Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Yikes.

Are we ready? You all are ready? Yeah, good. Well, then I'm going to call to order the August 26th meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Leawood. Could I have roll call, please?

Members Penn, Sippel, Dirksen, Dunn, Hurst, Hawk, Bussing, we have a quorum.

Thank you. First item of business is approval of the minutes. We have minutes from, I want to take them separately. First, the minutes of June 24. Any changes or anything else? Editing? Move to approve.

Second.

All in favor? They're approved. I want to point out on the second ones we've got the July 22nd meeting on pages 2, 7, 8, and 10. I'm referred to as Chairman Claussen. I know that's because you're using old stuff. So yeah, it's no big deal. I just thought for the record it should probably be corrected. But with those corrections, do I have a motion to approve? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? That passes. All right, so that brings us to our agenda for tonight. We had an old business. Our first new business is case 58-2026-2101, West 120th Terrace. Request for a fence height exception in accordance with the LDO 16-4-9.5A in an R1 district. Does staff have a report?

The applicant would like to replace an existing six-foot fence with a six-foot wood privacy fence at the perimeter of the property in the same location.

So without belaboring the point, this is one of those where it is strictly replacement of a fence that's already six foot and in that location, and the only reason they need an exception is because they're replacing it and not repairing it, right?

Correct. And the existing fence is indicated in the yellow dotted line, and the new fence is in green solid on the picture displayed. So virtually the same. Correct.

Okay.

Any questions for staff before we get the applicant? Question, Ron. Why is it a different shape than the existing fence?

I... It appears, I mean, that might be a better question for the applicant, but they're going to go all the way to the 30-foot setback on that corner to get a little more space beyond that patio. And I just assume they're squaring it off rather than that kind of jagged, curved line. But they'll be better to answer that.

In just a second, are there any other questions for staff before we get the applicant up?

All right, then come on up, please. Would you please state your name and address for the record?

Yeah, good evening. My name is Rob Lippold. I'm the property owner, one of two, with my wife.

Thank you very much. You may present your case.

Yeah, so we purchased this house about five years ago. The fence was existing. What we want to do to change the shape would allow, like, a little service area on the side to be enclosed for... excuse me, garbage cans, grill, kind of things like that. The current shape also doesn't really follow really any straight lines. And so we kind of wanted to match the architecture of our house.

Any questions for the applicant? So it wasn't because you ran into underground utilities or something like that. It was just kind of your family desire just to have a different shape fence.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. A combination of use and aesthetics.

Thank you.

An engineer's fence, not an artist's fence.

I am an engineer. How did I know that? All right. Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, then we can entertain a motion. Move to approve.

Second.

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

Aye.

Opposed, nay. It passes. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks for coming in. Thank you. Our second case for tonight is 59. excuse me, dash 20269301 Lee Boulevard request for a variance to the placement of a permanently installed generator. And I will note for all of you that the second case is also the same address and another variance to the side yard setback. So I'll just ask Ron and staff have a report. And as part of that report, could you explain to us why we have two on the same piece?

The applicant has placed a permanently installed generator in the side yard of the home. Permanently installed generators are required to be in the rear yard. The two cases are one, generators belong in the rear, so they want to put it on the side. Now that it's on the side, it's in the side yard setback.

Okay, so they need a variance to allow it to be on the side?

Correct. So they need a variance. It has to be in the rear yard, so that's that first case. The second case, it also has to meet the 15-foot side setback, and it doesn't meet the 15-foot side setback.

Did they apply for the placement for the generator previously?

What was that?

Did they apply for the placement before they installed the generator?

The permit was applied for after the fact for the generator. There was a generator for a new home, or there was a permit for a new home, but the generator's not part of the new homes. They require their own permit.

It was installed without a permit, you're saying?

Yes.

Okay. All right.

Isn't that typically the job of the installer, the contractor that installs the generator?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions for staff before we get the applicant up here? Is the applicant here? Come on up. And please give us your name and address before you begin.

Yes, my name is Blake Foster, 9301 Lee Boulevard. I am the homeowner. Just to add a little bit more color. So the home was built through 2024 into 2025. The generator in question was installed. I will be forthright. A mistake was made. Neither the electrician nor the builder homily. realized that an application and permit was required. It was installed. The home underwent multiple inspections May 30th, June 30th, June 13th, and June 16th before a final certificate of occupancy was issued. All not flagging this. This wasn't flagged until a later date. Now that we've arrived at this unfortunate situation, I am aware of the regulations. What I'm asking for these exceptions, this variance for that, is because my immediate neighbors to the rear have their house faces perpendicular to our house. So our house faces towards Lee Boulevard. Theirs sits facing this way. They have a swimming pool. And so the entirety of our backyard faces their swimming pool to move it. If I understand the principle of the matter is that it's trying to minimize disruption to the neighbors, Moving it to the back would be a further disruption to them and the swimming pool they have installed. Where it currently sits is next to a garage, my neighbor. Of course, the solicitation of input from neighbors has gone out. None of the neighbors have objected, particularly the one in question. Her name is Connie next door. She does not have a problem with it. There is one further problem that will be remedied if approval is had, which is that it is not enclosed in the way that it should be right now. Again, a part of the original mistake made. Part of the plan that was submitted as part of this variance is that we would enclose it. We would meet the sound requirements. We would go whatever we needed to do to meet the sound requirements. But where it is, we would move it, but move it further to the house, keeping it essentially where it is now placed. And that's what the application of variance is for. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Are there questions for the applicant? Don't leave us yet.

Well, I'm just interested in this as to chances are your neighbor to the east that has the pool would not be using the pool if you were using your generator because it would be a time of distress probably.

You might say that, but power can fail for any number of reasons. What I would say probabilistically, yes, it would be adverse weather that would lead to power failure.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I have a question for the applicant. So on I'm on this photo is right right here. And so if you were moving. Thank you. If you were moving the generator to the backyard, would that be kind of up or below on that picture? Because right now it's on the side.

It would be above. So the rear of our house is the top of the page.

