Okay, so it's uh seven oh two.

Let's get started.

Welcome to the July twenty second.

Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Um for those who have not been to a meeting um of the BZA, here is a brief procedural overview.

So when a case is called, the city staff will have up to five minutes to present their case, after which their applicant and their representatives will also have up to five a total of up to um five minutes to present their position as well.

And then finally, the case will be open to public comments with each speaker limited to five minutes.

Members of the public must fill out a speaker form for the record, and you can fill um you can find those forms um outside this room.

The board may ask questions during any of these presentations, and the response to board questions do not count against your five minutes.

However, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from elaborating, restating their position, or asking questions of the board.

Once public comment is closed, the board will deliberate on the case during which the board may ask additional questions to staff or the applicant.

As always, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from discussion.

Um the Board of Zoning Appeals is a seven-member board with a four-member quorum requirement.

And all motions must have four affirmative votes to pass, regardless of the number of board members in attendance.

Uh so with that being said, Miss Christmason, please call the roll.

Mr.

Liu?

Here.

Mr.

Justice?

Here.

Miss Eveland?

Here.

Mr.

Burke?

Here.

Mr.

Foley.

Here.

We do have a quorum.

The first item on the docket is BZA 2026, 0008, 2500 DeWitt Avenue public hearing in consideration of a request for a variance of an after-the-fact accessory structure and the required vision clearance area.

Zoned R two five residential.

Staff may begin their presentation whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

And I have the pleasure of going over 2500 Duet Avenue.

Uh the variance request.

Next, no one managed to difficulties, folks.

I was wondering why it wasn't full screen, but I was like, well, okay, everyone's cool.

Yep.

Um sorry, can myself refocused here.

So the request for the variance is to allow an after-the-fact pergola to remain within the vision clearance.

Um key elements at the discussion is obviously the vision clearance requirements and also for permitted obstructions that are required within required yards.

Next.

As you can see on the left, that is the photo of the proposed pergola, and on the right is a diagram of the height diagram.

It's a hundred and twenty-six point two six square foot pergola, and it measures nine feet in height.

Um it does comply with the permitted obstruction section, which we'll go over later to be allowed within any required yard.

That's why it can be allowed to be located forward of the front building wall of the house.

It just cannot be located within the vision clearance, which we'll get into.

So tonight's there.

The vision clearance requirement is a 30 by 30 uh foot triangle that comes out of um the curb.

So the proposed vision clearance that the applicant is requesting is 23.89 feet.

So the relief they're requesting is 6.11 uh feet.

Staff is recommending denial of the variance because it does not meet all of the criteria for a variance.

If you have any questions, the board members have questions for staff at this time.

I understand there was a tree that was in that position previously.

That is correct.

And did that not have the same sort of obstruction issue that this is purported to have?

Correct, but um trees are allowed within the vision clearance, and we believe this structure does not meet the same definition as if uh if a tree or like some short shrubbery was within the vision clearance.

That's why they uh are normally our requests to build without outside of the vision clearance.

So the tree that was there was more obstructing, much more obstructing.

Correct, but we're not allowed to have a structure within the vision clearance requirement um per that's why that code exists.

Um so shrubberies or any sort of trees that currently exist are allowed to be maintained, but we would prefer that no new structures are built within that vision clearance requirement.

Is the vision clearance requirement uh rule or law that applies across the city or or only in certain areas?

You mainly just see it on like corner lots.

That's the main reason that like this property has one.

Right.

So all the time.

Correct.

All corner lots are subject to that vision clearance requirement.

Okay.

Correct, yes.

Other questions for staff.

Okay.

Hearing none, um, we can hear the applicant's presentation.

And please introduce yourself when you're at the podium.

Thank you.

Oh, some more phone.

Oh, and there's a timer.

This is great.

Uh uh tap it when I'm yeah.

You can hear me.

Good.

Oh, there we go.

Okay.

Uh good evening.

My name is Jeff Jacobi.

My wife Andrea Defratus Kick is here uh with me, and um together we'd like to um uh address the chairman and the members of the board.

Um, and thank you for your flexibility in accommodating us tonight um and to the planning and zoning staff, uh, Sean and Mary, uh, David Sharon, who we've we've talked with with uh them over the years, and we really appreciate all the assistance they've given us given us, not just with regards to the pergola, but the fence and some other things that we've dealt with.

Um I I think our our request is simple.

Uh our pergola be allowed to remain in place as it is.

Uh the question in in our minds is not whether the structure stands within the vision clearance zone.

Part of it clearly does.

Uh the question is more um is whether the structure obstructs the vision to a measurable degree and whether conforming it to the strict letter of the rule would uh make a noticeable improvement.

Um it is a permitted structure, uh as as Sean mentioned.

The the pergola complies with the city of Alexandria's zoning ordinance uh 7-202A5.

It is less than 10 feet tall.

Its overhead framing is at least 80% open, and no automobile automobile is or ever will be parked underneath it.

Um before we we began to build the pergola in the fall of last year, we confirmed with uh planning zoning that adhering to these requirements would allow the pergola to be a permitted structure in a required yard.

Usually my conversations with planning and zoning, I take copy copious notes about who I talked to and what we discussed.

I did not that time.

So I I can't, you know, document that that conversation.

Um second point is that a minor portion of the structure sits within the vision clearance zone, and as mentioned, we don't dispute that.

Uh we first learned about the vision clearance zone after receiving the February 3rd notice on our door, uh, and then we did some of our own research.

And subsequently we learned um uh more about um sorry, we learned how much of the pergola was within the zone after meeting with with Sean, Mary, and David Sharon from Planning and Zoning.

And so I'd like to emphasize that before February 3rd, we believe that we were complying with uh the city's requirements for a pergola, and not until then and we did our research and talk with them did we realize we actually had this uh this uh uh violation.

Um so third, the city's own ordinance as as Sean mentioned, um I think uh uh carves out an express exception for the trunk of a tree.

Uh section seven-801 addresses obstructions within the zone that are more than four feet above the curb, and this same city ordinance expressly permits a tree trunk in this zone with understandably no identified width or height limitation because it's a tree.

Um that's yeah, that's the picture of our of our old white maple tree.

Um so until recently in that in that same corner of the lot, the same place where the the pergola is now, this mature white maple stood for decades, and the maple's base had three, you can't really see it in the picture, but had three large uh forked lead trunks.

That's because one of them was cut down and one of them I think is laying on the ground, um, which is the reason we had to cut the tree down.

Um so unfortunately we we cut it we cut it down and afterwards no one said, Oh great, now we can see.

Uh people instead mourn the loss of this tree at the at the corner of DeWitt and Mount Ida and asked what we were going to do with the space.

Um that's when the idea of the pergola was born.

Um so the measure measurable parts of the pergola that are within the vision clearance zone pale in comparison to the old maple tree, uh sort of addressing your question, uh, these parts in the zone are the two five by five posts, five and a half by five and a half posts, which are separated by eight feet of open space and therefore clear site lines uh between between those.

And about the pergola's roof, the city's ordinance um also expressly allows branches or foliage as long as they are not less than eight feet in height.

While the pergola roof is not a branch, um it is not foliage, it is around the same height or slightly higher than some of our old maple trees branches, which I it was in the old picture you you could see.

So we basically replaced a larger solid permitted obstruction with a mostly open and in our view unobtrusive struct structure.

Uh we we don't think there's a significant detriment.

