Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. This evening is our monthly meeting of the Board of Adjustment. We are committed to a transparent process and encouragement of public comment during our meetings. We will be accepting testimony from all parties. If you wish to testify on any particular petition before us this evening using the Zoom platform, please use the raise hand feature You can raise your hand at any time and we will recognize you at the appropriate time for the presentation of evidence for each case. If in person, please hand a staff member your speaker's card. Planner Robin Keefe will be moderating the hybrid meeting and will be asked to provide names of those individuals that wish to speak. like to call the meeting of the city of wildwoods board of adjustment to order the board members present today are mr bob morris board member uh mr mike lee board meeting board member mr david bartolino alternate member and myself arnie sprunger so um we thought we would have five here tonight but it looks like oh and i'm sorry Via Zoom is Mr. Kevin Lux. Sorry about that, Kevin. Welcome.

No problem.

All right. The Department of Planning staff present is Joe Vunich, Director of Planning, and Robin Keefe, Planner. City Attorney Addison Wheeler and Court Reporter Kim Long are also present via Zoom. First, I offer into the record of the affidavit of publication pertaining to today's meeting, June the 18th, 2026, and take official notice of the Zoning Ordinance of City of Wildwood, including Chapter 400, Article 2, authorizing and establishing the Board of Adjustments, Powers, and Duties. Now, let me explain the hearing procedure.

Good evening. Can you hear me?

The information I'm about to describe is also provided on the Board of Adjustment Public Hearing Procedure handout, which was available online prior and up to tonight's meeting. This hearing is informal in its nature. However, the meeting's proceedings will be recorded by a reporter for future transcription if needed. The petitions are called in the order listed on the agenda. As the petition is called, I will ask the Department of Planning staff member to read each request into the record. Thereafter, the Department of Planning will have opening remarks and a brief slide presentation. Then the petitioner or his or her representative will be asked to state their name and address, be sworn in by the court reporter, make a brief presentation to the board explaining the nature of the requested variants, and present such evidence and witness testimony that may evidence the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship that warrant the variance. The board will only consider the unique character of the property to determine whether they warrant the granting of a variance. The petitioner's presentation shall be limited to 15 minutes total, inclusive of any question posed by the board unless such time is extended by myself, the chair. Board members may ask questions to clarify the facts of the petitioner's presentation. When the board is satisfied with the material presented by the petitioner, I will then ask if there is anyone present or online who would like to speak in favor or opposition to the requested variants. Each speaker will be asked to provide their name and address, be sworn in, and then provide their evidence and oral testimony. Witness testimony shall be limited to five minutes, inclusive of any questions posed by the board, unless such time is extended by myself, the chair. Okay. We have a hand raised by both the court reporter and the attorney. Ms. Long, do you have something to add at this point? Can you hear us?

Okay.

I believe she made the comment that she couldn't hear. I'm not sure where she is now, but She made the comment that she couldn't hear.

Okay. What, what did you hear and what did you, what was the last thing that you heard?

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Now we can.

I cannot hear you guys.

At all. Okay. All right. Well, let's see if we can figure out what's going on here. So who do we have speaking right now? Is this Addison or Kimberly?

Addison, I know you're talking, but I can't hear anything.

Mr. Lux, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear you guys speaking. I can also hear the court reporter saying that she cannot hear the conversation.

Okay. Did you, let's see, Ms. Wheeler, did you, no, that would be Kimberly Long, the recorder. Okay. Ms. Long, did you hear any of the introductory remarks from

I did not.

Okay. Would you mind, Ms. Long, would you disconnect and reconnect? Let's try that. See if maybe there's something a little wonky that's going on with the connection there.

Sure.

Hey, Addison, would you mind going off mute and count to five or just something so we can see if we can hear you okay?

Hi, can you hear me?

Okay, fine. All right, so we're good there and we know that Mr. Lux is okay. What we have to do is see if we can get Ms. Long back online. sorry for the interruption folks we uh we'll try and get this figured out quickly and continue on i do not see her yet Well, well, well

okay can you hear me now yes we can hear you just fine there she is oh sorry i had to uh uninstall and reinstall i apologize um i had the where would you like to begin

Okay. Well, we're glad that you're back online. Let me just ask you this question. I think you indicated that you didn't hear any of the proceedings so far. Is that correct?

No, sir. I couldn't get you. And I tried stopping you. I apologize.

No, that's okay. I didn't notice the raised hand. Do I need to just start over?

I'm not the civil attorney, but I think you do.

So, Miss Wheeler, do I need to do we need to restart the proceedings?

I would recommend doing that. Probably. Yes.

Okay. All right.

Thank you.

Okay. Sorry for the repeat for some of you, but. We want to make sure that we have our. T's crossed and our I's dotted. Okay. So this evening, it's still our monthly meeting of the Board of Adjustment. And we are committed to a transparent process and encouragement of public comment during our meetings. We will be accepting testimony from all parties. If you wish to testify on any particular petition before us this evening using the Zoom platform, please use the raise hand feature. You can raise your hand at any time and we will recognize you at the appropriate time for the presentation of evidence for each case. If in person, please hand a staff member, Miss Keefe, your speaker's card. Planner Robin O'Keefe will be, Robin Keefe will be moderating the hybrid meeting and will be asked to provide names of those individuals that wish to speak. I'd like to call the meeting of the City of Wildwoods Board of Adjustment to order. Board members present today are Mr. Bob Morris, board member, Mr. Kevin Lux, board member who's participating via Zoom, Mr. Mike Lee, board member, Mr. David Bertolino, alternate member, and myself, Arnie Sprunger, acting chair for tonight's meeting. The Department of Planning staff present is Joe Munich, director of planning, and Robin Keefe, Planner, City Attorney Addison Wheeler, and Court Reporter Kim Long are also present via Zoom. Okay, first I offer into the record the affidavit of publication pertaining to today's meeting, June 18, 2026, and take official notice of the zoning ordinance of the City of Wildwood, including Chapter 400, Article 2, authorizing and establishing the Board of Adjustment's powers and duties. Now, let me explain the hearing procedure. Please be aware the information I am about to describe is also provided on the Board of Adjustment public hearing procedure handout. which was available online prior and up to tonight's meeting. This meeting is informal in its nature. However, the meeting's proceedings will be recorded by a reporter for future transcription if needed. The petitions are called in the order listed on the agenda. As the petition is called, I will ask the Department of Planning staff member to read each request into the record. Thereafter, the Department of Planning will have opening remarks and a brief slide presentation. Then the petitioner or his or her representative will be asked to state their name and address, be sworn in by the court reporter, make a brief presentation to the board explaining the nature of the requested variance and present such evidence and witness testimony that may evidence the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship that warrant the variance. The board will only consider the unique character of the property to determine whether they warrant the granting of a variance. The petitioner's presentation shall be limited to 15 minutes total, inclusive of any questions posed by the board, unless such time is extended by myself, the chair. Board members may ask questions to clarify the facts of the petitioner's presentation. When the board is satisfied with the material presented by the petitioner, the chair will then ask if there is anyone present or online who would like to speak in favor or opposition to the requested variance. Each speaker will be asked to provide their name and address, be sworn in, and then provide their evidence and oral testimony. Witness testimony shall be limited to five minutes, inclusive of any questions posed by the board, unless such time is extended by myself, the chair. Procedurally, the petitioner may request a continuance at any time during the hearing prior to a call for the vote in order to bring in additional evidence or testimony. The board may also continue the proceedings. After the submission of testimony and evidence from all interested parties, the board will ask a staff person to provide the Department of Planning's report on this matter if requested by any member of the board, the petitioner, or any individual that is participating in person or online. Once all witnesses have been heard, I will call for a motion to grant or deny with or without conditions, then the board will vote. At that time, the presentation of evidence relating to the petition is concluded and no further evidence will be permitted. The board will make a decision today. Four members of the board must vote in favor of the variance for it to be approved. If a variance is approved, the petitioner has six months to obtain the necessary permits or establish the use, or it will expire. If the Board's decision is unfavorable, the petitioner has the right of appeal to the St. Louis County Circuit Court. This appeal must be done within 30 days of the decision. Okay, Ms. Keefe, are there any questions at this time?

If anyone online would like to ask a question, please use the raise hand feature. There's anyone in the audience. Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands.

Okay, thank you. No questions at this time. The meeting will proceed. So staff could read the first request into the record, which will be followed by a brief slide presentation.

