Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

We're waiting for one more member. We'll get started here shortly, folks.

Recording in progress.

All right. Well, then welcome to the July 22nd meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. May I have roll call, please?

Members Penn?

Here.

Sippel?

Here.

Dirksen? Here. Dunn? Here. Hurst? Hawk? Here. Bussing?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. All right. I know that you all noticed the first case on our agenda, the old business, has been withdrawn, which will bring – oh, the minutes. Do we have minutes to approve? I don't remember seeing them.

No, they weren't – they're not prepared yet.

Great. Glad I asked. So that'll bring us to our first case, which is 44-2026, 9424 Wananga Road. I see a full house. Kelsey, if I forget to ask if there's anybody here to speak, would you help me, remind me of that? You're good at that. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Which is request for a fence height exception in accordance with the LDO. Does staff have a report?

A contractor that had obtained a remodel permit for the interior of the home also replaced an existing six-foot wood privacy fence at the rear property line and at the east side of the home. Without adding the fence to the scope of the work, the applicant would like to keep the fence as built.

I'm sorry. Does anyone have questions for staff? All right, is the applicant here? Would you please come on up? We have a lot of items on the agenda today, folks, so I'd ask you to keep your presentations as concise as possible, but we certainly want you to have a chance to have everything you need to say. And we'll deal with it as we go. And for everybody's information, regardless of whether you've been up and come back up or not, please state your name and address every time you appear, because we're keeping an oral record of this as well, so we need to know who's talking. So if you'd give me your name and address.

Yeah, I'm Susie Sander. My address is 9424 Wenonka Road.

Thank you. You may present your case.

I purchased my home in January and I got a notification probably in...

Hang on just a second. It sounds like audio. Am I on? Yeah, you're on. You're on. It was just not... Okay.

Do I need to start over?

No, that's all right.

Go ahead. I received a notice that evidently my fence was not the correct height. Didn't know any of this. I'm just a new homeowner to the house, so it was there when I bought it.

And essentially what, you were doing a remodel, and as part of the remodel, you hadn't planned on it, but you ended up replacing a six-foot fence?

It was all done when I purchased the home. Okay. Yeah, that's how I purchased it.

Okay. Any questions?

Is it the same type of fence? Did you substitute wood for wrought iron or something like that?

It is wood. They put in a six-foot wood fence that matches the neighbors next door to me. Thank you.

The rear of the property butts up to Ranch Mart.

Right. Where the old post office used to be.

Well, I understood from your statement that this was done before you moved in.

Yes.

Okay. So do you even know what the prior fence was made of?

It looks like in the back there's a wood fence that is on the— Ranch Mart side.

Okay. So yeah, you presume would yes Side is a rod-arm fence and on the other side of the yard is a chain-link fence Have notices gone out Yes, no calls or concerns Okay, is there anyone here who'd like to speak on this application either for or against? if not, then We can entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of case 44-2026 at 9424 Winanga Road. Request for a fence height exception in accordance with LDO section 16-4-9.5A in an R1 district. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. It's passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for coming in. Brings us to our next case, which is 45-2026, 8200 Wananga Road. Request for a variance to the rear yard setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a tear-down rebuild that will be placed 27.7 feet from the rear property line. A variance of 2.3 feet is needed to build the home in the proposed location.

any questions for staff is the applicant here would you like to come on up let's back up a little bit hi my name is andy homily with homily design build and my address is 6401 northwest monticello drive in parkville missouri we're the architectural designers and builders for this proposed home and essentially when we designed this we were had gotten some information that the front building line was at 48 feet It ended up being, after we did a survey, 50.2 feet of the home next door, which is kind of the driver of the front. So we went ahead and slid the home to that spot, way beyond the normal 35. But then the setback, because the window became so tight, is, in this particular case, 30 feet. And so it encroached the 2.2 feet into that rear setback. The good news is that where the existing home is now is actually only 22 feet away. So when asking for this variance, we're actually increasing the distance from the neighbor to our house. So it's actually going to be better than it is now. And we've got a really nice letter from the gentleman who lives next door in that exact spot who has also said he would approve this change.

Okay.

Any questions?

Just to clarify, the house that you tore down and you're going to build on this site is actually going to be the tear-down house was closer to the property line than what you're proposing.

That's correct. We're proposing to build a new house that is farther from the property line.

But it's still outside of the norm.

Yes, according to the rules, yes. But the other home was actually closer, yes.

Thank you. Ron, I expect the prior house was legal non-conforming.

Correct.

And it was legal because when it was built, it was within the setbacks at that time. Yep. Our ordinance has changed. As you said, we now have a formula based on other surrounding properties. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So that's why we're dealing with this today? Yes. Any other questions? All right, well, this is a variance, as you know, which is the more difficult of the ones for us because our job is to determine whether it matches the criteria prescribed by law, the first of which is uniqueness of the property, and the third of which is hardship. These are the two difficult ones for us. So I always ask applicants to please share with us what you see as the, what qualifies this as unique and what qualifies this as a hardship if you can't proceed as planned.

Absolutely. So it's a unique situation in that the normal front building line would be 35 feet. And by the way, I'm a civil engineer, so I also used to do design plats and things like that as well. So I really dove into the code. So the 35 feet is your typical building line, but then there's rules of homes on either side of this home to push it back, right? The one home is at the 50.2, but the others are much closer. They're actually at 35, but they're on angles. They're like corner lots, which is, it gets very gray, right? And so the hardship is that instead of being all the way forward at the 35 foot line, we're actually being kind of forced back to 50.2, even though you could argue that it could be further up there's actually a home further to the north right past the one on the corner that is at the 35 foot building line that you could suggest so it makes the box really small of what can fit for a home and with our current design right now there is only a two-car garage and if we were to take and it's a tight two-car garage to get this to fit so if we were to shrink this 2.2 feet it would go to a essentially a single car garage which seems kind of difficult in a neighborhood like this. And then I guess that's where the hardship is. That's the uniqueness of the lot and the hardship is that it would actually push it to force a single-car garage. And, again, since we're actually creating a product that is further away from the line and we have the support of the neighbor, we thought it was a reasonable request. Rather than trying to push the home forward, which could be argued in other ways, we thought this was a less onerous request than that.

Do we have a picture that shows how this is situated on the property that we could all look at?

Yeah, I've actually made an exhibit, but you might have one easier to show.

