This meeting is being transcribed and summarized.

Good evening.

Welcome everyone to the Kent County Board of Adjustment Meeting, April sixteenth, two thousand twenty six.

Can you please call roll?

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Carter.

Here.

Mr.

Simpson.

Mr.

Jenkins.

Here.

Mr.

Gallo.

Here.

Miss Denny.

Here.

Miss Hudson.

Here.

Mr.

Cusick.

Here.

Thank you.

Seven present.

We have a quorum.

Introduction of staff, please.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Jamie Fensky.

I'll preside as the hearing officer for tonight's meeting.

To my left, we have Mark Kennedy, our IT staff, and to the far right, we have Fred Townsend, our legal counsel.

Thank you.

At this time, everyone, please stand for the Pledge Allegiance.

No, sir.

Thank you.

Public hearing introduction.

Yes.

Sorry, I'm having some technical difficulties.

Okay.

So good evening, everyone.

My name is Jamie Finski, and I'll preside as the hearing officer for tonight's public hearing.

This hearing is being conducted for the purposes of providing the citizens of the county an opportunity to present testimony on these applications before the King County Board of Adjustment.

Everyone will have an opportunity to speak.

This will provide those who wish an opportunity to give their testimony.

If there is a group of interested citizens in favor or opposed to any of the applications, they may wish to elect one spokesperson among them to present testimony to the board.

There is an official recording of these proceedings being made.

Therefore, we ask that only one person speak at a time and that they speak clearly.

Furthermore, there should 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 the 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 public hearing should be presented for identification so that they may be included in the permanent record.

The procedure on each variant's application will be as follows.

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 that 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 King County Planning Department tomorrow between 8 a.m.

and 5 p.m.

at 74471 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 of this evening's hearing was published on March twenty-seventh, twenty twenty-six 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.

The standards for the granting of area 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 for the owner.

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 lastly, 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 satisfied only when the difficulties alleged by the owner are practical rather than theoretical and exceptional rather than routine.

In general, the board is not permitted to consider factors other than the four 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 the zoning district, two the character of the vicinity, three, 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 not authorized to resolve those disputes.

Presenters are to limit their remarks to those issues the board can decide.

Mr.

Cusick, that concludes my statement.

Thank you.

At this time we'll begin the public hearing, starting with A26 SO 6.

Okay.

Do we have someone present for this application?

Thank you.

So we have the applicant and owner, Big Jim's Homes, LLC, present zoning district is RMH, which is our residential manufactured home.

They are seeking a variance from the required 40-foot front principal structure setback, 25-foot rear principal structure setback, and from the requirement that an accessory structure shall not be located in the front yard or front setback unless the accessory structure is located at least a hundred feet from the front property line.

This isn't to enable the relocation of a manufactured home.

The present use is residential, proposed use is the same.

Levy Court District 4th for Mr.

Scott, located on the southeast corner of East Fourth Street and East Pop Poplar Street, southeast of Magnolia.

You will see here the existing conditions of the property.

The orange here is showing the proposed location of the manufactured home so that it will be completely on the subject property, and that will be 13.3 feet from the rear property line, 23.7 feet from the front property line of Poplar.

And just to go back a little bit, right now it is existing at 23.7 feet from Poplar.

The buildable area there is showed in the yellow.

This is looking at the existing home there now that is crossing the property line and the shed in the back.

This is looking down fourth street and poplar.

Again, at that existing shed that they are looking at legalizing the location.

Back of the property.

That building there is on the neighboring property.

Again, this is the neighboring property property.

I would say approximately kind of where the tree is.

This gentleman could testify might be around the side property line of the subject property.

The area.

And farther out.

So, sir, if you would like to state your name and address and allow our attorney to swear you in.

Yes.

Excuse me.

You could pull that mic up too.

Is that good?

All right.

James Hartnett, 15265, Caspian Circle.

Milton.

19968.

Sir, 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.

Okay.

Uh well, we just kind of covered everything.

We're looking to, I think I meet all four requirements of fitting in with the zoning of the area, being it's residential and mobile home.

The mobile home has already been there for quite some time, sitting at the 23.7 feet set back, and it encroaches into the neighbor's property.

Uh, I think it's 16-18 feet.

And by turning it 90 degrees, it won't affect any of the neighbors.

It'll be allow us to use the property as intended.

The shed has been there.

I think I see notes from 1997.

Um be able to make that uh again a residential property and house.

And that's why I'm requesting the uh variances and the setbacks, because that's the way the house will fit on there and not be on the neighbor's property, and then not affect any neighbors.

And that's my request.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments?

Can you just touch base on how the trailer got over the existing line and it was there, the people were there in it, the folks passed away, I bought it, and then I found out it was encroaching on the neighbors, and uh by that time I'd already owned it.

Gotcha.

Have you spoken with your neighbors?

I have spoken well, Bruce to the right.

He passed away.

I used to talk with him.

His sister lives around the corner.

I tried to talk to people behind me.

I said hello to them, and they seemed to all be very friendly and okay with it.

Okay.

Uh did you have the property surveyed before you bought it?

No.

So that's surveyed after I bought it.

And that's when you learned that it was not all totally on your property?

Yes.

That's when I started talking with Bruce, who I lived to the right, and he said he was gonna come, we were gonna come down here and get a uh easement agreement, and then he died two days later.

We never got there.

Do you have do you have experience?

Um can you tell us about your experience um moving homes like this?

Or do you have any?

Oh, I uh in uh when I was 18, which was quite some time ago, I worked at Capitol Homes under lot crew.

We'd set them up on our lots, plus I'd go out to the uh mobile home parks or lot property.

So I've been sitting and moving mobile homes since I was 18, not continuously, but I've done quite a few.

Oh, absolutely.

Is there anything other than you want it to be on the on your property that you're moving the home?

Is there anything else compelling you to move it?