Mr. Chair the first item is BA 15-26 Darrell Dunn 2630 Maple Avenue Wildwood Missouri 63038 request exceptions to the minimum yard requirements general and the accessory buildings and structure standards for the purpose of constructing a detached metal garage 40 feet by 60 feet in size upon the property being located at 2630 Maple Avenue Locator number 24W540393, which would authorize a side yard setback distance of 7 feet and a rear yard setback distance of 10 feet in lieu of the 30-foot requirement and an accessory structure with a square footage greater than 1.5% of the overall life size. Parenthetical, 2,400 square feet in lieu of 287.5 square feet. This request is contrary to the requirements of Chapter 415.090 NU non-urban resident district regulations of the City of Wildwood zoning ordinance. The single family dwelling situated on the subject property was built circa 1940, has been surveyed and included in the City of Wildwood historic building inventory. this age threshold does require the historic preservation commission to consider this request as it is processed given the structure is in excess of seventy five years of age and the proposed garage has the potential to impact its historic character the commission conducted a site visit on may twenty sixth twenty twenty six and determined their structure would not impact the historic character of the dwelling but deferred issues such as its size and character in relation to the neighborhood to the board of adjustment Conditioned upon the commission's approval were requirements for additional notice to the neighborhood, working with the city arborist to preserve the woodlands and ensuring the structure matches the existing dwelling and selection of materials and colors. Mr. Chair, this particular property is located in ward one. And before Ms. Keefe begins the presentation of slides, department would like to enter into the record the following items chapter four hundred article two of the city of wildwood municipal code the board of adjustment chapter four fifteen of the same city of wildwood municipal code the zoning ordinance the file that has been developed and maintained by the department of planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, any testimony or evidence that is provided as part of tonight's public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moonidge. Ms. Keith.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, our first case this evening is located within the area of the historic pond district in Wildwood, which is with the subject property being located just south of historic Manchester Road or historic Route 66 and located in the general vicinity of Big Chief Roadhouse and Pond Road. Maple Avenue, where the subject property is located, is a public road, but it is rural in nature. The subject property is located in Pertner Subdivision, which was platted many, many decades ago. The development pattern in this area is primarily residential. However, there is a commercial property just behind the subject lot, which is zoned C8 planned commercial district and consists of both the storage and sale of construction materials, which has more of an industrial nature to it, which is therefore applied in the governing ordinance. The property, the subject property itself, though, is zoned non-urban residence district, and it is 22,000 square feet in size. It is considered non-conforming in the non-urban residence district, considering that it is less than three acres in size. However, it is a legal lot of record. The subject lot has a single family dwelling upon it with some accessory activities as well, including concrete porches and a detached garage, along with a lean-to that is attached to it. And I also believe there was a pretty rundown utility shed. The dwelling on the property is a ranch-style dwelling with approximately 1,000 square feet of total living area. The topography of the lot consists of primarily grassy turf, though there are numerous large trees located on the north side of it. There is a limited slope, but it does drain to the southeast corner. This property, given it was built around 1940, it has been inventoried through the Wildwood Historic Building Survey, and it was inventoried in 2017. Because it is 75 years or older, the historic preservation commission is required to also consider this request given that the garage may have the potential to impact the historic nature of the dwelling. As you learned within the agenda language, the commission did visit the site on May 26th of this year, and they voted to approve the proposed garage stating it would have no impact on the historic character of the home. But they deferred to the Board of Adjustment in regards to the size of it and its impact on the surrounding character of the neighborhood. The Historic Preservation Commission further conditioned their approval upon the owner doing his best to use materials and colors to match the existing dwelling. Working with the city arborist to preserve the large trees around the side of the project. And then also putting additional public notice out to the neighborhood which included a public notice kiosk at the intersection of Manchester Road and Maple Avenue in addition to the one that's posted in front of the dwelling itself. The petitioner in this case has recently bought the property and he would like to build a detached metal garage that is 40 feet by 60 feet at the rear of the property within the side yard and rear yard setback areas. The structure would be 2,400 square feet in lieu of the 285.5 square feet that is permitted by the non-urban residents district regulations. And it would also be within the side yard setback area at seven feet in lieu of 30 feet and in the rear yard setback area as well at 10 feet in lieu of 30 feet. Within the non-urban residence district, accessory buildings of this type that are detached are required to be 1.5% of the overall lot size. The owner's intent is to store his classic cars in the outbuilding. Warning there. There are four criteria that the city zoning ordinance considers in determining if buildings and structures of accessory natures are appropriate and in compliance of intended purposes. These include, A, customarily found in conjunction with the primary use, B, is reasonably necessary incident to the primary use, and C, is clearly subordinate to the primary use, and D, serves only to further the successful utilization of the primary use. These four criteria must be met for favorable consideration, interpretive relative to a proposed project. This is looking east at the front of the dwelling. This is looking southwest at the rear of it. So here you can see Maple Avenue in the background. This is just a slightly further back perspective that gives you a view of the northern side of the yard as you look towards Maple. Again, we're looking southwest at the rear of the dwelling. This is also south of the dwelling at its rear. We're facing west towards Maple Avenue, but on the other side of it. And this is where we have a gravel ribbon driveway. This is the area where the new garage project is being proposed, where the HPC is standing here. And this is looking southeast towards the existing detached garage with Ling 2. And again, the property just behind, oops, sorry. The property just behind this one to the east is that commercial property that we were talking about earlier. The owner has not made a decision, but he may remove the lean to portion of the detached garage as part of this project. And here we're looking at the southern neighbor. This is looking where the driveway wraps around the back to access the detached garage. So here's the detached garage to the east. This is the rear of the dwelling. And then this is the site of the proposed outbuilding. And do note that there are some several nice size trees in this area as well. Here we're standing in the front yard of the dwelling. We're looking northwest at Maple Avenue and of course our Historic Preservation Commission members as well. The department has received four comments in opposition to this request. Three of them are within the notification area but are not within the direct neighborhood. We do have one neighbor directly across the street from the subject property that wrote in their opposition to the request. The Board of Adjustment has heard two cases regarding setback distance reductions in this neighborhood and not supported them. And that concludes my presentation at this time. If the Board has any questions of Director Vunich or myself, we are happy to answer them.

Thank you, Ms. Keith. Are there any questions at this time for the department?

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. At this time, I'd like to call the petitioner forward and ask that you state your name, address, and relation to the property. And then we'll have to remember to get you sworn in by the court reporter.

Okay. My name is Daryl Dunn. The property is 2630 Maple Avenue. I purchased it approximately two months ago.

Okay, that's your property, right?

Yes, I'm the owner. Yes, okay. Actually, my girlfriend's listed on it with me, but I'm the owner.

Okay, all right. And let's get you sworn in by the court reporter.

Sir, will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Dunn. Okay. Let's go. All right. Like I said, I purchased the property about two months ago with the intentions of consolidating my cars. I have several historical cars. I have several hot rods, which are street legal, and I have a couple race cars, too. But I got a collection of stuff. I retired from my job approximately two years ago. And right now, I have things split up between my residence in Baldwin, my old office, which also is a dealership that has garage space that I utilize. Plus, I have a farm in Vandalia, Missouri, which I'm getting ready to liquidate. So I was looking for a piece of property that I could consolidate and build one garage, get everything under one roof, as far as my what I call toys go. We looked at the property. The property's pretty level all the way through. It's at a quiet area, not a real high crime area. It backs up to the commercial property. The way the property lays out, the garage would be perfect in the back of a lot. It has similar type buildings within 50 feet of it. However, there is a six foot privacy fence, which I'm going to have to rebuild, but it's not owned by me just because it's in bad shape. If I was to put, and I've already had the arborist out there also, the city arborist. We're going to remove one of most of the tree, which is half dead already. We thought we could save a silver maple that's right by there, too. But after further review, the arborist was not concerned with it. But my foundation guy was a little concerned with it. And on further review of that, the trunk is actually starting to rot out. There's a hole that goes all the way in there. So its life is very, very limited on how long it's going to last. It works perfect for back in that area. Anywhere else on the property, it wouldn't look good. It wouldn't fit. And it would also increase the amount of trees that we'd actually have to remove. I'd have to remove at least four more of the bald Cypress, thank you. I'd have to remove two of them and two more maple trees that are fully mature. So this also would only make me have to extend the driveway by about 40 feet versus anywhere else located in the property, we'd probably have to put a secondary driveway in that's gonna take away from the greenery. It's a real common sense. Urbanomically, it makes sense. It's just the best position for this building.

Okay.

Is that it? Do you have any questions? Yeah.

We're going to get to that. Are there any questions for Mr. Dunn? Yes, Mr. Rudolino.

Yeah, Mr. Dunn. Is the size of the 40 feet by 60 feet, is that an optimum size?

No, that is minimal. It's a compromise. I would like it bigger. But where the space is and the way the terrain is, I don't want to go any bigger than that. Okay. But I need to utilize that space.

Okay.

I mean, I have a lot of cars. Okay.

Two questions. Were you aware of the setback requirements when you bought the property?

I was aware of the setback requirements. However, I was not... Nobody ever discussed with me the actual size of the building can only be 1.5% of the size of the lot. Listen, this subdivision was drafted up back in 1919, I believe. And most of the lots are only 50 by 200. I'm lucky. I got a dual lot. So I'm 100 by 200. Yeah. If it was just what it was originally set up for, you couldn't build anything. You'd be negative 10 feet on the setback. And I know the new subdivisions that you're putting in now in Wildwood have less of a side setback than what I'm actually asking for.

One last question.

Yes, sir.

Is there any other configuration on this lot that would conform to the setbacks? Yes, sir. There are.

And why are you rejecting those other... Because it's going to take away from trees in the yard. It's going to require a secondary driveway. It's going to make it attach... garage, which is going to take away from the aesthetics of the original house whatsoever. However, over the years, the house has been upgraded. I mean, it's got modern vinyl siding on it. It's got aluminum clad cased windows and vinyl windows in it. So it's not really a historical house. It is an old house, but it's been well maintained. And I would like to keep the house in the condition that it's in. So it's just going to be kind of like you're going to drive down the street and it's going to be, a huge complex if I build it attached. I can actually go quite larger than what I'm asking for if I go attached. But I just think for the property, you know, common sense, the best place to do it, back of the lot, it's going to have no impact on any of the neighbors. I was really surprised to hear that I had one neighbor object to it. You know, I, Some of the neighbors I haven't met, but most of them I have. And everybody seems real happy about me doing it.

One last question, sorry.

Yes, sir. What's the height of the building?

14. 14 feet?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Any other questions for Mr. Dunn?

Nope.

Okay. I think there are two issues here. One is, of course, the setbacks. The other is just the physical size of the structure. I think there's some concern about how big it is compared to... Well, first of all, how it relates to the lot size, and then just in general in that area, how does that size of a building fit in with surrounding properties? Not thinking about the commercial part of it, but residential areas.

Most of the houses on the one side of the street, which would, I guess, be the west side of the street, they all have detached garages. Next to them. I mean, it's a narrow driveway going into it, and then the backyard is pretty much consumed by detached garages. Not all of them, though, but quite a few of them are. It's a tough neighborhood for buildings, but with them being as far back on the property as they can, they're as hidden as they can be, especially with the trees that I got on the lot. I mean, you're going to be able to see it. It's going to be obvious, but is it going to be in your face? No.

Okay, thank you, sir. Any other questions for the petitioner?

No? Okay, thank you, sir. Alrighty, thank you.

Okay, are there any speakers in the audience that would like to provide some testimony here? I see a hand go up. If you would like to speak, you'll need to fill out a card and provide it. And maybe you already did that. Did you? No? Okay. Let's have you fill out a card. Okay. Okay. Okay, so name, address, relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in, okay?

Okay. Michael Moran's. I own the property at 2622, right next door. And yeah, I'm going to go through. Okay. We need you to get you sworn in.

