Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call the January 12th, 2026 meeting of the town of Cicero zoning board of appeals to order. Miss Robinson, please call the role. Here. Mr. Vic, here. Mr. Stanton here.

Please take note of the fire exits located in the front and the rear of this room. At this time, please silence all cell phones and pagers. Tonight's meeting is being livereamed on YouTube and is also being recorded. At this time, please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag, the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, this being our first meeting of the year. At this time, I would like to open our organizational meeting. We are combining this meeting with our regular meeting as a separate meeting is not warranted. Our first item is the appointment of zoning board of appeals clerk for 2026. Um before I get into that, we have three out of five members tonight. So, please remember um in order to actually have a quorum, it's three out of five, half Sorry, all three of us have to vote in the affirmative. So, back to zoning board of appeals clerk for 2026. I'd like to make a motion that we reappoint Miss Marie Robersonson to the position of zoning board of appeals clerk. Miss Robersonson has been working for the past three years with four years with us and has done a great job at recording and publishing our minutes. Do I have a second?

I'll second the motion. Okay. Um, I will call the role on this one. Mr. Rabia, yes to the motion. Mr. Beck, yes to the motion. And yes to the motion myself. Congratulations. You're stuck with us for another year. Second is appointment of zoning board of appeals attorney for 2026. I would like to make a motion that we appoint Terry J. Kerwan Jr. chair of Cerwin Law Firm PC to the position of zoning board of appeals attorney for 2026. Uh Mr. Cerwin has been working with our board almost as long as I have been a member and has been a valuable adviser to us. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Robersonson, please call the role.

Okay. Mr. Rob, yes motion. Mr. Bick, yes to the motion. Mr. Stanton,

yes to the motion. Congratulations. You're stuck with us too for another year. Uh just a reminder on continuing education requirements for 2025. Uh as board members, we are required to have four continuing education hours per year. Please make sure you document your hours for 2025 and provide them to both myself and our town clerk, Tracy Castleman by the end of January. I do have the discretion to determine what constitutes training. So please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also remember that you're entitled to two hours of training time for participating in any training sessions that we have internally uh for the following year. Please be on the lookout for notices regarding any training offered through the town. If the board has a month with no applications, we may elect to hold a live trading session. Please also note that due to his election to the town board, Christopher Daniel will no longer be an ad hoc member of this board. Additionally, Christian Suarez has tended his resignation from the position of ad hoc. So, we have two open ad hoc positions. If anyone is aware of qualified individuals, please bring them to my attention. Lastly, the town board has deferred the appointment appointment of members who terms have expired, which is one of the reasons why we're down to three people tonight. And our organizational meeting is now closed. Has everyone read the minutes of the December 1st, 2025 meeting?

Nope. Any corrections? No. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve the December 2025 meeting minutes. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Robersonson, when you're ready, Mr. Robia? Yes. The motion. Mr. Beck. Yes to the motion. Mr. Stan. Yes to the motion. The Cisero Town Board acknowledges the importance of full public participation at all public meetings. And therefore, we urge all who wish to address those in attendance to please come to the microphone located in the front of the room. At this time, I will make a motion that all actions taken tonight are type two actions and have a negative impact that is no impact on the environment unless otherwise indicated. Do I have a second? I'll second the motion.

Okay. When you're ready, Mr. Roberson. Mr. Robian. Yes. To the motion. Mr. Bick. Yes to the motion, Mr. Stanton. Yes to the motion.

