Board of Adjustment - meeting_joint_regular

Chair person. Chair person present. Sorry, I was waiting for that. Vice Chair Clap here. Member Ba here. Member Loper. Member Ward here. Madame Chair, we have a quorum.

Excellent. Um, I will read some announcements. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maropa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to hearing at www.mmaropa.gov/planning. With respect to the hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board. For each case, the applicant will give a set amount of testimony to pres set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witness wishing to give testimony in a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker card for in-person attendance or registering desire to comment as noticed on the published agenda. Also, at the appropriate time for each case, the chair will ask those attending in person and online who wish to speak to a case to raise their hand by clicking on the icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of people who have registered and noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. Testimony shall be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. However, the actual amount of time allowed for testimony shall be at the discretion of the board chair. The chair will conduct the hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chair will verbally indicate or identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds. Um before we get into the agenda, does anyone have any comments about the meeting minutes from the March 12th hearing? All right. Hearing seeing none, we will consider those approved. Um looks like we have one item that's been withdrawn, item number one, so we will skip over

that one. Um, we're going to go to item number two, V2501325, and I will let Darren tell us all about that. Uh, Madam Chair, we have, uh, Charles Hart, code enforcement supervisor here today to present that case. Oh, excellent. Great to meet you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh, case V2501325. We've actually spoken with the uh, the applicant here today, and I think we've reached an agreement. I would like to continue this if possible to the May hearing date and see if we can work out a compliance agreement with him. Okay. Um and I do have this card from Mr. Bert. Are you comfortable with that recommendation? There you are.

Yeah. Okay. So, um I need a motion then to continue this to the May hearing. What is the date of the May hearing? Does anyone know? Sorry, I should know that. I'm guessing the 14th. Yes, May 14th. Okay. Anyone want to make a motion for that? I move that we uh continue V2501325 to the next meeting on May 14th. We have a motion by member KLP. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay. Second by member Ba. Will you please take the roll call vote, Rosley? Member B. Yes. Vice Chair Klep.

Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Madame Chair, we have a motion for continuance by a vote of four to zero. Excellent. I love when it looks like there's going to be an agreement made. So, thanks and thanks for coming down, especially with your crutches. Um, we'll move on to item number three, case BA26005, Romero Property, and Daniel.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Case BA260005 is a request to reduce a detached accessory structure setback to 1 foot where 3 feet is the minimum require permitted per Maricopa County zoning ordinance article 806.2.1. The property is located at 40908 North Lyam Way in the Anthem unit 38 subdivision in Anthem and is zoned R16 RUPD. The request would accommodate an asbuilt outdoor kitchen consisting of a 7 foot high backsplash wall, barbecue, and fireplace. The variance is necessary to secure zoning clearance uh for the pending building permit BLDR2506557. After reviewing the submission, staff is unable to identify a particular condition that pre that prevents the reasonable development of the lot. The reduced setback allowances up to three feet for interior property lines uh for detached accessory structures is more than adequate to accommodate typical single family accessory structures. The variance is unwarranted because the hardship is self-imposed and not caused by a peculiar condition. Happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel. Um is the applicant or applicant's representative here or online?

Sure. I I have her online. Um she need I she will need to unmute her microphone. Hello. Hello. Um please state your name for the record and then um go forward with your presentation.

Yes. Good morning uh chair and members of the board. Thank you for taking the time to hear my case today. My name is Jessica Romero and I'm here to respectfully request an approval of a variance to allow a setback reduction of 1 foot from the block wall rather than the three feet. Um, in the structure in question is an outdoor kitchen and fireplace designed strictly for normal residential use. I want to emphasize the safety uh has been a priority in the construction. The structure was built using firerated materials including cement and block and it does not have any permanent utility connections and it operates only with a standard 15lb portable gas cylinder used for the grill and burner which uh further minimizes any risk. The fireplace is decorative structure only so it doesn't burn anything. It's just decoration. Um unfortunately we were not aware of the setback requirement prior to building the structure. Had we been aware we wouldn't uh of you know build anything that didn't comply with the regulation from the beginning. Uh you know requiring us a demolition at this point would create a significant hardship for our household. Uh the structure is safe, well-built and serves a common residential purpose and we believe removing it would not provide meaningful benefit given there is no safety concerns associated with the current placement. Um, additionally, our immediate neighbor whose property is directly adjacent to the structure at 40912 North Living Lyam Way, um, reviewed the situation and has signed a no opposition form to support this variance. Uh, we resp, you know, I respectfully asked, uh, the board to consider these factors and hopefully grant our request. And, uh, you know, thank you so much for your

