- Board of zoning abuse meeting on recording in progress first 2025 Can we have a Roll call, please Ballard here Beryl here Casinco here. I Would like to call for the approval of the minutes I Move to approve minutes from July meeting
- Second roll call, please Burrell yes, Casino. Yes Ballard. Yes Are there any reports resolutions and communications from staff No, sorry no reports of resolutions from staff, all right any from the board I
- Today's agenda we are going to I'm gonna first say the petitions that have been continued to the September 18th meeting are a a-17-22 Joe camp construction LLC and Blackwell construction Inc CU-33-24 use
- 2024-11-00868, Hatt Rentals LLC. Also CU-32-25, Springpoint Architects, Barry Klepper. And finally CU-33-25, oh, Way Engineers, St. Remy HOA.
- And the petitions we're gonna hear tonight are four petitions. First petition will be V-13-25 Carolina Lopez. Second petition will be V-22-25 Autovest LLC. Third one will be V-29-25 Value Built Construction.
- And the last will be V-31-25, Kathy Church. May I have the first petition please?
- Good evening, Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. Before you is a variance from fence height standards to allow for a six foot tall fence along the front east side of the property. This property is located in a residential medium lot R2 zoning district. This is on the far east side of Bloomington in the Park Ridge East subdivision. As you can see, the parcel itself as well as all surrounding parcels are zoned R2 and the long range plan calls for this to be neighborhood residential.
- issue here you see on the left side of the picture is a six-fall tents behind the landscaping there there is also a four foot tall fence along the front edge of the property there that fence as described in the staff report has been in discussion with engineering department and is a separate issue so we're just looking at the six foot tall fence along the east side of the property line
- So the fence was built without requesting the variance at first and the petitioner's statement largely describes there being safety concerns and issues with the neighbor. And so the question that we're looking at with the UDO is that the fence height was found to violate section 20.04.08, specifically forward of the front building wall of the primary structure fences and walls shall not exceed four feet in height.
- So the criterion findings for this variance, the first one we look at is that the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. We find that granting of the variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. And it was specifically installed to maintain and promote that health and safety concerns from the homeowner with their neighbor. And based on the number of feedback and letters of support from neighbors, it appears that it would be well received and would
- further improve the safety and welfare of the neighbors and residents in the area. For the second finding, the use and value adjacent to the property would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. We find there'd be no adverse impacts to the use and value of surrounding properties as a result of the requested variance. And a realtor additionally found that the fencing would likely improve the likelihood of resale value for the owner's property. And the homeowner has also indicated that fence is necessary for them to enjoy the use of their property.
- However, neighboring properties, their uses and values are likely unaffected. For the third criteria that the strict application would result in practical difficulties with the use of the property, we do not find that the strict application would result in any practical difficulties with the use of the property and that there are no peculiar conditions to the property that necessitate the variance. While disputes with neighbors are common, we find that those concerns are civil in nature
- And that the fencing was installed specifically regarding the safety and privacy concerns and not as a result of a characteristic of the property itself While there is a slight grade change on the property. It is not significant enough to warrant relief from the fence height requirements So while this variance would not be injurious to the health, safety or general welfare and would not adversely affect adjacent properties There are no peculiar conditions with the property that merit approval from relief of the established fence height requirements and therefore is recommendation that the
- That you adopt the proposed findings and deny this variance I'm here for any questions. Thank you Now we're gonna go for the petitioner Who's gonna be responsible for answering for the petitioner? So if you could go to the podium and sign in your name and I'm gonna swear you win before you start speaking. Okay, so
- Can you state your name? Carolina Lopez. Carolina Lopez, do you swear or affirm that your testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. You have 20 minutes. And whatever time you don't use on the 20 minutes, you can save it for later after the questions, OK? So you don't have to use them all right now. OK. OK? Thank you.
- Firstly, I just want to say thank you so much for hearing our case today As I stated before my name is Carolina Lopez and I submitted this variance request on behalf of my mother Patricia Lopez who lives at the house in this request I am submitting this and speaking on her behalf for a couple of reasons one being that she is recovering from surgery right now and the second being that she just experiences so much emotional distress from this whole situation that has been going on for years that
- She just cannot be here. She is very afraid of this neighbor and afraid that he would come to the meeting, which I don't think he has, and that she would have to interact with him.
- The reasons for submitting this request are laid out in the packet However, I just want to say how truly important and beneficial this fence has been not only to my mom But we have several neighbors out here in support of this fence as well this fence was originally built because the four-foot fence that Mimics the same fence that we had on the front was
- Getting destroyed by the six foot paneling that this neighbor had actually leaning against that fence originally and Because there was just constant harassment Happening on a daily basis. My mom had no knowledge of the four foot height rule when she did install the fence however
- Just the four-foot-tall fence is not really enough to actually block both the neighbor from seeing and yelling at her and or from seeing the trash and everything that is displayed in the pictures within the packet. So that is why she originally built the fence at the current height it is.
