[0:01] Good morning. This is a public hearing

[0:04] on a variance

[0:06] application. The applicant is Wendell

[0:08] Burnett.

[0:10] The affected property are two lots, lots

[0:13] eight and 11 in the Watchman

[0:16] subdivision.

[0:17] The application seeks a variance from

[0:19] section 10-15

[0:22] e-9a

[0:24] of the Springdale Town Code,

[0:26] which prohibits disturbance of slopes

[0:28] with grades of 30% or

[0:31] more. The applicant desires the

[0:32] variance, as I understand it, to be able

[0:34] to construct a driveway to a home

[0:38] on one of those lots. The applicant is

[0:40] Wendell Burnett. Is Mr. Burnett here?

[0:43] Mr. Burnett is not here, but we have

[0:46] Jared Bates from Rosenberg Engineering

[0:48] representing him here.

[0:50] >> Okay.

[0:50] Jared Bates.

[0:55] I should have known. I saw the truck out

[0:57] in the parking lot.

[1:01] Uh there are five elements, just as an

[1:03] introduction, there are five elements

[1:04] required to meet

[1:06] to obtain a variance. First is literal

[1:08] enforcement of the ordinance would cause

[1:11] unreasonable hardship. The second is

[1:14] there are special circumstances attached

[1:16] to the property that do not generally

[1:18] apply to other properties in the same

[1:20] zone.

[1:21] Three is granting the variance is

[1:23] essential to the enjoyment of a

[1:24] substantial property right possessed by

[1:26] other property in the same zone.

[1:29] Fourth is that the variance will not

[1:30] substantially affect the general plan or

[1:33] be contrary to the public interest. And

[1:35] five,

[1:36] that the spirit of land use ordinance is

[1:38] observed and substantial evidence, or

[1:40] excuse me, substantial justice is done

[1:42] and the burden is on the applicant to

[1:44] demonstrate all five elements. So, Mr.

[1:49] Bates,

[1:50] please come forward. I've read I've read

[1:52] the application.

[1:54] Um

[1:56] so I have a background, but

[1:58] first, if you could if you could walk me

[2:00] through the I understand there's three

[2:01] different

[2:04] uh road options or or or options to

[2:07] construct this driveway.

[2:09] You wouldn't mind just walking me

[2:12] through them so I can understand

[2:14] kind of the difference between the

[2:15] three. Yeah, no, uh and this this is

[2:17] Jared Basset Rosenberg Associates. Um

[2:20] yeah, so basically we've looked at um

[2:22] and I'll Brian, were you able to go out

[2:24] to the site and look at the stakes we

[2:25] put out there?

[2:26] >> not. My plan was to go out after the

[2:29] hearing.

[2:30] I I'd I'd be happy to join you to to run

[2:32] >> Yeah, that that would be great.

[2:34] >> I intended to do it this weekend, but

[2:37] I was overtaken by events, so No,

[2:40] understood. Oh, we lost our our screen.

[2:45] Lost our

[2:51] I can draw it. I'm just kidding. I've

[2:53] got I mean, I've got I can walk up there

[2:55] with you. I can I can in person.

[2:57] >> them here. Yeah, I can walk up there.

[2:59] Let me

[3:01] Let's see if we can get it back up

[3:03] there.

[3:06] This is one of those cases that

[3:08] this this is super important to see the

[3:09] exhibits, right?

[3:26] Do we know what's causing that?

[3:39] Well, if if I I can

[3:41] >> Come on. Yeah, do you want to come up

[3:42] and

[3:42] >> Yeah, that's fine.

[3:44] kind of show me here? Yeah.

[3:47] Um

[3:48] Let's see.

[3:49] How do we

[3:51] Just speak into Okay, sure. Um what

[3:54] we're looking at is

[4:00] I want to maybe pull them out real quick

[4:02] and then we'll just look at them all

[4:03] together as easy to look at.

[4:07] And then those all go together. Yeah,

[4:09] that's all the same.

[4:11] And then there's B.

[4:27] Are you coming up?

[4:30] Get you an extra microphone. Okay.

[4:33] Sure, if you can't if if we're not

[4:35] getting picked up, just let me know and

[4:37] we'll

[4:38] try harder. Okay. Yeah, so basically

[4:40] we're looking at here, this is an

[4:41] existing subdivision that when it was

[4:43] built, they've got the the roads the

[4:45] access is down at the bottom of the kind

[4:47] of the valley. What that is it's

[4:48] actually a wash that runs through there.