Um if you look at the the next the next photo, uh next two photo, the sight lines are open, and it seems you know that the recurring obstruction that we see is the parked vehicles during the Saturdays farmers markets, the festivals like Art on the Avenue and the Halloween parade, all of which we love and we wouldn't give up.

But just to point that out that when S SUVs and trucks park in these spots, they're they're more obstructive than the two slim posts and the roof that's above the permitted uh branch level.

Uh furthermore, there is a conforming fence at the opposite corner, which you can see in the next picture that is just shy of seven feet.

I've spent you know many, many uh a lot of time explaining to people why our part of a very open pergola does not conform while a seven foot, 100% closed corner fence uh does conform, and it's because it's not a front yard.

Um so a denial of the variance would require us to tear down a lawful permitted structure to cure a violation, the incremental benefit of which might not be measurable.

Thank you, sir.

Your five minutes is off.

Thank you.

Do board members have any questions for the applicant?

Uh I do.

Why did you choose to build the pergola there?

Just like I I get it if you're replacing a tree, but just why in that specific spot?

Oh well, again, we we didn't we didn't know about the vision clearance zone.

Um and we did know when we did some research and learned about the um uh the the requirements that we did meet, and it just seemed like uh you know a great spot for it.

Um yeah, there's there's no um other reason uh really it it just kind of set perfectly in our yard.

Uh uh that's it.

And then just follow up to that, like how do you use the space?

Like you guys out there every night, every weekend, or you know, like what how is it used?

Oh, to be honest, we haven't really used it yet.

I think we're a little scared to get attached to it because we don't know what's gonna happen.

Um we're waiting, we're waiting to see um you know, you know, how the board decides.

Um, but you know, we we intend to use it.

Um, of course, you know, we would uh abide by any rules um that uh you know with with the vision clearance zone, um, but we really haven't you know thought about that.

Thank you.

Uh can you describe a little bit the type of construction that this pergola is and how it's anchored uh in the ground, if at all?

Sure.

Um so I uh well we we designed it um and it's a trapezoid structure which presented a lot of um mathematical difficulties for me um but designed it and and and and you know selected the the the wood and set the the four posts in concrete um about about two feet deep um and uh yeah that's the the there really wasn't much to it.

So I uh well we we designed it and it's a trapezoid structure which presented a lot of um mathematical difficulties for me but designed it and and and and you know selected the the the wood and set the the four posts in concrete um about about two feet deep um and uh yeah that's the the there really wasn't much to it um two two guys that have helped us with our our remodel years ago um helped helped with with this not something I could do my on my own but um that that's a it was mostly you know us and and using uh an AI tool to help design it thank you and uh if I might have a follow-up uh what to your understanding would be involved if you were required to comply with the the site line like would you would you move it wholesale would you deconstruct it like what would have have to happen?

Uh yeah thanks um well yeah that is certainly is one of the options we could we could you know just take the whole thing down and move it I don't we haven't we thought about where we could move it and we don't really have a spot where we could um move it in our yard um unless we you know decrease the the footprint of it um we think uh one option probably the option we would lean more towards is to you know cut the the two posts that are in the vision clearance zone down to four feet add two more posts that are not in the vision clearance zone so it's about two feet in um from where those posts are approximately um and then just shorten the top of the pergola uh just sort of shift everything uh more into the yard so that it's outside of the vision clearance zone thank you Mr.

Fulway do you have I was thinking he asked my question for me so I I don't need to ask the question does um do it run across it does it dissect Mount Ida or does it dead end at Mount I uh at Mount Ida uh Mount Ida dead ends right there at at DeWitt does Charlesville Park is right there um but it then continues it it picks up again on the other side of the park so it's a T right there you can't see the end of the T but it's right there.

It's a three way stop which is yeah I took the pictures this morning because uh I wanted to make sure there were no trucks there or cars just so that um another question um when you were um considering building the pergola did you have to go and get a permit to do that you said you spoke to someone at s but you don't know who it was what was the context of that conversation yeah I I uh wow that's a great question um to my understanding at least at the time um you can't get a permit for a fence or a pergola we also had fence issues in the notice that we've that we addressed um so that we're not talking about that but um I I uh um yeah that that's uh I I think I learned and I I don't want to I don't know where I heard it but I think I heard l subsequently um that you could get some sort of permit but this was after we got the notice and you know everything was already already done and I I don't I don't you know I I'd love to ask the question is that possible because we've we've learned a lot and one of the things we learned is that we will never do anything in the yard again um without going to planning and zoning because they I mean they've really helped us out with a lot of things so it's it and and it's best to go in person I found it's uh because you can you know pull out the survey and and talk about it in in person instead of over the phone so was there a conversation where there was an opportunity for someone to have possibly brought up this notion of the obstruction or the required viewing setback vision clearance area I I guess I don't I don't I mean maybe thank you.

If you were to use the pergola and you know if you put furniture equipment you know close a little small party with people sort of filling up that space have you considered how that would obstruct the vision for for motorists like coming to that intersection um well no um well I saw it in the report and I I I was um so I did think about it then not before then but I would imagine we would have um I mean somebody has I mean so many people have walked by and said oh this is going to be you know the next stage in Delray I was like well hold on it may be temporary I'm not sure um but uh beyond that I would imagine we would you know put put chairs on there but again if if if the per if it were to stay as is um you know if there were any we're not gonna we wouldn't put anything permanent on there but if we were to to do something all we'd have to do is move it in two feet from that front edge the closest the edge closest to the corner and be outside of the of the vision clearance zone so we could draw a line and say don't step on don't step beyond that line yeah I just uh a quick question for you when you were talking to staff about uh building this pergola did you um supply them with a uh

But again, if if if the per if it were to stay as is, um you know, if there were any, we're not gonna we wouldn't put anything permanent on there, but if we were to to do something, all we'd have to do is move it in two feet from that front edge, the closest, the edge closest to the corner, and be outside of the of the vision clearance zone.

So we could draw a line and say don't step on, don't step beyond that line.

Yeah, I just uh uh quick question for you.

When you were talking to staff about uh building this pergola, did you um supply them with a uh plat of your property and draw like kind of like what you were looking to do on it?

Um no, not before well, so we we we had a remodel and we um we're building an ADU, which you can see on the survey.

Those were those were on the survey.

So I I believe, I don't want to you know say for sure, but I believe they had access to that.

Um so I believe when I was talking to someone, it was it was in you know the the hands of planning and zoning um because we've you know we had another variance for the ADU and when we had a remodel where we had some uh you know had to get approvals and all that.

Okay, but you didn't actually draw where you were thinking about putting the code.

I did not draw it.

No, this what you see there came later.

We had we got another survey um and they showed exactly where the where the um pergola was.

Yeah, I guess I I was just bringing that up because I know when you're working with city staff, if you don't like draw something like where you're what you're thinking about doing, it's kind of really nebulous and hard for them to really understand the context of what you're talking about to give you all the best advice and and lead you down the right path.

You were exactly right.

And when I said if we ever do anything again, we'll definitely go back because that that's one of the things doing that in person was was helpful after the fact.

Um and yeah, we would definitely do that, you know, the next time.

I think when I when I first uh you know looked at that and and read the vision uh clearance zone rule, I thought our entire pergola was within in the zone.

And then when we met with uh uh Mary and Sean and David Sharon, um you know, we felt we we breathed some relief because it looked like it was not all in there.