We have proof that all items on tonight's agenda have been advertised as directed by law. I will briefly review the process for tonight's meeting for the benefit of those present that have never been before the zoning board of appeals. Each applicant will have an opportunity to describe their project. The board will then ask questions about the project. I will then open a public hearing where people will be able to speak for or against the proposed variance. The applicant will then be given the opportunity to respond to public input and provide additional information. Board members will be allowed to ask follow-on questions. The board will then openly discuss the five factors that contribute to the final decision. Please note that this board does not have a pre-agenda meeting, so there is no prior decision discussion of cases outside of this meeting. And then finally, a motion will be made either approving or denying the requested variance is seconded and voted upon. Getting to our individual cases, our first case tonight is a continuation from our December 1st meeting last year for a property on 6745 Route 31. The owner is Kos Jr. and the applicant is John PR Jr. Just as background for everyone, we had up we had requested an updated survey and also asked some questions related how the proposed sign area was calculated. It's my understanding that upon receipt of the revised survey, it was determined that variance is not required. Uh therefore the thank you. Uh therefore I am hereby closing the public hearing as there is no case. Second case tonight is a continuation from our December 1st and November 3rd meetings for a property on 7021 Van Antanorp Drive. The owner and applicant are James and Don Vllo. Uh this is a continuation of our November 3rd, 2025th

meeting. Also, we did leave the public hearing open. Uh at our December 1st meeting, we asked the applicant to look at reducing the requested variance by increasing their proposed sideyard setback. The applicant has increased the proposed sideyard setback from.92 feet to 3.92 feet as shown in the revised application. Uh we'll get those plans up there so you can see the difference. This has reduced the overall footprint of the addition and has resulted in a decrease in proposed coverage from 27.6% to 21.2%. Um, if you want to I know I you know I kind of Is it this already?

I think it's 27 27.2. I must that's why I apologize. I misread that. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I got it. Are we We're not capturing his voice, are we? Sorry. No worries. It's not your fault. That's my fault. Is it on? It's on. It's on. Do you want me to go right ahead? Walk us walk us through what you did.

Yeah. So, we we uh we we pushed back the um the addition and created one cleaner rectangle off of the home. So, we lost that step and and a little more uh detail. Uh but that allowed us to maintain the sideyard um at 3.92. So, uh, you know, another 3 ft off of the property line. Um, we're in line with that stair, which was kind of you like the what we were mainly [clears throat] talking about. And then up on the second floor of the deck, we kind of put a small little uh we kind of enclosed some of the second floor deck area that we were adding there um to create a little more of a sitting spot. Uh we reoriented some things on the inside and were able to uh incorporate a couple more closets a little a little further inland uh in the house um in the footprint that already exists. and um they they feel comfortable with the the this uh layout and um hopefully um the the board does as well and and thinks the improvements we're making uh by pulling away from from the line uh will be uh sufficient. Um we definitely still acknowledge the small variance. Um it would be tough for us to pull another two feet in there. Um, and again, we're really trying to keep keep in balance uh with kind of everything going on uh all around us, too. Um, we think it's in harmony with the neighborhood. Um, we also think that uh is isn't uh really uh a large environmental impact. Um and then concurrently with this project, the Vllos um are are exploring and and working on their seaw wall as well and that improvement. Um

Steve, would you mind going to the original just so we can get a glimpse of what changed? And thanks for working the AV tonight. I appreciate it. Oh, thank you. Okay. So, we went from we went from the addition that bumped out and then Steve, can you kick back to the revised, please? Thank you. Two screens here. And now we don't. So, now it's in line with the stairs as you said and it's tucked behind. Um,

it's a small shed tucked behind that small shed there, too. Mhm. I think it looks pretty good. What other questions? Any questions? I appreciate the the thought around updating the design. I think it helps a lot. Yeah. No, a lot. I I want to acknowledge that we definitely appreciate you and your Oh, absolutely. going back to take a look at this.

Thank you for for working with us on this. Absolutely. Great. All right. So, because we because we left the public hearing open uh at this time, I will continue the public hearing. Uh just a reminder that we have record from the past two meetings of any other um objections that were made. So, what I would ask is that whatever's done tonight, if uh it's either for or against, that it be new and and not a rehash of what we did before. So, at this time, would anyone speak for this?