Someone asked you to move it or is it no?

No one has asked me to move it.

I just want it to be on there.

I could fix it up and make somebody a nice home.

So you're you're you're gonna incur some expense to move it.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Or are you moving it yourself?

Are you hiring now?

I'll hire account.

I mean I don't do that myself anymore, but there's uh you know, companies that move mobile homes, they'll be able to do it for me.

Worst case scenario is gonna be a crane, but I don't think I'll have to go to that.

Very good.

Any other questions from the board?

All good, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application?

Thank you.

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

Mr.

Halleck.

Right there.

Mr.

Halleck, do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you given this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Uh as I said, my name is Ed Halleck.

I've lived in this neighborhood since 196.

I grew up.

I actually originally lived there, helped build that house.

I currently live here.

And where I sit in my recliner in my living room, I look out and see the back end of this trailer.

Uh so I think and how this came to be is a brother and sister that own the adjoining property.

So they weren't real careful about where they situated stuff.

Uh but uh I just I do appreciate that uh the current owner when he took purchased the property, there was a lot of mess on the property.

It had been an ISO for a lot of years, that and the neighboring property.

Uh he's cleaned it up, he's maintained it to this day.

And the only thing I would say is I would really like to see somebody being able to move into that property and live there.

And I have no problem with doing this little switch.

Ideally, I think putting taking this out and put a little double white in there would be best, but that's not the request here.

So but uh so I would wholeheartedly support this uh this request for the variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just uh on record, you you think this will be better the property um relocating this?

Yeah, I uh because you can't do anything with it right now the way it says, so I think uh being able to move it and then I don't know if he's selling it or renting it, but either way, it it'll have somebody living there and they will be maintaining it.

So I think uh that would be definitely beneficial for the neighborhood.

Very good, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

All good, appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

There is anyone online, please raise your electronic hand.

No hands raised online.

Thank you.

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

Okay, seeing no one in the room and no one online, we will close the public hearing for application a-26-06.

Next, we have application A-26-07 for Tidewater Utilities LLC.

The applicant is Tidewater Utilities.

The owner is holding LLC.

Present zoning is the AR variants from they are seeking a variance from the maximum height allowance of 80 feet.

The maximum size of a sign shall be no larger than 10% of the area of the building front, which each business occupies, and the maximum height of a sign of 30 feet to construct a water tower with signage.

Present use is vacant.

Agriculture, it is approved for an 85-lot major subdivision.

And they the proposed use is the 85-lot major subdivision with the proposed water tower and signage.

Levy Court District is fifth for Mr.

Sweeney.

Located on the north side of Fire Tower Road, approximately 900 feet west of Turkey Point Road, south of Viola.

Here you will see the proposed water tower with the signage.

They are seeking a 140-foot tall water tower with the sign being 124 feet above grade.

It is the sign is permitted to be 30 feet above grade.

The water tower is permitted to be 80 feet, and then the proposed sign is 672 square feet, which is 24 percent of the front.

The permitted sign size is 280 square feet, which would be the 10 percent.

This is looking at the property right now fire tower in the other direction.

Again, just around the area.

This is uh kind of proved for an 85 lot major subdivision.

And the aerial, the water towers kind of going in this location over here, and the farther out.

Sir, if you would like to state your name and address and allow our attorneys where you in.

Good evening, Elio Batista Jr., Parkowski Girk and Swayze, Dover, on behalf of Tidewater Utilities.

Um as indicated, we're here.

Tidewater is here seeking three variances.

Um just to uh refresh the board's recollection.

This is uh nothing new back in November, December of 24.

Tidewater came forth with uh Eagle Meadows and Fork Branch.

We're asking the same thing.

Nothing's changed.

Those two uh applications were approved.

Same size tower, same signage uh with respect to the elements.

Mr.

Townsend set forth.

Uh the uh practical difficulty with respect to the size.

And uh have with me Charles Barnett from Richie and Associates will present the technical reasons.

I'm the attorney.

You want to listen to him.

You need that size for water pressure, fire suppression, not only for this area, but if you build these houses, it's gonna pull from the other sources of water that are coming from the surrounding area.

So you need that size to have water pressure.

You want water to come out when you turn your faucet, and you definitely want the fire hose to have pressure.

Uh with respect to the the sign size, uh, as indicated in the prior approved applications.

The practical difficulty is the way the ordinance is written, it really is to a square sign, a billboard side of the house.

Here we have a spherical object on a stem up.

Uh so when you look at the calculations that we've used, we came with a conservative one.

If we went to a more liberal one, and you include the size of the column.

We're not putting any wording there.

The the graphics you have uh indicate uh what we're looking tidewater is looking to do.

You've seen them before, we're not trying to be an eyesore.

Uh it's going to be tucked in behind the uh trees, and you'll see that as part of the presentation.

And unless the board has any questions from me, I'd like to hand it over to uh Mr.

Barnett to present the technical uh analysis.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name's Charlie Barnett.

I'm with Morrison Richie Associates 111 Ruth R Drive and Newark, Delaware.

Mr.

Barnett, you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you given this proceed will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you, and good evening again.

To start the presentation here, I wanted to show the overall project for the Gerald Ridge subdivision that Ms Fvensky alluded to in the introductory remarks.

It is property just outside of Iola on the north side of Fire Tower Road.

I presented this as a preliminary plan before the Regional Planning Commission back in September, where it was approved to have 85 single family lots.

This area right here is where the uh fire the water tower is proposed to be located.

It was depicted in those plans.

It was uh discussed as part of that application.

Um we're just here now to take care of the variances that would be required for it.

Um so as discussed before, there are three variances that we're looking for before you tonight.

The first is uh that deals with the height of the tower itself, and uh can get into more details uh as we move forward.

Second one being the size of the sign that will be on the tower, and the third one being how high that sign is off of the ground.

