Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commission to order will rise. We'll rise and have Roger lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

So, I will ask staff and legal staff, anybody to. Help me if you can, because I am John, Keith or vice chairman of the planning and zoning commission. So, in lieu of the absence of our chairman, I will be running the meeting until he arrives or all night. Um, can we have a roll call please?

Roll call you step in John here. Kimberly match all Roger batten house and Karen warwick. Lewis never at is absent today and Matt Garland. You have a quorum.

5 yes, so before we get down to business, how many people think they might want to speak or testify today. Raise your right hand and say, I do do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do, I will consider that anybody that speaks tonight is sworn in. Bones well, when I be. If I ever become chairman full time, I'm going to put a 10 dollar phone jar to my knowledge. A phone is never rang during this meeting in my 6 plus years. So we're all doing really good silence your phones please. And we'll try to get out of here as quick as we can. We have some minutes to approve. There was a lot of them that were brought to us a little late and I have to admit. It was like going down memory lane. They were quite a while ago. Anybody see any corrections for the April 21st meeting. Can I have a motion to approve. A motion from that now is in a 2nd for Mitchell to approve. April, 21st, all those in favor. I, I, any opposed same sign. We have approved those minutes anything about the May 5th. Motion by bettenhausen 2nd, by Mitchell to approve May 5th all those in favor. I. I oppose same sign they are approved and the same for May 19th. To approve those a motion by now and 2nd, by Mitchell. All those in favor aye aye. Opposed same sign they are approved. Before I go to public comment, was there any direction we need from staff about tonight's meeting? No, moving a case is nobody. Okay, all right. Yep. So all we have tonight is variances and this is the 1st and final step for all variances. You we have 5 commissioners, so per state law, you must have a majority of the commissioners on the commission not present. So you do need for yes votes to pass. That means if we technically go 3 to 2, 1 would say. You want 3 to 2, but you got to have 4 to pass. So, if there's any reason, somebody feels uncomfortable with that. We could delay their hearing to another time. But that is the way the law works on that. And then also the law says that we must allow public comment at all meetings. And, uh, so this is the moment for anybody to make public comment. And you'll be given a chance later to make comment about any specific cases, but this is the time during the meeting that you can, I guess, comment on anything. Seeing none, we'll go to the 1st case 26 dash 026 Lakewood drive in Wilmington. Mr will take us through it.

Okay, yes, as you said, I'll be going over zoning case. The 1 of the property is Daniel Dwyer and the applicant is applying for 2 variances to build a new detached garage on the property.

Sorry, give me 1 sec.

Okay, there we go. So, on our screen here is a zoning map of the property that's subject property outlined in red. Subject property is zoned R4 and is 0.66 acres in size with 83.5 feet of lot frontage. The parcel underwent a split zoning determination earlier this year as a parcel was previously split zone between our 1 and our 4, the result of that determination cause a property to be entirely zone our 4, which you can be, which can be seen reflected on the screen. And the property is therefore also deemed to be a conforming our 4 parcel. Here we have an area of view of the subject property. The property is improved with a single family home, a detached garage and a metal shed. The applicant's report is proposing to construct a 30 by 60 pole barn to replace all the existing accessory buildings on the property. The existing accessory structures will be demoed once a building permit application for the proposed structure is issued per the site plan. The proposed structure will be 5 feet away from the Northern side property line. You are for zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 fee. The applicant is also requesting a variance for side yard setback to allow the building to be 5 feet away from the Northern property line. Here we have a quick screenshot showing where the proposed building will be. As you can see, it is kind of outlined in red there. Now, for a few pictures of the property 1st, here, we have the view looking East at the subject property. The view looking North looking at the Northeast portion of the property. The view looking at the Southeast portion of the property more towards the adjacent property next door. This is the view looking west at the adjacent property, which is the Kankakee River. The view looking north down Lakewood Drive. And finally, the view looking south down Lakewood Drive. Now, to quickly go over the variance standards and review criteria. A more detailed analysis can be found in the staff report, but to quickly summarize staff finds that the plight of the owner is not due to unique circumstances. The applicant may build an accessory building by right provided that the total accessory building area does not exceed 1200 square feet. The request to exceed the limit by 600 square square fee reflects a personal preference rather than a unique condition. Staff also finds that variance may alter the essential character of the locality in the surrounding area. Staff did not find a parcel that has received approval of a variance for maximum accessory building area. Staff also finds that the physical surroundings does not create a hardship. The difficulty does not stern from the site's condition, but from the owner's preference to exceed the 1200 square foot. Limit on accessory building area and build a structure that encroaches into the are forward side yard setback requirement. Staff also finds that the proposed variances will not adversely affect air circulation, increase the risk of fire or diminished property values. The building permit for the proposed accessory building will not be issued until approvals are given by the will county zoning building and engineering departments. Additionally, the use of the building will be limited to residential accessory uses such as storage. The use of the commercial use of the building will be prohibited in the current are for zoning district. With that said, staff is recommended denial of the range for maximum accessory building area and denial of the variance for side yard setback. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Mr. is this, um, that, uh, the property just to the north that looks like they have an outbuilding rate. There's. That's essentially kind of maybe what they're mimicking was that a variance at any point?

