Feb 28, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals

[00:00:01]

WE'D BOTH BE EXCUSED. 18. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE. CITY OF GROWTH CITIES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

[1. Call to order and roll call.]

AND ORDINANCES OF THIS CITY. AND WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES. A BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEMBER. UPON WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER. THANK YOU. SIGN THIS. AND MY FIRST RODEO. I'VE DONE THIS THREE. CHECK THREE TERMS. OKAY? THE. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS ELECTION OF

[2. Election of BZA Chair and Vice Chair]

LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT. OKAY? THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO PROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE

[3. Approve the minutes from the January 24th Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.]

[4. Hear the appeal of Rebecca Mott, Plank Law Firm LLC, representing the property owner, Glacial Apt. Oz LLC for Sub Area H, Beulah Park, Parcel #040-016119, for a variance to the Zoning Text C-24-18; to reduce the required side yard setback from 15’ to 6’ for Building #4, #6 and #12.]

[00:05:02]

OKAY SO THAT LITTLE GREAT PARCEL THAT IS SIBERIA H. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE LOT LINE WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THAT. NOW, THESE VARIANCES WHERE REQUESTING RELATE TO THREE BUILDINGS ONE BUILDING WITH THIS, I'M GOING TO CALL IT AN INVISIBLE LOT LINE BECAUSE, REALLY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE AN INVISIBLE LOT LINE. WORK. THAT WILL THEN BECAUSE OF. AGAINST THAT LOT LINE. IT WILL BE LIKE SIX FT. AWAY. THERE'S 1 10 FT AWAY. LIKE EIGHT FT. AWAY. FROM THE LOT LINE AND I'M JUST GOING TO CALL IT AN INVISIBLE LOT LINE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT IMPACT ANYTHING. AGAIN. AS BETWEEN BUILDINGS. THERE'S NO CHANGE, AS BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE. THERE'S NO CHANGE IN AS RELATED TO THE BUILDING LAYOUTS AND DESIGN. THERE'S NO CHANGE. AND THESE VARIANCES RELATE TO A CONFERENCE LOT SPLIT APPLICATION THAT I ALREADY DISCUSSED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED OF THAT LOT. SPLIT ON CONDITION WE OBTAINED THESE VARIANCES. WHICH OF COURSE WE DO NEED AND WE AGREE WITH THEIR VERY TECHNICAL IN NATURE. AND I CAN EXPRESS IT IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. WHATEVER YOUR I GUESS MORE WHATEVER IS MORE CONVENIENT. WE CAN SAY THE ENTIRETY OF SUB AREA H WOULD NEED A MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK OF SIX FT BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST MINIMAL. OR I COULD SAY AS IT RELATES TO CERTAIN BUILDINGS, THESE THREE BUILDINGS IN SOME VERY H. WE NEED A 10, FT AND EIGHT FT OR SIX. WHICHEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS THAT I COULD EXPRESS IT EITHER WAY. BUT IF WE GO TO THE PRONGS OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TEST UNDER THE VARIANCE APPLICATION ITSELF, I DO WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS. UM BASICALLY, THERE WOULD BE NO DECREASE INSIDE DARK SETBACKS AS IT RELATES TO BETWEEN BUILDINGS , WHICH IS WHAT THE ZONING TEXT IS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT. SO AGAIN. THIS IS VERY TECHNICAL. IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL. IT'S WITH RESPECT TO A LOT LINE ONLY FOR FINANCING PURPOSES, AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR THE SUB AREAS OR WHAT WAS REASONABLY EXPECTED TO BE BUILT HERE. AGAIN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED IN 2000 AND 18. THE PERIMETER YARD, SETBACKS AND SETBACKS, AS BETWEEN ALL OTHER ITEMS WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THE BUILDINGS WILL REMAIN THE SAME,

[00:10:04]

