Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

river. Oh, you did? I'm going in September. Where'd you go? That's what we were doing.

Right. So, did you go um when you went biking? Yes, we went to start. Okay. Bas going up. Okay. I'm so excited. Did you love it? We did. It was great. The worst part was coming back because we were on a plane to come back out. We got up at 3:00 again the next day. So So I I don't know what day that is yet. Oh, when did you get back? Uh Sunday night. Oh, did you?

So I guess I'm But it takes a couple days. And did you Are we ready to get started? Have they started doing anything? Okay. Um, a motion needs to be made to appoint a chairman prom to run this meeting as our current chairman's out today. Um, I'm willing to run the meeting if someone wants to make a motion for any minutes or um I have a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting.

Okay. We're looking for a motion to nominate a prom chair for tonight because the chair and vice chair are both gone. Um I move to mo to nominate a prom. Second. Okay, it's been approved. So I will run the meeting. Thank you. Um so I'd like to call the March 25th, 2026 board of zoning appeals meeting um to order. Could I have roll call, please? Members Penn here. Sipple here. Dirkson here. Dun Hurst here. Hawk here. Busing

there is a quorum. Okay. Welcome everyone. Thanks for coming out today. Um so we have a packet containing information about each case on the agenda tonight. Um every applicant will be called to the podium when it's time for your case. Um and you can present your case and anyone who wishes to speak for or against that um case can have an opportunity to do that as well. Um so there's no approval of minutes um on the agenda today. No old business as well. So we can go ahead and move forward with the new business. Um if there's nothing else, I'll call the first case. Okay. The first case is case 10, 2026 11609 Manor Road. Request for a variance to the maximum allowed grade change in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.4G in an RP1 district. Um, does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a tear down rebuild with a walk out walk up patio that will require a maximum grade change of 7.5 ft. This will require variance of 7.5 feet to build the home as proposed. Okay. Um, any questions up here for staff based on that? Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay. Okay, you can come to the podium. Please just give your name and your address. Jerry Star, Star Holmes, Katie Dunn, 11609 Manor Road. Thank you. And you can present your case.

Okay. So, um what we're asking for is we have a walk out walk up that is in your packet uh of uh where it shows the the dark red area there is where the variance area is in question. And th this house is a um is a tear down in Hallbrook. Um and it's um a fairly you know it's fairly good size entertainment area that's adjacent to this walk out walk up and they do allow 7 ft um uh under the current rules of a walk out walk up to reach that staircase to go to the outdoor space. What the variance is for is for the remainder of that because with a very with a large entertainment space, you'll have moments where people need to take a step outside or they might want to even take a seat outside for some fresh air. And this this rule of 7 feet applies to a house that's in Leewood that's 1500 square feet or or a home that's much larger than that. And so when you have a large entertainment space with a good number of people, it would be a reasonable accommodation to allow people to walk outside those doors and actually be able to sit down. Well, if we put chairs there, it would restrict the flow of traffic to get out of there in the event of a safety concern or something like that. You wouldn't want to block those doors with seating uh because then we'd be uh blocking what would be an eressable uh space there. So ultimately, we're not asking for an exception, I guess, to the 7 foot rule that you guys have on walk out walkups. That's uh just kind of a pat rule that you guys allow for that regardless of size house. We're asking for a grade change for that other to

allow that walk up, walk out, walk up to have a small seating area out there to allow people in the basement to be able to circulate to the outside without necessarily having to climb stairs because not everybody in a in a basement has the wherewithal to easily zip up and down stairs outside if they wish to go outside. So it's, you know, in terms of a hardship, I I guess the the all the other items have been, my staff have said have been met. The four criteria, the one that they had a question on was was hardship. And and what I would say is that, you know, all of us are probably blessed that live in Leewood that, you know, it's a nice community. There's not a lot of these hardship requests are not um you know are livability hardships if you will. They are hardships of access and things like that. There is I have a little exhibit that you guys don't have that show the 3D. If I could hand this in for you guys. I don't think you guys have seen that.

If you'll hand it to Ron, he can put it on. Okay. Excellent. And so what that will show is the on the TV on the left hand side. On the left hand side you'll see where this walk out walk up is. And so who was it at Hallbrook that made a comment about it? Oh the general manager Johnson Hall Brook Country Club said that it was something they can't even see from the golf course and I had no idea why it would be of concern. We have that letter in front of us.