Okay, and I do see that pool now. So the location where it is now, I mean, just seems like undeniably closer to a house than it would be if you moved it towards the pool.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Just wanted to be sure I was seeing that. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Gary? Yes, thank you. Where is the air conditioning unit located?

There is one air conditioning unit that services the garage, which is on this. Yes, so that large tree right there, it is placed right there. The house itself is geothermal, so I do not have outdoor units.

I'm sorry, say that again.

The units for the house, the interior, are geothermal, so they do not use outside units. But there is a mini split in the garage, which we just pointed out. And that has an outdoor unit.

Thank you, sir.

Any other questions?

Go back to that picture that we had up there with the white facade. Looking at that, are we looking to the northeast?

Yes, you are. You're facing the northwest. You're facing northwest. So you're standing on the southwest. Wow, this is directionally challenging here. The southeast of the corner.

Where is the white truck and the black SUV? That's 93rd Court.

Huh? That is 93rd Court. So the house faces Lee Boulevard. There is an L-shaped road that runs by. That's 93rd Court. And then it turns into something else. But there's no further access.

I tend to agree. With Catherine and that it seems like it's very close to your South neighbor and his property and the driveway that's right there. And I'm surprised that they didn't object when they received the letter, but that's my own personal opinion.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Do we know what you know what the decibel level is on the property line currently untreated?

It is in excess of what is what is required. It's in excess of what is currently required, and that's why part of the variance does include moving it back towards the house to move it. I think we get within a foot of reaching the required setback, but we are a foot short. But then we would further build a brick wall with shrubbery enclosure and possibly exploring a top over it to control sound.

Well, Travis, they have to... comply with the noise requirements to get a final permit signed off on, right?

Yeah, they'd have to. There's like zombie box. There's different products you could use, but they have to meet the decibel level, even if this were approved. That's not part of the variance.

That's not part of the variance. That's going to be required regardless.

Yes, correct. I think I would just, it's more of a proverbial question. This could, again, a mistake was made. I think in the inspection process, if this would have been raised at a point when the house was being inspected for the electrical system, it would have been much easier to remedy. So I'm here now because it essentially would mean I'm not sure that we can move it. So if it is struck down, then I will take it out. It is what it is, and I'm willing to accept that. But the point of the variance is Moving it comes at an extreme expense.

And what you say makes perfect sense, but you're addressing one of the dilemmas we have. Certainly. We enforce the laws that's written. We don't get to make changes in it based on what we think is a good idea.

No, certainly. I think I just – I don't mean to belabor a point. I think I've wondered about the legal recourse for isn't the point of inspections to find and flag, and if they don't perform their job, isn't liability shared?

That's not a question for here, so I would just – Well, let's – since that's been mentioned three times now, let me just ask – Yes, sir. What do we have to say about that?

looking at the inspection record it is unclear you know so if we go out on an initial inspection we might flag 10 items we don't come back and do a complete review of the whole house we just come back and look at those specific items that we have called out on that initial inspection it's impossible to look at the inspection record and say when the generator went in if staff would have even seen it on inspection, because if they're on a re-inspection, they wouldn't necessarily be looking at the generator specifically. And with it not being on the plans, they certainly wouldn't have that trigger to look at.

Any questions for staff and the applicant? Just to pursue that a little bit more, Travis, when was the final inspection done? Was the generator there when they did the final?

Per what they've provided to us, it probably it likely was there at refinal inspection. But again, if we've flagged. Five items. You're looking at five specific items on a refinal. You're not going back and reviewing the entire house, all accessory uses, anything like that. You're looking at very specific, you know, sod, splash blocks. You know, you might have several. You're looking at those specific deficiencies. You're not doing...

a complete final every time you come out for a refinal inspection so it's really it's hard to say thank you may i add just one last thing of course and then i will be finished um the generator was installed somewhere between march 13 and march 20th of 2025. so that is a three three full months in advance um of final inspection so there was a handful Again, which I called out. But that would have most certainly included preliminary electrical inspections because it was installed with the entirety of the electrical systems in the house.

I appreciate that. But you've already acknowledged, you understand that the board doesn't have the power to balance equities. That's not what our job is here. Yes, sir. Okay. wanted to make sure but but before you go away let me let me give you a chance that the difficult ones for us to to decide that we have these five criteria it has to pass for us to do this and and the two that cause problems are uniqueness of the property and hardship and i'm sure i don't know if you already have a understanding of what those terms mean legally but unique doesn't mean one of the kind in the entire universe. Unique means an unusual situation. Hardship basically means our ordinances are not allowing you to do with your property, use your property in a meaningful way. In other words, because of our ordinances, somebody's In easements, they can only build a 1,200-square-foot home. That's hardship. So if you want to take your shot at convincing us of uniqueness and hardship, I'd certainly like to have you do that before we give up on this.

I think, to be honest, I don't know that in good faith I could make an argument for either. I appreciate that.

I really do appreciate your honesty very much. Any other questions? All right. Well, with that, we go through the five criteria. And you may have a seat. And if we want to talk to you some more, we'll call you back in.

Thank you.

editorial please of course you learned a lot in this process we really don't like it when people build something and then ask for a permit and i'm not barking at you but you're whoever did this work for you should have known should have known to look for the appropriate documentation to put that in place i'd chew on that guy if i were you

Okay, is there anything else to say before we get on with our consideration of the factors? All right, well, we have the five factors we have to consider, and the first is uniqueness of the property. Is there any further discussion on uniqueness? Okay, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

All those who don't believe it met this criteria say nay. Nay. Nay. No? I didn't hear your vote.

Yes, I lean to the uniqueness.

To what?

I lean to the uniqueness, reservedly.

So you are saying, I, you believe it's met the uniqueness criteria? Yes. Okay. And you two say nay, so that means I have to vote. I say nay. Okay. rights of adjacent property owners have have uh... letters gone out yes no calls or concerns i guess i should ask is there anybody here who wants to speak on this one way or the other i'm a little late with that all right rights of adjacent property owners any discussion

Mr. Chairman, I'll just comment on that, that even if the current property owner is okay with it, it is really, really close to that property. I'd be concerned about future property owners and their rights, so I don't think that's been met.