And if and I know we've seen you here at the last two meetings, but if you could give us your name and where you live, it'd be great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. But this says opposition. I asked if anyone would speak for this. So, you're not speaking for this? No, I'm not. Okay. So, we're moving on to Would anyone speak against this? Don't go away. You're the only person here besides us. So, I apologize. Come on. Yeah.

Good evening. My name is Eric Veralt. I live at 6995 Lakeshore Road, Cisco. I'm here to oppose a variance request for 7021 Van Drive. Um, you know, I'm more than that. I'm a business owner. I'm a youth hockey AAA coach. I am a husband. I'm a father. On weekends, I drive nutrition equipment manager for my son. So, this is I'm uh this has been consuming a lot of my time getting ready for this. Um as discussed before, this is failing on all five criteria for the zoning board. Unnecessary art. Um the architect talked about we talked about moving the bathroom. There's the garage across the street with plenty of space. There's nothing unique about this property as far as slope, soil, you know, shape. Uh, this is obviously self-created. When they purchased the property, they knew what the variance were and what the survey was. Um, you know, the required combined setback is 15 ft. Now, we're going to go down to 9 ft, which is a 33% change there. Um, which makes it out of compliance. And then as far as neighborhood character character and liability, you know, I think this is um you know, my family uses the deep lake the deed lake right regularly summer and winter. We value open comfortable access to year- round living. I've seen places like the Outer Banks in Myrtle Beach where houses are packed together. You know, it's fine for short-term rental, but not for a lifetime. You know, the town's own waterfront revitalization program emphasize preserving open views and shared access. This variant goes against all that. You know, as a business owner, I've come I didn't know anything about this. I spent about 25 hours getting ready. Um I

came prepared and conscious of you guys' time, provided you accurate information. Um the lack of transparency is just disappointing and disheartening honestly. You know they talk about maintaining the lake rights in the initial portion talking about me who've been doing this for last 20 years. When I had my deed in my hand I was told this could be anyone's who says things like that. Now the second meeting was like almost uh like a show whose line is it anyway? It's a public right away. Everybody can use it. Stuff was just made up. So honestly, the certain what what doesn't show there is the survey fails to show you guys. So there's the shed. Behind the shed there's a 50ft tree. There's a burm with boulders, bushes. To the left we have the driveway. There's a covered porch, a stone column. There's a retaining wall and a pave um patio. In front of the shed, there's a water pump. You know, the architect stated that anyone with no access shouldn't use it, and that's in you guys's note. And he said that the Vllos could take their dock off the other side. Well, there's a heat pump on that side. They only have five feet of space, and this project is simply not physible. I'm assuming they're going to have to dig out and bring some machinery back there. Um, you know, simply isn't feasible without infringing on our rights. And if they do infringe on our rights, well, we'll let you, the town, apply the trespassing local and state laws. So, I had my lawyer look it up. They do not have lake rights. The letter is in there. And you know, if you guys

greenlight this project, which probably not going to happen, then are you guys going to set a precedent for nothing? So, to address a couple things, by law, the Zoey Board of Appeals does not establish precedent. Every individual case has to be considered on its own merits. So, I'm willing to tell you that right now. Um, back to your piece about unnecessary hardship. Um, were you aware of the revised plan when you when you wrote this? So that I'm asking because you mentioned moving interior elements around which it looks like the applicant is done at this point.

Yeah, they talked about putting the closet on the other side and they needed the bathroom to be a certain way so it was lined up with the other one because they're easier. So it's not anymore. So, I did pro I did do a foil request late last week and this was not in there. We just got this at the end of last week. Okay. I did not see this. Okay.

Does this change any of your responses? Okay. Thank you very much, Terry. Have you read this note from So at this time I will close the public hearing. Thanks. Go ahead. Have you read this note from the attorney? What what I just read? What's it say? I mean [clears throat] they don't have the they don't have rights to that 20 foot strip that uh has been discussed. Trying to think back to last meeting. Was that is that consistent with what

that's consistent with what we I believe what we finally came to was that um you know language may change over time but this is called right of way and um that's not an access easement. It's whether right of way meant it's attached to a couple different properties and it's those properties it's it's not a it's not an access easement. So I I think this I think this letter confirms that. So if they go forward, they have to be careful on how they're going to do construction.

