3. Hear the appeal of Gary W. Salyers, Attorney, representing William and Wanda Burkey, 1567 Tuscarora Dr., (Parcel 040-005912) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.14- III -Planned Unit Development District; Area, Yard, Coverage and Supplementary Regulations; to exceed the 30’-0” front setback on a corner lot by 20’-0”, with a 6’-0” tall privacy fence, for a total front setback on Buckeye Parkway of 10’. (Part 1 of 2)

4. Hear the appeal of Kerry Ferguson, KAJ Properties, for 3357 Woodlawn Ave., (Parcel #040-000096) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.10-I; Residential District Requirements to reduce the 25’-0” rear yard setback on a corner lot by 19’-0”, for a total rear yard setback of 6’-0”, by constructing a duplex on an infill lot.

3. Hear the appeal of Gary W. Salyers, Attorney, representing William and Wanda Burkey, 1567 Tuscarora Dr., (Parcel 040-005912) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.14- III -Planned Unit Development District; Area, Yard, Coverage and Supplementary Regulations; to exceed the 30’-0” front setback on a corner lot by 20’-0”, with a 6’-0” tall privacy fence, for a total front setback on Buckeye Parkway of 10’. (Part 2 of 2)

Apr 25, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals

1. Call to order and roll call.

2. Approve the minutes from the March 28, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals.

3. Hear the appeal of Gary W. Salyers, Attorney, representing William and Wanda Burkey, 1567 Tuscarora Dr., (Parcel 040-005912) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.14- III -Planned Unit Development District; Area, Yard, Coverage and Supplementary Regulations; to exceed the 30’-0” front setback on a corner lot by 20’-0”, with a 6’-0” tall privacy fence, for a total front setback on Buckeye Parkway of 10’. (Part 1 of 2)

4. Hear the appeal of Kerry Ferguson, KAJ Properties, for 3357 Woodlawn Ave., (Parcel #040-000096) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.10-I; Residential District Requirements to reduce the 25’-0” rear yard setback on a corner lot by 19’-0”, for a total rear yard setback of 6’-0”, by constructing a duplex on an infill lot.

3. Hear the appeal of Gary W. Salyers, Attorney, representing William and Wanda Burkey, 1567 Tuscarora Dr., (Parcel 040-005912) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.14- III -Planned Unit Development District; Area, Yard, Coverage and Supplementary Regulations; to exceed the 30’-0” front setback on a corner lot by 20’-0”, with a 6’-0” tall privacy fence, for a total front setback on Buckeye Parkway of 10’. (Part 2 of 2)

5. New business

Download Transcript

[1. Call to order and roll call.]

[00:00:05]

ALRIGHTY UH, LET'S GET STARTED. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE ORDER. THE GROSSI BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.

AND LET'S START WITH THE ROLL CALL. MR BRANDT. HERE GO, MR HORN. GREAT. AND THEN IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK IF YOU WOULD STAND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND WE'LL HAVE MISSED WERE YOU IN? DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING ON YOUR OWN FREE WILL THINK OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPEAL OF I MEAN, I'M SORRY. YEAH. IN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH MOVED THAT WE

[2. Approve the minutes from the March 28, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals.]

APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28 20. 22 BORDER ZONING APPEALS MEETING. MR BRANDT? YES

[3. Hear the appeal of Gary W. Salyers, Attorney, representing William and Wanda Burkey, 1567 Tuscarora Dr., (Parcel 040-005912) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.14- III -Planned Unit Development District; Area, Yard, Coverage and Supplementary Regulations; to exceed the 30’-0” front setback on a corner lot by 20’-0”, with a 6’-0” tall privacy fence, for a total front setback on Buckeye Parkway of 10’. (Part 1 of 2)]

TO MR HAN. NOW WE CAN GO TO BREAK. TO HEAR THE APPEAL OF YOUR E W SLAYERS ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING WILLIAM AND WANDA BURKEY. 15 67 TUSCARORA DRIVE PARTIAL NUMBER 04000. VANEK 912 FOR VARIANCE DISSECTION TABLE 11 35 POINT ONE FOUR DASH II. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AREA YARD. COVERAGE AND SUPPLEMENTARY OF REGULATION. NEED THE 30 FT ZERO INCHES. FRONT SETBACK. ON THE CORNER A LOT BY 20 FT. WITH A SIX FT TALL PRIVACY FENCE FOR TOTAL FRONT SETBACK ON PARKWAY 10 FT. AND THE FIRST PERSON SPEAK. STIR. SLAYERS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, PLEASE? 912 UM. AS AN INITIAL MATTER THE PARCEL AT ISSUE IS ZONED OR IN A ZONING DISTRICT, P U D ARE SINGLE FAMILY. WE CONCEDE THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE SETBACKS FOR MOST OF THE LOTS TO THE EXTENT WHERE THERE ARE SETBACKS, SETBACKS ARE 30 30 FT. IN MY CLIENT'S CASE IN THE BERKSHIRES CASE, THERE ARE 2 30 FT. SETBACKS THAT ISSUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CORNER LOT. UM SO THE FIRST TWO EXHIBITS AND I PASSED OUT SOME EXHIBIT KIND OF PACKET OF EXHIBITS THAT I'M GOING TO CALL, UH, APPEAL HEARING EXHIBITS. THE FIRST EXHIBIT APPEAL HEARING EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. IT'S TWO PAGES. IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY, I THINK VALUABLE.

IT'S BASICALLY SAYS WHAT WE KNOW WHICH IS IT IS IN A PD PD, OUR ZONING DISTRICT AND THAT IT IS SINGLE FAMILY AND UM, I'VE BLOWN UP SOME PIECES OF THAT IN SECTION. I'M SORRY. UH EXCUSE ME. EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO, WHICH IT MATCHES THIS DIAGRAM. I'VE BLOWN UP THE PARCEL TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT THERE IS IN FACT. A 30 FT SETBACK. ON MY CLIENT'S CORNER LOCKED THAT'S RUNS PARALLEL TO TUSCARORA DRIVE, AND THEN ALSO A 30 FT SETBACK. RUNS PARALLEL TO BUCKEYE PARKWAY. SO

[00:05:06]