time and consideration. Thank you. Um, I'm going to go ahead and and open the public hearing. Is there anyone else online or here that wishes to speak on this item? Nobody else indicating they'd like to speak. Okay. Um, then I think we'll go ahead and and turn it over to the board for comment. Bless you. Um, this is in my district, but I'm curious to hear thoughts from the other board members if you have anything to share. Remember ba? What was the height of the structure above the fence line? No, the structure is under the block wall. So, it's lower.

So,

and I have pictures on the on this if you could go to the very last part of my uh PowerPoint, it shows that it's seven I think it's around 7 ft um high and it it's under the block wall. Uh you could see it on both pictures uh showing the height. Uh the only thing it's separated a little bit over a foot from the wall and uh other than that I I don't know what else to add. Just uh hopefully we could you know maintain the fireplace. Uh and we're very sorry for for not knowing the rule prior to building it. The reason why I asked the question when I was looking at the top left photo that of that corner there from that angle, I couldn't tell if it was rising above the fence line, but I can see it's

No, it is not. It is not. I could uh provide further pictures if that needed, but it does not go over the fence line.

Got it. And so what what I was trying to get at is I think part of the po purpose of the setbacks and those standards is to give space between rear yard to rear yard or home to home particularly when they're adjacent to each other. Sometimes when I see a structure like this that is completely unobservable by the homeowner behind it, um it it feels like it's still sort of achieving what the intent of the setbacks were even if it's not maybe meeting the exact language requirement of it. So that's just one of the considerations that I was looking at here.

Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes, it does u meet no one could see it. My neighbor said it doesn't bother him at all because he can't see it from his house. Sorry. What? One moment. This is a chance for the board to to Okay. Yes. So, we'll go ahead and and close the public hearing and um hang tight, Miss Romero, in case anyone else has any questions for for you. But yes, do you have any anything else to add? Okay, member Clap. I move that we approve BA260005.

We have a motion by member KLP. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Ward. Rosley, will you please take the roll call vote? Member Wall, yes. Vice Chair Klep, yes. Chair Persan, yes. Member Ward, yes. Madame Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. Best of luck finishing out your project. All right, we will move on to agenda item number four um which is BA260016, the Everett property variance. And um we have Joel. Uh madam chair, members of the board, agenda item four is a variance request to reduce the east setback on a rural 43 parcel in the new river area uh from 43 feet to 33 ft in order to accommodate a single family residence. Uh the original setback itself came from a prior variance granted in 2005. So this is a variance on top of a variance. Uh the underlying issue is a 33 ft padment that runs along the east parcel line uh separating this property from the adjacent property to the east. Uh next slide. The parcel was created in 2004 and set vacant until about 2018 uh when the current owner's predecessor built a stable in horse pens. Uh the current owner owns both sides of the pad easement. In November 20 in November 2025, they applied for a building permit uh to build a residence and the plan showed the northeast corner of the home at 30.9 ft from the east line which is about 2 ft into the easement. And then this varian application followed in February of 2026. Next slide. Uh the core issue is that the patent easement does not clear the bar for a peculiar condition. After subtracting the easement area, the parcel still has approximately 3/4 of an acre of buildable envelope. Um it's not a parcel that's been rendered undevelopable. The existing stables already in the buildable area which shows the lot can support development under current standards. Uh next slide. Uh the other significant factor is that administrative remedy hasn't been exhausted in this case. Uh the applicant owns both partials on either side of the easement. if they pursued abandonment of the pattern easement through MCDOT uh the current zoning ordinance would allow for a 20 foot side setback which is less restrictive than the 33 feet that's being requested here and so you with more room to build in this this case uh it is our understanding at this point

that that path hasn't been attempted uh so stat use is that the variance tests are not satisfied uh the eastment does affect the step act but does not eliminate viable development of this parcel and administrative alternative exists that the applicant is not pursued so I'm happy to answer any questions thank you. I'm a little confused on this exhibit on here. So, we've got the 33 foot road and public utility easement and then the other 30 foot cross-hatched area which I think is building step back line, right? U correct. Okay. And then what is the where is the 43 feet coming in?