Yes. So, basically, it is kind of approximately the same size as what the applicant is proposing. I did look into that person to the north. And that property is actually in violation. They submitted a building permit for that structure, but they never completed it. So, staff hasn't hasn't completed it.

Haven't closed out the permit, right?

It's open, but they haven't closed it out completely.

Any other questions.

Okay, thank you is the applicant here. Your turn to come down and state your case. I didn't ask Mr. personal this directly, but I believe it's a standard staff denial. He has to give for exceeding the 1200 feet. There's no way you can give an approval on this case. Correct? Yes.

Good evening. My name is Daniel Dwyer. I am requesting approval to construct a 30 foot by 60 foot accessory pole barn on my property since living on the water. I've acquired items like a boat waiver on our camper lawn maintenance equipment for maintaining the property down by the water tools, other equipment that needs to be stored indoors. This building will protect those items from the weather and help keep my property organized. I'm not asking for something out of character for my property. The rear portion of my property was previously zoned R1, which allowed up to 1800 square foot of accessory storage. When the property was rezone the entire parcel became the more restrictive are for zoning. My request is consistent with what was previously allowed on my part of the property. Um, since purchasing my home 3 years ago, I've invested a lot of money to significantly improve the parents of my home, including new siding windows and other upgrades. I haven't had a neighbor walk by without commenting on how much better the property looks. This pole barn will be professionally constructed to complement my home and continue those improvements. I'm simply asking for enough space to properly store and maintain the items and equipment that I already have. I respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I made 1 error Mr. Dwyer I meant to ask beforehand. Is there anybody that wishes to speak about this case? Not that that would have changed your words you had them prepared, but it.

Thank you. All right.

Well, anybody got any questions for Mr. Dwyer, but obviously here, then if you don't have the building, you're going to have to put stuff outside. Yeah, which some people in certain neighborhoods would consider more unsightly than you can see in the pictures.

There's trailers and tubes and. Yeah, I just, my garage is too small. There's already stuff laying all over camper.

And I guess I could just clarify this. You mentioned demolition of other structures after the new 1 is built. There is a follow through from the county to make sure that happens.

For the demo permit. Yes, we make sure that it's actually demo in those structures. All right.

Any other questions Thank you guys. 26.

Yeah, well, motion for Mitchell and a 2nd from work.

Is there anybody on the commission season need to discuss this? Are you ready to vote? Roll call vote, please Kimberly Mitchell.

John, yes, Roger. Yes. And Karen work.

5, 0, I'm keeping score here now. Yes, we're ready.

26 stage 145. For approval of a variance for side here, North side.

We have the same motion and 2nd vote please. Can Mitchell. John Kiefner? Yes. Roger Bettenhausen? Yes. Matt Garland? Yes. And Karen Warrick? Yes.

Approved. So you will be following up with them, or she may follow up with you right now. You received 5-0 on both votes. Next case, Rowell Avenue, Joliet, ending in 028. Mr. Van Patten?