THE LOT SPLIT CAUSES NO CHANGE TO ANY OTHER SUB AREA OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ANY OTHER AREA OF VILLA PARK AS WE DISCUSSED. THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT ARE DUE TO NEWLY PROPOSED LOT LINES THAT ACCOMMODATIVE FINANCING OR REFINANCING NEED FOR THE PROJECT. THIS REQUEST IS BASED ON A VERY TECHNICAL NEED. AND IT'S IN TERMS OF A LOT LINE CHANGE ONLY AND AGAIN. IT'S AN INVISIBLE LOT LINE. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES THAT RELATES TO ACTUAL WITH THEM SIDE YARDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. UNDER NUMBER FIVE. APPLICANT DOES NOT OR DOES NEED THE LOT SPLIT AND THE VARIANCES FOR FINANCING AND REFINANCING PURPOSES. BUT THIS NEED WAS NOT KNOWN OR UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY OR DURING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN 2000 AND 18. IT IS A NEW NEED, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. AND UNDER THE LAST FACTOR, THE ZONING CODE ALLOWS FOR VARIANCES TO BE OBTAINED AND REQUESTED IF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES MET APPLICANT CLEARLY MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY STANDARD. THE VARIANCES ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THE VARIANCES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR OTHER SUB AREAS WITHIN THE PARK AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE MAY BE DONE IN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING CODE MAY BE SUPPORTED. BY THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES. NOW I DID READ THE NEIGHBORS. OBJECTION. RELATED TO I THINK IT'S THE PROPERTY 36 70 MM. HELP ME ON THE STREET. NAME BACK. STRETCH WAY BACK. STRETCH WAY. YES, AND I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WILL BE HERE TESTIFYING AND SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF. BUT I DID READ THROUGH THE OBJECTION. NO I DID WANT TO RAISE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DID BY WITHIN THE CON CONDO COMMUNITY AND THEIR PARCELS. IT'S ABOUT RIGHT. MOST STAR. SO WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEY HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION AND KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL OF THE PARK HAD ALREADY BEEN ZONED. IT HAD A SUB AREA PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE ZONING PROCESS HERE. AND ALSO HOW TO REGULATION TEXT OR ZONING TEXT FOR ALL OF BELA PARK. EVERY SINGLE SUB AREA WAS DELINEATED IN THE TEXT WITH PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROHIBITED USES, ETCETERA. SO THERE WOULD BE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION TO KNOW OR IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MULTI FAMILY SUBURB EIGHT WAS TO BE APARTMENTS. NOW IT IS A GOOD ROAD STONE, THE UPCOMING COMMUNITY AND AGAIN. THESE BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY BUILT. SO YOU KNOW THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON OVER IN THIS SUB AREA. AND THIS IS JUST THE SECOND PHASE OF THAT, AND IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT EXACTLY THE WAY THE SITE PLAN LAYS IT OUT. AND SO THERE CAN'T BE ANY. UM I GUESS MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT IN THIS SUBURB AREA NUMBER ONE. ALSO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE CONDO, UM, AGAIN FOUGHT WITH SORT OF FULL EXPECTATION. THE REQUEST INVOLVING THIS INVISIBLE LOT LINE BETWEEN THE PHASES OF SUDBURY. H CANNOT IMPACT IN ANY WAY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY UP THERE OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE BUILDINGS. THERE'S NO CHANGE AS IT RELATES TO THIS BUILDING UP AGAINST THIS RIGHT OF WAY, AND THERE'S NO CHANGE. BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN A BUILDING IN THE SIBERIA. SO WITH THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THERE CAN BE ANY HARDSHIP OR IMPACT AT ALL TO ANY NEIGHBOR, INCLUDING THE CONDUCT COMMUNITY WITHIN SUB AREA F SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. IT'S YOUR CLIENT, THE ONE THAT WILL BE PUTTING UP THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS CLOSE TO WHERE THE TWO LETTERS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TODAY. OR IS IT A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS SELF BECAUSE IT SAME

[00:15:06]

I DON'T KNOW THE SECOND LETTER. I APOLOGIZE. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT IS GLACIAL APARTMENT PAUSE. NO I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, IF THAT ENTITY IN PARTICULAR HAS A PRINCIPAL OR MANAGER. THAT'S MR KELLY OR IF IT'S A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE MANAGER BUT THESE COULD BE RELATED ENTITIES TO MISTER KELLY'S DEVELOPMENT ARM. SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. ALL I'M SAYING IS IT'S OWNED BY APARTMENT GLACIER GLACIAL AS LLC INTERRUPT, YOU KNOW. WHO OWNS THE LOTS THAT ARE UP CLOSE TO THE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX. THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARE THE APARTMENT AREA. WELL, WHO OWNS THE LOTS AND EVENTUALLY WOULD BE PUTTING UP THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. I ASSUME THAT THE. APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE GOING TO BE OWNED BY WHOEVER OWNS THE LAWS. NOW, MAYBE THEY'LL BE SOLD TO SOMEWHAT AND SAID SHE CAN'T REALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION. I THOUGHT MAYBE MIKE COULD KNOW THAT SO THESE ARE RIGHT NOW. THE SUDBURY AGES ONE PERSON. YEAH I UNDERSTAND. THEY'RE NOT EVEN CLOSELY. RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER. SECOND THING YOU ASKED. PRINCIPLE OF THE ENTITY, GLACIAL APARTMENT OF REALLY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO IS GOING TO BE THE PRINCIPAL OWNER OF THE ONES RELATED TO THE. APARTMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THE CONDOMINIUM. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THEIR THEIR PROPERTY.