So all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

I didn't hear any ayes. Did I miss something? Nay. What? No? Nay. Okay. Hardship. Any discussion on the hardship criteria? Okay. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. Public safety and general welfare. There's a lot of generators around. Anybody have any comments on public safety and general welfare? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

That's two and two. I'm going to say aye on this one. I don't see any problem with public safety and general welfare. Spirit and intent. Any comments on spirit and intent? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

OK. So having not met all five of that criteria, the only thing we can entertain is a motion to deny the request for a variance In this case, 59-2026.

Mr. Chairman, in case 59-2026, 2301 Lee Boulevard, request for a variance to the placement of a permanently installed generate in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-1.3A7D in the R1 district. I move. Disapproved.

I got a motion to deny. Second. Have a second. All those in favor of denial, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. It's denied. You'll be notified. The next case we have, folks, is the same property as you know. It's 60-2026 9301 Lee Boulevard. Just for the record, does staff have a report?

The applicant has placed generator side yard set back 13 feet, one and a half inches from the property line. A variance of one foot, 10 and a half is needed to keep the generator in its current location.

So the last one was location, or the yard it's in, and this one is the distance from the setback.

But if it's denied being in the side... Kelsey, I defer to you.

Do we need to vote on this one?

Yes, I would still vote on each factor and make a record.

All righty then. Do you want to say anything else, sir? I'm noting for the record that the applicant is shaking his head no. Is there anybody here to speak on this one one way or the other? All right. Then uniqueness of property. Any comments? All those who believe it's not this criteria, please say aye. Opposed, nay.

Nay.

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

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

I think that's three to one. Is that what we got? Mel, you were a nay. OK. Hardship, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

All those? Aye. OK. All opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Mel, I'm sorry. Nay. Okay. Public safety and general welfare, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

I'm going to side with the ayes on this one. I don't see the problem there. Spirit and intent, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

I'm going to say, I'll say nay on this one. Okay, having not passed the five criteria, all we can do is entertain a motion to deny this request for a variance to the side yard setback. Do I have such a motion?

I'd like to make a motion on case number 60-2026 at 9301 Lee Boulevard, request for a variance to the side setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3d in an R1 district. Move to deny. Okay.

We've got a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion to deny, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Nay.

Okay, so three to one, is that what I'm seeing? Okay. All right, that's it. Thank you for coming in and for your professional approach to this. I'm sorry for your troubles. Okay. Our next case is case 61-2026, 8319 Meadow Lane. Request for a variance to the placement of a sport court within 20 feet of any rear or side lot line in accordance with the LDO. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has converted a previously approved patio from 2025 into a sport court. The north edge of the sport court is 13 feet from the side property line. Sport courts are required to be 20 feet from the side property line. A variance of 7 feet is needed to keep the sport court in its current location.

Any questions for staff?

So a 2025 application was approved?

For a patio.

For a patio. Has he done anything other than erect a basketball goal?

No.

Any other questions for staff? I see the applicant. Would you give us your name and address for the record, please?

Yes, David Terrell, 8319 Meadow Lane.

Thank you very much. You may present your case.

Thank you. I know you guys take it by the five factors, so I'll try to address those in order. I'll be rather brief and allow you guys to ask any questions you may have.

Thank you.

First, as to the uniqueness of the property, I believe that the primary factor here is a 1949 home built in old Leawood. So it is commiserate with that other area with a lot of stone basements and some of that issue. What led to our patio project to begin with was the fact that we were having stormwater drainage issues that were flooding not only our basement, but also the basement to the north of our home. What transpired from there, if I can use the elbow. was that we did drainage studies to try to determine how we could best remediate some of that stormwater drainage, not only for our own home, but for the neighbor to the north. And through that, you can see where the drainage lies. North is on the right side of the drainage study here. It comes across part of the back portion of our lot. and leads towards that neighbor to our north. And the drainage solution was not only to build a berm there to try to capture that groundwater, but then to create a very large infiltration trench in the backyard to capture the water. And then we spent a lot of money on pumps and other things to try to get it out to the setback from the street to lead into the city stormwater drainage system. This was one of the two remediation projects. The other occurred on the other side of the property to catch the remaining water that was in our house. Through this process, we knew that we may want to convert that area while we're doing the construction into a play area for the kids, put a permitted patio in there, and we reviewed. And I'm going to kind of jump into some of the other factors as I go through this process. But we knew that we may want to add that additional play area in the future. So we reviewed what the sport court requirements were. And per the application for the city at the time, there was conspicuous language indicating that there was a 10 foot setback. for any side or boundary line required. And so when we talk about hardships here, we reviewed and relied upon the permit application that the city provided in order to determine that we were within the setback requirement in the event we wanted to convert the patio to a sport court through this process.

So when was this that this happened? What time? This was before you put the patio in?

Yes.

Which was when?

We put the patio in last summer.

Okay, so when you made it, what you're saying is when you made an application last year to put the patio in, the city application said that a sport court had to be 10 feet?

And it still says it today.

Okay.

If you look on the page 86 of tonight's agenda, you'll see it in our write-up. We actually included some of this language, but... But you can see it's listed in two different sections, actually. One in this checkbox area right up here talks about a 10-foot setback. And then inconspicuous highlighting in bold, it indicates in the application permit that it's only a 10-foot setback. We were reasonable in relying upon this, we thought, when we were working with our contractor to say, if we want to convert this area into the sport court in the future, we would be able to do so. The long version of this, we complete the project, and when we go to put the basketball pool up, we found that we did not have the sport court application permitted, one, and then two, they have changed the setback now to 20 feet as opposed to 10. We have approximately 13 feet on the north boundary as opposed to the 20 that's now required under the new ordinance that was put in place at some time in 23 is my understanding, but that was not, oh, we were not aware of that, obviously, at the time. So I kind of got off track there telling you the overall story, but let me get back. So the uniqueness of the property, I think the primary purpose is here that in order to remediate the water, we needed to have a stormwater drainage solution that captured that area where the sport court is now placed, including a berm that had to be placed in a specific location. We're going to have to do hardscaping in order to capture the water there. Hence, the location of the patio was required to be that. And at this point, we wanted to make sure that we could also utilize it as a sport court.

