[0:08] All right, it is 7:30. Let's call to order the March 9th meeting of the

[0:17] zoning board of appeals. Uh, can we start with a roll call of everyone who's

[0:23] present this fine evening? B, you want to start us off? Freeze Stacker Smart,

[0:29] » Vincent Verna, >> Ben Failey, chair,

[0:32] » Chris Gmbioski, >> Andy Docker,

[0:34] » Joe Cleo, Mike Brooks. All right, so we have a quorum. Um, we have an agenda.

[0:39] Can I get a motion to approve the agenda as presented or motion to modify?

[0:47] » Motion to approve the agenda as presented.

[0:50] » Second. All in favor? >> I. All right, we have an approved agenda

[0:54] uh as per the uh third item on the now approved agenda. Any

[1:01] um modifications or additions, deletions from the January 12th meeting minutes or

[1:09] fail? If not, I would uh entertain a motion to approve.

[1:15] » Make a motion to approve. >> I'll second.

[1:18] » All in favor? >> I

[1:19] » I >> Okay. meeting minutes from January

[1:22] approved which brings us to the first uh first appeal variance request from Eric

[1:30] Leman on 25615 Parkwood.

[1:34] » Mr. Chairman, before we get started on that, um Adam did arrive and that puts

[1:40] our number at eight. You can only have seven participating.

[1:43] So, um at this point, Vincent, you're going to be the odd man

[1:48] out. >> Okay. Okay.

[1:50] » So, Vincent will not be participating in this because we have seven. You need

[1:54] four votes. Four votes to handle this. >> May I be excused?

[1:58] » You can be excused. Yes. >> It's raining. You don't want to go out

[2:03] there. >> It's pretty bad. This is where you want

[2:06] to It's a shelter in place. >> Enjoy it in the basement

[2:09] » scenario. All right. So, >> okay. So, our roll call will now reflect

[2:15] that. Uh, Adam's here. We have uh seven voting

[2:20] members and our first appeal. Are we going in going in as presented?

[2:26] Any I think while we we this is the agenda as approved. So we'll start with

[2:32] uh Parkwood. >> Come on up.

[2:36] » Y >> All right. So we uh we want to we'll

[2:39] like to get a just a a general introduction about what you're what

[2:45] you're looking to do. We've got some materials already and then usually we'll

[2:48] let Hank walk us through the finer points.

[2:51] » Great. Uh my name is Eric Leman. Uh nice to meet you all. Uh here today to ask

[2:56] for a minor variance for lot coverage to support an addition on our garage. We

[3:01] are in a house, one of the few houses in Huntington Woods that doesn't have a

[3:04] basement. We do have some storage space in the attic, but we have little kids

[3:07] and we ultimately would like to add some storage space to the garage so we have a

[3:11] more usable space there. So, we're looking to add uh 10 feet to the garage

[3:16] uh overall, and Hank will walk you through what the numbers ultimately look

[3:19] like. Uh but the goal here is for us to be able to expand the garage a little

[3:23] bit to provide storage space for for our household, for our family.

[3:27] » Okay. Uh Hank, you want to >> Yeah.

[3:31] » something for us? >> Absolutely. So, so you can see it. What

[3:34] he's looking at is you're looking at this house, which takes up a fair amount

[3:39] of the lot in and of itself. I'll point out that it's a ranch and before I get

[3:44] into all the details, ranches typically take up a lot more room because they

[3:48] have on one floor what most places have on two. So typically ranches, it's not

[3:54] unusual to find them in a situation where they're at or above the lock

[3:59] coverage. So Mr. Leman is you can grab a seat, Eric, if you want. So there's a

[4:06] microphone there, too. Um, so what he's looking at is he's adding this area

[4:11] right here. It's not in any setback areas and it's 10 by 20. So you're

[4:17] looking at 200 square feet total is the ask on that. So what is the lock

[4:24] coverage is existing is 33.9. The lock coverage that he's asking for

[4:30] is going to be 33902. 3392.

[4:35] So it's just a little bit of an increase into that because they do have a very

[4:38] big lot. But let me go through the request for the variance and see where

[4:42] what we have. So we're looking at one uh special unique circumstances exists

[4:48] which are peculiar to the land structure or the building involved which are not

[4:53] generally applicable to land structures or buildings in the same district.

[4:58] So when you're looking at this, the current story, the current overage comes

[5:02] as a result of the design of the architecture. You have a situation where

[5:06] you have a ranch on a lot which typically spreads out more than it would

[5:11] anyway. Coupled in this situation, one of the other oddities of this is there

[5:15] is no basement. So there's no place other than the closets in the bedrooms

[5:20] and little closets there. So that kind of goes towards the architecture that I

[5:26] had mentioned. Uh the house as you can see is also on an irregular shaped lot.

[5:31] Again the design is a ranch and the issue becomes with the ranch is you are

[5:35] typically expected to have what space is normally on two floors to be put all on

[5:39] one floor. And again on top of that this particular ranch was designed and built

[5:43] with no basement resulting in a severe lack of storage. The solution of the

[5:48] garage extension would give them some relief from the storage woes that they

[5:51] currently have. Having said that, whether they had put an addition on the

[5:55] house or the garage, the addition would be the same, the same size, the ask

[6:01] would be the same. It's just maybe the location is different. So, in the back

[6:06] here, just to point out a couple other things, um, which again I may have to I

[6:12] may reiterate on later. back in through this area in through here. The previous

[6:17] owner had put in some drainage and some uh dry wells back in here um because it

[6:25] was damp during the early spring season. And so she had put that in there and

[6:31] that's not going to be anything that's going to be any different than that.

[6:34] It's still there. This is not disturbing that in any way, shape or form. So

[6:39] again, the variance will not be injurous to the neighbors or any other detrime or

[6:43] neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the general public. Um again, it's

[6:48] unlikely to have an impact provided the downspouts and drainage are properly

[6:52] addressed. The building department will monitor and inspect that on the final.

[6:56] No communications have been registered on this particular property and the

[7:00] property does have storm water mitigation measures in place from the

[7:04] previous owner. Three, special conditions and circumstances do not

[7:08] result from the actions of the applicant. Again, Mr. Leman did not own

[7:12] or build the property, plat the lot, or situate the house on it. It all predates

[7:17] his ownership. And again, uh the same thing with the garage, the size, and the

[7:22] architecture. He had no uh he had no input as to how the house was sized or

[7:27] how the house was laid out. And four, a literal interpretation of the provisions

[7:32] of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by

[7:35] other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance and

[7:40] that the variance is the minimum necessary. And again, the house and lot

[7:44] are over coverage as existing with no basement. The house has no storage other

[7:49] than the smaller 1950s closets, which offer substandard size even for clothes

[7:54] storage. While the space was cramped, even for the 94 year old former

[7:59] resident, it stands to reason that a young couple might face even larger

[8:03] issues. While the current garage is a twocar garage, the family can't use it

[8:07] because the space is taken up for storage. What they seek is an

[8:11] accommodation that will allow the expansion of the garage to 704 square

[8:15] ft, which although bigger than allowed, should give them adequate storage as

[8:19] well as provide space for vehicles that every other lot has. And again, we did

[8:24] put some sample motions down there for you. Um, Eric is here if there's any

[8:29] other questions that you want to ask or if he wants to add anything to this. Um,

[8:35] that house has been like that for years and years and years and there hasn't

[8:39] been any other accommodation needed. Whether or not the previous occupants

[8:43] and I've known I know the family that they bought it from, in fact, I went to

[8:47] Burton with her son. So, I I've known them for years, been in that house many,

[8:52] many times. And um while it is a larger house in that particular area, there's

[9:00] not really accommodations for storage. So, you may choose to consider that in

[9:06] your deliberations with this. But those are the four main criteria that you take

[9:11] a look at. And again, I'm happy to answer any questions that I can, as I'm

[9:15] sure Mr. Leman would. >> All right. Uh then let's proceed uh if

[9:21] members of the board have questions for the applicant or staff before we

[9:28] deliberate. >> Do you want to have one order?