So, Ron, on the one that's in front of us, is that yellow line the area where it will encroach by 2.7? Correct.

The corner lot, you've got 82nd Street here, Wananga going down this way. So the proposed house is the 27 back here.

And that's the dimension where the current house is at 22. Right. Right.

Okay. Thank you.

And here's a picture of the current gap between the two houses. That's from 82nd Street in between the two.

Thank you. That's helpful. Did that spur any questions for anybody up here?

I have a question. How many square feet is this house? happen to have that i don't have that whole plan we don't have that handy but um i don't see we can look sorry i wasn't prepared for that question no that's okay i was just wondering how did you i guess assess that if um you know square footage had to be taken out of the house that it would be out of the garage is there a way to take it out we actually were looking at that as soon as we just you know figure this out because the survey next door came in late and it

Believe me shocked the heck out of us right because we're essentially ready to pull permit and start and so we looked at that in the way the alignment works And just how the rooms are set up. We couldn't shift it. We were trying to shift other things It would take basically a full redesign so and that that's we were hoping there was some easy way to make that happen and we We could not find that so yeah Is the house currently being built or is it an oh it is not no so it is not even torn down This is like for you know for the future

Okay, thank you.

Oh, I get it now. Okay. What you're saying is that the difficulty for you is having to redesign at this point because you designed based on an errant assumption of a 35-foot setback, which is what?

Even 48. We had an email that said the front is 48, so we went with that, and then it found out later. I get it. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? I had one. The existing house that is to be torn down, where is the setback? Is it at the back corner of that lot or is it along the side of the house?

Well, it's the part of that house that I guess you might call it the side now, but it would be the rear with the house facing the other street, basically. So by definition of the new code definition, this would be the rear of the house is where the 22 feet is from the old house.

Does that make sense? The back corner of the house is where the violation is currently.

Well, is that the, I'm trying to, is that the side of the house maybe?

As you look at it from this picture that says from 82nd Street, is it the near corner or the far corner?

That's the rear there. I don't know what it was considered under the old LDO. I mean, it looks like the elevation of the house is facing 82nd Street, but it's addressed off of Wenonga. So that, Wenonga is the front. And then the opposite side is the rear.

So the code is it gets interesting when it comes to corner lots of how you, you know, had to read it many times to, you know, try to figure that out. And then there's actually a figure in there that has like a 15 foot setback on both ends that looks like that would apply. But so there's some ambiguity in the in how it's put together.

We've dealt with the corner. I assume you've maybe seen that Essentially gives you two two side yards. It's a tough way to yes Okay Any other questions for the applicant? All right, well as I said we have the criteria we need to go through I'm gonna run through that with these folks you can sit down while we're doing that or stay up there if you want I'll stay in case anything pops up. Sure. Yep.

Okay.

All right, everybody You know the criteria, the first of which is uniqueness of property. Do I have any comments on that? Oh, I forgot to ask. Is there anyone here who'd like to speak for or against this application before we proceed? Better late than never, right? All right. Anyone want to comment on uniqueness? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. rights of adjacent property owners notices have gone out correct and the only email came back in favor of was to the neighbor most affected great thank you um any comments all those who believe it's met this criteria please say aye aye opposed nay hardship any comments

Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on this one. While I appreciate that the current proposed home would encroach less than the home that's currently there, I think at the end of the day, I mean, we have a completely blank slate here with the teardown rebuild. There's just no reason other than the slight inconvenience of a redesign. to encroach at all. I think this hardship is placed on the applicant by the applicant by already having an idea of what they would like to do. So I don't think that criteria has been met.

Anyone else? I tend to agree. Okay.

All right. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

And oppose nay? Nay. The nays have it. Public safety and general welfare, any comments? All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And spirit and intent, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And unfortunately, since one of the criteria failed, all I can do is entertain a motion to deny the request for variance. Do I have such motion?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to deny case 45-2026, 8200 Winonga Road, request for a variance to the rear yard setback in accordance with the LDO, section 16-2-5.3, parent D, parent in an R1 district. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for coming in. All right. Our next one, case is 46-2026, 12622 Overbrook Road. Request for a variance to the side setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed an addition that will be placed approximately 19.5... Feet from the side property line on a corner lot. The side setback for this corner lot is 30 feet. A variance of approximately 10.5 feet is needed to build the addition as proposed.

Would you please tell us what the picture shows us, Ron?

Corner lot, again, Overbrook and Cherokee Lane. Leawood South Country Club is right behind. The garage addition's here, and there's a little... It's a covered porch or enclosed? Screened in. So the addition is this shaded area right here, and the dotted line shows the 30 feet, and we're out at about 19 1⁄2. Okay.

All right. Any questions for staff? I take it you're the applicant?

Yes.

Would you give us your name and address, please?

Katie Griffin, 12622 Overbrook Road, and owner of the home. may proceed thank you yes so we just purchased this home back in march we are currently wood south homeowners we moved down here about three years ago had our fourth little one so making a move within the neighborhood lovely wood lovely wood south i'm excited about this opportunity because it's on the golf course we're both avid golfers but we have four kids five and under and so our biggest hardship right now is with the garage size and just making sure we have enough space for two larger vehicles the safety of getting in and out of our vehicles with all the kiddos on that corner lot it's fairly busy and then a golf cart strollers bikes you name it okay where's the garage currently relocated in the house so it's it's next to it it's just right i was going to say right now the garage doors go this direction so it's just a portion of this piece of it i see okay all right thank you any uh questions for the applicant

As it stands right now, do you get errant tee shots into your backyard?

Thankfully, no.

Okay, because this is going to be closer to the tee box, you might... No, no, so... Can you see if I can?

So right now we have an aerial of it as well.

My thought was that by building that addition, it's moving it closer to the tee box.

No, so we presented initially, I think we had the wrong... The wrong, this one was the wrong one because we updated it. We initially had it set back to be further back, but it encroached the rear setback, and so It encroached both the rear and the side, so we made it an adjustment to move it up to not encroach the front, only the side, and it actually is better from the course perspective too. The tee box is actually, I'm trying to think of my directions, north over here. This is a par three, and then the tee box to the next hole is across the street going east.

I'm confused as to where the tee box is. I'm sorry.

So the tee box for hole 18 is across the street.

Oh, that's okay.

17, we're on 17 green, and the tee box is way over there.

I have never seen a number 12 tee box. I'm sorry. No, no.