It was m most of it was outside of the zone.

So again, that in-person meeting was very helpful.

If you were to move the pergola and just a couple feet to outside the vision clearance area, um how much time and effort and perhaps you know financial resources would that might that cost you?

Is it I'm wondering have you sort of staked the uh the post into the ground?

Um just give us a sense of sort of how you know how much effort would that take.

It'd probably take a hundred thousand dollars in six years, but I don't it I don't think it would be it wouldn't be too too bad.

I'd you know, hire the same guys that helped put it up you know to come back and make some adjustments.

I don't really think it would um take a trip to the lumber yard and you know, some some adjustments.

It would it might look funny after we did it, but I'd like to follow up on that and and ask, because you know, I I know it it's uh it's a it's a cost to come here.

And I I I've built things a lot myself and I I kind of understand that the cost to move something like that really isn't isn't too terribly much.

So can you kind of express to me like it there's uh some perhaps emotionally driven reason of why you're here and why you're I mean why why you're why are you fighting this?

Like it just seems to me like if it were me and I had built that pergola and staff had come to me, all right, I'll just move it.

I won't deal with all that, you know, the whole process and everything because it just seems like the process itself would cost more, take more time than just uh move it the what six feet?

And it looks like on your property it's kind of reasonable to do.

What's the what's the mode what what are we not seeing?

Yeah, first of all, I don't quite I'd be honest, I don't quite understand the six feet um uh it's out of thirty feet, I think it said six point one one feet.

Um I should have asked for an explanation for that.

Um but it's it's you know when you look at it and you can see the red line across the pergola, it's it looks like it's about 20 to 25 percent of the you know the foot space, floor space of it.

Um I part of it is um I I I'm embarrassed that you know that this happened because we've like I said, we've worked with planning and zoning on on our ADU that you know uh they were terrific in helping on that.

On the remodel, we had an issue with the with the builder and the architect, and we came to planning and zoning and they helped us figure it out.

Uh we redid our driveway and tore up an old concrete driveway that was cracked and not good and put in a permeable driveway, they helped with you know get us through that.

The you know, the one time I went out and and hired a builder um to do something I wanted to do, which was the fence.

Uh you know, the fence was was uh violated some of the some of the uh uh city ordinances, so we had to make adjustments there.

Um the pergola was all was all us, it was all me and my planning.

So I'm a little uh you know, I'm embarrassed that I that got past me.

Um that that I wasn't aware.

Uh and yeah, the rest of it is just um you know, the aesthetics of it, just figuring out how like I don't think we would move the whole thing like I was saying earlier.

We we looked around the yard and just based on how how big it is, um, you know, how nice it looks where it is.

We're kind of like we we would probably just make some slight adjustments.

It wouldn't look as nice, wouldn't be quite as aesthetic, but it would be okay.

Thank you.

Uh were you so when the tree was there before the tree came down, was that a space in your yard that you used frequently, or was it just there because like with the tree being there, was that some, you know, were did you gather around there?

Were people there a lot?

Was that in a very active part of your yard, or was it not really utilized because of how large and how much space the tree took up?

I actually uh well I you might have a better memory than I do, or you do have a better memory than I know, but um we would gather, you know, sit around the tree.

Um we wouldn't put the fire, you know, sit under the tree of course, but um it it was it was kind of a I don't know uh like I said earlier, when it came down, people you know talked about the tree and um it it was a it was more of a I don't know, just something uh you know, people people talked about when it was gone more than when it was there.

But we um I think we would sit under the tree.

I know the branch fell on Mother's Day of 2023.

Uh we remember that day very specifically because we were standing under it an hour before it fell, and just fortunately we were not when it did fall.

Um but no, it's when it when it did come down, you know, instead of in addition to the pergola, we thought about putting a deck in that corner, you know, just something um that because it's it's an angled corner, so we thought about something we could just put back there and put plants on it, uh things like that.

Do you gather there with like other members of the community, neighbors?

Like is it a place where you're meeting other people as well, or is it mostly something you guys use alone?

So that corner is um is I'm gonna I'm gonna say this and then i I may regret saying it, but it it is uh it's a heavily traveled path.

Um it is you know, you're walking through Charles Hill Park, people are going, you know, walking to school, we've got strollers and um, you know, cars, and again, I know I'm saying this and you probably think I'm well it's you know, you you need to make sure um that those uh people are you know uh are are all protected.

But it's true.

I'm not I mean I'm not you know I'm not gonna lie, it's a very popular corner.

We s we stand, you know, my wife is out in the garden all the time and she gets you know, people stopped there.

They stopped me while I was building the pergola and asked again if it's if we were gonna use it as a stage, what we're gonna use it for, and everybody just commented how cool it was, how they still missed the tree.

I mean, I don't you know I wasn't that attached to the tree.

Um I'd only been there a few years when it when it came down, but um when it came down, I I realized how much you know people remember the tree.

Um I actually wrote a poem about it that she po I she didn't tell me she was gonna do it, but she posted it there.

So for a few months people were stopping to read the the poem about the tree and the squirrels that helped destroy it.

Thank you.

Uh on the topic of of moving the pergola, I'm in my assumption maybe in towards the house on a direct line.

Uh are there any underground utilities in the in that front yard area that you're aware of that might make it difficult?

No.

They're they're not.

Yeah, we checked.

I when we did the remodel, um, they came out and marked the lines.

And I think before we did something else, they came out and marked the marked the lines.

I don't think it might have been the I was the driveway, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I have a question for staff clarification.

Um the the base of this structure is not the problem.

Correct.

It's the two posts that are cumulatively like 10 inches.

Yeah, it's the fact that they're over that four foot requirement, like the applicant stated.

So if it was four feet or less above grade.

The roof structure is also.

Everything that's above grade.

In terms of that four foot above grade, that's what we're here for.

That's within the vision clearance.

Okay.

So moving the posts themselves and leaving the overhead is not addressing.

So yeah, so within that that requirement required zone has to everything has to be less than four feet above grade.

So that's why the fence is all right, because that fence is a four-foot fence.

So that everything below that is fine.

So it'd be but the whole structure would have to be pushed back outside of that vision clearance.

Except for the footprint, the floor is fine.

Correct.

Yeah.

Just as a structure, the whole thing would move.

Otherwise the pearl is not really being used in full function.

I mean the applicant can move the post, anything above the four foot, but I imagine they want the floor for everything to the stable.

Correct.

One final question.

Just is that intersection a four-way stop?

It's a three-way.

It's a three-way stop.

I think stop is more of a suggestion than anything.

It's a it's a pretty bad intersection, I'd say for um that's another issue.

But um yeah, three-way stop.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just a question for staff.

The intersection looking at a diagram, it's not a 90-degree angle, right?

It's more of a I don't know.

Like do you it's the acute part of it?

Yeah, it's like a cute more acute angle.

But the 30 can you just sort of help help us think through the 30 degree, sorry, 30 foot vision clearance applies to all intersections, regardless of what angle correct.

It's for all corner lots, yeah.

That the angles determined based on that measurement from the curb.

The curb line.

That's what that point of that triangle.

I will say if you had a more rectangularly shaped lot, the um it would still be a 30-foot triangle, but it's going to be wider.

So it's not going to take up as you know as deep of a it's not going to be as an acute of a triangle as this is.

It would be more of like a right angle.

Mr.

Sure.

That makes sense.

Are we moving into board deliberations?