[9:32] » Uh uh however we who any

[9:36] » I don't have any questions. We can start with me. I'll I'll pass.

[9:39] » Okay. >> I don't have any questions right now. I

[9:42] may have as we go on but I don't have right second. I I just wanted to clarify

[9:47] the the math or very So just to just if to make sure I heard what you said,

[9:52] Hank, which is a little bit different from what's on here.

[9:54] » Yes. >> It's so it's 33.90

[9:59] 92. >> Well,

[10:00] » it's now and they're asking for they're asking for the little bit more for the

[10:04] 200 square feet. >> So it goes from 33.92

[10:09] » that is what it is >> to whatever the math is.

[10:13] » That is the ask. It comes out under 34%.

[10:19] » It doesn't move it. It's that's the whole that's the movement with

[10:23] » Yeah. It doesn't move the needle. >> Okay. That's that was what I wanted to

[10:26] understand because there's a reference here to 42%.

[10:30] » Here's the thing. The reason that that was 42 was that was what was submitted

[10:34] originally by the applicant. >> Um and Mr. Leman was having another Mr.

[10:40] Leman help him with the math. And um it's a little bit less than what they

[10:45] were talking about. >> Okay. Well, that's I guess it's better

[10:48] to have it air in that that direction. >> Well, it has to be because if it would

[10:52] turned out more than what was advertised, we couldn't have the

[10:54] meeting, >> right?

[10:55] » Okay. So, it is uh >> so it's 30.

[10:58] » We know we know in real terms it's two it's 200 square feet 10 by 20,

[11:04] » right? for an additional 200 >> and it's and the as a percentage of the

[11:09] overall lock coverage it is about 0.02% 02%.

[11:15] » Yeah. >> Difference of L.

[11:26] » Okay. Got it. Uh uh other questions for either the applicant.

[11:31] » Is that not this? >> Only question I have is just just about

[11:35] to do this particular eye. Uh pvious lot covered. Remember we use that term uh in

[11:41] terms of drainage and storm water. talk to other neighbors. That's not an issue.

[11:46] » Well, it doesn't appear to be because they have a system back behind the

[11:49] garage as it exists. And what you're adding for was um what you're adding for

[11:55] is the 10 ft is the width and the down spout would go on the front side of the

[12:01] garage. >> Okay.

[12:03] » So, it would just be pitched differently is all.

[12:05] » Okay. That's all. >> But I have I mean I have nothing to

[12:09] believe that would lead me to believe that that would dramatically increase

[12:14] the water flow. >> So, sorry.

[12:17] » Go ahead. >> So, then it's that gutter is going to

[12:20] drain to that drywall you mentioned. >> Well, the gutter is going to drain to

[12:24] the front and then if it runs back, it'll end up in the driveway.

[12:28] » And that was my understanding in conversations uh you know that we had

[12:32] with the other Mr. Leman. >> Okay.

[12:36] » The only question I have is there all the access to this addition is going

[12:40] through the garage itself. There's no not additional walkways that you're

[12:43] going to be placing over there. >> Uh no additional walkways. No.

[12:49] » If if you take a look at the way that this is laid out, the driveway itself

[12:53] goes specifically to the garage. So any access to that room would be through

[12:58] what would be assumed to be a man door or would also be access from inside the

[13:03] garage. >> So the storage that they simply don't

[13:06] have space for inside would go outside. So basically, it's like if you took that

[13:11] and you put that somewhere else, you would be entitled to a 10 by10 shed,

[13:15] » which you would be entitled to, but you'd still be over the lot coverage.

[13:18] And this way, they can attach it, get what they need, and have a more cohesive

[13:22] structure, >> and it's in an area where they've done

[13:25] some storm water improvements.

[13:30] » All right. Uh so now we will um take comments and questions from the public

[13:38] regarding this particular request.

[13:46] » Hi Susan Considine 12727 Lasowl.

[13:53] I'm just curious how they exceeded the lot coverage in the first place. Um was

[13:57] that by ZBA variance? Was that um when concrete was installed and nobody looked

[14:04] or was it when some some impervious service was added uh without a permit?

[14:10] Just curious. >> I can answer that for normally we don't

[14:14] answer comments but this bill next >> long as it doesn't cut into my three

[14:18] minutes. >> Well, it will but

[14:20] » Okay. Well, then don't then I'm good. Okay. So, um, you know, I have a concern

[14:25] because we had a project come up before the planning commission last month and

[14:30] really the where the down spouts, it just showed them going down. It didn't

[14:34] show which way they were angled. I see little arrows on this one today. And so

[14:38] I asked Hank afterward, I said, when the building inspector goes out to give

[14:42] final approval, what are they using as their frame of reference to refer to

[14:47] which way the down supposed are supposed to be turned? I said, what what is he

[14:50] relying on? He said, common sense. And so I know in some of our paperwork it

[14:55] says if the zoning administrator feels and then one time someone in the

[15:00] planning commission asked Hank in your opinion and I would say that feelings,

[15:05] opinions and common sense are personal and idiosyncratic and I've also heard

[15:10] that the previous person in his position did a had a lot of oversightes and I've

[15:14] seen them in the records. So, I would like to see it exactly. I I heard

[15:19] something about a down spout dropping on the driveway. Where is it? And shouldn't

[15:23] that be on there? So, when the building inspector comes out says, "Yes, this is

[15:28] built according to code." Because I've also been hearing, "Oh, well, once

[15:32] something's approved, we can't do anything about it." So, I've been

[15:35] looking at the affidavit the owner signed that says, "Yes, I'm going to do

[15:40] this according to code." And then the building permit says um this will only

[15:45] be permitted according to code. So whose responsibility is it? You know, I think

[15:51] that the owner is relying on the city to not allow them to do anything that isn't

[15:55] correct. So the other thing too that this survey came in and you don't see

[16:01] any of the neighbors and if you uh hopefully you guys all look at Google

[16:06] aerial maps before you come in here. There's a neighbor to the southwest that

[16:10] has a garage pretty close to the corner. I can't tell because there's too many

[16:15] trees, but I would have thought this would have come in showing that. So

[16:19] hopefully this drywall works. But shouldn't it say that there it's only um

[16:23] allowed with a drywall in the back? Cuz we're assuming if you figure out just

[16:27] the size of the old garage, that's 4 84 square ft. And then you only have

[16:34] about uh 132 square feet behind the behind the garage. So you absolutely

[16:39] need something to manage that water. So there's got to be something that says

[16:44] you have that installed and it must be maintained. Um, let me see if I have

[16:49] anything else to say. Oh, yeah. Again, there's nothing about which way the

[16:52] driveway sloped. So, we don't know how much of the this backyard is trying to

[16:58] manage. Are they managing the full back of the house? And, you know, you're

[17:03] talking about the lot coverage. How come there's no reference to what's the rear

[17:07] lot coverage 50%. I I see these plans come in all the time and that I've seen

[17:13] one plan that came in where the architect or the surveyor bothered to

[17:17] put the rear lot coverage percentage. So that's my input. Thank you.

