Everyone, we're gonna call the January 2026 Board of Adjustment to Order.

And uh happy new year to everyone.

First, let me uh go over some basic rules, operating procedures, and then uh we'll call for uh roll call and go from there.

As an applicant comes to give a presentation, we ask that they direct their comments to to the board, not to others in the audience, and not to the staff unless we ask for some guidance from staff.

Only four individuals can speak in support of an application and four against each speaker is limited to five minutes.

I don't think we'll have a problem with that today based on the audience at one minute time.

There'll be a warning bell or beep to let you know your time is soon to conclude.

Um then I let the opposition speakers speak, and that after that's all been completed, the applicant gets a two-minute opportunity for rebuttal or comments.

And if you come to the podium, give your name and address for the record.

Ask everyone in the audience and the board to turn their cell phones, electronic devices on silent or off so that we don't have any disturbance during the meeting.

And if you have questions regarding the board's decision after we go into deliberation and make a decision, you will contact the um planning department 251208-5895.

Um let's see here.

If there's anything that kind of runs long from a comment or statement standpoint, I'll kind of try to pursue moving it and concluding that.

Also, if we have any interruptions of an applicant's statement or anyone in the audience, I have the liberty of extending if I think we've interfered with your um time period.

All right, and we'll see.

Uh if any board member finds that they need to recuse themselves, we normally will defer to make sure that we have a supernumerated to vote in their absence.

Uh we'll address that when we look at the roll call.

Uh let's see here.

I think that's pretty much it.

So we'll start with uh roll call.

Mr.

Metcalf.

Here, Mr.

Golden, Mr.

Milling, Mr.

Petway, absent, Mr.

Morris.

Ms.

Farrell.

Here, Mr.

Adison, supernumerary absent.

Mr.

Williams, supernumerary.

Okay, we have a quorum with uh Mr.

Williams acting in an official capacity, and with that, we'll proceed with a call for a vote on the agenda.

Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented?

Move for approval, Mr.

Chairman.

Have a motion to approve.

Do I have second?

Second.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Okay.

Agenda's approved as presented.

And I'm not sure we got everyone here from an applicant standpoint, but we'll go in order and if we have to move along, we'll do that and come back.

Application 6529, 6394 regarding 133 Eaton Square.

Your name and address yep.

Thank you.

Millie Noblet, and it's 133 Eaton Square.

And we're trying to get well, we we need to extend our variants for the site plan that we have proposed.

And we just are slow.

But this is the final time.

I'm I'm gonna do it this time if you approve it.

Okay.

Have we already approved an extension?

Couple of times.

Have we so you know the route?

You know the routine, huh?

I did promise to stay off the utility easement in the back last time.

I was reminded to stay away, and that won't be a problem.

So if I can convince my husband to agree with me, then it should get done this time, please.

Okay, and nothing else has changed regarding your application.

All right.

Questions of the board for the applicant?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

How much time do you need?

The start.

How much of an extension period?

Are you comfortable with maybe 10 years?

Probably not.

One month, three months.

What do you think?

What is it normally take?

I don't know.

You're you're setting a record, it sounds like three months.

Let's do that.

Well, is this a six-month deal?

Or six months?

Six months?

Yeah.

Okay.

I think six months is standard.

Because anything can happen.

Yeah.

All right.

Any questions once again for the applicant?

All right.

Anyone in the audience, either in support or opposition?

All right.

Thank you.

And uh we hope that we don't have to talk to you again.

Thank you.

All right.

Um that'll conclude our public hearing regarding the request for an extension on this one.

Chair entertain a motion.

Make a motion to uh um give the applicant an extension of six months.

Okay, a motion to approve a six month extension.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Have a second further discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

All right, motions carried.

Good luck to you.

All right.

Next is 6633 regarding 5201 Girby Road.

Your name and address, sir.

Robert Clay Buckley, 571 Lakeview Drive West Mobile 36695.

You're requesting an extension as well.

I am.

Please uh I beg for your patience and and forgiveness that I have to come to you again for asking for another extension.

However, uh it seems that my electrical engineer did not get his comments returned back to the city as quickly as I'd hoped, so therefore I'm still waiting on permanents to build.

Okay.

All right.

Questions of the board for the applicant.

Do you think that's the last of kind of the holdups from your construction side?

Yeah.

According to my architect, yes.

The electrical engineer has got to submit uh a couple of changes to the city, and then and then everything else should be hopefully maybe should be good.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

Any additional questions?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience in support or opposition?

All right.

We have done for the record.

Uh conclude our public hearing regarding this request for an extension.

With that, Chair entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve six-month extension.

Okay, a motion to approve six month extension.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second.

Further discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you again.

All right.

Now back on to our actual public hearings on new applications.

6620, 6626, 5441 regarding 27 12, Old Shell Road.

Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioners, good afternoon.

I'm Jay Watkins with Maynard Nexon 11 Southwater Northwater Street, suite 24 290, Mobile 36602.

We're here this afternoon on a request for a side yard setback modification as well as a sidewalk connecting to the existing right-of-way sidewalk waiver.

The building on this site is a one-story building.

It has been constructed.

I'm sorry, the west side and about 0.39 feet off on the uh east side.

And so the first thing we'd be asking today is that the board approve that variance in the sidewalk, I mean side yard setback so that they can get their certificate of occupancy.

Um the second thing that we're working on today is there's a requirement that the building be connected to the sidewalk by a connecting sidewalk.

Um this property was permitted, they went in and did the field work and realized that the almost I'm not sure I'm saying this right, the crown or the curb of Old Shell Road was higher than they had originally anticipated, and they needed to raise the finished floor elevation by six inches.

Um by doing that, that makes a connecting sidewalk from either Old Shell Road or Randolph Street.

Um they can't make a direct path because of the rise to run that be required for ADA compliance.

Um, and so we are asking that you allow a variance from that to waive that connecting sidewalk requirement.

You'll note that they have created uh ADA compliant parking and uh entryway through the parking lot.

Um as context, this is a family office building.

This is not going to be retail, this is not going to be anything where they're having a lot of customer traffic.

Um the way this building is set up architecturally on the interior is they anticipate the rear of the building being the entrance.

Uh they would prefer not to have foot traffic coming in off of Old Shell Road, and so um they would ask that the board consider waiving that connecting sidewalk requirement.