- As outlined by our representative the fence has no impact on the property value of the adjacent house But without the fence the state of the neighbors home and yard do have an impact on the property value of our house Unfortunately, the state of this neighbors home and the harassment is a continual issue that has been going on for years Although they have received notices from the city about their lawn trash makeshift fencing, etc They have continuously either ignored the notices or cleaned it up temporarily only to put it back We're not asking for anything to be done about
- That just for the ability to block it My mom just wants to be able to walk to and from her house without being harassed and also for me to be able to visit her without being harassed as well and I will open it up to a few other speakers that we have Just a minute we will open up to the public. Okay. Sorry is that all your Your testimony for now. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay and
- Now we're gonna go for questions to for staff or the petitioner from the board Mrs. Lopez, I was just gonna ask you When you said there was a six-foot fence the neighbor had put up that broke your four foot fence like down your mom's fence down Can you come to the podium so it will be recorded as you speak so sorry
- You can buy like this six-foot fencing paneling and it wasn't installed It was just this paneling that was like Leaning against the fence and it kept getting blown by the wind and knocking it into it and knocking away So it wasn't really like an installed fence, but it was fence paneling that was lined up exactly how the fence is right now except now it's installed and
- Okay, and she and then when when did she install the six-foot fence of her own? About a year and a half ago. Okay, and then you got a notice violation. Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Oh
- We're gonna open to the public now now is gonna be a time for public comment You can line up if you're gonna speak and you sign in exactly like she did and then you speak your name I will swear you in I'll have to swear in every person that Would like to speak so if you could sit down we might call you on you in a little bit later. Okay. Thank you Some of us are short
- My name is Nancy Martin. I'm a neighbor. Okay, Nancy Do you swear and I for affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Okay, you may proceed Okay, I won't take that long so I was here to talk mostly about the amount of trash and stuff there the house was in a fire in 2019 just weeks after I retired on April 9th and
- He hasn't done much to improve it but he says he's an artist so he puts all this crazy stuff in his yard and he hasn't fixed the house. So it's a real, so for about a year and a half he had this dumpster, this big long dumpster and when we complained as a neighborhood about all this trash he laid those three panels up against the dumpster and every time the wind blew it fell on Patricia's four foot fence.
- So she thought well, I'll just fix this he I don't know if it says in there or not but she has a protective order against him and One of the ways she keeps him from harassing her now is with that fence things have gotten a lot better Because as she goes into her house, he can't be on his Driveway, which is right close to that fence and start saying things to her she's a single divorcee and he
- Vicious with things I've been over there when he's done things and for a while He would take a floodlight and aim it at her front window To flash into her house and with this fence. He can't do that that's one of the reasons why she got a protective order against him and So it seems ironic to me that he would complain that she put up a permanent fence where he had put a temporary fence for a year but
- For us, it looks a lot better, because when we're driving, they're on a cul-de-sac. When we drive by, we can't see all the interesting stuff he puts in his yard, that black plastic and things around. It just kind of shields the rest of the neighborhood from having to look at the mess. Right now, he has a camper in the driveway, and I think, we can't tell if he's living there or not, but he hasn't used his insurance money to fix the thing for six years. The house is still unlivable.
- Thank you very much. Do you have any questions for me? Okay Neighbor right behind Patricia's backyard Michelle do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth nothing but the truth And the whole truth. Yes. Thank you. I
- I think my letter is in the packet, but if I could just read it out loud to everybody Are okay our Backyard faces Patricia Lopez's backyard allows us to see the side of her property adjacent to this neighbor in question For years this neighbor has accumulated a myriad of trash right next to Patricia's fence She previously had a four foot tall
- wire fence with wood the wood which made the trash visible almost daily like when I look out my back sliding door in my back kitchen window, I can see all the his Trash She the site was unpleasant as it included hateful signs trash bags clothes pieces of carpet buckets and random wood pieces often the trash leaned against Patricia's fence encroaching on her property and
- We could also see and hear this neighbor pacing back and forth next to the fence playing loud music and making disruptive noises to torment her. Fortunately, Patricia's new fence has served as an effective barrier against this neighbor's trash. Although we can still see the large RV against, well, it's against the neighborhood covenants, but that's not the lobby. He parked next to her privacy fence. It has been a relief not to have to look at the trash and his constant displays of hostility towards her.
- Thank you for your consideration in allowing Patricia Lopez privacy fence to remain in place as it is She's invested significant time and effort into creating a nice-looking fence that keeps us from having to view the trash out of our windows Thank you Thank you anybody else any other
- public.
- Darrell boggess That your testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Yes, I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. I live on Saratoga Drive About three blocks away from her home We've lived there since 1977 One reason we liked our home is because we didn't have any fences in the backyard
- We had small children and all the yards were open and connected. You could play soccer out there, no problem. Since then, the nature of the neighborhood has changed a lot. There are several fences in different places, different times, different styles, different reasons. It's become more accepted. It's more commonplace now.
- So I am in support of her variance for this fence, at this place, at this time, for very unusual reasons. I think it's not about deer. It's not about the animals. So there are three criteria for you to consider. Staff's presented, two of them are simple. Okay, no problem.
- The third one is different, so I'm addressing the third criteria. I think it's met, in my view, for these reasons. I believe that requiring a four-foot fence would create practical difficulties in the use of the property that are peculiar to this property.
- The existing six-foot fence is necessary because it's above eye level for most people. You can't see it unless you're tall enough. The fence is visible from her front door and driveway. The owner has an expectation of having some degree of pleasure from being outside her house while going from her car to her front door.
