This meeting is being transcribed and summarized.

Good evening.

Welcome everyone to the nineteenth Board of Adjustment Meeting.

Can you please do roll call?

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Galloway.

Here.

Mr.

Carter.

Here.

Mr.

Jenkins.

Here.

Miss Denny.

Mr.

Simpson.

Here.

Ms.

Hudson.

Here.

Mr.

Cusick.

Here.

Thank you.

That's seven present.

Thank you.

Seven present.

We have a quorum.

Introduction of staff, please.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Jesse Lindenberg.

I'll be presiding as hearing officer for tonight's meeting.

To my left is Mark Kennedy, our IT specialist, and down at the end, we have Mr.

Fred Townsend, the legal counsel for the board.

Furthermore, there shall be no cross examination of witnesses permitted during the public hearing, but the board can ask the applicant questions after any opposition if necessary.

As a courtesy to other participants in this hearing, a maximum of five minutes will be allotted to any person who wishes to provide testimony.

The chairperson of the board has the discretion to allow additional time if deemed to be necessary.

To make statements when your application is called and for the record, please give your name, address, and allow our attorney to swear you in prior to providing testimony.

Copies of any written statements or exhibits used during the hearing should be presented for identification so that they may be included in the permanent record.

The procedure on each variance application will be as follows.

The legal notice will be read on each case prior to the receipt of testimony.

There will be a brief explanation of the application by the staff.

The board will then receive testimony from all of those in favor of the application, followed by testimony of those who may be opposed.

Once those persons in favor and those in opposition have had an opportunity to speak, the hearing on the application will be declared closed.

Decisions on all applications heard this evening will be made by the board during the business meeting following the public hearing.

However, you are not required to remain after the public hearing once your request has been heard and closed.

During the business meeting, the board will consider all information of record.

A common vote of four members of the board shall be required to make a decision on each application.

If you do not wish to wait for the business meeting later this evening, you may call the Kent County Planning Department tomorrow between 8 a.m.

and 5 p.m.

at 302 744 2471 to learn of the board's ruling.

All applicants will receive written notification of the board's decision.

This notice may not be mailed until after the next scheduled meeting, but if approved, you are welcome to apply for any necessary permits prior to receiving this by mail.

Please keep this decision in your records for both you and all future property owners.

The public notice for this evening's hearing was published on Thursday, March 19th in the Delaware State News.

In addition, all of the subject properties were posted with a sign prior to the hearing to further notify the public of the nature of the applications.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This time we'll have statement by counsel.

Mr.

Townsend.

Thank you, Mr.

Cusick.

The standards for the granting of variances are set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in the case known as Board of Adjustment versus Quick Check Realty.

The standard applied to area variances considers whether a literal interpretation of zoning regulations results in exceptional practical difficulties of ownership.

And to make that determination, the board must weigh the following four factors.

First, the nature of the zone where the property lies.

Second, the character and uses of the immediate vicinity.

Third, whether removal of the restriction on the applicant's property would seriously affect neighboring properties.

And fourth, whether failure to remove the restrictions would create an exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in relation to the owner's efforts to make normal improvements to the property.

This factor is considered or this factor satisfied only when the difficulties alleged by the owner are practical rather than theoretical and exceptional rather than routine.

And it's here where the board determines whether the applicant is seeking more than is minimally necessary to relieve the asserted difficulty.

In general, the board is not permitted to consider factors other than the four of listed, so those speaking both in support of and in opposition to applications are urged to present only information bearing directly on the four factors, which restated briefly are one zoning district, two, the character of the immediate vicinity, three, the effect on neighboring properties, and four whether the applicant faces exceptional practical difficulties of ownership.

In particular, presenters are instructed to exclude from the presentations any discussion of personal disputes or acrimony between the applicant and neighboring property owners as the board is unable and unauthorized to resolve such disputes.

Presenters must limit their remarks to those issues the board can address.

Mr.

Cusick, that concludes my statement.

Thank you.

We'll begin public hearing starting with that or only application A 26-05.

All right, application A twenty six-05 for Jean A and Christine Mullen.