Here's that same um kind of graphic that shows what that tower is gonna look like and some of the dimensions that are also in the staff's packet.

Uh the first variance we're looking for is uh to address the height of the tank overall.

We're proposing we're asking for 140 feet uh height for this tank.

Uh that is done with uh series of calculations that tidewater utility does, where it's located, what the elevation of the property is, what kind of infrastructure they have in the area, um, how much water has to be held up in the air to get adequate pressure so that everybody that needs drinking water can have adequate pressure in their system.

They can have clean water that's flushed through the system, and then in the umfortunate uh circumstance of a fire, there's plenty of pressure in the uh relevant fire hydrants in the area to suppress that fire.

So uh they run these calculations, they come up with uh what's required.

So this is uh going to be a 500,000 gallon tank, um, the top of which is going to be it looks like it's going to be 137 feet.

So depletely if we're asking for a 140 foot uh allowance on the tower.

Um the code does state that if you go over the 80-foot uh maximum allowed, then uh you need to make sure that this structure has a setback from any other property lines nearby equal to the height of it.

I'm sure you've seen this before if you've seen other towers come in.

But um uh to prove that we meet that.

Um if you remember from I can go back, right?

So there's uh two lots close to the tower here.

Those two closest lots are um hundred and forty feet exactly from the town from that tower, and the other one's 142 feet, so um they meet that requirement.

If you look at the property line to the east, which is uh bordered by um Hudson Branch, which is a stream woods, uh there's also uh Del Marby easement for the overhead transmission power lines and then a solar facility off to that side, but uh the property line is right about there.

Uh that distance from the tower is 208 feet, so well above.

And then the nearest property line to the Riverdale State subdivision to the west is 357 feet.

So uh we do meet all we do meet all of those requirements here required in the code.

The second variance we're um seeking before you tonight is the size of the sign itself.

As Mr.

Batista said, the code states that the sign shall be no larger than 10% of the area of the building front, which each business occupies.

So a couple of nuances there.

Obviously, we're not building a building.

We're building a tower to hold water up in the air.

So it's also to me, my interpretation of that kind of a code reference is um seems to be talking about probably a strip mall or something where you have several businesses in one building, and it's making sure that each one of those businesses only has a sign, 10% of wherever their space is.

So just doesn't seem to apply to this kind of circumstance altogether.

Um as we say before, it's a 500,000 gallon tank that's 140 feet up in the air.

Um the sign itself that we'd like to install will be 42 feet wide, 16 feet high, which gives you a square footage of 672 feet.

This is the exact same size that Tidewater has put on many of their elevated tanks throughout the county, and I can show you signs or uh slides that address that later on in the presentation.

So what we did is we just conservatively looked at what size that bulb is, you know, just the round part of it.

And you know, that comes out to 2,737 square feet, which is would make that sign 24%.

You know, it sounds kind of high, but I mean, if you're allowed to use the whole face of a building, um, you could then look at what the STEM part would contribute towards, and that's been done in the past for other tanks.

I've gone back and looked at the presentations they've done before this board and and what they've asked for.

Uh, that comes down that brings the percentage down to 19%.

You know, you're still over the 10% required, of course, but um I think there's kind of semantics in this not being an actual building.

The third variance we're requesting is how high the sign can be off the ground.

The code states that you can't go over um 30 feet.

Obviously, 30 feet above the ground, the sign wouldn't even fit because it's a very small stem.

We want to put it up on the bulb, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

Um, and therefore the top of the sign would be a maximum of um uh 140 feet for the the total the total height of that tower, obviously would be down um further from that, 120 feet.

Um just to kind of get an idea of you know how that would look to the average person.

Um as we went back here, whoop.

If you look at you know the overall project again, um you would say, okay, well, maybe somebody comes here to this cul-de-sac and they get out of their car.

They're looking at the tower from their car.

Well, they'd be looking at it from 274 feet away.

So they're kind of looking at it from pretty far away.

That's the closest you can get from any road.

Um, if you wanted to go to one of the houses to the west, even though there's a big tree line in between them, they'd be looking at it over 500 feet away.

And if somebody were going down Fire Tower Road and looks out the window of their car as they drive by, they're over a thousand feet away from where this tank's gonna be.

So in hitting the wrong button, I apologize.

Um so in reality, as you go down the road, this is a street view image of the area of where that tower is going to be and what that tower would look like.

Um we're planning on leaving a lot of these trees in front.

There will be a driveway cut at an angle that gets back to it, but these trees would kind of cover the base of it.

So obviously the sign has to be up at the top.

Um, and then when looking at the percentage and how big that sign would be, it might sound like it's large on a percentage basis, but as you can see from this image here, that is the size of the sign on that size of the bulb.

Doesn't look that big from the road.

Um with that, we talked um Mr.

Batista talked a little bit before that the same thing has come up many times in the past.

The two most recent um applications that Tidewater has made to the board, uh both happened back in late 2024, December, November 2024.

Um these uh two applications here the the top one here is Eagle Meadows.

This is the exact same size tank that we are hoping to do now, 500,000 gallons.

It is the exact same size sign that we're hoping to do now, 672 square feet.

Uh the biggest difference here is this tower um was only nine feet off the road, and we're a thousand feet off of Fire Tower Road.

Um the uh planning staff had the same recommendations.

They approved two of the three variances, recommended two of the three.

The only one they didn't recommend approval for was that 10% of the sign.

Um, however, it was granted approval by the board.

Uh the to the the second one here that we list is the uh fork branch tower.

This one's twice the size.

The bulb was twice the size when that was a million gallons.

The sign was exactly twice the size of the sign.

So the aspect ratio between the size of the sign and the size of the bulb is the same.

Again, had the same recommendations for planning staff, but it did receive approval for all those variances there.

So I think there's a precedent set for um for for what you can find around the county.

