Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. My name is Alan Frankel, and I am the chair of the City of Rockville Board of Appeals. With me at the dais this evening are my fellow fellow board members, Jimmy Hauer and Roy Deitschmann. We have two public hearings this evening for two variances. If you intend to participate in the discussion this evening by video, there are rules that were established for that purpose during the pandemic.

And if you're going to be here via video conference, you are presumed to to know those rules. Mister Waslek, do you have any preference as to which one we do first?

Mister chair, I think we can go in the order of the agenda. Okay.

Okay. This is public hearing on variance application 2026Dash271DashVAR. The applicant is Valerie Frank. The address is 2203 Nelson Street, and our planner is Chris Davis. Mister Waselik, if you would please swear in mister Davis, we'll hear from him.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

Christopher Davis.

And will you provide truthful testimony of this evening?

I will. Thank you. Alright. Good evening, mister chair and members of the board. As mister indicated, this is a variance application 2026271BAR for 203 Nelson Street.

The subject property is located here on this aerial image. It is 203 Nelson Street. It has a land use designation of single family residential detached, and it is located in the R 60 zone. As you can see from the aerial imagery, the site is probably matured with matured landscaping and trees in the rear yard. The existing dwelling is located towards the northern part of the property in Nelson Street and gets its access from that right of way.

So the specific request for this application is a zoning variance from the side yard setback requirements to construct a carport addition on the north side of the dwelling as you can see there in red. As a function of this property, as you can see from the site plan, the rear yard area is pretty limited, oops, by existing forestry and mature trees. The approximate limit of the rear yard is the line designated in the middle of the screen. And so that's where the rear yard practically ends as you'll see on the coming slides. Staff's recommendation for the variance is approval with conditions.

So as you can see here, the existing dwelling is a two story dwelling. The existing access is from Nelson Street via an existing curb cut and driveway. The proposed carport will attach to the home along that side, the shown side of the dwelling, and will allow access to be maintained from the side of the dwelling. So here is a image of the rear yard. As you can see, the fence line pretty well demarcates the usable area of the the backyard.

But functionally or technically, the rear yard extends beyond that fence line into the wooded area, which, as you can see, is pretty well established and set, which provides challenges for future building improvements in the rear yard area. As you can see here on the screen, here are a few options that the applicant is considering in terms of design for their proposed carport option a. The image on the left shows a more shed roof type of design that will be angled as opposed to option b, which will utilize a more flat roof design. So getting to the specific request per section twenty five ten o five a, the minimum required side yard setback is eight feet, and the applicant is proposing a variance of seven feet to request a setback of one feet from the side yard's property line to construct the proposed carport. So in reviewing the application, staff has found that the application satisfies the criteria for granting a variance.

Specifically, the variance has found not to be contrary to the public interest. The proposed carport will occupy a portion of the existing driveway along the side, which has current access to the dwelling. And furthermore, staff has reviewed the request and found that it will be similar in scale and massing to similar carports on neighboring properties within this neighborhood. Furthermore, no letters of opposition have been received subject to this request. For finding two, staff has found that the variance is due to conditions peculiar to this property, which are not the result of any action by the owner.

In reviewing this specific request, staff has found that there is varying topography on this property on this property, namely in the rear yard. As you can see from this topographic map, the rear yard does increase in grade quite significantly. Furthermore, staff did analyze the site and found that this site is encumbered by steeper slopes as compared to its neighbors in the rear yard, and that condition is peculiar to this property and creates constraints to constructing a carport in the rear yard area. Furthermore, a little literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty. Staff did find that due to those unique conditions on the site, the the proposed improvements would be prohibitive without approval of the variance.

And furthermore, again, the granting of the variance would allow the applicant to use the property similar to those in the neighborhood. And finally, the relief has been found to be needed due to characteristics specific to this site, and further that the granting of the variance is not inconsistent with the zoning order. Furthermore, this would allow the applicant to continue to use the property for residential use that is envisioned by the zoning ordinance. With that, staff does recommend approval of the variance subject to the conditions and findings in staff's report. And with that, mister chair, that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, mister Davis, for your usual excellent presentation. Do any members of the board of appeals have questions of mister Davis? Mister Deitschmann?