Okay.

Questions of the applicants, repair a door on the Old Shell Road and Randolph Street.

There is a door on the Old Shell Road frontage.

Um, I believe that is maybe a DDD requirement.

I think there is a frontage requirement on the on the door having some front of the of the building designated in the sidewalk capital.

The sidewalks on Randolph and on Old Shell Road are existing.

Um is that correct?

Did y'all build the sidewalk on the road?

Side to the front should side connection as elevation five questions.

So those sidewalks are in place.

Okay, once again, any other questions from the board?

All right.

Do we have anyone in the audience either in support or opposition?

Anything to add?

Okay, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding the application.

Discussion of the board.

So the issue we're having is the elevation exceeds the rise and run for the ADA.

Is there a way that you know we've already got it striped for the ADA compliance in the parking lot?

Is there a way that you can strike from the sidewalk through the parking lot through that striping of the ADA parking spot to allow access?

Is that possible?

To the sidewalk, since we've already got the ADA striping in the parking lot.

If that's the ADA entrance, could we stripe inside the parking lot itself from the sidewalk?

Is that I would think it's possible that the driveway may not meet the slope requirements of ADA either.

So if you were to put a marked accessible route, it still may not comply.

Okay, any additional questions?

So just clarification for me says the sidewalk issue that we're talking about waiving has nothing to do with public pedestrians sidewalk usage, it has to do with ADA compliance in order to access the building.

The the UDC requires a pedestrian connection from public sidewalks to the primary entrance of the structure.

So and it does require that that entrance be accessible.

So make to uh federal and local standards for accessibility.

So they could put one in, but they're saying that they cannot meet that accessible requirement, so that's what the issue is.

Okay, thank you.

And to be clear, I mean, we have the the access to the building is there ADA compliant-wise from the parking lot.

Um we would argue that the main entrance of that building is off the parking lot, but are you know the frontage is actually on Old Shell Road?

They they truly don't want foot traffic kind of coming off Old Shell.

There's nowhere to park there.

They don't want to encourage people to be stopping there.

Okay, any further questions?

All right, thank you once again.

All right, Chair entertain a motion.

Move for approval, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

For findings of facts, yes.

I have a motion to approve for findings of fact to have a second, second, have a second for the discussion.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you all.

Yeah, all right.

Application 6721 regarding uh 601 Palmetto Street.

Dennis Langan construction is agent.

All right.

This is one of those, I guess.

Well once again, application 6721 regarding 601 Palmetto Street.

Any of you here for that?

Okay.

All right.

Well is that the one with the site.

Um this is one actually they had a two different site planes.

Okay, because this is showing Charleston Street and Savannah Street.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

We'll move on to application five, which is 6722 regarding 122 Michael Donald Boulevard.

Applicant.

Good afternoon.

Your name and address, please.

Absolutely.

Good afternoon.

My name is Cole Brown.

I own the property at 122 Michael Donald Avenue in the city of Mobile.

I'm here to uh ask the board for zoning uh relief and as well as uh use and access variance for this property.

Uh this is a currently a vacant lot that historically had been a duplex prior to it being uh raised by the city because of health and safety issues for the community.

And so um after purchasing this lot, I am proposing to put a similar property that meets the same architectural design features and usability as other properties that are located within the same vicinity within the 300 feet, as well as on Michael Donald and O'Shell Road that abuts it.

So this property would be a four-unit uh property uh that will provide additional housing, safe, stable, affordable housing for residents in the community.

Um my rationale for being at this meeting is for use.

Currently is zoned in R1.

Um I'm asking for a variance to allow for the use of the four units, as well as given the size, the nature and the location of the property.

I would ask for uh variance for the access and maneuverability.

I believe the R3 code requires 24 feet of two-way access in and out of the property, and given the the proximity to the other properties, uh, we're able to uh to put in roughly 13 to 16 feet and allow for around roughly five um parking spaces, and I believe the zoning requires one at one and a half parking spaces per unit.

So that's the second variance, and then this the third one uh which we don't need, we've been able to find and figure out how to incorporate within our designs is around the tree planning and landscaping.

We have been able to allocate um over 10 feet of space um in the front of the property and the size and some part of the back where you see the parking spots are to accommodate the tree planning and landscape requirements for to uh be sufficient for an R3 variance if granted by the commission.

Um so that right now, um, as I mentioned earlier, this is a blighted lot.

Um I've gone through and cleared the lot of all the shrubbery, all of the debris, uh, tried to beautify this the site, and now I want to bring it back to its uh its future use to provide housing for the community.

Um originally from O'Bill I graduated from Irving High School, and this is one of one of my dreams to come back home and to do some good in the community.

So I'm asking the board for those uh variances, and I will entertain any questions that the board might have at this time.

Okay, well, first of all, it it appears it was rezoned from an R3 to R1 in 94.

Uh yes, it it was uh rezoned, correct.

And I've gone through to look at the uh future land use maps that provide an overlay for this particular area that specifies that this area would be in a future state allowed uh mixed use density zoning for this area, and it and it uh fits into the actual architecture uh design aesthetics and usability of the other houses that are on this street as well as the intersection streets of O'Shell Road and Spring Hill.

Okay, I guess where I was leading with my question is adjacent to this property is R1 now.

Uh well it's the whole area is R1, however, there are multiple properties, including the adjacent property at 120 and 118 that are multifamily uh grandfather uh multifamily properties.

Okay, all right.

Questions of the board for the applicant?

The the 122 Michael Donald and this one is vacant.

Uh is a blighted uh vacant lot, correct.

What about 120, which is the next application?

Uh you're doing these together as 120 vacant.

Uh it's a it is a ex an existing property that is currently vacant that was blighted and uh was about to be raised because of health concerns for the community as well.

So your plan is to raise that building.

I want to keep the architectural details of that building in place and just renovate the interior of the building to match the aesthetics of the community.

I asked those questions since they're adjoining properties and they're kind of twin developments.

I want to make sure they both jive together with the reduced maneuvering and reduced parking, doing it twice could be an issue.

So I just wanted to see how they work together.

And I what I would say to that is that if you look at the diagram on the screen before us, um that will be uh roughly 18 feet in between the properties.