- The practical difficulty is a four-foot fence would remove her protection from the visual abuse of seeing the adjacent property and being seen by the neighbor. That difficulty is peculiar to her property because the neighboring property is uphill and therefore more visible
- in particular from her upstairs front window. An attribute of her property which is unique is its location next to the adjoining property that is not visually attractive. Now what does attractive mean? It could mean that something makes you want to be closer to it. The opposite of attractive would be repulsive.
- something that makes you want to get away a Peculiar difficulty in the use of this property is that it is next to a repulsive property If this property is difficult to sell a reasonable option for the owner Would be to try to make the repulsive property invisible Meaning that a buyer couldn't see it
- They wouldn't know about it. Not allowing this variance would be injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of the owner who is a member of the public. When we talk about public, we generally refer to everybody. But the public includes everybody, including the owner of this property.
- If Bloomington is a safe and civil city, its residents should feel safe, particularly while in their homes. And what does safe mean? If we were talking about harassment, the facts would be determined from the point of view of the victim. When the victim feels threatened, its harassment
- This owner is a single female living alone. She's not especially tall and imposing. She's healthy. She's active, but she's not really big. Before the fence was built. Thank you so much. Unfortunately, your time is up. OK. Thank you.
- Anybody else please Yes, can you just wait a little second yeah go ahead and sign up Tia go ahead and sign in and yes, let's hear for the person online, please Craig you should be able to speak Yes Can you state your name, please? Name is Craig Mercer
- Craig, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you have five minutes. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. I live across the street, directly across the street, and I can attest to everything that has been said about the property being an eyesore
- We have lived here since 2016. Shortly, I think either before or after whenever that fire took place, we were here and nothing has ever been done. It's been an eyesore. It's not just trash, it's just very eclectic, very eyesore stuff in a neighborhood to the point that was made as regards to sellability of your property.
- to have the chaos that's on the other side of the fence is pretty atrocious. That has been going on for all of these years is grievous, especially for a single woman alone with someone who is constantly being antagonistic over years where there has been a paper trail that I'm sure you have access to of the different complaints.
- her erecting this six-foot fence has incredibly improved the vision of coming into our cul-de-sac. I think all of the neighbors would agree on that because we're not immediately assaulted with the ugly trash and the ridiculousness that's on that property. That's not even to speak to his erratic behaviors around the neighborhood and everything else.
- So I would be in full support. I see that there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that this should even be a dialogue when there has been this ongoing issue for years. The six-foot fence enhances the look of the whole area. It doesn't detract from anything. It doesn't create any danger. It actually increases the sellability
- of Patricia's house and it also helps us in the neighborhood to not have to look at all of the chaos, the trash and everything else that's there. So we would wholeheartedly support the ordinance for the six-foot fence to remain and would feel that anything else would be failure to support and protect
- a public member from someone that has been consistently and documentedly harassing her for years. So that would be what I'd like to say. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Can you state your name, please?
- Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you. You have five minutes. Okay. Thanks Well, first of all, I've agreed with everything that I wouldn't have said and I'm here from the real estate side as a real estate agent in Wilmington I've gone out and I've seen the mess firsthand several times and it's awful. It's atrocious nobody should have to live by that but it is devaluing the property of her and
- Her house and I think it's going to be very difficult for her to sell in the future at right now She can't really do that. That's not on her on the table But I think if nothing's done with it if that fence is removed it will make it a lot worse In fact, if she was allowed I'd say put a 10 foot fence up because it's just horrific and she can see it from her living room and it just it's constantly there but I think this has helped her and helped her feel safer and I would hope that you would all approve this and leave let her keep her fence up and
- Thank you.
- Can you state your name, please? Kathleen Boggess. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you have five minutes. Although you've heard a lot about the difficult-looking property next to Patricia's, I would like to just share a little bit about who Patricia is. Daryl and I met Patricia several years ago
- when she applied to be a recipient of solar for all and solar for all is a program where residents earn Solar array by putting in 80 hours. We have built 40 we have installed 47 Solar arrays on low-income homes to date and we're going to celebrate on October 4th by doing our 50th build so that's a little plug for that, but we got to know her through that she was a
- a really good worker in terms of putting effort into helping other people get their arrays earned. She supplied food. She did actually some of the roof work, I believe, installing the racks that solar panels are put on. So she's been a hard worker since her divorce. She's struggled to make ends meet. She was able to afford a house in Parkridge East
- perhaps some help from some system, but she also is in a situation that is very difficult emotionally for her. And for me, that's what's important here. It appears to be that we have a neighbor here who is not totally emotionally standing on solid ground himself. And to have to deal with the
- consistent harassment that he has put toward Patricia. I don't know if it's because she's from Brazil and speaks with an accent. I don't know if it's because she's a female. I just don't know why Mark seems to have to continually make her uncomfortable. And it's just unfortunate that she can't be comfortable in this house that she has worked hard
- to earn and live in. And so for me, allowing the six foot fence is really the emotional aspect. I mean, yeah, the property doesn't look good, neighbors have shared that, but I really want her to feel safe and be able to go in and out of her house without having to be exposed to the kind of harassment that he has given her. Thank you. Thank you so much.
- Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak? Anybody else online? Good evening. I'm Georgia fry. Yes Do you swear a firm that your testimony about to give will be the truth?
- Truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do I'm speaking from the aspect of a I'm a former neighbor. I lived across the street directly from the house in question The house that's in chaos and has a lot of trash and I lived across that cross from that person for 14 years I've known Patricia for about 25 years roughly and I can I moved before the fire and
- before his behavior escalated, but I can attest to the fact that his behavior has always been erratic and for some reason it escalated after I left I've been back in the neighborhood and Simply put I am so glad I was able to sell my house before it is now in the chaos. It is it's It's unlivable. Frankly, I don't understand why the city hasn't intervened and addressed it and
- but and I'm aware of the harassment and some of it's been racially motivated harassment that she's experienced from him and That I've seen the fence. It's an attractive fence. You saw the pictures It improves the property and I just would like I know there are codes but anybody
- would want that type of fence up to protect them from not only the visual disturbances that are there, but also from the erratic behavior. His behavior has really escalated and it's been well documented. I don't know what can be done about that, but she should at least be able to have some barriers so she can live in some semblance of peace. Anyone else would like to speak on behalf of this petition?
- So now we're gonna go back to the to the board for a final action and If you have a statement or questions or a final action, we'll be ready a question and then a couple statements one is to City what where does this stand with enforcement? This is like we've seen a lot of these petitions a Protective order. I've never heard of it in one of these meetings. That's severe. That seems very severe. So where does that fault? Where's I lie?
- Transportation we are in enforcement with the neighbors. Well We actually were in contact with him today and we we it has escalated to the point of fines And so fines are now accruing for the violations on that property And so what will happen is a fine letter will actually probably go out tomorrow and He will have
- Two weeks to bring the property into compliance and pay the fine and then what happens is if that isn't done Then we refer those cases to legal and they will file against him To bring the property into compliance and or pay the fines they kind of work that out for each case individually, okay Thank you No, but if there's a protective order or restraining order or something like that is a
- the property protected in any way Outside of it being peculiar. Oh I'm not sure I understand the question just meaning like if there's a protective order against two neighbors sure and a neighbor puts up something to protect themselves then what's
- What's the typical precedent for something like that? Sure. So you variances and things don't variances or things you see don't set precedent So that makes it a little hard We have definitely had I can think of one case in the past where there was a protective order related to offense that a variance was issued So that the inside of the house could was not visible from a very close sidewalk Because of a person that they had a protective order against so
- You know when you're crafting if you're thinking about crafting alternate findings for number three, you'll want to be thinking about Some of the things that like mr. Boggess said You know, this is a unique situation because she is immediately adjacent to another property that is problematic And that still kind of ties it to you know, the details of the actual land and its surroundings Okay, and then I have a second question I think for the daughter of
- When was the protective order filed? How long does it last and what what was it filed? For was it for filed for verbal? physical Damage, what was it filed for? I'm sorry. I don't know the exact details, but I think it was filed about a year and a half ago to two years ago and it's I believe a five-year protective order
- for verbal harassment and abuse and He did violate it and was arrested for violating the protective order before Okay, one more question the House on the other side of this property. Is there also offense? What's on the others? We should be looking at this property to only okay
- Do you have any more questions lesson No, not at this point. How about your statements? I'll make a motion. Okay First of all, this is a pretty sad event happening and I'm really sorry for you know, all of you for your mother It's that's incredibly unfortunate. I So we sympathize very much so as human beings we have neighborhoods we sympathize with you and
- We appreciate the testimonies that all goes we hear that, you know that goes to the heart But I always want to clarify what the purview is of the BZA and what we're allowed to do and not allowed to do If we could vote on a motion, this would be quick. This be easy protect our citizens Let her at the right to a peaceful living situation. Absolutely, but what we're What we're stuck on is number three. So the first two checkboxes city says yes. Yes, I
- So the third one, we have to come up with evidence enough to overturn basically what the city's findings are. That's all we're allowed to do. In this situation, though, I find the Google Map and also the comments from Mr. Bogus? Bogus, sorry about that. This is in an uphill, so his letter, this is why the public input is so important, his letter to me highlighted how we can address number three
- which is the slope of this property. So the slope of this property, I can see on Google Earth, that is significantly higher. This person's property is significantly higher than your mother's. So to me, because of that, it ties into the practical difficulty that he said, which is a four-foot fence wouldn't allow the same as a four-foot fence on two flat properties adjacent to each other.
- That's gonna be my motion to approve this, because again, we take everything into account, but we can't vote just on that. We have to have concrete things that say, but I do believe in this situation, the slope of this yard allows us to say, no, this does need to be a six-foot fence. And as two out of three of us are real estate agents, seeing property values do this to properties around it is,
- Yeah, that should just never happen. So I'm sorry that it has So with that Can I make them go ahead and make the motion? Okay so For the board to adopt the proposed findings and approve case v-13-25 slash var-20 2503-0063
- The third criterion that we have to meet would be the practical difficulty is The slope of the neighboring yard being much higher Than this yard that we're talking about. So therefore would need extra two extra feet Does that work Yes, certainly would address criteria number three there. Okay references a peculiar condition. Do I have a second?
- May I have a roll call, please? Casinco. Yes Ballard. Yes, Burrell. Yes Good luck. Thank good luck with that neighbor. I hope I hope he gets help Now we're moving to our second petition v-22-25 Auto vest LLC. May I have a presentation for that as well?