Thank you, mister chair. Just two questions. This is 85% variance or so from the setback requirement. Have we granted variances that large? And what is our history in granting large variances?

I believe while it is more on the rare side, I believe we have granted variances to this extent. And furthermore, in looking at neighboring properties, we found that the setback is similar to what is being requested in this this situation.

Okay. Thank you. My second question, and I don't wanna make an odd variance, but they need the variance really where the carport garage garage wall hits the other property. Can we give a variance that is less than eight or seven feet going up to the garage, gets to the full amount, and then, you know, is in a straight line to the end of the property? Or are we only really permitted to give a seven foot variance right down the property line?

Well, I'll I'll enter. Maybe mister Waseklik can expand. But the setback is for the the minimum distance from where the carport would start to the property line. Now it's up to the applicant in their design if they want to increase that as it goes back or keep it a straight line, but this would be the minimum distance from the where the carport would start over to the property line.

So they'd only need one foot between the other property and the other property?

Correct. That's Yes. As proposed, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Davis, thank you. Just to clarify, the new structure will go right over the existing, looks like driveway and patio? There's already asphalt there?

Yes. That's correct.

Thank you.

Mr. Davis, can we go back to slide two, please? Sure. I'm looking at this green rectangle, which is the lot of this address. And it appears to me from the aerial view that these houses are already pretty close together. Would that be a correct assumption?

I think it depends on what you're determining as close, but I think they they are relatively close to each other as opposed to, I think, other neighborhoods, single family neighborhoods that you might see in this area.

Well, my concern to further mister Deutschman's line of questioning is do we need to have a side yard setback at all? There's obviously a reason for it. There's obviously a reason that it's that it's in the zoning code. Could they go to the property line if they want it? If they came in and asked for an eight foot variance to the property line, would that be something within our purview that we could grant to them or to her?

I think it's in your purview to consider, but I think it's it really depends on the facts of the case and whether, you know, the board feels that that extent is warranted in that situation.

Okay. There's obviously a reason that we have setbacks. Right? Fire safety, privacy, light and ventilation, drainage, perhaps utilities, building maintenance. I really have an issue with a one foot side yard.

So I'm gonna ask you to show me, please, slide number five. I assume that the area on the left where the gravel is, and that's noted on the schematic, is part of their property.

Yes. That's correct.

Is there any reason they couldn't build their carport to the right of that gravel pit or move part of the gravel pit to build the carport?

It may be possible to do that. I think for the these circumstances, you know, these are already improvements that are have been made on the property as well as being able to navigate vehicles

Okay.

Back to that part was part of the staff's consideration.

And, again, my understanding is that the fence in that picture is not the property line. But beyond that fence, according to the topo map, there is a big slope or a steep slope beyond that within the tree line. Correct. And I agree that you don't wanna take down trees if you don't have to to to build this carport. So I'm gonna ask you please to go to slide number eight.

There it is. Okay. You say will occupy a portion of existing driveway with similar scale slash massing to others in the neighborhood. Have any of these other driveways, I presume? It's not just a driveway. It's a carport. Do any of them have variances that would essentially eliminate the side setback line?

So we have had those come before the board. You may recall one of your limited variances last year was for a carport on a on a different property. Their setback was, I believe, three feet. So it was a lesser variance than this particular application, but the board has looked at those encroachments into the setback.

That I understand. Understand. What about in this neighborhood?

In this neighborhood, I don't recall any variances for for this type of improvement.

Then I'm going to ask, did you please put up slide number nine?

Sure.

Okay. And this again shows the the topography.

Correct.

That I presume that the fence is kinda like halfway across the the property, and then it goes down.

Or up.

Up as the case may be.

Correct.