Um so the 43 feet so if you um so this site plate isn't uh kind of what it would ultimately be. Um the 43 feet would be so you have the 33 feet pad easement. You have the existing 10- foot um uh setback that's off of that based on the prior variance. So that's what's currently existing. Yeah. So from the east parcel line it would be 43 feet currently. Okay. And um yeah, I I see what you're saying. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Joel? Adam,

could would you mind going back to the arrow map? Yeah, one of my questions was what what other structures have been on this property previously. Is that what is what am I seeing right there? Uh, Madam Chair, member BA, I believe those are the the white structure I believe is a a stable and then you have horse pens to the south um from such a a riding area basically. Was there ever is this parcel uh common ownership of the parcel directly next door? Uh Madame Chair, member Ball, I believe so. Yes.

So that horse table is accessory to the use that's off the property adjacent to it. Uh, Madame Chair, member Ba, just to interrupt, uh, that the, uh, keeping of horses can also be a primary use in all of our residential zoning districts. So, under this version of the plan, does with the propos and we go back to the the slide that showed the proposed. Yeah, there we go. Does this replace that structure? Uh, Madam Chair, member B, that's my understanding. Yes. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Joel?

Okay. Uh seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here? Hi there. Um please come to the podium, state your name, and go forward with your presentation.

Good morning. My name is Shannon Everett. Uh oh, okay. Uh I do own both parcels. The white structure there was a portable barn that has already been removed. That is the proposed area where the new new home would go. Um I intend to keep the home to the east which I also own. Um so this is sort of a family thing. I'll keep that home. My daughter will live in that one. I'll build the one next door so we can be neighbors. Um, the existing home to the east also has that 33 ft patent easement and at that time had a 30foot side setback that's still in existence on the neighboring property and I am the neighboring property. Um, also there's still that 33 foot patent easement as well as a road easement on that south side. So really in the initial I thought I was asking for 30 foot. Now that the 20 foot setback has been initiated as of January 9th. I'm just asking for a variance of that 20 ft which would still leave the 33- ft patent easement. The reason I didn't ask for an abandonment is because the neighbor did ask for abandonment of their 33- ft easement. The neighbor to the north, it took more than 9 months to get that done. So obviously with you guys meeting monthly that pushes this forward a little bit if we can make it work. Thank you. Um are there any questions for our speaker?

Okay. I I just have one question on the um map with the cross-hatching. It looks like there's a little tiny bit um that goes into the 33 feet, but I think it's a patio. I just wanted to confirm and that might be for Joel if so madam chair member madam chair um the variance would allow for uh only development that's outside the patment. So this would be in this case 33 feet where the patment ends if I don't believe they would be allowed to have any development that's within the patment itself. Thank you. Yeah, it looks like they've been able to make the edge of the house right at the edge of that cross-hatching. So, um thank you. So, no other questions for um the applicant. Okay, hang tight. We'll let you know if we need anything else. Are there any other people registered to speak on this item online or here?

Nobody. Nobody online. So, thanks. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board for discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Um this is also in my district. Um you know my thought on these when there is this extra incumbrance on the property and the form of the road easement is that you know we should look at it as if that wasn't there. So you know I'm inclined to allow this to move forward but I'm curious for thoughts from the rest of the crew up here. You know, I can certainly appreciate the the purpose of the of those easements in place because we needed them all across the county long before development happened. So, we kind of outlined roads and alignments. But, I think given the circumstance here, the development panels in there, I don't think it's expected that actually would utilize that way. I like the fact that she's also the adjacent neighbor that shares the boundary with the site that's being requested for the variance. Um, so I can see how that extra layering of that um, east side easement uh, can impact the build area.

Any other comments? If not, I'm open to entertaining a motion. I move to approve. Uh, we have a motion by member Ba. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member Clap. Rosley, will you please take the roll call vote? Member Bach, yes. Vice Chair Clap, yes. Chair Person, yes. Member Ward, yes. Madame Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Thank you. Best of luck um with your new home and living next to your daughter. That's

Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Um, we will now move on to case number five, BA2600018, the Popeye's AC property. And Daniel,

thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh, BA260018, uh, Popeye's AC property is a request to uh, propose a reduction in the rear west setback of to 4T where 25 ft is the minimum permitted per Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 502. and a proposed street side south setback reduction of five feet where 10 feet is the minimum permitted per the Maropa County zoning ordinance. Uh the property is located at 163 North 81st Street uh the northeast corner of Acron Street and 81st Street in the Mesa area is zoned uh multif family R5. The applicant received issuance of a building permit. However, a half width future rideway reservation for 81st Street was not shown on the approved site plan and building setbacks did not accommodate the additional rideway. Prior to vertical construction, the applicant was notified of the permitting error and modified their side plan by orienting the houses to the east um with a private ingress egress eastment drive from the east. A variance is still necessary to reduce the rear yard to 4 feet um the west facing 81st Street um and the street side yard to 5t the south facing Acron rightway uh where 10 feet is the minimum required. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Madam Chair, if I could add uh agenda items five, six, and seven are essentially the same request. Yeah, I was going to ask you that. So, I guess when we get to those, you don't have to restate all the same stuff unless you really feel like it. Okay. Um, thank you. Are there any questions for Daniel? This is in district two. Yeah, I don't know. I don't expect you to know this answer, but if you did, it would be just interesting for my personal knowledge. This is an unusual platting. Actually, I don't even know if it's platted now that I think about it.

It's an unusual loting regime. Um there's lots right behind this. I don't have any legal street frontage. I don't know if that if that how did we how did that happen? Um Madam Chair, member Ba, that would be considered uh an unregulated lot split from the parent parcel. So the parent parcel was um I believe five acres um and um the minor land division didn't um have to go through the um platting process because it is less than five um uh lot split of less than five

individual lots per madam chair member b. But also they provided an ingress egress ement north south that's parallel to 81st street. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Daniel? Um hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here? Please come to the podium, state your name, and give us your presentation. Hi, your honor. Um good morning. I don't have a presentation, but just a comment. Um there is a Oh, sorry. Could you please state your name? Jose Kerion. Thank you.

Um and I'm one of the owners on all on all of them. And uh there is an egress ingress egress easement that goes north and south. and every other owner in that in that um section or that land and the adjacent parcels, they all signed and it everything was notorized to allow the or to make it legal, I guess, not just something that was on um on the survey showing an ingress egress. It was actually notorized by them also. We we did everything. We followed the rules and the guidelines from the city to be able to build. We did pour concrete. Uh we have three lots. This has been quite the roller coaster for us uh financially as well. You know, we have like $20,000 worth of wood or lumber in each lot. And um I hope you guys can consider this um trying to make the I mean we do run the business, but we also want to better where we're building and do something good for the community and provide a good um product for the for the public.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Um are there any other people online or in person that wish to speak? Nobody. Nobody online. Thank you. Um, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and hang tight in case we have any other questions for you. Um, are we'll turn it over to the board. Are there any comments or feedback? This is in your district member clap. I appreciate the comments from the applicant um, as to the pickle you're in and uh, and the fact that you voluntarily changed the orientation of the of the um, final product. So, um, I think you've done about all you can do at this point and I would move to approve BA2600018.

We have a motion by member Clap. Do we have a second? I I can I second? All right. I second. And we have a second by myself. Will you please take the roll call vote? Member Ba. Yes. Vice Chair Kl. Yes. Chair Person. Yes, member Ward. Yes, Madame Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 4 to zero.

Thank you. Um, all right. Well, we will move on to the accompanying case BA260019. Um, Daniel, do you have anything additional to add on that one? Uh the only the change in this in the next two agenda items ma uh madame chair would be the um removal of the south streetside setback that doesn't apply to these next two cases. Okay. So they're in because they're interior. Yeah. Correct. Okay. So this one just needs the one variance for the west reduction in the west. Madam chair, we have to kind of go through the process again, but we'll open the public hearing. Do you want to add anything else or are you you good? No, I'm good.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on this item? Okay. So, we'll close the public hearing, but then I'll turn it back over to the board and member clap. I'd make the same comments regarding this case as the last one, and move to approve BA260019. Second. Excellent. We have a motion by member Clap, a second by member BA. Member Ba. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Madame Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero.

Great. Thank you. Um and now we will do this again. BA260020. So Daniel, same comment as last time. Um okay, we'll open the public hearing. Do you have any other comments? Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. And are there any folks that want to speak on this item? Okay. Thank you. But we will. Madam Chair, for for correction, it's BA260021. No. Are you sure? No. The the third item, I think it's 20 number seven. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry.