Yes. So if they go forward, they'll have to be careful on how they do construction. And I mean with with everything with regular law, you can't cross somebody else's property to build something. So correct. The the assumption here is that there's going to be a way figured out to be able to build this without going outside of the property lines. And I think we've heard here that um there'll be some trespassing claims made if they do go outside. Refresh my memory. Did the property owner think they had access from last meeting? I I can't recall we were talking. Um the last two meetings, yes, there wasn't, but there was an assertion made. So I thought

I think we've pretty much established that's not correct. That's cleared now. This is clear. The only the only rights they have are for um the water pump and the subsequent line that's attached to it. That's the only reference in the deed that they have.

You want to talk through? I'd like I'd like to talk this out a little bit because all three of us would have to vote in the affirmative if this is going to go. So, I mean our first well unnecessary hardship I guess is the first thing that's what which do we want to which letter do we want to talk about? I guess that's the what do we want to talk about the first? Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean, the attorneys, like Terry said, the attorney letter is the attorney letter, right? How do you guys feel about the unnecessary hardship?

I I mean, I think we talked about some paths to minimize the amount of the variance from last time, right? So that's I think we accomplished, you know. Yes. Where we went from 0.92 to nearly four, right? Yes. And I the one thing that's in my mind for consideration right now is that this is a 50-ft lot where we'd typically be looking at 75. Um so these these lots do have a constraint placed on them that makes it difficult to expand without a variance.

Yeah. I think our goal was to have the applicant work with us, which I think they've done, and minimize the amount of the variance required, right? Yeah. Yeah. Right. What about the uniqueness of the property? They don't have access to question. Oh. [clears throat] So th this is where I would this is where I would jump in and say that 50 foot width makes and while it's not unique to multiple properties

again the 50 [clears throat] foot places a constraint on the property that is somewhat unique when you look at our code. Yeah. And I think he supposedly has the deeds that show right away next to it makes it somewhat unique as well, right? Where you know we've determined that the owner of this project doesn't have access to it, right? So that's going to add a level of concern, right? Yes. Concern and complexity, I suspect. But that's that's for that's for them to figure it out, right? Yeah. That's that's Steve's job. You're talking about the 20 foot strip access to it. Yes. To construct. Yeah.

On [clears throat] that note, there's this letter, the January 9th letter from Manuso references deeds, but there's nothing attached. So, you do. Okay. Terry, I know you've been asked, you've been wanting to see those for a while. So, if you want to, if you want to take some time to take a look at that, we can. I mean, I Thank you. Thank you. Saying I just like to see it. Okay. Um, not self-created. This is usually the last factor that we look at. Um, we we always uh

with the exception of one with the exception of one case in the 15 years I've been here, they've all been selfating. Um, that I I would just note that that's not necessarily a reason to deny the variance and it is entirely self-created. So, I I would I would actually agree with that one. Uh minimum modification. These all these all somewhat interrelate, but I'd like to get your thoughts on those. I think a lot of this goes back to the 50 foot lot scenario and the ability of someone to improve their property under that level of complication that's 20 foot

I think you said earlier there's no not necessarily any precedent right I mean every every case is heard as lake right we've heard similar things around the lake for 25 years right yes not exact but similar What are your thoughts on that? What are my thoughts on that? I I mean I I have to lean back on the fact that we pushed pretty hard on the applicant to make some changes to this and they did and they could have they could it was much worse than it was. Our charge is to minimize the any of the impacts.