AGAIN, WE CAN SEE THAT THOSE SETBACKS EXIST. THE SETBACK THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO PARKWAY. THE SETBACK AT ISSUES SPECIFICALLY, WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS THAT FOR THIS SET 37. WE MAKE AN EXCEPTION OR THAT WE MOVE THAT SETBACK, 37 FT OF THAT SET BACK FROM THE CORNER. GOING FORWARD 37 FT IS THAT WE CHANGE THAT SETBACK. BY 20 FT, MAKING IT A 10 FT SETBACK AS OPPOSED TO A 30 FT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE. I SUBMITTED INITIALLY WITH OUR APPLICATION OF FAIRLY DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS, I'M NOT GOING TO DO ALL OF THAT AGAIN TODAY. BUT SOME FACTS, I THINK, BEAR REPEATING MY CLIENTS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2021. SIGNIFICANTLY THERE WAS A WOODEN FENCE IN PLACE. IN THIS VERY SAME FOOTPRINT. SEE HERE. PRINTERS IN BLACK. THERE WAS AN EXISTING WOODEN FENCE IN PLACE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2021. UM EXHIBIT OR EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR. I'VE INCLUDED I'VE SHOWN YOU A AERIAL SHOT AND OVERHEAD SHOT OF DEFENSE. THAT WAS AS IT APPEARED ROUGHLY MY CLIENTS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AGAIN THAT EXISTING FENCE THIS SHOT, I BELIEVE WAS TAKEN WELL, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN NOVEMBER VERY 2021. THAT FENCE APPEARS TO HAVE ALSO BEEN IN PLACE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE THAT SAME FENCE. ALTHOUGH THE PICTURE IS PRETTY POOR, IT'S APPARENT THAT THERE IS A FENCE IN PLACE ALSO, UM, AND THAT APRIL 25 TO JUNE OF 2000 AND FIVE PICTURE OVERHEAD SHOT THAT WAS TAKEN IN EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE. THE POINT IS THAT FOR AT LEAST 16 YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A SIMILAR FENCE, ALMOST IDENTICAL FRIENDS, FRANKLY, IN EXACTLY THE SAME SPOT AS WE WERE ASKING, AS WE HAD ASKED TO PLACE OUR FENCE , MY CLIENTS WERE LOOKING TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT. THE EXISTING FENCE APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND 40 YEARS OLD. WE KNOW FROM PUBLIC RECORDS. IT'S AT LEAST 16. IT LOOKS SUBSTANTIALLY OLDER THAN THAT, IN MY CLIENT'S GOAL WAS TO REPLACE THAT FENCE WITH A NEWER OFFENSE, NEWER CONSTRUCTION, NEWER MATERIALS, SOMETHING THAT LOOKED BETTER AND IMPROVE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE CONTRACTED TO BUILD THAT NEW FENCE IN THE SAME LOCATION AND SAME FOOTPRINT, SOUGHT THE PERMIT TO BUILD THAT FENCE THROUGH THE FENCE BUILDER THAT PERMIT WAS DENIED. FOR THE REASON THAT THAT WE KNOW THAT WE ARE HERE. WAS BUILT AND AS WE PROPOSED. OR 37 FT OF THE FENCE WAS 2020 FT. PAST THE SETBACK, AND AGAIN THAT WAS THE EXISTING FENCE AND THE NEW FENCE. WE PROPOSED THAT QUEST FOR PERMIT WAS DENIED ON THAT BASIS. THE BIRDIES BEGAN WORKING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING FOLKS TO TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM. UM AND I THINK THERE WERE SOME POSITIVE INTERACTION THERE, BUT ULTIMATELY THEY WERE TOLD TO THINGS THAT KIND OF CHANGED THE COURSE OF THAT.

THOSE INTERACTIONS. ONE WAS, UM , THAT'S FOCUSED ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT FELT LIKE THEY HAD A GOOD CHANCE TO WIN AN APPEAL. BECAUSE OF BECAUSE, FRANKLY, I'M SORRY, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT. FROM THE FENCE AS BUILT ALL THE WAY OUT THE BUCKEYE PARKWAY, AND IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BUILDING AND PLANNING OR THE BUILDING ZONING AND PLANNING FOLKS THAT THE WIDTH OF THE LOT MADE THAT MUCH MORE LIKELY. THAT A THAT THAT IT APPEALS VARIANTS. I SHOULD SAY IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I HAVE ATTACHED EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN. SUBMITTED THAT HERE THIS EVENING. THE DETAILS OF CONVERSATION. UM THAT INVOLVES ONE OF THE BUILDING AND ZONING BUILDING PLANNING FOLKS WHERE THEY INDICATE THAT THEY THINK THAT A THE VARIANCE IS QUITE LIKELY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED IN THE CONVERSATIONS OF MY CLIENTS HAD WITH THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND PLANNING AND ZONING FOLKS IS UM THEY WERE TOLD WHEN I WHEN THEY ASKED, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T DO THIS? THIS SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WORK JUMPED THROUGH A LOT OF HOOPS. DISPENSE HAS BEEN HERE FOR PROBABLY 30 YEARS. WHY CAN'T WE PUT A FENCE EXACTLY WHERE THIS FENCE IS? IN THE ANSWER WAS AND THE ANSWER WAS. THE QUESTION WAS , IF WE DON'T GET A PERMIT, AND WE DON'T DO THIS, AND WE DON'T

[00:10:01]

REQUEST A VARIANCE, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ANSWER THAT THEY RECEIVED WAS NOTHING. AND AGAIN THAT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN SOMEBODY SAYING SOMETHING OUT OF FRUSTRATION. THAT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN SOMETHING ELSE. BUT I WILL. I WILL SAY ONLY THAT MY CLIENTS RELIED ON THAT THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH BUILDING THE FENCE. THAT FENCE IS A THE SIX FT CEDAR CABIN FROM PRIVACY FENCE. I HAVE EXHIBITS 89 AND 10 SHOW PICTURES OF THAT FENCE. IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL FENCE IN THIS WAY. UM SOME MATERIALS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THE SLACKS ARE A LITTLE CLOSER TOGETHER. BUT THE OTHER. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE, THOUGH, IS THAT ON THIS. WHERE THE EXISTING FENCE WAS ORIGINALLY, WE THINK ABOUT 4.5 FT. UM AND SO THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO NOW. 72 INCHES, SIX OR SIX INCH FENCE OF THE FOOTPRINT DID NOT CHANGE. THE MATERIALS REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE.

THAT'S A THAT'S A FENCE THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN A MID, THE MID WESTERN STATE OF OHIO, CENTRAL OHIO. HOWEVER THE ONE CHANGES THAT IT DID INCREASE IN HEIGHT. UM UH, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE WE THINK ROUGHLY ABOUT 18 INCHES. WE ARE ASKING AGAIN FOR A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS US THIS STAGE. WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS US TO KEEP THE FENCE HAS BUILT. IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AND ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT. UM AGAIN AGAIN, THAT IS 30. OUT. OR THE OR THE BILL PLAN, I GUESS WOULD HAVE BUILT MINOR SETBACK WOULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED BY 20 FT. TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THANK YOU. UM SOMETHING THAT THAT OCCURRED TO ME AS I WAS PUTTING OUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TOGETHER IS WE ARE ASKING FOR AN AREA VARIANTS IN GROSS CITIES CODE. UM AND ON THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANTS THAT WE FILED WITH GROVE CITY. THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE BEING ASKED OR THAT WE WERE TOLD, WE'D HAVE TO PROVE TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE. THOSE ELEMENTS ARE USED VARIANTS ELEMENTS. IT'S A DIFFERENT TEST. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A USE VARIANCE. UM WE ARE ASKING FOR AN AREA VARIANTS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO, SAYS THAT TO OBTAIN AN AREA VARIANTS THAT I'M SORRY THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE FACTORS THAT ARE SET OUT AND DUNCAN V MIDDLEFIELD. IT'S A DIFFERENT TEST. IT'S A IT'S A MUCH LESS RIGID TEST AND IMPORTANTLY AS YOU LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THE FACTORS, AND DUNCAN V. MIDDLEFIELD PEOPLE APPLICANTS . PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR AN AREA VARIOUS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SATISFY EVERY SINGLE PRONG OF THE TEST, OR EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT THERE SIMPLY REQUIRED TO PUT FORTH A CASE THAT SAYS ON BALANCE. THAT IT IS THE BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT'S BENEFICIAL TO THEM. AND WHAT IS BENEFICIAL, POTENTIALLY DAMAGING TO THE COMMUNITY THAT THE BALANCE WEIGHS IN THEIR FAVOR OR IN THE FAVOR OF GRANTING THE VARIANTS, SO IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT SORT OF TESTS. THAT TEST IS AGAIN THE AREA WAS THE EXCUSE ME. THE USE TEST IS A CASE COMES OUT OF A CASE CALLED SET PRODUCTS.

