Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

into order. You ready?

May I have a motion to approve the agenda for second? Any further discussion? Tessa, will you call the role, please? Commissioner Wade. Yes. Commissioner Matus. Yes, Commissioner Morris. Yes, Commissioner B. Yes. Chair Newton. Yes.

Okay. Take a quick um I see some new patients here and I thought I give you kind of a broad overview of how we run our meetings and um then we'll kind of jump into a more formal way of talking. But I would like to talk for just seems kind of intimidating especially if it's the first time people have done these sorts of I'm the chair. I'm one of six one two three four five and I can count slowly sometimes five commissioners we all have an equal vote and if we say in anything we rule on we serve tonight as a we judicial yes

we are in a quite judicial role at Flint. that we're serving as a judge and jury here. Um I'll walk through more formally a statement or probably learn that. Um we'll give parties on either side of the discussion an opportunity to make points that feel important for us to consider. Um and then we will move to our deliberation. Once we move to our deliberation, we'll take no more no further comment. Um we start our meetings with oh by the way um there is an opportunity to appeal the decision. Inevitably one party is not happy with our decision. So if they want to take that to the next level that is an opportunity to appeal that to the next level which is by city council

what our city council. So if if the if you're here tonight would be one item for consideration um and you don't like the way that went you have a right decision. Um I'll jump into I'm not I might have jumped a little bit ahead in terms just giving that broad overview but I'll jump into more specifics when when I give the the um the legal aid if you will in terms of how it's being handled. That's kind of a broad overview. Then we kind of have some work items. But we'll move right to our main issue here to work tonight after approving our minutes since we're exciting. Is there anything?

I do have one amendment. So I have an amendment on page four of minutes for the September 25th meeting. It's page four, first paragraph, very last sentence. It reads, "Marit said she believes they've met their burden." It actually should read she believes they have not met their burden. Okay, that was my only amendment. Good catch. Okay. Uh so any other amendments to the September 25th and October 2nd meeting minutes? Okay. And a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

Motion to approve the minutes as second. Any further discussion? That's the way you call. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner B. Yes. Commissioner Wade. Yes. Chair.

Yes. Sir. All right. So, next section. This is the This is the time of the public the come before us and make any comment. It is not intended to be comment on any items before tonight. We will argue that later. It's a pro initiative believe should be within the purview of the bage. We ask that that comments be in our purview, not something that we don't really have any control or say over and that those be would anyone like to come forward this time with public commenting online. Robert,

yeah, we'll move on. First action item AA2502 Sally Newton and please correct me if I said wrong for administrative appeal of development permit 25-23 AA2502 Sally for an administrative appeal of the city's approval of a development permit at 231 East Monro Street back lot 2400 plat 29 BC the appeal will be reviewed pursuant to the Canada beach code section 17.18 request or rule decision. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter in this time? Does any commission member believed he or she has a conflict of interest or a personal bias? Has any commission member had any exart context or made a site visit

site visit site visit

and that the appellant is appealing an administrative decision to approve a type two development permit for an accessory structure in the rear yard at 231 East Monroe Street. The development permit was issued as an after the fact approval. City staff became aware of a partially constructed assessor structure of the subject property through a public complaint. City building officials issued a stall order on August 11th and the property owner's contact and the property owner contact the city shortly afterward to determine necessary steps for permit. A development permit application was received on September 8th and the permit was issued on September 17th. A building permit was not required as working residential specialty code does not require a permit for nonhabitable structures of less than 200 square feet. The accessory structure measures 9 by 16 ft and has an above grade roof height of approximately 12 ft. Cooking facilities were a bathroom are not indicated in the application materials. The application was reviewed under municipal code 177230 accessory structure for building which is included in the staff report

and that concludes the staff report. Okay, any questions? Just one Robert at what point were uh planning what construction was planning brought into process? you you know fairly late. It was already weather tied. Okay. Is there any additional correspondences come in later? No.