They are seeking a variance from the requirement that a structure may not be used in whole or in part for residential purposes unless the lot in which it is located on has an unobstructed ingress egress easement to a public street that is at least 18 feet wide to enable the construction of a single family dwelling.

The property is located approximately 477 feet west of Underwoods Corner Road, approximately 1,0107 feet south of Brian's Iron Road, north of Kenton, Levy Court District is the sixth, zoning district is AC.

On here, you can see this is the subject property in the back.

Here in red is the easement that goes all the way to Under Corner of Road.

This is the signposting out from the road.

So this is the easement follows along there.

Looking up Underwoods Corner, down the other direction, looking at the property that is the easement is on.

This is along the easement as well.

Continuing back.

Property itself.

The aerial and further out.

So, sir, if you could please state your name, your address, and allow our attorney to swear you in, and then you can make your statement.

You can adjust the mic as needed.

And if you need to point at the uh screen, it'll put a mouse there as well.

Okay.

My name is Gene Mullen.

Live at 48 Oak Drive, Smyrna, Delaware.

Mr.

Mullen.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

You may proceed.

You can pull that mic up too if you would like.

This is a this is a fairly easy variance.

There's already an easement that was established back in the 20s when these lots were when these lots were subdivided, apparently.

The easement at the time was one rod length, which is 16 and a half feet.

It's the old old surveying measurement.

In 1949, Mr.

Emerson purchased the property from Malcolm Gerald, and the easement, the easement was was already there, as far as I can tell from old deeds.

So they were all aware of it.

This variant doesn't change the width of the easement.

I'm just asking for a variance from the 18 feet that's required by the county back to the 16 and a half feet.

So we're talking a foot and a half variants.

The reason for the variance, and and you can see in my application, I built a pole pole barn uh back there in 2001.

Um after purchasing the property in 2008.

Um I got the permit, no mention, mention of an easement was given.

Um it wasn't a problem.

I got the build I got the building permit, built the building, um, county approved it.

And in uh February 21st of this year, or of last year, sorry, 20 uh 25.

Um I had a major fire.

It destroyed the building and several pieces of equipment, uh, everything in the building.

Um so I was going to my application says a modular home, but I decided to rebuild, rebuild the pole barn and turn it into a uh uh barn dominium that's very popular today because everything is there, and for cost reasons, it'd be easier to put building up and basically make it into a house.

Good.

Any questions on the board?

Any questions?

Mr.

Mr.

Mullin, could you speak to the criteria that relates to the impact that the grant of this easement would have on neighboring properties?

There really isn't any impact.

Um the easement, the deeded easement as as written in the deed would remain the same.

Um, like I said, this this easement is was established a very, very long time ago.

It's always been in place.

Um my property is basically landlocked without the easement.

Um so uh the easement has always been there.

And without it, um without the ability to put something back that I was prior approved for.

And I already have um in preparation for a house, um the county allowed me to put this building up, and I was going to build a house on the property.

Um and you can see in my in my application, I had several discussions with the then county administrator Leslie Persons.

Um she approved it for uh uh basically an accessory building prior to residence.

Um I needed the building to build the residence.

I was gonna build it myself in the in the shop anyway.

Um for personal reasons that didn't happen, and the house and the house wasn't built.

So wells there, septics there, electrics there, um, everything is there for residents.

How are you planning on using it?

Is it residence for yourself?

Yes.

Yes, this is gonna be just gonna be our house.

Um no, I don't have I'm I'm retired.

Uh been retired for uh several years.

So I I have a lot of interest.

Um it's going to like I say it's going to be used for residents.

I have a question for the staff.

Is the is the is the variance allowing the applicant to build, or is the variance saying this easement we're going to accept the easement at 16 and a half feet forever.

In other words, if if the neighboring property was going to build now.

Can we still say the neighboring proper well they have to come for a variance to build.

And you mean this property here?

The property on the other side of the easement.

The property that the easement is on, so this one here has a house existing and has frontage.

So they don't need the easement.

Um it's just the applicant who needs the easement because his property does not have frontage.

So the code specifically requires if a structure is going to be used for residential purposes, like a dwelling, then it requires the easement to be 18 feet wide.

Um so because the easement that was put in place is only 16 and a half feet.