I apologize. You're never on the green.

I have no clue what any of you are talking about. Can we see that first picture, Ron? Thank you for clarifying.

Yes.

So just for clarity's sake, the... Well, the bottom side of the structure on our picture here, that faces the golf course?

Which one?

Which side of the structure currently faces the, okay.

So this is the front.

Okay.

This is the proposed addition that encroaches the side setback.

Okay. Just trying to orient myself. Any questions for the applicant? Or further questions for the applicant?

I guess I have one is you currently have a two car garage and this would just be a bigger two car garage. Is that right? Will it add a third stall?

So right now our two vehicles in a golf cart and then everything else that we have don't fit in the two car garage. So it's asking for an additional garage. Thank you. The current perspective. Gotcha. Thank you.

And I assume that would involve remodeling the current garage in this part of the house.

Correct.

Okay. Well, as you know from the prior case, this is a request for a variance, which we have to vote on five criteria and determine whether it passes or not. And the two that give us difficulty are uniqueness and hardship. Would you like to address those for us?

Yes, uniqueness being a corner lot on the golf course with both the rear and the side being open lot or open space, recreational space. There's no neighbors to the rear or the side of us. We did reach out to the course, met with the general manager. We reached out to all of the abutting neighbors to us as well and had full support. We provided the GM letter to supporting the additions as well. So the uniqueness is just the openness on both sides.

And the hardship?

The hardship right now is not being able to get our two larger vehicles in with five kids, four and under, and the safety and concern about them getting in and out and just having the safety and functionality of being able to do that within a garage.

So the hardship from your point of view is being able to use it as intended for a family of your size? Correct. All right. Any other questions for the applicant?

How far along are you in the design? Are you ready to break ground?

Yep, right now we are ready to, we're in the process of the permit application right now. So, yeah, getting all of that approved.

Any other questions? Is there anyone who's here to speak either for or against this application? No? Okay. Well, it's time for us to go through the five criteria. You can stand there if you want or sit down while we... I will, because I'm the next one, too. Oh, okay. Well, don't go too far, then.

Okay.

Okay. So the first criteria we have to consider is uniqueness of property. Any comments on that?

Mr. Chairman, I think as the applicant has indicated, living on a golf course is making a lot unique. Having strangers tromp through your backyard.

That's why I was trying to get oriented looking at it because that's a big deal when you're right on a golf course. I know that.

Correct. Any other comments on uniqueness?

All those who believe the uniqueness criteria has been met, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners. No one spoke on this. Did we get any?

All the letters went out that HOA actually has already reviewed it and approved.

Great. Can I ask a question? Ron, when it's on a golf course like this, whether it's Leawood South or Albrook or whatever, does the golf course owner, manager have a right to say anything?

Yeah, everyone within 200 feet of the property gets a letter saying there's going to be a hearing and what it's for. So they're aware and they've provided her with a letter of approval.

Okay, thank you. Thanks.

All right. All those who believe it's met the rights of adjacent property owners criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Hardship, any comments?

Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on hardship. I think here this this family specifically has demonstrated that their needs for a garage do require a bit of a larger garage, partially do. In fact, living on that golf course, having that extra. Extra stuff that they wish to put in the garage, but also due to having a large family. I don't think they should be penalized for just having a larger family, so I would say that has been met here.

Any other comments? All those who believe it's met the hardship criteria, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Public safety and general welfare, any comments? All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And spirit and intent, any comments? All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. We have five positive responses on the criteria, which means we can entertain a motion to approve this request for a variance. Do I have such motion?

Mr. Chairman, in case 46-2026-1262 to Overbrook Road, request for a variance to the side yard setback according to the LDO section 16-2-5.3d in R1 district. I move approval.

Second. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Passes. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for coming in. And good luck with your project.

Thank you. Well, this is the next one, too.

Oh, that's right. That's right. But this is an exception, so it's a little easier on our nerves. So anyway, our next case is 47-2026. 12622 Overbrook Road, request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage. Does staff have a report?

The applicant is proposing an addition that will total 4,445 feet. The maximum allowed square footage of this lot is 4,072 feet. An exception of 373 feet, which is 9% above the max, is needed to build the addition as proposed.

Okay. And I assume that's your report because our criteria in this is first to determine that it's not more than 20% over the allowable square footage and whether it'll reflect on the neighborhood one way or another. Is that accurate?

Correct.

Okay. All right. Any questions for staff? Well, I know the applicant's here. Come on back up.

Katie Griffin, 12622 Overbrook Road, owner of the home, or the address.

Okay. Do you want to present your case?

So same thing as before, addition of a garage to this house in order to be able to fit another vehicle into the space for the safety and functionality of the home.

Ron, I forget, or maybe Travis, this is you, are garages counted on the square footage, towards square footage?

Yes, so it's like first floor plus second floor plus garage. Correct.

Just wanted to make sure. Any questions for the applicant or for staff?

Just a question on similar sizes in the Leawood South area. This isn't going to be the largest house in Leawood South by any stretch. We've got some larger ones that we've talked about in the past, I believe.

Yes, there are larger homes and there are tear-down rebuilds on Overbrook currently that would all be bigger.

Thank you. Any other questions? Since this is a separate application, I'm going to ask again if there's anybody who's here to speak on this, either for or against. No? Is there anything else you'd like to tell us before we vote? No. Okay. All right. Then do I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, on case 47-2026, 12622 Overbrook Road, I request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO 16-2-5.3F2 in an R1 district. I move for approval.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. It passes. You'll be notified in writing, and I guess you can leave now, so thank you. All right, our next case is 48-2026, 12304 Pawnee Lane. Request for an exemption for the placement of a fence on a through lot. Does staff have a report?

The applicant would like to replace an existing four-foot, not six, four-foot fence at the rear property line. This will require an exception of 30 feet to build the fence in the proposed location.

Okay, so we've got a fence in a location that is currently non-conforming to our code. Correct. Okay.

And both adjoining fences are six feet. What's that? Both adjoining fences to each side are six feet.

And I'm not clear. Is this a proposal to build a six-foot fence?

That is correct. Yes, but we'll talk about that later.

Okay. With the first the first one's placement on a through lot Exception. Oh the second one is the height exception.

I got you. I got you Thank you all Any any questions for staff before we move to the applicant is the current fence in the in the right away?