BAINBRIDGE TOWNSHIP. MM. GIVE YOU A SITE HERE. THAT'S 31 HIGH STATE. THIRD TO 60. THAT IS WHAT IT IS. I'M SORRY. THAT IS THAT IS THE PROPER TEST. UM AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ARGUED FOR OUR APPLICATION. THOSE ARE THE FACTORS THAT I'VE SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION TO HIT THOSE VERY QUICKLY AND I'M GOING TO BE DONE. I'M SORRY. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I'M GOING TO SAY. ON THE ON THE TEST AND THE PROPERLY APPLICABLE TEST EARLIER TODAY, I DID RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT FROM MISS SCOTT WITH WITH HER RECOMMENDATIONS OR HER DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. I WILL NOTE THAT AGAIN. WITH ALL DUE DEFERENCE TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE SCOTT HAS BEEN GREAT TO DEAL WITH VERY, VERY PLATE. VERY PROFESSIONAL. SO WITH ALL DUE DEFERENCE, UM, I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THAT STAFF REPORT AS IT LOOKS LIKE WHOEVER OFFERED THE REPORT HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN A USE VARIANCE TEST TO USE PROPER USE VARIANCE TEST AS ANNOUNCED BY THE STATE OF OHIO. THE PROPER AREA VARIANCE TEST AND KIND OF SMASH THOSE TOGETHER. AND NOW WE HAVE A THIRD TEST. IF THE IF THIS, UH , BOARD WERE TO FOLLOW THIS TEST THAT'S LAID OUT HERE IN THE STAFF REPORT. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A THIRD TEST THAT I CAN'T FIND ANYWHERE IN OHIO LAW.

THERE'S A USE VARIANCE TEST. THERE'S AN AREA VARIANCE TEST, AND THE STAFF REPORT KIND OF

[00:15:01]

KIND OF BLENDS THOSE TWO TESTS AND AGAIN THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DONE TRYING TO RESPOND TO WHAT IT IS THAT WE PUT IN OUR APPLICATION AND TRY TO RESPOND TO THOSE POINTS. BUT THAT TEST DOES NOT EXIST IN THE LAW. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. I'M GONNA GO QUICKLY. I KNOW I'M PROBABLY RUNNING OUT OF TIME. AS FAR AS THE ELEMENTS IN THE PROPER AREA . VARIANCE TEST THAT DUNCAN TEST . UM THE FIRST QUESTION IS WILL THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION YIELDED REASONABLY REASONABLE RETURN? CAN THERE BE ANY BENEFICIAL USE TO THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE? AND THE ANSWER? IN THIS CASE, I THINK IS YES. THERE CAN BE A BENEFICIAL USE. IT CAN BE USED AS A RESIDENCE. WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT. WHAT THEY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY. LAST YEAR. THERE WAS A FENCE THERE. IT'S AN OLD, DILAPIDATED FENCE. IT'S CLEARLY BEEN IN THAT PLACE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I THINK THEY REASONABLY BELIEVED WE CAN UPDATE THAT FENCE, UPGRADE THAT FENCE OR BUILD A NEW FENCE IN THAT SAME FOOTPRINT, BECAUSE IF THAT WAS A PROBLEM, WHY WOULD THIS FENCE BE? THEY'RE HERE FOR THIS LENGTH OF TIME. THE VARIANCE IS THE SECOND QUESTION IS THE VARIOUS SUBSTANTIAL. I THINK THE ANSWER HERE IS NO. UM, WHEN I LOOK AT THE ENTIRE THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE BUILD LINESE CHANGED. COMPRISES LESS THAN 22% OF THE TOTAL BUILD LINE FOR THE PROPERTY. IT'S MATHEMATICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. THE. UM THREE OF THEM WILL THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED OR WILL JOIN PROPERTY SUFFERING SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT AS A RESULT OF THE VARIANCE? UM AND THE ANSWER IS THE ANSWER IS NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO ALTER IF THIS IF THIS BOARD WERE TO GRANT THE VARIANCES REQUESTED IT IS NOT GOING TO ORDER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BURDEN OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL WAY. MHM. NUMBER FOUR IS WELL. THE VARIANCE IF GRANTED, ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES.

AND I HAD AN ART INITIAL APPLICATION WATER, SEWER GARBAGE . I SUPPOSE YOU COULD EMERGENCY SERVICES IN THERE AS WELL. UH WORKERS HAVE NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER THAT THE FENCE IN ITS PLACE HAS EVER INTERFERED WITH THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SERVICES OR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. I SHOULD SAY ONE, I GUESS, UH, I THINK CONCERNED THAT I'VE HEARD RAISED IS VISIBILITY. WAY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND, UM. WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT. I GUESS I CONCLUDED EXHIBIT THE RIGHT EXHIBITS. EXHIBITS. HER WITH ME HERE. 11 AND 12 AND THE PACKET THAT I HANDED YOU SHOW THE VIEW FROM. THEY SHOW A CLEAR VIEW OF THE ROAD. THERE'S NO OBSTRUCTIONS IN TERMS OF DRIVING. WE DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE THAT IS AFFECTING THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. THERE'S NOTHING OUT THIS IS NOT AFFECTING TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT AFFECTING VISIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE DRIVING. MHM. AND, UH, FIFTH. ELEMENT IN THE PROPER TEST IS THAT THE BIRDIES PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ZONING RESTRICTION. IN THIS CASE, THE 30 FT SETBACK ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. BURKE IS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT SET BACK AGAIN. THEY SAW A VERY OLD, VERY DILAPIDATED FENCE IN THE VERY SAME FOOTPRINT HAD EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO IMPROVE THAT FENCE WILL REPLACE THAT FENCE. UH AND AGAIN, REALISTICALLY. UM PERHAPS THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIG IT OUT BY A SEARCH OF PUBLIC RECORDS. BUT THE TEST ITSELF ONLY REQUIRES ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUESTION IS, DO THEY HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT ZONING LIMITATION EXISTED IN THE ANSWER IS NO. THEY DID NOT. AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. AND GIVEN THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD SEE. THAT WOULD INDICATE TO THEM THAT THERE WAS A 30. WHICH THAT ORIGINAL FENCE WAS BUILT ACROSS. BUT CAN THE PREDICAMENT BE OBVIATED THROUGH SOME METHOD? OTHER THAN VARIANTS? UM THE LAST EXHIBIT I HAVE IS EXHIBIT 13 IN YOUR PACKETS. UM WE CAN THINK OF NO OTHER WAY TO CORRECT OBVIATE FIX THE BURKETT'S PREDICAMENT WITH THEIR FENCE. OTHER THAN TO ALLOW , UH SET BATHROOM. SORRY ALLOW THE CHANGE IN SETBACK OF A VERY LIMITED OR SMALL PART OF THE SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY. UM, ANYTHING THAT UH, ANYTHING WE DO NOW IS GOING TO REQUIRE MOVING THE FENCE, RELOCATING THE FENCE. RECONSTRUCTING DEFENSE EXHIBIT 13 ISN'T IS A AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE TO TEAR DOWN. THE COST TO TEAR DOWN. AT OR BEHIND. THE BUILD LINE, AND I

[00:20:04]