The code requires 24 feet, and so the the lots are deep enough to allow additional parking behind the lot, and and as a what also I've spoken to the owners of the Oaks of apartments across the street.

There are there's parking there that is unutilized, um abandoned, and unkept.

Um, and so we're in the com we're in conversations now about me leasing that property from them as additional parking spots and overflow for uh both of these developments if so approved.

It's one twenty above or below one for it's below on this map.

So these two properties would basically look look like brother sister apartment properties.

Okay, any questions of the board for the applicant?

Sure, you got a question for staff um before the new UDC, this would require a PUD, would it not?

Because of shared access.

If the with the uh if the properties were developed as one development, then perhaps, yes.

Um the applicant has been uh informed that any use of the apartment parking across the street will require an off-site parking variance, and so um he's chosen to delay that so that if that is something that he wishes to do in the future, he is aware that he would need to come back to the board to get that approval.

Um, but um, but perhaps a PUD might have been required pre-UDC.

Okay, one more question, it's not really germane to this, but I'm curious if the properties, both of them have been multi-family.

Um why would there have been a zoning change from multi-family to sync to R1?

Do you want to?

Well, that was part of the old Dauphin Way study, which was a large-scale uh zoning analysis through the old Dauphin Way Historic District.

So many properties uh they evaluated and downzoned through that uh process because there were, of course, many apartments in many of the older homes throughout the area.

So they felt that downzoning a lot of properties was a way to encourage new single family development.

That was the thinking back in 1994.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions of the board.

Chair might sorry.

That's okay.

I just had one quick question.

I guess the fact would this not go through a rezoning versus a variance because the majority of the streets, although used as a fair amount of use that's not R1, that it because there's nothing contiguous to it, like why would they not go for a rezoning as opposed to a variance?

That was the applicant's choice.

Okay.

And one of the things, and the reason why I chose to take this path versus the rezoning is that after speaking to the the various uh entities within the uh build mobile, is that uh this property and the prop and its sister property were considered to be if insignificant to the architectural uh historical uh nature of the community because it had been uh renovated and redone I would say at least seven or eight times prior to my taking ownership of it.

And so, in order to save this building and to make sure make sure that it aesthetically and uh the usability of it is improved, uh is what why I'm coming before this committee to make sure that it's it's done in a legal fashion.

Um, prior to it, it had been uh the with a sister property and this property had been used as a multifamily property, although on records it was not legally a multifamily property for uh 120, and this current one we're talking about was actually used as a three unit for multiple years, and so it had been grandfathered in.

So this is my attempt to make sure that as I look to beautify and improve their overall safety, health, and wellness of the community that is done the most appropriate and legal way, so that uh it does go down the right path and not not to be something that it was prior to my ownership.

How many units is in the uh adjacent property that's still existing?

There are four units there, three legal.

Okay, based on as of when I bought the property, however, when it was originally built in the early 50s, it was four units.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor or opposition?

I would like to speak if I could.

Yeah, if you have a seat, sir.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Your name and address for the record, sir.

Uh my name is Mike Finland, and I apologize for my appearance.

I just had surgery.

I own JMF construction, 3294 Dog River Road, Theodore, Alabama.

I also own properties on Dolphin Street and in Mobile City Limits and Tillman's Corner.

There are three properties involved here, not the two that Mr.

Brown is speaking of.

He's also owns the house, I believe, at 124 Michael McDonald.

Not true.

I'm asking the board to delay approval of this variance change.

And the reason for this is simple.

Mr.

Brown, either inaccurately or fraudulently got a permit on the existing house on item six, I believe it's 120, and got a permit to renovate that property.

Are you gonna let me speak?

Yeah, he is.

Carter's plumbing, a master licensed plumber in Mobile did the rough end plumbing.

Richie's electrical, a master licensed electrician did the rough end electrical.

And Mr.

Brown has failed to pay us.

I'm asking the citizens of Mobile, the board of Mobile, to not allow somebody from Washington, D.C.

to come into our city and run a scam.

It was all caught when my electrician pulled the correct permit, a four, which is commercial on 320, and we got a stop work permit.

My company cannot do commercial.

I asked Mr.

Brown to let me go into the property and see what he's complaining about.

His brother never called me.

Then he said he had a death in the family.

Okay.

The next week, his brother never called me.

Had a death in the family.

Okay.

The next week he didn't call me.

My wife was in the hospital.

I respect him for that.

But USA Hospital is not two minutes from Mike O'Donnell Avenue.

Now I've had surgery.

And he needs to pay for work that's been done by licensed master craftsmen from the city of Mobile.

Your permitting department are fully aware, your inspection department is fully aware of the companies I'm talking about.

To pay us for the work completed.

I'll cut out my uh overhead.

But I need to at least be recover my out-of-pocket.

So I'm asking the board delay until he fixes the first permit.

Pay me and whatever subcontractors he's got on the property.

That's all I'm asking.

So any questions you might have, please let me have them.

All right.

Any questions of the board?

I have one.

Yes.

How long that delay of your pay has been?

We have been paid in months.

We've been off, we've been off work for what, December 1st.

I've seen him two invoices.

The original permit was by REI Holdings out of Connecticut, Alpha Construction, and Kevin Brown.

Kevin Brown, his name's Kelvin, not Kevin.

So the whole thing's been a fiasco from day one.

The framing plans that we framed by were wrong.

He had to get them redrawn, and he paid an extra $4,000 for the materials to fix that.

But to date, he owes me 47,300, and I would like to get some money.

And I know it's not this board's place.

I know it's not.

Don't get me wrong.

But please, on item five and six, and he's going to have another lot, the one closer to Spring Hill Avenue.

He bought that house too.

Check it.

Delay until he cleans up his mess.

That's all I'm asking for.

And he's gonna say, stop me when I my time's up.

He's gonna say it's in quality workmanship.

These are licensed master electricians, licensed master plumbers here in the city of Mobile.

That's all I'm gonna tell you.

I mean, that's all I can say.

All right.

Mr.

Kim?

Yes.

Sir?

Um has any of that work been inspected by the city?

The city came in, and when they did the stop payment, stop work order because a permit was wrong, they won't inspect it.

The plumbing inspectors told me everything would pass.

Mr.

Brayon has told me that electrician's work will pass.

He has no problem with the electrician's work.

He has problems with some of the framing.

I haven't seen it.

Okay.