Sir, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, and I just want to remind you, you've got five minutes to. Okay.

Okay. One thing, when you were talking, you were saying there were like four requirements, and like two of them had to be like primary residence. My understanding is this is going to be a rental property. and it's not going to be a primary residence. So that's been clear throughout the neighborhood that it is rentable and not primary. So with that said, I purchased my first house in Wildwood before it was Wildwood in 1995. Or 87, I'm sorry. And I voted to incorporate it in 1995. with the promise to retain, preserve the unique assets and character of the community. I welcomed the restrictions, regulations, and requirements that are all in place for such a proposal. The proposed structure is more than double the size of the house. The metal pole barn would be more than four times closer to my property than currently is allowed. The metal structure would be 10 times larger than is currently allowed. The size and character of the structure does not fit the neighborhood or the historic pond district. The area already has water and drainage issues. And I'm sure Joe is aware. There's so many septic tanks in this. They're small lots. the ground is saturated with water. To allow a 2,400 square foot concrete slab that would support such a structure and putting it seven feet from my property line would be a drainage nightmare. There's nowhere for the water to go. So it's going to flood my property. Most subdivisions regulate the size of a structure in proportion to the house. Since this is not a subdivision, we have to rely on wildwood to regulate such a structure. So... So I just asked the board, if it was you, would you want a large structure seven feet away from your property? When you bought the property, you were under the assumption that the regulations and the rules would apply at 30 feet. And the other thing I can say... with all of the structures on this property currently and adding this. I mean, you're talking 25% of the property is covered with structure. And it's almost a half acre lot.

That's really about all I got. Okay, thank you, Mr. Moran. Are there any questions for our speaker? No?

Like I said, the two out of the four, I mean, it's not a primary residence. It seems like it's a mute point to even go. Okay.

All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you. Are there any other speakers that would like to It looks like Mr. Dunn would like to share a word yet.

His property is next to mine, and it is the same size lot, and it is a vacant lot, and his ground is higher than my ground. I have no intentions of raising the building or the site that's going to push water his way. As Robin had spoke earlier, the property drains off to the south. He's directly north of the property there. as far as I'm not really gonna have a renter in there. I'm gonna have a groundskeeper in there, which is a friend of the family who's gonna help me take care of the property and keep an eye over the contents of it.

Okay, well, thank you for that clarification, Mr. Dunn. Any further questions or additional questions for the petitioner? No? Okay. Okay. Are there any other speakers that would like to provide some testimony? No.

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers cards pertaining to this item, and I do not see any raised hands online.

Okay. Okay. OK, then at this time, I'd like to offer an opportunity to hear an oral presentation of the department's report. If anyone on the board or in the audience would like to hear it. If not, I don't see any. Request for that, so if the department would like to make any final comments, this would be the time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the board, the Department of Planning is not supporting the requested variance as submitted. Many of the items that have been identified in the department's findings of fact have been mentioned. particularly by the neighboring property owner. The department would just note, again, that the proposed outbuilding is 730% greater in size than what's allowed under the current regulations that are part of the non-urban resident district. The department also calls into question the relationship between the outbuilding and the principal residence, the criteria that has been identified we believe is not met by the current proposal. Therefore, we are recommending that the board not support the variance tonight. If there are any questions of the department, Ms. Keefe and I will be glad to try to answer them at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Boonig. Are there any questions or comments for the department?

Thank you again.

No? Okay, any other questions? comments by the board this at this time, no. Well, I think we will close this proceeding or a vote. At this time would someone like to make a motion to approve deny or approve with conditions this variance request.

I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to deny the request based on all of the criteria that is not being met.

Okay, so we have a motion to deny. Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Mr. Chair, if at all possible, Mr. Lux needs to be on screen when he votes.

Okay. Mr. Lux, are you able to give us a video feed there?

I am. Just let me ask my family to move to the side of the table I'm sitting at from the hotel room.

Right.

There we go.

Okay. We got you. Okay. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Denied to deny. OK, Mr Lee, how do you vote? Deny Bertolino and I Mr Lux, how do you vote? Did I? And I likewise, I'm going to vote to deny. Sorry Sir, your variance request is not approved. OK, it is time to move on to our next. a petition for tonight. And if the staff would go ahead and present that, this would be the time.

Mr. Chair, the next item is VA 16-26, Joshua and Tracy Tighoff, 504 Willow Glen Court, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. Requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing an in-ground swimming pool with associated concrete decking and supporting retaining wall no more than three feet in height. upon the property located at five zero four willow glen court locator number twenty four v thirty one zero one four two willow glen plat one of the villages of cherry hills lot one which will thereby authorize a rear yard setback distance of thirteen feet in lieu of thirty feet which is required from the property line This request is contrary to the requirements of Chapter 415.140 R3 10,000 square foot resident district regulations of the City of Wildwood zoning ordinance and Planned Environment Unit, PEU, amended ordinance number 13188 being approved by the St. Louis County Council in 1987. This particular property is located in Ward 8, and as with the previous case, before Ms. Keefe begins the slide presentation, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, Article 2 of the City of Wildwood Municipal Code, the Board of Adjustment, Chapter 415 of the same City of Wildwood Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance, a file that has been developed and maintained by the Department of Planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's recommendation. And then finally, Mr. Chair, any evidence or testimony provided as part of tonight's public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moonich. Ms. Key, if you would proceed, please.

All right, thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the board, our second case this evening involves a subject property located just south of our Wildwood Town Center, or south of Manchester Road, where it intersects with Taylor Road and turns into Village Hills Parkway. The property in question is 504 Willow Glen Court. This is a primarily residential area with denser residential development to the north and east of the subject property and then larger lot residential development to the south and to the west of it. The subject dwelling sits on the east side of Willow Glen Court, which is a six-lot cul-de-sac. Willow Glen Court is publicly maintained by the City of Wildwood. The subject property is located within the Willow Glen Plat 1 subdivision of the Willow Glen Plat 1 of the Seven Villages of Cherry Hill subdivision. Um, notably, uh, or notable to this case, uh, there is common ground, uh, to the north and east of the property and a budding it's rear. Um, so there's just a large, large tract of common ground area around the property. The property is 0.22 acres in area, and it is zoned to our 310,000 square foot residence district. It has a planned environment unit associated with it established by St Louis County Council. That number or that ordinance number is 13,188. Associated with this property are the regulations through the PEU and the R3 zoning district that guide its setback distance requirements and where structures can be placed upon the lot. On this property, there is a 20 foot front yard setback area, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and 30 feet rear yard setbacks. Prior to the incorporation of the City of Wildwood, St. Louis County had a different rear yard setback associated with this property, which was 15 feet rather than the 30 feet. This property, whoops, okay, I guess we're still on this one. This property is wooded at its rear, though several trees have been removed by the petitioners recently. It is largely flat. There is five feet of fall from the dwelling to the southeast corner of the property. The petitioners are planning to construct an in-ground swimming pool with associated concrete decking and fencing. As proposed, this swimming pool would be 13 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required from the rear property line. um and this 13 feet as you can see in this site plan is measured it's actually 13 feet 4 inches from the rear property line to the concrete the edge of the concrete decking and that's how we interpret it in the city of wildwood um When our city arborist conducted a site visit, it was noted that 11 trees had been removed by the petitioners or by the owners without city authorization. So the department has since requested a tree restoration plan from them, and they have submitted updated landscape plans for our review. And they still need to be reviewed by the city arborist, but they are included in your packets this evening. This is looking at the front of the dwelling, looking southeast. This is looking northeast at Willow Glen Court where it intersects with Willow Glen Drive. This is looking southwest at the cul-de-sac. This is looking southeast between the petitioner's dwelling here and their most affected neighbor for the project that is located south of them. This is the rear yard looking southeast. As you can see, there is a nice wooded area to the rear of the area being proposed for the pool. This is looking northeast at the rear yard area. This is looking towards that neighboring dwelling to the south. This is also looking south. This is looking northeast. Also Northeast says Northwest Northwest towards Willow Glen Drive. That's looking Southwest. And that brings me to the end of my presentation. There have been four variances to set back distance requirements within the Village of Cherry Hill subdivision, but none on Willow Glen Court or concerning the subject dwelling. Thank you. Director Vunic and I are available for your questions at this time.

Okay, are there any questions for the department at this time? No. Did you mention?

Okay, we did miss. I thought I was missing a couple slides. Yep, sorry. This is the side of the dwelling on the side of Willow Glen Drive, and we're looking northwest. And then I did have this as well. The most affected neighbor that we've been pointing out is in support of the request. Thank you.

Okay, perfect. Yep. Perfect. Was going to be my question. Okay, great. Yeah. Thank you miss key. All right at this time if the petitioner would like to come forward and present their request and. This would be the time. Mister or missus.

Mister chair, I believe that both the petitioner and the representative are on zoom let me promote them is OK.

Okay, so let's see here. Okay, so, and I hope I don't ruin your name here, but is it Tegathoth? Did I get that right? Mr. Tegithoff, are you going to be presenting your variance request or is someone else? Mr. Riley? Yeah, Mr.

Chair, Colin Riley has been representing this case.

Yes, that's right. Mr. Riley. All right. So if you'd give us your name, of course, we kind of know it now, but just give us your name. And your address, your relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in. Okay.

My personal address or company address or homeowner address, which would you like?

Yeah, so your company address and then your relationship to the property under discussion.

Perfect. So I am Colin Riley. Our business address is 1112 Bryan Road in O'Fallon, Missouri. And my relationship to the petitioner is that we are the general contractor responsible for the pool project.

Okay. And Mr. Riley, we're going to have you get sworn in by the court reporter. So if you want to slip your hand up. There you go.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Riley, feel free to proceed. And just remember, you've got 15 minutes to work with here.