Current code requires 18, that's why he is here.

Um I would have to double check on this property.

I can look at the map to see if they have frontage.

If they have frontage, technically they wouldn't be required to have an easement, I believe.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Just uh um just to add to that, um, back sometime in the 30s, they changed the configuration of on Underwoods Corner Road, and when they changed it, uh the Zimmerman property, which is a property in the front, um became basically landlocked.

And his deed, his deed doesn't show access to the easement.

So currently there is an easement there already.

It's just sixteen sixteen and a half feet wide, right?

Right.

So you have so the only thing that's preventing you from breaking ground is a foot and a half.

Yes.

So and I I don't the 18 feet was established, I think, in by the court in um 1991, I believe.

So it's been it's been around for quite a while.

Um why I wasn't aware of that, nobody made me aware of it, but anyway.

Um the easement is specifically deeded to my property.

So regardless of what happens tonight, you're still gonna continue to use the lane to get back to your property.

You just need a foot and a half to be able to break ground.

Essentially.

Yes, I need the variant, I need the variance to get the build get the building permits to put the building back up.

All right, thank you.

Um foot and a half.

Obviously, there's a financial impact, I imagine.

I I don't really understand why they why they changed it.

Uh 16 and a half foot easement had been accepted for probably at least a hundred years.

Um and then in nine in ninety-one they deemed it necessary to change it that eighteen feet, and I'm assuming because of uh fire and ambulance and um emergency type.

And that's obviously not the case because of the night of the fire, I had seven or eight fire trucks sitting on the lane.

So and plus there's a there's a standard uh turnaround uh in the back.

Um when I built it when I made when I made the lane, I put a 62-foot basically call the sack turnaround in the lane, which is which is the requirement for any any subdivision.

And you can see you can see the loop.

Um you can see the loop as it uh it comes in.

The lane continues down um to the back of the property, but you can see the loop as it as it comes around.

And I made it specifically at 62 feet, so um so emergency vehicles could come in, drive in, drive right straight back out.

I'm rather familiar with construction and and building requirements and stuff like that.

So as we are looking at that photo up that's up on the screen.

Ums.

Um and essentially other you you truly would be landlocked.

And you don't own on you only own on one side.

So you really expanding would create complications all along the way, right?

To make that wider.

Absolutely.

It's especially with all the woods.

It's completely landlocked.

It's bordered, it's bordered to the north by the Holtz farm.

Um it's on the bordered on the west northwest uh by the blackest and wildlife area.

My property line and theirs are are the same.

And uh so as far as an exceptional practical difficulty, you are landlocked, and without us granting this, you really would lose your ingress, egress, and be unable to build.

Right.

And it all it it would because I do have I do have all the infrastructure um to the lot for residential lot.

Like I said, I I have a well, I have septic, I have all the electric run to the site, everything is there, ready to go.

And that that's been a pretty good expense.

So essentially what you're saying is, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, is that um it would be a huge financial setback if you were half to move change things around and start over.

Right.

Absolutely.

It would be um like I say, it would render the property almost almost useless um as far as doing anything with it, as far as putting a structure on it, put it putting, you know, doing doing any of that um what's there now would just sit there.

And it wouldn't it the value of the property would dramatically go down.

Which would a little side note would would affect my property taxes greatly, probably.

I have a question for um Jesse real quick or for staff and then another comment, I think.

Uh is it because the property is ten is in excess of ten acres that he can have an ancillary structure or uh on it without a um without a dwelling.

So uh the structure that was there was issued an agricultural permit at the time.

I I believe it mentioned that there were goats or something along those lines.

It was stated on that permit that there was intent to build a house, and when the house was constructed that that structure was then converted to a residential structure.

Um that never occurred.

Um and that's kind of at the point where we are now.

So nothing is permitted to be there at the current time since the structure that was there was burnt down.

I believe we may allow a temporary structure for that in the interim, but otherwise no.

But another agricultural structure could go on this property without an 18-foot easement.

If it was a bona fide farm.

So if it was being used for farm purposes and we had the documentation to show that, then yes, we could issue an agricultural permit.

So Mr.

Mullen has, just to kind of recharacterize what's been said, Mr.