BELIEVE THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $3250, AND FINALLY UM. THE LAST FACTOR IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS BOARD. COULD GRANT APOLOGIZE. I'VE LOST MY PLACE HERE. WHETHER THE BOARD COULD GRANT A VARIANCE OR GRANNY OR THE SPIRIT AND TAKE BEHIND THE ZONING REQUIREMENT. BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE BY GRANTING THE VARIANTS. UM YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I'M NOT, UH, PRIVY FOR LIKE BETTER WITH PUTTING IT TO EXACTLY WHAT THE INTENTION WAS OF THE ZONING HERE . UM WE DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S BEEN A TON OF YEARS AND WHERE THEY'RE NOT NOT BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS. PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT DEFENSE. THEY DON'T THINK IT'S CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BALANCE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS THE BURKINIS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY RELIED ON WITH THE PROPERTY LOOK LOOK LIKE AND THAT PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE, APPARENTLY SOMETHING THAT IT WASN'T IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY COULD DO WITH THE PROPERTY. AND HOW THEY COULD ENJOY THE PROPERTY. AND SO GIVEN THAT WE THINK THAT THE BALANCE FAVORS THE BIRDIES. UM IT'S FINE . FINALLY. THAT'S IN CONCLUSION. I WOULD SAY THIS IS AGAIN IT'S A BALANCING TEST. IT IS NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING. I BELIEVE THAT THIS BOARD IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE TEST THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED AND APPLY THAT TEST. UM YOU KNOW, IN A WAY THAT BALANCES THE BURKE EASE INTEREST AGAINST THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY. AND WE THINK IF YOU WEIGH ALL THOSE FACTORS OUT THE BALANCE CUTS IN FAVOR OF THE BURR KEYS, AND ON THAT BASIS, WE WOULD REQUEST A APPROVAL OF THE VARIANTS. NOTHING THAT I HAVE ONE QUESTION YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HEIGHT OF THE AND, UH, THAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE REALLY MORE MAJOR PROBLEM, THEN THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE FORWARD. UH I KNOW OF NO INSTANCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS SPORTS SINCE 2000 AND EIGHT AND I KNOW OF NO INSTANCE WHERE WE'VE BRAND OF BARRIER. MOVE IT UP TO SIX FT. WE'VE GRANTED UP TO 48. WELL FOUR FT 48 INCHES, AND WE'VE DONE THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE HAD DOGS. WHILE THEY ALLEGED JUMP. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A NEIGHBOR AND THAT PERSON MAY BE PRESENT WHO IS POINTING TO OBJECT? AND YEAH, I DON'T THINK YOU ADDRESSED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE ISSUE AT ALL. ABOUT THE FENCE ITSELF. OBVIOUSLY, IN THIS SECTION HERE.

EXCEPTION OF THE 37 FT, FOR WHICH WE ARE SEEKING A VARIANTS. THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IS SIX FT. THE PERMIT. UM, THAT WE REQUESTED WAS NOT THE NIGHT FOR ANY OTHER REASON OTHER THAN IT WAS PAST THE SETBACK. WE WERE ONLY ADDRESSING THE SETBACK BECAUSE WE AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH WITH ANY OTHER. REQUIREMENT OR AT LEAST AT THIS STAGE ARE I GUESS OUR APPEAL IN OUR QUEST FOR VARIANCE IS BASED PURELY ON WHAT WE WERE TOLD AS TO WHY OUR PERMIT FOR OFFENSE WAS DENIED IT WAS NOT DENIED ON A HEIGHT ON BASIS OF HYPE, OKAY, I JUST WANT TO VERIFY LAURA IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS DENIED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHTS REQUIRE.

I BELIEVE THERE'S AN EMAIL AND MR SALTER'S PACKET. THAT. WAS SENT TO THE BURKE, HE SAID, EXPLAINS THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL. SO IF YOU WOULD WANT TO NUMBER SEVEN. AND SO JUSTIN TAYLOR'S THE REVIEWER ON THIS AND. HERE. YEAH OTHERWISE NEW FRIENDS WOULD NEED TO BE INSTALLED 30 FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE THERE IN THE SIDE YARD. THERE'S A CODE SECTION HERE. SEE HERE ON THE NEXT. REVIEW THE PERMIT APPLICATION CANNOT BE APPROVED AND SUBMITTED PROPOSED PROPOSED FENCE, ALTHOUGH IT IS REPLACING AN EXISTING ASBESTOS SETBACK. 30 FT. RIGHT OF APPEAL. THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED. TO THEM WHAT YOU SEE IN YOUR PACKET. IT AS FAR AS THIS EMAIL IS CONCERNED, UM THERE WERE WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHER DISCUSSIONS WHEN PREPARING FOR THE BBC VARIANTS. UM THE FENCE SECTION IS WHAT WE WOULD

[00:25:04]

TYPICALLY USE THE 11 37.5. THAT DESCRIBES WHAT TYPES OF FENCES CAN BE PERMITTED IN FRONT OF THE SETBACK. THE 42 INCH HIGH, THE MORE OPEN FENCE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMMUNICATOR. I DON'T THINK WE GOT TO THAT POINT. DEFENSES CONSTRUCT. PRACTICAL. WELL HE DID APPLY FOR VARIANTS. YES AND THEN WITHDREW IT SO AND I, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THEM ON THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAD THE APPROPRIATE CONCEPTION ON IT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN 11 37 05.

WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY FROM WHATE NEIGHBOR I THINK THERE'S A NEIGHBOR HERE. THIS IS GOING TO TESTIFY. FROM WHAT? UH I UNDERSTAND. DISPLAY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION. AND A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS ACTUALLY WENT. I WENT THROUGH ALL THESE SHEETS. A NUMBER OF TIMES DROVE THE AREA LOOKED AT THE FENCE. DILIGENCE. UM I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPS OUT AT ME IS THAT THE VARIANCE WAS BUILT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT BRANCHING. SYRIANS. POST DEFENSE BEING BUILT RATHER THAN PRIOR TO THE FENCE BEING BUILT. AND I ASSUME THAT THE FENCE BUILDER WAS A LICENSED CONTRACTOR. UM, WHO BUILT THE FENCE? AND WE DON'T NEED A BUILDING PERMIT ALSO KNOWS THAT.

OF THE HIGH THREE CHOIR MINTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY STANDARD IN ALL AREAS. MR GRANT INDICATED. UM HE GOT. I CAN ONLY REMEMBER ONE INSTANCE WHERE WE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OVER 42. PERSONAL PETS SERVICE STONE. AND SO I, I GUESS ONE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.

HERE'S WHY THE FENCE WAS BUILT. WITHOUT UM, ADEQUATE PERMISSION. BUILDING. TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND I UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT IDEAL VARIANCES GET REQUESTED. AFTER THINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE THAT THAT HAPPENS. IT'S IT IS, IT IS NONETHELESS A PROPER REQUEST, AND CERTAINLY NOT WHAT I WOULD HAVE ADVISED BURKE EASE TO DO ONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I UNDERSTAND THE BOARDS. FRUSTRATION WITH THAT. I UNDERSTAND MISS SCOTT'S FRUSTRATION WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES. THE ANALYSIS IS CERTAINLY MAY CHANGE THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM AND I KNOW IT CREATES FRUSTRATION. I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES FRANKLY, THIS BOARD'S ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A VARIANCE IS APPROPRIATE. UM I COULD APOLOGIZE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS. I'VE HAD MORE THAN ONE CONVERSATION WITHIN THAT SAID THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE WAY I'D HAVE DONE IT. UM AND SO I UNDER I UNDERSTAND, I THINK JUST LIKE THE BIRDIES WERE TOLD, PERHAPS IN FRUSTRATION. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T GET A PERMIT? NOTHING. AND THEY WORK AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SIT HERE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THAT TODAY, BUT I WILL, FOR WHATEVER THAT'S WORTH THAT WAS CERTAIN. SET OUT OF FRUSTRATION BY SOMEBODY. ON ON STAFF HERE IN GROVE CITY, UM AND AGAIN THE QUESTION OF LEGALLY WHETHER THE BURPEES WERE ENTITLED TO RELY ON THAT. IS THAT A CONTRACT AND WE HAVE DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE. THAT'S REALLY NOT THE ISSUE. SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING OUT OF FRUSTRATION. I THINK MAYBE THEY DID SOMETHING OUT OF FRUSTRATION . I THINK THAT'S THE ANSWER IS THAT THE FIRST THEY MET FRUSTRATION WITH FRUSTRATION, WHICH ISN'T A IT ISN'T MEANT TO EXCUSE THE CONDUCT, BUT I THINK I THINK THAT'S THE MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION I CAN GIVE. AND MAY I RESPOND TO THE OTHER PART OF THE OTHER PART OF WHAT YOU SAID, AND IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP TWICE.