Uh in after the public comment.

Okay.

Um just to follow up on that for for staff.

Is this more of a zoning general general zone zoning question?

Is that is that right?

That the 30-foot vision clearance applies to all angles of intersection, or it is it more um, does it make more sense to have it be variable depending on so we got we we updated the vision clearance section of the zoning ordinance in 2019?

Um so that's why the board hasn't seen a lot of these requests because it used to be a hundred feet.

Um, so it was huge like a huge area.

So the board prior to 2019 saw vision clearance requests somewhat frequently, houses, front porches, all those things were often on corner lots in the vision vision clearance triangle.

Um we did a lot of research comparing to other jurisdictions.

We worked with um the traffic um division of um transportation and environmental services, and between I think I believe it was between like 25 and I think like 45 was a typical um vision clearance um triangle in in this area.

We looked, we compared to Fairfax, Arlington, I think Falls Church.

Um so we looked at other neighboring jurisdictions to see sort of how they were regulating it, and it was all sort of in the same ballpark um of around 30 feet.

Um if the board doesn't have any further questions for the applicant, we can move on to uh Mr.

Altenberg.

Uh you fell out of speaker's form, right?

So public comments.

Uh you have five minutes, as well.

Uh Mr.

Chairman and members of the board, uh, this is the first time I'm on this side of the dais, so forgive me if I'm out of touch with operations lately.

But I rise in support of the applicant uh the pergola that was created actually provides greater aesthetic value to the community than the tree.

Um one of the members did talk about this being a social corner.

I mean, it very much is so.

Uh it's a heavily traveled corner uh with families walking their children to Mount Vernon Community School.

Um the farmers market on Saturday mornings, and often people will stop at the corner and talk with the family.

Um we will get we often gather there, and to your point about whether anything that is put there would be obstructed in the view, uh it would be temporary uh at best.

Um the size of the tree that was an obstruction was much more significant than you know, two six by six posts that you can easily see through and around.

Um an issue that I would certainly raise is with this vision clearance requirement and the acute angle corner.

Um the vision clearance is designed primarily for vehicular traffic to be able to see around a corner, and I understand the safety requirements behind that.

But if you look at where the stop sign is located at this corner on both of the points of the intersection, it is much easier to see than ever before.

Uh and it is super easy to see around the corner if you are stopped at either one of those two locations.

As the applicant pointed out, the greater obstruction is on a different property with a seven foot tall solid fence that you cannot see around, uh, which is on the opposing corner.

So while that is not in question, I would certainly support and the community around um you know, around the applicant has shown a full throated support of keeping the pergola as is to have watched Jeff build it and the blood, sweat, and tears as he built it, and there was all of that.

Uh um to have him have to unfoot the the pergola to move it a few feet back to then re-foot it.

It it is a significant burden.

I mean, to be honest, I mean he he downplayed it, but it it would be significant to take it apart and then re-foot it properly.

Um I hate to see that sort of imposition put on something that the community has already started to really come to enjoy and specifically has asked if they can be part of it.

So I would I would uh ask the board to consider that there is no substantial detriment that is at issue here.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um we can move on to board deliberations.

Would anyone like to speak?

Um express an opinion, questions?

Um I would like to have the staff pull up.

I mean, I personally think I I would really like to approve this, but I what I'd like to do is I'd like to have the staff pull up the criteria um and see if we can reasonably turn those no's into yeses and and go through the the uh criteria um and uh and and if the board would uh work with me on this, uh I think that uh um I'd like to go through and do it.

Is that uh agreeable?

Yes, I completely agree with that.

Um especially on the standard of principle considering what was there before.

Yeah.

So um okay, so uh to uh Mary, could you could you kind of give us an overview of the definition of the variance just so we have it fresh in our mind and we can talk about it.

Sure.

Um so the definition of a variance um is that is a reasonable deviation from the provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, hulk height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure.

Um it's also needs to be an unreasonable restriction on the utilization of the property.

It's not generally shared by others, and it is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance.

Well, the lot is not a standard shape lot.

Yeah.

And I think the the fact that it is such an acute angle and cuts off more of the property is something.

I mean, there are many lots within the city that do experience that.

And there's also many lots on the other end where if it was an angle that you know, the neighbor's yard hardly has any cutoff, and this would be fine in that yard.

So there is, at least in comparison to the immediate um community is a uh it is different in that sense.

Chris is in the uh last thing you said is contrary to the purpose of the ordinance.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, I think um personal opinion is that it's not yeah, it's not contrary to a purpose.

I I yeah, I agree with that because I think that there's uh you know you can clearly see through, and I think it's what it we've seen with the the um some of the testimony that was given to us and what we've seen ourselves with our own eyes, that it is clearly more visible and the sight lines are better for traffic than they were before.

So I I think that we as a board, I I I feel like we can that criteria could be a yes.

What do other board members think about?

I I agree.

I think that it reads the standard for a reasonable deviation, absolutely.

I respect the practical aspect that it is as a percent.

The vast majority of it is air and and transparent.

Um and that it might be less um solid than the tree was, but we would the zoning board, we can't command a tree to grow or not grow.

Uh on the other hand I don't think the if we were to hold hold this the zoning code in you know strict application, that it wouldn't impose a hardship that rises to the level that the applicant can't use the property, which is a residential single family lot with a house on it and a house and an ADU as a lot with a house and an AD ADU on it.

I think you're getting to the second one, the unreasonably restricted utilization of the property.

So on the first one, I think we can I think we're all agreeing that it's a yes.

But on the second one, that's what you're getting at right now, isn't it isn't it?

Oh, maybe I am.

Uh yeah.

I think I would just rest that there's lots of yard available for this thing to go in, and it doesn't seem like it's unreasonably high uh burden to relocate it.

Uh before we move on to a second one, Mr.

Coleman, do you have anything to say about the first one?

I am fully in support of voting yes, um, especially for this criteria because I do feel that I I think that if going back, if instead of a per pergola being built, a another tree was planted that was more obstructing with this but still allowed this we wouldn't be having this conversation, but at the same time there are improved sight lines, and I personally think that in this situation we are in a better situation than what previously existed.

And considering that it is a three-way stop for the road, and the only reason this is applied is to help drivers see people park on that road.

Like if anything, this is not going to obstruct any of their vision versus another car being there or any other structure they could have put up.

This is going to be good for the community.

This is going to engage with people that are around and is actually better in terms of the ordinance that we are arguing than what was originally there, whether or not it was approved or not.

This is something that in my eyes is more in line with, I think the ordinance itself is impacting this structure, even though it is an improvement.

Um and that is my personal opinion.

Thank you, Mr.

Burke.

Um another thought.

Uh Ms.

Christensen, do you know what the sort of open fence requirement is for for that zone?

Like is it 50% of the things?

So it's a 50% four-foot open fence.

Is what's allowed in the front yard.

So the fence they have there is complying.

Okay, so if they're if the if the proto is not there and there is a fence that is you know 50% open, 50% closed, that would be at the edge of the property.

That is that would be that would be permissible.

Correct.

Thank you.

So I I feel like that that that first line we we have reasonably come to a yes on that first line.

Let's I I would like to go to the second line.

Um where I think this is a much tougher one to get to a yes than the first one.

Uh unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property where the applicant clearly kind of went through the um idea of moving it would be a cost of you know, you know, the labor for probably two days and probably some material costs and things, but um it's it not terribly unreasonable to move it.