Perfect, perfect. Thank you very much for that, Robin. And a special thanks to you as well as Michael and Katie and your office. I really appreciate you guys helping us through this process. But to kick us off... The reasoning behind the request for variance is threefold, kind of as Katie alluded to. The first reason is that the lot itself was plotted and approved prior to the incorporation of the City of Wildwood. So 504 Willow Glen Court was constructed in 1987, and the lot was recorded in Plaque Book 252. page 20 of the St. Louis County records as part of Willow Plat One at Villages of Cherry Hills. Wildwood was not incorporated until June 29th, 1995, which was nearly eight years after the lot was platted, recorded and improved. So now the standards being applied to this property were established after the fact and the physical constraints of this lot were fixed long before those regulations existed. So strict regulation of the current setback requirements constitutes a practical difficulty, not of the applicant's making. The second reason of the three would be that this lot is uniquely bordered by master common area, as Robin kind of pointed out there. So on either side, if we're looking at an aerial on the right, as well as on the rear of the property, it's all common area, which substantially reduces the impact of neighboring properties. And then the third reason would be that the most directly impacted neighbor that isn't common ground has already expressed their support. Outside of those three reasons, if we're looking at the design that our company came up with, we already had planned around making sure that this was a small pool and we're requesting the minimum relief necessary for this project. So it's kind of inherent in the design that we aren't asking for removal of the entire variance. We're just asking for the minimum relief to get the pool that we've designed in the project.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Yep. Are there, are you, are you finished? That is about all I have. Okay. All right. So to make sure you, you were able to share what you need to, are there any questions for Mr. Riley at this time from the board? I don't see any. Well, you're going to get off easy tonight. All right. Um, I think you are free to go. You're finished. All right. Um, At this time, are there any other speakers in the audience or online that would like to provide some testimony? I see a raised hand here. Sir, have you filled out a speaker card? Okay, if you would bring that forward and provide that to Ms. Keefe, and then your name, your address, your relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in, okay?

Hi, my name's Mike Doak, D-O-A-K, and I live on 16615 Willow Glen Drive.

And your relationship to the property is?

Well, I'm the president of the master board down there, so we kind of keep an eye on the main drag there.

Okay. Okay. I'm going to get you sworn in. Okay. Okay. But I just want to make sure we got that covered. Okay. So if you'd raise your hand.

Sir, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

I do.

Thank you.

All right. Now you can go.

Okay. Anyway, I'm president of the master board down there. So we took a look at this at our last meeting last week. And nobody on the board had a problem with this at all. So we voted that it was okay. It was up to you guys to what you wanted to do. Because of all the trees and stuff right there, you can't even see their backyard. And I did talk to the construction guy. I asked for a couple of things. One, we wanted the fence to match the fence to the next door neighbor. That's what was promised to us. So it all matches and it looks nice. Two, we wanted to make sure that they make sure that they run their backflow of that to the street because we have several neighbors in our subdivision that's running into the common ground. And we have an issue with that. So as long as they had no problem with that, we as the board of the master board, we had no problems.

Okay. So that was a drainage thing, right?

Yes. When they backflow, a lot of these pools are putting it in our common ground and they're dumping it in our lakes and stuff. Even though the sewers go into the lake and everything, we just want them out there because it dilutes it and it gets into the lakes because that's where our drainage is.

Okay.

That's all we ask, if they could do that for us. And they reassured me, and they also reassured me that they wouldn't tear up the common ground when they're putting the construction in on that side. I talked to the construction guy. So we just want to let you know, as a board, we had no problem with this at all. Okay. All right?

Great. Thank you, sir. Before you take off, are there any questions for Mr. Duke? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. Are there any other questions? Individuals that would like to provide testimony. No. Okay. At this point, would anyone like to hear an oral presentation of the department's report? Nope. Okay. So... If the department would like to provide any final comments, and you might want to reference the whole fence thing and the drainage and the backflow thing, if you could.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, the department's primary reasons for supporting this request have already been stated pretty clearly by the petitioner's representative. So I would just note again that The original platting of the lot did apply a 15-foot rear yard setback distance, so the 13 feet being requested when looking at how the lot was originally platted isn't as large of a variance request as it may seem. Additionally, given that there is common ground on two sides of the pool project area and the most affected neighbor is in support, the department is therefore supporting the request as well. However, we are always very concerned when trees are taken down prior to any city inspection or approval. So we would just advise that in the future, the petitioners submit for the appropriate permits before touching the trees. And we are requesting as part of our support that the board condition any approvals on a landscape and tree restoration plan And I guess we don't need to request a letter from the Homeowners Association as we have just heard from them. However, I will defer to Director Vunich to address the drainage and fencing. Thank you.

With your permission. Yes, Mr. Vunich.

Mr. Chair and members of the board, the department is making a recommendation, as Ms. Keefe noted. If there is concurrence on the board member's part to proceed forward with a favorable recommendation, the department would ask that it include the required landscape tree restoration plan, plus that the fencing match that of the neighbor, the disturbance of the common ground meet the requirements of the master board, and that drainage will be toward the street, not into the common ground area.

Okay, Mr. Lee, the question for staff is the Elevate Outdoor Plan, the tree restoration plan that we're referring to?

Please.

Again, that is the updated landscaping plan submitted by the petitioners that would need to be reviewed by our city arborist and the Department of Planning.

Okay, so any planning would be reviewed by the city in either case?

Yes, sir. The arborist we have now as a full-time staff member does a wonderful job. My assumption from the photographs that Ms. Keefe provided, the fact that most of the rear yard area of the subject property is mulch, there were probably a whole lot of trees that precluded grass to grow, so maybe some of that thinning out actually was a benefit.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments. OK, so just to kind of clarify it. Mister dope. You had mentioned that. Mister I understand correctly. There was a commitment I think made by the petitioner to the Association, the Homeowners Association, or yeah, about the fence and the drainage, right? Okay. So if we wanted to, we could put that as part of the condition. I know that Mr. Vunich, you talked about the drainage. Did you talk about the fence as well? Yeah, you did. Okay. All right. So That being the case, I think unless there's any other comments or questions, we're going to close this proceeding for a vote. And so at this time, would someone like to make a motion to approve, deny, or approve with a series of conditions?

Conditions.

Conditions.

And just for the record, should we state what those conditions are, the tree restoration plan? And the fence. And the fence and the drainage. Yeah. Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Bertolino seconds the motion. Okay. Mr. Morris, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Lee, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Bertolino, how do you vote?

Approve.

And Mr. Lux, how do you vote? Approve. I'm sorry, I don't think we quite caught that. Approve. Approve, okay. And I also vote yes. So congratulations, your variance request with the conditions has been approved. Okay, it is time now to read in the next case into the record.

Mr. Chair, the third item on tonight's agenda is BA 17-26, Chan and Melissa Cotter, 4743 Fox Mountain Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63069, care of Mike Eberhardt, 12601 Kimes Road, DeSoto, Missouri 63020. Request an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of maintaining, constructing, three concrete block retaining walls parenthetical maximum heights are fifteen point five feet fourteen feet and ten feet respectively respectfully upon the property located at four seven four three fox mountain road locator number twenty eight thirty two zero zero nine seven fox fire forest subdivision lot two which would authorize a front yard setback distance of twelve feet in lieu of the fifty foot standard for the first wall the fifteen and a half foot maximum height and side yard setback distances of twenty feet and twenty five feet in lieu of the thirty feet respective to the other two walls This request is contrary to the requirements of Chapter 415.090 NU Non-Urban Resident District Regulations of the City of Wildwood Zoning Ordinance. And members of the board, this particular property is located in Ward 6. And again, as with the previous two cases, the department would like to enter into the record the following items chapter four hundred article two the board of adjustment of the city of wildwood municipal code chapter four fifteen of the same city of wildwood municipal code the zoning ordinance the file that has been developed and maintained by the department of planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein including the department's report with recommendation and then finally mr chair any testimony or evidence that is offered as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moonidge. Ms. Keefe, if you'd like to give us a presentation here.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, our third case involves a subject property that is located in far western Wildwood. Here you can see a purple line. This is the Franklin County line. So we are very, very west. This is Fox Creek Road, where it intersects with, well actually it parallels for a while, Interstate 44. And taking Model Realty Road You can find your way back to Fox Mountain Road. So it's a bit of a scenic drive. The subject property is located in the Fox Fire Forest subdivision. And this is primarily a large lot residential area. The subject lot is located off of Fox Mountain Road, which is a private street 50 feet wide, and it is very rural in nature, very curvy and hilly, reflecting the area terrain. The lot is approximately three acres in size, and it is zoned non-urban residence district. There is a single family dwelling upon the lot, along with associated improvements, including an in-ground swimming pool, along with concrete decking and concrete flat work, a putting green, an outdoor game court, and other accessory improvements, including the subject retaining walls of this request. The subject dwelling is 4,630 square feet. In total living area is two stories in height and has a three car garage attached to it as well. The lot does consist of primarily mature woodlands except directly around the dwelling where there is some limited turf located. The property has very limited landscaping given the amount of woods surrounding it. There is a surrounding the dwelling. There is a significant slope associated with the property. The highest point of the property is around the dwelling and the storm water runoff drains to the southwestern and southeastern corners of the property. There is 90 feet of total relief across the property with the high spot at the dwelling. The petitioners are requesting that the board approve some already built retaining walls. These retaining walls currently exist upon the property. There is a retaining wall that leads in the front yard of the dwelling from the dwelling out towards the end of the driveway area. It is 12 feet from the front yard property line. And actually just two feet from the side yard property line. At this point where you see the arrow it is 13 and a half feet high. And at some point along the wall it actually gets up to 15 and a half maximum height. The other retaining wall that is the subject of this request includes this one, which is 10 feet maximum height and is 25 feet from the side yard property line in lieu of 30 feet. And then the final retaining wall is at the bottom here. And this is also in the side yard setback area at 20 feet in lieu of 30 feet. And it is 14 feet maximum with 14 feet maximum in height. So these three retaining walls are accomplishing different things. This front yard retaining wall, and again, there is a 50-foot front yard setback from the public or from the private right of way in this case. This front yard retaining wall is creating a flat area for the game court, which is located in this location. This retaining wall appears to be associated with holding up house. The retaining wall down here is supporting the rear yard improvements. And there's also some extensive flat work as well, but that's not part of the variance request. It is noted in the department's report that in May of 2025, the department did authorize a similar set of retaining walls on the subject lot. These walls were primarily six feet in height or less. There was an error made by the department on one set of walls where the tallest of them was 13 feet and would have required a variance. While the petitioners have an approved plan set for this series of walls, the construction of them has extended all three of them into setback areas of the lot, and this was not authorized, and at heights much greater than the six feet that was originally planned. So this is the front yard retaining wall. This is looking southwest of the petitioner's driveway. This is looking southeast at Fox Mountain Road. And this is looking northwest upon it. This is looking southwest at the subject dwelling. This is looking northwest towards the game court area. This is also looking northwest. This is circling the dwelling. Now we're looking west. This is not one of the retaining walls within the variance request. It is within the city's regulations because it is six feet or under. However, this is the subject retaining wall of the variance request that gets up to 10 feet in height and is in the setback area. This is looking southeast. This is just to the rear of the dwelling where the in-ground swimming pool is located. This is looking northwest towards the neighboring property to the northwest. And then this is the other retaining wall that gets up to 14 feet and height and is in the side yard setback area as well. And that's just giving you another look at it. This is looking southeast at the putting green behind the dwelling. This is looking east. This is looking southwest. Because again, there is a fairly steep topography to the rear of the dwelling. This is looking northeast as we circle the residence. This is a side entry garage. This is looking northeast back to the front driveway area. The department has received two written comments from neighbors that are in support of the request. One of the neighbors is directly behind the property and the other neighbor is elsewhere in the in the vicinity, but not directly abutting the property itself. And there is a variance history on Fox Mountain Road. The Board of Adjustment has approved two out of three cases with two approved requests concerning setback reductions to accommodate either floodplain or topography associated with individual properties. And that concludes the department's presentation at this time. If you have any questions of Director Boonage or myself, please ask them. Thank you.