So the uniqueness, just to summarize what I hear you saying, you're saying the uniqueness is in the fact that you have a unique drainage problem that you have to deal with, and to deal with it effectively, you had to place the patio in that location.

Yes.

Okay.

All right. That's the short version. That's the short version. I like short versions. If we... If we look to rights of adjacent property owners, I understand that there are some noise issues that could come with sport courts, and that's probably why the setback was changed, and I'm fully aware of that. Ultimately though we've done many things in this area to ensure that we have noise reduction by planting our providers along the fence line and having a large berm with some plantings on top of it the neighbors to the north also Are in this part of Old Leawood where there are a lot of homes on top of one another and they have a play area about five feet from that fence line And for what it's worth I've spoken with them. They were aware of what our project was their kids have played on the patio They don't have any objection to the placement of the sport court.

Great.

I In terms of hardship, I understand that a hardship may have been created when we put up a goal, as the city has noted in theirs. But at the same time, a hardship was created when we reasonably relied upon what the city permit application process looked like. And in order to remediate the water effectively, we're going to have to have some hardscape in this location. So we felt like it was a necessary endeavor to go through. Public safety and general welfare, I think, in fact, we have improved general welfare in the neighborhood by improving the water drainage system and avoiding the flooding that was occurring to our neighbor to the north's house as well, which happens to be the house that has the seven-foot variance issue. So the area that we're trying to get the variance for, hopefully they could overlook any noise problems by us improving their flooding problems.

And just go back to hardship for a moment. I wanted to make sure I fully understood, because I thought I heard you say at the beginning that you view the hardship as being that you did this according to the letter of the law, and now you're being told it won't work for that purpose that you were told it would work for when you did the original application. Is that correct? So the hardship's being created by our change in our ordinance. With...

Reasonable reliance upon the documents that were put out, not just retroactively, but still prospectively informing the residents that you are in compliance when you're trying to do it.

Right. I'm just trying to make sure I understood that correctly. That's what I heard you say before.

I think the other hardship would be I don't think there is a reasonable solution to the water drainage problem without doing some hardscaping there. I don't think there's any option to be able to create a sport court in our yard as well. And it would be unusual in our neighborhood where many people have these, including our next-door neighbor to the south that's less than 10 feet from our property line. So if anything, that may feed into the uniqueness factor as well and the fact that there are other properties in our neighborhood with that and where the setbacks in the neighborhood are commonly less than what the current ordinance look like. especially if we're looking at a year difference from when this project was completed, to be in compliance with the old ordinance. Sure, sure. And then spirit intent, I think I probably covered that through the general nature of the other arguments, but I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Any questions for the applicant? Do you have any letters of support or other than verbal approval from your neighbors? Is there any letters of support, your homes association or neighbors saying, hey, this is a great idea because my kids like to play basketball?

I didn't bring any with me this evening, but I will tell you that I did get an email from a neighbor when we set out our notice who said, hey, I don't want to have to come to the hearing. What are you guys doing? And I replied to him with a general nature of, we're trying to put a basketball goal up on this patio that we put in the back during the drainage project, and we're not in compliance with the current setback. And he replied in the nature of, I fully support that. I hope you and your kids can play out there.

And I note that the staff reports that although all letters were mailed, there were no calls or concerns raised. Is that still the case, guys?

Yeah, there were no calls or concerns, but it was brought to our attention by a noise complaint.

Okay. So there's somebody concerned out there. Any other questions for the applicant?

I've got two questions. Have the flooding issues been resolved now? We've had some heavy rains. Have you made it through unscathed?

Yes, we have. And to the best of my knowledge, our neighbors to the north have not had flooding in their basement either.

Could you go to this map? which is kind of a flat map. It shows the whole neighborhood. Can you tell us which of the houses that are close to you do not comply with the 20 foot setback for their court? Could you just point out those houses? I don't want names. I just want you to show me on the diagram how close they are to you.

Sure. The neighbor directly to the south of us has a sport court and it's under this tree right here.

It's not on this picture, but there's a sport court there now.

Yes.

Okay. Anybody else in the neighborhood?

There are several. That's just the one I know of because I can see it from my yard.

And it's closer than 20 feet?

Yes, I believe so.

Any other questions?

Travis, when was the ordinance changed from 10 to 20? Okay.

I want to say late 2022, but don't quote me on that. It's been within the last two to three years that that went before planning commission and governing body, and they determined that they wanted to have greater setbacks. for sport courts just because that can be an objectionable use pickleball especially but that's kind of what brought that to the forefront was the clickety clack of the pickleball right for sport courts but also you know a lot of a fair amount of complaints just basketball ball driven with that being so close to the property line they decided to change some of those requirements but

There's no reason to question his testimony that when he made the application, the form he got had 10 foot on there.

Well, so it was a building permit application for a patio, so we wouldn't have reviewed the sport court. That doesn't mean that staff would acknowledge we checked with the planning department. Their form for a sport court application wasn't updated, and it still said they have since changed that now to correct it. Thank you.

for what it's worth i think it was november of 2023 based on my research when the ordinance did change which i found out when i was researching the still current form a couple months ago on the city site still listing 10 foot setback on the sport court application okay that sounds correct i would say if he's saying november 2023

didn't have that information right in front of me so that's probably correct and just recently it was still it still said 10 feet in that application they have since corrected it okay okay any other questions mr mr yes when i looked at the ames man um i expected to see a creek or something where's the water coming from that um

I'm not a water expert. I hired an engineering company to do the drainage study, but I believe that 84th Terrace, the street to the south in between Lee and Meadow, has a number of homes that have been upgraded and built, and so I'm assuming we're getting more water runoff through those backyards coming down from the 84th Street corridor, or 84th Terrace corridor.