I don't know. I did not traipse around through your eye looking. Okay. I think you've answered all my questions. Do any of the members of the board of appeals have any additional questions for mister Davis?

Mister Davis, the to the north side of the property would be 205 Nelson. You you don't have a picture of that property, do you? Because I I believe they have a structure, a carport, or a garage similar to what they're going to construct here.

Correct. I I don't have a photo, but that's my understanding as

well. Okay.

Okay.

Yes. For a brief pause here at 02:05.

Mr. Chair, I I do believe there are similar improvements at 205 and 207. And 209. Sorry.

Yeah. I would clarify. Mister Davis, it is very common in this piece of the neighborhood. Carports are very common on this side of Woodley Gardens and also going up to the property line, so it's not peculiar to this particular property. This right here. So if you zoom in there Yeah. There's a tree blocking here, but see, it goes right up. And then this is the house

that's there. Yeah.

I'm sorry. We're looking at a Google Map picture of the 205 Nelson. Okay. And that looks like it's pretty close to the property line too coming from the other side.

Alright. Mister chair, I would just add that, when this neighborhood was constructed, that was something that was permitted by Wright and did not require a variance. So that's why carports are are plentiful, in this particular part

of the city.

Thank you. But but we don't have any grandfathering with respect to those properties today. Okay. Thank you. K. Thank you. Thank you both. Do we have the oh, thank you very much. Do we have the applicant or a representative of the applicant here to to discuss this variance? Yes, sir.

Please. Hello.

Welcome. Welcome to the board of appeals. Please identify yourself.

Yes. My name is Todd Handy. I am the owner of the property.

Okay. And before you say anything, I'm gonna ask mister Wasslek to swear you.

Yes.

Sir, you've identified yourself for the record. Will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

Yes. I will.

Thanks. Please proceed.

Thank you. No. Thank you for your time. I believe I I just wanna do a check online to see if the, the person I've been working with that did the drawings, is online. Valerie, are you there?

Yes. I see her. She's muted.

Okay. Forgive me. Finding the unmute button. Yes. Hello, everyone. I'm here.

If you intend to give testimony, I need to have mister Oslik swear you for the public hearing.

Thank you.

If you could identify yourself for the record, please.

Valerie Frank.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

Yes. Thank you very much.

Okay, folks.

But we have to swear in the applicant too, Jim.

We already swore him. Okay. I'm happy to hear what you have to say.

Well, thank you. So we just moved into the house, you you know, just within, about less than, a year ago, just last August, actually. So but but had been in the neighborhood for quite some time. So I I don't remember exactly when the the construction date was, but I wanna say, you know, sometime in the late sixties, early seventies. So really, this is really more of our attempt of a much larger renovation project to really, you know, invest in the in the house, in the neighborhood to, you know, really get give it a little bit more appealing value factor.

So, you know, with that being said, I do request favorable, consideration. Unfortunately, if you do have any very specific technical, questions, I would have to defer to, Valerie, you know, to help me out with those types of questions. But subject to that, thank you.

Okay. Miss Frank, what would you like to add before we start asking you questions?

Thank you. I wanted to address the question about why we left a foot on the table off the variance. That was because we were intending to match the distance of the neighbor to their carport off their property line and for the main purpose of maintaining the area there, you know, the grounds. There are some trees and shrubs in that area. And it's an open carport also, so we could make a maintenance effort if the garage went right up to the property line, but it seemed more aesthetically pleasing and practical and perhaps neighborly to leave the foot on the table.

Okay. Do you plan to put anything in the one foot? That'd be hard for most vegetation, but would there be a border of some kind?

Great question. There are some crape myrtles that might actually survive. They're very narrowly planted there anyway because the driveway is already there. So I would have to defer to Tom and and Vivian on what they wanna do, but the question they asked me at first was, you know, will the crepe myrtles have to go? And I kinda hope they don't have to. They're quite mature. And if you know crepe myrtles, the vegetation's all the way up at the top, and the design of the garage would allow for them possibly to stay. Crepe myrtles are funny trees. I'm I'm not an arborist, but I think that could work be worked out.