You got some. Sorry. Robin, just chronology first. If I read this right, there was an approved plan a year ago, roughly, 25, with heights of like six foot. And then the retaining walls were built at a much higher height, right? That is correct. That's simple, right? Do we know why that happened?

i think that's an excellent question for the owner okay all right i think we're going to find out here okay thank you okay any other questions for the department at this time this time no okay um if the petitioner would like to come forward and um share your name, your address, your relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in, okay?

Hi, my name is Mike Eberhardt. I'm with All In Construction. I live at 12601 Kimes Road, DeSoto, Missouri, 63020. I am the contractor at the property. We built all the walls. Let me get you sworn in. Let's do that.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Hey, now you can go. Well, I'd like to bring a couple of the pictures back up if she could. On the front wall, that wall was planned, same location and everything, but it was shorter. The homeowner wanted to raise it. We did raise that wall. We did go, St. Louis County was there the whole time, took all pictures and everything of all the grid and all that. We took inspections of every layer of grid. We didn't know we were doing something wrong with the variance of the 50 foot of the six foot high. I did not know that. We actually thought the county was fine. He just said we had to get an addendum when we were finished is what he said. Well, then we went to go to St. Louis County and they said, no, you have to go through Wildwood for a variance. So that wall, we did not know that we could not go that high in the front. That's why we had permits. Everything was approved. We did raise it, so we didn't get permission from Wildwood at that time, but we did from St. Louis County. The inspector inspected everything on that wall right there. And then the other wall on the very back, that was on the plan the whole time, exactly like it is. It's actually a foot shorter than what we had planned. All the way, one more. We'll come back to that one. The one to the right that you can't see, it's down holding everything up. Yeah, that one right there. And at the end there, it is below six foot tall. It is inside that area, but the last 15 foot of it's below six foot tall. So we are off 30 foot area there, I think, before it gets over six foot tall. I believe so. And then the other one, if you went back two pictures. That one right there on the left, that was supposed to be shorter. And again, the last little bit of it is less than six foot tall in that variance. So it's mainly the front wall that's in the 50 foot that's taller than the six foot.

So while you're up, maybe we should get a little clarification from staff. The six foot tall is, I mean, whether it's six feet or even shorter, I think is the issue that they built it into the setback. If it were three feet tall, could they go into the setback?

As long as the entire structure, which is the retaining wall, not just the portion that may extend into the setback, is six feet or less in height. Again Mister chair we consider it a single structure regardless of how it papers at either and it's a single structure so if it extends into the setback it and over 6 feet, it's a violation without a variance.

All right, thank you for that clarification and did the original plan. Show that the wall was going to go into the setback area.

The original plan, at least the three walls, showed the height not exceeding six feet. As mentioned in Ms. Key's presentation, the third wall, which is the wall to the rear of all of the improvements, there was a mistake made by the department. We accept that responsibility. It extended into the setback and ultimately at one point had a height of 13 feet.

Okay, so the primary issue is the height.

Yes, if the height was six feet or less, they could build into the setback as much as they wanted. If it's over six feet in height, then they have to adhere to the setbacks.

Mr. Bertolino.

Yeah, to the contractor. Who made the decision to go to the 13 feet, 15? The homeowner. The homeowner made that decision? Yes. And directed you to build it to that height?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

With approval from the inspector and everything, said we could. We just had to get a variance at the end, an addendum. That's the county? St. Louis County, correct.

Okay. Thank you.

So the St. Louis County inspector said, you can go ahead and do that.

You just need to get an addendum when we finished.

Okay. Get an addendum. Yeah. And here you are tonight in front of us. Okay.

Well, we're trying to put a pavilion right there, which we got that approved. The plan for that is approved through Wildwood too. So we're putting a pavilion there, but we have to get this to get the final on the walls. Okay. Okay. But I guess my understanding, if I'd have known with the back wall, I know you said that they made a mistake. I didn't know that there was a six foot, and I know ignorance is not, you know, free will here, but, you know, with St. Louis County there, I thought we were okay also.

Okay. All right. Yeah, that always creates a little bit of a The question or issue in the city is.

We did not do anything to cheat. The homeowner is not scared to spend a little money to get things right. There was never an issue with money or timing or anything like that. We've been there for a long time. I know you were saying the permit was a long time ago. We've been there for a long time. And there's a lot more that's going to happen in the front where all the asphalt's at. They plan on doing all that concrete, some landscaping in the other side of the driveway also. Nothing over six foot tall, I promise you that.

Okay, appreciate that. Okay, are there any other questions for the petitioner? Yeah. Anything else? No? Mr. Bernalino. Sorry, Arnie. Okay.

Sorry, I'll go next. Mr. Bertolino, go ahead.

Oh, okay, Kevin. Quickly, is it common to Joe or Robin, is it common for a county inspector to make that kind of determination while they're on site?

I'm sure the county inspector was inspecting the construction specifications of the wall, not necessarily reading the entirety of the plan to see that the approved plans had them at six feet or less. So I'm assuming, I don't know for a fact that the contractor asked for the inspection, the inspector came out, saw that the complements of the wall met the mastered set, and really didn't investigate the height.

assuming that wildwood probably had approved it at that height which we didn't okay mr lux did you have a question yeah i think just kind of stacking on that line of thinking for mr bernalino i was just going to ask you we've identified the inspector who made that statement and said it could be amended afterwards an error or if that's been confirmed at all or have they prepared a statement to that effect or anything along those lines

The content of the conversations, all I will tell you is that any change to the wall, because the contractor had the approved plans supposedly on site, should have been not only St. Louis County, but the city of Wildwood. Again, there's a set of plans that the contractor is supposed to have on the site and work from. And our stamp is on a set of plans that has six feet or height, six feet or less in height, except for what I would consider the southwestern corner where the mistake was made.

Okay, are there any The questions for the petitioner. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Okay. Are there any folks in the audience or online that would like to speak on this particular case? no okay uh would anyone like to hear an oral report of the department no appetite for that all right um in that case if the department would like to make some final comments we'll go from there thank you mr chair mr chair and members of the board the department has made a recommendation as part of its report for the members not to support this particular variance

There may well be a hardship existing to the topography of this particular property and its ultimate use. However, proceeding forward without authorization makes it very difficult to support a variance. And in that particular instance, to justify the variance now after the fact would seem to flaunt our ordinances. So the department is not recommending approval.

OK. All right, thank you, Mr. Boonich.

Are there any questions of Ms. Keefe or I? We'd be glad to answer them at this time.

All right, I think we may have one or two. Mr. Yes, go ahead, Mike.

Mr. Lee. In the beginning of the presentation, there was a paved area up by the driveway that was identified as a sport court or a sport area, and that's not allowed in front yards.

Well, what I would call it is a turf area. There was a net next to it. I just gave it a common name. I saw no violation there.

Okay, so that's okay. And then the other paved area, was that approved in a drawing? Or are we thinking that this is supposed to be turf and it's all paved?

Actually, the approved set of plan actually showed the design that's being discussed tonight.

So it's all paved and it's been reviewed by the engineer.

Just to set your mind at ease, our Department of Public Works reviews all plans for stormwater management. And so from the perspective of all the impervious surface, it should work based upon that review.

That's where I was headed with that. Thank you.

You're welcome, sir.

So to come into compliance,

what would have to be done with these walls well the the most expeditious and probably least expensive approach is for the board to grant variances tonight to all three of the walls and avoid them having to be re-engineered and then rebuilt otherwise um that would be the it's pretty ugly done yeah it would be the approach of the department the third option is the property owner believes that the board's aired in its recommendation and files litigation with the st louis county circuit court and ask the judge to overturn your decision sure okay thank you because it you know um clearly the walls they look good they're

I think it was constructed at a very high level of quality and so forth. It would be pretty invasive to lower them at this point in time. And it didn't appear as if there was any malicious intent to try and skirt any rules or anything. They thought they were okay, but they aren't. I mean, yeah.

Well, certainly if the contractor came before the board and stood at the podium and said, well, first of all, we didn't get a permit for building purposes, and we also ignored the city's zoning laws, then I think there's no justification at all. But from the department's perspective, they did have a set of approved plans which allowed St. Louis County to review the building components of the retaining walls and issue permits and undertake inspections. The question I would have to the contractor, has that company, his company, built in Wildwood previously? And if so, have they followed the plans previously?

Hmm.