Thank you. Is that because the storm drains are insufficient, or are they just from the runoff from the people's property?

I'm assuming there's bigger homes with bigger roofs and more hardscape on those homes, so everything north of 84th Terrace is coming back through my yard now. Or maybe there was flooding in prior years. We just didn't know about it.

Anything else? Our permitting process, though, is supposed to Don't we require that there's no more runoff after a new home's built than before?

So that's kind of different with the teardown rebuild. But on this, it did receive a stormwater. They were adding over 400 square feet of impervious surface. So this was reviewed for stormwater when the patio went in. Again, it was presented to the city as a patio. I believe it was even noted on that plan uh you know that this is not approved it's a sport court patio only even so it just we wouldn't have reviewed it for those requirements at that time because it was just a patio a lot of people are just putting in patios that's very common thank you did you want to say anything on that not at this time okay all right um any other questions for the applicant or for staff is everybody clear on the applicant's position regarding uniqueness and hardship

Okay. Well, then our next job is to go through the five criteria, the first of which is uniqueness of property. Any comments?

I think there's something about the stormwater runoff that makes this unique, that they can't do other things with the backyard. Anyone else?

Well, the Africans have gone to considerable expense to alleviate this water runoff problem. It lends to the uniqueness of the lot, because most lots don't have that requirement.

Anyone else? All those who believe it's met the uniqueness criteria, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners, any discussion?

Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on rights of adjacent property owners. Although the distance was recently changed from that 10 to 20, I see we do still have 13 feet away here. It seems like the current property owners there also have kids who play outside. So I don't think that would be affected here. So I do think that's been met.

Any other comments? All those who believe it's met the criteria of rights of adjacent property owners, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Hardship.

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a definition of hardship, this would be it. Yeah. Well. So you change the rules on them.

Yeah. Any other comments?

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

Aye.

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

Aye.

Opposed, nay. All right. Since we have an affirmative response on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve this request for a variance to the placement of a sport court. Do I have such a motion?

Mr. Chairman, case 61-2026-83, 19 Meadow Lane, request for a variance to the placement of a sport court within 20 feet of any rear or sideline in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-4.1.3B-6 in 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's passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for your professional presentation. You too. All right. Our next case is 62-2026, 3309 West 92nd Street. Request for a fence height exception. The staff have a report.

The applicant would like to replace an existing four-foot chain link on the south and east side, wood on the west, and wrought iron on the north fence with a six-foot wood privacy fence at the perimeter of the property.

Will the six-foot fence be in the same location as the existing four-foot fence?

Correct.

Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Come on up. Give us your name and address for the record. I'd appreciate it.

Hello, my name is Megan Miner. I am actually the applicant owner's daughter. She is medically indisposed tonight.

Well, thanks for coming.

Yeah, happy to be here. So my mother has an extreme change in grade from her patio. To where her fence line in as well as her neighbors patios. They're very high The fence is very low not to mention it as a four foot chain link fence. So she doesn't have a lot of privacy With the six foot fence the change in grade will naturally minimize its visual appearance to pervert preserve the open character of the area The fence is a board-to-board design. So everyone gets a good side. So there should be no Aesthetic issue and then She is building a sunroom that she is going to be putting in an application for for the next board meeting, I believe, in October, I guess the one after, that complies with the proximity to property lines but puts her even closer to her neighbors. The sunroom will consist mostly of windows, and with them on top of her, there will be no privacy. Do you all have any questions?

Does anyone have questions for the applicants?

I have pictures of the view if you'd like to see them, but...

No questions? Well, if there's no questions, do I have a motion? Oh, wait. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this one way or the other? Sorry. Okay. Now, do I have a motion?

On a case 92-2026, 3309 West 92nd Street, request for a fence height exception in accordance with LDO section 16-4-9.5A 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. Thanks for coming in.

Awesome. Thanks, y'all. Have a nice night.

Okay, our next case is another exception. It's 63-2026, 2819 West 89th Street. Request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage. Does staff have a report?

The applicant is proposing a teardown rebuild that will total 4,738 feet. The maximum allowed on this lot is 4,615 feet. An exception of 123 feet or 2.6% is needed to build the home as proposed.

Any questions for staff? Is this one of those where it's replacing a much smaller home? correct okay um i just note for my fellow board members that this is what is commonly referred to as north or old leawood and there's a whole lot of houses in north or old leawood that are way undersized for what's allowed on the property there's been a lot of a lot of tear downs and rebuilds where what's going back looks like a mansion compared to what was there but we have to consider it in light of what the statutes allow the square footage to be. So, any questions for staff?

I had a question. Ron, what's the status of the construction project? Are they still waiting for approval, or have they started with the foundation?

It's in review.

In review. Okay, thank you.

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

My name is Sarah Baird, and I'm representing James Ingle Custom Homes, the owner of the property. And yes, as you said, it's a tear-down rebuild, and we are proposing the 123 additional square foot is actually in the second floor in the attic space over a three-car side-loading garage. And we're requesting the exception because it will not impact the, the additional square footage does not impact the footprint of the house, nor does it impact the exterior of the house. So a neighbor or passerby isn't going to notice the difference in the additional square footage.

This is difference created simply by refinishing some area that was not planned to be finished.

Yeah.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right, is there anyone here to speak on this one way or the other? I guess for my benefit, Ron, have letters gone out?

Correct, no calls or concerns. One email as to what was going on and they seemed satisfied.

Okay, very good. All right, any other discussion? we can entertain a motion on this request for an exception.

I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 63-2026 at 2819 West 89th Street, request for an exception to the maximum allowable square foot on a lot in accordance with the LDO 16-2-5.3F2 in an R1 district. I'd like to move for approval.

Thank you. Have a motion in a second. All those in favor of approval, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. It passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks for coming in.

Thank you.

All right. Our last two cases are both at the same address. The first one is 64-2026, 8614 Meadow Lane. Request for a variance to the side setback. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a teardown rebuild that will replace 10 feet from the side property line. The side yard setback for this lot is 15 feet. A variance of 5 feet is needed to build the home in the proposed location.

