the circumstances as a whole. Another phraseology would be the totality of the circumstances, but it's the same concept. So this memo will essentially walk you through, it's intended as a primer on the Duncan factors. It comes from a case that was handed down, these are the factors you should consider. Many years ago the city council took those factors and put them into our code. So we purposefully go through each one.

Okay.

Alright.

I'm requesting, can we request a motion? I'm requesting a motion to adjourn if there are no other comments.

Something real quick.

Oh okay.

Could we possibly get a calendar invite for the board training? Thank you.

That's a good point, so we have it on our calendar not to forget.

Just a note, that will be held at city, I believe

it's

City Hall.

Have a calendar.

That's City Hall, it's at City Hall.

Yeah, so it's not going to be here. Downstairs. It's downstairs

where all the parking

is. Yes, exactly. 1142. Yes. Alright,

can I get a motion to adjourn then if we have no other comments?

So moved. Second.

Alright so move.