Um what what are some of the what are some of the thoughts on the second line?

I think what's influential there is it it talks about an you know unreasonably restricts the utilization of the property.

And for the specific homeowners in this case, they yes, have expressed interest where they could potentially be willing to move it, but I think it speaks broader to the fact that this is also something that the community um has already expressed interest in wanting to utilize, and so from a homeowner's perspective, it might be something that they're okay with, but from a greater community perspective, especially an area that seems to be heavily trafficked, and there are a lot of people there, and that it could be a community benefit um is something that we should not necessarily look beyond uh, in my opinion, because I think that is something that is very important even if it does exist on private property.

And so from a homeowner's perspective, it might be something that they're okay with, but from a greater community perspective, especially an area that seems to be heavily trafficked, and there are a lot of people there, and that it could be a community benefit is something that we should not necessarily look beyond, in my opinion, because I think that is something that is very important even if it does exist on private property.

A community benefit can also happen with the pergola a couple of feet in a couple feet moved.

That's true.

You're right.

Where does what if they just left the tree there in its decrepit fallen vision blocking state?

They could have planted another tree too.

I don't that would have I thought I understood it if it's an existing shrubbery or something like that, it could stay.

So I would say that.

So I don't think that the um the existing tree actually complied because the branches have to be limbed up to eight feet.

Is it eight feet?

Yes.

So the so the the bottom branches of the tree would have had to have been eight feet above the grade.

So I don't doesn't look like it probably complied.

Um but I guess my point is is that even if they cut off all of the top of the tree.

Correct to have that in compliance, the trunk itself could have stayed.

It was at the homeowner's cost to address what the city found to be a visual at the uh obstruction.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps they've alleviated a hardship of this tree trunk remaining there by taking it down and putting in something else that was less obstructing.

I kind of like where you're going with that.

It's uh it's the first.

It will not the first.

Okay.

It's not the first.

But I like it that you're you're talking about the reasonableness and and you know, doing this would be unreasonable versus reasonable, and it uh you know it seems like it it was reasonable to do it, um, and it was less obstructive and uh is less obstructive than what was there before.

Um does the presence of the tree really matter in our in our um consideration if they're if the tray tree was not there and they still decided to to build a pergola.

I don't I don't really see how that would that should factor into into the I I think it for the fact that it was a gathering place while the tree was there is what adds into that decision that it was a place where they were already enjoying and ex and spent considerable amounts of time at the pergola is a sense adding to that and improving that space, but at the same time it was already somewhere that they were utilizing.

This isn't while it's a new structure, it's not a new activity that they're engaging in.

Uh question for staff.

Uh I can't recall what what sort of weight or analysis are we supposed to give the structure if it already exists versus if it doesn't yet exist.

It shouldn't really make any difference in your analysis.

Um you shouldn't be taking the only criteria that you should be using are the criteria that are spelled out before you, whether or not it meets those criteria or not.

Um you can't take into account financial hardships or you know the difficulty of moving something, um, those are not criteria that um that are before the board.

So like going down to the third line.

Um I I feel like that this is really should be a yes pretty clearly because the property, I mean, they bought the property good faith.

They're working with this uh staff, uh city staff on a number of other structures on the property.

Um it's very reasonable to think that they did talk to the city about this and they thought that they were doing the right things.

So I I feel like this was you know that they weren't creating this need for the variance.

This variance was just something that came about that they didn't understand and that it was it was done in good faith.

I think I I feel like that should easily be a yes.

I can did you have something for that one?

Okay.

I think I'm gonna have to disagree with Mr.

Foley that in the literal sense the hardship was created by the applicant and that they built the structure in the spot where it ended up being where it wasn't supposed to be.

Um so it it seems harsh to say that, but uh in this case, the hardship was literally built by the applicant.

I think the difference is uh like your point is about the I think Mr.

Foley is talking about the intent of building the the protocol of for the purpose of of um applying for a variance, right?

And you're sort of yeah, like you you know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't deny the applicant um that it's an honest mistake and that they probably thought and um thought that you know they'd looked at the zoning code and saw it checked all the boxes and then some other chapter um you know through a uh curve ball for them.

I I certainly wouldn't wouldn't doubt that they entered that in good faith, no.

Um clarification for staff.

So that second um clause, any harsher was not created by the applicant for the variance.

Is that does that have to deal with intent or so staff's analysis came off of what um Mr.

Justice mentions that the fact that since the structure did not exist that the applicant then create created the hardship by building the structure within the vision clearance?

Okay, so intent doesn't matter, it's more of a broader interpretation.

Right.

It's the the criteria is sort of two-part.

It's and that we we don't doubt that they it was purchased in good faith and that they are you know that they were intending to do the right thing, but it's in good faith and was not created by the hardship was not created by the applicant.

If that makes sense, well if the applicant was asking city staff about this and had gone through the process, you know, to um to to build the accessory dwelling that they had on their their property and and other improvements, including the fence.

It's it it's reasonable to think that as they were going through this that the applicant did not that the variance uh or the the ordinance was not clear in the language in the um where they were going through the process to understand that this was like something that needed to be considered for their particular property.

And I mean I I think that there's there's a reasonable way of looking at this that you know, even though they yes they physically built something there, that they physically created something, it doesn't mean that the hardship of the need for variance was created by them.

There's there's two parts to this.

There's there's the there's the the you know the the there's the city that just went through the process.

If the city had decided that it should be 25 feet and not 30 feet, well, you know, maybe they wouldn't need a variance at all.

So maybe the city created this by making it 30 feet.

Of course it was hundred feet before, so well, that would have been much worse.

You know, so uh you know it's like w where where is the what where's the fault here?

And and I think that as we go through here, just like what was said before, you can't look at this in the sense that that this has to be looked at as in a way that the structure's not built there at all.

So we can't look at it as intent to move.

We have to only look at it as, you know, they're applying for it as if they hadn't built it at all.

They want it there, and I think the way I heard it being expressed is they want it close to the property line for community and social reasons, so it's kind of like and I like I remember when I I used to live on uh Alfred Street and I had a front porch and I just loved it because I sat in the front porch and literally people would walk by my neighbors would walk by and it was like they were two feet away, and the conversations were just wonderful.

We made all kinds of friends, some friends that still come, even though I moved like 10 years ago.

So you know, some of these friends still come over to our house.

You know, they walk an extra mile to come by.

I just saw one of the guys the other day when I would ride my bike to work, you know, and he's like, he's like way waving his hand to seven.

Those are the friendships we made.

So being close to the sidewalk matters.

You know, and I think I I got the impression that they built this close to that property line because they thought that they could.

They thought it was within the the setbacks and everything else like that, and they were doing it for a reason.

That's the impression I got.

Thank you, Mr.

Foley.

Other opinions on criteria three.

We can move we can come back to two.

Yeah, the fourth one down, granting the variance would be not uh detrimental to the adjacent.

I don't I don't know how this is a detriment.

I I don't know how this would I don't even know how let me let me ask.

Can I ask city staff, how did you find this to be a no?

We went off of um look at that the comments section of the departmental comments.

We went off of the comments that were made by traffic and environmental services.

Um they were not supportive of the request to allow a perkola to remain beyond the vision clearance triangle as it will create a site distance challenges for drivers along the two narrow and intersecting streets.

So they recommend relocating the structure behind the vision clearance to maintain adequate site distance.

So it was just that one comment.