Okay. So, so all we're trying to do is make the the basement safer, more of a place where somebody doesn't have to climb a set of stairs if they want to go outside for just a a quick bit and be able to go back inside. We have kind of a rule that is a 7 foot rule that is regardless of size of house or entertainment space. Um, and so what we're asking for is that grade change. I believe the grade change is actually six and a half feet, but I'm not going to argue. They said seven and a half feet in the in the thing, but we're asking for that little orange section on that other diagram that you guys had for the gray change of 6 and 1/2 ft to accommodate a reasonable um access to be able to sit outside and provide access to egress uh in the event of an emergency. Katie, do you have anything else?

No, unless they have questions. Do the board members have any questions for the applicant based on that? Um, I have a clarific clarification. You you indicated that there's a 7 foot um allowance, but I think we're only talking about the maximum grade change here, right?

Right. So, they kind of go hand in hand. I wouldn't have we wouldn't have to apply for the gray change variance if they had allowed the walk out walk up well to be deeper if you will because there's a an ability to walk out but they limited that well to seven feet. And so what we're asking for and what we were told was the right way to do this is ask for a grade change variance for the remainder of the walk out walk up that allows us to move that retaining wall an additional six feet or whatever it is back to allow for a little bit of seating area so that the pathway to get out of the basement could remain unhindered. Uh is so those two rules that exist we could have probably be gone either way. But what they told us is that it was a grade change request. And so what we're asking is for that retaining wall that is that walk out walk up where those stairs are on which one? The previous one that's on there. Yeah, that one right there. Uh where that orange is. We're asking for the retaining wall that is right right now approved right here to be was originally drawn on the print to slide back. And what that means is we have to excavate that orange area down that additional seven feet that allows there to be a seating area there and still have the doors that go outside to be able to eress uh to the rear patio and pool area. We did put a different shape house on this lot and we kept everything within one foot. So, we worked really hard with a different shape house to accommodate exact rules for Leewood. This was the only area that with an entirely different shape of house that we were looking for some sort of grade

change accommodation. I have a question for staff. Under hardship, you said the application does not appear to meet the criteria and the plan with the compliant patio was previously submitted. Is this something we should be looking at or

that's just because the the there was a plan approved in the per in the house was started under with the 7 foot walk out walk up. So the fact was that just we had an approved plan but now we're they just want to change it. So you've got to decide. Does the applicant have um a comment on why that original plan is no longer possible or or what changed between that original plan and now?

Well, there's a question of original plan. We we submitted an original plan that included the orange area that was excavated. We were told that we can't do that uh under the rules. So what we did is we submitted something that would provide some that that would meet all the criteria which is what he's referencing that is approved. It is a 7 foot wide pathway that goes to the stairs that goes up but it doesn't allow for the seating or the ease of access inside and out. What we wanted from the beginning was what this is we submitted because we need to build something. We want to build a house here and and and we're hopeful that that that it'll make sense what we're requesting here to have this little accommodation, but what we're asking for was what we originally designed on the on the house. But he is correct. Once we were told that it by staff that uh that was going to require a BCA meeting, we wanted to make sure we had something approved. So, we went ahead and had it restricted back to 7 f feet from the door. So, we had an approved plan to build, but that's why we're here asking for that additional uh feet because that although that does allow us to get out the door and go straight up the stairs, it wouldn't allow any kind of indoor outdoor um like if somebody just wanted to step out for any reason and sit out outside for a fresh air. You can't have a seat in a seven foot path without especially two or three seats without restricting the path where you've got the steps. So that's does that clarify it a little bit? Hopefully that explains it. I I understand that many of the hardships that we look at in on these things are, you know, are they are hardships. I mean, when people if somebody has trouble navigating steps and they need to step outside and they need to sit

down, I guess they sit on the steps, right? I mean, is that a hardship? It is. I mean, it's you got a grandmother or something like that. She'd like to catch some fresh air and the only place she can do it is to go outside and sit on the steps. So, because putting furniture out there doesn't make sense. So, I I think that's a hardship. staff. Do we have any information on the previously submitted compliant patio or how that's changed? I think I'm still a little bit

Well, they submitted they did submit for that full patio originally. It was denied, you know, the 7 foot. So, anything out outside of the building uh roof footprint is what we apply the one foot gray change rule. That's what was established by planning years ago. But you do have to have egress out of the basement. So, you know, where does it at what point does it become a walkout patio and at what point is it egress? It, you know, 7 feet is what the planning director, Richard Coleman, years ago said, you know, hey, we'll allow them seven foot for egress out of the basement. Anything more than that outside of the roof footprint of the home, we would subject to the one foot grade change rule. So, that's what we've we've applied evenly to projects. Um, but just to give an example, like you know, they're not doing that here, but someone could just completely excavate a site and force a walk out, a complete walk out of the home. We have had that proposed many times. So, that's that's kind of what the rule is against. I mean, this one's pretty modest, what you know, the addition that they're asking for, but you know, again, the seven foot rule for just egress is what we've applied to these projects. So, hopefully that adds some background. Okay. Um, so this is a variant. So the specific criteria that we um consider there's four criteria and the most troublesome ones as you touched on are uniqueness of property and hardship. I think you've touched on hardship um a fair amount. Is there anything about this property that makes it unique?