No pressure, but we could break a record for shortness of meeting.

So, this is zoning case 26028. the owner is, uh, McDonald street properties, LLC with George and Frank ward each having 50% interest. Uh, the agent is Joseph gager of recycling it and they are requesting a variance for fence height in street setback. So, this is the zoning map of the property with the subject property outlined in red. The property is owned. I 1 with 1.55 acres of area and 395.98 feet of lot frontage along Linden Avenue and 239 feet of lot frontage along real well Avenue of the zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and 60 feet a lot frontage. This is a conforming. I 1 parcel. This is 2026 aerial the prop property with the parcel outlined in yellow. The uses spans 2 parcels 1, which has the main buildings for the processing materials and 1, which has another building, which has the cargo container wall, outdoor storage and outdoor storage of dumpsters and trucks. The use of the property is indoor recycling processing facility. They recycle materials such as paper, cardboard and plastic. Uh, given that the parcels have the same ownership and are both I 1 parcels, they are considered 1 zoning lot. And then this is the planet survey, which shows, uh, the. Existing cargo wall that is where they're proposing to replace with the 20 foot wall and then this is submitted plans just showing the design proposed designed for the 20 foot wall. And then, for the physical characteristics, uh, this is, uh, the got something in my way of my screen. Okay. So this is the view looking at the subject property from what real well Avenue. Uh, this is view looking across the across real well Avenue at the adjacent property. Uh, this view looking at subject property across Linden Avenue showing the current wall of cargo containers. As view, looking across London Avenue from the subject property as you're looking North at the adjacent property of this, this is the view looking East down London Avenue of you looking West down live in London Avenue as view looking North down role Avenue as view looking South down role Avenue. So, the variance request review based on the criteria outlined on the screen and more detailed analysis can be found in your packets. But to summarize a staff finds a play of the owner is not due to unique circumstances in street yard. Setbacks fences aren't allowed to be up to 4 feet in height of the size of corner lot, which means it has 2 street setbacks. The applicant wants to replace the current wall of cargo containers with the 20 foot tall. Offense for security purposes, the applicant could build a 20 foot tall fence or wall meeting street setbacks to get the security desire and meet screening requirements is the applicant's preference to rebuild the wall where the existing fences located along the property line. A staff finds the granting of variance may alter the central character of the surrounding area. The property is surrounded by residential properties, none of which appear to have fences over 4 feet in height and based on the imagery, the industrial sites in the area appear to have offenses over 4 street in their street setbacks, but not appear to be over 8 feet in height. And most of that develop industrial development was in the 19 seventies, which was before the county adopted fence regulations. And looking at the 2nd set of criteria, staff finds the conditions upon which the variance application is based would be applicable. The other corner law properties, even the property was not corner lot. A 20 foot fence would not be allowed in any setback offenses are only allowed to be 8 feet in height and encroach inside and rear setbacks. A staff finds the purpose of the variance request is not based exclusively upon desire to increase economic return. The applicant is looking to replace the old cargo to care. Well, that is deteriorating deteriorating. It is also to provide more security and prevent illegal dumping of waste on site. Uh, is to ask professional opinion, uh, that the approval variance will not be detrimental public with welfare or or, or nor unduly interest to surrounding properties or improvements of the proposed replacement wall is be located in the same location as the existing wall. The pros will currently is in the process of obtaining a barrier permit. Uh, during this process, it will be made sure that applies with building stormwater and zoning regulations and then staff did not receive any comments from agencies that were notified and staff is recommending denial of the variance. And I can answer any questions if there are. So, it is right on the property line.

But how far would that be from the street from the street?

Uh, that is a great. Yeah, I was going to say probably around 30 feet. Because I think usually the width is about 33 feet.

So probably 33, I would ask some questions, but they might not be permanent. Is there anybody here to speak in this case? Other than the applicant. But basically, they're going to build, according to what you show me, it's going to be like a sound wall construction. Yeah. Highways. Yeah. Yeah. And so it's probably safe to look like the block wall was 4 rows of blocks. So that's only about 12 feet. This would be taller. Yeah, it would be. I can't imagine anybody in the neighborhood saying they wouldn't appreciate more sound protection. Or site protection, however, it is along interstate 82, but still, I mean, what you showed in the pictures was not as slightly even the container wall all rusty than a brand new wall would be. So, yeah.