Okay. Now moves to our public testimony. The pertinent criteria being considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheet on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in your comprehensive plan or municipal court. which is the person testifying believes the fact that the decision value is an issue accompanied by statements or evidence vision to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on an issue prior to the conclusion of the initial evidence hearing. Any participant may request an opportunity to present the additional testimony arguments or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such request by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for provision written testimony arguments or evidence. Persons who testify should first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address and of appearing in a representative capacity identified when they

your critique presentation by just Good evening chair and members of the planning commission, Mr. St. Dennis and Mr. St. Clair. I'm Sally Newman. This is my husband Ricken. Our mailing address is 5200 Southwest Barnes Road, Portland, Oregon 7221. Our address here, Ken Beach, is 239 East Monroe. We appreciate the planning commission's review of our land use appeal in the matter of the accessory structure located at 231 East Road. We understand this is only the second land use appeal heard before the planning commission this year. We're grateful to have a process to voice our concerns. Our appeal based on the structures non-compliance with section 17.72.03081 03081 and 17.7203084 of the Canich Municipal Code which states that structures or buildings do not have a total area of more than 120 square ft and structures or buildings are located in such a way as to not be detrimental to a budding property and shall not obstruct views from adjacent buildings. The structure is 20% larger than what is permitted at 17.7203A one.

And let me say that neither Riven or I are particularly thrilled to be here contesting the actions of our neighbor. But we feel strongly enough that we had to take action. For the past three months, we have faced the prospect of losing something very valuable to us. Our view, our primary object tonight will be to address the criteria stated in A4. We became aware of the accessory structure late this summer when Rick drove out to Canon Beach to maintain our lawn. Michael Shelon met Rick in the front yard and asked Rick if he had noticed the structure in the backyard. Rick replied, "You mean the monstrosity that blocks our out the sun?" Clearly, Rick had noticed and was upset by the addition. Over the past several months, we contacted the community development department in Canon Beach to determine whether the neighbors had secured a permit to erect the structure. We discovered that there was no permit. We breathed a sigh of partial relief when the city went out to inspect the project and impose a stop work order. We were heartened to learn there was a way to voice our concern and displeasure through the appeal process. We've embarked on a costly and timeconsuming appeal to say to save something worth fighting for. For background, we purchased our home in October of 2022. When we purchased the home, we savored the privacy and views afforded from our deck and small but love lung backyard. We were happy with our choice to invest in the Canon Beach community. However, things changed dramatically this summer when our neighbors erected a large shed in their backyard. Before the structure was there, we could sit on our back deck and watch the birds fly past in the sky.

Now we stare at a building. As you will see, we have an open concept home with fulllength windows across the entire back wall. We can't escape the view of the shed from inside the house, especially in our living room because it is a prominent feature outside the window. From the moment we open the front door to enter the house, we can see the shed at the end of the main room. The imposing structure stands almost 12 feet tall, 5 feet from our fence line, 12 diagonal feet from our deck, and its footprint measures 1404 square ft. Though we appreciate our neighbors, we're disappointed by their actions. to create temporary office space during short summer stays. They've permanently sacrificed our view. With small lots under 5,000 square ft, all neighbors must be mindful of the visual impact that their choices have on each other. In his written presentation, Mr. Shelton seems unwilling to acknowledge the harm the structure has imposed on our view. Rather than acknowledge the harm, he has taken pains to redirect your attention to the placement of our furniture in the direction of a person's gaze when seated on the deck or in the living room. We find that argument disingenuous. The building obstructs our view as our slideshow clearly illustrates. I can assure you that we never would have considered purchasing 239 East Monroe had this building been part of the equation three years ago. In our opinion, this structure has reduced the appeal and value of our property. Therefore, we request removal of the shed altogether. Like to turn this over to my husband,

Rick, who will show you visually what we're facing. Thank you for considering our appeal. Thank you. Um, Chair Newton, about how much time do we have? I just want to be mindful time. Uh, your time. We're not going to run your time.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well, just to give you some context for those of you who have not had a chance to drive by the property, this is the front of our home at 239 East. As we progress, as Sally said, our concern, there really two issues in the code that drew our attention. One had to do with the size. The reality is we can't affect that. That's that's a you thing, not an us thing. Um, however, the structures are building located in a way not to obstruct the view from adjacent buildings. That's really where the hard concern rests. The fact that it's 20% larger, again, can't address that. Um, hopefully the the photos that follow will indicate the impact that this structure has had. Um, this what you're looking at here is a view from our deck the behind at the back of the house looking west and this is before the structure went up. Now, if you place yourself on the blue towel on the right hand chair, this is the current room. So, it it becomes present no matter where we're sitting on the deck. really throughout the backyard. So now as we begin to step back from the chairs where we were just sitting, we step into the house. We're about 3 ft away from the chairs. You see that it's again quite present. Again, stepping further, as Sally alluded to, it's it's an open concept house. Now we're going deeper into our living room. And again, it's defining the view that we have. Again,