Correct.

Okay.

Are you through, Mr.

Foley?

Oh yeah.

Oh ahead.

I I I think I would agree with you on this one in that the nearby properties, I guess not even adjacent um properties they don't really seem to be impacted at all in a negative way by this, and uh the departmental comment really speaks to like uh motorists who may be passing through maybe from an you know entire entirely different uh area, and um like that is a you know valid concern, but it certainly doesn't sound in like nearby properties.

Um so I think I would be yes on this one.

Yeah, absolutely agree.

Okay.

Uh next one condition or situation of a property concern is not so general recurring nature.

Mr.

Chan, I think the staff made the argument for us on this one earlier when they were talking about how they looked at this in um in 2019 and changed it from a hundred feet down to 30 feet, and there was some I guess some variations in the surrounding jurisdictions where it could be 25 feet or where you know, where should it fall.

So I personally think that I mean this this this could this could be a yes, just be just based upon what staff said earlier.

Are we looking at the last one then?

No, the second to the second, the last one.

Or no, the third one.

No, no, no.

No, no, we're at the third to the last one.

Condition with the condition.

Yeah.

I I agree with that, and I think it also could be pointed out like within that analysis, there there are variations, and on top of that, it seems like there's a possibility to create so that it's not just a uniform 30 feet everywhere that it could apply based on the actual intersection as well.

If other intersections allow you to have less space taken up on your property to have a visual sight line.

I understand that this is you know an acute intersection there, narrow roads, but at the same time, I also think that every driver by law is supposed to come to a stop at this intersection, and also by law required to look at every other part of the intersection before proceeding.

So having sight lines there, I can understand the point behind it, but for anyone that is following the law, they are required to look anyways, which is why it doesn't fully make sense to me why a sight line here is so detrimental to the property.

Thank you, Mr.

Burke.

And I would like to add that you know, as a potential amendment to the in to the ordinance, the four feet above grade requirement doesn't account for uh sort of the open space like in the structure, right?

So the roof could be ten feet, but if it is completely open, then it really sort of defeats the the spirit of the of the ordinance.

So perhaps pergolas as a category could be maybe considered as you know, something that might not um detrimentally affect the the vision clearance area.

Yeah.

As a matter of policy, I think I I see where you're where you're going in, like you could imagine like say this pergola was made with like metal fence tubes.

Three inch diameter, it would you'd hardly notice it.

But it would still run afoul of the of the rule, which I mean that that just seems even less reasonable.

Well, in this case, the rules are looking as if it's a building that's there with four walls and a roof and not a completely open space.

Yeah.

Uh quite another question for uh staff.

In the 2019 review of other jurisdictions, uh site triangles.

Uh did any other jurisdictions make uh uh variance, make allowance for uh the angle of the intersection.

Not that I'm aware of.

Um but also just maybe for some clarification.

Um for the questions you're asking about um potentially changing the regulation.

Is that what you're oh I'm just curious about?

No, no, I was I was saying with like that percolas could be a permitted obstruction within the vision clearance.

Is that because that sort of goes against your argument for the meeting that criteria?

Christmas?

That condition uh that standard is that um is not so general or reoccurring of nature to make uh to make it practically uh the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.

So basically it's saying that criteria is saying that this is so common that we should amend the zoning ordinance to address this issue.

I wasn't necessarily advocating one way or the other.

Okay.

I was um just curious if it was common across other places or in the industry to have different basically different categories of sight line based on intersection angle.

Not that I'm aware of.

We have actually talked internally about trying to um to amend this section again um and work with the transportation and environmental services um traffic division to potentially move it to the city code to go to the traffic and parking board, since they're more the experts on travel and parking and safety and I was surprised to find this here, but I think I don't think it's site triangles.

DC does another thing where you would think it's traffic, but it's in like it's in the zone coordinates, yeah.

All right, maybe the last one?

Oh, I I guess while I'm just still still uh going stream of conscience here.

Um I will I've I'm probably a no on this because there I'm well you know every property is unique and the the exact angle of this intersection might be uh you know a one of one um like if you get to the tenth of a degree or something, but it's probably very common that there are acute angle um intersections, which if the site triangles are all the same I'm I'm losing my geometry words here, but all the same uh distance.

Uh this can be unfavorable for an acute angle lot like this one.

Um but I'm gonna guess that if we were to grant just as a class every acute angle lot, you know, a few feet off of their site triangle, that would be a very big swing for us.

But I'm not I don't believe that's what we're advocating for.

I don't know if we were actually saying we should wouldn't we then put everyone else similarly situated in a position where they could ask for a few feet?

Well, I think perhaps if somebody else were presenting, they may have a full, as somebody mentioned, a four-sided structure, which would preclude a lot of yeses on there, most likely.

So for the third to last one, are we in agreement?

Um to a yes or do you I think the arguments have been made for a yes.

I think the only one, I mean, I I've read the last one and been thinking about it, and I think the only one that I'm still having a hard time with is the second one from the top, which I don't I don't know how we can justify a yes.

Can we scroll back up to the second one?

Sorry to cut you off, just uh so we can read it again.

Yeah, so with the all the deliberation and stuff like that, I cannot I I don't see an argument how to make this one into a yes, if we don't consider the fact that uh this pergola was built after after the fact, right?

Assume that that it has not been built and the applicant came up came to us with a with a very variance request.

Would you would you approve?

Would you approve that uh request uh specifically regarding this second criteria?

Other members of the board I I think the key word in there is the strict application of the terms.

I mean how strict is strict I guess that maybe that's a good point because if if you think about like the pergola itself, like we've been the discussion we've been going on earlier, that you know, maybe the intent was like if you if the pergola was actually a shed and had solid walls, well that would be a uh obviously a visual obstruction, and that would you know that you could really clearly see that would need to move because you wouldn't want something like that, but a pergola.

I guess that maybe that's a good point because if you think about like the pergola itself, like we've been the discussion we've been going on earlier, that you know, maybe the intent was like if you if the pergola was actually a shed and had solid walls, well, that would be a uh obviously a visual obstruction, and that would you know it that that you could really clearly see that would need to move because you wouldn't want something like that, but a pergola.

I mean, we've seen the pictures it you could pretty clearly see.

It doesn't seem like it obstructs the vision at all.

So maybe that's right.

Maybe it's we want to look at that and maybe it's the strict application, strict is the is the key word there.

I I kind of agree with that.

And looking at the department comments specifically from transportation planning of that this will create site distance challenges for drivers.

Um along with the logic that you know if this hasn't been built yet, that's what we're looking at.

Knowing what a pergola is and knowing that it would be four posts high off the ground, and a roof that is 80% open, built in compliance, the pergola would be built in compliance.

I don't see how that is causing any challenges for drivers at all.

I don't it's open, people can see it would be no different than potentially having you know a tree that was built within the f within the actual lines that has a few branches that go over, or it would be no different than if you had a singular person standing on the corner or just standing there.

I think that's more restrictive and challenging than what is actually there or what would be there.

Okay, so I'm I'm kind of thinking with this that maybe we have gotten to all yeses.

Do we get to a yes on three?

Harship was not created by the applicant.

Well, I in my opinion, we did.

I I agree with that.

I think that we are we know for a fact that we are all agree that it's in good faith.

The hardship could have been and would be that really this site distance could be any number.

It could be a hundred feet, it could be five feet, it could be clearly anything, and this is being placed on the applicant as a hardship that this is space on their property being taken from them for this.