Okay.

Oh, any other questions for Mr. All right. Well, we better hear from the applicant since staff has recommended denial. Once again, there is nobody else from the public to speak in this case.

Okay, good evening. My name is George ward and the applicants brought my brother and I own the property together and we've had this property for about. 12 years now, and the fence has deteriorated beyond repair. We've had massive dumping on the side of it and we need a nice new fence with clean area, lighting and cameras. To prevent anybody from doing that again, we've been broken into once and we think this is with this side fence. We're not going to have the problem. And it will have some sound benefits to everybody else because we're in there working and. You know, it's going to be held up and then no people will blow with the 20 footer. It doesn't go over the top. So that's our game plan. Uh, I think that we have a scale that's not too far from there. So that's the 1 thing I have to look at and how far back are you talking? Because there's about a 10 foot or 50. Okay, well, we could look at that. We could look at that, but there's quite a, the street is real wide and it's right next to the highway there. And you've got a highway that's 80 feet up in the air. So this thing's going to look tiny compared to that. And the highway has to be at least 60 feet wide there. Because there's big buffers, gravel. That's where people dump on the gravel there, right next to the road.

So to her point, though, the new fence is going to go exactly where the old one is? Yeah. So you wouldn't be moving it closer? No, I'm not moving it closer. It's going to be in the same spot.

Same spot.

What kind of construction material?

Steel, and then we use building sheet. And there'll be some foam or something on there that keeps it... All together and it's painted. It's beautiful. It's got trim. We'll have lights on it. We're all the way down the street and there'll be some cameras with surveillance. So, it looks like your typical stealing steel building. When you look at it, no, no, no, no.

Miss Mitchell stated that she thinks defense would be an improvement. Anybody any more questions. All right, thank you. Thank you. Well, we have nobody to object. We've heard from the applicant. What's your pleasure?

This chairman, uh, I will make a motion for cases. E. C. dash 2, 6, dash 0, 2, 8, uh, slash B, dash 26, dash 1, 2, 7. Variance for wall height within street setback from 4 feet to 20 feet.

Second motion by Garland, 2nd, by Mitchell. Any reason to discuss further.

And what about Kimberly Mitchell? John, yes, Roger. Yes. And Karen work. Yes.

I didn't see the brand new sound wall along interstate eighty near Wheeler Avenue had graffiti on it. I couldn't believe it. Brand new. 3rd case rivals road Wilmington, Illinois, Mr. bring us home.

Okay, yes, I'll be going over zone in case you see 26047. this is a variance for side yard setback. The owner of this property is David Hyman and the applicant requesting your variance to allow in addition to the existing home. Here we have a zoning map of the property again, so the property outlined in red. The property is on a 2 and it's 6.1 acres in size. With 180 feet of lot frontage along rival road. The property is deemed to be a legal nonconforming parcel as a parcel was created in July. 1st, 1967. Building permits can be issued for legal nonconforming parcels. Sorry, my screen got frozen again. Okay, next year we have an area view the subject property. The property is currently improved with a single family home, a detached garage and a small barn. The applicant is proposing to add in addition to the existing home per the applicant. The addition will provide additional living space and will be located on the eastern side behind the existing home. Per the plan of survey, the home itself is located 12 feet away from the side property line. The a 2 zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet. At the time, the home was built, which was around 1970. The parcel was on our agricultural zoning district at the time. The zoning ordinance in effect at the time required a minimum setback of 10 feet from the site property line. They're from the home was built meeting the required setbacks at the time. It was built. However, adding in addition to the home would be considered extending the nonconformity causing the home to lose its legal nonconforming status. The home must therefore come into compliance before the building permit for the addition can be approved. Here we have a screenshot showing the plot of survey. It's a little hard to see, but I kind of drew a red dot where the proposed addition is proposing to be constructed.

So, let me clarify here. You're saying the current structure is the 12 feet, not the addition, not the addition.