Well, obviously the grading of the of the lot is u what's interesting is if we had this house built originally in Hallbrook, this would have been approved, right? Then we wouldn't have this rule because long ago this was not necessarily the uh the rule. But the the grading of the lot to begin with is a challenge. We met all of the grading requirements throughout the whole project. Even though the shape of the house is significantly different than the one that was there, we were very sensitive to Leewood rules and doing it. Um this was spot where an accommodation of being able to allow somebody that needs air, that doesn't can't climb stairs to get upstairs, needs a place to sit, wants to take a step outside. As he indicated, it is a modest additional amount of square footage of uh in order to accommodate both the egress and a small little area where somebody could sit down. And I I know they allow the seven foot rule, which I'm grateful for because a lot of people like to be able to walk out and walk up, which is nice to be able to get out, but it is applied evenly across all sizes of homes and entertainment spaces and things like that. And not all homes and indooroutdoor spaces are really designed to be exactly the same. So, I I think, you know, when you think about the grandmother case, somebody that you've struggled to get down the stairs into a basement, she's spending the evening, she needs to take a step outside, she would like to have some air, would like to sit down on something other than the steps without blocking the egress, uh is is a reasonable accommodation both in in this case. And we certainly did not ask for anything that was, you know, substantial in terms of additional

excavation here. So, any questions from the board for the applicant or staff? I I've got a question. Thank you. Uh, will this be visible by the neighbor to the south? No. Uh, the other 3D image is U. Yeah. So the I don't know that so so on the left side of the house on this image is what we're talking about there. And so the uh it is landscaped

there. It would look the same whether this was excavated or it wasn't because we'll have landscaping there either way. The visibility will be identical from the neighbor to the south. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions up here? Question for staff, right? Like normally we have when we talk about gradings and things like that, it's usually concern about water. I mean, because they back up to a golf course, is there any concern about water or any other things that they have to take into consideration? There were no drainage concerns uh according to public works.

Okay. Is it there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application either for or against? And I know we have this letter here in our packet um from Jay Johnson, general manager of Hal Brook Country Club, which we've had the opportunity to review. Have there been any other calls or letters received? No calls or concerns. Okay. Um if nothing else, I think we're ready to consider the criteria. Um so you all can have a seat. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So the first criteria is uniqueness of property. Does anyone want to comment on that criteria? Are we are we talking uniqueness at this point? Yes. Okay. It's unique because it's on a golf course. The lot is irregular and it it's not going to affect anyone because they're looking out at a a a a green golf course which is a very nice area to look at. Anything else on uniqueness and it is higher than the fairway of the golf course and the cart path. So people would have to look up to see it. I I I don't think there's anything special about that. So thank you.

Okay. All those who believe this has met the uniqueness criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That criteria has passed. The next criteria is rights of adjacent property owners. Um doesn't seem like we've received any calls or letters other than this letter in support. Um all those who does anyone want to comment on that criteria? In the packet, it says the only one one corner of the home is even affected by it. The and then drainage has already been approved by the authorities. All those who believe it has met the rights of adjacent property owners, please say I.

I. Opposed? Nay. That has passed. Okay. The next criteria is hardship. Does anyone want to comment on hardship? Well, I think it'd be a hardship if they weren't allowed to use this for their their their people and guests that might come there. And I think they believe they already addressed this concern. All those who believe that it has met the hardship criteria, please say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. That criteria has passed as well. Um the next criteria is public safety and general welfare. Um any comments on that criteria? Okay. All those who believe it has met that criteria please say I

oppose. Nay. That has passed. Um spirit and intent is our next factor. Any comments on spirit and intent? I'll comment briefly on spirit and intent. I think um the existing landscape has been preserved with um with the landscaping that's proposed to be around it as we've seen. Um it's it's not really able to be seen from other properties. Um so I do think that has been met. Um all those in favor um of spirit and intent, please say I. I. I.