This here's just an overall map that shows a lot of the existing elevated tanks throughout Kent County.

Um we have a couple here in red that uh have been in operation.

The two I just talked about, um, Eagle Meadows tank is shown here in blue, and the fork branch fork branch tank uh is also shown in blue.

Those are the two that were just approved most recently in the end of 2024.

And then uh there's a new one here, also called uh Carpenter's Bridge Tank.

It's uh currently under construction, but not yet online.

And then the one we're talking about here tonight, Gerald Ridge, uh they're shown in the black.

And then just for some clarity, here are some pictures of some of those tanks that you could see there.

So these are uh all tanks that are built within Kent County jurisdiction and um have been approved in the past.

And then uh a view at some other tanks here that are municipal tanks, wouldn't have come through this board, but just to kind of give you an idea that this is not an unusual uh circumstance or request.

So that's the end of my yammering, but I'd be glad to answer any questions or at least try to that you might have.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Yeah.

Um what what is adequate water pressure?

How much pressure do you need to have to have adequate water pressure?

That one is a great question for uh tidewater utilities, and unfortunately they um aren't here tonight, we're supposed to be.

Um I don't know the intricacies of their system and how they do their modeling.

Um and I don't know what their um what their zones are that they look for in that.

I apologize.

Okay, so if um if you have one PSI for every 2.31 feet, that would give you approximately how much water pressure, about 58 water pressure pounds of pressure.

Approximately try not to do the math.

Yeah, so what I guess what I'm asking is if the water pressure is measured off height and not the size of that tank.

Is that why 137 feet would be needed instead of 85 or 80, whatever the minimum is?

Uh it is it is for that reason to get the adequate pressure.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

In our in our paperwork, under the staff recommendations for this application, they are recommending denial of the variance of the sign size of 672 square feet based on the analysis of the four criteria which are listed.

I'm sure you've probably seen this.

Um just as a matter of putting something on the record, could you address that?

You want to that?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh and the um staff's recommendation is consistent with what they did before.

They have to do it.

The reason they have to do it is because it's not their position.

This board is the one that's situated to make these, is it apples to apples, is it's apple to oranges?

Right now, it would be an interpretation.

What is the ordinance written for?

Written for a sign, a bulb, and then you apply the factors.

They really do their job and they've been consistent to it.

And they've expressed that to us.

I said, fine.

I mean, we same thing in 24, same analysis.

We presented the same analysis.

And that and that's why I think the staff is just being consistent with what they're doing.

And not punting to the board, but the board is the one that has the uh authority to be able to make those judgment calls.

And I wanted something on the record, which is why every time you come before us, I ask the same question.

That's fine.

Thank you.

What is the exceptional practical difficulty of of not adhering to the signage code?

I mean, what if there's no sign up there?

The issue and was this was explained before.

It's with respect to, you know, there is a uh uh uh interest in the company of showing their corporate brand, showing whose tank it is, showing how it's maintained, so when people see it, it's like who's whose tank is that?

So it's part of just the the corporate and business interests of advertising who it is.

Uh if you got a complaint, you knew who to call.

So it's you know Newcastle County, you got Viola, you have Artesian and you know, everyone's putting their names up there.

Uh that's the difficulty would be you you couldn't do it.

You'd be squinting.

You could so the yeah.

Basically it's it's keeping the corporate breaking.

Are all the towers have the company logo or some of them the town logo so forth?

It depends on who's providing the water.

So tide water, it's can I don't know how to change the graphic, but that's what you're gonna see on the tidewater towers.

Uh yeah.

Yeah, that.

So they're all gonna look like that.

Unless the town wants or county wants something else on there, then you can talk to them.

But typically that doesn't happen.

And you'll see there's some others, like I think it's one of the schools has their emblem on there or something like that.

The Air Force has the Air Force emblem on there.

So Tidewater, they don't they don't service any municipalities, they're all privately owned.

Uh I wish our engineer was here.

I think you get caught in traffic.

I'm going to say I don't think so.

I think the municipalities that have their own water supply and water systems service themselves, but some make contract with Artesian.

I mean Artesian, sorry.

Tidewater or Artesian to uh provide water.

One of the questions, the actual location of the tower where it's supposed to be, why that spot?

Why not anywhere else on this um on the property?

That's a developer question.

I'll bring it back to this one here.

It's to help with the code.

So the code states that if you do go above that e-foot height, anything has to be that tower has to be have the exact same setbacks of its height from any surrounding properties.

So this is a great location where it um you know it's backed up to natural resources and things you don't have to worry about those setbacks to.

Um there's no um danger of you know new homes being underneath the shadow of it or right next to it.

Um we also have, as I said, uh overhand overhead transmission line going through.

So obviously we had to stay away from that.

So it kind of almost pigeonholed it to a very good location right here where um not only can it um uh keep away from the residential lots, it um you know, as we as we showed in the I keep going the wrong direction here.

You showed in the photo, you know, it's kind of tucked back in the tree, so you don't see the base of it, kind of keeps it back in there, and then it can allow the residential um homes that we laid out uh be done without having to take down trees to swap places with it.

So um just seemed like a good fit.

Uh I would just stay for the record if you know you're tied up with the percentage on the sign size.

Um, you know, uh I would implore again that this is it's not a building, it's it's not a normal structure.

Um I think if we all agreed that due to pressure, you agree tidewater needs to build a tank of this size and the tank needs to be this high so that they can have their system be safe for all the residents of Kent County.

Well, if that were the case, then why couldn't they build a square block building that's 140 feet high and 56 feet wide?

And if they built that straight up building and just thought the tank in the middle of it, well, then that sign would be 8% of the building frontage, and you would meet the code.

So to build the exact same sign on a ball that you could put on a building without needing the variance, to me seems kind of uh a moot point.