just reinforcing the point S made that you can't not see this. And then as we step back, we're now through the dining area and we're really kind of standing right next to our kitchen. And again, there is the the view that we get we're greeted with as soon as we enter the house. If we go back outside now, I'm standing below our deck and I'm almost 6'4. The deck is 6 feet. Uh you're getting a sense for how imposing that facility is. as we look over the fence. [Music] And again, it's reinforcing just how constricted this view is as a result of this shed. The reality is we're not concerned with the fact that it's inconsistent with the general motif of the property. That's that's not our issue. That's more of a you thing than an us thing. Um it is a As I said, defining the view. If we leave the first floor and we go up to the second floor of the house. Now, as we look to the west again, there is the uh structure. What you're looking at here is the uh the structure rests on six temporary foots. And I think that's important in in several regards. the fact that it's temporary. Um,

pure and beam.

Yeah, it's a pure and beam home. Um, I can't I can't recognize the wiring that's going into the house. I assume it's 110. Um, could be 220. I I don't know that that's really not an issue. But you can see it's also being plumbed. Um, this the structure is within the 5 ft setback. Um, and we'll we'll address the five foot set back in a second. You notice that uh it is set as close to our property line as pos or not a proper line. I'm sorry to step back as is possible. Now there has been suggestion that well maybe one mitigating approach would be for us to erect some sort of ultimate eye trusts to block our view of the building. Um the challenge with that logic though is now it takes something that was 12 feet away and now it puts it right in our backyard. So our our view knowledge is even more constricted and it begs the question why is it our responsibility to mitigate the impact somebody else's actions have had if it seems um seems unjust. Um secondly you notice the papers on the ground to my immediate left the very left hand side of this a picture is our deck. Below the deck is the sole pearl space to get into the plumbing and and all that underneath the house to presume that we would somehow pull those pavers up in order to create some sort of structure

hedge

hedge would then eliminate our ability to access the crawl space under our house and that's not rationing. Um in addition the suggestion well again put in trellis raise a hedge of some sort would take years that edge to mature so we're no longer sitting structure so it's not really a a rational solution to a pretty significant problem and as I said before is 12t from the edge of our deck um and these points here just reiterating what I just said So there we have it. Thank you. Do you have questions for us or is the question we come later? I had a question. I might have missed you. No. At one time I thought I heard you to say it is as close the structure is as close as it can legally be to your property. And then another time I thought heard you to say it is within it is within.

Yeah, I misspoke. It's not abuing our It's not immediately abuing our property. It's within the 5T setback. But that structure is 12 ft diagonally from our deck. If you measure the corner of the building to the corner of our deck, it's 12 ft. I'm not sure I understand the question behind the question. Well, in in my mind there, and again, this turn anybody around. I've been sitting there for seven years and I can turn it around with language and sort of make sure there's a setback. Mhm.

Your structure is your perception is it is either at that set it's 5t from the fence. That's correct.

Yeah. So it's there's a more fundamental question to take your point and just take it one step further. So when this was placed, it was intentionally placed so it honored the setback. So therefore, whomever placed it had to be aware there's a 5-ft constriction. So therefore, presuming that they're not aware of it is disingenuous, which means they actually were aware of code. So therefore stating that I'm ignorant of the code, it doesn't wash. Clearly there was awareness of what the code restrictions were.

Well, I think they abided by the restrictions just in the secret permit. Yeah. My question was more around the word within. I misspoke. No, that's no. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Anybody? Anyone? Okay. Is that the that's extended? Um yeah, I I would like to preserve the right I would imagine there's a referral here. You have a you have that as part of Yeah, I'll come back and we'll address Can I just ask I have a quick question. How many how many planning commissioners is a quorum?

We have a point tonight. Would it be for Thank you.