I know they're doing a lot of construction along 123rd street. Are they? Involved with public works to move this fence or is public works? Okay with putting it where it is now

Public, well, the construction has caused all the trees that were behind the fence, between the fence and street, to be removed. Okay. But Public Works would have, yeah, it's up to the BVA to put the fence on the property line.

Is the existing fence in the right-of-way?

Yes. Oh, no, it's not in the right-of-way.

Okay.

Yeah, it couldn't go past the property line into the right-of-way, no.

I didn't know because all that stuff on the south side of 123rd is being torn up and changed and so forth.

So is this where that new, I forget the company, but the huge building is going in?

No, there's no. This is 123rd Street between Mission and State Line.

Oh, okay, okay. Thank you.

It's just east of the maintenance building for Leawood South Country Club.

Okay, thank you. All right. I'm sorry. That is okay. It's your turn.

Hi. I'm Donna Wilson, and I live at 12304 Pawnee Lane in Leawood South. And as we've discussed, I would like the approval to be able to replace an existing four-foot fence along the same location, but with a six-foot fence. We would not be changing it. We have been impacted by the construction on 123rd Street. We used to have beautiful trees in the back that protected us a little bit from 123rd Street. No ways if you will, and also just aesthetics. And now we are looking at. So there's a big difference. So this is why we've come to you to ask if we could go ahead and put the fence back in the location that it is right now. And then I guess the next one will be for the six-foot fence.

And looking at this picture, the fence we're looking at is the one you want to replace?

That is correct.

Any questions for the applicant? Are they also putting a sidewalk in on the other side of the fence? Yes. Right. And will that go all the way down to Mission Road, down past the maintenance building?

That is my understanding. Yeah.

So you'll have sidewalks for the school kids, sidewalks on both sides? Correct. Thank you.

And just so we're all clear, Ron, this is an exception, not a variance, but it's a It's an exception based on the build line, which usually comes to us as variances. Why is this an exception? Is it because it's a fence?

Because it's existing. They changed that a few years ago to where if it was an existing fence on a through lot. Although the through lot's an exception no matter what. The corner lot, if it's existing, you can apply for exception. But either way, yeah, this is an exception application.

I appreciate it. Thank you. I'm trying to learn as we go along here. All right. Any questions for the applicant?

I had one. So you said that the two houses on both sides already have a fence and it's in place and those are legal or legal conforming?

Yeah, they're legal, nonconforming. And I know one of them has a pool.

One does have a pool. The other one does not.

Yeah. So if they were placed, they would be in here or they've already been.

Okay. Okay.

Any other questions? If not, then is there anyone who is here to speak for or against this application? Seeing no one, do I have a motion?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 48-2026 at 12304 Pawnee Lane. Request for an exception for the placement of a fence on the through lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-9.5B in an R1 district.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. It's passed. You'll be notified and step right up for your second case. All right. Thanks for that. Let me ask for our staff's report before you give us your presentation. Thank you. Do you have a report? It's case 49-2026, 12304 Pawnee Lane, request for a fence height exception. What's your report, Ron?

The applicant would like to replace an existing four-foot fence with a six-foot wood privacy fence at the rear of the property.

Right. Any questions for staff?

Is there a typo in here, Ron, because it says replace an existing six-foot fence with a six-foot wooden privacy fence?

It is currently four-foot.

Right. It says six on mine. So...

just for the record there's a typo yes with 14 cases a lot to manage i think you mentioned that on the last case didn't you yeah okay all right um you want to present your case donna wilson one two three oh four

Pawnee Lane, Leawood, and I'm in Leawood South. And I'm here tonight to ask for your approval to be able to change my four-foot fence to a six-foot fence to give me more privacy and also to match those that are adjacent to me on both the east and west sides.

Any questions? All right. Seeing no questions, is there a motion?

Chairman, I move to approve case 49-2026-12304, Pawnee Lane, request for fence height exception in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-9.5, parenthesis A, in an R1 district.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. It's passed unanimously. Thank you so much for coming in.

Thank you.

Our next case is 50-2026, 4244 West 131st Terrace. Request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage. Does staff have a report?

The applicant is proposing an addition that will bring the total square footage of the home to 4,503 feet. The maximum square footage allowed by ordinance on this lot is 3,785 feet, an exception of 718 feet, which is 19% above the maximum as needed for the proposed addition.

Any questions for staff? You are the applicant.

I am. Gary Grant Colas, 4244 West 131st Terrace.

Welcome. You may present your case.

I'd like to request an exception to the maximum allowable square footage to add, put in addition, first floor and second floor addition to the house. Any questions?

I'm just kind of curious about the addition. Is it expanding the perimeter of the structure or is this all interior expansion?

It's all interior. So it expands, it pushes backwards and it expands out the first floor and adds some additional space to the second floor. So most of the square footage, approximately 565 square feet is on the first floor and 201 square feet is on the second floor. it's it's finishing formerly non living living space to living space is that right it's just extending living space out yes any questions for the applicant i have a couple and maybe they're in here um but are you making the footprint bigger or are you just going up in one case going up and then in the back we are going out a certain distance so in the back it will extend out there's a drawing. So it is this spot right here.

And how is that in relationship to your neighbors? So I see I have this picture, which is the location of the house on the street.

Yes. So this is facing north in this direction. This is the backyard. This is an extension away from the existing. It's this spot. That's a one floor extension, which is shown right there. The neighbors, Delmar runs to the west. 131st Terrace runs to the south. It is a corner lot. So it's a bit of an odd shape, but with Norton and Schmidt contacted the city to get the setback distance from the side and is in accordance with that.

Anything else, Jacqueline? Anyone else? Questions for the applicant? Well, this is an exception, so I don't have to go through any criteria. Oh, I've got to ask, is there anyone who'd like to speak on this, either for or against? Thank you.

Do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion on case number 50-2026 at 4244 West 131st Terrace. Request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO 16-2-5.4F2 in an RP1 district. I move to approve.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. It's passed. You'll be notified. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next case is 51-2026, 4109 West 110th Terrace. Request for an exception for the placement of a fence on a through lot. Does staff have a report?

The applicant would like to replace an existing six-foot fence associated with a pool with a new fence in the same location along the perimeter of the property. This will require an exception of 30 feet to build the fence in the proposed location.

Any questions for staff?

Ron, because they're going to put it in the same place, is the existing fence nonconforming?