IS THAT THE HEIGHT? THERE. THERE'S CONFUSION, CONFUSION ON MY PART ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND CONVERSATION. THE SCOTT AND ANDREW REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS. THE ONLY TIME THAT I WAS I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE 72 INCHES FENCE WAS WAS PROBLEMATIC. WAS BECAUSE IT WAS PAST THE SET. LET'S SET BACK. IN FACT, I RECEIVED I THINK SOME COMMUNICATION FROM THIS SCOTT TODAY THAT SAYS, IF YOU GET BACK BACK TO THE SETBACK OR BACK PAST THE SETBACK THE FENCE IS FINE THE HEIGHT IT IS ALL THE WAY AROUND. SO THAT THIS IS NEW TO ME THAT I'M HEARING THAT.

GENERALLY THERE'S A PROHIBITION AGAINST 72 INCH OFFENSES, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT I SEE IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS. BUT I CAN ONLY SAY THAT TODAY AND WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR VARIANCE APPLICATION, WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US AGAIN, LOOKING AT EXHIBIT SIX ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT I GAVE YOU TODAY AND THEN AGAIN, AN EXHIBIT. OH SHOOT EXHIBIT. I DIDN'T MARK IT AS AN EXHIBIT.

IT'S THE THIRD PAGE OF THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, UH, SAYS THE SAME THING. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICANT DEFENSE PERMIT APPLICATION? PAST SETBACK, NOTHING ELSE. THE OTHER THING THAT STICKS OUT AND AGAIN. THIS IS MY AS ONE OF THE BOARD

[00:30:02]

MEMBERS OF PERSONAL OBSERVATION. UM AND DRIVING BY AND LOOKING AT THE OLD PENSION. THE NEW FRIENDS FIRST WAS THE HEIGHT. AND THE SECOND THEME WAS THE OPAQUENESS OF THE FENCE VERSUS THE PRIOR DEFENSE. PRIOR FENCE THAT HAS SPACING BETWEEN THE SLATS. THIS ONE APPEARS NOT TO. IF THERE IS IT'S VERY MINIMAL. AND SO IT APPEARS TO BE MORE OF A WALL THAT OFFENSE. MY OPINION. AND I DROVE AROUND THE OTHER SOME OF THE OTHER STREETS IN THE NAVY. AND NOTICED OTHER FENCES, WHICH ARE, UM NOT AS NICE AS THEIR OLDER FENCES. OKAY, THEY DON'T LOOK AS LOOKING GOOD, BUT THAT THERE THERE'S SOMEWHAT, UM FOR A SOLUTION IS THE BEST TERM THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THEM A LITTLE MORE, AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A MONOLITHIC KIND OF WALL. THANKS SO THOSE ARE JUST BOTH OF MY OPINIONS? UM, ON ON THE FENCE. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. YOU HAVE PAGED YOUR EXHIBIT 13 FROM FENCE AND DECK DOCTORS. THAT IS THE COST TO REPAIR IT. IF THERE'S A CHANGE, I INTERPRET. I'M SORRY. THE CONTRACTOR THAT PUT THE FENCE IN I BELIEVE THEY ARE. THAT WOULD SPENCE AND DEBT DOCTORS OKAY, CAN I CAN I MAKE VERIFY THAT? SURE. THEY ARE OKAY. UM AND THEN IS FOR AS. WITH WHEN PROBABLY THE IN THERE AGAIN. I WAS NOT THERE WITH ASHLEY THE CONVERSATION. WHAT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WHEN THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT THE NEW FENCE. UM. IN THE PROCESS OF TURNING THINGS IN WE NEVER EVEN GOT TO THE POINT TO WHERE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. BECAUSE MAYBE CONVERSATIONS DIDN'T GO THERE YET. AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. YOU SHOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS. YOU NEED TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT MY HEAD. I'M SORRY, AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW. I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. I THINK THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENED WELL AFTER THE INITIAL REQUEST FOR A PERMIT WAS DENIED IN THE ONLY BASIS HOLY BASIS THAT WAS EVER STATED AND IN ANY DOCUMENTARY FORM AND EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS OF MY CLIENTS HAD WITH MS SCOTT AND FOLKS IN HER OFFICE AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THE ONLY COMMUNICATIONS WHEREVER HAD THAT WE CAN SEE AND PUT OUR HANDS ON. THEY SAY ONE THING SETBACK. AND THEN YOU STARTED OFF YOUR PRESENTATION BY SAYING THEY REPLACED. THE FOOTPRINT AS IS RIGHT AND REPLACED IT WITH THE IDENTICAL THEY DID NOT REPLACE IT WITH THE IDENTICAL FENCE. IF I SAID, TAPERING, IT STARTS TAPERING DOWN. AND THEN ALONG THE ROAD, IT DOES GO DOWN TO 40 TO 48. WHAT IS A SHORTER FENCE JUST BY THE REFERRING TO THE EXISTING PREVIOUS PREVIOUS CHANCE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY SAY OKAY, THIS WAS THE FOOTPRINT. I CAN. I CAN SEE WHERE THEY CAN SAY OKAY. THIS FENCE WAS HERE. WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE OKAY? BUT IT'S NOT AN IDENTICAL FENCE. IT'S IT IS THE FOOTPRINT IS THE SAME CORRECT. BUT IF YOU LOOK IN THE PAST PICTURES FROM YEARS AGO FROM THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE. PROBABLY ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE A WINDOW PUNKS OUT. CAN SEE WHERE IT'S FOR. AT THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT STARTS TAPERING DOWN. AND AS HE GETS OUT TO THE ROAD IT APPEARS IT'S BABY EIGHT. 4 48 INCH? I DON'T KNOW. BUT BUT IT'S NOT A SIX FT FENCE. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. IT'S NOT AND IDENTICAL, REPLACED. IT'S NOT THE SAME FENCE FOOTPRINT IS THE SAME APOLOGIZE FOOTPRINTS THE SAME OFFENSES, BUT BUT IT'S NOT THE IDENTITY. AND NOW I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WHEN YOU YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE TAPER, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE TAPER, THAT'S I GUESS ON THE BACK THE VERY BACK OF THE FENCE. THERE'S NO TAPER ON THE SIDE HERE, RIGHT TAPER TO THE BACK. THAT PAPER DOES NOT EXIST, AND IT'S SIX FT.