[4:50] And so that's that's kind of the the

[4:52] criteria we're working with.

[4:54] And and what what we're trying to do is

[4:56] um

[4:57] so the the owner,

[5:00] the guy who purchased the property, he's

[5:01] looking at building a couple house

[5:04] And based on the the topography the the

[5:06] safest best spot for this house that

[5:09] we're trying to access which is

[5:10] here on the in the page.

[5:12] That's that's basically here.

[5:14] >> We have the screen back if if that

[5:16] helps.

[5:18] Well, I can I can I'm more comfortable here

[5:21] honestly.

[5:21] >> Yeah, we can we'll Yeah, let's Okay. Go

[5:24] ahead. Yeah, so so we're again if

[5:26] >> lot eight is here and that's where the

[5:28] house is. Right, that's where the house

[5:30] is and so you can see from the

[5:32] topography that there's a there's a big

[5:33] elevation difference out here. And yeah,

[5:36] this is kind of up towards the top of

[5:38] the hill kind of a nice spot that gives

[5:39] him the best view. And so what we're

[5:41] looking at is um

[5:43] where the the end of the cul-de-sac is

[5:44] now, you You kind of see that here and

[5:46] all these is um

[5:48] is not in the 30% zone.

[5:50] Um where the house is at is not in the

[5:51] 30% zone.

[5:52] >> cul-de-sac

[5:54] existent?

[5:54] >> It's existing. Yeah, if you look um

[5:58] this is the existing you can see it

[5:59] here. The the lighter gray is existing the the

[6:03] dark the black is proposed.

[6:06] That's how you'd look at it and then

[6:07] mark up what you want. And then

[6:09] so both um

[6:12] so the house itself is is outside of the

[6:14] 30% zone and the road uh the cul-de-sac

[6:16] is outside of the 30% percent zone.

[6:18] There's a um

[6:20] there's like a an outcropping or a

[6:22] there's a place where the 30% zone jets

[6:24] out in between them.

[6:26] And so the reason why we looked at these three

[6:28] options was because

[6:30] um if you look at so you have these

[6:32] three options. There's option A, option

[6:34] B, and option C. So um option C is is

[6:38] obviously the one that we we prefer.

[6:40] And that's shown

[6:42] this one.

[6:43] And what you'll notice is if you look at

[6:44] the black marks you can kind of see how

[6:47] the extent of disturbance for option C

[6:49] is much less than A and B.

[6:52] And it's a more direct route um

[6:56] basically what it does is is

[6:57] >> You're you're talking the disturbance is

[6:59] less because it's a straighter line from

[7:02] the cul-de-sac to the

[7:05] Yeah. Yeah, so

[7:06] >> house uh so essentially a couple of

[7:07] things. Yeah, if you'll notice where the elevation of the cul-de-sac is is

[7:12] higher at this point.

[7:14] It's close to the elevation of the house

[7:16] and so uh

[7:17] if if you start at that spot to get to

[7:19] the house

[7:21] if you if you were to go if you if you

[7:24] go outside of the 30% zone you can kind

[7:25] of see we end up going back towards the access road and so that brings us

[7:30] further down in elevation. And so when

[7:33] you go that when you do that then I've

[7:34] got to make this the road steeper which

[7:37] requires pavement which requires a lot

[7:39] more disturbance and grading just to try

[7:41] to make those elevations work. The way

[7:43] the reason why the why C works or the the variance works is because it's

[7:47] running parallel to the contours. So,

[7:49] like when you see gosh, like a like a

[7:52] dugway is is a a term they use when you

[7:54] when you're going up the side of a hill,

[7:55] you try to go parallel to the to the

[7:57] slope, not perpendicular. When you go

[7:59] perpendicular, then then it requires big

[8:01] excavation or big fill. While parallel

[8:04] kind of minimizes, you know, you cut one

[8:06] side, fill the other.

[8:08] And so, you know, the the architect had had probably come up with 15

[8:12] different options.

[8:13] And really, the only one that really

[8:15] makes sense from a well, one that makes the most

[8:19] sense from an engineering standpoint is option C. But, as part of the you

[8:23] know,

[8:24] wanted to go back to some of this with with Niles put here.

[8:27] You've got on this second page where it

[8:29] talks about the owner's background,

[8:31] there's A, B, C, and D. And so, you

[8:34] know, based on you know, my work with

[8:35] the the architect, we feel like

[8:38] all of those those four elements are

[8:39] best served with option C.