Any questions for staff?

I have a question, Ron. There are some pictures here on the AMS map about the floodplain, and some of the pictures show that there's going to be built on stilts in the backyard?

Correct.

That's because of the floodplain?

Correct.

Okay.

The reason for the move, Tom Kimes is here from Public Works to speak, but there's a storm drain that needs to be routed around.

Well, let's hear about it.

Tom Kimes. I'm a senior project engineer with the Public Works Department for the City of Leawood. Welcome. On this property, we did identify along one property line the... It's pointed out there on the map that there is a public storm sewer line that runs along the property line. We did some research, and we're not able to identify that an easement existed, so it was not identified during the property development. But it does run behind the property. It collects storm drainage from the street and does go out to the creek behind the house. So that affects proximity to the storm drain line that runs between the two houses, two existing houses.

So does that stormwater line, is it sufficient so we don't have overflow into this property owner's backyard?

Are you saying that the curb inlet at the street will not overtop onto the property?

Okay.

Was that the question? Okay.

Well, I'm looking at this map, which is a 100-year map, I assume. Yes. And I just wondered if with the storm drain that's in and with the improvements that they're proposing to make, will we be above the 100-year floodplain?

So to address the storm drain line specifically, modern standard is that we design the pipe to carry what we call a 10-year storm. 10-year. The pipe is very old, so it is likely below that level.

So is it corrugated?

I believe this is a reinforced concrete pipe. The floodplain boundary is set to the 100-year, so that's the regulatory boundary. It's a standard. It is a national standard set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the city follows that standard. So it's a higher level of rainfall.

And I note on the report we received, the staff comments were that property is not of a similar size and shape to most lots in the neighborhood. A storm drain is located on the west side of the house. That's why you're here, Tom, right? Correct. To tell us about that problem?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff?

Mr. Chairman, I've got one question. So it looks like that storm drain prevents the home from being within 20 feet of the west side property line. Was the previous home not on that space or was the previous home on that space?

The previous home is a much smaller footprint.

okay so it did not cover the correct that 20 okay because if i'm reading this correctly then instead of that normal side yard setback of 15 in this case that storm drain is causing there to be an extra five feet on that side so it seems like the applicant's sort of just shifting the entire home five feet the other way if that's what correct okay gotcha thank you okay any other questions for staff

And I see, I think you're probably the applicant standing up back there, so if you want to come on up, it's your turn. I'm going to answer one of the questions that... Give us your name and address, if you would, please, first. We're recording this, and we'd like to make sure it's complete.

Got it. My name is Rich Akers. The address is 8614 Meadow Lane. I'm the contractor. Thank you. And to address the flooding or the drainage that you were talking about, I've had a drainage study done by a FEMA engineer who did say we'll have a zero rise. So we don't have any rise from the building.

I don't understand that, but maybe my fellow member...

So he was asking if we were going to change the flood elevation by building this house. Right. And we don't. We have a zero-rise certification letter already submitted.

Okay, and I don't want to mix these up, but the next case is the same address, and it's asking for a grade change. What's that about?

Yeah, basically the same thing, I guess. So the way we designed the house, we have the house a little bit higher.

Well, not to be a nitpicker, but I thought you just said that it wasn't going to result in a grade change, and yet we have an application for a grade change.

So, I didn't know I said grade change. I apologize for that. I thought zero-rise certification. In other words, we are going to fill a little bit. We have areas that we fill. In other words, I'm putting the house at 886.5, and I think the GRP grade reference point is 884. so i'm actually which is sea level so they're just showing i'm going to be one foot higher so i think it was ron was teaching me you know basically showing what i can allow to do and so i'll be one i'm allowed one foot to fill and i'm doing two because the garage door we're doing a zero entry home to make everything work and flow and i took an account for all the flood what do they call that compensatory storage so the way i build the house everything's done i have to allow for compensatory storage for the flood waters that if they do come And that's why the house is on stilts, allows the water to pass through. Okay.

Anything else you'd like to present in support of your case?

Against for the five-foot easement?

This is for the five-foot easement, although if you bleed over into the other case a little bit, we don't mind.

Okay, well, it's all basically the same as that, though. I do already, we're trying to meet the intent, you know, of what has been asked for the easement.

Well, you've been here for our other cases.

Yes, I'm trying to follow that. I have something written here. Let me follow that.

Okay. Well, let me help you out. Okay. The two criteria that causes problems on this are uniqueness of property, which our staff has pretty much addressed. did a good job of it. But hardship is the other one, and that's a difficult one, because obviously a compliant home could be designed, one that doesn't require these variances. So what is the hardship that is causing you to have to do it in this way rather than in accordance with the ordinance? Well, that's a great question.

I worked hard before we bought the property to try to solve that and see. And so I worked hard knowing I even made sure I asked for extra time to see if we could do it. And I thought I designed something and I erred. But we already bought the property, and so that's what my clients wanted, and so now we own it. So the hardship is we already own the property. Had we known ahead of time, now I've worked hard to redesign something that would meet the best that we can, all the things that they're asking for.

Well, I have no doubt. We'll talk about it up here more before we finish, but if you've got anything else, now's the time.

Not right now.

Okay. All right. All right. All right, any questions for the applicant from up here?

Mr. Chairman, I've got one question for the applicant. I suppose from side to side, from east to west, do you know how many feet the home is, measures across?

Yeah, so the 47 feet is the build line. I have it right here, I'll just show you. So I'll tell you that.

Looks like 46 feet by those measures across the front building, but 46 feet across?

It is actually 48 feet. So the lot sort of pies back. So at the front, it is 47 feet. That's including any overhangs. because you'll have some overhangs and then it's 48 feet when you get to the back because it can't leave us further back but it's always staying within you know outside those building parameters we didn't run into the as tom said we didn't know anything about that we've done all this work we didn't know anything about the the easement that they had it's not recorded so since it wasn't recorded we were all we had already done all the work and had it on the lot plan in fact at one point um The plot plan had already been approved, but that was, as we were working, we got disapproved for other things, so we worked around that, and then the next plot plan got unapproved, saying, oh, by the way, there's an easement there. And we didn't know that. Wow.