Um that I don't know why they think they should be punished, because the the construction of the tower and the way that it's shaped like a ball with a pedestal underneath it, um, you know, they should be uh punished towards a percentage ratio just because that's the way it's written in the code.

I don't I wouldn't feel myself that's the intent of what the code is trying to do.

Does this tower just serve that neighborhood or is it for like the surrounding area?

Um it the way it was described to me um by Tidewater is that uh the subdivision could actually work without it, but that the surrounding greater area um would need it to keep that pressure up.

Any other questions?

Uh I'll just throw something in if I could.

So you might not be the ideal person to ask, but it's generally true, is it not, that um tidewater has an incentive to build the this to certain dimensions that meet the uh proposed needs or prospective needs that they're anticipating and they have an incentive not to build it any larger than that, isn't that right?

Correct.

It has to meet the needs of the current development, and as indicated, if they didn't build it, the there were they could still provide water to the current development, but then everybody else it drops, right?

So right now, this there was the little map with where you see all the towers.

They have a calculation that if we're gonna have density here, then we need a tower so big to be able to provide for these folks and everybody else, because they're gonna be pulling on what's already going there.

And that's why it has to be certain height.

But they don't they have an incentive.

I I assume it's more expensive to build a larger bulb, a higher tower.

You're correct.

And so they have an incentive to make this right sized, right?

Correct.

Yeah, it's not not overkill, like let's put a big two million dollar.

I don't think they're building the ball just to have to sign that bank, if that's what you're alluding to.

Well, sort of, yeah.

I mean, and then the size of the bulb is um plays a role in the formula that dictates um the the size of the of the sign or lettering that goes on it, right?

Correct.

And as uh presented, you know, the previous applications that were uh provided.

And as uh presented, you know, the previous applications that were uh provided here we just took the the size of the ball, but the other two is a but if you're gonna take the whole stem, then it's it lowers the calculation.

So historically with the other towers, um the size of the sign in respect to the bulb has been the same consistently throughout.

So where they have had towers that are twice the size, the sign is equally twice the size.

So it's it's uh it's a standard ratio of sign to ball, if you would.

But economically it makes no sense to build a larger tower and ball than you need in order to have a larger signage.

I mean that that just doesn't correct pencil.

Questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application?

If you're online, please raise your electronic hand.

No hands raised online.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this application?

Seeing no one online and no one in the room, we will close the public hearing for application A-26-07.

Next we have application A2608 for Mr.

and Mrs.

Cross.

The present zoning district is AR.

They are seeking a variance from the requirement that an accessory structure shall not be located in the front yard or front setback unless located 100 feet from the front property line.

This is to legalize the existing detached garage.

The president's use is residential.

Proposed use the same with a legalized detached garage.

Levy Court District 6 for Mr.

Hertz.

Located on the west side of Iron Mine Road, approximately 0.28 miles north of Sand Town Road, west of Felton.

Here you will see in orange the propos or the subject detached accessory building that's approximately 57 feet from the front property line, and the existing dwelling that's 73 feet from the front property line.

This is looking at the existing home and the subject accessory building to the right.

Down the road.

This is looking from the front of the home right there on your left, and then in front of you is the existing detached accessory building.

The other direction.

Again, the subject accessory building.

So if one of you would like to state your name and address and allow our attorney to swear you in, please.

Excuse me.

Good afternoon.

My name is Deborah Carros.

I reside at 31 R my Road, Felton, Delaware.

Ms.

Cross, could you pull that microphone a little bit closer to you?

Very good.

So d 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 you may proceed.

Um approval of this variant would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

It won't harm the pub the public's interest or impair the use of attitude um properties and turn down and starting over again what causes hardship.

Thank you for your time and consideration of approval for this request.

Thank you.

Can you just give us a little background of maybe this is staff background of what what occurred here?

Yes.

So a permit was pulled for the accessory building.

The subject building was intended to be approximately 74 feet from the front property line.

At some point, the building was built where in its current location.

One of our inspectors noticed that it was in front of the home.

And that is how it was brought to our attention.

I mean is that just where you decided that you wanted the building, or how did how did you pick the location for the building?

The measurements were for some unforeseen reasons was all off.

So did you measure it yourself or did the contractor measure it?

The contractor um measured it.

The measurements that we had, he came back, and he said who did the measurements, and we said we did.

So he said, okay, um, I'm gonna have to go back and check and see if they were adequate.

So he went and got his little measuring and roll and play uh replaced the flags.

So I noticed on your site plan you guys had a septic tank.

Did the builder happen to push your building forward to avoid building on top of your septic tank?

Oh, and on the far side where the building is located.

Thank you.

It may it may be obvious, but could you tell us what difficulty it would be for you to move this?

I mean, for you we don't have the money to do it.

So it would be costly.

Yes.

Um is the building on um footers, is it attached to the ground?

Yes.

Yes.

Any other detail you can add along those lines about how you're um suffering harm as a result of having to be asked to strictly comply with the code.

So essentially this body looks to see if there's an exceptional practical difficulty, which in lay terms is the reason why you need the variance.

Yes.

And it sounds to me from your testimony as that this would be so costly that you are unable to do it.

Just I'm just trying to get the set something for the record.

Clear, make it more clear.

Yes.

Thank you.

The other question for the board.

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application?

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

Uh my name is Ron Kitching.

My address is 331 Iron Mine Road, Felton, Delaware, 1994.

And I apologize for the sunglasses.

Um one second.

One second.

Um your last name again?

Kitchen.

K-I-T-C-H-I-N-G.

Kitchen.

Yeah, kitchen.

Uh Mr.

Kitching, do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony given this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

All right.

Um I apologize for sunglasses.

I I don't have my regular sunglasses and these are prescription.

Otherwise I'll just be squinting at everybody.

So I just want to apologize.

I don't want to I don't want to be squinting at everybody.

Um I'm the next door neighbor of Curtis and Deb.