[8:42] In the sense of, you know, you're trying

[8:44] to conserve the value of the properties

[8:46] near the grading activities. There's two

[8:48] lots that are across the road. And so,

[8:50] if you're I was the owner of the two

[8:51] lots across the road,

[8:53] there'd be less visual impact with

[8:54] option C than A or B.

[8:57] Because they're disturbing less. Just

[8:58] the area is less.

[8:59] >> Just total ground disturbance.

[9:01] >> Ground disturbance. So, what's tough is

[9:03] you've got creosote and other vegetation

[9:05] that takes a long time to to grow and kind of Um, I'm sorry, creosote. Got

[9:10] um juniper and other small shrubs. You

[9:12] knock those out, then they're going to

[9:14] be take gosh, 50 years to grow back to a similar spot.

[9:19] Um,

[9:20] and then also,

[9:22] by being further up here,

[9:24] uh the visual impact is further away

[9:26] from the lots here below. So, you you

[9:28] you're less likely to see the impact.

[9:31] Um, So, what they would see

[9:34] on these options

[9:36] would be more of

[9:38] All of this.

[9:39] >> All of this driveway, yeah. And then And

[9:41] then same thing on this one here. You

[9:42] They're going to see

[9:44] basically the the driveway

[9:46] basically touches two spots on the

[9:48] existing road. While the variance is

[9:50] just one.

[9:51] Um

[9:52] I I I think what you look at is

[9:55] um

[9:56] So, that's that That's why I say D seems

[9:58] like it it provides the best visual

[10:00] least visual impact than the other

[10:02] options.

[10:03] Um for C, you know, enhance the value of

[10:05] the new development. Again, I I think

[10:08] part of this too is is the the owner

[10:10] would like to keep this as natural looking as possible.

[10:13] Providing option C allows us to do it

[10:15] with a a grade that's less than 10% and

[10:17] that would not require paving the road.

[10:19] A and B require pavement. And so, that means, you know, you're going to

[10:23] see the pavement.

[10:24] You say paving the road, you're talking

[10:26] about the proposed

[10:27] >> Yeah. Yeah, we would we would need

[10:28] asphalt in the driveway. If we do C, we

[10:30] can keep it as as a road base. That was

[10:33] the preference of the

[10:34] I don't know, you know, try to match

[10:35] that the color.

[10:38] Okay.

[10:39] I think I've I've You can go back.

[10:41] >> Okay. No, I think I've got

[10:43] the lay of the land here. Sorry. It's

[10:45] complex.

[10:47] As you can see.

[10:50] When engineers show up, it's always

[10:51] complex, right?

[10:57] Okay. So, con- continue with with I'll have some questions about each of

[11:02] these elements, but

[11:04] um

[11:05] Oh, please go ahead and

[11:07] continue telling me what you were

[11:08] telling me on

[11:11] You're referring to the the town's

[11:13] memorandum and the

[11:15] >> Yes.

[11:16] sorry. On on the second

[11:17] >> purpose of the ordinance. Right. And so,

[11:20] um

[11:22] we first talked about there was was

[11:23] going through D, you know, which is you

[11:25] know, the the visual impacts.

[11:27] Um C is very similar.

[11:29] You You

[11:31] the the the property owner would like to

[11:33] reduce impacts to to other neighbors and themselves and keep the area as

[11:36] natural as possible.

[11:38] That that's pretty straightforward. Um,

[11:40] these all more conserve the visual

[11:41] character of grading sites and settings.

[11:45] You know, along the same lines. Um,

[11:48] A is interesting because if you look at

[11:50] um, C which is the variance option, it

[11:53] has the the the shortest retaining

[11:55] walls, the shortest um, elevation

[11:57] change, the smallest elevation changes

[11:59] in the road.

[12:00] Sorry, finished grade versus existing

[12:02] grade. Options A and B have much more.

[12:05] You can see they've got, you know, 8

[12:06] 9-ft walls, you know, as high as we can

[12:08] possibly make them. Those are required

[12:11] again because you're going from the

[12:13] elevation of the cul-de-sac, going back

[12:16] down towards existing road which is

[12:17] lower and then having to jump back up to

[12:19] a higher elevation.

[12:20] And so from from an engineering

[12:22] perspective, I feel like the disturbance

[12:24] within the 30% ground

[12:27] actually is less disturbance and safer

[12:28] than, you know, some taller walls.