I gave the company to my son a while back, but it's still my company.

I'm the founder.

He won't even let me see it.

I told him I would bring my marine crew, my other division in there and fix whatever problems he had.

And he's ghosted me.

Well, Mobile Alabama, we don't treat people like that.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, any other questions of the board?

All right.

Do you have others that would like to make a statement at this time?

Sir, are you here for this one as well?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

You have two minute remote.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

I know that this is totally outside of the purview of this board, but I do want to address some of the comments that were made by Mr.

Flick Finley.

I am originally from Mobile, Alabama.

I graduated from Murphy High School, and all of my family lives here.

So I am just as much a part of Mobile as you are, sir.

Uh also, as it relates to the contract, there was a material breach by not him, but his son, James, who is not here to speak on his own behalf.

Just today I met with inspectors from the city of Mobile, framing plumbing, electrical, to walk through to get their professional opinion.

I too am a certified licensed contractor in the state of Alabama.

I know good work when I see it and I know what the codes are.

Greg Hinley from plumbing, plumbing was done at the done at the property without a permit.

I asked his son three times on three dismantations on email, text, uh phone call for a permit, he never provided a permit.

All of the plumbing at the house has to be cut out.

I have the documentation here from the city of Mobile, the inspectors that says plumbing failed because no permit and others.

I also have the electrical consultation from the city of Mobile that said the electrical has failed because the electrical was done incorrectly and not up to the 2020 NEC codes.

Also, I have consultations from Mr.

Mark, who's the head inspector for the city of Mobile that said the framing was done incorrectly for a number of reasons.

Headers not correctly put in place throughout the property.

Also, there were wet walls within the property that were cut through by the plumber that made the walls uh the stability of the walls and integrity of the walls less than susceptible for it to pass the framing inspection.

So everything that Mr.

Henley is talking about is third is third person, third party, because he again he did not see it, right?

So this is a civil matter that's ongoing that my attorney and his attorney and he and I and his son will have to work through.

But I purposely went to the city to ask them for their opinion.

And I've been more than willing and able to pay for any work that's done that passes inspection.

And as Mr.

Hinley said, none of the work has passed inspection.

And in our contract, it specifically says that in order to receive any payments that the work must be up to quality standards based on code and must pass inspection.

And in order to pass inspection, you need to pull the proper permits.

And if you have a plumber that's not pulled permits, then it has not passed inspection, therefore you cannot be rendered any payments.

All right, sir.

Yes, yes, sir.

So I won't cut to the case with what we have jurisdiction.

I'm so sorry.

No, you're good.

But this this brings up a good question for me.

Is this thing?

This property is being constructed for a four-plex.

For 122, the proposal is to do a fourplexes originally.

But we haven't even given a variance.

So how are you building a four-plex?

Well, well, point of this a point of clarification, yes, sir.

Uh, so there's this is a vacant lot.

There's no construction that's been done whatsoever on this lot.

Mr.

Henley is referring to 122, 120, sorry, Michael Donnell.

Okay.

This is for 122, which is totally different from anything else.

Right.

But it's it's somehow tied in.

It's not it's not tied in.

So okay.

These are totally separate two separate parcels of land.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Staff, doesn't that bring up a um uh permitting question?

Because if it's a threeplex now and it's R1, and he wants to do a fourplex in there, or you're gonna keep the the existing building.

How many units?

Well well, so one twenty-two is vacant land.

I'm not worried about one twenty two.

Yes, for one twenty that has a building on it already, it's a it's it was originally set up as a four unit, however, through the city was only legally habitable as a three to use as a three unit.

So when I bought the property, I understood it to be a four unit, but when I checked county rec city records, it showed that only three units were legally able to be utilized in that okay.

So that so I don't know if this applies in residential, but that's a change of use.

Is that correct?

But the the issue we have right now is is we're talking about one twenty-two Michael Donald.

And that's a 120 Michael Donald question.

Yeah, we need to get through 122 before we can get through one twenty.

Oh, I'm sorry, correct.

I apologize.

All right.

Regard regarding this property, you're asking for a use, access maneuverability, parking, and tree and landscape variants.

So the use is to go back with a four-plex.

Yes, and access maneuverability is based on it being what 18 feet 18 feet versus 24 feet.

Okay, and then the last one around the trees and the landscaping, that can be striked from the record because we have the the amount of frontage but in front of the unit and in the back of the unit to make sure that we was we preserve all trees, etc.

Okay, so you'll you'll drop that request.

Correct.

So you're really looking at use access maneuverability and parking.

Correct.

Okay.

And if need be at a future date, I can procure the parking across the street if if necessary.

Well, and you're in the process of getting that, but you have yes, yes.

You don't necessarily have that at the moment.

Not at the moment, no.

Okay, conversations.

All right, thank you.

You can have a seat now, please.

Okay.

All right.

Discussion of the board.

Let me state that the I get another minute.

No, sir, nothing.

No, sir.

Okay.

The the contract disputes are civil between those two has nothing to do with its application.

So any dispute those two have no bearing on your decision.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Once again, uh discussion of the board.

And thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

Can staff bring up the surrounding area and what properties are currently.

Can you go to one that might show where there might be other duplexes or two?

An apartment across the street.

Okay.

There are new I know the street.

Okay.

That's fine.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I think that'll conclude our public hearing regarding this application.

And with that, uh chairman, I just I do have a just a quick question.

When you have a street like this that seems to have multiple uses, and I know the answer was that he chose to go variance versus a rezoning.

At what point, I mean, does it make a difference?

I mean, it I guess to me, it seems at some point that you know you look at rezoning as opposed to just continuing to do variances along a street.

And the board has held over applications before, uh, so that the applicant can request a rezoning should the planning commission and city council feel that that is more appropriate.

So if that's something that you feel might be appropriate, then that's an option as well.

And I guess from the community standpoint, if it's a variance versus rezoning, then you know, for some reason it would, you know, seem more appropriate that those revert back to a single family residential, it might give it more of a likelihood if there was something that I don't know.

It just one's just usually uh it seems like there's a clear case when you're asking for an R3 when everything else is zoned R1, but this one just seems a little different, just in that you have a lot of multi-family type uses along the street.

So I don't know, just my initial reading of the application.

Uh just seemed like it was more appropriate for an a rezoning than it was a variance, but I'll defer to okay.