THE CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY LOCATED CLOSE TO WHERE THOSE ARE THEY ARE NOT LOCATED CLOSE TO YOURS.

COME ON. OKAY? SO THEY ARE IN CLOSE. YEAH. AND SO ANYONE BUYING IN THIS SUB AREA OF WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND HAD THE REASONABLE. WAS OR WAS ZONED FOR THAT AREA. RIGHT? THIS IS REALLY CRITICAL. YEP CON IS SOMEWHAT OF A DENSE PROJECT. AS YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DRIVE AROUND, THE BUILDINGS ARE CLOSE TOGETHER. THEY'RE THEY'RE DETACHED CONDOS THAT THEY'RE VERY CLOSE THE ZONING TEXT. FOR F CON SUB AREA . F ALLOWS A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 10 FT. BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

THEREFORE THE BUILDINGS SEPARATION IN THIS SUB AREA WAS MORE IN THE TEXT THAN THIS ONE.

SO THEY LIVE IN A VERY DENSE COMMUNITY. THEY'RE USED TO BUILDINGS BEING VERY CLOSE TO THEIR BUILDING. AND, YOU KNOW, SO THIS ACTUALLY HAD A BIGGER SETBACK. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FIRST GOT INVOLVED WITH THE ZONING TEXT NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR ONE OF THE BUILDINGS TO BE SIX FT. ONE TO BE EIGHT FT. IN 1 10. THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS WILL STILL BE AT 15 15 FT. SO AGAIN, THEY'RE USED TO A VERY DANCE COMMUNITY. WERE BUILDINGS ARE VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. THERE IS ANOTHER APARTMENT GROUND IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. DOWN HERE. ONLY THIS LIGHT AROUND. THE SAME WHEN I WAS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS FROM THE TWO LETTERS THAT WERE SENT UM, AROUND NOON TODAY. I'M LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION ARE THEY GOING TO IMPACT? ARE THEY GOING TO COME HERE AND ASK FOR A SETBACK REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THE WAY THE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT. THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT IF WE APPROVE, IT DOES END. ALREADY IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY GOVERNMENTAL ENERGIES WANNA COUNCIL AND ONE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, BOTH OF THEM GIVE A LOT MORE. TIME.

DEALING WITH THE ISSUES AND I THINK WE DO. NOW MAYBE THAT'S WRONG AND I JUST BE JUST TO CLARIFY. I THINK WE ONLY GOT ONE LETTER ON THIS. WELL I THOUGHT THERE WERE TWO TO THE SAME ONE.

OKAY JOKE AND KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO. THERE WILL BE NO OTHER APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER COMING IN AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND FOR ANY FURTHER VARIANCES. I BELIEVE THE ENTITY THAT OWNS THIS IS STILL RELATED TO MR KELLY, AND HE PROBABLY HAS OTHER PARTNERS INVOLVED, HOWEVER , THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S NAME. YOU KNOW, GLACIAL APARTMENT AS LLC. I DO NOT FORESEE ANY

[00:20:01]

WHAT CONCERNED ME ABOUT IT WAS AT LEAST THE FIRST LETTER OF WE THOUGHT INDICATED THAT THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUT UP. AND THAT THAT'S WHAT THEIR CONCERN WAS THAT THERE WILL BE A LEGAL PRECEDENT SAID IF WE GRANTED VARIANTS TO THE NEXT TWO AND. WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS. IS THAT TRUE? IS THERE GOING TO BE TWO MORE APARTMENT BUILDINGS PUT OUT THERE'LL BE MORE THAN TWO BUILT AND PUT UP BECAUSE THIS IS THE WATER SERVICE PLAN THAT IS PART OF THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS SUB AREA. H LET ME EXPLAIN.