And I'm assuming that that is the only presentation by you as the correct. Yes. Uh are there presentations by proponents of this? No, I I mean just what I submitted previously. So I'm going to share you mean like back in the presentation or I'm sorry. Um so it's a little different presentation. It's a little different format. Usually we have a an Apple and a pro. This would mean you were in favor of of this. No. I wanted to make sure I was clear. There's only so many.

Okay. So this would be other people who were here in favor of this. No one online. Okay. We'll move to opponents which I'm presuming which you are opponent. Correct. Good evening. Good evening everyone. I'm Michael Shelton. I'm a homeowner home owner and applicant at 231 East Window Street. My current address is 2 Interlock Avenue, apartment B 1 in Atlanta, Georgia. That's a few months ago. My wife Tracy and I purchased RPM Beach Home in 2009 with the intent of becoming our primary residence. As background, I've spent more than 30 years managing real estate engineering and construction projects for both corporate and government clients. I'm involved with the Urban Land Institute, Project Management Institute, and other professional um and environmental organizations within my industry. I share this only to underscore my commitment both personal and professional to comply fully developable regulations to the best of my ability. Before I begin though, I'd like to express my gratitude planning department. Their role hand's character and sense of community is vital. Tracy and I are fully in support of that mission. Um, I imagine that most of us at one time or another have made improvements to our province. If it's replacing a fence, adding a deck, or building a structure like an ADU, a garage, or a shed, it's very natural that we want to adapt our spaces to to work for us and our evolving needs. Our home was built by a local artist in 1977. Every window, door, and finished surface came from salvageable materials. It had a lot of perkiness and art and and uh

character to it that we appreciated and love. We've made wonderful memories here over the last 16 years, but now that we're empty nesters, my son's in college, we've been finally making the work to to make our this our primary best. Our 1266qt home has zero closets, no office, and minimal private space. It's charming as a vacation home, but it simply simply isn't liveable as our full-time residence, which is our plan. Over the past decade, we've considered every viable option from interior remodels to extending our to expanding our footprint to even a brand new home on that on that lot. We re even advise to remove the uh three significant situs spruces in the yard to create more buildable area. However, none of those worked for us. We liked our home. So, we landed on the least impactful option that met our needs. This 144t shed designed to tie the existing structure shed roof line. It would give us the additional storage we wanted, a space for my wife to do her art. It preserve our mature trees that mean something to us. and it would only increase our floor area ratio to about 41%. When we planned the shed, I relied on CBMC 17.72.30. I was aware of it. Yes. And I also leveraged the city's own web page which got frequently asked questions which I referenced. There were two things I understood. One was no building permit was required for structures under 200 square ft. No building permit was required for under 200 ft. So that is my my operative new um under the setback yard requirements on under the FAQ exception six allows accessory buildings to occupy 50% of the rear yard based on our on the width that's 375 ft as long as they met the other criteria like setbacks and heights. So, our shed at

144 square ft, less than 12 ft tall, and with setbacks in line of ordinances, we met the code. On that basis, I understood that I didn't need a building permit. So, I proceeded with the project. What that really means is I was unaware of Peach's type two development per, you know, I I missed. In fact, the city raised questions on our shed. I submitted the full building permit on August 18th and that's when I was informed that building permit wasn't required or what I really needed was the type two dollar permit. I was informed of that September 8th and that very day I submitted it because of because of the work that I had done and the planning and just the setbacks and you know it was it was very straightforward for me to fill out that one page sheet and the type two. So I submitted it. Um once I was aware of the requirement, it was it was ready. I submitted it from there. The city evaluated our application and we received approval on September 17th. Um I am going to go off track there for a bit on the um I just want to from my perspective the u on August 11th is when Mr. Butler came by to to visit my um space. At that time I wasn't aware of the stop work order. you know, he came by. I said, "Hey, you heard about this?" I immediately invited him in the backyard. I was like, "Hey, I want to be good with the city." You know, there was no intent. He was like, "Are you sure I can go in the backyard?" I'm like, "Absolutely, come." I took him on my tour. I tried to answer all his questions. He said in my notes from the day, he asked out the size. I gave it to him. He asked out the height. It's just it's about 11'4 in. He asked about the set pass. It was then he said, "Somebody may come by the city as early this this tomorrow, next day, the the the 12th." That's immediately when I went and tried to meet with the city and try to rectify whatever problems there might be. There are the appeal asserts that RS shed exceeds