Well, Mr.

Miller, do you want to make that a form of a recommendation or motion?

Yeah, question for staff.

So if I was to do that, do we hold it over?

Do we deny it?

And then with the recommendation that it goes, because if we deny it, then that I mean, I'm not trying to create hardship, I'm just trying to create.

I mean, I do think that what he's doing is appropriate for the street.

I'm just trying to figure out what's the most appropriate way to handle it from a variance board standpoint.

From the applicant's perspective, it would probably be beneficial for it to be held over to give him time to have a neighborhood meeting, submit his application to the planning commission, and then potentially go to the city council, which which does take several months to go through that process.

So uh if that is something that you uh are interested in, I would suggest maybe a six-month holdover to give him sufficient time to go through that process, and if it gets approved by that time, then he can withdraw the application, and then he doesn't need to actually come back here.

But if the rezoning is denied, then he'll have his variance application still pending.

If he gets the rezoning, he would still have to get the access and maneuvering and parking.

Yeah, very correct.

That would only address the use.

Yeah.

Well, I'll say, Mr.

Chairman, and uh again, I'm open to discussion for the board.

I don't feel strongly enough about it one way or the other.

It's more just I guess um exploring different options and why we go one route versus the other.

So Mr.

Milling, let me interject for a second.

The parking is still an issue for me, and if he's in the process of working, maybe an arrangement with uh adjacent area for accommodation, that time will be needed, and I'd like to see that if we do consider variants.

So I would consider that if you do make a motion, okay.

Mr.

Chair.

Um that's a real narrow street.

Um, and maybe a question for you, sir, is how about on street parking?

Because all through old dolphin way people are I park in front of my house.

Um, yeah, not in the yard.

That's referenced in the traffic engineers' comments.

I'm sorry, that's addressed in the traffic engineers' comments.

And this could create more on street parking.

It's too narrow.

Okay.

I'm comment.

Uh I don't understand your question in regards to rezoning.

Would you say because of the residence, there are other opportunities that may prevail in the future that somebody come up with a revolting to rezone it to that?

I the reason I was bringing it up is it just seemed like that that street has a lot of R2, R3 type uses while we keep you know considering variances as opposed to it, just seemed like to me it was more appropriate to go get it rezoned for the use that you want as opposed to us continuing just to um because for example, I mean, is a variance.

I mean, we're charged with you know what's the hardship.

Well, you could put you could build a single family residence on this vacant lot and probably sell it or lease it.

So, you know, I'm not really sure what the hardship is from that standpoint.

You know, there may be one from the standpoint of an existing structure where it's you know hard to get it renovated such that it makes sense as a single family residence as it's currently zoned, but it just seems like taking a more bold step to have it in the record accurately as opposed to continuing down a path of just you know creating variances was my thought.

And Jeremy, I agree 100% it could be a single family home on this particular lot, and uh there's no hardship, and I think it I think a rezoning is the proper route.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, Jeremy.

My guess is that this problem was created by the city when they can or by the city slash historic um study, kind of broad brushing things like they did on rangeline with B5 when there were existing I1 uses, you know.

So they created a situation of illegality just by zoning change.

And given where this is, I'm guessing it was just kind of a included in a broad brush.

So my guess would also be that the that the um uh old dolphin way and uh um historic folks would would probably want to buck that trend because they're the ones that that that helped establish it as R1.

So not that that really matters, but I think that's how it came about.

Okay.

So do I have a motion to hold this over and allow it to go through another process?

Yeah, sir.

I'll make a motion, Mr.

Chairman, to hold it over six months.

Okay, do you have a second second?

Have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

I oppose.

Yeah, I have uh significant sufficient number to approve the motion, and it passes.

Uh one, two, three, four, five, six to approve and one to deny.

All right, thank you.

And we're gonna go to your next application.

It's a formality, your name and address for the record.

Uh Kelvin Brown, uh, 3645 Austin Street, Southeast Washington, DC.

Uh also part-time resident here at Mobile.

Uh, this property is 122 Michael Donald Avenue, uh was purchased back in September, October of 2025.

Um, it has historically been used as a four-unit.

Uh, when I bought the property, it had been used as a four unit.

I reached out to all of the utility companies in the area as well to verify and confirm records of usage from a an electrical standpoint as well as gas and water.

They also confirmed that verified that it had to be utilized historically as a four-unit property.

However, after purchasing the property, I did reach out to the city uh to to verify on their end, however, they had it as a three-unit property, even though it had it been configured historically as a four-unit.

And so permits were pull for for three unit and working with the city uh to get the fourth unit actually permitted as well.

And so we're in the process which led us here today.

So the variance here is asking for the use to make it a four-unit versus a third three unit, which it currently is and has historically been used as such.

Uh, as with the other property that was mentioned earlier, there it if it is passes a four unit, then there would need to be a variance for the 18 foot wide uh parking.

Uh there is sufficient landscaping on the property as well.

So the ask of the board is to uh include this as a legally zoned uh four unit versus a three unit that is currently is, and then a uh parking variance.

Okay, did you provide the city uh records or proof that it had utilities for four units?

I did not provide as a part of the application.

I they didn't ask me for that proof, but I did when I did call SPIRE and uh other utilities, um, they weren't able to provide me with the actual records since they weren't my personal records per se.

Um, but they were able to give me ver verbal confirmation of as such.

So this is so this is really all about one additional unit that is has already been constructed, has already been used since the uh the building of this unit.

And so the hardship would come in having to basically take apart the fourth unit and convert it to a three unit.

Okay.

Questions of the board.

Was this property vacant when you bought it?

Very much so vacant.

So in disrepair, vague very much so.

Uh there were uh squatters in the property, it was used as a drug house.

Uh there are so many kids on the block that were going into the property, getting hurt.

Uh, police were being called at the house because of domestic uh altercation and different disputes.

And so once again, this is an opportunity to improve their overall health safety and livability of the community.

Um I've talked to many of the neighbors that are in favor of cleaning up this property, and there are other properties up and down the street that also need the same amount of treatment and love to it.

And so that's what we're doing, trying to improve the community for this particular property.

Uh, this will be one will be my residence when I'm coming.

I'm here in Mobile at least five to six months out of the year, as well as moving my my mother who's aging.