Thank you.

Yeah. So there is a fence between the two carports of the of the of our neighbor and our house. So that will certainly be there. But and and whether or not the trees I mean, I would certainly love to keep the trees in place. You know, they're beautiful, but I think that's something I would really need to sit down and do a feasibility study to see if that's possible.

Okay.

Does anybody does anyone have any questions for either the applicant or miss Frank before I start asking questions?

I I just have one. You know, we're supposed to grant the minimum variance necessary to complete the purpose. And I guess if you expand on why you need the seven feet. Is it the width of the car you'll be putting in there? In other words, why can't it be six feet or five feet? And if you can just expand on why that's an the necessary dimension.

Well, certainly not the length of or or the width of the car. You know, we don't have an abnormal vehicle or anything like that, you know, because we are parking in the parking lot now. So I don't really think that's gonna be prohibitive, but I'll I'll defer to Valerie. Did you catch the question, Valerie?

Well, yes. We have the need to still access the house up the stairs and a little portico that is there. And then I think when you just factor in car doors opening, family of four coming and going, it seems this space was necessary.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Howard, do you have any questions for the applicant or miss Frank?

No. Thank you both for being here.

Okay. Miss Frank, you indicated that the carport on the other side at 205 is the setback of about a foot on the other side.

Correct. I actually have a photo of it, but I have no idea how to get that to you.

Okay. Well, we were we were looking on my phone at a photo of what appears to be the house at 205 Nelson. So if they're at one foot and this property is at one foot, can you get emergency equipment in there if there's a fire?

Between the two carports?

Yeah. Let's say there's a fire in the backyard and these firemen need to get through between the carports. Can they do that?

The answer to your question, sir, is no, but it is an open carport. I don't see why they wouldn't go through the Okay. Wider space.

Fair. That's a fair answer.

And, also, what about the other side of the house? Would that allow access to the backyard?

Yes.

Okay. And you say there's a fence there now between the two properties?

It's somewhat there. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe it is the my photo is not helping me see that as clearly as I'd like to. I see shrubs in them. It looks like a six foot fence. Oh, I could look at another photo, but I I trust Tom Todd knows what's there. So probably, yes. A six foot fence.

Okay.

It yeah. Yeah. Alright.

Does anybody have any

oh, just, which roofline is your preferable roofline? And, does that have to be part of the variance, or can that be something left open for the applicant?

I think staff's intent was to leave it open for the for the applicant.

When you look at the slides of the two potential roof lines, the one on the left that is a shed roof appears to have a tree.

Those are the crepe myrtles.

Okay. But I but the tree and I and I'm not I'm not trying to be facetious. Okay? I just wanna wanna get to all the facts. Is that the other one doesn't have the tree? I mean, is that just because you didn't draw the tree that the tree could be there?

Yes, sir.

And it it's okay to laugh. By the way, I I like the pictures of the car.

Thank you.

That's cute. Do we have any other questions for the applicant or miss Frank? Okay. Then, then thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mister Waselik, it has been noted in the, in the package that there have been no there's been no correspondence against, received against this carport. Have we received any communication in favor of the carport?

No, sir.

And to the best of your knowledge, is there anyone else other than miss Frank, online right now to, speak either in favor or against the variance?

Mister chair, there is one individual online. We believe he is online to testify for the next application.

That is fine. Let's have him identify him or herself and get this person sworn?

He he is online for the next application, not this one.

Not for this one. Okay. Anybody for this one. And is there anybody in in in in the chamber today? I just I'm

the next applicant.

I was gonna say, I presume you're the next applicant. Okay. That being said, I declare that the public hearing is closed, and we will now deliberate. Gentlemen.

I I think it's a big reach, you know, as we've discussed for giving 85% variance to a side yard setback. But then I have moderating incidents of what the neighborhood looks like and that it's an open carport, not a And closed there is not a lot of other room on this property to put something like this, and people deserve to have an enclosure for their vehicle. So that's the way I stand.