Correct. So, here we have a few pictures of the property. Here we have the view looking East at the subject property. Have you looking at the South Eastern portion of the property? Have you looking at the North Eastern portion of the property? This is where the property has access to Rivals Road. Have you looking West at the adjacent property across Rivals Road? Have you looking North down Rivals Road? And the view looking South down Rivals Road. Now, to quickly go over the standards of your criteria again, a more detailed analysis can be found in the staff report, but to quickly summarize staff finds that the apply of the owner is due to unique circumstances. As much for the home has been in its current location since 1970. At the time of construction, the home was built in compliance with the side yard setback requirement in effect at the time. However, the proposed addition to the home necessitates a branch request to bring the home into compliance with the current zoning district. 20 foot side yard setback requirement. Staff also finds that the variance will not alter the central character of the locality. The home has been located 12 feet away from the northern property line as much before since into construction in 1970, the location of the home will not change as a result of this ranch request. And if the, if the range request is approved, any new structures will be required to meet that 12 foot. New setback if at the building permit phase, any new structures are located closer than that 12 foot setback. Yeah, I think it will be required to either move that structure meeting at 12 foot setback. Or they will be required to come back and request a new variance. Staff finds that the purpose of the variance request is not based exclusively. Upon desire to make more money out of the property, the applicant intends to use a proposed addition as additional living space. And finally, staff also finds that the proposed variance will not adversely affect. Air circulation increase the risk of fire or diminish property values. The building permit for the proposal edition will not be issued until approvals are given by the will county zoning building and engineering departments. With that said staff is recommending approval of the variance. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Looks like we have no questions for Mr. perfect and the applicant is here. Yes, is there anybody else that would like to speak on this case? Besides the applicant, there is somebody. Oh. Okay, so we'll let the applicant come down 1st. Or if you have nothing to say, you can rebut whatever they say, but. Come on down if you want and introduce yourself and. Let's see what the other speaker has to say.

I'm Dave, um, we are trying to put the addition in and looking for your approval. For the variance for our families, families getting larger, we have another baby on the way. We have 2 little ones already in a 2 bedroom. 2 bathroom house, we need to add another bedroom in and my wife, she also works from home. Um, so where she's we're putting an office in because as of right now, she's in the living room. With the computer with little kids running around, so we're trying to make another living space for my newborn coming in. And then have a place for my wife to work from home. So she can be a home with the kids and work at the same time. I know we're not building anything off. We're coming straight off the new early existing house and coming straight off 32 feet. To the East, we're not changing anything to the North. We are going, it's going to be a little kind of like an L shaped. Um, we're also putting a storage closet in because we don't have any storage for my wife's over pots and pans and. Tupperwares and stuff, so we have a little 8 by 8 closet we're putting in and then a sun room for all of her plants. That we tried the greenhouse thing in the greenhouse thing didn't work. But, um, so we're trying to do indoor plants and the little sun room with all the windows and everything. Um, that being said, and just looking for approval. You know, to make it work, so we can move forward from here.

Sure.

Any questions. Hold your thought for a 2nd. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we are on the last case. Would you like to take over? You want me to fit it continue?

Continue place?

Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Heineman? All right, well, have you sit down there and we'll see what other speakers have to say about your proposal.

We would welcome anybody else who wants to speak on this zoning case.

Were you on the interstate 80 parking lot?

Yeah, I get on 6 parking lot.

Yeah.