Oppose. Nay. Okay, that one has passed as well. So having gotten a positive response on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve that variance. Do I have a motion? Madam Chairman, in case 10 2026 11609 Manor Road, request for a variance to the maximum lab grade change in accordance with the alo section 16-2-5.4G in RP1 district. I move approval. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I

oppose. Nay. Okay, it has passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for coming out. Okay. And our next case on the agenda has been continued. Um, so we'll move on to case 12 2026 4584 West 124th Place request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.4 parent D in an RP1 district. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed to replace an existing deck that will be 22 feet from the sideyard build line. The sideyard setback is 25 ft. A variance of three feet is needed to build the deck as proposed. Any questions from up here for staff? Is the applicant here? You'll come on up. Please give us your name and address and you can present your case.

Ron Stalbomber, 7924 Floyd, Sweet 200, Overland Park, Kansas 66204. So thanks for considering this variance and the followup variance because this one is uh these two variances will allow to rebuild this existing deck. So first of all we're considering the rear yard and um sideyard. Okay. So if we go around the sideyard, what's going on here is I have a little better graphic here. Okay. So, the existing deck is this red line that goes around and it's back here. So, regarding the side setback, the new deck will come off the corner a little closer in straight out and then parallel with the setback return. The existing stairs stays in the same place and it'll head north, but it'll stop two feet short. That's that's what's going on with the side setback. Um, this will allow them to have a table out here. It will get rid of this jig jog thing on the side. Uh clean things up and on this side will actually be less. It's like eight and a half inches further in less encroachment than what exists now. I don't know that I have any more comments about the about the side. Um I do have the owner did take it upon

themselves to go around and meet with the neighbors that whose property touches this all the way around. And they have they asked, you know, they they did this on their own and they have signatures from everybody, one person that has property adjacent to this. You you can give it to Ron right there.

Okay. Okay. Um any questions from up here for the applicant? So this is a variant. So um we have to consider the four factors again and the two that give us the most trouble are uniqueness of property and hardship. Would you be able to say a little bit about those two factors? uniqueness. Um, you know, if you've seen the survey, you can see this. This is a corner lot. The house is at an angle. It's a it's a unique shaped lot. And the house is already over the setback. Two places on the front, one place on the side. So, we're just kind of lining up with with that part.

Okay. Um, and regarding hardship, well, I mean, without a variance, they cannot build a deck. They cannot replace the deck. And the deck we're proposing is it's going to be a little bit smaller. It reduces encroachment on the on the west side and on the north side and it it kind of simplifies things. Okay. Um, any questions from up here based on that? Is there anyone here to speak for this application either for or against? And were any calls or letters received from? No calls or concerns.

Okay. Um, great. Well, um, if there's nothing else, then I think we can consider the criteria. Okay. Um, so you can go ahead and have a seat. So, the first criteria is uniqueness of property. Does anyone want to comment on that factor? The first thing we look at is the size of the lot. And this is not similar in size and shape to any of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Okay. All those who believe it has met that criteria, please say I. I.

Oppose. Nay. That has passed. Um the next factor is rights of adjacent property owners. Any comments on that one? We've not heard from Go ahead. I'm sorry. We've not heard from anyone with pro or con. So, uh, in that case, it looks like everyone's satisfied with the proposal. And and I would also add that the new deck would actually encroach less than the existing. All those who believe that factor has been met, please say I.

I oppose. Nay. That has passed. Okay. Our next factor is hardship. Does anyone have any comments on hardship? Again, I would also I would read that the new deck is actually going to be less than the existing deck. So, um it would be a hardship for him not to be able to replace the deck and he's doing so in a well within the spirit and intent. Okay. On hardship, all those believe that that factor has passed, please say I. I oppose. Nay.

That has passed for public safety and general welfare. Any comments on that? All those who believe it has met public safety and general welfare, please say I. Oppose. Nay. That has passed. Next factor, spirit and intent. Any comments on spirit and intent? All those who believe it has met that factor. Please say I. I. Oppose. Nay.

That is passed. So, having received positive feedback on all five factors, we can entertain a motion to approve that variance. I'll make a motion to approve case 12-20264584 West 124th Place. Request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.4D in the NRP-1 district. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

Opposed? Nay. Okay, that has passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for coming out. Okay, our next case is case 13-2026 4584 West 124th Place. Request for a variance to the rear setback of an irregular lot. Does staff have a report? The applicant has proposed to replace an existing deck that will be 7 feet from the rear yard build line. The rear yard setback is 15 feet. A variance of 8 ft is needed to build the deck as proposed.