Mr. Howard?

I concur, Mr. Chair. As a resident of Woodley Gardens, there

are a

lot of carports everywhere. And it actually this house always stands out because it doesn't have one, so it's definitely not peculiar to the neighborhood. It actually fit right in with the neighborhood.

That's actually a very interesting piece of information to have as we deliberate this. Because if all the other houses or most of the houses have a similar car port to this, why shouldn't this one have a car port?

Correct.

And that might be enough to drag my no vote to a yes vote. So would anybody like to make a motion with respect to variance application 2026Dash271VAR concerning 203 Nelson Street.

I just have a question that I asked earlier. Given the variance that we're giving, the seven foot variance, can that end at the garage as opposed to going to the end of the property? In other words, could we limit it to where the variance is needed as opposed to the end of the property line?

Well, if it goes to the end of the property line, then they're in violation of the variance. If we give a seven foot variance leaving a one foot side yard, if they go all the way to the property line, they've they're in violation of the variance, and the city can come back and make them take it down.

No. No. What I'm suggesting is that it's an eight foot variance at the end of the garage. In other words, it's the seven foot variance up to the construction and the use of the carport, but then it goes back to the eight foot variance.

Oh, for the rest of the property? Yes. Oh, absolutely.

Absolutely. I think that's why we'll say in accordance with staff's recommendations and proposed plans and the drawings, right? There's another structure beyond the current carport.

Right. So there's just a little more not that anything's happening in that back property, but it keeps it at eight feet where it's not needed, given that we're supposed to grant the minimum variance necessary to do the work.

Right. So what we have here and I'm looking at I'm not even sure what slide this is. This may be slide one, the one that has the little red box on it.

Correct. Yeah. I'd say the the width of the carport is 14.6, so they need seven feet of their variance to make that fourteen six.

That one, mister Davis. We're looking at slide three that the variance will only extend to the length of the carport. And beyond that, it would remain at eight feet so that if they wanted to build something behind that in the within the side yard, they'd have to come back and get another variance. Everybody understand that? Okay.

Just give me one second, please. Okay. So I guess the motion would be

Mister chair, I make a motion to grant variance application 2026Dash271DashV a r based on the recommended findings and conditions noted in the staff report.

Okay. And I think I would amend that to include the fact that the variance ends at the back end of the carport The carport. And it maintains the eight foot variance for the rest of the property, if that's okay.

Yeah. Because I think that's what we're saying what we what we wanna say. And the staff recommendation is that the carport addition must be constructed in substantial accordance with the plans, but it doesn't say anything about the rest of that property sideline, which has to remain at eight feet. Okay. So if you're willing to accept the friendly amendment

I will I will second the friendly amendment to my original motion.

K. Well, then we need

And I will second the original motion and amendment.

Then all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Anybody's no. No. No. Is anybody abstaining? The chair abstains.

So by a vote of two to nothing, the variance application 2026Dash271DashVAR, as set forth in the staff report at 203 Nelson Street, is approved subject to the variance only applying with respect to the length of the carport. And beyond the carport, the eight foot side yard is maintained.

Understood. Yes, sir.

Okay. Does that work for you? Yeah. Yeah. It does. Miss Frank, is that okay?

It is. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much for coming to see us this this evening. I hope your construction goes well, and I'll drive past to see your carport.

Thank you so much.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Hope you get it done before the winter. Appreciate

your. Bye. Can we go off the record for a moment? Is that we do that?

So, mister chair, you would have to break for a recognized exception to the open meetings act.

Okay. Then we'll just move right on.

Sure. I mean, I I don't wanna discourage that. For example, it's possible to break for advice of counsel, for example. Or

No. No. We'll just go on to the second variance. Okay. This is variance application 2026Dash303DashVAR. The applicant is Lev Rodolfski, and the property is at 203 Mount Vernon Place. And I happen to be familiar with that property since my office used to be on Mount Vernon Place. So, mister Davis, you've already been sworn. Would you tell us about, 203 Mount Vernon Place?