ALREADY BUILT IS 1234 BUILDINGS. THOSE ARE FOUR LARGE BUILDINGS IN THE DETENTION POND. OH THERE'S SOME UP HERE, TOO. I APOLOGIZE. THERE'S A CLUBHOUSE. BUILDING FIVE. BUILDING SIX OVER HERE IN THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE PROPOSED, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THEM JUST THE WAY THEY SHOW HERE ON THIS PLAN. YOU HAVE ONE MORE 123455 MORE BUILDINGS. BUT THOSE WERE ALREADY APPROVED. OKAY AND ALREADY I REALIZED THAT IT'S ALL BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE QUESTION OF THEN BECOMES OUR OR ANY OF THESE REALLY GOING TO IMPACT THEIR PROBLEM. THERE'S NO WAY IN OUR OPINION, THIS COULD IMPACT ANY PROPERTY. IN THE SUB AREA OR AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN ANY BELOW PARK SUB AREA BECAUSE EVERY EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT BOUGHT A SINGLE FAMILY, LAUDER HAS A RENTAL. WITHIN VILLA PARK. KNEW ABOUT THIS ENTIRE PLAN WAS ALREADY ZONED IN APPROVED. MANY OF THESE SUB AREAS HAVE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ALREADY APPROVED, MANY ARE CONSTRUCTED. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASONABLE WAY TO SAY THAT IT HAS ANY IMPACT. IN FACT, THIS IS A MASS DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE SCALE OF MANY, MANY MULTIPLE ACRES 200 SOME ACRES. THIS HAS TO BE MASTER PLANNED. IT WAS CAREFULLY PLANNED. YOU CAN SEE THE STREET NETWORK, THE PARK NETWORK. THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT, AS ALL OF IT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER AND GIVING EVERYONE AN AESTHETIC QUALITY AND GREAT QUALITY OF LIFE. SO THIS THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED.

THAT'S IT, OKAY? I DON'T KNOW. I'VE REVIEWED ALL THIS AND JUST TO CONFIRM THE ONLY LETTER IN OPPOSITION THAT WE RECEIVED WAS FROM FROM FELICIANO. GIRLS, OKAY? SO THAT CONFIRMS, OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S CORRECT ONE AND THEN UM, WOULD WOULD EITHER OF YOU OR BOTH LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE? SURE. WITH JOE FALLACY. NO, I GO BY JOB. OKAY NOW WE WROTE THE LETTER IN REGARDS TO BUILDING THREE. THAT'S ONE OF THE NEW ONES THAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT. THAT'LL BE RIGHT ACROSS FROM OUR BASICALLY OUR HOME. AND WE WERE WORRIED THAT IF YOU GRANT A VARIANCE ON THESE BUILDINGS WHOSE TO SAY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK AND YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THIS WOULD SET A PRECEDENT IN OUR MIND THAT MAYBE THEY WILL CHANGE. WHAT? UH, YOU KNOW BUILDINGS. PROPOSALS ARE ON BUILDING THREE. AND IT'S ALREADY IT'S LIKE 6.7 FT. YOU TO THE STREET. ORIGINALLY THEY HAD PLANS FOR 15 FT, AND NOW THEY WENT DOWN TO FIVE. WHO'S TO SAY THE 6.7 IS GOING TO GO DOWN TO TWO FT. SO WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT. IF YOU APPROVE THIS. BUILDING THREE IS NOT REFERENCED. VARIANCE. IT'S ONE OF THE NEW BUILDINGS. IT DOESN'T. IT'S NOT WITH ONE OF THESE THREE THEY'RE ASKING. BUT WE'RE THINKING, YOU SEE, YOU'RE SO NEGATIVE, CONSTANT CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR LIFE. THE NEGATIVE. YEAH THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY. YOU SAY, SINCE WE HAVE NEVER WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, WE ARE LEFT TO DEAL WITH THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY WHAT YOU SEE THEM AS BEING WELL. WE WERE TOLD WHEN WE PURCHASED THAT THAT WAS JUST GOING TO BE A RETENTION POND

[00:25:04]

BECAUSE BUILDINGS ARE PUT UP THAT ARE TOO HIGH AND THEN BLOCKS THEIR LIGHT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE CASE TO IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF THAT? THAT YOU SEE HOW TALL WERE THE APARTMENT BUILDING COMPLEXES? I THINK THERE'S HAVE TOLD OR ARE THEY.