Mullen has access to this property over the 16 and a half foot easement.

He doesn't need to take any additional land from anybody else or reconfigure anything.

The problem that he is confronted with is a zoning co-provision that requires for any residential structure that is served by an easement that the easement be at least 18 feet wide, which he doesn't have and can't get.

So when I when I first viewed this application, my thoughts immediately went to well, uh why isn't it grandfathered in?

Because it's been there and it's been ongoing.

But then, you know, you realize that when it when everything goes down to the ground, you're in the start over situation.

So but it that my first thought was like, why isn't this grandfathered?

So thank you.

And that was my that was my question.

Um it was the permit for the original building was an ag permit for an ag structure.

Um my understanding with Ms.

Persons at the time that I was going to construct it to a residential accessory building code.

And then when the house was built, it would be changed over to an accessory building.

And that was that was the reason that the building was built in the first place.

If the house was if there was a house there before the ordinance was adopted to require 18 feet of width on an easement, then he then he would have been grandfathered.

And but there wasn't a house there at that time.

So that's that's why he has to comply with the code or get a variance.

Mr.

Mullen, is has anyone expressed any opposition to you?

And do you have any can you characterize that?

Do you want to speak to it at all?

Because once you sit down, that's that's your last chance.

Well my neighbor, obviously, but um I do have my other neighbor.

Um that owns the that owns the front piece.

Uh well, you you say obviously, I I don't know that we know what it what you mean by obviously.

Well, I won't.

I I'll let him I'll let him explain.

Um I don't know.

I honestly don't know.

So anyway.

Um I'm assuming opposition, but that's really that's that's where we're at.

Um initially, planning staff um thought it would be grandfathered and wouldn't be wouldn't be an issue.

Um they hadn't mentioned the 18-foot requirement.

Um, but subsequently I guess they did a little more research and came up with I had to have a variant.

But I didn't think it was a very big deal for a foot and a half, but any other questions?

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Mullen.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else present that would like to speak in favor of the application?

Please state your name and your address and allow our attorney to swear you in.

My name is Fred Zimmerman.

My uh address is 238 Titer Drive, Dover Delaware.

And Mr.

Zimmerman?

Yes.

Over here.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I affirm to the truth.

You may proceed with your remark.

Okay.

As I stated, my name is Fred Zimmerman.

If you look on your um on the uh the screen, my property is the one toward Underwoods Corner Road.

It's eight and a half acres.

So I'm in front there with where your arrow is.

Uh that is the plot that I own.

I own this property before Mr.

Mullen owned his.

The um my land also borders that easement that Mr.

Mullen has going back.

Uh on my property, it does not show the easement.

At one time, um the road had been changed, and I don't think they required any easement because we were right by the road, but the road was made in a more gradual curve.

But uh I guess that's not the subject of the evening, but uh my property follows his property along the easement all the way out to the road.

Uh as was stated before, he has sixteen and a half feet wide easement, and I'm recommending to the Board of Adjustment that they give due consideration to Mr.

Mullins' request regarding the more recent um requirement of the additional foot and a half residential use.

I thank you for your listening to me.

Is there any questions before I sit down?

I have one question.

So your property, do you access that easement as well?

Obviously, I don't think there's any structures on your property, it doesn't look like it, but uh there are no there are no uh structures on my property.

As you can see, it's all wooded as most of Mr.

Mullins is.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else present that would like to speak in favor of the application?

Do we have anyone online?

If there's anyone joining us online that would like to speak in favor of application 82605, please indicate by raising electronic hand or pressing start three if you joining us by phone.

No hands raised online at this time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone present that would like to speak in opposition of the application?

Sir, you can uh come up to the podium.

Please state your name and your address and allow our attorney to throw you in.

Uh Ronald Emerson.

My address is 3821 Underwoods Corner Road.

And I own the 3845 that has easement on it.

Mr.

Emerson.

Yes.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Yes, I own the property at 345 Underwoods Corner Road.

Can you can you point to that on the screen next to you?

It'll it'll show us.

Yes.

Right.

The one right on the curve that has the easement to it.

And also owned the lot that's in the back, 3785 that has a mobile home on it.

And these are all two-acre lots.