Yes, sir. Thank you, mister chair. So as you mentioned, this is a variance application for 203 Mount Vernon Place. The subject property is shown here on the screen. As you can see, from the aerial, it's in blue.

It sits on the North side of Mount Vernon Place and immediately abuts Richard Montgomery High School. It is has a land use designation of single family residential detached, and the zoning for this property is also r 60 corresponding with the single unit detached dwelling residential zone. As you can see, the property is improved with an existing dwelling and a associated driveway with access from Mount Vernon Place, and the applicant is proposing a new detached garage in the rear yard. So as part of this proposed improvements, the applicant requests a zoning variance from the side and rear yard setback requirements in order to construct the proposed detached garage. As you can see, the proposed site plan is shown here on this screen.

The existing driveway is proposed to be extended into the rear yard where the detached garage will be located in that northwest corner of the plan shown here. Staff's recommendation is approval with conditions. So here is another visual of the rear yard of the property. As you can see, the from the light blue area in the rear yard is the general outline of where the proposed garage will be located. As you can see, the property backs up to the abutting Richard Montgomery High School property where there is open space and landscaping on the other side of the property as well as you can also see on the abutting property to the north on this image.

The adjacent property is also improved with a detached garage in the rear yard. And so the applicant is proposing to mirror that condition on their property. The proposed setback from the side yard property line would be five feet, and the rear yard setback would be three feet. So here is some proposed elevations of the detached garage. As you can see, it will be provide access for two vehicles.

It will be two vehicle wide garage as well as they will provide a half story attic for storage space for the property. Here are some proposed floor plans for the garage. As you can see, there will be a stairway that will access give access to that half story attic above the garage space. So here is a photograph of the subject property. As you can see, again, on the neighboring property is a detached garage in the rear yard.

And, basically, the applicant will propose a similar structure on their property in the rear yard by extending their existing drive way to the rear. The property is improved with a two story dwelling home, and as you can see, the access gives goes directly to Mount Vernon Place. So the specific request for this application deals with the rear and side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings In in accordance with article nine, the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks are 12 feet for buildings that exceed 15 feet in height. And the applicant requests the subject variances for a side yard setback of five feet and a rear yard setback of three feet in lieu of the required 12 feet to construct the proposed garage that will be approximately 17 feet in height. So in review of the application, staff has found that the application satisfies the criteria for approving a variance, notably that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

Similar to the previous variance, similar improvements have been constructed in this neighborhood, and staff has found that the improvements would be in similar scale and massing to others seen on neighboring properties. Furthermore, no letters of opposition have been received, and the neighboring property owner has submitted a letter of support for the subject request. Moving on to the second found finding. Staff has found that the variance is due to conditions peculiar to the property and not a result of any action taken by the owner. Unique to this particular property and neighborhood, staff did do an analysis of the property sizes in the adjacent neighborhood.

As you may know, this is located in the Hungerford subdivision that was developed in the early fifties and sixties. And as a result of that analysis, staff found that this particular property is one of the smallest properties in this neighborhood. As you can see from the drawing, pretty much all of the surrounding properties are larger from an extent of being 5% more to a 148% larger than the subject property. And in staff's review, we found that that does create disproportionate impact to this property in terms of the developable area and the impact of the setbacks that they that are that are a burden to this property in making improvements. And, therefore, staff has found that the results of the property size result in peculiar conditions to this property that obviously aren't in action of the property owner.

Moving on to the third finding, staff has found that a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in practical difficulty. Notably, again, be due to the peculiar property size, it imposes a disproportionate impact for meeting the setbacks. Furthermore, staff does find that the granting of the variance would allow improvement of the property similar to others in the neighborhood. And finally, finding four, the granting of the variance is not inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. Namely, the zoning ordinance does envision this property as a residential use, and the proposed improvements would further that use and enhance livability for the property owner.