I wanted an age in place on the first floor with my disabled brother in one of the units.

And so the there'll be two units that will be rented out in the property and then two units that will go towards family.

So this will stay within the family, it will be legacy uh uh assets that will be handed down.

So this won't be up flip as was mentioned in an earlier comment.

Question about if you know choose to go a rezoning route on the adjoining vacant lot, would you want to do that with this in conjunction to that on both of them or no?

No, no.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Metcalfe, you had a question?

Yeah, but they but they are together because you're asking for shared access.

Well, the actual actual the driveway between the two, um it did while it is shared access here.

question about if you you know choose to go a rezoning route on the adjoining vacant lot would you want to do that with this in conjunction to that on both of them or no no no okay go ahead mr metcough if you had a question yeah but they but they are together because you're asking for shared access well the actual well actual the driveway between the two um it did while it is shared access here uh this I would hope that the board looks at this as an individual parcel of it in and of itself uh because that's the way I'm bringing it to the uh to the board uh and the variance will give access to this so these properties are not ones that will be flipped or sold or anything like that that they will stay within my my ownership and the ownership of my family well but if but if you know we just held over the other one we approve this there's no needed access on that particular how's how was it used before where is the parking lot behind it?

Yes that's sufficient but how do you get to it?

So you you'll you'll drive down the middle you'll drive down the middle where the the black line is so there is nine feet on each side where you can drive a car down so the variance uh for R3 is 24 feet so there's enough access where you can drive down one way and come up the other way as well it's just that the actual code requires 24 feet.

So 18 feet is sufficient to have two cars pass side by side one another safely then the parking of course would be in the back of the property.

But it's showing that there's a five foot setback on each side of it of the building correct so how you gonna get if you only got five feet between the property line and the building how you gonna get back there?

Well so the driveway between the houses are is wide is wide enough it's 18 feet between the two but that includes but but that brings in the other lot yes as a as uh it does bring in other lot but what I'm what I'm trying to articulate here is that you can as I'm pulling in the driveway you can drive down one side and still be within the actual lot parameters of one twenty-two Michael Donnell okay all right any other questions yes if I understand correctly you you're still your mic over a little bit saying this this structure was originally built as a four place correct yes and and for whatever reason the city had it as a three units correct and that's been however many years ago correct there was some evidence of multiple meters showing four units correct actually it was five units there one for uh like a common area no yeah house lighting like one like in 1981 it became like a they had uh put in a five five fifth unit okay for electrical standpoint all right okay thank you okay yeah go ahead mr metco have a question so and I I think you may have brought this up but let's say that you got the other piece rezoned um then you'd still have to come back for a variance well well based on based on the conversations of our earlier of our for the earlier parcel six months holding time would be a financial hardship uh for me individually uh so I I would in that case not look to get this the previous property rezoned um I would have to go back and look at what the numbers um what the numbers net out to see if it makes sense financially for me and it may be a scenario where I actually have to forego going back to get rezoning um because of what you mentioned and actually do a single do a single family and maybe do an ADU or something like that.

Yeah because my point was again that if it were rezoned to R3 which I think that may be difficult but if you were to get that then if you were to to do the same thing that as you have planned you'd have to come before us anyway.

Based on the outcome of the last conversation yes but my thinking is is it's revised based on that and based on the the actual deferment for six months uh it I I would like to say without running the numbers it it wouldn't make financial sense for me to go to hold in a steady state for six months to also on this piece you still have the parking problem because you've only got four spaces right which is which is the variance for parking and the variance for the use that's before y'all today I'm not trying to get in the middle or trying to take sides but this these this needs to be looked at by itself I understand if this is if y'all were right the other one a vacant lot it's hard to prove a hardship on vacant land because you could build a house or a twoplex and and not need a variance.

This one look at it by itself the setbacks the maneuverability um and the fact that it was used as a three and a four probably but it's constructed as a four when he bought it so I'm not saying approve or disapprove it but please quit look it's hard I know not to look at both of them together but um in the financial hardship he's talking about is not self-imposed y'all be putting that on him if y'all make him stop construction and go and wait six months I I have a question for staff regarding the the common I'm gonna call it a common driveway between the two lots is that where we think that lot is between the two the driveway is between the two lots 18 feet I mean can he can he resolve that with a shared access agreement with himself is the city is the city gonna for a commercial property that might could work but for a residential

I I have a question for staff regarding the the common, I'm gonna call it a common driveway between the two lots.

Is that where we think that lot is between the two the driveway is between the two lots?

18 feet between the two.

I mean, can he can he resolve that with a shared access agreement with himself?

Is the city is the city gonna for a commercial property that might could work, but for a residential for multi-family, no.

Even an easy he's allowing an easement access easement, or you could do the other really that's additional resupply about it.

Yeah, yeah.

He could do a drive, he could put on public uh private court records a joint driveway easement.

Um, so that if one if he sells one property keeps the other, yeah.

Uh well, just that's on on public record.

Um I'm looking from his perspective at an issue that might arise as far as y'all are gonna say how you're gonna get to your four parking places.

And and I'm yeah, just trying to think all that.

All right, Mr.

Morris, you had a question.

Yes, uh Kyle's it we're looking at this property, not both properties.

And the gentleman to me has presented all the necessary steps that he needs to take to do and go move forward.

And like I like I hear just what legal says we create a hardship on him financially now by looking at the other property and the judgment, I guess an old judgment to decide if we're gonna do this one.

And I think that's unfair.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments for the board?

All right.

Well, this one you do have more of an issue with parking, which is part of your variance.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, you've kind of explained it away with the fact who you are planning on utilizing it for, with you know, based on tenants, you know, your mother one, your brother one, and you occasionally, and then renting out the the other two units.

Um, but you'll still have a hardship there.

I think yeah, because yeah, it is a hardship.

I'm not gonna be able to do that.

Most people most people if there's any couples or families, they're gonna have more than one vehicle.

So that's for sure.

All right.

Um, any other questions for the applicant on this one?

And as Mr.

Anderson said, we can't really think about the other property and application.

We're focusing on this one.

All right.

If you'll have a seat, do we have anyone that wants to make any comments on this one?

Your name and address or record.

You can you can sit down.

You don't have to stand for this.

That's all right.

Mike Finland 3294D Dog River Road.

I'm not gonna reiterate to myself.