I am Warren Prescott attorney representing. This is tomorrow. She. Owns the property just to the north of the property in question. And, uh, has many points of opposition. Uh, primary 1, this is kind of an unusual situation. Her friends ranges from 5 feet. Just north of his property line to 14 feet. It's. It's kind of at an angle and. The resulting preliminary work, which I believe is being done for this addition, is the addition of a septic tank field of some type. Some permits have been pulled and septic tank excavation has been done. And dirt has been taken from there and piled against Mrs. Leska's fence to several feet high, over 100 feet. And she has a video of that, which wouldn't be that easy to see. But if someone wants to see the video, she has that. And it also blocks a gate. She has a gate in her fence that will allow her to get to that area. Between the boundary line and the fence that she has that has several feet of dirt behind it. So you can't even use that. So that's a safety matter. She cannot exit through that section anymore. And it's not like this is a short fence either. The fence is several 100 feet long and that's the 1 gate in that fence in the back of the houses. And, uh, our. Objection also is that this is a self imposed, uh, uh, use, uh, hardship. Let's say, I'm sorry. It's self created, uh, when he bought the property in 1970, the, uh, change was already into effect for the 20 feet and he would have bought the purchase that based on the 20 foot being there existing. So it's not something that is, uh, wouldn't be unknown to them when they purchased the property and. To get variants, they do have to show a hardship and the hardship cannot be. Self evident or self made, which this 1 is number 1 number 2. our concern is the excavation of this addition could also result in more dirt being dug up and then just deposited. On the neighbor's property, and in effect, he's committed trespass. By this action, and we hope tonight, if possible to reach a resolution of this issue by Mr Heineman. Agreeing where the property line is as shown on his survey, it's several feet. Away from where the fences that he's now. Using it without permission and this is less because she's never granted permission for him to use that area next to the fence. He's never sought it. And we were in the process of notifying him of his violation when this opportunity for hearing came up. So we thought we'd use this public forum to bring up these issues to the zoning board. And there's also things that he's added to the fence because the dirt is so high his dogs can actually go up this. Pile of dirt and debris and jump over the fence. So he's added. And they have done that in the past, so he had to put things on top of the fence to prevent his dogs from jumping over the fence into her yard. So there's a lot of very harmful effects of this construction that's been started. And we'd like to get those mitigated and we're not also we also did have a question. I wasn't clear. This edition is going. Uh, behind this house, but is it going to be subject to a 20 foot setback or 12 foot setback?

That's something we can address you. You make a good point. We can address that with the staff.

Oh, you will address that with the staff. All right. Because the, uh. The 20 foot is the current setback requirement and there are 5 acres in that land. So there is, it's not like you have only, you know, a 75 foot wide lot or 50 foot wide lot. So you do have a several 100 feet there.

I guess while you're here, we'll kind of address this because, uh, you you're saying that the hardship is self imposed. Correct. But if I understand the staff report. The house is already 12 feet from the lot line. Correct and it's legal and not legal. And the addition. Was going to be 20 feet away, but you are correct. I think in that you're, you're concerned that if we give them the 12 feet, they could technically build the, the addition up to that 12 foot point and continue that line. So we could either condition or clarify from staff if their report has the verbiage that says the addition has to maintain 20 foot. But I think that's kind of ticky tech to say that the hardship is created by him. If he's agrees that the addition will be over 20 feet and it's the house that's been there since 1971. That was within 12, but we can address that. But since you only get 1 chance to talk from that podium, I thought I'd better catch you while you're here. Right? That is your concerns. I got it.

That's the 1 concern in the dumping of the debris from his septic tank.

We'll address that with them too. I suspect which we do have a video of anyone and then I'll double check this with legal. I believe you can submit pictures that you leave with us that get entered in the evidence. But I don't think we can look at videos. Is that correct? We cannot look at a video on a phone, but if they want to leave us pictures. Or any hard copy that we can enter into the copy. We can't look at a video on the phone. But, I mean, we'll talk to the applicant and we'll take the word on it that 2 neighbors can at least agree to maybe disagree here and resolve a problem before we leave.

Okay. Is there any, that's that's our primary points and we'll wait for any response on that.

And, um, I didn't catch your name anything you need to add to that.

I am tomorrow. I am the owner of the property on the North side.

Did you want to add anything?

Yeah. All right. Okay, like my attorney said, my property does extend past my existing fence line by several feet. Okay. Um, I haven't applied a survey and a couple other documents showing that, uh, my property was purchased by me and my husband way back in June of 99. Um, what's been done so far. Has been injurious to my property. There's anywhere up to 3 feet, 3 to 4 feet of dirt piled against my fence. It's piled on my property on. You know, the side of the fence that faces his property. Um, and it goes for about approximately 110 feet. You know, give or take, um, he's attached hog panels and old chain link to the top of my friends to prevent his dogs from running down the pile of dirt. And over my friends in my yard, and this has happened so, you know, this has happened already. Um. So, the changes made to the North side so far before any buildings even happen yet other than the septic field that he's put in, they are detrimental. It's dirty fill. It's 4 rocks. It's up against the chain link and if we get. A good footer, right?