[17:25] » Okay. Unless there >> Mr. Chair, just for the record, the rear

[17:28] lock coverage is right behind Chris, but it's on there.

[17:33] » Got it. >> What is it?

[17:40] the >> I'll make a motion.

[17:45] » Oh, first let's just I just want to make sure there isn't any other public

[17:48] comment. That's okay. We'll close public comment.

[17:51] » Um uh the um appellant can respond if if he so

[17:58] chooses uh or we can proceed amongst the board.

[18:05] Uh, and we may have questions for you too. It's more, you know, it's it can be

[18:10] fluid as >> I do recognize the concern about

[18:13] drainage in Huntington Woods because we know that there are areas in the in the

[18:16] in the woods that have drainage issues. I will say for certain that this at

[18:21] least the way that this is drawn up. This is just a lot survey. When we do

[18:25] propose plans to the city, we will check and verify with the city that our

[18:29] downspouts and drainage are addressed so that we're putting water into the yard

[18:34] where the drywall will ultimately take it away. Um, so great.

[18:40] » Uh, all right. U, so now uh we can uh we can entertain a motion and then have an

[18:47] opportunity for discussion. Sandy Andy. >> Yep. I'll move I'll move to grant the

[18:52] appeal to allow from section 40-4.03-R1A

[18:58] through R-1E one family district dimension

[19:03] requirements. The following dimension requirements shall apply to the R uh-1A

[19:08] through R-1E district asking for a 3.4% lock coverage where 30% is allowed and

[19:15] 33.9% exists. 22 220 square feet addition to

[19:21] the garage. Uh and uh section 40-103 accessory building structures and uses

[19:29] um access accessory buildings and residential zoning districts. One no

[19:33] more than two accessory buildings or structures may be permitted for lot a

[19:37] private garage or require not to exceed 650 ft in floor

[19:44] area and one other accessory building not to exceed 100 ft in floor area may

[19:49] be permitted. request for is for 700 square four square ft and as a practical

[19:55] difficulty has been established and the use and the appeal generally meets the

[20:00] requirements for a variance. I will just say after reading all of that in the

[20:03] » well let's allow for a second I guess a second

[20:06] » okay so now we can discuss >> after reading all that I think it's

[20:11] clear that this is not a big deal uh I think that um you know if you are

[20:18] clearly to say the least inconvenience by not having enough storage space

[20:22] » um without the basement with the small closets which we all know about from 19

[20:27] style >> uh um you know

[20:31] you don't you don't have that basement. Uh it isn't irregularly shaped lot and

[20:36] while there is a theoretical concern uh about drainage uh I'm satisfied that

[20:42] Hank who's been with us for many many years and knows these situations well

[20:47] and experience clearly instructs that if there is a drainage problem uh he will

[20:53] bring it to our attention as he has done in past circumstances. The fact that

[20:57] there's already been mitigation back there uh is important and I'm sure you

[21:02] complied with all the notice requirements so that your neighbors are

[21:06] aware of this and therefore I feel quite comfortable uh having moved the way I

[21:10] just did. >> I don't feel comfortable having read the

[21:13] way I

[21:18] uh any other comments for the record or for the group to consider?

[21:26] Uh okay. Yeah. I mean I just I think we're we see a pattern of people, you

[21:32] know, wanting to uh find, you know, moderate ways or or

[21:41] manageable, affordable ways to make their houses more uh habitable in the

[21:48] way that we live now with all of our stuff and working from home sometimes

[21:54] and juggling things. So it's uh when we can I think that it's uh it's good to uh

[22:00] to allow for for that folks to stay put. Um having said that uh we can now we

[22:07] have the motion as presented and seconded. Uh all in favor

[22:12] » opposed hearing none. Motion passes. >> Thank you very much.

[22:16] » Enjoy. >> Appreciate it everybody.

[22:18] » Are you in the neighborhood? >> Uh two years.

[22:21] » Yeah. >> All right.

[22:24] Thank you. >> And the motion was the motion was made

[22:28] by Andy and seconded by >> um made by Joe, seconded by Andy.

[22:39] » Okay. I just want to make sure for the record.

[22:41] » I didn't

[22:46] streamline. He's quick. >> He's ready. He likes to see his name.

[22:50] » Okay. So the alternative would have been he could have added he could have built

[22:56] a 600 added he had he could have a 650 foot garage and then build an additional

[23:01] 100 foot accessory building >> which would have been

[23:04] » but this is actually less lot coverage in one cohesive architectural design.

[23:09] » Yep. It's a good it's good. It's uh it's on the books.

[23:12] » Uh that brings us to uh Mark >> Ber. Thank you Mark Filer. um at 1065

[23:23] Borgman. Uh so uh we can hear first from the appellet about the variance you're

[23:32] looking for tonight. >> Thanks. Similar to the previous one,

[23:36] been in our house about 12 years. uh three children. Uh two of them are

[23:40] drivers now. And uh although the house is already taking up a fair amount of

[23:44] the lot, um our garage was old and rotting away. And uh we're just looking

[23:51] to put up a basic 20x 22 uh twocar garage for additional storage uh and

[23:58] just modernizing the neighborhood. Um, part of that also is u to address the

[24:02] drainage question because that's a big problem that we're having currently in

[24:06] in the backyard um is we're also getting estimates to as we if we were to do the

[24:11] garage, you know, repair the drainage. We're getting estimates from Great Lakes

[24:14] and a few places on some different either French drain or this new hydronic

[24:18] system they've got which looks kind of interesting. Um but addressing the

[24:22] drainage obviously is is crucial and then again just having just a baseline

[24:26] twocar garage um you know which just add to the house. So

[24:31] » okay so for Andy's benefit there's not a second party you'd have to read for the

[24:36] the bigger garage just just rear lot coverage. So Hank do you want to give us

[24:42] some additional context? >> And again Mr. Chair on this there's

[24:45] there's a couple things that um we should throw in here. Mr. Filer had

[24:52] applied originally for a addition and a garage. When he found out how much he

[25:00] was going to be over on the lot coverage, the addition went by the

[25:03] wayside. So now there's just the garage. The garage was originally going to be

[25:08] bigger. He's paired it down because uh 440, which is what he's looking for in

[25:14] square foot for the garage, is the set aside for that zone district. So, he's

[25:19] just gone to that set aside. He was going to be charged for that footage

[25:22] anyway. So, when I say charged, I mean in the calculations, he was going to be

[25:28] charged for it. So, that was one of those things that uh that had happened.

[25:32] Then, to compound the issue, um Mr. Filer had contracted a building company

[25:38] to, you know, get a permit and build the garage and the contractor went and tore

[25:44] down the garage. So there is no garage there now on his property whatsoever. So

[25:51] needless to say, um Mr. Filer has some disenchantment with the entire process

[25:57] as it as it came out. Um so what we did was is we had the we had advertised this

[26:05] at the original size and the original issues that we were going to have. Now,

[26:10] as it turns out, when we redid the survey, which we did not get until last

[26:15] week, but we do have the information, and that's what it is on there. The

[26:20] actual rear yard lock coverage is going to be uh was going to be uh what was

[26:30] » No, it wasn't going to be anywhere close to that.

[26:32] » Okay. >> I do want to Frank, can you help me get

[26:35] this up here so I can see this? >> See the number on

[26:40] I thought you were going to talk about your contract.

[26:42] » I have a big print if you want to. >> It's got all that on.

[26:46] » Okay. So, the lock coverage is going to be um the rear the rear yard lock

[26:51] coverage. Let me see what we got here. Uh it's going to be actually 46.94

[26:58] square ft. So, that was what was going to happen.