I I appreciate you seeing it because I do sometimes feel like I go too fast. So, um Okay. BA260020. I just closed the public hearing. We'll turn it over to the board. And I will again make a motion to approve BA260020. Okay, we have a motion by member Clap. Second. Second by member BA. Uh, Rosley, will you please take the vote? Member Ba, yes. Vice Chair Club, yes. Person, yes. Member Ward, yes. Madame Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Great. Thank you. I missed one thing. So,

yes. I don't know if it makes a difference, but on the screen where it had the names of all of them, the name was wrong on one of them. I don't know if it Oh, okay. On the on the agenda. Yeah. All right. Does that is that something we need to do? The first one said Popeye's AC and then the next two both said Castillo and one's Castillo and one shouldn't be Castillo. But if it doesn't make a difference, then okay, could be VM construction. No. Okay, we're good. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um we will move on to um agenda number eight BA2600021 the Nicholas residential variance and Evelyn good morning do I have to hi you speak right into the mic

okay yeah good morning so this is item number 8 B260021 one and I'm presenting on a variance case for property located at 166 37 East Fry Road in Gilbert and it's currently zoned for rural 43 single family residential use. So the applicant is requesting vance to reduce the minimum lot width for the required uh 45 ft to 140 ft and it is to establish a legal status for the parcel uh the parcel's existing width to allow for an additional um proposal that they are making and this would um this would include a porch and a patio. So the parcel is actually a little over an acre and it's currently developed as a single family residence and some uh surrounded by similar residential uses to on all sides. And the lot has actually maintained consistent dimensions since it was created in around 1992 before the current owners purchased it in 2023. But because of the historical split, the parcel does not meet the current um zoning requirement uh for the 145 ft under the rural zoning district. But in terms of development standards, the property is within compliance in all other aspects. But then based on uh the analysis even though the applicant was able to uh notice that they this was not created in their line of uh title I think it's we were not able to find like any peculiar condition that may make this development difficult and outside of

that all the other uh properties around them are developed in like a similar uh fashion but also approving this variance does not really impact the surrounding neighborhood in any manner. So yeah moving to any questions. Thank you Evelyn. Are there any questions? All right hearing none we will go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here or online? They are online. They are online. David, can you unmute Cameron Nicholas, please? Yes.

Oh, thank you. Good morning. If you could state your name and proceed with your presentation, please.

Yes. My name is Cameron Nicholas and we're just requesting to be able to change the honestly we're just trying to get our lot up to code and at this point I'm just when we bought the property we didn't know that this was going to be something that we would have to do. So, I'm just working with you guys in hopes that you're able to approve this down to 140 so we can just make our residents look a little bit nicer from the road.

Thank you. Um Darren, Madam Chair, just uh ju by way of uh explanation, it appears this in the eastern property, I don't know if they were split from one parent parcel, but it looks like it uh one is 140 foot, one's 147 foot. Ideally, they should both be at least 145 ft. Uh from the street, it looks like two 1acre lots. Looks like two standard lots. Um but the lot to the east is built up. Uh, so it may be impossible to for them to redelineate the LA line at this point. Oh, thank you for that added clarification. Um, are there any questions for the applicant? Hearing none. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Nobody. Anybody else online? Okay. Thanks. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing um and turn it over to the board. This is in district one.

Thank you. Um, I don't know if I can visually tell a difference between 141 ft and 145 ft if I'm staring at a property this large. And it seems to me that it could have been simply a scrivener's error in the lot split generated decades ago. But at the end day, we're not actually relocating the structure. I think we're just doing a simple addition onto it. and the width of the property doesn't really in my mind come into play when you're considering what you're adding on the property. The thing about these these old horse properties is I think in themselves they are peculiar and unusual and a growing city that is mostly subdivisions of traditional smaller lot sizes and so I believe there's some circumstance here that would warrant parents relief