Okay.

And I do have pictures of the house. I don't know if we're in that section. You know, I can show you. Whatever you want to show us, now's the time to do it. Okay, so I'll deal with both of these at the same time, because you talked about the house being on stilts.

So I'll show you first. While you're looking for those, I want to also point out to my fellow members up here that if you read under site plan on the report to us, it does point out that this lot is not of a similar size and shape to most lots in the neighborhood. And the majority of the lot is located in the floodplain. So anyway, I just wanted to make sure we were aware of that. Go ahead.

Yes, that's true and very struggling, especially when we find out all the interesting things.

We'll help you any way we can. Thank you. Within the law.

So that you can look at it. There's what the house will look like from the street. So you talked about it being on stilts. It's not like no one's going to notice. You look at the house, it still looks nice. And then... This is kind of looking at it from the west side. And so as you come down, and so when you're seeing the... easement that we're doing the house actually is over 15 is 15 foot side to side what i was doing oh sorry what i was doing is putting the driveway down the side but then the driveway runs into that easement which if they did of course it doesn't even sit on the ground so they could technically dig but when i was talking to time we tom he suggested we move it over to keep it out of the way so if they do need to get equipment in there and needed to address i did camera that the other day to check it myself had these the storm sewer that because it's been put in in 1947 I think he told me. And he says it's in level four condition, which is one deviant from being really bad. So I'm going to stay off of it, but I wanted a camera to make sure I can show I'm not ruining anything there. And I told him we would put a protection fence that will never cross that because I don't want to have to replace that if it needed to be replaced. So then I'm just showing you what the house would look like. All the other sides... are the front, the sides. Here, I'll give you more so you'll see. Here's it from the top view. Just looking at it down. So by the way, as you see, as you look down this side here, as you go down and look down the side,

I'll put all rock going down that and put plants to make it look nice so you don't see it.

And it's also make it for drainage purposes. So any water that comes down there, I might even take a dry riverbed all the way out just to control the water. Okay.

What's the total square footage?

I beg your pardon?

What's the total square footage of the house?

I think it's 40... 4,400 or under 4,500. Yeah, so it's 4,486. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, on the picture that you've got up there in front of us right now on the lower right hand corner, is that a garage or is that a storage building?

That is a garage.

Okay, so an automobile is going to come down here along the barrier and make a left and go in there. Is that going to be enough room to jockey around?

Yes, sir. It's 28 feet and two and three-sixteenths inches.

You did get a pickup truck in there, right?

Yes, made sure that we could have access to be able to get in and out, even turn around because, in all honesty, you can also turn right here because this is 20 feet here, so they'll have enough room if they had to go back out.

So it's a three-car garage. You were affirmative.

Two up front, but you don't allow three facing forward, so that we ran into that problem. I think it was Travis helping me out, or, yeah, helping me. He said, hey, you can't have a third car. Anyway, there was so many. And then having it detached made it hard, so I had to connect it, come around the back, trying to do it all. So we figured out how to get it done, but it was pretty... more than you ever expected haven't you yes it has been a lot of work it's probably our third or fourth plan revision what they're trying to get at and if you notice the picture of the front what is it you want yeah the picture of the front of the house yes I have a plot plan, too. Now that you guys have that, I'm glad about it. I'm marked up. Here, I've got two marks up. Because they think it's Travis asking me for drainage, so I'm taking care of all the drainage.

But once again, just so my fellow board members are clear on this, if we approve this variance, it's still going to have to meet our runoff requirements before it's approved for final construction, right?

Yes, and it does meet all that. They've already done the – telling you how much we met the runoff. It is – the only good part about it is it is a massive lot, so therefore I'm allowed a certain amount of –

right impervious area but i'm also controlling all that i'm controlling all the downspouts and because he asked me maybe it was ron that asked me to show visit ron jump different guy okay i i just want to make sure that up here we understand that that that'll be taken care of as part of right you know and i'm going to meet those roundups yes all right

I think my only kind of remaining concern, because I'm with you on uniqueness with the storm drain, totally understand that point. It just seems like we're at a point Specifically with the hardship factor where you've got a blank slate Although we've done these plans to where you know, you've got an idea of the home you want on there It just seems like there's a blank slate You know have there been any attempts to go from that 48 feet across to like a 43? feet across to be able to fit it within the Distance across

Yes, ma'am, as hard as possible. I mean, it's, yes, to meet all the footage, I've done everything possible. Well, I work for my clients, and so at the end of the day, I'm trying to give them what they want. We ended up with this lot, and so I'm just trying to honor their wishes before we decide. I hate to see us lose $600,000. We'll get a little over that now that we've got invested in this, but that's really... I don't want to not give them the home that they want. So, yeah, the hardship would be, yes, we already own the lot, and we made a mistake in possibly having bought it, not understanding the ramifications of it being in the floodplain. I've built in the floodplain before, but they haven't ever restricted it that far. So I didn't think anything about that.

But that mistake, if it is one, was in not... Being fully aware of a majority of this property actually being in the floodplain. Is that correct? When you bought it, or when it was bought and the plans were to put the house on here, you didn't realize until you got into it that the majority of the lot is in the floodplain?

Yeah, I didn't know that. Actually, I did call the realtor on that, but before I bought it, I... I thought, okay, so it's in the floodplain. I'm not worried that we can build in it. So then I didn't have the restrictions exactly knowing that you're not allowed to build in the, or not necessarily not build in the floodplain. You're not allowed to have any basement or any opening. So I have built in the floodplain in many other areas and never had that happen. And so I didn't see that, I didn't get that restriction. And so therefore, once I did understand, I should have found it. I take responsibility for that. That is 100% my fault. And I might have to eat it and work it out. But we're just trying to figure out how to resolve it in the best possible way to make everybody happy. My clients still do like the lot. They like the location. They want to live there. If it doesn't work out, we'll just have to find another one, and I'll have to figure out how to do what you said, draw something different.