I'm just north of just north of them.

I'm boom, where the blue Prius is.

That's my that's my house right there on the top.

Um neighbors for years.

Uh their pole building is in the front yard.

I have no issue with it.

Um when the flags were first put out, it was set different.

And then I know I have ring cameras around the house, so when every time it goes off, you know, I see what's going on with the ring cameras.

Um the contractor, Del Marble Pole building, I believe it is, came out.

The flags are there.

They came out like, oh no, we got to move it.

And I saw them out there reflagging, they were removing it, and that was it.

Um they came in, they poured the concrete, they put the uh building up.

Uh the building, I think is a great asset.

It's uh there's no issue with me.

I mean, it's right next to my house.

I have no issue with it being in front of their property or in front of my property, or it's no hardship for me whatsoever.

It would be a great hardship for them.

Just the cost of the concrete alone to replace that, tear it up, and then move it back, or just even to add on to it would be a hardship.

And like I said, I have no issue whatsoever with their property, their their bar their garage, detached garage being set forward like that.

I mean I understand there's rules, but it's that's where it works for them, and I have no issue with it.

And I've been I've been there 30 years, so good and no safety concerns leaving your driveway and stuff like that.

None whatsoever.

None whatsoever.

There, as a matter of fact, I think where the driveway is now, there was another driveway there previously.

They just kind of cleaned it up to make that more accessible.

So there's always the entire time I've lived there, there's been a driveway there.

I think that the chairman's question was really directed to whether or not that building impairs your view of the road as you go down your driveway, and is it is it created a safety issue?

None at all.

None at all.

Matter of fact, where the where the trees are in the front there by my driveway.

Um they cleared out a majority of those trees and like the the brownish bush that sits back off the road a little bit by itself.

They cleared all that all the way down to the ground.

So if anything, they made it easier for when we're trying to exit the driveway to be able to see.

So they've cut the majority.

I think the only thing that's left now are two tall trees, and the trunks are that big around.

So that's not a as to visually not impairing us whatsoever as far as getting in and out of the driveway or accessing it.

Very good.

Any other questions from the board?

Thank you.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you.

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

Anyone online, please raise your electronic hand.

No hands raised online.

Thank you.

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

Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing for application A-26-08.

Thank you.

Does anyone need to take a break or keep rolling?

All right, keep rolling.

Call roll, please, for the business meeting.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Carter?

Here.

Mr.

Simpson?

Mr.

Jenkins?

Here.

Mr.

Gallo?

Here.

Miss Stenney?

Here.

Ms.

Hudson?

Here.

Mr.

Cusick?

Here.

Thank you.

That's seven still present.

Thank you.

All right.

Begin the business meeting.

We need approval of the business meetings from the March 19th meeting.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the March meeting of the Board of Adjustment.

Second.

Got a motion and second all in favor.

Aye.

Next up, notice of decision, application A twenty-six-05.

I make a motion that for approval of the notice of decision A26.

Got a motion a second, all in favor.

And do we have old business?

Yes, sir, we do.

So we have an application.

It's A2509 for Ms.

Faye Wing.

She was seeking a variance last year that you folks granted for a fence and accessory buildings.

This was due to the relocation of Walnut Chain.

Dell DOT has also been a part of this application because it was part of the Dell Dot project and the new roundabout that's going in.

Due to Dell DOT not being at the point where they're ready for construction, they are not ready to put the fence up.

So she is seeking a variant.

She does have support of Dell Dot from that.

Dell dot has reached out to staff stating that they are not prepared to go ahead and install that.

If she doesn't do something at this point, um they will have to come back in the fall, which is when Dell Dot is saying that they will be starting that project.

So she is seeking a one-year variance with support of staff and Dell DOT.

So we are just looking for approval tonight of that.

Do you mean extension?

Yes, I'm sorry, extension of one year.

Thank you.

I will make a motion uh for the approval of a one-year extension for I'm looking for the application number for application 2509.

Second.

We got a motion and second.

Can we do a vote or just go around?

Um you'll need a uh typical roll call vote, and we can give some reasons.

I'd appreciate it.

Yep.

I vote in support of the motion for application A twenty-five oh nine based upon the fact that Dell Dot is playing a role in the postponement of this project at this time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Simpson.

I make a motion to support based on it being out of her control.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gallo.

Vote in favor of the motion.

Is there a number of moving parts to that project and and uh the delay is somewhat out of her control?

Thank you.

Ms.

Hudson.

I vote in favor of the motion based off the staff recommendation and the information provided to us from Dell Dot.

Thank you.

Mr.

Carter.

I vote in favor of the application or motion based on staff recommendation and the testimony tonight.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dunny.

Um I vote yes on the motion based on um the fact that the comments I made when I made the motion.

Uh Dell Bot Dell dot moves at its own rate of speed, which leaves very few of us completely out of we have zero, absolutely zero control.

And we find that with many of our state agencies, just to set the record straight.

Thank you.

Mr.

Cusick.

I vote in favor of the motion as Dell dot per Dell dot's timeline and out of the applicant's control.

Thank you.

That's seven in favor of the one-year extension.

Thank you.

Application A twenty five-09 is approved for a one-year extension.

We'll move on to new business and looks like everyone's here, so we'll start with application A2606.

Yes, sir.

All right.

So again, this is for Big Jim's homes LLC.

They are seeking a variance from the front setback for principal structure, rear setback for principal structure, and front setback for the existing shed.

They are exist sorry, they are proposing to relocate the existing manufactured home that is there now.

The existing manufactured home is currently two 23.7 feet from Poplar, was it which is what they are seeking from Poplar.

They are also seeking a 13.3 feet rear setback and then to be 28.7 feet for the accessory building from the front property line.

Any discussion or motion?

Uh yeah.

Oh, I don't think we discussed it during the actual process, but this particular parcel has two fronts, right?