Is the attorney working for the city or somebody else?

He were he's representing the board.

He's got the board.

I just ask him.

I don't I don't mean to be like this.

Parking is a problem.

Yeah, I'll go look at it.

He keeps talking about landscaping.

There's no landscaping on those two lots, or this lot.

He said it was used as a four.

When we got to the property, it was framed out as a three.

Electrical was a three.

His permit was for a residential three.

Our job was to make it frame it to a four, and that's where all the permitting got stopped.

So the fact that I can't get inspection by qualified craftsman because he screwed up the first permit, I shouldn't be punished.

I'm willing to work with Mr.

Brown any way I can to resolve this, put it to bed, move on.

Because I think what he's doing for this community is right.

You take an old dilapidated houses and refurbishing them.

But you gotta pay your subs.

Financial hardship.

He didn't have any financial hardship.

He had paid nothing.

I'm carrying the load right now.

And I know it's not your job.

I know it's not your job.

I'm just asking you guys to do what's right.

And what's right is to delay it until our civil, our criminal is completed.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have the other individuals in the audience who would like to make a statement.

All right.

Question for staff.

What was this permitted for?

There were permits that were issued for the renovation of three uh dwelling units at that location.

Um, they were approved by planning and zoning on the condition that there be no more than three units at the site.

Okay.

Exactly what I said.

All right.

All right.

Now you have an opportunity for a two-minute rebuttal.

Uh, which is yes, there were three what part of my due diligence in this process was reaching out to the city to see what it was permitted as legally.

And when I reached out to the city, I believe with Dustin and permitting, he and I were working on getting the permit for the fourth one, which he said that I needed to go before the board to get an actual either zoning or a variance for, which is why I initiated this process as well, which was already in the progress.

I missed the first hearing date because of some of the deadlines.

However, when I submitted for the three permits, it was always the intention to make sure that everything was done above board and done in a legal capacity.

And so to go back to the earlier comments that were made is that this whole process was done very transparent, um, very in a very collaborative manner with the city of Mobile.

But when contractors don't pull permits and they don't follow the process and they try to jump it, then I can't honor that.

And the city has said I shouldn't honor that because three inspectors came by today to look at every all the work that was done, and they failed everything through consultation.

And I have emails of that right here, my email address, my email account right here.

So that's a silver matter.

But from a from a zoning perspective, I followed all of the protocol that was required to make sure that I would not endure a financial hardship for this because after I bought it and I realized that this was unpermitted fourth unit that was being occupied in this building.

My first step and I have the emails to prove to show that I my intent to work with the city to make sure that that fourth unit uh was permitted appropriately.

Okay, when this was first, you you said October or so.

September, October time frame, yes.

Yeah.

When you purchased it, did you understand it was uh zoned R1?

Uh when I purchased it, I looked at it.

I didn't I didn't understand it when I talked to the realtor where it was advertised as a four-unit uh property, and then I looked at the zoning for it and I looked up the zoning to R1.

That's when I began the process of working with the city to get permits and seeing exactly what I need to do to get the fourth unit to be made legal because at one point it was legal until the zoning was changed.

Okay.

Any other questions as part of the rebuttal for the applicant?

Can I ask a question?

Yes, I'd like to ask two.

Oh no, no, you're we've we're doing protocol or process here, sir.

I understand.

So yeah, like no, I have can I ask for a request to ask two questions?

No, I have to deny.

I I have to deny for a matter of protocol.

If you'll if you have a seat, sir.

I appreciate it.

All right, question for staff.

So this was permitted for three, and it was it lost its grandfather application based on the time it had been vacant, right?

Because it had been a couple years.

Well, I don't believe that any non-conforming documentation has necessarily been submitted by the applicant, but this uh staff was able to verify that there were three units of record on this site when the permits were through, and that's why they were approved on that condition.

Uh, I can't speak to any of the historical number of units to the site.

Um, but if there was an intent to abandon those three units for a substantial amount of time, then it could have lost its non-conforming, but that's not what we're saying here.

Right now, he does have the ability to have the three units that have been permitted, he's asking for an additional unit.

Okay.

Well, Mr.

Kee dragging this on.

But if he came to you for a permit for three, but he's saying that his intent all along was four.

So why did he get a permit for three?

And then it with the knowledge after the permit was issued that it was it was specifically said could not be, could not go to four, and that's because of the the zoning, but there was no information submitted at the time that the permits were submitted, indicating that there were four units requested.

There were only three permits requested, and so that was what what was approved with the condition that it be retained at three units.

Okay, well, sir, why did you do it that way?

Why did you get the three if your intent all along was four?

When I was working with dusting and permitting, um, he and I had a couple of conversations around three versus four.

What he told you, what we agreed on is that he can issue three for the building.

However, I would have a choice of submitting for nonconformance or go come here and get a variance.

So I tried all you could get exactly that time.

So I so I was like, Well, let me submit for a non-conformance, and then another person.

I think Mr.

Call will whistler call will chime in and said, Well, no, you can't do nonconformance, you have to go to before the board for variance, and that's when I submitted all the application, all of the materials.

That's fine.

You answer my question.

Thanks.

Okay.

Any other questions of the board?

All right, thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh back to staff.

So he's currently approved and wouldn't have to have a variance for the three the use of three.

That is correct.

And so really the access maneuverability and parking and tree planning are really the primary.

Otherwise, he's asking for use for a fourth.

The other X, the other variances are not required if he remains with the three units because that is a non-conforming existing status.

Um if there is an additional unit added, then that's when compliance is required for these other items as well.

Okay.

All right.

Comments or discussion of the board.

All right.

Mr.

McCo, if you have a comment.

Oh, all right.

All right.

Um, well, that'll conclude our public hearing regarding it.

By the way, did we receive any public comments regarding this?

I don't think I've seen any.

No, sir.

We didn't get any comments for anything today.

Okay.

All right.

With that, uh, Chair entertain a motion.

I'm motion to approve with the board requirement of uh the bearances for the use, parking, tree planning for findings of facts.

For finding in facts, yeah, a motion to approve all re for the record.

Those uh we need to state which um reasons A B N C we need those for the record.

Thank you.

So A, B, and COVID all right.

Do I have a second?

All right.

The motion to approve fails based on uh failure to get a second.

So the variance request is denied based on the failure of the motion.