So I I would like to ask Ms.

Christians what she thinks about that.

I mean from a zoning perspective, um, all of our regulations have you know there's a setback requirement where you can't put certain things.

There's vision clearance areas where you can't put things, there's open space requirements.

Um all those things I don't think um constitute taking of a property.

Um the property is clearly being used with a house and an ADU.

There's other places on the lot where this could be placed.

Um so I I don't I I disagree, but that's um the zoning perspective.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your opinion.

I also appreciate your facial expressions.

I feel like we have addressed all of these in good faith and that uh based on our expressed um rationales and opinions.

I I feel that we have changed this criteria to become acceptable and and defendable yeses.

And if it's I'm prepared to make a motion.

Uh before you do that, can we just formally check off the last one?

I don't I don't think we give that a formal consideration.

Okay, so it's just it is not it is not available through a special exception.

Correct, I would request if you are making a motion, um, if you could uh give the rationale for the mo uh for the motion.

Okay.

Um so before we make a motion, can we can I just get an indication from each board member on you know what direction they're leaning, and then perhaps a quick rationale.

Uh starting with Mr.

Brooke.

I am going to vote to uh approve this request on the basis that I don't think it impedes any sight lines for driving any more than a person would by standing there, and I think that it was built in good faith and is utilized not just by the owners of the property, but will be a community gathering space, which I think is something that is important for the space as a whole.

I would intend to vote neg and vote no.

That however, while I find the pergola in this spot and its application to be inoffensive and practically invisible, I understand that a variance is a high high bar and that is a potential that we would be creating an avenue for more things to go into the site triangle, things that may not be quite so innocent as this one.

And I'm reluctant to do that.

I'm inclined to um vote yes on this.

I just feel that the issue is the visibility, and the visibility is if you look at the facts on the situation is not an issue.

Um if at some point you know we we have to defend the decisions and the rationale behind um however the vote may turn out, I feel that we could do it.

Mr.

Foley?

Uh so I'm inclined to vote yes on this, um, and it's largely because of the board deliberations and how we have gone through and uh picked apart all of the criteria, and I believe that all the criteria are should should have been uh yeses, and I understand the where staff got their no's from and at least on some of them, but I believe that that through uh logical and reasonable rationale we can come to a yes on those largely because of the um the the pergola being not being an obstruction uh to the site line.

So there's my rationale.

If I could add uh one thing I do just want to express appreciation for Mr.

Foley in this and previous variance cases, um structuring our our internal deliberations to go uh through this uh point by point, I think it's very helpful and definitely helps us stay organized as we uh wrestle with these more complicated cases.

And I think that if another case like this does come up as a result of what this case is going through and doing that process really allows us to look at each individual property and how it that is affected, and it doesn't create that precedent as something that I've brought up before in other cases we've had the risk of that.

I don't think that is what we are doing here.

Thank you.

I think this is best practice going forward for all BZA for all you know you'll define cases or can potentially contentious cases going forward.

And to your point about precedence, Mr.

Burke, honestly, I'm very I am conflicted on what to which direction to lean because I'm very concerned about setting up precedent for future cases, especially when safety um is involved.

And knowing that we need four members to vote yes in order for a case to be approved.

Um I want to hear your thoughts again on why we should vote, why um I should vote yes or no.

So uh being in urban planning school and and going through and knowing like the the intent behind this, I'm going to assume here, but was most likely centered around vision zero, which is ensuring that any traffic accidents doesn't result in a fatality.

There are no traffic fatalities within a city.

And so the intent behind it very much focused towards safety.

I don't believe that the 6.11 feet that this pergola is extruding onto these site lines is having an impact and is actually increasing how safe this intersection is.

I think that by the post being there, it is open, you can see through it, and it it is increasing that safety already based upon I know we're not supposed to look at what was there before, but having those versus what was a blank piece of grass is not impeding safety.

And so from that perspective alone, I think that this is that that is what gets me to a yes there is the the sole reason that this doesn't fit and doesn't you know isn't allowed is to increase safety, but there is no hindrance towards safety by this structure.

Thank you.

Would you have anything to add to support the yes argument?

Um I would add that we do look at these on a case-by-case basis.

And because we do, we have the ability to again go through these particular criteria and dissect what is before us to ensure that it doesn't present a potential safety issue that I believe is what your concern is, and I appreciate that and I respect that.

Um but I I think that as a board we are entrusted to be mindful and intelligent with our decisions about how things could potentially be dangerous to the citizens of our city and others.

Mr.

Chair, I just like what Ms.

Evelyn said earlier is that uh what we went through and the deliberation that we had.

I think that turning those to a yes, um, that I think that what we did was defensible.

Um it was not uh whimsical in any way, and I I feel that uh you know, if if uh in in most times when staff comes through and turns everything green and it's all yeses, uh we don't even look at it.

We just we just go with it and do with it.

And so and uh and I think that if you have a specific question about one of these where you you you feel like the deliberations did not turn it to a yes, I I would appreciate it if you would you know point that out.

But otherwise, I I think that you've heard all the arguments and um I think you need to make your decision.

And I think we need to get a get a uh emotion here and see where it goes.

Okay, one last thing then, Mr.

Justice White.

Did you can you explain just give me like a little bit more why you're leaning toward no?

I think the the top line top line reasoning, especially for number number two is that the primary use of this property is not in impeded in any real way by us not granting granting the variance, the applicant not only still has the benefit of being able to um you know live on the property and have an ADU, um, they could locate the pergola in seems like several alternative locations.

Um for some of the other ones while like I think it's not in um dispute that the applicant had you know good faith and made an honest um honest mistake, they did still um in the literal sense make the um what is the the word I'm searching for here?

Hardship make the hardship uh I knew it wasn't hazard, uh because it's in a practical sense probably not a hazard to navigation.

Um but they did make the hardship that they are then seeking relief for, and my understanding is that's kind of a strict liability um standard that even though in our minds we we can assess the whole you know totality of the the circumstance.

Um my understanding is that we're not supposed to actually consider that.

We're just kind of binary debate.

Did they do it or did like the terrain do it for them or or some other like natural or like force beyond their control?

Understand.

Mr.

Chair, I would just um before you make any motions, um suggest that maybe you consider a deferral for the applicant.

Um they've heard all the conversation, maybe they um might want to um you know explore other options or look at more safe like talk with our transportation um and traffic staff.

Um also we potentially will have two other board members here in September.

Um, but just as a note to the applicants, um, if you're denied tonight, you can't come back for another year.

Um if you defer, um, then you could come back in September, just as an option since the vote appears to be close.

Mr.

Chair, may I comment on the staff recommendation for deferral?

Of course.

We just debated for an hour and 20 minutes on this.

Um I I just feel like like if if we were going to defer this for those reasons or any reasons, it should have been done like an hour ago.

I I'd like to I'd like to see a vote on this just because it's we we've debated this.

I don't want to debate this again.

Mr.

Foley, I believe the option for deferral is given to the applicant.

The option for deferral, I think is given by the chair at the chair's discretion to the applicant, and I'm just expressing my opinion.

Um there does need to be a vote on the deferral.

Um so the applicant can request a deferral if the chair um offers it to him, um, and then there is a vote.

Um I would just say that the applicant has had the benefit of hearing your deliberations and may be able to come back with additional information that would potentially support um their request, in addition to there being potentially two other um members with opinions.