[27:02] So, realistically for that, the original house isn't being modified. So, that is

[27:07] it is what it is. that's staying the same way it was and that was a little

[27:11] bit over. And as with the previous thing, these houses were built before

[27:17] these people had it. Like with the previous appeal, that house was built in

[27:21] 1950. So I don't have any idea what zoning ordinance was in effect. If

[27:27] anything, I had 1950. I wasn't even born yet. But having said that, that actually

[27:32] says a lot. but um to to understand what it is. So, he's got 46.94 for rear yard

[27:40] lock coverage. So, all he's really asking for is to have his garage back

[27:44] and have everything stay the same. >> So, what's the variance for if he's not

[27:49] going over 50%? >> He's not going over 50% of the rear

[27:52] yard, but the house actually has the lock coverage issue.

[27:56] » Oh, it's the it's not the rear. >> So, it's Well, it is the that exists.

[28:01] » Okay. So whether or not you want to throw that in and again we got this

[28:06] before we got the final figures for this. So you can determine that the

[28:11] final figures including any lock coverage or additions for the rear yard

[28:16] on the addition are still less than the 50% lock coverage and determine it that

[28:22] way. It's it's up to you what you want to do. Or you can say that he's at 46.94

[28:28] and doesn't need to be here. Yeah, that's amazing.

[28:33] » Um because originally we had a much bigger

[28:37] number on that. But what Mr. Filer's interest was and

[28:41] and again Mark, if I'm if I'm speaking incorrectly on this, please let me know.

[28:46] » His interest was being above board on this whole thing. particularly since the

[28:51] particularly since the uh garage existed. The contractor tore it down and

[28:57] he needed the relief to come back here and this was a big deal and we didn't

[29:01] get the 46.4 sealed drawing until uh what was it?

[29:07] Thursday. >> Yeah, late Thursday.

[29:09] » Is there any prejudice to him if we weren't to have a vote? Does it help him

[29:15] to have a vote on this? Assuming we were to vote for

[29:18] » Well, I I I think that if you if you see that this is his way, you can you you're

[29:23] going to need a vote whether it's to determine that he doesn't need to be

[29:25] here or whether he or or whether you know you're going to prove it as drawn

[29:30] as shown. You can do that and then you know that

[29:35] way he would be he would be situated. You know, I mean ultimately

[29:41] what he wants is just what he had. Yeah. >> And that's legitimizing

[29:47] pretty much everything he's been through.

[29:50] » Thank you for being a board. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh

[29:55] well, we can uh take public comment now if anyone has anything that they want to

[30:02] share. My name is John Cero. I live at 104

[30:08] Fort Talbet. My my question is because I came here with a misunderstanding I

[30:13] guess. Does this exceed the 50% rare lot coverage? If it doesn't exceed the 50%

[30:19] lot rear lot coverage if he's just replacing the garage that existed prior,

[30:24] it's confusing why we're even here on this point.

[30:28] » Well, we have to be here. >> I understand you have to. But I said on

[30:31] this point, right? >> Yeah.

[30:34] » For the record, I'm going to agree with him because he um we didn't have that

[30:38] information till late last week. So, as we had on the original information, it

[30:43] was going to be way over. It was going to be substantially over when the

[30:46] surveyor gave us the corrected information. That's why I said I I you

[30:50] know, I wouldn't it it would not be incorrect if you told them, you know,

[30:54] that he didn't need to be here. And I agree with Mr. Sher.

[30:57] » Yeah. I mean, if if it's over 50%, all I'd ask the the board to do is condition

[31:03] uh the approval on appropriate elevations being taken of the neighbors

[31:07] lots and of that lot with appropriate elevation distances so that you guys can

[31:12] actually see where the water drainage is. If it's under 50% or 50% and it

[31:17] meets the guidelines, then it is what it is. Um, you know, it's exist I mean,

[31:21] these properties subdivisions existed for over 100 years, my understanding,

[31:25] are close to 100 years. The city's been here and the subdivision has certain

[31:30] sizes that, you know, everybody buys the property in Huntington Woods. They know

[31:35] they're buying an old home and they know it's the 21st century and they have

[31:39] certain things that occur and you're giving up something to be in this

[31:45] community and to the extent that I mean I heard in the last one I didn't say

[31:49] anything but the fact that that that things have

[31:54] changed in the p now compared to the past doesn't change the fact that these

[31:59] lots were designed to only have a certain amount of uh coverage and the

[32:04] city is, you know, has issues with storm water runoff uh issues. And it's because

[32:10] this the the board or I don't know if the board, but it's because properties

[32:14] are being allowed to be overdeveloped. And what's happening is when the

[32:20] properties are being overdeveloped, it's shifting the water to a neighbor's

[32:24] property. That's what happened to me when plans were approved by the city for

[32:29] uh driveways. My property was flooded. Nobody nobody looked at the plans.

[32:35] Nobody looked at any of the elevations. There was no elevations. There was no

[32:39] current elevation taken. And as a result, I had I had no recourse through

[32:44] the city. The city was unwilling to do anything. And I had to take I had to

[32:48] litigate and it cost me a lot of money. My neighbors had insurance. So, you

[32:53] know, it cost me over $40,000 in a civil engineer expert, a surveyor, and a

[33:01] source cause expert. And my neighbors had insurance because insurance covers

[33:05] this type of stuff. And it what it happened is because this was approved,

[33:09] and I'm listening to this, it's, you know, it doesn't apply to Mr. feeler.

[33:14] But if if we're not seeing a a drainage plan before approval, if we're not

[33:22] seeing elevations so you guys can see how the water is draining, and if you're

[33:26] not seeing a civil engineer report that says, "Yes, water will be retained on

[33:30] this property. Here's the natural flow of water and water won't increase on the

[33:34] neighboring property, then it's this is pretty much prefuncter." And

[33:38] » what was your third uh thing that you mentioned? Drainage plan for approval,

[33:41] civil engineer report. What was it there? the elevations.

[33:43] » Elevations, right? Not just elevations that are 20 feet apart because there's

[33:48] undulations in the wa in the property and that could redirect the flow of

[33:51] water. There needs to be elevations taken of properties that are more like

[33:55] 5t apart. So you can actually see the flow of water on a topographical survey.

[34:01] When my my neighbors developed and I think this happens with a lot of people

[34:05] in this neighborhood in in the city and that's why you're getting more and more

[34:08] people coming up here complaining about it. I mean, I I want Mr. Feler and I

[34:12] want the last applicant to enjoy their home. I mean, I just don't want their

[34:17] enjoyment to come at my expense or at a neighbor's expense. And I think it's

[34:22] super important to make sure that nobody's taking on somebody's water

[34:26] because they want a bigger home or because they want an improvement to

[34:30] their property. I bought my property as is and it shouldn't be impacted by the

[34:35] development of other properties. And that's all I really wanted to say. I

[34:39] wanted to give you my piece. Appreciate it.

[34:41] » Thank you. >> Can I ask a question?

[34:46] » Of the no of tank. >> Sure.