THEY ARE THREE STORIES. THREE STORIES. THREE. AND HEALTH HOLDS YOUR CONDOMINIUM. AUTHORITIES.

IT'S SINGLE STORY NOW. THIS IS THE. ENTIRE SITE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. I KNOW IT'S BEEN IN THE PLANNING STAGES FOR THREE OR FOUR YEARS, PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL. TIMEFRAME SO UM LIKE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I THE TIMES. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT REALTORS TELL PEOPLE THINGS THAT AREN'T ALWAYS THE TRUTH. THAT SHOCKING BUT, UM. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT AREA EVER WAS DESIGNATED AS A RE RETAINING POND AREA. UM, YOU KNOW AGAIN. FROM MIND FROM MY KNOWLEDGE OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS. OKAY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING. QUESTIONS, OKAY? SO, UM. LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT. THE APPEAL OF REBECCA MARCH. BLANK LAW FIRM LLC REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNER. PALATIAL APARTMENTS, COZY LLC FOR SUB AREA H PART PARCEL 040016. FOR A VARIANCE TO THE ZONING TEXT, SEE. 24-18 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED. SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FT TO SIX FT FOR BUILDING FOUR. AND BUILDING SIX AND BUILDING 12. SECOND. MR BRANDT? YES, LINGO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING. OKAY THE NEXT ITEM

[5. Hear the appeal of Brenda Ruf, Dave Fox Remodeling representing the resident at 4303 Robin St. (Parcel 040-001415) for a variance to Section 1137.01; Non-conforming Uses; to increase the square footage of a non-conforming single-family home by 391sf for a total of 1,265sf of living space.]

[00:30:09]

I WOULD NOT IF WE HAD NOT RECEIVED A LIFE. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT, WHICH HER AGREED TO AND ANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RESPOND. LAURA TO THE SYRIANS HAVE NICER. OKAY, GREAT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE GRANT THE APPEAL OF.

FRIEND OF ROUGH DAVE FOX REMODELING REPRESENTING RESIDENTS. 43 OH THREE ROBIN STREET, 040-0. 1415 FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 11 37.1. NONCONFORMING USES TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY. FAMILY HOME BY 931 SQUARE FEET FOR TOTAL OF 1265 FT OF LIVING SPACE WITH THE TWO STIPULATIONS. THAT CONSTRUCTION BEGIN WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS. AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CHURCH DETERIORATED DRIVEWAY WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. SO THE ONE WE DIDN'T IS CONSTRUCTION, I WOULD HOPE WOULD BEGIN WITHIN 12 MONTHS, OKAY? I'LL START. MR BRANDT? YES, KALINDA? YES. YOU'RE VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED. AND. THAT THERE IS A 21 DAY WAITING PERIOD. YOU'RE QUITE WELCOME. THE LAST APPEAL IS OF.

[6. Hear the appeal of Jeremy Raabe, property owner at 5637 Carlisle Dr. (Parcel #040-016477) for a variance to Section 1137.05 (c); to encroach the 30’ front setback with a 54” decorative fence, on a corner lot, for a total front setback of 20’.]

[00:35:08]

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NEVER. SELF I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE GRANT THE APPEAL OF JEREMY ARABIAN PROPERTY. OWNER OF 56 37. CARLISLE DRIVE, PARCEL NUMBER 040-0164 FOR A VARIANCE. TO SECTION 11 37 05 CB TO ENCROACH THE 30. FRONT SETBACK WITH A 54 INCH DECORATIVE AND ON THE CORNER LOT FOR TOTAL SETBACK OF 20 FT. MR BRANDT? YES, SURE. KALINGA? YES.

YOU'RE GRANTED THAT WITH THOSE THANKS FOR COMING. NO THEY'RE THAT TIGHT LITTLE SECOND. WELL, I WASN'T SOMETIMES I MISS THINK SO. IT'S. YOU KNOW WHAT THE YOU KNOW THEY THE RENT, AND THERE'S NOTHING BUT RETAINING I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SOME REAL TRIP PROBABLY JUST SAID. NO, SIR. NO

[7. New business]