Not completely eliminate but minimize where we can. I think you know from my perspective the 0.92 there'd be I don't care what you say there'd be no chance that that person wouldn't be in the rightway doing maintenance walking through the rightway whatever right with four almost four feet now you know there's a potential for walkway to not go into the rightway right no that's a very good point

and as far as our um as far as our concerns about the dock being removed. My feeling is that if the if the owner if the applicant gets into a situation where they can't take it out, it's on them to figure out how to take it out up to an including get in a barge and there to take out the I guess if they if they set themselves up where they can't get the dock out by land and it has to be their work out however they want to do it, right? Yes. Thank you. That's much more concise than what I said. premise is they need some sort of machinery to pull the dock out. Is that is that the premise that has to drive down the rightway

or a minimum or a minimum width? The the assertion was made that you could turn the dock units on their side and pull them out. I don't know if that's true. Why not just leave them in the backyard? Right. Or Yeah, that's what I point where you trying to pull them to. Right. Right. I like it. I I was thinking Yeah, sure. In the backyard, they built two huge deck leading all the way down to the water up the width of their lot. Okay. So, I think there's two feet off their lot. Okay. So, there's no there's rock stairs and two huge deck there. There's no They can store it there and they can come up the stairs, but it's not just parking it on the grass.

Well, they will have Thank you. They'll have to figure that out, right? Yeah. Okay. And then detriment to the neighborhood. I I don't see a detriment to the neighborhood to be quite frank with you. Yeah. Without any level of encroachment on the rightway, I don't see it either. I I would tend to agree with that with what I I'm sorry I didn't hear

um any any encroachment on the right of way. I don't see a detriment. This is these tight quarters are fairly common around Yeah. I mean you're inviting trespass is what the problem is. Private trans you're talking about going onto the rightway to do the construction or No, no, no, no, no. The question was is there any detriment to the neighborhood as a result of this project? Right. But then he just said something about the rightway. Yeah. I'm not sure you would clarify what you said. I I think Sorry, go ahead and I don't I'm not going to put words in your mouth.

Because there's now 4T of space. I don't see an issue with any trespass. Without that issue, I don't see a detriment to the neighborhood. And I suspect the addition improving the property is also not a detriment to the neighborhood. Okay. I was just confused what you were Okay, gotcha. talking about. And then as far as the missing elements, Steve, do you have a copy of this? I I don't I mean, as far as the survey standards go for the for the town, um I don't believe we've implemented the Which one are you on here?

Sorry, it's the second it's the second page of the first document. Number number five under feasibility. Thanks, Mark. The survey fails to show significant existing features to the left of the lake rights that already constrain access. Shed 50 foot tree. Um, this does show a shed, right? I I believe I saw the shed. Yeah, shows a driveway. Remember this? This was written before that was prepared. Yeah, the last had it too. I believe it did. Boulders are not not showing there.

We necessar Steve I wouldn't that's that's not the survey necessarily. That's true. [clears throat]

Sure. There's a number of things showing. Yeah. So, all those things there, you can't get machinery between the line, the shed, the driveway, and the boulders and the trees. Basically, what it comes down to, I don't think it's doing anything to the part in yellow. But if they want to get back there, they can't. They have to take their overhang porch off. So, that's what's going to make it difficult. Thank you. Again, they got to go figure that out, right?

Yes, they would have to figure that out. But I'm looking at a um which we should have available. It's dated November 8th, 2025. It's survey by um John Michael and I'm going to mangle his last name. Leganetto.

Um we've got and I'll I'll show this to everybody. We've got the well, we've got the shed. We've got a patio. We've got a porch. We got another patio. Two more patios. A walkway dock. we show some grading. Um, I'll admit it does not show boulders, but we typically wouldn't show boulders on a on a property survey. Um, stone column, we probably don't have that either. Miscellaneous trees and bushes, we probably would not be including those either in that. I I think the premise for this comment is they won't be able to get machinery to the back to pull out docks.