Okay. And this one looks pretty familiar. Um, is the applicant here? And would you like to come back on up to the podium? Thank you. Please just state your name and address and we're pretty familiar with the case, but if you just briefly restate. Thank you.

Okay. Ron Stalbmer, 7924 Floyd, sweet 200, Overland Park, Kansas 66204. So, regarding the rear yard, I can go back to the to the graphic that I have here on the rear. You'll see the red the red line. That's the existing deck. We're bringing it in two feet. the existing deck, the columns are not in the easement, but the deck platform itself is canolvered into the easement two feet and u we learned that this easement is a the Leewood city-owned easement and so can't do that. U going on around the deck on this on the east side there's a set of stairs introduced. The owner wanted a set of stairs for their dog. Going and continuing on to the house, there's another red line. There was like a little area for a grill, but it's so close to the house, the owner wanted to just get rid of that. So, that that kind of explains what it is we're doing relative to what was there. Um, this part of the deck will will allow seating versus the other part by the by the kitchen will allow a table and chairs for for dining and all that. So that that satisfies their deck requirements. This the deck platform itself will be approximately 32 feet smaller than what the existing was one is and as noted we're reducing the encroachment.

Okay. Does any board members have any questions for applicant? A question for staff. Uh h how did that original deck get passed uh with a far set back to the back line? Did did the building codes change in between when the home was built and the current time? Does the the zoning the LDO may have changed, right? it. But I'm not sure when the easement would it have been original to the plat.

I can't remember on this one. It may have been originally built with the house if I remember right, but I I'm not really sure. You know, Ron and I talked about it. I believe it was permitted at the time. Okay. It was legal at the time. Legal. So, legal non-conforming.

Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak on this application either for or against? Assuming not, if not on the first one, but you never know. Um, okay. I think we're ready to consider the criteria unless there's anything else from up here. Okay, great. Um, thank you. So, our first criteria is uniqueness of property. Um, do we have any comments from the board on that? Okay. The lot is still unique. Yeah, still unique. All those who believe it has met uniqueness of property, please say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. That has passed. Um, rights of adjacent property owners. Any comments on that factor. All those who believe it has met rights of adjacent property owners, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That has passed. Next factor, hardship. Any comments from the board on hardship? Again, I think the um applicant has done a a a good job to create a deck that is smaller than the one that was before. And considering we just passed the um permit before, it would be a hardship if we did not approve this. Agreed.

All those in favor of the hardship factor, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That has passed. The next factor is public safety and general welfare. There any comments on that factor? All those who believe that has been met, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That has passed. Next factor is spirit and intent. Any comments on spirit and intent. I'd like to compliment the designer in that he kept it within the the setback to the back property line. He moved the deck in. I thought that was good. Absolutely. encroaches less than the original. Um,

we usually hear a a report that asks for more space. This is a little less. All those who believe it has met that factor, please say I. I oppose. Nay, that factor has passed. So, hearing approval on all five factors, we can entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, case 13 2026 4584 West 124th Place request for a variance to the rear setback of the regular lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.4D in RP1 district. I move approval.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I oppose. Nay. Okay, that has passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you. Okay. I'll call case 14-2026 4145 128th terrace. Request for a variance to the sideyard setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed to replace an existing deck with a screened porch that will be 13 ft from the sideyard property line. The sideyard setback for this lot is 15 feet. A variance of should be two feet is needed to build the deck as proposed. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? If you'll come to the podium and just say your name, address, and present your case.

Daniel Thompson, architect. I'm the homeowner. Dario Jarillo. This is my wife Jill Jarillo. We're at at the property. We've been there for 13 years. So, what we want to do here is build a screening porch over not over an existing deck, but replace the deck. Um the the reason we're asking for the variance is because we want to enclose a egress stairwell that we think will create a um this would be the look of it. We want to enclose an egress stairwell that leads to the basement and it can be seen here on the floor plan. This is an egress stairwell that the existing deck is in line with now. Sorry. And we think it creates a uh security risk uh and a a a visual detractor to the home as well from the neighbors.

Any questions for the applicant? I I have a question. I'm not sure where the stairwell is. I'm looking at at this picture. Um, and if you could explain where the stairwell is and what the security issue is, I'd appreciate it. So, here is the if you see the uh little railing right there, it's right in that area there, right behind there. Okay. And it opens up to the basement.