Yeah, legal nonconforming.

Okay, thank you. But it is in the same location.

Yes, the proposed fence will be in the exact same location.

Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here?

Come on up.

I'm Chris Burge with Chris Burge Fence, representing the homeowner.

Hi. Hi. You may present the case.

Sir?

You may present the case.

Yeah. Homeowner has an existing fence that needs to be replaced in the position that you've discussed, and he wants to basically go back in the same spot. All along College Boulevard, many of the neighbors have fences that align in the same spot, so he doesn't want to change position because of, obviously, landscaping in the pool.

All right. Are you replacing it with similar materials?

Yeah, exactly.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant's representative? Anyone here who wishes to speak on this application either for or against? Seeing none, we can entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'll move to approve case 51-2026-4109, West 110th Terrace. Request for an exception for the placement of a fence on a through lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-9.5, parent be parent in an R1 district.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Passed unanimously. Thanks for coming in, sir. Thank you. Our next case is 52-2026, 8715 High Drive. Request for a variance to the side yard setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed an addition that will be placed approximately 8 feet from the side property line. The side yard setback for this lot is 15 feet. A variance of approximately 7 feet is needed to build the addition as proposed.

Any questions for staff? I would point out to you all that this is, at the desk in front of you, you should have had a couple of emails that were sent to Ron Jones about this case that he put there for our consideration. Everybody find those? Okay. All right. You may state your name and present your case.

Yes, my name's Mike Schumacher with RDM Architecture, representing John Wolf, who is the owner.

Okay, great.

And in working on this project, going from the one-car garage to the two-car, And then looking at other options, I'm even trying to put the garage on another side, but it all really comes down to the FEMA floodplain. I think that's what makes this... It's almost like working at a Lake of the Ozarks house just because that line is pretty hard and it reduces the amount of buildable area. So that's where we came up with the version in asking for the variance to get that two-car garage in with the... Added side yard. I see.

I see.

I'm picturing where you are now. So our report tells us that there's approximately, what is it, 67% of the property is in the floodplain at this point. Is that accurate?

Yeah, that's the number provided by the applicant.

Which is, in my experience, is changing more often these days under FEMA. Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah. Okay. Oh, welcome, Siddy.

Thank you.

Okay, we're in the middle of one, but we'll finish that. Okay, so you want to present your case? Or did you, was that it?

I don't know if I... As far as the uniqueness of the site and the hardship it creates, this is not a typical situation, and that's where I think the variance is warranted then, just because of the uniqueness of the site. Because of the amount of the property that's in the floodplain? Yeah, there was a lot of pushing and pulling to make sure we could get everything in and making sure that, like, when the... the other bump out on the garage is so that you don't have one big, it was to break up that elevation. So that's where that looked, there were considerations on trying to make it, you can see on the model and the elevations, trying to make it look like it all belongs together.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right, well, are there any, is there anyone here to speak on this application, either for or against? We do have the emails which we've reviewed. We're gonna review the criteria now. You've seen that process. You're welcome to stay there if you want or sit down.

Yeah, I'll come back if needed.

Okay, very good. The first criteria is uniqueness of the property. Would anyone like to comment on that?

I will, Chairman. I am quite familiar with this block, and I can attest that over the 10 years that I have lived in the area, I have seen that flood plain, and I have seen it come up further and further from that creek, and I can vouch that the FEMA representation is probably accurate.

Okay. Which makes it pretty unique. Yeah, I think.

Any other comments?

those who believe it's met the uniqueness criteria please say aye opposed nay rights of adjacent property owners we have these emails is there any any other comments we've gotten back no other calls or concerns all right any comments on this criteria all those who believe it's met this criteria please say aye opposed nay and hardship anyone want to comment on this

Mr. Chairman, I think this factor has been met just due to 67% of the property being located in the floodplain.

Thank you. Anyone else? All those who believe the hardship criteria has been met, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Public safety and general welfare, any comment? All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say aye. Aye. And finally, spirit and intent. Any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. It's passed all five criteria, so we can entertain a motion to approve this request for a variance.

Mr. Chairman, on case 52-2026, excuse me, 8715 High Drive, request for a variance to decide setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3D in an R1 district. I move for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approval, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. It's passed. You'll be notified in writing and good luck. Thank you. Our next case is 53-2026, 4113 West 110th Terrace. Request for an exception for the placement of a fence. Before you give us that report, Ron, I did want to note for the record that our one missing member has joined us and will be participating in upcoming votes. Correct, sweetie?

Thank you.

Okay. All right. So what's the report on this one, Ron?

The applicant would like to replace an existing six-foot fence along the perimeter of the property. This will require an exception of 30 feet to build the fence in the proposed location.

Once again, it's got an existing fence that's legal non-conforming. Is that correct?

Correct. And it's next door to the previous one.

Oh, okay. All right. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Oh. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Mr. Burge. Business is good.

Chris Burge, Chris Burge Fence, representing the homeowner.

Great. Do you want to just remind us of what's going on?

Yeah, yeah. It's the same scenario where they have an existing fence. They want to go back in the same place, which is parallel Long College, which lines up with all the other homeowners that have fences down along that. One note I'll make is that this homeowner would like to do a vinyl fence that is a wood grain. It looks like wood, but maintenance-free would be his request, where he currently has a wood fence that's rotting and falling over.

And certainly you're proposing something that meets Leawood's code for fence materials? I believe it would, yeah. Well, you won't put it up if it doesn't. Right, right. we would review that with a permit application but there are other fences vinyl to have the appearance of wood has potential it is a list of material i just want to make sure my members understand that they don't have to approve the materials that that's that's up to staff to figure out um but the existing fence is rotting away huh yes sir any other questions Is there anyone who's here to speak on this, either for or against? Seeing no one, and our discussion seems to be complete, do I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, in case 53-2026, 4113 West 110th Terrace, request for an exception for the placement of a fence on a through lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-5.5B in an R1 district. I move approval.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approval, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. It passed. You'll be notified. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next case is 54-2026, 12500 Overbrook Road. Request for a variance to the side yard setback in accordance with the LDO. Does staff have a report?

The applicant was issued a remodel and re-roof permit and has gone beyond the scope of work permitted by removing all exterior walls and taking the structure completely down to the first floor deck. To rebuild the home on the same foundation will require the south exterior wall be placed eight foot five and a quarter inches from the property line. This will require a variance of six foot six and three quarter inches.