- Yes, so this is just a clarification for a petition that was heard last month So this is not a rehearing of this exact petition, but just a quick synopsis that was a request for autovest to For property at 2130 South Wallen Street and they were seeking several variances the board ended up granting those variances and striking one of the conditions of approval related to additional trees that were required on the property and
- And one of the variances was also from maximum spacing for street trees. However, the board did not strike the condition of approval related to the street trees having to meet the UDO. So that contradicts the finding to approve that variant. And so there needs to be a new motion to approve that variance striking condition number two and number three.
- So this is cleaning to make a motion. Yeah, just cleaning it up. Okay So I'll move that we approve v-22-25 slash bar-20 25 0 6 0 0 7 5 Doing so by striking conditions 2 and 3 and keeping all the rest For two conditions and staff support and removal of condition 2 and 3
- I second roll call, please Beryl yes, Casinco. Yes Ballard. Yes We're moving to our third Petition this is case V dash 29 dash 29
- 25 value-built ink May I have the report, please? Yes, I'll be presenting David Brantes zoning planner and GIS analyst Let me just pull up my screen share here
- Okay, so this is case V2925 at 1017 East Aaron Court. The petitioner is Aaron Shi at Value Build LLC. So the property is located on the northeast corner of East Aaron Court in East Azalea Lane in the Walnut Creek neighborhood. The property is located in the residential medium lot R2 zoning district. The adjacent properties are zoned residential medium lot R2 and have developed
- Been developed with a single detached single-family dwellings the surrounding area includes Laud zone parks and open space to the south residential high-density to the west and residential smaller are three to the southwest of the property The petitioners request was heard at the July BZA hearing and was continued at the petitioners request
- The petitioner has revised their variance requests to include a determinate sidewalk variance along Aaron Court as well as the original Azalea Lane determinate sidewalk variance So the petitioner proposes to build a new detached single-family dwelling on this vacant lot with the construction of a new single-family residence on this lot the UDO requires a sidewalk entry plot consistent with the transportation plan be constructed along the properties frontages and
- Which would include azalea and arancourt So azalea lane is classified as a neighborhood connector and is required to have a seven foot wide sidewalk and an eight foot wide tree plot as well as street trees arancourt is classified as a neighborhood residential typology and would require a Six foot wide sidewalk and a minimum five foot wide tree plot with street trees so since there's an existing sidewalk along azalea the ud o requires that
- Those facilities pedestrian facilities be constructed along Aaron Court. The street trees are also required The the required street trees for each frontage are shown in the proposed plan here There is an existing four foot wide sidewalk and roughly five foot wide tree plot along Azalea Lane But no facilities exist on Aaron Court today so the engineering department
- has determined that the the current sidewalk along Xalia is not in functional condition as I believe 18 out of 28 of the panels are out of compliance with The cross slope so ADA requirements there and Must be replaced and the petitioner is requesting the sidewalk variance in order to
- Keep what is there now on Azalea and not to put in any pedestrian facilities on Aaron court So for the first criteria the approval of the Aaron or the azalea lane determinant sidewalk variance is in
- Expected to be injurious to the welfare of the neighborhood because the proposed sidewalk is not compliant with current standards And it's narrower than would be allowable And installing the required sidewalk would increase Public safety the denial of the variance would provide for the appropriate facilities to be constructed on Aaron Court approval of the variance
- Not expected to be injurious to the general welfare and the cul-de-sac is very low traffic and unlikely to have an impact on pedestrian movement There is no adjacent pedestrian facility on Aaron Court itself which is quite short For the second criteria neither variance is expected to be Substantially adversely impacted by the
- variances if approved And for the third criteria On Azalea Lane the strict application of the terms of the UDO will not result in any Practical difficulties in the use of the property As it can still be used as a single-family residence with the required pedestrian facilities installed No peculiar condition is found on the lot and there is sufficient space to construct
- The seven foot wide sidewalk and a foot wide tree plot Since the sidewalk must be replaced There are no peculiar conditions that prevent the sidewalk from being installed to justify the granting of the variance such as topographical or environmental factors There are also no utility impacts here that would prevent it and then on Aaron court and strict application of
- the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property in that Requiring the installation of a sidewalk would require a pedestrian facility on a very short corridor that has Very little current or potential pedestrian or vehicular traffic the transportation plan states that neighborhood residential streets, which this one is
- With an expected average daily trips of less than 500 vehicles per day and an expected operation speed of less than 20 miles an hour That for those instances a lack of a sidewalk can be appropriate So there's no community amenities or destinations along this the street which is definitely less than I believe it's less than 300 feet
- So it would see a low amount of pedestrian traffic. So while not to be included as separate findings, in fact, the determinate sidewalk variance approval criteria are included in the packet for the board's consideration. And based on the written findings above, the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings for V2925 and deny the determinate sidewalk variance on Azalea Lane and approve
- a determinate sidewalk variance along Aaron Court with the following conditions that large street trees 30 feet on center be required along Aaron Court in Azalea Lane and that a zoning commitment for the determinate sidewalk variance must be recorded prior to issuing a building permit And that concludes my presentation Thank you Do we have a petitioner? All right
- State your name sable buyers Sable do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Okay. Thank you You have 20 minutes and you don't have to use it all you can reserve some of that time for later. Okay, so
- anything to add I think Ernest shared most of his thoughts at the last meeting he just wants to reiterate that having to invest that much in changing a sidewalk that is already there is going to increase the cost of the home and he likes to you know provide an affordable single-family home
- So keeping that cost down is important. But if there are damaged areas of the sidewalk You know, they'll be happy to replace those They just want to avoid having to widen the entire thing So I think that's all we have to add All right. Well, thank you Do I need to stay up for questions? Yeah, you can stay close by yeah Any questions from the board?