I think you've made that point. We will address. I guarantee you.

We would like you have anything else though. If you wanted to see a survey, you, you can.

No, I think we can address it without seeing the survey, but, uh. I'll keep this moving. Is there anything else you need to add then? No, I would ask anybody else want to ask any questions. Do you know Mr. David Heineman by sight before today? Okay. So you, you, you 2 have talked we're, we're, I'm hoping that this is just. Bad communication ahead of time, and we can resolve everything real good here. So if you have anything else. Nothing else, then we'll have you sit down. We'll address this with Mr. Heineman.

Kim wanted to ask something.

Oh, Kim. No, it's fine.

She's going to ask that. Okay.

Mr, you will be given the chance to, uh. Explain any of the comments they made or. And then we'll ask questions of you as well.

Oh, yeah, they put so we had, uh, it was the 1st process of the addition was moving the septic tank and septic field. Because where the old septic tank was was 10 feet off the existing house. And we had to move it 40 or 4. it was 48 feet from the house. We're going to be 10 feet from the new addition. From what Midwest septic told us all the laws and everything for that. So, we move the septic tank and septic field. By code up to everybody's standards, we had it inspected. It wasn't like we did this under the table or anything. It was all permits were all pulled for it. Soil samples were tested. Um, as of the dirt, putting up a fence, that was dirt that was being pushed up to, um, for the addition for no erosion for when we go and put this still fence and, um. That fence has been there from our old owner that lived there from 19. I think she bought it in 1991. That fence are you saying it's your fence? No, no. So that fence that fence line was been there for over 30 some years. We have. We went through this over back in 2020 and. About the fence line problem, because she wanted to put a fence up. Um, and she wanted to take a bunch of the property. But there's oak trees this big around with the fence growing straight through the middle of it. You know, that sense has been there 100 years, you know, even before. Allison, the previous owner owned it. So she didn't put that fence up. That fence was there, I guess. We were told it was two sisters that owned the place, the two properties, and they just put the fence up down the middle. But there was adverse possession or something. I don't know if you guys ever recall anything like that. where there's like a seven-year adverse possession and a 20-year adverse possession. Once offense has been there for over seven years or 20 years. Well, I think I'll stop you there though, because that's something that's settled in the court.

Right. That's nothing that we can address here. Right. And personally, I think that's one of the most ridiculous, stupid laws in the world, but the courts have said it works sometimes. But so you're maintaining that offense has been there for a long time. Right. So whether whether whether or not. You think some property is yours or part of your lot. Do you agree that the fence is on her property line? Or on her property, right?

And the risk is the fence. Yes.

I think that's what we really 100%. Okay. That's 1 of the things which you really, really like resolved.

Right? We'll resolve that. And then we, we also, we already talked to the builders about the cell fence. Getting put in during construction, so nothing else washes down or washes in.

Um, when they're not far off the fence that she's talking about is a self fence.

Right, so offense will go on the whatever the not in yet.

No, no, no, no offense in yet. I would make sure then that you keep that self fence farther from the fence. Correct? Yeah.

Yeah, in a different court.

No, but I mean, if if we could see to it that you 2 leave as happy neighbors, and I think our biggest concern. Is the dirt pile on the fence and if you can resolve that, it might mitigate the concern that we have to hammer out next is whether or not the addition will be 20 feet from the lot line or get closer. Correct.

Yes, well, it's in the middle of the line. Okay. You're already 12 feet off the line.

Correct right behind the house we are following. No, ma'am. We are following this straight line from the existing house. That's been there going up 32 feet. So, what he just said, so the addition is going to be 12 foot from the line. We're just the same as this house. We are following the length of the house to match the. The pitch of the roof, the way the roof is pitched. Okay.