So finding that all the required criteria has been met, staff does recommend approval of the subject variance subject to the findings and conditions and staff's report. With that, mister chair, that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much, mister Davis. Mister Deichmann. Just

I wanna be clear that if not for the height of the garage, accessory garage, they would not need a variance. The footprint alone would not cause the need for variance. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Howard? Mr. Davidson, the one picture of the street view, it appears that property to the left has the similar structure. Is that correct? Based on your examination?

That's correct. Yes.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions. The applicant is here. I would ask the applicant to come forward. State your name for the record, please.

Hello. My name is Levrodosky.

Welcome to the board of appeals. Thank you. I'm gonna have mister Roslick swear you for purposes of the public hearing.

Sir, you've identified yourself for the record. Will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thanks. Please proceed.

Josh, is there anything that you would like to add to mister Davis' report?

No. Was a pretty com comprehensive report. I I will point out in this picture specifically, part of the reason we want a two car garage is because as you can see those wires running from the street pole run diagonally across the garage, and those this is what birds use as a bathroom. So there's really nowhere on this driveway that we can park to be safe from that. So, a garage is badly needed just to hide our cars. The street, during the school year is always packed with students, so we're I find myself playing Tetris in the morning just getting cars in and out. So part of the reason why I want a two two two car, wide garage in the back. And the reason for the height is the is having the attic for storage space. It's a it's a an old house. There's not a lot of storage space.

We wanna empty out our attic in the house so we can insulate it better. And there's simply nowhere to put all the stuff. So that's really the reason for the height. The garage by itself without the attic doesn't make sense. Smaller garage also doesn't make sense. So that's why I'm asking for this variance.

How many square feet is your current house?

I believe it's 1,800.

Thank you.

K. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? I have a couple. From looking at this picture that's up there, it appears from slide number seven, and I'm not gonna ask you to change it, but that's the one that shows the schematic as to where the garage would be on the property, that your garage would basically mirror the other garage. That is, this appears to be about five or six feet from the property line, and yours would also be five or six feet from the property line.

That's exactly right.

Now, theoretically, just again from looking at slide seven, it appears that other than that, you could bring the garage forward, a little bit so that you wouldn't need as big a setback in the rear. But I don't have any problem granting the setback in the rear the variance from the setback in the rear because you're parked up you're backed up against the high school the high school's field. But that would be my only my only comment, I think. Alright. Anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Oh, just we did receive a letter from your neighbor who was very supportive of your issue. Do have any comments on that letter?

I have great neighbors.

Thank you. Mister Waslek, you indicated before that there was somebody waiting on the on video to to testify with respect to this variance.

That's correct, mister chair. Online participant, Seth, do you wish to provide testimony this evening?

He's muted.

I'm the neighbor.

So you're the you're the guy who wrote the letter.

We had to give you a good introduction.

I wrote the letter. Yes.

Okay. Do you wish to add anything beyond what your neighbor has already provided us and what is provided in your letter?

No. I think I said everything there. I'm not just a neighbor, but I'm also a real estate appraiser. So I know value, and I know property value and what would enhance a property. And this would enhance their property.

It would

bring up the value of their house. It brings up the value of my house. Everybody wins.

Well, thank you very much. I think that's about that sort of says it all, mister Wiseman. Thank you for coming for taking your time to come to the board of appeals and to support your neighbor.

You're most welcome.

Okay. Mister Wasslick, I presume there's nobody else on the line willing who wants to speak for or against the variants? That is correct. There's no one else. And there doesn't appear to be anybody in the chambers who wishes to speak for or against. Therefore, I will deem the the public hearing closed. And we will now deliberate. And this appears to me to be one of our usual variances, but I am open I'm open to discussion.

I think this fits in the character of the neighborhood. You know? But for the height, he wouldn't need a variance at all. And it seemed to improve his property and the neighborhood's property.

Okay. Mister Howard?