Right. Understand. And is it the whole area there that would be enclosed that you can see in this picture? Basically from the the line of the house on the right all the way to this side here and in covering the deck as well. Okay. and stuff. Is the reason that this is a variance because it's closed in now as opposed to concrete before

the home uh is 15 ft. So, it's a variance because the act the screened and porch actually will encroach further than the existing home because of the angle of the home and the lot. Okay. Is is the current deck legal non-conforming? Correct. And will this encroach more than the current deck? No. Okay. How long has the existing deck been there? Uh, it's undetermined. Um, the it was there when the homeowner had bought the home 13 years ago.

Okay. And this is a variant. So, we have those five unique factors um to cover and the ones that give us the most trouble are uniqueness of property and hardship for these cases. Do you have specific comments on those two factors? Well, if you look here, the line uh along this side property line and the way the house is situated, the uh angle becomes closer as you go back towards the backyard. Um there are other cases in the neighborhood of a situation like this but it's not the house is normally sitting. If you see here this is a situation that would also be non-conforming and there is another house over here where you see that it's non-conforming as well. So I guess the uniqueness would be that we wouldn't be able to do it when when other people have been able to do it.

Just the home sits irregularly at an angle on the So it's almost at a 45 degree angle so that it starts to like you mentioned as you go back to the home you go from 15 to 14 to 13. And we just want to keep the existing layout of the home and cover over the top and keep lines clean. And then having that that egress if it were not permitted to be enclosed then it'd be a safety issue as well because now you come right up to the back of the home and it would almost be just an open a little bit concerned about safety if you're being asked

and the HO and the HOA is in favor of this or they didn't object. Uh we have not submitted it to the HOA at this point. I was under the impression that some HOAs don't want screened in porches. Um we've been in business for 25 years and we build about 85 per year. So we have very little issue with any sort of screen in porches. Thank you. Yeah, they are common in the neighborhood and we did go ahead and comply with sending letters to the neighbors and staff. Were any calls or letters received? No calls or concerns.

And you heard back from no neighbors that they disagree when you correct. So then the letters were sent out to all adjoining property owners. Is that correct? Uh, it's a v a variance that's sent to every owner within 200 f feet. Uh, an exception is sent out to adjoining property owners only a and the HOA. A variance is everyone within 200, but it's not required to go to the HOA at that point. Is anyone here to speak on this application either for or against? Does anyone have any other questions for the applicant up here or for staff?

Okay, we're ready to consider the criteria. So, you can go ahead and take a seat. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so our first criteria is uniqueness of property. Does anyone have any comments on uniqueness of property? Your lot is irregular in size and that makes it unique. Okay. All those who believe it has met uniqueness of property, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That criteria has passed. Rights of adjacent property owners. Any comments with an encroaching less. That seems to be a logical decision.

All those who believe it has met rights of adjacent property owners, please say I. Oppose. Nay. That criteria has passed. The next criteria is hardship. Any comments on hardship? Yes. The current existing deck appears to be legal non-conforming and this deck would simply be following the same um setback as the existing deck.

Absolutely. And I'll I'll add to that that the total area of the deck has already been reduced with the the new design. Um, so all those in favor of the hardship criteria being met, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That criteria has passed. Next criteria is public safety and general welfare. Any comments on that criteria. Minimal effect. It seems to be better for public safety. All those who believe that criteria has been met, please say I. I. I.

Oppose. Nay. That criteria has passed. Next criteria, spirit and intent. Any comments on spirit and intent. All those who believe spirit and intent has been met, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. That criteria has passed. Um, so receiving a positive response on all of the criteria, we can entertain a motion. I'll have a motion to approve case 14-20264145 128th terrace request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3D in an R1 district.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I oppose. Nay. Okay, that has passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for coming out. Okay, our next case is case 15-20269301 Lee Court request for a variance to the front setback in accordance with LDO section 16-2-5.3 parent D in an R1 district. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a covered front entry that will be placed 27.15 ft from the front property line. The front build line for this lot is 35 ft. A variance of 7.85 ft is needed to build the covered entry as proposed. Any questions for staff? I uh Ron, is there any issue as to whether this is this is not an occupiable spot? This is just a front porch, right? So it's not something where people would live. Correct. Does that make a difference in terms of the code?

No difference. I mean, it just still has to meet the average front setback. There are porches that you could meet an exception criteria. This one doesn't. You know, you can see here the existing house is nonconforming even to the setback. It's at 27.63 feet. Both the neighboring properties are also nonconforming at 30.39 and then 23.50. So it wouldn't meet the ex the exception criteria for a front porch. So they need the variance. Thank you. Is the applicant here?

Uh you can come on up to the podium and please give us your name and your address and you can make your case. Greg Pepis, 9301 Lee Court. Yeah, Jim Andrews, uh, New Haven Homes.