Are you the owner? And just for the record, give me your name.

My name is Marvin Music.

Okay.

And this is my wife, Kat. And probably just to your question, we have, you know, because the side backs are so tight, we looked at so many ways to try to get this. We're 47 feet across. You know, so the time to get into a two-car garage, you only have, you know, 20-some feet. As you can see, most of the home goes, you know, it goes back this way. So, you know, the bulk of the home is back. And so we try to bring this thing in as much as possible. We really did. So I think that would be, it was just difficult. Yeah, it's not a huge home. In fact, we originally wouldn't have a basement. Anyways, we have all kinds of kids and grandkids, and we're looking forward to this thing, and that just didn't work out the way we thought. So we really have tried to bring it in.

Okay, thank you. I want to share that with you. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? and i'm not gonna ask if there's anybody to speak because there's nobody else in the room

Did you want to say something, Travis? I just wanted to add, just on the setback part, as far as on, you know, it was identified late in the process. It originally was submitted meeting the setbacks, and then that storm sewer line was flagged very late in the process.

Back to what Tom was telling us about. Exactly.

And so then they just shifted it five feet to accommodate that request because of that storm line. You know, because it was so late in the process, and that's why this first case is before you.

So if we were so inclined, we could conclude that the late discovery of the location of that storm line created a hardship?

You could. Okay.

Just want to make sure we're all hearing the same thing. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Well, we need to consider the five criteria now. You're welcome to sit down while we do it. We'll call you back up if we need to talk to you again. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. And it's beautiful design. All right. You all know what the five criteria are. Let's start with uniqueness of property. Any comments? It is unique. We've had a lot of discussion. It shouldn't be...

Mr. Chairman, I think the uniqueness of property criteria has been satisfied. As the staff notes indicate, property is not a similar size or shape to most in the neighborhood. You've got the storm drain running through it. So I think it is unique. Thank you.

All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners, I assume letters went out and you haven't received any problems?

No calls or concerns.

All those who believe it's not this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Hardship. We had a lot of discussion about that as well. And I just will remind you, we just confirmed that the late discovery of the storm drain did create a certain hardship in this process. So just for your consideration. Any other thoughts on hardship?

I think that's a great consideration, approving the criteria.

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

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Public safety and general welfare, any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And finally, spirit and intent. Any comments?

Beautiful house.

Looks like a beautiful house. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. All right, having gotten a positive response on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve this request for a variance to the side yard setback.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose that we approve case number 65-2026 at 8614 Meadow Lane, a request for a variance to the maximum allowed. Nope, that's the wrong one. Request a variance for the side setback in accordance with the LDO-16-2-5.3D in an R1 district.

Good.

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

Aye. Aye.

Opposed, nay. It passes. Obviously, you'll be notified. That brings us to the second one, which is the same property, the same issue, but it has to do with a request for a variance to the maximum allowed grade change. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed a fair down rebuild that will require a maximum of three foot in grade change at the front corner of the home and a maximum of approximately seven feet at the pool area. The maximum grade change allowed is one foot. A variance of approximately six feet is needed to build the home as proposed.

And once again, regardless of whether we approve this or not, whatever we approve will have to meet our stormwater requirements before it's finally approved, correct?

Correct. And again, if you have questions for Tom, he's here.

Exactly. Okay. Any questions for staff? Mr. Akers, you want to come back up for a little bit?

I had the FEMA engineer design it to help me to get approval so that we would meet the zero-rise certification. So everything that we did, we actually have exceeded it by 30 square feet, I think he wrote on his study. And so we've actually given back more compensatory storage for floodwater than what we've taken. And then even some of it, part of that yellow part in the back, i can even open that up and keep well i can let water pass through underneath the pool house he just didn't design it that way we may do it that way anyway the way we're doing it so therefore it would have flood vents to run underneath the extension with the outdoor kitchen there's a kitchen in the hot tub room and bathroom and garage all in the back we can we're contemplating of uh leaving that all open so that water can pass through.

Okay.

Which should then give even more flood compensatory storage.

All right.

So the fill area that they're talking about, like again, it is, the uniqueness is where we're at. So what I've had to deal with, so I've met that by giving back more compensatory storage.

What hardship would be created by not approving this request? Well, again, it's the same.

We own it. Go ahead. Tell us. It's the same. We already own it. They wanted a pool. I don't know about need, but they wanted the pool. They wanted the design that we have. And if we don't do it, then we have to figure out something else.

So to effectively build the home we've approved in the prior variance, you need this as well? Is that correct?

Yes, sir. Other than we still did meet all those, I think we met all the intents and everything else because if we take it away, we have to give it back. They always tell me if I take it away somewhere, I have to give it back somewhere else. And so I did. I'll do that.

Okay.

Questions?

Okay. We're going to go through our five criteria. First is uniqueness of the property. Nothing's changed about the property, so I assume there's, are there any other comments on uniqueness? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Rights of adjacent property owners, I think Ron's already confirmed to us, letters have gone out and we've got no complaints. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Hardship, any comments? I'll just comment for the record that this looks like it's a very difficult situation to deal with, and I'd frankly be reluctant to tell them to go back and redesign it. But in any case, any other comments? All those who believe it's met this 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 finally, spirit and intent. Just ditto Gary's comment from the last case. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. All right, having affirmative responses on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve this request for variance to the maximum allowed grade change.

Mr Chairman, on case 65-2026, 8614 Meadow Lane, request for variance to the maximum allowable grade change in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3G in an R1 district. I move for approval.

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

Aye.

Opposed, nay. It passes unanimously. Thanks for coming in, folks, and for your patience. Of course.

Thank you. We've been working on this for a year. It's been a long year, and it's going to be a nice home. And our grandchildren will enjoy the pool. So, sorry.

Thanks so much.

Well, thank you and your builder for a professional approach. We really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

It'll be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Yep. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.