I would offer the the applicant a chance to to defer if you would like.

Um all applicants, in my opinion, deserve a deserve the privilege to to defer their case if they so wish.

So that is that is an option.

Oh yeah, could we request time to talk about resets with one or that's this decision would be made?

Five minutes.

I think it's past my bedtime.

Okay, that's right.

Oh, yeah.

So then like uh Right.

So we need to get a special C O Sharing.

Oh, very now we're gonna be on the software.

So that would be a time of number of the questions.

Okay.

Um can you stop the timer, please?

Uh applicant is at a podium with your decision.

Oh, can I go?

Yes, yes.

Um we appreciate everything that planning and zoning has done to prepare for this on the board and the deliberations.

We walked in and it was all no's and a lot of those were turned to yeses.

The the conversation has been you know terrific.

Um I think we we don't want to put anybody else through this having to go through this again.

Planning and zoning would have to go through it again.

We would have to go through it again, you would.

I think we'd rather just hear a decision, you know, whichever way it goes, we'd like to just you know decide tonight and let everybody go.

Thank you, Mr.

Cobi.

Okay.

Um would anyone like to make a motion?

I think maybe you should make a motion to deny.

I cannot make a motion as the chair.

Maybe somebody else should see where that goes.

Please explain your reasoning.

Well, you know, if the motion to deny fails, what are Robert's rules?

You have to have four affirmative votes to pass a variance.

So we can't backdoor our way into a yes by Mr.

Foley uh pulling one over on me.

All right, uh I'll I'll make the motion to uh to approve do we have a second?

I'll second that motion.

All those in favor of approving the variance, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those against same sign.

Aye.

Aye.

So the motion, um, the variance is denied by a vote of three to two.

Thank you.

Next case, Ms.

Christensen.

The next item on the docket is BZA 2026 0009, 414 Duke Street.

Public hearing and consideration of a request for a special exception to construct an addition in the required rear yard zoned RM residential.

Uh staff can be under presentation.

Good evening, um, Mr.

Chairman and members of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Um, right before you is 414 Duke Street, which is for a special exception.

Next, please.

Um, we're asking for a special exception for a rear yard setback for a proposed addition that will be um connecting to an existing rear wall.

Um the applicants are um proposing to expand one non-complying wall, and the um issue in this case is that because it's a rear yard and there's an alley, the zoning ordinance actually allows homes to apply half the distance of the alley towards the setback.

So ex so currently the um proposed addition that's highlighted in yellow sits 2.1 feet from the property line, but they get to take an additional nine feet to add to that as a part of their rear yard setback.

Next slide, please.

The location of the house is in the olden historic district, it is zoned RM.

It is a three-story house.

It is surrounded by residential um properties as well as religious places of worship and in the neighborhood.

Next slide.

So what you see is um to my left is that the existing house, as you can see, has a um a three-story, a two-story, and a one story.

The applicants are actually proposing to do a two-story and a one-story edition.

However, the two-story edition will be in compliance with the ordinance.

So what's before you is the one-story edition that has the flat top that will be tying into the existing structure that has the flounder roof, and it will be to expand an existing mud room.

Next slide, please.

So before you, you see what's existing, and as you can see that the portion with the flounder style roof is actually projecting further out towards the rear than the adjacent neighbor.

So the required um rear yard requirement for the RM zone is 16 feet, so the requested rear yard is 11.10, and so the relief is 4.90 feet.

Next slide, please.

In looking at the criteria, this um application meets all the criteria of a special exception, and staff recommends approval.

I am available for any comments, questions, or concerns.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff?

Yes, sir.

Hearing oh, I just had one.

Uh so this property, and it looks like some of the other ones uh near it are built very close to the to the rear lot line.

Did did this property in particular need relief maybe in the past to build as far back as they did?

So this is um one of the 1800-year homes, and so many must most of this existed prior to the 1992 amendments.

Um they are still required to go before the Board of Architecture Review.

They were actually supposed to go in July, but it got deferred.

Um, and then they actually had a subsequent meeting.

Um, what we do know at this point in time that the architect has been asked to um look at the piece that has the um the two-story edition piece, but it will not affect that one-story piece that's in the back.

But if you look at it, you can see the existing brick wall next to the adjacent property as well.

Um, but behind that, if you notice you what looks like green space is really part of the alley, and then what's behind that is the parking for St.

Mary's Church.

Any other questions?

Yes.

So the variance, there would actually be nothing that is protruding onto that out onto that alley.

Correct.

They're not protruding to the into the alley.

What they're doing is tying into that existing um flounder roof brick piece to expand the mud room, and it'll be a flat roof piece.

So they're expanding that portion.

Um but because that actually sits 2.1 feet from the rear property line in the RM zone requires 16 feet, then they need to come forward for special exception because they're tying into one existing non-compliant wall, but in this case they get to apply another nine feet because of that alley, the width of that alley to that setback.

So therefore the relief is only um 4.4.9 feet.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I have a question about the portico.

Is that portical?

Yes, there was a application.

I think the portico is also part of the special exception request.

No, you're talking about the existing one.

It's already you're talking about the pergola that's already there, this cover that they use for parking that is actually counted in FAR.

So they're doing a two-story addition.

And the one store edition, if there is a pergola, you cannot see it where they parked on the car.

So in the FAR, we actually counted it because they're using it for parking.

And so we actually counted the space underneath their pergola as an FAR.

Are you talking about that little curved piece that was okay?

Um I'm sorry.

Did I'm did I miss something?

No, no, no.

Oh, okay.

No, I it was uh probably misunderstood what I read.

Sorry in the in the case.

No, it's not it's not your fault.

Um remaining questions for staff.

Okay, if not, then uh we can hear the presentation by the applicant.

And please introduce introduce yourself.

What am I hitting here?

Yeah, okay, sorry.

All right, yes, my name is John Lynham.

I'm the uh architect for the uh homeowners.

Um I uh actually have nothing to add to the presentation that the staff made, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Um I do you have just one quick question.

The the reason for for this addition is to um add an elevator, correct?

So the so is there like an ADIA or is there is a user of the property sort of disabled or um not currently, but just in anticipation of the future need.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Uh we can move on to board deliberations.

Any board members would like to express an opinion or have additional questions.

Mr.

Foley?

Um, if there's no other questions, I'm happy to make a motion.

Yes.

Uh please feel free.

Uh based upon the uh staff's recommendations.

Um I'd like to make a motion to approve the special exemption.

I second that motion.

Okay.

Um having a motion and a seconded uh motion.

All those in favor of approving the special exception, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those against, same sign.

Okay.

Hearing none, the motion is passed.

Five to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you and have a good evening.

The next item on the docket is the consideration of the minutes from the June 8th, 2026 board of zoning appeals meeting.

Ms.

Evelyn?

Um I I have reviewed the minutes as brief as they were, and um find them to be correct and accurate.

Okay, can I get a motion to approve the minutes?

I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the last board meeting.

I second that motion.

Okay, all those in favor of approving the minutes, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye against same sign, hearing none.

The motion is passed.

Thank you.

Other items?

Um, we don't have any other items.

Um obviously that there's a break in August, and we do have uh some cases already submitted for the September hearing.

So there will be a September 14th BZA meeting.

Okay, Ms.

Christmas.

Uh, this meeting is adjourned.

Sorry, so when I said I'm going to do it, I actually don't want to use a second actually.