From the department's perspective, if you're not familiar with the two-step approach that the city employs for building projects, zoning, grading, lighting, landscaping, Wildwood building plan review, whether it's a home or a set of retaining walls by St. Louis County. Certainly that can be confusing. Does it justify what's happened? Well, if contractors talk and the contractor says, yeah, I built the walls taller than you approved plans, but I got a variance, no harm, no foul. Makes others think, well, maybe I don't need a permit. Maybe I can do it too. There's a risk. And the department's responsibility is to minimize risk and ensure, not just from the standpoint of aesthetics or process, that it's done in a safe and functional manner.

OK. Mr. Lee. One more question, Joe. The approved grading plan. Would it six foot or a shorter wall when it had sloped areas? And when I saw it was all flattened out, is that the change between the drawings and what's constructed?

What I've seen in Fox Mountain, whether it's Fox Fire Forest or the original Fox Mountain subdivision, oftentimes these driveways, like you've seen here, have to kind of switch back to address grade from the paved surface, the roadway to the buildable area. And what ultimately happens if they're not supported by some engineered solution, retaining walls, they start to erode away. and then they undercut the driveway. So I think what the property owner was attempting to do here is to stabilize not only the yard area, but the access to the property. So yes, I think your statement, the answer is yes. Thank you.

Any other questions for the department or even the petitioner at this point? Yes, Mr. Everhart, right? You would like to...

Yeah, I just want to comment.

I just don't want anybody thinking that we did this to go around anybody or anything. I've worked for a multimillion-dollar landscape company. I was superintendent for years, for 16 years. We worked with multiple municipalities, St. Charles, Ferguson, all kinds of places. And we've had multiple jobs change on site with the inspector saying, okay, go ahead. We've never had to go back and do things, get a denim at the end. Everybody knew. It was... I never would have thought that we were doing anything wrong. And if we did, I apologize. But this homeowner spent well over $10,000 in engineering. I've spent a lot of time and the homeowner and my son has spent a lot of time with permitting and everything and making sure we were doing everything correct. I apologize, but there is not one thing that we did that changes any flow to water anywhere. The slope is still there. It's not going to go as fast. We still have the slope going the same direction in the front as it used to. but it's not gonna go as fast. It's gonna slow it down and it's all turf in the front, all grass. He has more sod in the front yard than he's ever had. So I'd like everybody to know that. There's a lot more sod than what there was. And the driveway is back where it was. The only thing we added was in the back around the pool, and that was all permit in the beginning. Nothing was done more so than what it was supposed to be. I'm very nervous. I'm sorry. But I don't want anybody thinking we did this intentionally. I don't want nobody to really – that really bothers me that you would think that. We did not do anything intentionally to go around anything. I promise you that. So that's what I wanted to say. All right. Thank you, sir.

And I would say, I don't know that we necessarily are thinking that anyone was doing anything intentionally to skirt the requirements of the city. It's just, just an unfortunate situation.

Yeah. Okay. Any other comments? I have one. Um, It's obvious that we're not going to tear this down and rebuild the grades. I mean, that would be physically impossible. I get the build it and then come in and beg for forgiveness is a problem. But I can support the variance if the city staff engineer would go out and review the property and make sure that we haven't caused a problem with runoff downstream and to the neighbors to impact the erosion potential in the forest area because this much impervious pavement in a wooded area on this steep upgrade will cause damage to the slope. So I'm interested in the slope stability and not having a problem 10 years from now like we have in some of our creek boundaries and so forth. So if that's something the department would consider, we can do something like that.

Certainly. The department did visit the property on Monday. It did talk with one of the neighbors. So the concerns the department would have is to the property immediately to the north, where the wall is closest at the driveway intersection with the roadway surface, and then across the street, or what I would consider to the south or southeast. and so yes we can certainly do that for you if the inclination of the board is to proceed forward favorably we'll make sure that the drainage works and i think that's a reasonable request of the property owner given the circumstances the alternative is litigation or you start over would it be more appropriate for the department to do that can we revisit this with the answer Regardless, we'll figure out a drainage solution, but you are correct. Trying to remove this set of walls and start over, it's a task I don't think the department feels would be beneficial to anyone. So if you make it a condition, they'll have to adhere to it or we won't release on the permit, the permits, the final certificates for the walls, nor will we issue any other authorizations for any other buildings or structures on the lot. So we have leverage. So it's a hard word, but that's sometimes what you need to get to the point where you want to be.

Okay, so the department could support this giving given those types of conditions. All right. Thank you Mister moon it for that clarification. So at this point unless there's any other comments. I'm going to close the proceeding. For a vote. So at this time, could I have a motion to approve, deny, or approve with conditions? Mr. Lee.

I'll make a motion to approve with the condition that the city staff engineers review the site for stormwater runoff. And if it's found that the pavement has detrimentally impacted the site that corrective measures be taken.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Lee. Do we have a second?

Second.

Mr. Bertolino, thank you for that. Okay, Mr. Morris, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Lee, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Bertolino?

Approve.

Mr. Lux, how do you vote? Approve. Approve. Okay. And I also approve the variance request with the stated conditions. Congratulations. You're approved.

Okay.

All right. Let's move on to the next petition.

Mr. Chair, the fourth item on tonight's agenda is BA 18-26, Aaron and Jennifer Chapman, 17034 Manchester Road, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040, care of Matthew Ernst, D2R Contracting, 17528 Summit View Place Ridge, Wildwood, Missouri, 63038. Request an exception to the zoning ordinances. minimum yard requirements general of the nu non-urban resident district and the neighborhood design standards for the neighborhood edge district of the town center plan to accommodate the replacement and expansion of a thirty foot by twelve foot covered patio with side screens upon the lot that is located at one seven zero three four manchester road st louis county locator number 24V-420111, Grover Heights, which would thereby authorize a front yard setback distance variance of 45 feet from Center Avenue in lieu of the 50-foot distance as set forth by the property zoning district designation. This request is contrary to Chapter 415.090, new non-urban resident district regulations of the city of wildwood zoning ordinance and the neighborhood design standards of the neighborhood edge district of the town center plant this particular property is located in ward eight and mr chair before mrs keefe begins her presentation of slides the department would again like to enter into the record chapter four hundred article two of the City of Wildwood Municipal Code, the Board of Adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same City of Wildwood Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance. The file and all contents contained therein that have been maintained by the Department of Planning, including its report with recommendation. And then finally, any testimony or evidence provided as part of tonight's public hearing. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Moonish. Ms. Keefe, if you would give us your presentation.

Yes.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, our fourth case this evening concerns a subject lot that is located within our Wildwood Town Center area. It is a corner lot just south of Manchester Road and west of Center Avenue. Manchester Road is also our historic Route 66 that runs through Wildwood. It is an original alignment of it built in 1926 and then rerouted in 1932. It is a city-maintained arterial that is 60 feet wide and Center Avenue is 35 wide and also city-maintained. This property is located within the Grover Heights subdivision, and it's also located within the historic Grover community. Just to the west of this property along Manchester Road is Good News Brewing Company, and to the east is the business core of the historic Grover community, and then the surrounding areas all around it are residential in nature. This area has some public goals for it, including preserving architectural character throughout the town center through our architectural design guidelines that are adopted by the city. And then also some historic preservation plan goals as well. And we have a historic preservation plan that's currently undergoing the adoption process. And the goals stated within it include enhancing the visitor experience along Route 66, and promoting heritage tourism throughout the city. The subject property is approximately one acre in size. It's rectangular in shape. It is zoned non-urban residence district and does require a 50-foot front yard setback from both public right-of-ways. So both from Center Avenue and Manchester Road because it is zoned non-urban. The single family dwelling built upon this lot was built in 1966. So it is one of our older dwellings with a unique character. However, it has not been inventoried yet as it is not quite 75 years old yet. It is two stories in height. It has 2,504 square feet of total living area. There is a two car attached garage associated with it, a front porch with second level deck, an existing concrete patio at the rear, and a backyard that's enclosed by a white vinyl fence. And the reason we keep mentioning architecture is because it does have kind of a unique architectural character to it. This property is flat, mostly flat around the dwelling, but there is 14 feet of fall from its northwestern corner to the southwest southeastern corner. So kind of diagonal across the lot. The northwestern corner of the property is wooded with the rest being mostly grassy turf area. The petitioner is proposing to replace and expand an existing concrete patio area. So what they want to do is build a 30 foot wide by 12 foot deep concrete covered patio with screen sides. According to the petitioner, the siding will match with the dwelling. They know in their application that the existing patio has cracking and settlement issues, which is predicating this change. They want to expand the width of the patio by five feet. But will not extend past the garage. So it will stay within the overall building envelope. However, to extend the patio five feet will require a little bit of intrusion into the front yard setback area again to the side of the dwelling out along Center Avenue. The dwelling itself is actually within that that area. This is the floor plan of the new patio project. This is the eastern elevation of it. And this is the southern elevation. Oh, there it is. Here you can see the front of the dwelling looking south from Manchester Road. And this is looking east along Manchester. And then this is Center Avenue. This is looking at center north. Here's Manchester, where it intersects with Manchester. And so you're looking across the street. This is Center Avenue across from the subject dwelling. As you can see here, there are two ingress-egress points to the dwelling, so one driveway access from Manchester and one from Center Avenue. Here we're looking into the rear yard area of the dwelling. We're looking northwest and this is the area of the proposed patio project. And here we're looking west just to get a full sense of the rear yard area. And this is also west giving you a side profile of the residence. This is the attached garage area. and that concludes the department's presentation uh if you have any questions uh at this time director bunich and i are available to answer them thank you thank you miss keith are there any questions for the department at this time mr lee this will follow town center guidelines through the whole design and go through architectural review board and so forth It does not require architectural review board review.

Not for the roof part of it? Okay.

Are there any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you, Ms. Keith. This time, if the petitioner or their representative would like to come forward. and present their variance requests. Again, your name, address, relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in.

All right. Aaron Chapman, 17034 Manchester Road. I'm the owner.

Okay. And if you would raise your hand.

Sir, do you, excuse me, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I hope you got it.

I do. Okay, Mr. Chapman, you are on. And again, you have 15 minutes to present your information.