the 120 square foot structure within subsection A1, but that even only applies to accessory structures that do not qualify as buildings under exception six. Our shed is a building. It's got the roof walls and the enclosing property within it. and at 144 square ft, our accessory shed is compliant. Uh the appeal also raises the obstruction of views under subsection A4. However, municipal code doesn't establish a general right to a view across a a neighbor's yard, especially in an R2 neighbor community. Rather, my understanding of the ordinances is that it seeks to limit impact to significant use of potions, mountains, bays, or other similar features from adjacent buildings. The the blocking view across our yard is not a nuisance, nor does it negatively affect the appellent's property. Finally, the appellants photos, they they show prior sidelines of another neighbor's house on Jackson Street that's to the south of the line, not an open ocean or mountain. And if you look at the appellence photos as well, you can still see some of the Jackson Street roof line above our shed's roof line. No protected deed has been removed by the placement of this shed. With the two with the two main points of trust, I feel compelled to refute some of their other claims of their appeals in the letters they distributed to our neighbors. As mentioned earlier, I have a personal and professional obligation to follow all regulations and requirements. I feel it must correct the record to protect my professional integrity from my history. The appel claims you skirted the permitting and the construction. And in fact, I've personally discussed our shed, our landscaping with multiple neighbors over the years, and I mean the case with the landscaping as well. My convers my recollection of the conversation when I ran that day was a little bit different. I did approach him. He didn't call it monstrosity at the time. He did say from my

recollection, what shed, you know, and then I remember was like, oh, this could be a problem, this could be not. Um, I did engage him one more time to discuss the shed and just the conversation wasn't anything happened at that point. I assumed it was, you know, that was damaged at that point already and that's why we're here. Um, also on the where I wasn't spurring or squirting or sneaking, we opened the stage materials on our lawn. My my wife and son and I were doing the work that uh in our primary and proudly discussed the shed in the project, but any neighbors stopped by. We didn't we didn't do anything to hide. When the city official came, I invited them into the backyard to see the shed and I answered all their questions. I immediately ceased construction that day and I emailed the city to let them know that. And later I applied for the correct permit. The type two development permit once I understood the requirement. At no time at no time was there an attempt on my part to avoid city oversight. I misunderstood that I didn't need a building permit the type two that I wasn't aware of. I strongly oppose the suggestions that I was scured. Our actions have demonstrated good faith, transparency, and regulatory compliance. The opponent warns that allowing our shed sets dangerous precedence for non-compliance. On the contrary, I think the danger precedence is allowing neighbors to veto any compliant accessory someone's yard simply because they don't like the look and feel it interferes with review. Ordinances were clarified predictably and fair without turning every complaint into a neighbor by neighbor referendum on complying hipsters in your backyard. In summary, there's three points. The appellent's appeal is based on the misreview of some of the city ordinances. Development permit 25-23 was thoroughly reviewed and correctly decided that our shed shed meets the applicable requirements. And three, removal of our accessory shed would have a larger detrimental effect on our use of our property than the effect on the appellent's desire for un an

unobstructed view across our yard. A view that I don't feel that you're entitled to. For these reasons, I respectfully request that we deny the delivery of firm permit 25-23 in its entirety. I want to thank the planning department, everyone here for their careful consideration of your service to Cam Beach. I know these matters are sometimes contentious, but they're essential to preserving beach's integrity and character. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with everyone tonight, and I'm glad to be answering questions. So, is this literally the only space you could approach? Are there other locations in the backyard?

No. I mean, I I looked at everything.

Not smaller. I go smaller. just it's the uh the the location of the trees is kind of unfortunate to be frank. I mean, I mean, on that photo, there's this there's a five precas in the backyard, right? There's one at the southwest corner that's smaller. There's two significant ones right in the middle. Right. If as I was going and repositioning it, the I could move it north. Maybe even more and put it closer. I try to put it in the least obstructed area, which is, you know, which that's southeast corner, right? and just trying to take advantage of some I that's the best location for it.

I didn't ask for the best. I asked is there another space you could put for instance a 95 cent shed. Well, if we changed the size, I don't think it'd really meet the needs. But but yeah, I could put smaller shed someplace. You know, we I understood that I could go with 200 square ft. I was not trying to maximize anything, right? I was literally just going, what's the right shed for this space that needs us? That was the line you were going toward when you built the shared was the 200 ft and coming in.