is you want to turn that into which concludes my last statement. I'd like to make a motion to approve. Uh we have a motion by member body. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Second by member clap. Uh will you please take the roll call vote? Rosie. Member Ba. Yes. Vice chair clap. Yes. Chair person. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. Best of luck, Miss Nicholas. All right, we will move on to the last item on our agenda. Case BA260024, the Pluto property, and Nick has been waiting patiently this whole time. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh, so case BA260024 is a request for uh to permit a front yard setback of 10 ft from the east lot line of the Pluto property where the rural 43 zoning district requires a minimum front setback of 40T. Uh the property owners are hoping to build a detached accessory garage toward the northeast corner of the property, which the owners have determined to be the most feasible location. And since the zoning ordinance does not allow detached accessory structures within the street adjacent setback, reducing the required front setback would allow the garage in the location proposed. Um now on one hand, staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition uh facing the property. Um, let's see. Although the property is not rectangular in shape, it otherwise meets area and width requirements, is generally flat, and is not encumbered by unusual topographical features like washes or flood plane. Furthermore, the development of a single family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and that a primary use was established without need for variance means that enforcement of the zoning ordinance cannot be interpreted as imposing an unnecessary hardship on the property. Uh that having been said, staff is keen to note why the front setback is measured from the east lot line as opposed to the south. Um as you can see in the uh land survey on the screen up there, um the street frontage is effectively along the south lot line. So the south yard effect effectively functions as the property's front. However, because of the way the easement terminates in a culde-sac about the tri point of the property and its two neighboring properties, because that easement line intersects uh with both the south lot because the easement encumbers both the south lot line and

intersects with the east lot line, both are considered street adjacent lot lines. And because the east is the shorter of the two, um the front setback is measured from that east lot line. Uh technically because they're within 10 feet of each other, there is the ordinance allows discretion in which is considered uh the front. However, when the single family residence was built, the owner at the time elected to measure the front setback from the east and the side from the street side from the south. That way, because of the orientation of the lot, it would allow more generous setbacks from the sides and the the house to be built closer to the north and south lot lines. So, from a technicality perspective, the east is considered the front. However, because there is no street frontage along the east, no effective street frontage along the east lot line beyond the culde-sac, um it does effectively function as an interior side lot line. So, if the east were legally considered an interior side setback, the detached garage that the owner is proposing would be allowed where it's proposed by right. So it's only because of that easement it's considered a front and that's why it's not allowed by white right where proposed and that's why the owner is requesting that reduced setback. So if um the board finds that the statutory test has been met um uh variance approval would uh be memorialized with item A as written in paragraph I believe it's 18 of the staff report.

Thank you. I have one question on the last part that you were saying about if it were to be considered the side then this variance wouldn't be required but when I look at what this um plan on the screen and um it says side setback 20 so would it but you're saying it would be allowed even though it still encroaches into the 20 uh madame chair technically with interior side setbacks uh detached accessories structures are allowed within those interior side and rear setbacks as long as they're at least 3 ft from the lot lines.

Okay, thank you very much. Um, are there any other questions for Nick? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing and I'm guessing you might be the applicant. No. Oh, okay. I'm like, wait a minute. Please state your name. Yeah. Good morning. Good morning.

Yeah, S Pluto. I'm the owner and I mean that's the story of my life when I was buying this property. It looks beautiful. It looks nice white. We plan with doing the green side on the left side uh which is west side which green means my wife's uh side and right side east sides. We plan to build the garage the detachable uh metal structure garage on the concrete uh slab. We didn't know that's the front. I mean because it doesn't look like. So that's why I mean I'm not sure if I can add something to the comments which uh just I don't remember that name. I'm sorry I'm super nervous but he explained it perfectly. So all I want to do is build the garage for my stuff for for RV for toys and and be away from my wife a little bit.

Yeah, I know. I love it. Just don't tell her that. Thank you. Um, does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Um, are there any other folks that are online to speak? Nobody online.

Nobody online. All right. Thanks. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. You can have a seat and if we have any other questions, we'll we'll let you know, but I'll go ahead and turn it over to the board. This is in district 4, which is member Lopert's district, and he's not here. Um, but, you know, happy to take comments or a motion from anyone else. I'm going to make a motion to approve, but I think the record shared by Nick speaks for itself. What's also interesting here is that, you know, you have this Red Bird Road, which is actually an easement, not a public dedicated right away. So, the house is already kind of pushed back from Red Bird Road and then you have this large area to the east. I don't think anybody would actually consider that eastern side the actual front yard setback. So the technicality sort of becomes the the the obstruction but it is not but it is satisfying the intent of the code regarding the side what should have been a sideyard setback being mistreated as a front yard setback.

All right. And uh so I believe that was a motion from member ba to approve. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member clap. Sorry Fern. You're always I want to get you in there. Um, will you please go ahead and take the roll call vote? Member Ba, yes. Vice Chair Klep, yes. Chair Person, yes. Member Ward, yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you very much. That concludes our