- well actually Yep question from the board then we'll go to the public When did the did the city go out I guess it's for planner did the city go out after our last meeting and Check the panels because I actually drove to this site to walk around on it and kind of see the lay of the land I have been out there Between the July meeting and now but Murray and McCormick from the engineering department did
- Conduct a site visit before the July meeting. I think it was either the 22nd or 23rd But I hadn't gotten that information from her quite yet. Okay. Yeah, I think said like 18 out of 24 are Malfunction or whatever and so quick to the petition and so they would be in agreement positioners in the it would be an agreement if they got this to replace all of the defective panels and
- 18 out of 24 I Know it was mentioned in the packet like that. The slope is off So are we referring to that or if it's like cracked damaged concrete? Well, we would make this a condition first of all, so he would have to write as part if it was approved Yes, but I guess with the city them work with them if it gets approved to go out and
- I think I'm asking for clarification like the 18 out of 24. Is that the panels themselves? Right, but like improper slopage or con or like it's cracked
- Is a determined sidewalk variance to not require a sidewalk to be installed that would meet our transportation plan requirements So a seven foot so they would have to replace the sidewalk per the engineering standards for however many panels or if this is not possible to you know do 18 out of the 24 and to have it be a Functional system then then they'd have to do the entire length of it. So what the board is deciding is should what goes back to
- be a forefoot or Something that is different. Okay, so we couldn't make a condition We couldn't approve this with the condition that they would have to replace 18 out of 24 Yeah, so that that would be up to the engineering department, you know, so the board is just simply reviewing What would be the width of what? No, I'm taking the four feet or seven cost into that's the cost of this like we were able to take financial impact in the consideration so that's really where my question is coming from versus
- I think the petitioner had 20,000 and 15,000 35,000 for the whole sidewalk. That's where the whole or both both sides right both streets, right? Okay at seven feet That would be offset to the consumer. Yes. That's what he says. Okay. Thank you. That's it Any questions Leslie you're good Okay. Well, let's go to the public if there's any
- Anyone online or chambers that would like to If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function. We can recognize you I'm not seeing anybody. Okay, so we're back to the board So what stands in front of us like he he said? the new determined sidewalk is seven feet by code and
- Sidewalk the current sidewalk is four feet. What we need to determine is I mean Are we gonna Is it a practical difficulty to to stay at four or go to seven so I Mean I think under the determinant sidewalk variance credentials, even though we can't use them as finding the fact that
- D&E say location such That there's other pedestrian networks to use and it sounds like there's sidewalks all around here And then E is uniformity of development of the area best served to me Uniformity the area is best served when others like why why make this if everything else in that? Neighborhood is the same and it's functional outside of the panels that need to be replaced. Why would we? put this cost
- Offset it into to the consumer ultimately when we talk about things like affordable housing. That's a side point but To me, I think that's really that it looks weird even the drawings they put together bringing seven and four together I think that's that goes I'm on the opposite side of that. I think that has a strong visual impact It looks just very odd so I'm open to
- making a motion but we wouldn't have to have a finding of facts for Would it be for one and three So what the city is proposing is to deny the requested determined sidewalk there is on a Xalia and then approve the one on Aaron court and
- Then you can also add a condition, but we also need to see Speak on the Third condition Sidewalk variant you can condition that such that you know a tree plot of X width and then a sidewalk of X width would be allowed Be put as a condition. Yes. Okay. So you hear that I
- But if the if the argument from the petitioner standpoint is the cost, you know We would certainly argue that creating the separation doesn't change that cost So we would recommend a condition that just requires the tree plot with based on the transportation plan And then you can do a condition of approval if you so choose to allow for foot sidewalk or something different I Mean that's the direction I would lean in towards us. Well, I
- Ready to make a motion. Well, as we know it's always the hard part. Yes. Well make the motion I think Sorry, no, I'll make it so we can Fine-tune it so we have to a question for staff to make a motion for both Azalea and Aaron court or just one altogether It's one you can do either
- I'll just do it all together because I agree with already with giving them the variance on the other one Go ahead so that we the board adopted proposed findings v-29-25 Zr 2025 06 0 0 8 1 and Approve the requested determinant sidewalk variance on both Azalea Lane and Aaron court with the following conditions One the street trees 30-foot on center per the transportation plan and
- Zoning commitment for the determinant sidewalk variance must be recorded prior to issuance of a building and I would add three that The petition has to work with the engineering department on the replacement to bring it into compliance On the existing on the on the existing sidewalk on Azalea. Yes Is that does that work? Do we need to put the? The width as well in there to make it clear I
- Probably be helpful. Yeah, right. So keeping keeping keeping the four-foot sidewalk as is Okay, okay I second that motion and Then Tim I think it might be also helpful with that if you're approving the variance to allow the tree plot width as is Whereas the seven-foot tree pot is what would be required Okay, and that's for the transportation plan you're saying
- Yes, okay Yeah, as is eight foot wide tree plot is what's required. Okay, so I would yeah add that as a friendly amendment Okay, do you agree with that? I agree Okay, everybody good did you get it or motion stands? I
- I'm sorry, mr. Bell. Did you make alternate findings for the determinant sidewalk variance on Azalea because we were recommending denial of that, right? So I think you referenced a few criteria that were the alternate findings, but it might be helpful Just kind of summarize those right so the alternate findings Being under determinate sidewalk variance approval criterion D&E I have to repeat those but
- Think also Yeah, I think I think part of the practical difficulty is taking a sidewalk from four feet and almost doubling it in size like that really just does not make I would think using that sidewalk would be
- Because you could have bikes passing on one part and then they're jumping right back going to single file So I don't think that's improving the pedestrian experience So I would say that would be another practical difficulty Is the incongruence with From the new code with the existing might cause
- some pedestrian difficulty here use I Wouldn't this I'm sorry Liz I Mean I wouldn't necessarily say the fact that that it transitions is a practical difficulty because that is very common You know, I think mr. Ballers references to D and E probably are the most relevant in terms of a peculiar condition Okay, sounds good seven foot wide side
- Seven to eight foot wide tree plot along prison's difficulty. Could that be it? That made zero sense. So let me repeat that. So and one of the determinations, it was that there was sufficient space to have the trees and the sidewalk. But if there's a seven foot sidewalk, there's not sufficient space for the trees, correct?