ALL THE WAY AROUND. IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE ON THE NEW FENCE, CORRECT. AND IF I THOUGHT I WAS CLEAR THAT ASHLEY. SOMETHING FROM THE HEIGHT WAS DIFFERENT, ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CLEAR WITH PERSPECTIVE THAT TAPERING IN THE BACK OF MY MAY HAVE, I MAY HAVE SUGGESTED IT WAS 72 INCHES ALL THE WAY ACROSS, JUST LIKE THE OLD FENCE . IF I IF I SUGGESTED THAT I APOLOGIZE. THAT WASN'T MY INTENTION. BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY POINTING SOMETHING OUT TO ME THAT THAT I DIDN'T THAT I DIDN'T SEE. I THOUGHT YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE, UH AGAIN. YEAH

[00:35:01]

SO I DO SEE THAT. UM AGAIN, IT'S THE SPORTS DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT CHANGES THE ANALYSIS, BUT BUT I DID NOT. I DID NOT MEAN TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. AND I CERTAINLY IF I MISSED MISSPOKE, I APOLOGIZE. CHAIRMAN. CAN I ASK ANOTHER ONE? HAVE YOU SEEN THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND, YES, YOU AGREE TO WITH YOUR CLIENTS BE WILLING TO ACCEPT ANY OF THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE MADE IN STEP. WELL I THINK THE PROBLEM IS NOT SURE MY CLIENTS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. IN FACT, I KNOW THEY HAVEN'T NOT IN THEIR FULLNESS BECAUSE I DIDN'T RECEIVE THEM UNTIL MAYBE 1 32 O'CLOCK TODAY AND MAYBE I FIRST SEE THEM TODAY. SO I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THOSE WITH MY CLIENT. I DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS REFLECT OR OR THE SAME, THEY TRACK ALMOST IDENTICALLY, PERHAPS IDENTICALLY SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT MISS SCOTT HAD WITH MY CLIENTS ABOUT OKAY. YOU CAN. MAYBE YOU CAN BUILD AT THAT AT THAT SET BACK, BUT A DIFFERENT HEIGHT. OR PERHAPS YOU CAN BUILD IF YOU, UH , YOU KNOW A LOWER HEIGHT, OR YOU CAN MOVE IT BACK 10 FT, OR 20 FT, SO THERE WERE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS OCCURRED. LAST YEAR, AND I THINK LARGELY THAT TRACKS WITH WHAT I SEE IN THE COULD WE. HAVE A RECESS TO THIS HEARING WHERE YOU CAN GO AND DISCUSS WITH THEM. THE FIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE MADE AND SEE IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO ANY OF THE FATHER. THE ONES THAT WE AGREED TO NOT AGREE. MAY I SPEAK FOR JUST A MOMENT? WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH MY CLIENTS FOR JUST A MOMENT AGAIN AGAIN? THE STAFF WRECKED THE STAFF REPORT IS SO NEW. I'VE HAD NO TIME TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK I CAN COMMIT TO THAT. CAN I CAN I TAKE 10 SECONDS AND TALK TO MY CLIENTS? OKAY, SO YEAH, I YEAH. HE ALSO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. NEIGHBOR. THAT'S HERE THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS THE WELL, THAT PERSON SHOULD. FIRST. FILM. PICTURES.

HELLO MY NAME'S JEFFREY. MAY I AM THE TRUSTEE OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME ON 60 64 IS SOME BUCKEYE PARKWAY. MY MOTHER RESIDES THERE . NIGHT UNDERSTANDING. IS THAT THE ONE DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY? YES THEY'RE RIGHT. OKAY. 64 7. OH, THEY CAN'T SEE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING. UH OKAY . GOT IT LIVES THERE. SHE UH, 91 YEARS OLD. I'M HERE SPEAKING FOR HER AFTER WE HAVE TO UH, AS YOU POINTED OUT. THE FENCE IS NOT. THE SAME AS IN PRIOR OFFENSE WAS BEFORE UM IT WAS SPLATTERED BEFORE. UM ALONG THE BACKSIDE. IT ANGLED DOWN ABOUT NINE. IF YOU COUNT ON THAT FIRST PICTURE.

THAT I TOOK. IT AIN'T GOING ABOUT THE KNIGHTS SECTION BACK. AND WENT TO ABOUT 48 49 INCHES.

THAT IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE. OF THE FENCE, WHERE IT WAS ANGLED AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND EVERYTHING AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THE SIX FT DOWN. AND I DIDN'T MEASURE THAT TO 48 49 INCHES.

GRANTED THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FENCE IS THE SAME. BUT THE HEIGHT IT'S NOT THE SAME. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD FOR CURB APPEAL FROM OUR HOUSE, IT'S BLOCKING OUR HOUSE. IT'S ALSO BLOCKING SIGHTLINES FROM OUR HOUSE. ABOUG IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S A PICTURE FROM THE PORCH. I TOOK AND FROM THE CORNER SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHEN IT LOOKS LIKE YOU KNOW, TALKING TO MY MOTHER. SHE HAS NO OBJECTION. TO THE STYLE OFFENSE. THEY HAVE BUT SHE DOES HAVE THE

[00:40:03]

OBJECTION OBJECTION THAT THE HEIGHT THAT IT IS WAS RAISED TO TOWARD THE FRONT. HALFWAY ACROSS THE BACK. AND AROUND THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS THAT YOU KNOW IF YOUR KEYS WOULD GO AHEAD AND LOWER THE FENCE. LIKE IT WAS BEFORE. THAT WOULD BE FINE. AH! YOU KNOW? FROM THE NINTH SLAT NINTH SECTION BACK LOWER DOWN THE 48 INCHES, WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION. BUT IF THEY REFUSE TO THEN YES, RIGHT. WE HAVEN'T AN INJECTION OF THAT SIZE FENCE GOING THAT FAR OUT. IT SHOULD BE TO THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE. AH! ANOTHER THING IS TO HE'S TALKING ABOUT. WHERE IT SETS FROM THE ROAD TODAY. WELL, 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. LOOK AT PARKWAYS GOT AN EASEMENT DOWN THROUGH THERE WHERE THEY FIND THAT ROAD. LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES, BUT THEY WIDEN THAT ROAD. YOU HAVE SIDEWALKS. AND EVERYTHING THAT FENCE IS GOING IN THERE AND FEAR. AND EVERYTHING. I'M NOT TODAY BUT DOWN THE ROAD IF YOU DECIDE TO WIDEN IT. AND EVERYTHING. BUT OUR ONLY OBJECTION IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IF THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND LOWER IT DOWN TO 48 INCHES IN THE FRONT. AND THEN ON THE BACKSIDE AROUND OTHER GARAGE JUST THE WAY THAT MR FINLEY HAD IT BEFORE. WOULD BE FINE. BUT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE PUSHED BACK TO THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE LIKE EVERY OTHER CORNER LOT THAT I KNOW OF HERE IN GROSS CITY IS WILL YOU SHARE ONE? THEY PLAN THEIR EXACTLY WHAT PART DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE LOWER? IT WOULD BE SORT OF THE FRONT LINE OF YOUR MOM'S HOUSE IS WORD.

FOR AN ANGLED DOWN. AWESOME. YEAH.