Yeah, the existing patio is 10 by 20. Since I bought it 10 years ago, I put a lot of work into it, keeping the character, but also making preservation and improvement. So this issue is the patio sunken into the foundation. So water collects in that corner. It needs to be fixed. If I just replace the patio, I will not fix the whole problem. So by making a covered patio over the 10 by 20 section, that'll help us guide the water to the yard area. So that's really it. There's not too much now that the design did extend to 24 feet of the building still doesn't pass the garage. And that's just for functionality. The 10 by 20 would be just too small with a door to the garage and then a double door to the back kitchen area. So, yeah. Yeah, I don't think I have anything else.

Pretty straightforward.

Yeah, considering what I've seen tonight, maybe we could just go through this real quick. Okay, well, we'll see.

Come on. Okay, I like that. That was good. Any questions for Mr. Chapman at this point? No? I'm sure that you probably read the report from the department and what their recommendation is. They are recommending that if this is granted, that your materials and design matches the existing dwelling. We're aware of that, and you're cool, I'm sure.

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Any other comments or questions for the petitioner? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Are there any individuals in the audience or online that would like to speak on this particular variance request? Anything, Robin, that we see?

Mr. Chair, I have no speakers' cards related to this request, and I don't see any raised hands online that we do have a few attendees.

Okay. So that takes care of that. All right. Would anyone like to hear an oral presentation from the department? Not yet, okay. At this time then, if the department would like to make any final comments.

Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board, the department is supporting this variance request. There is a unique hardship to the petitioner in that the dwelling, because of its age, was built many decades before and therefore is fixed upon the lot where it is. Part of the dwelling is already in that A front yard setback area to Center Avenue and then of course having the two being a corner a lot like that further restricts the building envelope. The existing or the the proposed patio extension. It's a it's a pretty small one. It's five feet. It's staying back behind that garage, so it's not going to be visible from Manchester Avenue. There's already a fence kind of breaking it up, and the petitioner has agreed with the department's recommendation to go ahead and condition any approvals upon materials and design that would match with the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the department is taking a public interest approach with this particular dwelling because it does add to the visual character of our historic Route 66. We believe it's in our best interest, even though that this building is not necessarily protected yet by the city's ordinances. it will get there uh pretty shortly and it's in our best interest to uh ensure its lawn and continued use and care and we believe that this project is is going to contribute to that thank you okay thank you ms key are there any final comments or questions by the board no all right

Now, that being the case, we are going to close this proceeding for a vote. If someone would like to make a motion to approve, deny, or approve with conditions, this would be the time.

I move to approve.

To approve. Okay. All right. Do you want to approve with the condition stated?

Yes, with the stated condition.

Okay, gotcha. All right. Do we have a second? A second. Mr. Morris, thank you for that second. Mr. Lee, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Bertolino, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, how do you vote?

Approve.

And Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. And I likewise... vote yes congratulations mr chaplin your variance request is approved with the stated condition okay uh i think i'm almost starting to lose count here but are we on the last case for the night we are sir all right that's awesome okay why don't we go ahead and get that one read into the record and um mr boonage if you'd like to proceed

Yes, sir. Thank you. The last item on tonight's agenda relative to cases is BA 19-26, Stephen and Kelly Robinson, 5 Rainforest Court, Wildwood, Missouri, 63011, care of Chloe Astroth, Fence and Deck Depot Company, 1432 South Drive, st charles missouri six three three zero three requesting exception to the specific yard requirements and exceptions for the purpose of installing three hundred and thirty linear feet of white vinyl privacy fencing along the lot's front building line which adjoins rain forest drive with such placed upon the parcel of ground located at five rain forest court located number twenty three the thirty four zero zero three two evergreen plat one lot one zero eight thereby authorizing its opacity to exceed sixty percent within the minimum front yard requirements this request is contrary to chapter four fifteen point one four zero r three ten thousand square foot resident district regulations of the city of wildwood zoning ordinance and planned environment unit parenthetical peu amended ordinance number one six one one seven being approved by the St. Louis County Council in 1992. Mr. Chair, this particular property is located in Ward 5. And as with the previous four cases, before Ms. Keith begins her presentation, the department would like to introduce into the record the following. Chapter 400, Article 2 of the City of Wildwood Municipal Code, the Board of Adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same City of Wildwood Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance. The file that has been developed and maintained by the Department of Planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, any testimony or evidence that is offered as part of tonight's public hearing. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Moonich. Ms. Keefe, here we go.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our last case this evening concerns a subject property that is located just north of our Wildwood Town Center. Here you can see Highway 100. This is just north of the Dearburg Shopping Plaza. And then we've got Taylor Road as it goes into the Brightleaf subdivision here. And this is Forest Leaf Parkway. um this is the subject property 5 rainforest court it is a corner lot at rainforest court and rainforest drive 5 Rainforest Court, or the subject property, is located within the Evergreen subdivision, which was platted in 1977 by the St. Louis County Council. Again, it's located at the intersection of Rainforest Drive and Rainforest Court, so it does have double frontage. The property is zoned R3 10,000 square foot residence district and has a planned environment unit associated with it. Again, approved in 1977. This includes a mix of housing types. And overall this zoning action included 504 units total on an overall 158 acre parent tract of land. So it was part of a larger action. The single family dwelling upon this lot was built in 1979 and it consists of 1975 square feet of total living area. It originally, up until recently, had a site-proof wooden fence that enclosed the rear of it. You can see it in this aerial. And, of course, the petitioner is now looking to replace that fence, and that's the subject of the request this evening. The current zoning regulations upon the lot dictate a 20-foot front yard setback, a 6-foot side yard setback distance, and a 15-foot rear yard setback distance. These distances prevent grading in those setback areas, excepting fencing, which can be located within 10 feet of the edge of pavement if its opacity is 60% or less. There are, when discussing the topography of this lot, there are a few trees in its southwestern corner, but mostly its lawn area. And there is six feet of relief from the center of the lot to its northeastern corner. And the center of the lot is the highest point. The petitioner is proposing 330 linear feet of fencing that will be white vinyl fencing along the lot's front boundary line. So here you can see that and this is the area of fence that's under consideration by this board for the variance request because any authorization for placement of the fence where it is currently located would authorize its opacity to exceed that 60% that's required by regulations. The petitioner wants to install 100% screening as a privacy fence in that location. And again, the remainder of that side and rear yard area on the subject lot are also planned to be fenced with the same type of privacy fencing. The applicant did not provide an explanation relative to unique hardship, practical difficulty, or other considerations regarding this request as part of the application to the Board of Adjustment. This is what the privacy fence will look like. This is the elevation that was provided by the petitioner. This is the front of the subject dwelling looking west. This is looking towards Rainforest Drive and then this is Rainforest Court. So we're looking north. This is Rainforest Court. This is looking at the intersection. This is Rainforest Drive. We're looking northwest. This is the side yard of the dwelling that is the subject of discussion. Here you can see the fence has been recently removed. This is looking east. This is the same side yard we've been looking at. This is the rear yard of the subject dwelling. This is the neighboring property to the subject dwelling. And then this is a view of that entire rear yard area involving a cluster of dwellings in that same vicinity. The department has received a few written comments. Two have been in support, including that rear yard neighbor. There's another neighbor just down the street that's in support of the fencing project. And then we did receive a written comment in opposition that's within the notification area. And that concludes my presentation at this time. The City of Wildwood's Board of Adjustment has heard one other variance request within the subdivision, and it was supported, but it was for an in-ground swimming pool. Thank you. If you have any questions of the department, we are available to answer them.

Thank you, Ms. Keefe. Are there any questions at this time from the board?

Mr. Lee? I have one question. So the reference to 60% opacity is from the county's original approval with the, what they call a PEU.

Mr. Lee, it's not. Within the last few years, the city of Wildwood, through its city council, imposed restrictions or new regulations on fencing. And so these are relatively new, and the origin is the city of Wildwood.

Thank you.

I do have a question about the same kind of 60% opacity requirement. So, and I hope this isn't a dumb question, but to achieve a 60% opacity, are we talking about just having gaps in the fence? Is that kind of what makes that happen? Or is there something else?

And that's. Mr. Chair, per the information provided by the property owner, the individual slats are six feet, six inches in width. So there would have to be a gap of about two and a half inches between each six inch slat.

To be in compliance. All right. Thank you. That helps. Any other questions for the department at this time? Okay, if the petitioner or their representative would like to come forward at this time to present your case, that would be great.

Yep, Mr. Chair, it looks like the petitioner is online.

We have someone online here, right? Well, I see Billy's iPhone. Let's see here. Is that who we're talking about here?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. Okay. And at the risk of being silly, is your name Billy? I hope it is.

Yeah, it's actually Billy. Yes, it is.

Okay. So we'll need your name, your address, your relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in. Okay? Okay.

Sure. My name is Billy Woodson. My address is 537 Rolling Hills in St. Charles. And I am just a sales consultant for this project.

Okay. All right. If you would raise your right hand so we can see that and hit your sworn in.

Sir, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So I hope you got it.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Woodson, you've got 15 minutes to work with, so go ahead.

Okay, I don't think it's going to take that long. So really what they were trying to achieve, we're putting in the fence in the exact same location that it was currently. The current fence was six foot tall wood privacy and it was dilapidated and it was very much falling over. So they're just trying to help their property value. And again, just put it in the exact same location on what it was. They do have a dog, you know, and they also have kids. So, you know, with that sidewalk right there, I think there's a little concern, you know, with, you know, strangers coming by and kind of looking maybe at their family and, or, you know, sticking fingers through a fence for, for a dog.

so are you finished mr woodson for now yes thank you okay for now all right um one of the points that came up was uh understanding what the practical difficulty or hardship is could you speak to that in this particular case

Well, I think more than anything, they're just kind of concerned about their kids, you know, and then with them having a dog, having a young kid come by on that sidewalk and sticking their fingers through the fence and, you know, possibly getting a little nibble from a pup. I think that's a pretty important issue right there. There is no sight line that will be blocked for oncoming cars in either direction. So there's not a hindrance on a, you know, for a site. So I'm just hoping that we can get this to pass through.

Okay. Is there any particular reason why the fence has to be completely solid?