Thank you for taking the time this evening. Um c can um if you're not familiar with Lee Court, Lee Court is a cul double culde-sac street that was cut in off of Lee Boulevard. Uh and 16 homes were placed on there. My home is one of the last homes before the culde-sac happens. So, the house to the north of me is even with me. The house south of me, oh, excuse me, just the opposite. The house south to me is next to me. The house north to me is behind where I'm at. Um, I'm here to answer any questions if you if you have any. I think things are pretty straightforward. It is a non-conforming legal non-conforming. Uh, everybody is that way. Our backyards are bigger, but our front yards aren't. And, uh, they're they're short. And the extension that's going to come out is really only going to come out about this far, which is even with my south lot. And naturally, I'm way ahead of the one that's on the north side because it's so far back.

Are you is coming forward six feet and it's 8 ft wide. It's 48 square ft. Are you replacing an existing deck today or is or front porch today or is this all new? No, there's a front porch there. We're just adding on to the front to the front of it. We're extending it out. Okay. Drive on the front. Madam Chairman, we have looked at hundreds of these cases over the years and this is what the type of thing which we've always approved without even any exception with any discussion. So I I think we should move on and and and let these folks uh present the further inference that they have. Is it basically a porticochet? No. No.

Oh, sorry. What? You're the You're the builder. What' you say? Is it a porticochet? No. Is it a making it more beautiful? Oh, yeah. Yeah. And if you pass it, his wife's going to be real happy. Okay. Okay. And staff, were letters sent out? Were any calls or complaints received? No calls or concerns.

Is anyone here to speak for or against this application? No. Okay. Any other questions up here for for the applicants or for staff? Okay. We can go ahead and move on to considering the factors. You can take a seat. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So, our first criteria is uniqueness of property. Um, are there any comments from up here on uniqueness of property? I'll comment on uniqueness of property. Um it looks like the shape of the lot and the neighboring lot um create a smaller front than typical for the neighborhood, meaning that this application might not need to be made for a lot um that could be directly on either side of the lot or just in the neighborhood in general. So I do think that factor has been met. All those um in favor of uniqueness of property, please say I. I oppose. Nay.

That criteria has passed. Next criteria is rights of adjacent property owners. Any comments on rights of adjacent property owners? Well, the covered entry is still behind the property to the south and it does provide extra protection for people who come are going. All those who believe it's met that factor, please say I. I oppose. Nay. That factor has passed. The next factor is hardship. Any comments on hardship?

I I think that the proposed front entry um meets this criteria because again the existing house is already legal non-conforming and they're putting on a modest forge to put in it and it's staying within 38 of the existing structure. So, I think they're working within their boundaries, but the current house and the current lot size has created a hardship of its own right. Any other comments on hardship? Are you going to have to move the circular drive? You're you're going to right there. It's going to butt up, right? Okay. Thank you.

All those who believe hardship has been met, please say I. I oppose. Nay, that factor is passed. The next FA factor is public safety and general welfare. Any comments on that factor. All those who believe that factor has been met, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That factor has passed. The next factor is spirit and intent. Any comments on spirit and intent?

Yes. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain similar street views and maintain consistent front build lines. And I think the applicant has done this to the best of their ability. All those in favor of spirit and intent, please say I. I. All those opposed? Nay. That factor has passed. So having a vote on all five factors, we can entertain a motion in case 15 2026 9301 Lee Court request for a variance to the front setback in accordance with the LDR section 16-2-53D in R1 district. I move approval. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. Oppose. Nay. Okay, that has passed. Thank you. You'll be notified in writing. Okay. And the last case on our agenda is case 16-20269815 Overbrook court. Request for a variance to the front setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a covered front entry that will be placed 28 ft from the front property line. The front build line for this lot is approximately 49.25 25 ft. Based on the average front formula, a variance of 21.25 ft is needed to build the covered entry as proposed. Any questions from up here for staff? Is the applicant here? You can come on up and please give us your name and address. I'm Jeff Wilson. I'm the owner's representative. He's my son. And we're also the general contractor. We are uh out of Martin City.

Tommy is I'm the applicant. 9815 over Brook.