[34:50] » I mean uh this is an issue that does come up. Uh the drainage issue and he

[34:57] just uh proposed three things that could in a problematic matter. I'm not saying

[35:04] tonight it is at all problematic matter based on the representation made. He he

[35:09] mentioned three things that could theoretically be done. Uh a drainage

[35:13] plan for approval, civil engineer report, and elevations 5 ft apart. I

[35:18] guess my question is does the city consider uh those types of showings when

[35:24] there is what I think people would consider a colorable or concerning

[35:28] issue. >> So the answer is yes, but it's done in a

[35:32] different manner. When you're looking at a garage or something specific that does

[35:35] not go to the planning commission, then if Dwayne, who's our building official,

[35:40] sees something that he feels is uh less or or concerning to him about it, he can

[35:48] order additional information and he can order additional studies. like with the

[35:52] last one where um I was aware that there was the water mitigation measures

[35:57] undertaken and uh the way that it was explained to

[36:01] me that how they were going to do that and everything with the downspouts that

[36:05] still has to get through our building department. So if whether it's him,

[36:10] whether it's Mr. Filer, or whether it's uh anybody else, that still has to get

[36:15] through our building official. So that's the second check and balance on that. So

[36:20] if in if in the event that let's just say I was completely wrong, let's just

[36:24] say I was way off the charts wrong on it, then Dwayne would have an

[36:29] opportunity to correct that. And Dwayne's our building official. He's

[36:33] been a ACT 54 certified building official for I want to say 40 years.

[36:39] » My only question response to that and I I obviously trust your judgment

[36:44] implicitly. Well, but you you don't have to.

[36:46] » But what I'm saying is I I do think this is coming up enough

[36:50] » that we should uh have a discussion at an appropriate time, not while your you

[36:56] know variance request is pending uh to make sure we understand it and make sure

[37:01] we understand what proof should reasonably required in X situation and Y

[37:06] situation. >> So here's a excellent opportunity for

[37:09] that to happen. you got the memo about the ZBA and the planning commission

[37:14] joint meeting. That would be a great point to to bring up and say agenda

[37:20] » this is yeah this is being asked here >> and then um you know even though it's

[37:26] not necessarily something that the ZBA typically considers is you're

[37:30] considering dimensional variances >> um if the ordinance is adjusted which

[37:35] the planning commission is in the process of if the ordinance is adjusted

[37:41] then um it could be adjusted to the point where you would have a greater

[37:45] degree of certainty that it's being managed in a manner that's more

[37:51] consistent with the changing times, the climates, the additional rains that

[37:55] we're having and that. So, that would be a discussion that would be great to have

[38:00] at that point. >> I would welcome that person.

[38:02] » So, absolutely. >> All right. Well, let's continue with

[38:04] public comment and then we can uh >> I'm sorry.

[38:08] » That's okay. Yeah. So, just to add to what John was saying, remember the old

[38:12] Wendy's? Where's the beef? Where are the calculations? Because again, the 50% lot

[38:19] coverage, that's good. I'm glad it showed up on this one. But again, it

[38:23] matters which way the driveway sloped. Uh, is there enough grass to manage how

[38:29] much of the house is coming onto it? Then when the next house comes up, you

[38:33] you'll see they're draining. It looks like their entire driveway is draining

[38:36] to the right of way and the whole uh western side of their house drains onto

[38:41] the driveway. And so the city is going to ask uh residents to pay more money

[38:46] for sewers. And yet I've been coming to planning commission meetings for not

[38:52] quite a year yet and I don't see a whole lot of attention to storm water. I don't

[38:58] see calculations and it makes a difference. Even that the first house

[39:02] that came up was the driveway sloping toward the back because then is there

[39:06] dry well sufficient to manage the garage and anything else that's coming toward

[39:11] it? You guys have no idea. I mean, maybe Hank does. I don't know. But it wasn't

[39:15] on the drawing. So, um I wish I have a list. I'd like the city to do a whole

[39:22] overhaul on storm water management. And we should be looking at some of our

[39:26] checklists because we had a resident who came forward to complain about water

[39:30] from two new builds. And then when we um Dan came out, Goslin comes out and I

[39:37] guess he thought everything was fine because she never heard from them. And

[39:41] then we start digging into the files and we can't even find an asbuilt survey.

[39:47] And that's a requirement and it's been a requirement since 2005 and the house was

[39:52] built in 2015. And the same thing happened to me. Big

[39:56] garage went up behind me. Then they put a new driveway, changed the slope, and

[40:01] the drive concrete permit doesn't show the slope. And I'm flooded up to like

[40:07] this high with ducks all the way up. I've got a 22 foot deep garage with 20

[40:12] ft behind me and I was flooded up almost to the front and then I have no

[40:16] recourse. It's all like, oh, your down spouts are turned the right way but not

[40:20] where they're flowing. So, I just want to add to I'd like to see some

[40:23] calculations. You know, it's not rocket science. There's cities that are

[40:28] actually requiring the homeowner to calculate their storm water and show

[40:32] which way it's running. and our planning commission needs to start paying

[40:36] attention to that because I can't believe how many program projects they

[40:39] just let through and there's no clear idea where the storm water is going.

[40:43] It's like well we feel it could be a problem or so I'd like to see some

[40:48] calculations. Thank you.

[40:51] » Okay, thank you. That concludes public comment. Uh

[40:58] the appellant can respond if you want. All right. Um, so before we entertain a

[41:05] motion, my I'm I'm I'm not, you know, here to

[41:11] make an executive decision, but my as I understand the inclination, it's good

[41:15] you're here and you'll, you know, want to have a garage back and I'm sure it'll

[41:20] be nicer than the one before. Uh my the hunch is to just interpret that there

[41:26] isn't a need for a variance and that uh that you you know you you have

[41:36] the green light in in the absence of one to build what you what you're proposing

[41:40] to the city to build. Again, that's uh if someone does want to entertain, want

[41:46] to propose a motion, we can certainly make a motion.

[41:49] » Well, that would be uh maybe

[41:54] » make the motion. >> What happens? It shouldn't it shouldn't

[41:57] come from the chair. >> I know, but isn't that the motion?

[41:59] » What happens if we say, "Hey, we don't they don't need a variance." What What

[42:03] is the process after that? if he doesn't need a variance, he goes and gets a

[42:06] building permit and he'll have to supply the same information

[42:10] » and the survey to Dwayne to look at and so he'll be taking a look at that.

[42:14] » Can I can I ask Hank a question while we're just absolutely on the subject?

[42:17] » Is there a storm drain running down the back side of this property line on this

[42:23] side of Orman? I know there's one that runs down

[42:27] north side. >> Can you help

[42:31] in some places?

[42:48] Yeah, there we go. So, were you saying that on the back side of this alley?

[42:54] » Yeah, I'm just I can't I don't see one here, but I know that, you know, we do

[42:58] have them that run down that back. >> We do have them. If it was back there,

[43:01] it would be noted on there. >> Okay.

[43:04] » Because in the easements, they're supposed for the surveys, they're

[43:07] supposed to do that. Having said that, um it wouldn't be a situation where they

[43:11] would be able to tap that by right or anything. Um but he did mention that he

[43:17] had talked to Great Lakes about a system other than drainage and it's a Jeep

[43:22] system. It's a system that's newer and what it does is it puts rods into the

[43:27] ground which creates space in the ground for the water to circulate even in clay.

[43:34] So which I will promise you his lot is clay. So um

[43:40] » we're shocked. >> Well that's because we all a lot of us

[43:44] live in the same area and they're the same thing. Chris has got the same I got

[43:47] the same you know I mean it's it's play unless you're up on the hill. So, um,

[43:52] then that's that's what it would be, but he still has to do that. So, he'll have

[43:57] to satisfy Dwayne that that's and and that's in in part on that. So, he'll my

[44:02] guess is he'll be in for permit tomorrow.