Yes. Or support construction to which I I guess I concur, right? But that's not our problem, right? That's right. That's the applicant's problem. Yeah, it's got to be your problem. Uh state. Well, or it's going to be Steve's problem. But let's clarify that. Why does that become my prof? No, it doesn't. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I was hoping you make a case why it wasn't your problem, but Yeah. I mean, if this gets approved and then we review a building permit and it meets the building code, we're a building permit. It's the builder's problem. It's the builder's problem. Yeah. Yeah. Or the applicant's problem, right?

Good. That's consistent with what I thought. Um, so if it turns out that we approve this and the applicant can't build it, the worst that's going to happen is they can't build it. The worst they could that's going to happen for the applicant is that they're not going to be able to build it. And just bring up a point. Yeah. Come on.

There is some sort of construction that's happening there right now somewhere. Uh I believe it's an adjacent property. Um and it gets used parked in every day. Um and I don't I don't know to what extent anybody's complaining about that. Um, I have pictures that show equipment and trucks basically being parked there for days at a time. Um, I believe it's uh the the property uh would be on the right side of this drawing um doing some work. Uh, so I guess I'm just confused um a little bit with cuz I I mean we build on tight sites all the time and and yeah, it's not going to be, you know, ideal, but I I don't view it as it can't be done or it's it's impossible. Um, so I guess one is what's why is it being used I guess the way it is today and and whose charge is it to maybe enforce enforce that?

You're saying the rightway is being used for parking access at this point? Yeah, I mean here's here's some pictures I can share with the board. Um and and if you look at the survey that we shared, there's actually quite an encroachment by that neighbor onto the to the rightway. Um household So, one, why that would be happening. I don't believe those people have rights to this spot either.

You don't know. You don't believe? But they could have permission to use it, too. We don't know. That's that's the thing. I think permission from who would be like who to the holders of the rightway, the beneficiaries of the rightway. So, they're the owners of the rightway. Well, I I mean, without going down a rabbit hole on this, I'm not even sure if that's pertinent to the because we want to look at them separate. I believe we can construct this on this property. And I just wanted to bring it up as Yeah. I mean, it's it's intellectually stimulating, but you know, the the sheds on the other side are four feet away from the rightway as well. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. I mean, that's what the scale says. Two, three, four. One, two, three, four. What's that? Well, Mark, maybe clarify what shed you're actually talking about on the right side of this project. So, not Yeah. So, the adjoining the bellow side, but the other side, the the eastern property that adjoins the eastern property. There's a building closer to the water that's four and the sheds four roughly.

Yeah. So, okay. I mean without again without going down the rabbit hole again on the rightway issue you again there's a there'll be a full clear yeah 20 what's it 20 ft 20 ft of right away

and this project will not encroach on that and that's good because the very last statement here above the additional evidence is uh we and I'm assuming we is the people who are in joint ownership of the rightway will not permit machinery gener via the rake lake rights. Um, and as we discussed, the the architect feels that this is constructible and we've gone to great lengths to point out that it's going to have to be constructible because access is going to be from this property.

Um, we've reviewed the letter confirming the applicants do not hold due to lake rights. Um then there's a reference to the Tennis Rose local waterfront revitalization program. Um it does emphasize creating a vibrant resilient accessible waterfront. Um I would point out that because I was part of the uh development of this is that that is mostly related to new construction um along the lake. An encouragement with new construction to create that. there was never any intent to do this with um lo the our local property owners. So that's that's my context on that. So like I said, we've already talked about the attorney's letter. Are there any other any other questions? Any other comments from the board?

No. No. Okay. Did we Did you take a look at the deed, Terry? Anything? Oh, there's several. So, I didn't have a chance to do it yet. If you want to do Do you think there's anything concern? I mean, I don't think an attorney's going to Okay, we're just going to We're just going to keep it, you know.

Yeah. I mean, I I would think whatever decision they've made, if they're allowed to go ahead, you're going to say that you don't have the authority to permit access to the 20 foot right away, and whatever they do is going to be done within the context of their the footprint, right? Are there sounds reasonable? figure out a different way. So, if there's no more discussion on this, would anyone like to review the five factors prior to uh making a motion? Go ahead, Mark. You made Mark.