For for public record, mister Davis, your slide seven, just for when you corrected, it says 203 Nelson at the bottom. Just if it's gonna if it's gonna become official record. I know we had 220 Threes tonight.

Understood. Thank you.

Mister chair, I know you asked if you could pull it forward. Looking at the drawing, if it is a two car garage, it seems like it'd be pretty tight to pull two cars in there. So I I don't think you could really pull that forward. But I agree with everything mister Dietrichman said. It fits the character of the neighborhood, and it is it is a tiny property.

Okay. On a personal level, my son played baseball for Richard Montgomery and may have hit in a hit a ball. It's it's in a new garage.

It's probably still there somewhere.

All the more reason to park the cars in the garage.

Yes. Oh, that's right. When they move

He does he doesn't hit that well anymore.

When they moved to school, they took the field and put it where the school is now. Yeah. Okay. Then the chair would propose that just wanna make sure I've got the right variance here. That variance number 2026 Dash 303 Dash V A R 203 Mount Vernon Place be approved to allow a side yard setback of 12 feet and a year a rear yard setback of three feet, both in lieu of the required 12 feet, subject to the conditions that are set forth in staff's report.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Your variance is granted, sir. Good luck.

You, gentlemen.

Good luck. I look forward to to coming past Alrighty. And seeing it.

Bye now.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

We I still have don't believe we have any old business.

Actually, mister chair, I wanted to take the opportunity to update you on the zoning ordinance free rate process, which is which is ongoing. Just to let you know that we're the mayor and council are in the midst of work sessions, going through each article of the new code. And, they have one more work session scheduled, which is June 1. And then the adoption is scheduled for June 29. So, at that point, we will have a brand new zoning ordinance and, be happy to, provide an update and for you as a board members so you know what kind of what to focus on, in the new code and within the 300 pages of it.

300 pages. Okay. Thank you. New business. I have looked at the annual report. I presume that the other members members have have looked looked at at the the annual annual report. Report.

Yes.

And shows we weren't particularly busy last year, but it is what it is. Right? Okay. Has everybody had a chance to look at the minutes of the 04/15/2026 meeting?

Yep. Yes.

Does anybody have any comments, changes, corrections? No. The chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of meeting '0 01/2026 from 04/15/2026.

I make a motion to approve the April 2026 minutes.

Is there a second? One. I second it. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay. Now our next meeting is in June June 19. Do we have anything on the agenda yet?

We possibly have a variance, but that's not entirely, for sure at this point in time.

Okay. Now I believe mister Deichmann said he is not going to be at the next meeting. So at some point, I would like to schedule a meeting to hear about the 300 pages of the new zoning ordinance. I'm not asking anybody to read them to us. Just give us the highlights. So perhaps we can find another day to to do that where the three of us can be present, and we can discuss the new zoning ordinance and see how it affects the board of appeals.

I would suggest that that occur after adoption by mayor and council. So probably

sometime in July. Okay.

Mister chair, just to clarify, next meeting is June 17 at nineteenth.

I still can't make it.

Unless you wanna come on a Friday. I don't.

I'm sorry. I thought the fourth was a Wednesday. Two weeks from that would be okay. Look. I can't count. If I could count, I would have been a scientist or an engineer and not a lawyer. Okay. Is there being no further business before

Mister chair. Yes. Sorry to interrupt. We actually need some clarification on the motion that was made. Which one? The first second variance.

Oh, the second variance? Yes.

Just to make sure we have the numbers correct.

All I did was read from the staff report is that allow a side yard setback of five feet and a rear yard setback of three feet, both in lieu of the required 12 feet. And if you want, we can add the words representing variances of seven feet and nine feet respectively.

I think

that's Is that okay?

That is fine. Thank you.

I thought you're gonna ask me out the other one because the other one was a lot more complicated.

No. No. Thank you.

Thank you

very much.

Is there any more business to come before the board of appeals this evening? There being none, the chair would recognize a motion to adjourn.

I'll

make a motion. A second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.