I have one question. It says to rebuild the home on the same foundation will require this variance. So is the existing foundation legal nonconforming?

Correct.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Come on up.

Pat Magnus, I'm the homeowner. Pat Douglas, I'm the homeowner of the house. Great. Do you want to present your case? Basically, we discovered wood rot, a lot of improper flashing, no flashing on a bunch of specko, and it's caused a lot of wood rot with termites, and so we took it down and then informed to stop construction, and then we filed for the variance. We're just putting the same footprint back, same structure.

I think I understand now. Let me summarize. You applied to do a remodel and didn't intend to tear down the exterior walls.

We intended to, yes, and there was some miscommunication on the application. And then, you know, it was brought to my attention and obviously we resubmitted.

But from the city's standpoint, if it was an entirely interior remodel, they wouldn't need a variance because they're not replacing a wall in the setback.

Correct. Once you tear down over 50% of the home or something that's non-conforming, the ordinance would say it's got to be brought into conforming standards to today's standards. Right.

I just want to make sure everyone understands we have this as a variance because of the teardown of the wall, which it's not changing the structure, the placement of the structure in any way. Is that correct? That's correct, right?

That is correct. Okay.

All right. Well, anything else for us? No. I'm going to ask you that question about uniqueness and hardship, if you would, please. we have to determine under legal standards whether this is a unique situation and will create a legally recognized hardship, which can't be simply that you can't do what you want to do. That's a hardship to anybody, but it's not a legal hardship. So can you help us understand why you believe this is unique and a hardship?

Well, it's unique just simply because we're taking the rotted walls down and replacing them, just rebuilding them to the exact same footprint of the house.

So it's unique in that you're doing a remodel of an existing legal non-conforming structure, and you don't want to build a new house, you just want to rebuild this one.

Correct. Any other questions? I have a question, Mr. Chair. The picture that you proposed here from the south looking at your foundation. Is that original footings or is that something that has been put up? That is all original footings. That's original. So everything above that had wood rot and termites, but this did not. So you're going to use this. Yes. And that's the original.

Yeah, termites wouldn't affect the concrete foundation.

Well, this looks like it's wood to me.

The foundation?

In the picture that's on the screen there, all that wood structure that's under there.

That's the first floor of the structure. That's original? That part right there is not original.

The concrete underneath it's original.

The concrete underneath it's original, and then if there's another picture, the rest of it from that point on is all original.

Here's a better, this is a foundation wall, and it drops down to the footing. These are just knee walls to get it all up level for the first floor deck.

And that was submitted in the first permit. Thank you for clarifying. Any other questions for the applicant?

I have one question, Mr. Chairman. When the termite damage was discovered, was that after the initial permit was granted, the remodel and re-roof permit?

On the north side wall, yes.

Okay, and that's the wall that we're discussing here, is that right?

We're on the south side.

Okay, so for this specific wall that we're discussing here, was the termite damage discovered before or after the remodel and re-roof?

Before.

Before. Okay, is there a reason why you applied for the remodel and re-roof permit knowing that you would have to take the wall all the way down at that point?

I believe we had put in our permit, it said demo wall. We were demoing floor and raising to zero level.

Okay. That was in the first term. Is that where the misunderstanding took place? I'm sorry? Is that where the misunderstanding with the City Hall took place? I think so, yes.

Okay, staff, is that your understanding as well, that that's where that took place?

So what was applied for was a residential remodel permit. There were demo elements on that, which isn't unusual on a remodel permit to have some demo and rebuild, but nowhere in our estimation near 50% or taking it all the way down to the foundation. Like that was not evident to staff in what was submitted for that permit.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant or staff? All right. Well, you know what we have to go through. We're going to go through our criteria here. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for raising your hand. Is there anyone here to speak on this one way or the other? Come on up.

Good evening. My name is Mark Mathis. I'm president of the Homes Association, Leawood South Homes Association, other than 12837 Pembroke Circle. So for the record, the homeowners at this property have not submitted any request to the association for work either completed or the work they're planning. Under the Leawood South Deeds and Restrictions, all exterior improvements, whether routine or substantial, require review and approval by the Architectural Review Committee before any permit application to the City. We are not here to oppose improvement. Our role is to ensure compliance with the governing documents that protect the neighborhood standards property values once the plans are submitted arc will review them promptly and provide approval feedback or required modification so we respectfully request the board of zoning appeals take this in account that the hoa approval process has not occurred additionally a certified letter was sent to the homeowners on june 16 2026 with a request for plans by June 30th, of which we've received no response.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ron, Travis, help us out. How does that affect what we're doing today?

so the city we do have an hoa notification that this project meets so any hoa that is requested to be notified for a project of this size is notified and then we hold the permit for 25 days prior to issuance i believe that has now went out with the revised plans that were submitted We did have enough information to send to satisfy our notification requirements, but it's just a notification as far as the city goes. If it meets all city ordinances at the end of that 25 days, we would issue the permit.

And with all due respect to every homes association, what you're saying is it's Leawood's job to make sure the law is followed, not the homes association bylaws and requirements.

Correct, yeah. We don't know their deed restrictions, and that's a civil matter other than the notification that we're required to do, yes.

I just wanted to make sure I understood.

Any questions for Travis about that?

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this, either for or against? Please come on up.

Yes, hello. My name is Alexandra Bajarski-Stauffer. I'm the architect on the project. I've been working with him. We did resubmit the drawings to show that it's been fully going to be rebuilt exactly in the same footprint, meeting the energy and building requirements by the Leawood. We just found out that the HOA needed to approve the plans. This was new to us, but we are working with the city to make sure that we are complying with that approval process. And as you said, the plans have been sent over to the HOA and they will have 25 days to review it.

Great. Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anyone else? Come on up.

I'm the neighbor to the south, Norma Herring, and I just want to be here to support what he plans to do, which I think will be a wonderful redo of that house.

Thank you so much for taking the time to come in.

Yeah, I haven't ever been here, so it's been interesting.

That's great. I'm glad you got a chance. Any other, well, I guess we're done with the presentation. Did I ask, is anybody else here to speak? No? Okay. All right. So would you come on up and make that part of the record? Because I think it's kind of important. If you took the time to come in, we'd like to give you credit for coming in.