Yeah, I'll spark. Um, reviewing the five factors. Um, hold on. Yeah, let's review the five factors first for this project. So, whether undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created. Um, you know, I know we talked a lot about this tonight, but in my opinion, the answer is no. Mr. Vic, agreed. Mr. Sam agreed.

Well, the applicant can achieve his goals via reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. Um, you know, carrying over from December 1st, we talked a lot about um the infringement on the side property line and and the the applicant the architect went back and really tried to minimize the the amount of infringement as much as possible. I don't to answer this question specifically. I don't think they could, you know, achieve his goals without the necessity of an area variance. Mr. Vic, agreed. Mr. Stan,

I agree. um whether the variance is substantial. I think, you know, you look at roughly 10 on 15. I think in most cases, we would argue that that's that's likely substantial from a sideyard coverage. Um, from a um rear yard from a side total I'm sorry, from a totally total yard sideyard setback. Hold on. Am I What is the total yard total sideyard setback? I required to be 15. I thought it was 15.

Yeah, it is. And we're 88. I thought we were nine. Well, it looks like there's going to be if you add those together, it's going to be about nine, right? Yeah. Or eight. A little bit. Thought it was I thought it was a touch over nine. I I guess I 4.96 plus 3.92. Yeah, I guess I I pulled 888 off the architect's plans. Maybe maybe I screwed myself on pulling those numbers off. Okay. Um yeah, so I I would long story short, I I would think it's substantial for a couple of these. Mr. Be agreed. Mr. Stanton, I would agree it's substantial, but that's not necessarily a reason to deny the variance.

Well, the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical envir environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Answer to that is no. Mr. P. Agreed. Mr. Understand I agree and then as we talked earlier whether the difficulty has been whether whether there has been any self-created difficulty uh of course right that's the nature of a variance but um you know not [clears throat] a reason to deny the variance Mr. Pic agreed Mr. stand. Agreed. Before I make a motion, this is this is important to get this right. So, yes,

we're looking at minimum yard minimum sideyard setback of 3.92 that I'm pulling off the architect's plans where distance is six is required. We agree with that, right? I agree with that. A total yard total sideyard setback of again maybe I'm is it so I believe it's 8.88 ft. So that would be the 4.96. Oh, I see it. I I was I wasn't going down far enough in the 3.92. Got it. Yep. Okay. My fault. Okay. Told you. Okay. Told then 27.2 on coverage. Okay. Just glad you gave me enough time to add those two numbers. No, no. I I missed it. I wasn't going down far enough on the plan. Always problem.

Okay. Make a motion for James and Don Vll. Did you hear the coverage? 27.2. Yes. Thank you. Sorry.

Yep. Uh for James and Don Vll at 7021 Van Antworp Drive for an area variance where proposed building additions have a minimum sideyard setback of 3.92 feet where a distance of six is required and a total yard I can't speak today. Total sideyard setback of 8.88 where a where a distance of 15 is required and a lot coverage of 27.2 two or a maximum of 25% is allowed and then you know from additional commentary I don't know if Chuck you want to call this a condition or I don't know so you know any construction related to this to this project will be within the confines of the applicant's property I mean obviously

yeah we can add that as a condition but it's obvious right so yeah I guess so so then forget it then right I mean it's worth it's worth it's worth saying it Second that. Okay. When you're ready to please call the role. Yes. The motion. Mr. Vic. Yes to the motion. Mr. Sam. Yes to the motion. Motion carried. Congratulations.

Take that folder. Ch. Yeah. Let me hear that. Sorry. to where you don't want to close the building. So, our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 2nd, 2026. Is there any other business before the board? Nope. Okay. There being no other business before this board, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? I I have it. Meeting adjourned. Thanks, everyone.