And uh my biggest concern, I haven't ever been able to address it or do anything about it, is the traffic.

And I I have spoken about it, and I don't get no results.

All I that's uh really all I asked for.

Cut down on the traffic.

They go too fast, and there's too much.

You know, before the fire, he was building cabinets and stuff.

He was basically running a business.

And I didn't care.

You know, and I told him that I don't care of anything that you do on your property if it doesn't hurt me.

But that hurt me.

It hurts me and my family because we don't feel safe.

You know, my wife's got a dog, my granddaughter has a dog.

We like to go out and walk the dogs.

And we don't know the people that's coming in on our property.

And it's gotten so bad.

I've I had to start stopping them to get them to not speed.

And Gene Mullen's been his speed's okay, but it's the other people.

You know, it's all the guests, I don't know none of them.

And back in the back at the back lot, my son lives there, and he's concerned about the gunfire.

Because he was having too much shooting.

You know, at one time he had the town of Smyrna out there, the police department, you know, getting their recertification.

And then there was a gun club was coming out.

And man, you talk about traffic, and we don't have that much space.

I mean the the at the narrowest point, I don't I don't have a pointer.

But right up when you come off the road, and the the pictures that you could point you could point to the uh screen.

Well, where this home is on three, eight, four, five.

Well, where it's like a dog leg.

Well, that's the closest point.

And add another foot and a half of that, you're not far from the house.

You're you're it's 25 feet from the corner of the house to the property line at the closest point.

And now you take 18 feet away.

We want to put a deck there, but you know, when you get sir, Mr.

Emerson.

They're not taking any of your your land.

Yeah, but it can't be obstructed.

No, no, no, that's not that's not so.

There's no expansion of the easement that is that we we cannot grant an expansion of the easement.

This board can only authorize that a residential use be placed on that property, despite the fact that it's served by an easement that's less than 18 feet.

But but the dimensions of the easement will not change.

If we if we grant if we grant this variance, the dimensions of the easement will remain the same.

They'll be 16 and a half feet.

But I but I'll have to recognize that other foot and a half.

You you do not.

I mean, I can't put nothing there, no fence.

No, there's you you don't you're not there's no additional foot and a half that you have to acknowledge.

We were just be simply saying that he doesn't have to have an 18-foot easement.

He can have a 16 and a half foot easement.

Right that that would be sufficient.

We this board can't take any of your property from you.

That was one of my concerns.

And the other concern is the safety.

Because once a house gets there, that's then it's gonna go to a workshop again.

And it's just gonna be all over.

And it's been almost 18 years, and every year it got worse and worse as far as the traffic and the shooting.

And uh my concern was the back trailer because it's right there.

It's that's a that's a separate issue.

Yeah.

So I mean, obviously he could build the residence if we grant this approval, we could build the residential house.

Right.

But yeah, if he's if he starts doing um like a home base contract, then that's a whole nother issue that he'll have to come into the county for.

Um yeah, but for tonight we're just um granting the just hearing the six and a half easement.

Well, my concern is just us being safe.

But I can't do nothing about it.

I've stopped them, I've told them.

Have you thought about installing speed humps?

I have thought about it, but it just I don't know.

It just seems like another job I gotta do.

I went and put speed limit signs up, you know, because I figure if I put up five, maybe I can get them to do ten.

You know, it's but I have thought about speed bumps, but I have to use it too.

You know, and I'm not punished myself, but if if it continues, I won't have a choice.

I'll just have to do it that way.

Do you have a sense of how many cars are on that?

It varies.

I know, but but give us some idea of what you mean when you say there's a lot of traffic.

Anywhere it's from it can be anywhere from five cars, and I've had up to twenty-four.

You know, I've counted them.

In a what?

In a day or that's in.

And then of course then they come out.

And every day?

Not every day, no.

It's sporadic.

It some days would be five cars, some days seven cars.

But the most was twenty-four.

And that was when there was a gun club back there.

Well, would you say there was a gun club with there was shooting back there?

But was there what do you know about there being an actual club that people were messing with?

Well, the people that came there because somebody damaged my pole building.

And I went to him about that.

And I didn't want anything.

I fixed it myself, but all I asked was him to cut the traffic down.