I'm Richard Looney. We live across the street from this development project, and we're in favor of moving forward with it.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming in. And I see, is that your wife who's cheering you on? Okay, we got a lot of neighbors here tonight. Thank you very much for coming in, folks. All right. Well, you know the drill, folks. We have to consider all five criteria, and the first of which is uniqueness of the property. Would anyone like to comment on that?

Well, we previously determined this was unique in an earlier meeting, so I can't see that it would be any different now.

That's a good point, Mel. Anyone else? All those who believe that uniqueness has been met, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners in discussion? I think we heard from the adjacent property owners. I think we did, didn't we? All right, all those who believe this criteria has been met, please say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Hardship, anyone want to speak on this?

Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak on this one. I think the fact that the wrong permit was applied for and for whatever reason, misunderstanding, genuine mistake, had the correct permit been applied for, this would not have been granted. That being said, I don't think it constitutes a hardship to the applicant when the applicant has created this hardship by going beyond the scope of work here, applying for the incorrect permit. Initially, we can't have it be a situation where people in the future might be incentivized to apply for the incorrect permit, hoping that then this won't get caught down the line and they're able to do essentially a teardown rebuild of more of the home than is allowed. and be able to have the restrictions as if it was not a teardown rebuild lifted. So I don't think this has been met.

Any other comments on hardship? All those who, oh, Gary.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my co-counsel there. I think this does, this plan does present a hardship for the the applicant and I think the location of this particular structure right up there at the confluence of was it Somerset and overbrook whatever it is I can't read it and I think that adds some uniqueness to it as well you've got a car driving essentially straight at it coming to this house I did I believe it does meet the criteria thank you anyone else I agree

I believe it meets the criteria, but I have a question for the applicant in terms of if we would go back and get the proper permit, how far would that push the project back? Because I think you're going to get acceptance from City Hall and from the HOA. How far would that push you back?

When you say how far would it push me back, what are you saying?

When you can start building again, when you get the proper permits.

We've already submitted for all that.

I think specifically, sorry.

That's already been, that was sent in, and the permit was reapplied a couple weeks ago, I think, three weeks ago, four weeks ago.

So your position is that the proper permits are in place?

Oh, it's pushed back a couple months. Is that what you're saying?

I'm confused. You think all the proper permits have been applied for and been provided, been given to you?

Yes.

Okay.

i think they have been the correct ones have been issued at this point they've submitted revised plans that we've asked for through the once we they've tore down to the foundation we asked for more plans in a new application we received that we've sent that to the hoa i'm not sure we've met the 25-day hold period that would be the only thing that is remaining on that august 8th is the the 25th day

So, Travis, for clarification, did the applicant have to apply for new and additional permits above and beyond the one that they're applying for now?

I'm trying to remember if we accepted it as a revised plan and then we were going to revise the description. was under a new permit so it was under a new permit application and we we sent it out for hoa hold and we we've received those revised plans for the for the additional framing and all that stuff as well so we've received it we've reviewed it but it's still waiting for that 25-day hold period so any approval of this particular permit does not create ramifications downstream

Well, for the record, this isn't a permit. It's a variance on the ability to work within that permit. Right?

Correct. Yes. Well said.

And that said, the original permit... Would not have been granted had that been or the correct permits for them to apply for would not have been granted had it been applied for. Is that correct?

Correct. We would have stopped it there and said, hey, you need to apply for a variance if we would have known the scope for sure. That happens on many of the cases. Probably half the cases you had tonight were probably originally permit applications that we denied and notified them that they needed to apply for BZA.

Okay, so now that the variance is before us, the question is whether allowing rebuilding a home very close to the build line is going to be a hardship. So I think we need to be sure we're focused on that. In this specific situation, be it mistake... to apply for the incorrect permit i think if we do not deny it that it does create a precedent that applying for the incorrect permit might then create a hardship so let's go ahead and do that intentionally in the future to get around this restriction does that make sense i think that's something that we need to be concerned about here so i do not think this has been met thank you any other comments

I think everybody's had a say on this one, so let's have a vote. All those who believe it's met the hardship criteria, please say aye. Aye. Say aye again. All those opposed, say nay.

Nay.

All right, it looks like it's four to two in favor, so it passes that criteria. Public safety and general welfare, any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

Spirit and intent. Any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

So having a positive vote on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve this request for a variance. Do I have such motion?

Case 54-2026, 125-00 Overbrook Road, request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3D in an R1 district.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approval, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

It's passed. You'll be notified. It looks like you're our next case as well. Yeah. So our next case is 55-2026, 12500 Overbrook Road, request for a variance to the side yard setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant was issued a remodel and re-roof permit and has gone beyond the scope of work permitted by removing all exterior walls and taking the structure completely down to the first floor deck. To rebuild the home on the same foundation, we'll require the north exterior wall be placed 11 foot one and 11 sixteenths from the property line. This will require a variance of three foot 10 and five sixteenths inches.

Okay, so this is just a different wall is the reason we have a second variance.

Correct, other side, north side.

Once again, it's putting the wall back where it was before?

Correct.

Okay. Any questions for staff? Let's have the applicant come up. We'll keep it short, but I just want to make it official. I'm used to it.

State your name again, please. Pat Magnus. I'm the homeowner, Magnus Contracting LLC.

And do you have anything to add to your prior presentation about why you're here asking for a variance?

I would just say that on the permit, it doesn't check down to, it says interior remodel. And I, you know, Travis and I had discussed it. And I said, if it's just an interior remodel, you know, why would I put a complete framing, roof framing plan on the permit in my application and the drawings? So... On our permit and the drawings it does say demo entire floor and I've never seen a situation where you demo an entire residential floor and the wall doesn't come down and get rebuilt.

Lots of good reasons for misunderstanding, but your point is it was an honest misunderstanding. I would agree so.

Okay. I get your point.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, same five criteria, folks. Uniqueness of the property. Anybody want to say anything else? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners. I forgot to ask, but I assume there's nobody new that showed up that wanted to speak on the second one, right?

No.

Okay. All right. So all those who believe the rights of adjacent property owners criteria has been met, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

Hardship, any further comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

That's two, okay. Public safety and general welfare, any comments? All those who believe this has been met, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

And spirit and intent, any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

Having gotten a positive response on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve this request for a variance.