- We did not I mean there I do not we do not find that there is anything that prevents a sidewalk from being installed in the appropriate location and meeting the tree plot, you know, that's I don't think that that's a matter of discussion From staff's perspective or the petitioners but more of the width of the sidewalk from the petitioners perspective They certainly they can correct me if I'm wrong or said anything incorrect So the D&E solve the our
- Yes, and I again as I said, I think mr. Ballard kind of summarized those in relation to this property not just simply referencing D&E But the the situation itself the presence of the sidewalk along the entire corridor You know the lack of other developable properties or vacant properties along here That would require a sidewalk to come in. I think those are specific. Are you good with that? Everybody good now
- All right, roll call, please. Casinco. Yes, Ballard. Yes, Burrow. Yes. Congratulations. We're now moving to our last petition of the evening. Case number V dash 31 dash 25, Kathy Church.
- So we'll have the staff presentation first. As zoning planner and GIS analyst, I will be presenting about 318 East Wiley, which is case V3125, and I will pull it up shortly.
- So V3125, the petitioner is Kathy Church at 318 East Wiley. The petitioner is requesting a variance from the front building setback requirements to allow for an addition to a single-family dwelling in the residential small lot R3 zoning district. So this is a 6,860 foot square
- Square foot property located in the southeast corner of Wiley and Grant and the Brian Park neighborhood The property and all surrounding properties are zoned residential small lot are three and have been developed as single-family dwellings so the petition the petitioner has been In the single-family residence and it it faces Wiley Street, so that's where the addition
- Is proposed to go and it will be 18 Sorry 10 feet by 16 feet So it will go eight 10 feet closer to Whiteley Street so in this zoning district the front building setback is a 15 foot build to line or the median front setback of the abutting residential structures, whichever is less and
- So the the neighboring structure is in excess of 15 feet So we would just use 15 as our build to line So currently the house is 22 feet back from the property line on Wiley and the petitioner is requesting a variance from their required 15 when they're doing their Porch addition. So as it stands now, it is lawful non-conforming at 22 feet and They're requesting to bring it
- of that lawful non-conforming state And request a variance for the 12 foot build to line instead of 15 So this is the the site plan as presented and you can see the 10 feet closer to Wiley and This is the existing house facing south on Wiley and This is a rendering of the
- proposal So to the first criteria the approval of the requested variance Is not expected to be injurious to the general welfare of the neighborhood It does not encroach into existing or proposed right-of-way along Wiley Street For the second criteria the granting of the variance is not expected to impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in a substantially adverse manner and
- And then for the third criteria, no practical difficulty is found in strict application of the terms in the UDO, as the property has been developed with a single-family residence and can continue to be used in that manner. There is room for an addition on the front. So it can still meet the setback requirements.
- The parcel is not peculiar in that it doesn't vary greatly from the minimum lot size It's average for a residential small lot zoning district And it's not irregular in size and does not have any topographic environmental or utility constraints present that would hinder a smaller addition so the recommendation based on the findings above is that the
- The department recommends the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings for v3125 and deny the request Thank you Thank you is there representative for the petitioner here I
- Can you state your name, please? Kathy Church Kathy, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. You have 20 minutes We wish to add this addition to our house because it's very small house and tends to be dark inside it's limestone and this would allow for a glassed-in sitting area and
- Myself and my handicapped son The width of it would allow us to have big enough doors to move Wheelchairs walkers and such in and out of it and it would attach to the house it would allow for entrance from the driveway and
- Also continue the other side across the front of the house and then down steps into the side yard My front yard has room for parking off-street Which is unusual in this particular area. There's a lot of street parking and we have put stone down so that our
- Friends and people that come can park off the road and that will not be impacted at all. I Think that's all I have Okay, thank you very much Right we're back for questions back to the board here for questions I have a few guys on mine. I'm gonna start here with questions. So When I look at the drawing here
- What we're talking about is three feet of encroachment. Is that it? Yeah, so that so if the building were were to be seven foot wide I Mean the the porch seven Seven feet it would be compliant. That's correct. Okay So my question is for the petitioner I
- Would a seven foot wide room be enough room to maneuver a wheelchair? The door would take up the entire area and you couldn't have chairs out there and have a walkway are the Are the doors three feet wide minimum or is that there is sliding glass doors? Yes. Okay All right Thank you any questions
- Quick clarification because I know the petitioner As you've said there's no way to build this on the other three sides of the house, but then the findings of facts from staff was that there was really no Issues around the house why this couldn't be on another side. Is that correct? We didn't find any Any obstacle to adding to other? sides of the house
- I have not measured from like the west side to the from the front building wall to What Street grant Street, so I don't know if you can make an addition there, but as it stands now you could add a compliant addition on Wiley Street and you know, perhaps the the door would would need to be in a different place, but
- That that's not exactly peculiar to the property as we see it So thank you for that. Then my question is to the petitioner Have you considered that? So you would be in compliance West side of the house it is a Two-story on the west side you couldn't take it off of the house without putting in a brick framework and
- framework Because the basement has an exit on the west side of the house and that would add significant Cost and would cover up the basement exit. So you'd have to accommodate that and
- Well, let's go to the public for comments. Anybody that is in chambers and would like to speak on their behalf, if you approach the podium and speak now. Anybody online that would like to speak?