Okay. Thank you. And you can make your case about um this application. property. Uh we are proposing to move the front door from right there where it is now to around right there. Actually, there's a picture. So, it'll kind of look like that. Um the the setback won't change at all. Exist. So, it's existing 28 ft and if we were to add that, it would still be 28 ft. Um, it's been approved by the homes association. The the porch we're adding is underneath a covered roof that is existing. So, the current columns that come down will remain, but they would be the front porch columns. So, we're just adding a front porch underneath the roof that is already there. So, the porch will not extend beyond the current column and roof line. Obviously, it's very unique with it being at the end of the culde-sac. We have also had draining it drainage issues with the house that we've had to correct. So, the the moving of that uh front door, removal of the porch, and as you can see from the picture, there's a lot of concrete across the front of the house that will be removed. Uh all all related to drainage issues across here. So, we are moving the like I said, the front door, front porch underneath that existing roof line. This front door will go away. This uh front porch stoop will landscape across here and all this concrete across the front uh at an engineer's

recommendation will come out due to uh water drainage issues. The slope of the street, you crest the hill and go down to the end of the culac. So a lot of the water from the street runs down the driveway and tends to want to run around the right side of the house. So uh recommended by the engineer which with our permit we've submitted the engineer's report as well. Uh we've elected that the best way to resolve this would be to relocate the front door to that location and for that uh obviously we've got to have access. We we typed into AI for just a quick look of I'm sorry this isn't exactly right but this kind of gives you an idea an after photo. So the only difference is it's not showing the columns and this porch would actually be moved a little over towards the center more. But that just kind of gives you a rough idea of the the look that but like I said it's under the existing roof overhang

and I see noted here that the proposed entry will encroach no further than the existing entry. Is that true? Yes, correct. Okay. Any questions from up here for the applicant?

Okay. Well, the this is a variant. So, the factors that we have to consider um include uniqueness of property and hardship. Um and those are some that give us some difficulties sometimes. Um would you be able to um clarify how this application meets those factors?

Yeah. So, it's kind of a unique property. It's at the end of a street and the lot is irregular irregularly not shaped normally. Um, that's kind of a So, are you removing the middle post to center the door? Uh likely yes, but we'll be adding an additional post. So there would be four instead of three. So it'll be all even. But those posts for the most part are decorative. Oh, okay.

We do have an engineer involved obviously in the in the renovation process that's involved. So Okay. So I'm hearing for uniqueness of property. It's at the end of the culdesac for hardship. Um it looks like it since it won't encroach any further than the existing entry that might also be a hardship um for you all. Is there any other questions up here for um the applicant? Is there anyone? Oh yeah.

The existing entrance it looks like it's set back from the front of the the raised section there. Is that is it the same from the street? the exist the current entrance which is to the south side of the post there is going to is you're going to put it into the up to the second floor correct but is it is the second floor farther out than yes it's it's four to five ft thank you staff were calls and letters sent out or any calls or complaints received

no calls or concerns And is there anyone here today who wishes to speak on the application either for or against it? No. Okay. Any other questions for board members or for the applicants up here? Are we ready to consider? Okay, we'll go ahead and consider the criteria. You can have a seat. Thank you. Okay, so our first criteria is uniqueness of property. Any comments on uniqueness of property? I'll comment briefly on that one. Um, since the lot is, um, different in size and shape to most lots in the neighborhood, um, it's at the end end of that culde-sac, um, the specific placement of the lot, um, I think would would make this property unique. Any other comments on uniqueness? Okay. Okay. All those who believe this has met uniqueness of property, please say I.

I. Oppose. Nay. Uniqueness of property has passed. The next factor is rights of adjacent property owners. Any comments on that? No. No comments or concerns from neighbors or anyone. All those who believe rights of adjacent property owners has been met, please say I. I.

Oppose. Nay. That factor has passed. Um, next factor is hardship. Any comments on hardship? I'll comment on hardship. Um, I think the applicant has has met this by uh the proposed covered entry will encroach no further than the existing entry and it is already a legal non-conforming deck as well as the legal non-conforming setback from the front. Any other comments on hardship? All those who believe that factor has been met, please say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. That factor has passed. The next factor, public safety and general welfare. Any comments on that. All those who believe public safety and general welfare has been met, please say I.

I. Oppose. Nay. That factor has passed. Next factor is spirit and intent. Any comments on spirit and intent? I'll comment briefly on spirit and intent. Um since this will um not be any more of an encroachment than the current um footprint of the house, I don't believe that um that spirit intent would be violated here. All those in favor of spirit and intent, please say I.

Opposed? Nay. that factor has passed. Okay, since all five factors have passed, we can entertain a motion. Case 16, 2026 9815, Over Brook Court, request for variance to the front setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5 decimal 3D in an R1 district. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I.

I. sign opposed. Nay. That has passed. Thank you. You'll be notified in writing. Okay. And seeing nothing else on the agenda, um we can have a motion to adjurnn. Move to second. We're ajourned.