Well, you got interrupted there. Do you want to finish explaining that?

I was just saying that the way the architect drew up the blueprints. Um, it follows the North side roof line. That comes up and then the other side of the roof line will actually match. If we were to even try to go on the other side of the house. Where our driveways at, it wouldn't be a suitable to what we are trying to do. Um, we have. Correct would you like to see the blueprints? I mean, I have them on here now. Okay.

Well, we'll ask if Mr can bring it back up.

Your addition is sort of like, in the center of can you blow direct? It's nowhere near the fence. It's not here, right?

It's.

Right, so there's no lot of my discrepancy.

Okay, so what I understand you to tell her, though, that the addition was going to be 12 foot from the lot line, according to this picture, it would right? Just the existing. You have those misunderstanding. Oh, you guys were. I know describing that and so where this addition will be and what staff says it can be will have a bearing on my vote. Okay, because if you told me this addition is going to be 12 foot from the lot line, I would then concede with the attorney that it is now a self imposed that you're not willing to forget that it always was. But if the addition, and we can verify from staff that the addition will be 20 feet, that would probably make me vote differently.

Um, 20 feet that that red, right?

Right. Right.

That's that red dot is wrong. Okay, I'm looking at it now that it's following the North. That's North, right? Top should always be North in my world, but that, yeah, that North, it shouldn't be following the North line. So, it comes off the North. Yes, correct. It will come off the North line.

So that means the addition would be 12 feet off the lot line. If the current house is.

Yes, but it's still.

Hmm.

I couldn't tell the difference when it looks like a picture. Um, all that.

Yeah, and 1 thing I will add to this conversation is, like I said, if the variance is approved for the current 12 feet, like, you mentioned, the addition can be built up to that 12 foot setback. But if trees, because for the pending building permit, they haven't submitted a official plan of showing the ocean. So, I kind of put this red dot show where it might be going. But if they submit a building permit, and it's showing the addition encroaching at 1212 with setback, they would have to come back and get another variance. So they can't get closer than 12 feet if this variance is approved, but they can be 12, but they can be 12. yes, they could literally go 12 feet all the way along the property line.

So they get to the rear yard set back. Yes, look at the map pictures you sent again and see if there's a picture looking North. The fence line to the north that your neighbor has, is that chain link?

It's chain link. And our dog was actually jumping that. But it's out here. It's not even a part of it. But, yes, there is a chain link fence. Correct.

So you're saying the dog was able to jump the four-foot chain link fence even before dirt got it? Correct. In my world, it seems a little hard to put dirt up against the chain link fence. It would start trickling through. But you've stated dirt did get up against there. So let's hope that gets removed quickly. Yeah, we'll take care of it. Because I got a feeling they will be calling to file a complaint with the county. If you don't because they were. The only reason they didn't was because they wanted to come to this venue. Any more you want to add any questions for me?

Well, thank thank you. There's a little baby girl another girl for me. But thank you. I appreciate your time.

So, so I would ask Mr of staff and. So, we are clear now, it's the addition is actually going to maintain the same 12 foot setback. That's correct. Yes. Which now. Yes, I'll take a motion.

I have a motion by Mitchell and a second by ward. I would entertain any discussion among the commissioners. If they would like it, no.

All right roll call vote please Karen, Karen, uh, Kimberly Mitchell, John, no. Roger bettenhausen Matt Garland. Karen Warwick and chairman Houston. Yes.

I read that as 4 to 2 or to 2 motion has passed. Mr. Heineman, you owe the interstate traffic for letting the chairman get here on time to be in the last vote. Still run. I guess we won't ask Don if there's any announcements for us. Any reason to go into executive session? No. Mr. Radner, is there anything we need to know or. I would mention what our next meeting is, but I'd have to look at my phone to find the. Oh, August 4th, it's on here chairman's teaching me things. Anything else motion to adjourn next meeting August 4th, August 4th. Yeah, so move 2nd motion the 2nd, a roll call vote. Oh, no, we'll just a voice vote all favor. I, I anybody opposed. And you've got that for Don in the minutes that we. The journey, I apologize to everybody. I introduced this.