My understanding because again, ignorance on type two. I was like, okay, the max is 200. And I and I looked like I don't need that. And I went back and forth. I looked at a I looked at a a smaller shed and I naturally ended 144 based on the way I thought it is for arts and storage that that I don't have inside of not best but that's that's the only location that I sh

you said you did a lot of the workers and your family family and and my um parents for what they want. I heard the the um Newtons to say there was electric and plumbing. I've got a background in engineering construction and I ran the power myself and then my power electric for that.

No. And I need to go back and get that. That's correct. Yeah. I mean, I went full stop. Well, and on the very day that I heard about it, I submitted that and so there is a permit request with the class of county and they sed the outcome of this development as well.

I used a temporary water line because I wanted putting the sink in there so my wife can wash her there's no back there's no drain. I ran a water line to it to see if I could put a sink in there so she could wash her paint and it gone in. It's a it's a PEX tubing so I can take it out. It's just to my tap. It was a test and I'm comfortable taking that out if that's the right thing. One of the things we do when the record is open is allow anybody the opportunity to address the sort of thinking that we have. And I'm not sure even how applicable this would be, but you said you didn't know you needed a permit for building the structure, but the bar on the electrical is hard for me. I can I can get that based on. But the bar on the electrical probably Yeah, I mean that was just Yeah, that was a mistake. It was just being getting ahead of it trying to wire stuff in. Yeah.

Any other questions? Okay, fine. Thank you. Are there any are there like Okay. Is there staff anything? Yeah. Would theelent like to come forward? Yes. Thank you. just hearing you in the back. Oh, thank you.

Want to make sure your mind is still now. Okay. Okay. Is it up? It is. Okay. Um One of the comments that Michael made a second ago had to do with the view from our property to the the property that is southwest and adjacent. Right. This is what he's referring to.

Yeah. Our house has got the pin drop on it. His house is 231. the um Yeah, my cursor is not that good. Um the the shed is right here where my cursor is. You guys see that? Okay. The property he's alluding to is 232 back here. So, it's the difference between having something that's 12 ft away as opposed to, I don't know, 120 ft away. It's it's significant. So, I think He's talking about the neighbor on the Yeah, they see it

on his rear on Mr. Shelton's back of his property. He's saying we have a view of that, too. Also in in the appellet I'm sorry in the applicants um documentation that he submitted in quoting here he said he's they placed it in a position that the appellets our existing shrubs and Japanese maple would soften the visual limit. Okay. So what he's saying there is that the facility, the shed was placed in that location deliberately. To your point earlier, there wasn't really a serious explanation or exploration of some other place. Um the softening of the visual impact is acknowledging that the structure has a negative impact on our view. Otherwise, it wouldn't need to be softened. and further if he's concerned about softening the impact this structure is having your question which are here's the property it does not show a large sitka spruce here which I think is probably 3 ft in diameter um nor a sitka spruce over here but to your point there's ample space the critical difference here is whose line of sight is being affected It was a conscious choice to put the shed here as opposed to in here where it could have a direct line of sight from there.

Also, our hedge is 6 feet tall. Our fence is 6 feet tall. Our maple is a is not a big maple. It's a, you know, small maple. It's not like anything hides this structure even. There's no way to hide it. It's It's 12 ft from our back windows. I think it's

Yeah, I think it's important to say this hasn't simply obstructed our view, degraded our view. It has defined our view. uh to suggest that this was the least impactful alternative uh I think is disingenuous to suggest that we are not not in title two I think that's a presumptuous not title view

well yeah I I just um I'm not sure where one comes off being able to say well you're not entitled to this we have the right to obstruct um which is the case. Um quite frankly, I mean to your earlier question about where to place it, uh we we wouldn't wish this on any you know just uh it's just inappropriate. So we we don't want it to move forward to Webster's property line. The Webster is a far to the immediate west here where the property line is identified. Websters are to the immediate west. We wouldn't want them to have to suffer this as as well.

Our suggestion is they remodel their home because um you know if you need if you need that space then put it inside the home where it doesn't impact anybody's doesn't obscure anybody's view and you know to to us this is a this is a selfserving request. They're there maybe six to eight weeks out of the summer and per year and we're gonna have to live with this permanently. It's a it's a serious imposition on us. Thank you.