He told me it was his property, not mine.

It's his.

That's why I'm not supporting this.

And that's not my character because I like people to do what they want with their property.

But this affects me too much.

How long have you lived here?

I've been on part of that property all my whole life, 73 years.

And has that easement been there the entire time?

Since 1943.

I have the original deed when Malcolm Gerr sold it to my father.

And it has in there about the perch to 16 and a half feet, and then it would go on to the next owner.

You know, that's how it reads.

I have it.

So as long as you've been there, that easement has been there.

The easement's been there, but it was never used until Gene bought it.

Because when Malcolm Gerrell owned it and his wife, they went through the woods.

They went on uh Mr.

Zimmerman's property.

And that that's still there too.

But that's how they never use that easement ever.

He he would go back there and use that property that Gene has now, and they just put their uh agricultural stuff they weren't using no more.

They put it back.

Old Bob was basically a dump.

That's what it was.

But they accessed the woods on Mr.

Zimmerman.

They never used the easement.

So that's it was never used.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

You said your son owns the property behind behind you.

Pardon me?

Your son owns the property behind you?

He doesn't own it.

I own it.

I mean, he may own it someday.

Do they access that easement?

Is this the easement to get that owned?

No, we have a uh 25-foot entrance for that.

Okay.

So this easement is only to access that site.

Exactly.

Just for that, not for anything else.

Okay.

And back in the back, when you're looking, well, you can't see it in that picture, but I have a pole building down there on the left.

And that's where that was what was damaged.

It's just damaged by a car concerned.

Pardon me?

Was it damaged by a vehicle?

Well, it was some type.

I didn't see it happen.

But we don't have anybody go there.

There's only us.

And then all the folks he has over.

It got really good after the fire.

It did.

And I'm just afraid now it's gonna once he gets established again, it's gonna start all over and I won't have no recourse.

I've lived with this ever since he's bought that property.

Any other questions from the board?

See none.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Is there anyone else present that would like to speak in opposition?

Is there anyone online?

For our guests joining us online, if you would like to speak in opposition to application 82605, please please indicate by raising the electronic hand or pressing start three if you're joining us by phone.

Still no hands raised online.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else, we will close the public hearing for application A twenty-six-05.

Thank you, so that closes the public hearing.

And when you need a break, just keep rolling.

Keep rolling, right?

Yep.

All right.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Simpson.

Here.

Here.

Mr.

Gallo.

Here.

Ms.

Denny.

Here.

Mr.

Carter.

Here.

Mr.

Jenkins.

Here.

Ms.

Hudson.

Here.

Mr.

Cusick.

Here.

That's seven present.

Thank you.

All right.

Business meeting.

We need approval from business meeting minutes from the February 19th meeting.

I make a motion that we approve uh the business meetings from February 19th.

Got a motion and a second for the approval of the business meeting minutes.

So decisions, we need approval for A26-03 and A26-04.

I'll make a motion that we approve A.

Did you want to have the vote on the minutes?

All in favor for the approval of the minutes.

I thank you.

Sorry, now notice the decision.

I'll make a motion to approve A2603, A2604.

Second.

Motion and second.

All favor.

I no old business, and we'll get into new business.

Any discussion or motion?

I just want to make it have it crystal clear, Jesse, right?

This for the residential property.

We are not making any easement bigger or anything like that, correct?

Correct.

It would just enable the applicant to utilize the existing 16 and a half foot easement to build a home on the property.

And to also be clear, the the housing that's there already is using the 16 and a half foot easement presently.

The housing that is there is not approved housing.

So the adjoin the adjoining properties.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

On the adjo I'm sorry, can you state your question again?

I misunderstood.

The homes that are adjoining on the other side of the easement have houses on them, correct?

Correct, they do.

They also have frontage.

They do not need an easement because they have frontage along the roadway.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, this is the only property that has that access that easement.

And the safety concern about the opposition.

I mean it's a valid point, but if he does sell in cabinets and stuff like that, it's a whole different scenario with home-based contracting that we have to um and he doesn't have the road frontage to do a home-based contractor permit there.

So that would be an issue that he can speak to the county about outside.

That's not on our within our in your jurisdiction.