Is that correct?

Staff another motion, or can I another motion?

We can take another motion.

Okay, but the fact of not getting second exact, it just brings it up for it either there or okay.

Well, I think based on staff's comment or um information that it could continue as it's currently used, or with three and all the other variants request kind of go away with that non-conforming use.

That appears to be the method in which you may have to follow.

Okay, all right.

Thank you all for your time.

You're welcome.

Happy new year.

All right, you as well.

All right, staff.

Any other business for today?

We didn't oh address we didn't address item number four.

Do we have a six or seventh?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, we skipped one, didn't we?

All right.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Yeah, all right.

This is uh yeah, application 6721 regarding uh 601 Palmetto Street.

Is that the application?

Yeah, if you'll come down here to the podium, please.

Thank you all for your time.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Yeah, and you missed uh opening remarks.

So your name and address for the record, sir?

Dennis Langan.

Um 3670 Riverview Drive.

And this is front yard side coverage variants for an addition to existing residents within the 25 setback site coverage over 35 percent.

You want to tell us why we should consider it?

Yeah, sir.

This is uh hundred-plus-year-old house that's been on this corner.

Like say it's nothing has changed to it.

It's had this existing front porch for decades.

The side addition probably dates back to the 50s.

I'm not encroaching any further to the west or any further to the north approaching Palmetto Street or to Warren Street.

The addition where I'm going out to the west side, there are is already an addition there, and I'm taking the the bathroom addition out to that existing exterior wall and just squaring the house up.

I'm not encroaching any further than where the front porch is right now.

Maybe by the uh where the front porch is.

I'm probably with still encroaching in that 20, the 35 foot setback on the street of Palmetto.

I am encroaching probably by about six feet.

Okay, and is this very common within this area with the older structures being within that setback?

Well, uh uh I believe the the streets have been widening widened over the years, and from where that house originally was sitting, it had setbacks that went back further.

But with the winding of the streets, I don't know if y'all have been around in Palmetto and Warren Street, but there are a lot of other streets in midtown that would love to have streets that wide.

There's enough cars to go through on each direction, uh three lines of traffic going down through there.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may add, uh this site was originally developed this general area around 1900.

Right.

And it went through the urban renewal process in the 1960s.

So many of the other um old homes from the late 1800s and early 1900s were demolished, and a few were left in the neighborhood, but then the majority of the neighborhood was rebuilt with brick suburban style homes.

So this and a few other homes are unique examples of what used to be there, and when they were built, there were no setback requirements, probably.

Okay.

That that answers my question.

It's probably from the time period of construction.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Terep.

Okay.

All right.

Uh, just for a matter of record, there's no one in the audience to ask for statements either in support or opposition.

Um I would say this concludes our public hearing regarding the application.

Chair entertain a motion.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Chairman, I make a motion motion to approve um due to the findings of fact, it will not be contrary to the public interest.

I think special conditions in that area do exist uh exist.

Um that there's an unnecessary hardship and that uh substantial justice will be done.

All right, have a motion to approve with findings per findings of fact.

Uh, as stated earlier, we had no public comments.

Uh do we have a second?

Second.

Have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

All right, back to my earlier statement.

Do we have any other?

Thank you, sir.

Any other business for today?

Mr.

Anderson, do we got any activity?

It's been a little while.

Pre-occupied.

Okay.

I do have a comment.

Yes.

In regards to the issue, just paying.

Uh denied, I would say.

If those two issues had been brought the same day, had a one brought to D and maybe another one at a different time.

How would that have affect what we I would finally see it in on the way we voted?

I think I'll answer from my point of view is that there was a permit for three units from the beginning.

So everything started with that.

Yes, the use can continue with the three.

And I would have approved it for the use based on non-conforming based on the fact it'd been that way.

So I now that I knew that information, I kind of went based on that.

Now, whether he changed things up when tried to get a fourth after the fact is not for us.

So anyway, that was my perspective.

We've had these before.

This is if he could approve the utilities for four, I might have thought a little different.

If he could approve the utilities for four, I might have thought a little different.

I've got a question.

Yes.

You know, now being here and just to a discussion with the vacant lot.

I mean, I I was on the fence of whether I was pushing that too hard, you know, but I just was having a hard time understanding the hardship when you have a vacant lot there.

And so I mean, any opinions of the board on that application as far as you know whether that's you know, because again, there was no intent to create a financial hardship, but I can't look at it that way.

I mean, I mean, my job as a board member is to look at it based on the parameters we're given.

And I just felt like that um, you know, that that one being a clear slate was harder to justify.

I think getting it rezoned and or doing a PUT.

Well, and and Jimmy, I I blocked away on and I I believe there's somebody building that house on a vacant lot than through ARB.

So I mean to the point you can't, I mean, I that's certainly an interesting stretch of road that needs it needs the community investing in it, including that gentleman, and I hate to penalize him, but I I don't see a hardship as Doug said on a vacant piece of property because you can't you can use it as a and that's I appreciate you bringing up.

I think for me too, I just feel like that uh for the amount of time I've spent on this board that people come here because they think it's gonna be easier, but that doesn't necessarily make it right the right avenue to take.

And I felt like specifically on that one, if it seemed like there was a clear case that you know, to argue an R3 zoning there, if you looked historically, if you looked at things around it, and so just made it harder for me.

I feel like to maybe just acquiesce to yeah, this will be easier and quicker, let's do it when uh you know my heart.

I felt like maybe it's not the right avenue to go.

Decisions by this board for 20 25 years, a lot of them have been more what's fair and what you think you want to make at instead of true variance.

It's hard sometimes to focus on is there really a variance?

I mean a hardship here.

Um sometimes I mean I I've been guilt the other minutes, I should get approved, but then you dig down and you realize that there's not much sometimes it's tough the flag ground.

All right, good job.

All right, any other comments, questions?

Well, I was just gonna talk about the driveway situation.

Um, you know, he's asking for 25% less on a vacant lot where the building could be moved over six feet or reduced six feet, and then that would lower the parking requirements, and it's also going to give him the 24 foot for both pieces of property.

That was kind of an issue with me on that.

I don't know how we can.

I mean that's not really a hardship, right?

It's uh okay.

All right, well, thank you.

Uh that'll conclude our board of adjustment for January.

See you next month.

I mean