[44:06] So, that'll get to Dwayne. Dwayne's in on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Um,

[44:12] I mean, and if you like if you like, I can, you know, give you whatever Dwayne

[44:16] finds on it, just as an FYI. Um because I would really love it if somebody would

[44:23] bring that up planning commission at the joint meeting and you have that

[44:26] discussion. >> So that information might be helpful for

[44:30] that. >> Can I make a short motion to redeem

[44:33] myself? >> You're fine.

[44:37] I move based on the representations made tonight that there is no need for a

[44:44] varian and that the uh applicant uh can proceed with uh the plan that he's

[44:51] presented to us. >> Yep.

[44:54] » I'll second that. Provided it's approved by the building department.

[44:57] » Provided by the building department. >> Okay.

[45:00] » Uh we have a second. Uh couple but a couple second by uh other thoughts

[45:07] before we take a vote. >> Uh okay. Uh so all in favor of the of

[45:14] the motion as succinctly presented uh >> I all in favor opposed.

[45:20] » All right. No opposition. So uh in lie of a variance you can proceed with your

[45:28] 30 something procession. Thank you. >> Go build.

[45:32] » All right. >> Thanks, Mark.

[45:34] » Thank you.

[45:42] » Final variance request from David Ellenburgg

[45:48] at 13 332 Lello. Uh

[45:54] you want to come to the podium or or there's fine and we'll hear from you

[45:58] first. >> Thanks. Thanks for letting me present

[46:00] the project. Um, real real brief, uh, we are two two big parts of the project.

[46:07] Number one is just exterior facelift, modernized, new, you know, new fiber

[46:13] siding, shale, new metal porch roof, just just cosmetic uh, facelift on the

[46:19] house. And then the second part is a master bedroom over an existing family

[46:24] room. So, we have an existing family room in the back. Um, and we just want

[46:29] to put a master bedroom. It's gone through uh several improvements and

[46:33] iterations with the planning commission's input and a lot of help

[46:37] from Hank and um we've really uh put in a bunch of improvements to get it to

[46:41] where it is now and uh that's what we're asking for.

[46:46] Hank, >> thank you. So, um the ask here is 154

[46:51] square feet and the house is a little bit unique in that um what he's doing is

[46:55] he's building out the second floor over the first floor. So, there's a lot

[47:00] relation to the foundation, but there's also some relating to the planning

[47:03] commission appearance that um David Alenberg has just been through. So, let

[47:09] me go through and I'll take you and then again if there's any questions certainly

[47:13] you can ask them. So again with this one one is special or unique conditions or

[47:17] circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building

[47:21] involved which are not generally applicable to other land structures or

[47:25] building in the same district. So the existing house foundation designs have

[47:32] determined the layout. So it's a square, it's a rectangle except for the bottom

[47:37] has a cutout. There's a little cutout in the back of it. So the cutout is going

[47:44] straight. He's going straight for the second floor, not over the cutout, which

[47:48] is providing a roof over the second floor and space in the bedroom up above.

[47:53] So there's a couple reasons that that's important. If you take a look at the

[47:58] plan, the back area is covered by the second floor, which accounts for a

[48:01] portion of the overage that he's looking for. The overage in that area right

[48:06] sizes the room and allows for more fenestration. Why is that important? The

[48:11] planning commission requires 20% fenestration on the elevations. So he

[48:16] had to have the elevation. So either you crowd walls that that shouldn't

[48:20] necessarily have it with windows with windows or you spread it out. If you

[48:25] take a look at the area that he's looking at for that and uh let's

[48:31] I'm sorry. Hold on. Let me we don't have our usual equipment set up

[48:36] here. So I apologize. So, when you take a look at this here, um, on the top

[48:43] part, uh, the top left one, the front is to the right, the bottom is to the left,

[48:49] the the back is to the left. So, you see where the second floor is over the first

[48:54] floor, supported by a post, right, where the down spout comes down. So, you could

[48:59] see that that's what's supporting that. So, that area right there, which doesn't

[49:04] have it on the first floor, would have it on the second floor. So what's

[49:07] important about that? If you take a look at it on the west elevation, you see

[49:12] that what's occupying that space on the second floor is obviously ground floor

[49:16] is obviously floor, but it's also a window which helps to meet the the

[49:21] fenestration requirements of the planning commission. Also take a look at

[49:25] that on the north elevation and you'll see a window in the back corner as well.

[49:32] So that's where a lot of the fenestration and the balancing of the

[49:35] fenestration is happening. So that's one thing that he also has to have. And

[49:41] again, the total area that the maximum house size for the house is 2695

[49:46] is what he's asking for where 2541 is permitted. Um and then two, the variance

[49:53] will not be injurous to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the general

[49:57] welfare. it's unlikely to have an impact provided that the downspouts are

[50:01] properly addressed and again the building department will monitor inspect

[50:05] that on the final uh neighborhood communication that was in favor of the

[50:09] project is included. So you have seen that the neighbor that's affected on

[50:14] that side in particular is fine with it. Not that that's the end all to it, but

[50:18] it's it's a contributing factor. Three, special conditions and circumstances are

[50:23] not result of the actions of the applicant. The Ellenberg family did not

[50:27] own or build the property, plat the lot or situate the house on it. It all

[50:31] predates his ownership. So also that would mean the configuration

[50:37] of the house, whether the first floor had to cut in and walk out door to the

[50:41] back or whether you know the the size of the house, the configuration on the lot.

[50:46] So that's what that would encompass. Uh and four, a literal interpretation of

[50:51] the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly

[50:54] enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this

[50:58] ordinance and that the variance is the minimum necessary. Again, the ask here

[51:02] is 154 square feet for house size. They did have planning approval as planning

[51:07] commission thought the design made sense. While exact adherence to the

[51:11] standard may determined to be a bit of a stretch, the ask is the minimal to

[51:15] square off the house and keep the fenistration.

[51:19] So as required by the planning commission and allow the plan to provide

[51:23] reasonable use of the interior. So let's take a look at that part of it. So if

[51:28] you take a look at the upper level here. So where this room is in the back right

[51:33] over here where you see the cursor. So you've got the one window here, the one

[51:38] window here. If you see the doorway goes into here, there's very little room. So,

[51:43] this opens up and this is the space that is the rectangle for the bedroom. So,

[51:49] while this is an entryway over here, this area here is the area of concern.

[51:54] So, um what uh Mr. Alenberg and I have discussed is that this area here, if

[52:00] you're looking at kind of where I'm going with this,

[52:04] that's kind of the area right there that he's asking for. Um, and then one of the

[52:09] other mitigating factors is the house already is one of those colonials that

[52:15] if you take a look at it, it's got the one- foot canal lever in the front of

[52:18] the house. >> So, right away, there's the one foot

[52:21] canal lever that's in the front of the house that he can't redesign that.

[52:27] That's already there. >> So, and if you take a look at that,

[52:30] that's 30 foot wide by 18 inches or whatever it is. There's a there's a

[52:35] significant amount of square footage that's taken up by the canal lever and

[52:39] by that cutout, which if you add the two together, you get pretty close and you

[52:44] don't get you don't get to 154 square feet, but you don't get that far from

[52:49] it. So, what he's really asking to do is to square off the second floor. Um,

[52:54] we've been through the plan a bunch of times. It's not something where he can

[52:58] shave anything off the back of it because if you shave it off the back of

[53:02] it, then he falls inside of the foundation. So, you can't reasonably do

[53:07] that. And the other thing is is that you can't take out the canal lever in the

[53:11] front because that's already built. So, those are a couple of the things that

[53:17] have structural, you know, concerns. Um, you have the proposed uh motions there

[53:23] and I'm sure that David can answer any questions or I'm happy to take any

[53:26] questions from you all that if you if you want for it. But it's actually it's

[53:32] not a huge ask for this lot on this house on this lot because realistically

[53:38] most houses like that are built squared. >> Great. Uh, all right. Let's open the

[53:43] floor to public comment.