So we're voting tonight just on the easement and a residential property.

Okay.

This is a tough one.

But essentially, uh this prop, this was the width of the road from the from the beginning, you know, when all this was plotted.

And there's really isn't any room to widen it.

And whether there's a business and whatever he's discussed by the witness for the opposition to this evening.

Whatever that is, that is not for us to make to make a decision on.

And um in order for him to have the ingress appropriate ingress and egress.

Um he needs the variance on this property.

He needs that extra little bit though of width.

And so and it would be a hardship for him.

Um I in testimony this evening it would be a hardship for him.

This is all very heavily wooded area there and the cost of like and uh just even to to sell the property, whatever, he's gonna need this easement.

So I think um I think there is been demonstrated an exceptional practical difficulty because of the width of that ingress egress available to that property.

Yeah.

I was gonna say in addition to that, I mean there was discussion about it being landlocked.

I mean, that creates an exceptional practical difficult difficulty, but just that alone, let alone the history.

There's extensive history here.

Um the time that Mr.

Emerson bought and then the time that Mr.

Mullen bought and then what's happened, you know, not for us to solve, but uh our our issue is the access easement.

I agree.

So my motion is that we make a motion that this variance be approved for the reasons I stated that you know there is an exceptional practical difficulty, he would be landlocked.

Um that's enough, I guess.

I'll second.

Got a motion and second.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Jenkins.

Yes, I've I vote in support of the motion for application A twenty-six oh five uh based on the testimony we've received tonight and the extensive information given to us by the staff and the easement by granting it.

It's very minimal.

Uh you're talking a foot and a half.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Carter.

I'll vote in favor of the motion based on the testimony tonight and the staff recommendation.

Thank you, Mr.

Simpson.

I vote in favor based on the testimony tonight and the staff recommendation and the exceptional practical difficulty that it would put on the uh landowner to do anything with his property.

Thank you, Mr.

Gallow.

Vote in favor of the motion.

Uh the applicant is uh attempting to make a normal improvement on a property and the location of that property presents an exceptional practical difficulty and the relief he is asking for is minimal.

Thank you, Ms.

Dunny.

I vote yes.

There isn't I do see an exceptional practical difficulty.

Um and I believe that it would be land he would be landlocked if we did not grant this variance.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

605, I vote to approve based off the staff recommendation and the stuff and the public testimony that we heard tonight.

I believe allowing the applicant to utilize the existing 6.5 access easement to construct a single family home isn't with the character of the surrounding area, and I believe there is an exceptional practical difficulty with the homeowner being landlocked.

Thank you, Mr.

Gusick.

I vote in favor of the motion um this per staff recommendation and uh the hardship is clearly there.

Um the financial impact the make this applicant um expand the existing um egress is uh pretty financial impact.

Thank you.

That is seven in favor.

Thank you with seven in favor.

Application 826-05 is approved.

A motion to adjourn.

We can't have any questions.

Give us two seconds.

Uh make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All righty.

Oh in favor.

Uh hi.

Hi.

Okay.

Um I just wanted to let you know there was never a business there.

Um I do cabinets.

Um, I do them for friends and family.

Um, so it isn't a business.

Um there is a shooting range back there that I built.

It's all the way at the end of the property, uh as far away as I could possibly get it.

Um I do I do a lot of shooting.

I have friends that come out and shoot.

I'm a retired law enforcement officer, so I have a lot of friends that were that are on police forces.

They come out and they they shoot and you know get experience.

So I I just wanted to let you know.

And as far as traffic, I've put up signs.

Mr.

Mullen, this is why I asked you the question.

Um I I was hoping that during your testimony you would explain what the issues were on the property and that you would give us a chance to hear um uh your side of it.

Well, I wasn't I wasn't quite sure.

Um Ron and I were friends.

Um he actually helped me start clearing the lane actually when I moved there.

And um I told him exactly what I was doing, uh, what I wanted to do.

So and I don't I don't know.

And look, I know just to ask you to be a good neighbor.

Um I am trying the best.

Remind you that we're adjourned.

I'm trying the best that I that I can to be a good neighbor.

All right.

Thank you very much.

You all have a good evening.