So it's making it extremely challenging for the applicant to possibly meet all of the requirements as far as what's a rear and what's a front and what's a side, because you got two fronts.

I agree with that because um very often uh something that has two frontage just we it creates its own exceptional practical difficulty.

So absolutely I agree with that.

I'll make a motion for a twenty-six zero six.

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

And I believe removing the rest restrictions would not seriously affect a neighboring properties.

Second.

You have a motion and a second.

Thank you.

Ms.

Denny.

I vote yes.

Um I do see an exceptional practical difficulty that's created here in uh locating this based on the double frontage and um the just the lay of the land where all the other accessories and things are.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gallo.

Vote in favor of the motion.

Um I I think uh the applicant meets all the uh requirements.

Um I believe that he's actually improving uh the situation from what it is.

And um and with that, the staff recommendations and the neighbor's testimony, a vote in favor of that motion.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Jenkins?

I vote in support of the motion for application A 2606, based upon the reasons given by staff, the testimony presented to us tonight, and the complexity of having the double fronts and the narrow, the the narrowness of the lot in general.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Simpson.

I vote in favor of the motion 26-06.

Um based off the staff report and that the property owner can have the full dwelling on his own property and not the neighbor's property.

Thank you, Mr.

Carter.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

I vote in favor for my motion.

Thank you, ma'am.

And Mr.

Cusick.

I vote in favor of the motion um per staff recommendation.

Um and then the the property is unique in nature here with two fronts as well as the uh the applicant is doing due diligence is making this property right um as best you can.

Thank you.

That's seven in favor of the motion.

Thank you with seven in favor.

Application A26-06 is approved.

Okay.

Moving on, we have application A2607 for tidewater utilities.

Again, they are seeking a variance from the maximum height of the tower.

The permitted allowance is 80 feet.

They are seeking to go 136 and a half feet.

The permitted sign size is permitted to be 280 square feet, which is 10 percent of the building front.

They are proposing 24 percent, which is 672 square feet, and they are also seeking a variance from the sign height limit of 30 feet from uh grade, and they are seeking to go 123 and a half feet from green.

Thank you.

Any comments or motion?

Did we want to tackle this one at a time or I had that question within my head?

Like, should we just just to make it clear, do them separately?

That's fine.

Let's do the uh maximum height requirement of 80 feet first.

I'll make a motion for A2607 um to approve the variance to allow the lower tower to be 140 feet in height based off the staff recommendation in the public testimony we heard today.

Second got a motion and second for the maximum height requirement of 140 feet.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dunny.

I vote yes.

We hear um these particular type of applications from time to time, and I'm not trying to set a precedence.

However, um based on the information provided with regard to pressures, um locations, etc.

I think it it's um the size and the need is very appropriate.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jenkins?

I vote in support of the motion for uh application A2607, the height requirement uh based on the technicalities that have been presented to us tonight, um, based on the need, not just for that development, but outlying areas.

It's deemed necessary to have that height in excess of the uh original requirement.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Gallow.

I vote in favor of the motion based on the testimony given uh the need in the uh the for the development of the land is appropriate.

Thank you.

Mr.

Simpson.

I vote in favor of the motion 26-07, the height requirement.

Um based on the testimony that we heard tonight and the staff report.

Thank you.

Mr.

Carter?

I vote in favor of the motion based on the testimony tonight, the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hudson.

I vote in favor per my motion.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Cusick.

I vote in favor of the motion um per the staff recommendation as well as the uh testimony given tonight.

Um that um that that is that water tower is needed in this area.

Thank you.

That is seven in favor of the motion.

Thank you with seven in favor.

The variance of the maximum height requirement of eighty feet um to 140 feet is approved.

Um let's do the next one.

Any comments or motion?

I really um I I think that again we hear these from time to time, and it's there's kind of a standard sign size that tide water has that we typically hear.

Um while I understand um the necessity of rec of uh recommendation for denial um because we truly don't want to start setting precedence and you know if the recommendation is based on how it fits within the code.

But I do see an exceptional practical difficulty if we were to deny this because it is a standard for that has been set for a long time for tide water.

Yeah, just to be clear, this is this uh variance is for the we're talking about is for the height, so not the I'm sorry, the height, the height and that's for the pressures.

But it goes it goes same thing.

Any other discussion or motion?

I'll make a motion for A2607.

I vote to approve the variance for the signage to start at 124 feet above grade, based off the staff recommendation and public testimony that we heard tonight.

I'll second the motion.

Got a motion and second.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gallo?

I vote in favor of the motion.

Um the height requirement follows the uh allowance of the um variants we gave for the height of the tower, and that would be a logical place for situating it, and it would be a practical difficulty not to put it there.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jenkins?

I voted in support of the motion for uh application A twenty-six oh seven with the maximum sign sign height.

Uh based upon uh the presentation to us this evening in terms of why the signage is necessary and we need to go they needed to go outside of the 30 foot to construct it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Simpson?

I vote in support of the motion for um application 26-07 for the uh maximum sign height um based off the testimony that we heard tonight.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dunny.

I vote yes.

Um I again I think it's important that their standards are kept.

They're not asking for anything different or unusual.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hudson.

I vote in favor per my motion.

Thank you, ma'am.

And Mr.

Kusick.

I vote in favor of the motion per staff recommendation.

Thank you.

That is seven in favor of the motion.

Thank you.

With seven in favor, the variance to increase the sign proposed height to 123.5 feet is approved.

And then the last one will be the variance for the permitted sign size from 10 percent to 24 percent.

Discussion or motion.

I just want to just talk just like the proportion of this thing, just so if this thing is a hundred and forty feet in the air, just the proportions of it, just it all makes sense.

I will say that uh uh in my opinion, I don't know that they made the case if this was an exceptional practical difficulty for the sign size.

I think you can make the case that half that size would be also legible from the road.