[53:49] This one have rear lot coverage on it. >> There's no reading. There's no addition

[53:53] to the rear lot. >> Okay. So, this is a good point is I

[53:58] think if anybody's coming asking for a variance, somebody's got to step in from

[54:03] Huntington Woods and look at the storm water. When this came before the

[54:07] planning commission, I brought up that the backyard has already exceeded the

[54:10] rear lock coverage and they were like, "Well, it's already there. We can't do

[54:14] anything about it." So, who's going to step in? Because if you look at this um

[54:20] look at the northeast downspout, it looks like it risks flooding. Uh all

[54:26] these houses have the same house number on it. Uh so I'm guessing next door is

[54:30] 13328. And again, you've got uh it looks like

[54:34] is there concrete behind the garage? Uh I can't remember where the down spouts

[54:39] drop here, but if you're going to allow an increase, can all that backyard

[54:44] manage it? And then again, like ho how many uh how many uh increases can they

[54:52] get? And based on the little bit I can see on the driveway, it looks like they

[54:57] drain their whole driveway to the street. And so I don't know if the

[55:01] garage is draining because you don't have downspouts on there. I thought that

[55:04] was required to submit. And then they're draining a lot of their western water.

[55:09] And so when the city comes to me and wants me to pay higher taxes for the

[55:13] sewer, when I'm trying to manage as much water in my own backyard and somebody

[55:18] else can just run as much as they want to the street, that's not very fair. In

[55:22] other cities, Oak Park is even um charging sewer rates based on how much

[55:29] water people are putting into the city sewer. And right now, as far as I can

[55:34] see, Huntington Woods does not look at that. Like, you want to run your whole

[55:37] driveway to the street and you're at the minimum setback in the back. You want to

[55:40] drop your driveway on the driveway and run it to the street, too. Oh, sure.

[55:44] That's okay. You know, there I don't see any of that coming up. Once in a while,

[55:48] it shows up if an architect or surveyor does. And so, you know, this hands off

[55:53] if somebody went over their lot coverage before. Was this done with a permit? Was

[55:58] it done? You know, I'm seeing plans where um it's approved with a little

[56:03] tiny patio in the back and then you look at the house on aerial maps and it's got

[56:08] a huge patio. And so that's why I told Hank, shouldn't we have some frame of

[56:13] reference for the final building inspector? Because then we don't know,

[56:18] did Huntington Woods approve it or did um the homeowner pour the pour the

[56:24] concrete later when they already knew they were at 50%. And I found some where

[56:30] houses are over, all you have to do is scroll through aerial maps. A house is

[56:34] over 50%. And then I see they get a permit to add a gazebo and a what do you

[56:40] call it? A hot tub in the back. So the building inspector approved the hot tub

[56:44] and they were already questionable at 50% and the hot tub definitely put them

[56:48] over and but it went through. So, I don't see enough checkpoints in this

[56:53] process. And I think anytime you're asking for a variance, anytime you've

[56:58] exceeded anything, and I'm I regret I didn't bring it, there is something in

[57:02] the code that as soon as something gets altered, everything else has to be up

[57:06] for u to have eyeballs on it. So, I'm just the planning commission didn't do

[57:13] anything when this house came up. So, I hope that you will. Thank you.

[57:18] It's >> interesting. almost like a biocale

[57:20] clause or something. >> All right. Uh

[57:23] » Mr. Chair, can I can I just because there was a point made that I I just

[57:26] want to clarify. >> Certainly.

[57:28] » So, if you're taking a look at this particular one and you see the shots

[57:32] that are on this, >> you see the shots are lower on the

[57:35] inside of the property. So, it drains from the property line towards the

[57:38] inside of the property in the rear yard. So, it doesn't drain onto the neighbor's

[57:42] property there. If you take a look at the shots, you'll be able to see that

[57:46] it's clear on the front page. And then from the from the back of the house

[57:52] forward, it absolutely does come down the driveway towards the front towards

[57:57] the street. Um as does every lot on the street.

[58:02] » Okay. Uh any additional public comment?

[58:07] » John Spir44 Talbet. wasn't going to make a comment until um uh that statement was

[58:14] just made. You're looking at elevations, sir. You're looking at elevations. It

[58:17] may not apply to his, but you're looking at elevations where you have one point

[58:21] and then 40t away or 30 feet away or 20 feet away, you're taking another

[58:25] elevation and you're coming to a conclusion that the water drains this

[58:29] way. That's just not not so water doesn't d I mean you're you're ignor if

[58:35] you if you take that as the gospel then you're ignoring whatever's in between

[58:39] those two elevation points and that whatever is in between those two

[58:43] elevation points have a significant determination on where the water flow is

[58:47] going. So, I think it's a misnomer to say, "Oh, well, they took an elevation

[58:52] from the corner of the home and then there's an elevation at the bottom of

[58:56] the driveway. Therefore, the water must run this way." And I just, you know, I

[59:00] urge the the panel or the board to, you know, in the future take that into

[59:05] consideration when you're looking at elevation. You need more elevations than

[59:09] a few. >> I I would also suggest that Mr. sure

[59:12] will come to the planning commission the joint meeting because whatever his

[59:16] comments are >> um they may be valid but based on the

[59:19] information that we have here this is what I can determine

[59:22] » so if he's saying which he may well be that the the information that the shots

[59:28] are not sufficient in quantity to make that statement 100%

[59:35] then maybe we need to have more shots or maybe we need to require them and uh I

[59:40] mean I'd appreciate if you show up planning commission and make some

[59:43] comments. >> I'll be there because

[59:44] » absolutely would. >> I've had two court decisions in my favor

[59:47] on this exact point >> and I shouldn't have had to go through

[59:50] that point. >> That may be helpful.

[59:51] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[59:55] » All right. Any further public comment? Uh hearing

[1:00:00] none, we'll close public comment. Uh give the appellent an opportunity to

[1:00:06] respond if he wishes. Okay. then uh we can

[1:00:11] uh entertain a motion and and discuss. >> Okay, I'll make the motion question

[1:00:16] » uh or or questions for the staff first if that's uh whatever works.

[1:00:21] » Whatever you want to do. >> Yeah, go ahead. If you if there's

[1:00:24] something you want to ask Hank or the or the appellent before we entertain a

[1:00:27] motion, that is that is good times.

[1:00:32] Okay. Uh Joe, did you have >> Yeah, I was going to make a motion.

[1:00:36] Yeah. Move to grant the appeal to allow matter of of variance request from David

[1:00:42] Ellensburg at 13332 LLO and take public comment for the

[1:00:48] following variance section 40-4.03-R1A

[1:00:55] through R-1E one family district dimensional requirements. The follow

[1:01:01] dimensional requirements shall apply to R1A to R1E

[1:01:07] districts. Maximum house height and asking to exceed the maximum house size

[1:01:12] for uh 2,695 square ft for 2541

[1:01:19] square feet is permitted. the total overage request of 154 square feet as it

[1:01:25] meets the intent of the ordinance and would lessen the burden and do sub do

[1:01:29] substantial justice to the applicant. >> All right. Uh

[1:01:36] we should have a second or an amendment. Okay. Seconded. Any

[1:01:42] » further discussion before we >> have a quick question.