YOU'RE SAYING FROM THAT POINT AROUND TO THE GARAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE LOWERED FROM 60 FT. 48 FROM 6 TO 4. FINE. TO HER. OVER IF WE HAVE A RESELL THE HOUSE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THE HOME VALUE OF THE HOUSE IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT HELPING THE VALUE OR THE CURB A FEW OF HER HOME AND SHE IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT HER. YOUR HOME. ACTUALLY THAT WOULD PROBABLY CONSTITUTE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE TOTAL DISTANCE OF THE FENCE. MAYBE LESS. BUT IF YOU WOULD GO OFF. WHERE THEY DROP. AND THAT BY THE TIME IT GOT TO THE TO THE CORNER OF HER FRONT CORNER OF FOR A LIVING ROOM THERE. THAT'S WHERE IT STARTED ANGLE AND DOWN. IT WAS 48 INCHES OFF THE REST OF THE WAY. UP TO THE CORNER AND AROUND. LIKE I SAID IT WAS A SLATTED FENCE 120. LIKE YOU SAID IT WAS A SLIDE OFFENSE. THIS IS A SOLID FENCE NOW. THAT WAS OUR THAT WAS OUR OWN. YOU KNOW, OBJECTIONS TO IT WAS THE HEIGHT. IN THE WAY IT'S WAYS OUT THERE NOW WITH THE HYPE. IF THEY'RE

[00:45:07]

WILLING TO LOWER IT. WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO YOU. YOU GRANT THEM THE VARIANCE. OUT TO THE WAY IT WAS JUST THERE. BUT ALSO YOU HAVE THE SAFETY CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC SAFETY. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA BE PUTTING SIDEWALKS IN THERE. IS OUT. WE HAVE KIDS TO GO TO THE BUS STOP RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER. AND EVERYTHING, SO WE'RE SAFETY. ISSUE. THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU GUYS. THINK. YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR SLAYERS DID NEED MORE TIME TO CONFER WITH YOUR CLIENTS. SHOULD WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA OR. BY AGREEMENT BY TALKING WITH MISS SCOTT AND HER DEPARTMENT. BUT RECESS I ASSUME YOU MEAN RECESS FOR 30 DAYS.

COME BACK. NOT NOT NOT ANYTHING THAT WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND TONIGHT. I ASSUME BUT SOME SORT OF EXTENDED RECESS UNTIL THE BOARD MEETS NEXT. I UNDERSTAND THAT OKAY WITH THEM.

I'M ASKING WHAT YOU WHAT YOUR THINKING WAS JUST LIKE YES OR NO. WELL I REALIZED THAT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO MEET AND DISCUSS EVERYTHING. TONIGHT DO YOU THINK THE RECESS UNTIL NEXT MONTH WITH THE OKAY? JUST I WOULD SAY IT'S PROCEDURALLY. OKAY? I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY. YEAH. IT IS UP TO YOU. PROCEDURALLY. THERE'S NO PROBLEM ON THE LEGAL END. KICK IT OUT. JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT POLICY DECISION ON YOUR PART.

YEAH. YEAH, IF WE CAN. WHAT WE WOULD CONFER TO DO AND AGAIN BEING DOGMATIC ON THIS. IS WE CAN HEAR THE NEXT ISSUE. AND IF YOU WANT TO CONFER WITH THOSE AND SEE IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME AND THEN COME BACK IN AND SET, OKAY? OKAY? OKAY? BECAUSE THAT WAS. IT'S NOT THIS ISSUE BEFORE YOU GO. I'D LIKE TO RAISE ONE QUESTION, THOUGH.

NUMBER FOUR IN THE STAFF REPORT DEALS WITH YOU OBTAINING PERMITS FOR THE SHED AND THE PATIO. IT'S INSTALLED IN THE REAR YARD, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THOSE ITEMS BECAUSE IT IS NOT ZONING BOARD OF ZONING THE FEW ISSUE IT'S A BUILDING CODE ISSUE , AND THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN OUT THE PERMITS AND THOSE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS FOUR SHOULD INCLUDE THOSE THAT ITEM THAT ONE ITEM IN HERE AND I THINK YOU OUGHT TO KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU GO OUT AND DISCUSS IT WITH NOW, IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, YES. SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY UP TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT TO USE THAT THE BOARD DOES HAVE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TOO. THEN GRANT VARIANCES, BUT IT'S ALSO THE STAFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THOSE STIPULATIONS. BUT YOU ALSO ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REMOVE ANY OF THOSE RECOMMEND. WELL THE MOST RELEVANT THAT ITEM FOUR AS PROPOSED IN HIS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO OBTAIN PERMITS FOR THE SHED AND THE PATIO, STARTING THE REAR YARD BEING REMOVED. ON THIS SPORTS CONSIDERATION. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. I WOULD SECOND THAT. I BET SHE NEEDS TO CALL THE ROLL. MR BRANDT? YES. CAROL INGA. MR HAN. CAN I MAKE ONE MORE STATEMENT? AS FAR AS AN OFFICER IN RESPECT TO CASE. AS FAR AS. IF THERE'S A COMPROMISE AS FAR AS LOWERING DEFENSE DOWN. I THINK THEY PROBABLY THEY COULD HAVE A SIX FT. I DON'T THINK IT

[00:50:05]

WOULD HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO YOUR MOM. YOU WERE LIKE DEER BAY WINDOW. THE LOWER END WOULD REALLY ONLY BE AT THE EDGE OF THEIR. PROPERTY GOING DOWN AT THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE, OR WERE YOU ASKING FOR THEM TO TRY TO LOWER OR YOU'RE UNHAPPY THAT IT'S NOT. THE IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT TAPERED. THE EXISTING FENCE WAS TAPER DOWN. CORRECT OF YOUR HOUSE. BUT YOU'RE. RIGHT HERE. ONE MOMENT, CAN WE, SIR, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT INTO THE MICROPHONE? SO WHEN WE INEVITABLY HEAR THIS AGAIN, WE'LL WE'LL HEAR YOU. WHAT? WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE CORNER. UH HUH. THAT'S WHERE STATE WHERE THE WINDOW IS. WHERE YOUR WINDOW. HMM? WE DON'T WANT SIX FT ALL THE WAY OUT. BUT SIX FT TO THE END OF THEIR GARAGE. WHERE IS THAT'S WHERE WE RIGHT? RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? BUT. BUT SEE THEIR PROPERTY LINE HERE THEIR GARAGE. I'M SORRY, NOT PROPERLY.

GARAGE IT THAT CAME UP. ALL THIS ACROSS END UP THERE. SIX FT. CAME TO THEIR OKAY? SO.

WHAT I'M PLAYING FROM THE CORNER. THAT'S THEIR GARAGE ON THE THAT'S THE SIGN OF THEIR MARRIAGE. ONE MORE TIME. WAIT LET ME THINK ABOUT CHARACTER. JUMP IN REAL QUICK. CAN YOU GET IN FRONT OF LIKE ONE MORE TIME? I'M SORRY. SECOND THERE'S SIDEBAR. CONVERSATION IS FINE, BUT TO MAKE A CLEAR RECORD, WE'RE JUST GONNA NEED TO WHEN WE WRAP THIS UP, LET'S PINPOINT EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE TALKING ON AN EXHIBIT SO WE CAN ALL LOOK AT IT. THAT'S ALL THAT'S ALL.

STARTING AROUND. THIS MIGHT BE THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT IS YOUR MODEL. HERE'S YOUR MOM'S HOUSE.

SO FROM. SO 127 FT OF FENCE THERE. OTHER SOUNDS CORRECT. SO OFF THIS CORNER OF APPROXIMATELY IN THIS AREA IS STARTED. THE OLD FENCE STARTED TAPERING DOWN, CORRECT. IF THEY WOULD COMPROMISE. CORNER OF HERE. POINT OF THIS, THEY STARTED TAPERING DOWN HERE. SURE. HMM THE ORIGINAL. YOU SEE, IT'S BLONDE FROM HER HER BAY WINDOW ON THE SIDE. IF YOU LOOK OUT TOWARD THE STREET, IT'S BLOCKING THAT VIDEO. THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE. YOU CAN SEE THE BAY WINDOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. TJ. HI. OVER AND ASK THE QUESTION. YEAH.