It doesn't necessarily have to have all the the writing on it.

Um just the thought.

And not to go against your thought process, but this is kind of a standard for tide water, and we've been over I'm not that we're I again I'm the person who's always saying I want to set up residence, but it's it's a standard.

Um even uh I'm they're not gonna change the tower.

I mean, they're not gonna change the size of the tower, and and that's what typically is there, the design and everything, and I think what everything is more expensive now anyway, without having to redesign something to fit.

I I wouldn't expect them to um change the size of the tower related to the sign.

But it's also what is the minimal my thought is what is the minimal relief uh that's reasonable.

And uh I think it's worth I thought it was worth discussing, that's all.

I I agree with Mr.

Gellow.

You're right.

I think we should consider something or think about something in the future in regards to this.

Well all that said, I'm going to make a motion um to approve and I'm looking for the application application A twenty six zero seven.

Um this is has been an ongoing way that Tidewater has um has designed and set these water towers and um uh perhaps discussion in the future, but for for tonight's application, I think um I think we should we should approve it.

Second.

I'm sorry.

That motion related to the sign size restriction.

Um just for the record.

Yes, for the record.

Um Mr.

Townsend, it definitely um speaking to the saw the size of the sign or the writing on the tower.

The logo.

Thanks to the motion and second.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Jenkins?

I'll vote in supported a motion for application A twenty six oh seven for the maximum size of this sign in relationship to the increase uh based on the whole discussion of the bulb and that the signage fits the bulb and it's a part of their standard.

Thank you, Mr.

Gowell?

Um I'm gonna vote against the motion.

I don't believe uh they present an exceptional practical difficulty regarding the the size of the sign and also take into account uh the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Mr.

Simpson?

I'm gonna vote in favor of the motion 26-07 and the size of the sign.

Um we give them the height, so you know it only makes sense to give them the size.

It's it's their brand and it's their stamp.

Um it's their property, so I don't think it's gonna be an eye sore.

I mean, I've never rode by a water tower and said, well, that's hideous, but so I'm going to uh vote in support of the motion.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

I vote in favor of the motion.

24 percent of the building area fronts.

I believe removing restriction doesn't seriously affect neighboring properties.

Thank you.

Mr.

Carter?

I vote in favor of the motion uh based on the testimony tonight.

Thank you.

Ms.

Denny.

I vote yes on the motion based on the fact that um there's been no objection.

No and and this is a standard.

Thank you.

Mr.

Cusick?

I vote in favor of the motion.

Um just per the tonight's testimony.

I think the proportions um definitely plays a part in this, um the height and then the shape of it, um the uniqueness of it and then as well as the ability, the hardship there for the company to stay competitive and be able to brand.

Thank you.

That is six in favor and one opposed of the motion.

Thank you.

A six in favor, um application 826-07, all three variances are approved.

If I could, um I think it's evident from the deliberations, I'd like to say before Tidewater's representatives leave that that this board struggles with applications like this, um, just as Tidewater struggles with complying with the sign restrictions and the height restrictions for for structures that are required to be taller uh in order to serve their purpose.

So it the board's not accustomed to giving probably routine um relief from a code to the extent of what's required to relieve your your difficulties in these cases.

And perhaps tidewater could lead to charge to take another look at the code and see if you couldn't define water towers in such a way and create standards that are that wouldn't require you to come in here before the board.

Mr.

Townsend, along the same line.

Aren't they required to get a permit for this hour?

Yes, they have to get a um permit for it, but they have already already applied for the conditional use site plan as well.

So they will be heard at the RPC and levy court at the May meetings for the conditional use with site plan.

Okay.

So next up we have application A twenty-six oh eight for Mr.

and Mrs.

Cross.

Again, they are seeking a variance from the requirement that an accessory structure shall not be located in the front yard or front setback unless located a hundred feet from the front property line.

This is to legalize the existing accessory structure.

That is 57 feet, and the home is 73 feet from the front property line.

Thank you.

Discussion or motion.

Well, just on the lighter side of things, I don't think they should be penalized for an error that clearly was not their fault.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I agree too.

I think maybe the builder saw that the septic was there and didn't really realize that by moving the building the 20 feet away from the septic that it would push them to encroaching on the front setback.

So that's what it's none of I believe it's not their fault.

I think it was just one of the things that slipped through the cracks.

I agree with that, and I think in addition to that.

You know, foundation concrete, all of that.

I think it's an exorbitant expense for them to be penalized for something that was not their fault.

I'll make a motion for A2608.

I vote to approve based off the staff recommendation, the public testimony heard tonight.

Also plays into the exceptional practical difficulty of having to move the building on to top of it.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

Thank you.

Ms.

Denny.

I vote yes.

I believe that this would be a um and a huge hardship on this on the crosses because of the expense to undo the error that they did not make.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jenkins?

I'll vote in support of the motion for application A twenty-six-08 uh, primarily for two reasons.

One, uh the area, uh error that occurred that was not the applicant's fault, and the financial hardship that they would incur if they had to comply with the code.

Thank you.

Mr.

Simpson?

I vote in favor of the motion for application A 26-08 based on the testimony we heard tonight and the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gallow?

My vote in favor of the motion.

Um moving that building would create an exceptional practical difficulty for the applicant.

Um the county did have an opportunity to correct the situation prior to the building.

Thank you.

Mr.

Carter.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

I vote in favor for my motion.

Thank you, ma'am.

And Mr.

Cusick.

I vote in favor of the motion.

I think this one checks all four criteria per staff recommendation as well as the uh no impact on neighboring property for the testimony tonight, and clearly the hardship there for the uh applicant, um, the financial hardship there.

Thank you.

That is seven in favor of the motion.

Thank you.

With seven in favor, application eight twenty-six-08 is approved.

Motion to adjourn.

Make a motion we adjourn.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.