Any any other questions? Tell us that you like us to feel online. No. Okay. Thank you very much. The way the format is the way the format is set up. Okay. So, we'll close the record and move to our deliberation. Um, it's a difficult difficult.

Yeah. Yeah, it's a very difficult position to be put into a dispute between neighbors who, you know, um are going to be affected by our decision wrong time. But the way I and I hate being there, the way I looked at it was um going back to the code and restrictions on accessory structures, it was 120 square ft. I acknowledge that our FAQ says something different, but that FAQ was written 20 years ago when our our law covers was 40%. It's old. It's a mistake. I mean, we could argue that perhaps um the applicant in this case um had a right regular on that, but I'm not sure he did based on the um testimony we had. And the fact of the matter is, you know, our code is clear. There is a conflict and the conflict um resolution structure is um take the most restrictive interpretation of code on the applicant and I think that would be going back 20 square ft. I'm glad you pointed out where that language goes. I actually heard that where those facts were first. Um it is the name is is it technically it's already what is what's in the city

and as a professional building industry that should be I would hope that going back and complying with the rules on structures might create a situation where um the neighbors can work together to find a solution that works for everybody. But right and my personal opinion is we should support the

yeah and I would also point out the argument over the FAQ and building versus structure 17720 clearly says it's a free structure for building this applies to buildings. I also am concerned about the disregard for the fact that there is a very clear condition or a development permit for a structure or building located in such a way as not to be detrimental to a budding property and not to obstruct views. It doesn't say anything about significant use. It doesn't say this is a balancing act. It means that this is a discretionary use and one of the conditions is that it does not obstruct use for the neighboring adjacent buildings.

Anybody else like to weigh in a motion? Yeah, I approve the appeal. There a second. Any further discussion? Commissioner Wade. Yes. Commissioner Matus. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Bates. Yes. Chair.

Yes. Appeal is Thank you. All right. Do you believe that you wanted I didn't know if you wanted us to leave or not.

I'm sorry. Is that the end of the taste? Yeah, unless you want to hang on the tree.

All right, we'll move on to the free report. Uh other you want to pull it up. We have a total of 10 removed forest and two question. [Music] I'm gonna bring this up I think when we're all here at the next but I think it's really important to talk about what a tenative approval is and how we navigate that. Okay.

Did we run into a problem last summer? We did one over here and that's my issue. I apologize for that but we do have um we need to make sure we understand what it is to tenatively improve. Let me off my apolog I know I've done this before but I was walking out the garage come down here with grandson Sarah So since I was going against my particip issue of impulse switching

it's it's for me and again we'll talk about it when the full body is here. I think it's very important that if the intent is to make sure that the language of our decision is incorporated into the final, it should be a meeting and a vote focused on finance, not on changing our vote. and that that will compromise our ability to accept a tenative uh motion

if we don't have confidence that we're going to stand by what we voted for. It really is about making sure that the findings the intention of that initially was to make sure that the priming represent what we communicated uh as I agree. I agree. So, you know what I'm saying that we'll come back to that. I think it's important. Is there anything else I would like to talk about? No. Do we have any updates on the search for Bruce for Bruce? Yeah, Bruce. Um, we have interviews. Oh, great.

How's the process been working for that position? Um I have two department heads that are with finance and dairy will be involved with the interviews and then ultimately I'll make final decision. All right. I got to say was so yeah I miss him already. Yeah,

we're sure Robert Mes because I, you know, I didn't know the same guy and I really feel like we need something recognizing that he took over in a difficult situation and I thought both he and Robert and the entire staff did a great job of repairing some relationships that were broken and I I do appreciate everything you guys have done um in planning. So I I just want the secret of this man. I want him to know I appreciate

Yeah. I was here last meeting. It's kind of a contentious one. So we really had a lot of other things, but I I feel like we missed an opportunity there. I think it's important in as contentious a world as we're in right now and I know you guys are on the front line with the work you guys. It's probably hard to do that retrospect that we'll see, but certainly we're sitting here with you now. Appreciate what you're doing. Will you let Bruce or brother or in anytime we're appreciating you having you hold down the court by yourself? Thank you.

Okay. Anything else for the good of the we are turning