PLANTS OVER TO. RIGHT? AND, UM. RIGHT? 40. WHAT I THINK I WHAT I THOUGHT I

[00:55:08]

HEARD AND I THOUGHT I WAS ABOUT TO WALK AWAY WITH ONE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FROM ESSENTIALLY THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT LINE THAT WE'RE GONNA CALL THE FRONT OF YOUR MOTHER'S HOUSE. FROM THE FROM THAT BABY THAT WAY WINDOW IN THE LIVING ROOM. WHAT? WE'LL SHOW YOU WHEN YOU'RE. YES FROM FROM THAT POINT. I'M JUST GOING TO CALL THAT POINT WHERE THAT PINKY IS ACROSS. FROM THAT POINT ON THE FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND. WRAPS AROUND TO THE HOUSE. ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT YOU SAID, 48 INCHES, YOU'D BE SATISFIED WITH IT BEING 48 INCHES FLAT. FROM THAT POINT ALL THE WAY AROUND. BUT THEN I HEARD TAPERING, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT WHAT'S BEING TAPER. RIGHT HERE. I HAD A OUR PICTURE. BUDDY HERE. C L A TAPERED IT HERE. TAPERS DOWN. 48 INCHES.

FROM THE SIX FT. THEY TAPERED ON THERE. IT COMES AROUND. THAT IS APPROXIMATELY. NOT SURE IF YOU SHARED THAT WITH THE BOARD THAT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD THING TO MAKE AN EXHIBIT. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAPPY JUST SO WE HAD. OKAY. YEAH, YOU DID SHOW. YEAH. I NOW UNDERSTAND. OKAY WE WANTED PHOTOGRAPHIC, OKAY? AND MAYBE I THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS WHERE THE STARTING POINT IS, I JUST ONCE IT TAPERS DOWN TO THAT ROUGHLY 48 INCHES 48 INCHES 48 INCHES IS THAT 48 INCHES? THIS POST IS PROBABLY IS CORNER. 48 INCHES IS HERE. SO IT STARTS TAPERING RIGHT AFTER THERE'S A BUSH RIGHT HERE. IN THE PAPER HERE AND THEN THIS GOES REST. ALRIGHT. WE UNDERSTAND. CORRECT. THANK YOU. WILL. TABLE THIS FOR THE NEXT FEW MINUTES AND CONTINUE ON WITH

[4. Hear the appeal of Kerry Ferguson, KAJ Properties, for 3357 Woodlawn Ave., (Parcel #040-000096) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.10-I; Residential District Requirements to reduce the 25’-0” rear yard setback on a corner lot by 19’-0”, for a total rear yard setback of 6’-0”, by constructing a duplex on an infill lot.]

ITEM NUMBER FOUR. HAND ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. AH! YEAH UH, TO HEAR THE APPEAL OF KERRY FERGUSON. KJ PROPERTIES FOR 33 57 WOODLAWN AVENUE PARCEL NUMBER. 040-00 96.

WE'RE VERY DISSECTION TABLE 11 35.1 OH DASH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE THE 25 FT. REAR YARD, A SETBACK ON THE QUARTER LOT BY 19 FT FOR TOTAL. UM WE'RE SETBACK OF SIX FT BY CONSTRUCTING A DUPLEX AND THE INFIDEL LIFE. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ADDRESSING THE FIELD, OKAY? HIM. KEVIN CARRIES OUT OF TOWN. UM SO WHAT WE DID WITH BOTTLE OUT THERE, AND WE REALLY WANT TO FLIP THE HOUSE AND FACE IT THE OPPOSITE WAY SO WE CAN CONSTRUCT A DOUBLE ON THAT. SO IT MAKES OUR BACK WAREHOUSE FACE THE WEST. YOU DON'T PUT IT, SIX FT, OFF INSTEAD OF 25 FT. LOT DOESN'T HAVE 25 FT. TO GIVE IT WHEN YOU FACE IT THAT DIRECTION. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO.

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S IT. I WOULD LET'S SEE. LET ME MOVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF CARRY FERGUSON KJ PROPERTIES FOR 33 57 WOODLAWN AVENUE. PARTIAL NUMBER 040000. FOR VARIOUS DISSECTION TABLE 11 35.1 0 DASH. I RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE THE 25 FT. REAR SETBACK ON THE CORNER LOT BY 19 FT FOR A TOTAL YARDS SETBACK OF SIX FT BY CONSTRUCTING A DUPLEX LOT, AND ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM IS THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD, UH, IF YOU WOULD AGREE TO THIS STIPULATION THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS. YES. ALL SECOND IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK

[01:00:06]

THE QUESTION OF LARVAE BEFORE I SHOULD HAVE ASKED DID YOU CONTACT THE NEIGHBORS? OKAY DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS? OKAY WELL, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED. YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. I'M GLAD. THANK YOU WITHDRAW THE SECOND. FOR NOW, YOU CAN COME UP AND SPEAK. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM THAT PROMISE, GUYS, IT'S MY FAULT. SORRY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE. I'VE NEVER BEEN TO EVERY PENNY FLASHING DRIPS CITY MY ENTIRE LIFE, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN CITY GOVERNMENT AT WORK. YEAH YOU ARE MY FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH THAT.

GET SOMETHING ACCOMPLISHED. WHICH IS MY FATHER. HERE'S A LONG TIME AGO HE WAS ON THIS BOARD. NOT SO ANYWAY. MY NAME IS CATHY HARRIS SNYDER. AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF WOODLAND AND DUDLEY JUST TO THE EAST OF THE LOT THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED. AND THIS IS MY GOOD FRIEND LINDA. AND SHE LIVES IN THE PRICE. AND THE PROPERTY IS THE PROPERTY WHERE I LIVED SINCE I WAS. I JUST CAME BECAUSE I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT SOMEONE IS FINALLY TAKEN AN INTEREST AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING. TO BEAUTIFY MY CORNER BECAUSE I HAD BEEN PUTTING MONEY INTO MY CORNER. AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE. PUT REAL FUN, AND WE PUT A NEW FENCE ON AND YOU KNOW ON AND ON AND ON. IT GOES AND NOT ALL OF THE HOUSES AROUND ME, UM, HAVE DONE AS MUCH BUT. WHEN I HEARD HIS PROPOSAL AND I WENT OUT AND I LOOKED AT HIS PLANS, AND I'VE GONE AROUND AND LOOKED AT OTHER PROPERTIES. I AM JUST THRILLED THAT, UM SOMEBODY CARES ENOUGH. TO INCREASE MY PROPERTY VALUES. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE HIM MY SUPPORT AND TO MEET HIM AND TO GIVE IT A BLESSING OF ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. SORRY IT WASN'T AS HARD AS THE ONE BEFORE . RIGHT THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH YEAH. AND I'M SORRY FOR NOT RECOGNIZE YOU THAT PROBLEM, OKAY? THANK YOU. OKAY AND. I WILL THEN MAKE THE SECOND TO THE NOTION. THANK YOU. ARE YOU READY FOR A VOTER? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY MR BRYANT TO MR HONG. VARIANCES GRANT. PRETTY QUICK. YEAH FOR GIVING ME NEVER SO YEAH. YEAH SO THERE IS A 21 DAY PERIOD WHICH COUNCIL CAN REVIEW? VERSUS OUR DECISIONS.

THAT'S JUST SO I WOULD NOT START CONSTRUCTION FROM 21 DAYS, BUT AND ALSO THE STIPULATION THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD START WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS. AND THANK YOU FOR BEAUTIFYING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SURE. I THINK IT'LL BE DUDLEY. YEAH, THERE'LL BE TWO ADDRESSES FOR THE DUPLEX.

YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOUR PARENTS IS GRANTED SO HE CAN STAY AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TODAY.

OKAY? COME ON. ARE YOU GOOD? APPROACH. WAS THAT YOUR NOTEBOOK TO COME UP TO ON THE CITY? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. HAD SOME CONVERSATION , GENTLEMEN WITH MY CLIENTS IN MR MAY WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM A

[01:05:15]