Well, again, with that being on a main street and with them having kids, I think it's just kind of a safety issue. You know, in today's world, you know, just, you know, people are nutty, let's face it. And then again, you know, people may be sticking their fingers through a fence that would have a dog in the backyard that could possibly, you know, nibble a finger. So I think it's kind of more of a safety concern on both those directions.

I don't know if you can speak for your client or not, but would they object to having a fence with a little bit of gap, I think two and a half or two to three inches, whatever would bring you into compliance? Could you build a fence that way?

Well, the problem with that, I mean, this is a lot of linear footage. So, again, prices, everything. And that type of fence that you were talking about, the price would go up substantially for the simple fact that's kind of a specialty fence. And the one that we are proposing to install, that is just kind of a normal fence. So, man, it's a big price break than what kind of a special order type of fence would be. From my understanding, the homeowners are there in the courtroom. So again, I'm not, I think I'm speaking for them, but they are more than welcome to speak as well.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Woodson? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Thank you. You are finished. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time? Okay. Have you filled out a card? I have. You have. Okay, great. You know the drill. Name, address, relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in.

Sure. My name is Adam Jones. I am the property owner at 5 Rainforest Court.

Sir, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

I do.

Thank you.

One quick point I do want to just kind of clarify. I noticed that the record is showing the previous homeowners' names. We just need to address that. I'm not sure how that's done. I did call and speak with somebody at the city's office a few weeks ago, and I was told that message would be passed along. I haven't heard anything. I'm happy to do whatever needs to be done to get that addressed. But that's just one point I did want to make. My name is Adam Jones. I'm here with my family, my wife and three kids. We moved here about four years ago. My wife is a teacher here in the school district in Wildwood. When we bought the house four years ago, quite a bit of the house, interior and exterior, were in disrepair, the fence included, yard included. We were well aware of the issue, but we weren't financially prepared to make that adjustment yet. We had been working through quite a few issues, working from the most important down the list, and this fence was absolutely on that list. We did get a letter from Brian Gramlich, a notice, letting us know that this fence was outside of acceptance and that we were violating the policy, and we had to address it. That was just a few months ago. pull some strings, had to figure out some things financially to make this happen, but we did get some money together to make this happen. So that's where we're at now. We had a few companies out and got some bids. Billy was very helpful with us and we decided to move forward with him. The previous fence, the one that's been there, according to Google Maps, since early 2000s, was a six-foot full privacy wooden fence. And it was absolutely in disrepair. You guys may notice it and seen it before. We don't disagree with you at all. We started the process... Once we got the letter of figuring out how to do all this, we took the fence down ourselves about a week, two weeks ago. We actually were not aware of the Wildwood city rules regarding the opacity and the distance to the street or the sidewalk. So this is an educational moment for me. But that being said, this fence is not just a decorative item for us. It is indeed to protect our privacy and our children and our family and our dog. As Billy stated, we are right along the sidewalk there. And so this will sit... The fence sits about 17 or 18 feet off of the street on that side rung. And so it's like another, I'm guessing here, maybe six to eight foot off the fence line. So it's still a good distance off. I can assure you that there is no impeding to traffic. If we wanna pull up any pictures, I think we could talk through that. Traffic flow in both directions has a very clear view of the intersection. There's no issue there. But once again, this fence is not just a decorative item. It has an intended purpose, and that intended purpose is just to protect and take care of my family and to allow them and the dog to be in the backyard without issue.

I think that's everything I have to say.

I'm happy to answer any questions if you guys have questions or talk through things.

Do we have any questions for, you say Mr. Helms?

My name is Jones, Mr. Jones, Adam Jones.

Oh, Jones, okay, sorry.

No, no problem. You can see there that the line where the fence used to be, everything is exactly the same, except for the fact that it's new vinyl compared to old wood. Same location, same offset, same everything.

And the existing or the old fence was a solid fence. It didn't have any gaps in it.

That is correct.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

We sincerely appreciate your guys' help with this. We really, really appreciate it. This is a very important topic to us. Anything that we can do to help you guys or make this happen, we'd be happy to oblige.

do have also in attendance a few neighbors who were not listed on there as approving but these neighbors are on other parts of our area here if anybody would like to talk through this okay yeah thank you um have you considered um putting some gap in your fence we have we are

We are not for that option. Again, I think Billy had a great point. The sidewalk's pretty heavily used. We worry about fingers going in, fingers going out, other things, viewability. Can I ask a question, actually? The point of the 60% opacity, can somebody help me understand that? Is there a... And if nobody here knows, that's totally fine. I think we're all... I'm sorry, go ahead.

No. I said, I hope you're not asking the board anything about that 60% opacity thing, but if the department would like to address that question, that would be fine.

The opacity requirement is aesthetics.

Is what? Aesthetics. Aesthetics. Hmm. Okay, then. Okay. All right, anything else that you would like to add, Mr. Jones?

Mr. Jones, yes. That is it. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your help. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr. Jones?

Okay, Mr. Bernalino. Yeah, this is Joe for you. Not you. Sorry. I know Ward 5 well.

You do, sir. You represent a good family well.

There are, in my recollection, there are at least two other homes in that same subdivision that have total vinyl fencing with no opacity. They happen to be around swimming pools. Is there a different regulation for pools versus regular fencing?

The difference in regulation is that if you do have an in-ground or above-ground pool, you are required to have a fence. And that fence has to be a minimum of 48 inches in height and include a self-locking gate. Otherwise, if you don't have a pool, fencing is optional.

Excuse me, so if I have a pool, I have an option of having a privacy fence, a total privacy fence?

Again, the building does accommodate opacity in conjunction with a pool. Again, the key component is the gap between the slats. It has to be small enough so as it doesn't allow a child to, or a pet to enter in and get to the pool surface itself.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Joe.

Any other questions, Mr. Lee?

All right. This fence was wood, and it was built prior to the ordinance change. If they would have left the wood there and just replaced the boards, it would have been grandfathered in?

It certainly would. The property maintenance component can be addressed by replacing the damaged or dilapidated wood, and we would have allowed the fence to stay exactly where it was.

So because they're changing the material and putting in a better quality fence, all of a sudden it doesn't work.

I will never argue vehemently that zoning laws make common sense all the time.

Thank you.

Wow. Okay. Any other questions for the department or for the petitioner? No. No. Okay. At this time, well, are there any other individuals in the audience or online who would like to speak on this case? No? Okay. All right. At that being the case, I'm going to go ahead and close the proceedings for a vote. Could I get a motion from someone to either approve, deny, or approve with conditions this variant?

Mr. Chair, if I may, just a couple of points.

Did I get? Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Well, first and foremost, with the property owner speaking to you tonight under oath, he did provide the unique hardship or practical difficulty that has prompted the request that is before you tonight. So I just want to advise you that under the Department's findings of fact, item 4 has now been addressed by the testimony provided as part of the public hearing.

OK.

And as is defined in the department's report, we are not prohibiting a fence to be installed at that location. It's just, again, the opacity. Is it site-proof or is it not? And again, without the benefit of the information that was provided tonight, the department's approach was to recommend that the variants not be supported. But certainly, you have additional information that wasn't available to the department at the time the report was prepared. If there are any questions regarding the report, the department would be glad to answer them at this time.

Okay.

so the department's recommendation is still to not approve well certainly now knowing the circumstances there is a there is at least justification that didn't exist in the completed application and that caused the department not to be able to support it Do I feel that the regulations are unreasonable? Certainly not. But each individual instance is a case unto itself, and that's why you're all here to look at the characteristics of each proposal, not collectively across the city, and make the determination if there is enough of a hardship, a practical difficulty, or the impact is so limited it's justified.

Okay. And I'm going to follow up on Mr. Lee's question about the whole maintenance thing of this wooden fence. If you're maintaining this fence, do you have to use the same material as what was originally there? I mean, could have they replaced and repaired their fence with vinyl?

There's a fine line. What I would tell you is the department would have said no. Again, the intent is with new fencing, and if you're removing 50% or more of it, then it's a new fence, not a maintenance of an existing fence. And the 50% rule comes from the zoning ordinance, our non-conforming uses lands and structures section. And it specifies when you've crossed that threshold and you lose that grandfathering.

Okay.

And again, the rationale for the opacity is for aesthetics.

Truly, that's the principle one, because obviously, don't want to create a community where six foot high site-proof fences are all along the roads it becomes somewhat of an unappealing look or an aesthetic concern but yes that's the principal reason okay thank you mr munich

Okay, we're going to again close the proceeding now for a vote. Would someone like to make a motion to approve, deny, or approve with conditions this variance request? Mr. Bertolini.

I would move for approval.

Okay, Mr. Bertolini makes a motion to approve the request. We have a second.

I will second it.

Thank you, Mr. Lee, for that second. And let's do a roll call here. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lee, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Bertolino, how do you vote?

Approve.

Mr. Lux, how do you vote? Approve. And I also vote to approve your request. Congratulations. Okay, I think that wraps up our cases for the evening. We have, I think, one more item on the agenda, and that is to approve our minutes. Is that right? There's one more. Yeah. From the April 16th meeting. I guess we didn't have one in May, right? Right. Okay. So I will need a motion to approve the minutes of the April 16th, 2026 meeting. Do I have a motion?

I will make a motion to approve.

Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Mr. Bertolino, how do you vote? Mr. Lee? Approved. Mr. Lux? Approved. Mr. Morris? And I likewise approve.

Mr. Chair, if I may.

Minutes are removed, and we are about to adjourn here, unless there's some other issue here.

Well, first and foremost, I believe Ms. Keefe twisted Mr. Lux's arm pretty hard to have him here tonight for a full board. So thanks to Mr. Lux for interrupting his vacation.

No problem at all. Happy to be here. All right. Thank you, sir. You get the gold star award tonight, so that's good. All right.

I appreciate it.

Yeah. Could someone make a motion to adjourn meeting tonight?

Make motion.

And second? Mr. Morris, thank you. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Yes.

Adjourn.

There we go. Mr. Lux?

Adjourn.

Mr. Bertolino, Mr. Lee, and I also say let's adjourn.

Thank you all very much. We appreciate it.

All right. Thank you.