Case 55-2026-12500 over Brook Road request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3 D in an R1 district. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approval, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

All right. Passes four to two. You'll be notified. Thank you for coming in. Our next case is 56-2026, 2500 West 83rd Terrace. And I will note for everybody's information, our last two cases are both the same address. I'm sure we'll find out as we get into this. It's a request for a variance to the side yard setback in accordance with the LDO. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a garage addition that will be placed 10 feet from the side property line. A variance of 5 feet is required to build the garage in the proposed location.

And just because inquiring minds want to know, what's the other one about that we've got with the next case? What does it deal with?

Maximum square footage. Oh, okay.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Any questions for staff?

Ron, this is a corner lot.

Correct.

And the five-foot setback is to which direction? The west?

Straight back on the driveway on the photograph.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Yeah, so that's to the west, right?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Sorry, I wasn't rushing you. You're done?

No, that's fine. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Come on up.

Yeah, my name is Kit. I'm with Hodges Garage as the contractor.

Oh, okay. All right. Is the applicant here or is the homeowner here?

Back there, too, yeah. Thank you. Well, you may present your case, sir. Well, yeah, we're trying to add. They have a couple of kids that are getting to the age where they're requiring cars here in the next couple of years. And I guess it's not up there anymore, but they're on the 83rd Terrace and Lee Boulevard and there's no parking on Lee. And then there's a median in front of the intersection and then a fire hydrant next to that. So they only have one parking spot in front of their house. So we're trying to, before they get a few more cars, try to add a garage and extra parking on the side of the house in order to get the cars off the road or parked in front of the neighbor's houses.

And this picture in front of us, all of that in yellow is new construction, is that correct? Yes. Other than that, there's nothing else being done to the house?

No, yeah, it's just attaching to the house, and it'll be the new driveway that goes along the side to get to it. Okay. And with the bump out in the house, that basically limits, that's why we're asking for a variance, because that bump out, we can't have enough space to basically get a car back there to get into the garage.

By bump out, explain what you mean, because I'm not following.

On the west side of the house, where it kind of, Yeah, right there. It bumps it. It bumps out a little bit. So we have to basically get the drive around that and then curve back in to the garage. Okay, so the garage needs to be where it is because... Yeah, I mean, ideally we would go farther, but we feel like the five-foot variance is an acceptable amount and still be able to get a vehicle actually into the garage.

They better not buy any new big pickup trucks either. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions from up here?

Where on this schematic is the fire hydrant that you spoke of which limits the amount of street parking?

You got the median right here so you can't park. You have the median right here, so you can't park anywhere close to the intersection. And then right here is a fire hydrant. So you have one spot right here or split in between the two driveways or other houses.

Okay. What about on the other side of the street? Across the street?

Yeah. There is a little bit across the street. I mean, you still have a restriction by the median because you can't park too close or you can't even get a car through the median. So you essentially have one parking spot across the street also.

Thank you for clarifying that.

And I imagine it would be one on either side at a time, not one on each side.

Yeah.

Couldn't get through. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, you've been here all night. You've heard the rundown. What do you see? In your analysis of this, what makes this unique and what creates an impermissible hardship for the homeowners?

I think the uniqueness and the hardship is similar to lack of parking. Because they need more parking spots and they can't park on one whole side of the street. And then with the median and then the fire hydrant, they have one spot in front of their house to park. Then when their kids get a couple years older, here in a couple years, and they both get vehicles, it's going to be parking four vehicles in the parking lot spot and moving them around, basically.

Okay.

Or park in front of all the neighbor houses so you don't have to move vehicles out of the way to get one out. Okay.

What spoke to me was the safety factor, really. With what? What spoke to me is the safety factor. I thought it was a safety issue because having a garage would be much more concise than kids running across the street.

Well, yeah, having them in your yard instead of a neighbor down the street or something, yeah, it's better to have it in your driveway or back in the garage or around the side in the driveway.

So just to reiterate what you've told us, make sure I'm clear on it, that from your standpoint, what makes this unique is the same thing that creates the hardship, and that's that given its location, given the accessory structures, because I know there was work done several years ago to create that medium strip and so forth. Because of all of that, they're reduced down to one, possibly two parking spaces per Anywhere close to them?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right. I just wanted to make sure I understood and the record was clear. Any other questions for the applicant?

Will this be a three-car garage then if this is completed?

Well, it's really an oversized one car. It might be too deep, but the garage door is only 12 foot, so it's not even two side-by-side spots. It's a single car width to get in there basically.

Gotcha.

So it's only one wide, but you might be able to get too deep in it.

Okay. So are they hoping to fit four cars in the garage or only three?

In the new one, no, it'll only be like two in the new garage. The one we're proposing to build, it might be too deep, but the door is only 12 foot wide, so you can't get two cars in it side by side.

Gotcha. So total, the number of cars parked inside garages at this house is two?

The existing is two car garage, yes.

So it would go from two car garage to a four car garage.

Yeah, I'd have to look on the depth.

Go from a two-car house to a four-car house. Is that it, basically?

Yeah, I mean, I'd have to look on the depth.

There's still in the front, there's a two-car garage, and now the garage addition is around the back. They're not eliminating the first garage, so they'll have a minimum of three-car parking in the garage. And then the length of that driveway.

Yeah, plus parking in the driveway. But the garage, it's 27 foot deep, so it's not even deep enough to really get two cars deep in that garage. So it's really just an oversized one car.

Gotcha.

Motorcycles and mowers and stuff like that.

Okay. Thank you.

That's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. Well, is there anyone? Well, I guess I don't have to ask because these are the homeowners back there, correct?

Okay.

So there's no one. I've seen no one here to speak on this. That means that it's up to us to consider our five criteria, which are required for every request for a variance. And the first is uniqueness of the property. Does anyone want to comment on that?

They do have a letter from their neighbor, too. I don't know if that's. To the west.

We'll get to that in just a minute, if you would, please. All right.

Any comments on uniqueness?

All those who believe this criteria has been met, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners. You've got a letter from somebody? Yeah, the one to the west. Is this new to our file, guys?

Yeah, this is new.

Today's date.

All right. Basically, yeah, they were worried about engineering that they had recently done in the house for piers, but they had an engineer look that said the work done shouldn't affect the house piers.

Great.

Other than that, yeah.

Well, thanks for bringing that in. Do we have anything else in response, Ron?

No calls or concerns.

Okay. So all those who believe it's met this criteria of rights of adjacent property owners, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Hardship, any comments? All those who believe hardship criteria has been met, please say aye.