- No public speaking. So we're back to the BZA for final action here Can I ask a quick question by looking at that picture on page 49 This is really to anybody staff included would there be a way to shift this to be in
- I mean you certainly you can put the doors on the north side of the building rather than the east side of the addition I mean, you know, they could I think there's lots of opportunities where you could put the doors in different location if opening that is You know the the key component there Right, so there would be options to keep the same dimensions you have just kind of alter the configuration
- Sorry We're gonna ask you a question I'll ask you a question so you can answer exactly what you're gonna answer So can you answer to what they've asked? about the location of the doors would it work as staff suggested I I'm not sure that I understand the doors enter from each end. There's no door on the north side. That's just glass and
- Doors enter from the sidewalk. Okay on each side. You can walk through from one side to the other and Then you enter the house from the sunroom By the door that's beside the garage You saying
- You know it appeared that there are other solutions of where to put the doors on the sunroom in order to be able to get in there if you're trying to accommodate the movement of doors and turning so that you've got enough movement the ADA requirements for wheelchair radius are 5 feet so 60 inches so you know as we've
- Kind of talked about you know, it is possible to do a seven-foot addition and utilize the house You know there is room to do the addition and meet code. So that's that's where staff was challenged Obviously with being able to find a peculiar condition Thank you Can I address the seven versus ten Pardon me the the seven foot wide room
- You could do that and make it longer, but it would make it almost like a hall a wide hallway instead of a room and It's very expensive to put on these Rooms and so it needs to be functional for my aging life I spent 47 years as a nurse and I've taken care of a lot of handicapped people and
- So they do need space to move around. And hopefully I won't be one, but the possibility exists. And certainly my son has that possibility as well. Thank you. So I have a question for the two of you. If you look on the Google Maps, there's two doors in the packet. There's two doors on the side. But then there's the driveway where I think what you're getting at is.
- It could be in the front Is that what you're know? No, it's just because of the width where what we're talking about it here is this exhibit on page 50 mm-hmm, if you look on page 50 and What the design that it's in red? Mm-hmm It's 12 feet
- the front of the house and it should be 15 feet from the from the house so that but what is look the proposed building is Should be should move that first line from the building should move three feet in that's what staff is Yeah, that's helpful. Yeah, so that's that's what staff is proposing so would make it a 7 by 16 room, which will be a narrow
- You know narrow room so is Handicap use a peculiar Criteria Something that is inherent to a property, you know, that's that's something that a person certainly trying to be disrespectful by any means, you know, that is something that is inherent of a person not a property
- So that's not in and of itself a characteristic inherent of the property that a variance would be based on
- Scanlan assistant director. I think you could make the argument that You know the house is too close to the road to add an accessible addition within the setback and an accessible addition is becoming more customary and You know that the location of where the house actually sits on the property makes that Not feasible Okay, thank you Jackie
- Go ahead ready to make a motion All right Move that we adopt proposed findings and approve v- Thirty one twenty dash twenty five slash zero twenty twenty five dash. Oh seven dash zero zero eight five Based on the peculiarity of the house and where it sits upon the lot
- You're proposing alternate findings. Is that what we're hearing for a number three? Yes, I Second Do we have to put a condition for approval of For She won't need to show for a permit a building permit and
- You don't have to put that condition. It's obviously an automatic you have it will be an automatic Okay, you know, we just have that obviously oftentimes to reiterate that but you don't have to put that as a condition Okay, sounds good So you might obviously and sometimes in these situations we say, you know, this approves the design as shown as shown That's that's just to make it clear that it is a specific for what is shown and submitted with this petition and
- specifying the Required roof materials from the udio That's not a detail that we had worked out as part of the building permit process. So what is shown in the packet? May not be something we want to Go with as that was not specified yet, so Well, we can specify the dimensions shown in
- It's you know 10 feet by 16 feet correct That is correct Yeah, so I think what we're just getting has no variances from the architectural standards are approved with this Okay, just a variance from the front yard building setback. Okay, sounds good Did you get everything then All right, I'm ready to go roll call, please. Oh
- Borel. Yes, Casinco. Yes, Ballard. Yes This concludes our meeting. Congratulations