[1:01:44] » Go ahead. Um, was there any thought taken in a way to make the proposed

[1:01:53] addition fit? Like I understand it's not a big portion and it's just the

[1:01:59] small corner, but um like was there thought like what you know is there a

[1:02:06] way to do the additional? >> Yeah, we the short answer is yes. We've

[1:02:11] been working at this since since I think last almost 12 months, you know, couple

[1:02:16] trips to the planning commission. We've looked at everything. It's Yeah. And

[1:02:20] it's >> the short answer is yes. I wanted to try

[1:02:23] to get it and we we got it a lot closer. Initially, it was 280. The ask was 280

[1:02:29] something and we, you know, they tabled it at the planning commission. They were

[1:02:33] helpful and gave us recommendations. But yeah, we've been back and forth on this.

[1:02:37] Myself and Hank have become fast friends. So the the short answer is yes.

[1:02:43] We you know it got to the point where it was kind of

[1:02:46] » this this is what we're able to do and you know either we can do it or we can't

[1:02:51] do it. It wasn't feasible to do anything.

[1:02:55] » Yeah, for sure. No, no, I appreciate the question.

[1:02:58] » I would say I I like this plan a lot. I'm super comfortable approving it. I

[1:03:02] mean, you're going up, not out. Um but I out of respect to the uh you know

[1:03:07] questions raised here in the commentary given

[1:03:10] » I we got a lot of smart people in this neighborhood and I think vegetation and

[1:03:14] clever ground grading as a long-term solve to you know the water issues we

[1:03:19] have is something that um you know we can explore and probably figure out

[1:03:23] something that works great for everybody.

[1:03:25] » Very good. All right. Any other comments or questions?

[1:03:30] » I'm not comfortable with this one. Uh, and I'm not going to recommend people

[1:03:34] don't vote for it, but I think this is just stretching the u criteria a little

[1:03:40] bit too much. Uh, I I I just don't see this as an extreme situation where a

[1:03:46] variance is required, but I also understand that it's a small ask and

[1:03:51] there's got to be discretion exercised. Uh I just personally am not hearing

[1:03:56] what's particularly unique or what the particular real exigent need is. And I'm

[1:04:03] one of these guys who really believes that the uh ordinance have to have real

[1:04:08] integrity and that um you know there was a comment earlier that I've kind of

[1:04:12] espoused many times before which is you do buy your home knowing you know what

[1:04:18] the limitations on expansion are. And I know that there's a very important

[1:04:23] consideration about the homeowner being able to do what he or she wants with the

[1:04:27] home. I'm just not hearing it on this one personally, but I understand, sir,

[1:04:31] that this is a small ask uh and it's just for my comfort levels.

[1:04:35] » Appreciate it. >> Any other comments before we vote? All

[1:04:41] right, then. Uh all in favor of the motion as presented,

[1:04:47] uh this would be the time to vote. >> Okay. Uh opposed, one opposed. So, your

[1:04:52] motion passes. >> Good luck with your project very much.

[1:04:56] » Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Uh, before we

[1:04:59] conclude, we will open the floor back up to general public participation.

[1:05:10] How can we house on a slide? >> So, I've been trying to see um one one

[1:05:17] of my other comrades says uh you know when when a neighbor gets water from

[1:05:23] somebody else, whose problem is it? Because that water wouldn't have been

[1:05:29] coming if the city hadn't approved a structure

[1:05:33] or an installation. So why is it that the person who gets

[1:05:39] the water has to fight? And if something's put in and somebody

[1:05:45] gets water that they didn't get and the city approves something, maybe the city

[1:05:51] should have to prove that it's not giving them water. So, I just wanted to

[1:05:56] read I Hank will have to tell you if these are still active, but in looking

[1:06:02] through city files, I found there's a homeowner affidavit. I call it the I'm

[1:06:07] looking for the city's CYA clauses. Um I certify that I am familiar with the

[1:06:13] provisions of the applicable ordinance and the rules governing the types the

[1:06:18] type of installation and hereby agree to make installation in conformance with

[1:06:23] the ordinance. Now this is 1999 so maybe it's changed. Okay. So the so the so the

[1:06:29] homeowner is saying okay I'll do it. But then um but then the city comes in and

[1:06:36] they have a clause with the uh with the permit that says permission is hereby

[1:06:42] granted for construction in accordance sorry should brought up in my thing

[1:06:49] anyway based on in accordance and subject to all applicable ordinances.

[1:06:54] Sorry I can't get my phone to work right now. So who who's responsible? the city

[1:07:00] says, "We're not going to let you do it. It has to be according to." So, they

[1:07:03] think it is. And then, you know, we've seen projects come up where they approve

[1:07:09] the house, but they don't approve the driveway. We So, we don't know which way

[1:07:14] the driveway is being sloped. So, again, it's not just 50% rear lot coverage. We

[1:07:19] need to see a storm water management plan when these come in. Which way's the

[1:07:23] driveway sloped? I almost never see where's the high point of the driveway

[1:07:26] so we know what's going to the back, what's going to the front. Um I I've

[1:07:30] seen so many projects come up that don't have downspouts marked. So again, we're

[1:07:34] just going to have to rely on that the guy who comes through has common sense

[1:07:37] and they're in the right spot. But then if a neighbor starts getting water, like

[1:07:42] there's a home over on Hart, I found the the plan in the in the down spouts or in

[1:07:47] the front of the garage, probably draining on the to the driveway, going

[1:07:50] all the way to the street, putting more burden on the city sewer system because

[1:07:54] they have less than 50% in their backyard and no ZBA variance to get it.

[1:08:01] And so it says they're in the front and I drive by and they're in the back. So

[1:08:05] what did the We have no record now. Well, what did the city approve? Did

[1:08:09] they approve it to the plan, but the homeowner moved the downspout? You know,

[1:08:13] we don't have good records, so we don't know.

[1:08:16] » But we don't know. >> Just a comment. That's why you need to

[1:08:19] come to the planning commission so that we can get requirements I put in there.

[1:08:23] » This is this is not >> I come to the meetings. I've been told

[1:08:26] maybe residents will be invited to participate, but so far that hasn't

[1:08:29] happened. >> Well, we don't even have a framework

[1:08:32] ordinance together yet. >> I know. Well, that's another thing.

[1:08:35] Zalooki goes and just dumps dumps other cities ordinances. And I'm not even sure

[1:08:41] our planning commission understands what's already on the books. Shouldn't

[1:08:45] we shouldn't we take inventory of what we already have,

[1:08:47] » Mr. Chairman? >> Because there's a lot of issue with the

[1:08:49] interpretation and implementation. >> Okay, I'll I'll end. But but when I

[1:08:54] speak, you know, a lot of problem is not with what's on the books. It's the

[1:08:59] interpretation and implementation of it and the recordkeeping.

[1:09:02] » Well, Mr. chairman and for the record just as

[1:09:06] long as we're you know on that subject I absolutely would encourage both of them

[1:09:11] Mr. Shiro is exceptionally knowledgeable in this and

[1:09:16] this just is at the wrong board for this. So she should be at the planning

[1:09:20] commission for this. >> All right. Well, her comments are

[1:09:24] » are noted as is the city's response. All >> on the record per the open meetings act.

[1:09:32] Any other public comment before we adjourn? I don't think there's other

[1:09:38] business beyond that. Okay. Uh hearing none, we can entertain a motion to

[1:09:44] adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.

[1:09:47] » I'll second. >> All in favor?

[1:09:49] » I. >> All right, that's a wrap. Thanks

[1:09:51] everybody. >> Thank you guys. Appreciate it.

HW 2026 03 09 Zoning Board Of Appeals

Transcript