[12:32] And you so so that the walls are

[12:33] shorter.

[12:35] And then one thing that the architect

[12:36] really wanted to point out was the um,

[12:39] the cut and fill or the the amount of

[12:41] grading

[12:42] on option C versus A and B.

[12:45] C is significantly less than A and B.

[12:47] So, same thing, the amount of earth

[12:48] disturbed

[12:50] is there.

[12:52] So, option C is the best option save for the fact

[12:57] that it

[12:58] goes across the 30% slope. Sure. And and

[13:01] I think I mean,

[13:04] just my professional opinion,

[13:05] the the the number 30% it's somewhat

[13:09] arbitrary in the sense, you know, is 31%

[13:12] any worse than 27% as far as disturbing?

[13:16] Inherently, no.

[13:17] So, I I don't I understand 30 is kind of

[13:19] a point that's used, but in this case

[13:21] where it's it's an outcropping of 30%,

[13:24] you've got lower slopes on both sides.

[13:26] It's kind of just a pass through that

[13:29] You know, we do walls and we do work all

[13:33] the time. So, if we look at Could we pull up that option

[13:38] C?

[13:45] Is there anything on these that that

[13:47] shows the amount of

[13:51] Yes.

[13:51] >> of 30% slope?

[13:53] >> Yeah, if you look it's it's Go to Scroll

[13:55] up, please.

[13:57] The next uh next figure.

[14:01] Uh go one more. Okay, right here. If you

[14:03] look, Brian, you see that the hatched

[14:04] area where you've got the crosshatch

[14:06] there? That's the 30% we're talking

[14:08] about.

[14:10] So, it it's strictly it it again it kind

[14:13] of shoots out towards existing road

[14:15] there and it it's not there

[14:17] further south or north. It's just that

[14:19] one spot.

[14:20] And so, to avoid it, I've got to bring

[14:22] that road, you know,

[14:24] based on the contour that's 10, 15 ft

[14:26] lower and then go back up.

[14:38] Just for reference, we met with the fire

[14:40] marshal and and he actually preferred

[14:42] this option C for us from a safety

[14:43] standpoint.

[14:45] Well,

[14:46] let me ask this because I I think

[14:50] as far as the last two elements, I I I

[14:53] think four and five are met.

[14:56] Um

[14:57] based on what you've said, based on the

[14:59] amount of disturbance of the of the

[15:01] other options,

[15:03] um

[15:03] I see. where where what I'm looking at

[15:07] is

[15:11] basically number one, the unreasonable

[15:13] hardship. Help me

[15:16] understand that cuz in the application

[15:21] in the narrative that was given it it's

[15:23] almost

[15:26] like the applicant is conceding that

[15:29] there's not an unreasonable hardship. I

[15:31] mean the the first thing that it says is

[15:35] it is not an unreasonable hardship to

[15:37] our client's project in terms of of

[15:39] costs. And then the next paragraph, the

[15:41] unreasonable hardship and in

[15:43] parentheses, if one exists,

[15:46] so I'm trying to get a sense of what

[15:50] if if the variance is not granted, what

[15:53] the hardship is given that there's

[15:56] two other options, even though they're not as good of an option as the third one.

[16:04] Um how do I find that there's an

[16:07] unreasonable hardship? That's what I'm

[16:08] struggling with. No, I understand. I I I

[16:10] think the way I maybe I would describe

[16:12] it it as being the hardship is just

[16:14] basically

[16:16] I would say the the reduced safety

[16:18] that that that happens with options A

[16:21] and B versus C. That would mean you've

[16:23] got higher walls, you've got um this

[16:26] scenario you've got steeper slopes, so

[16:28] you know, in a

[16:29] gosh, in a in a big storm event or

[16:31] you've got some sort of a rock fall,

[16:33] those two are you're putting the road in

[16:36] a in a less safe condition than what C

[16:39] would bring.

[16:40] So in my mind, I that's the hardship

[16:43] saying it's

[16:44] you're you're requiring the owner to to make a a less safe

[16:50] um road than, you know, and and from

[16:53] fire as well, too, than what we can do

[16:55] reasonably

[16:56] with this exception.

[16:59] Do the other two options, are they fire

[17:04] code compliant? Uh they are.

[17:09] So the issue just comes down to

[17:12] engineering and potentially the the

[17:14] third option is is safer and disturbs less ground.

[17:22] And the fire marshal mentioned that that

[17:24] it allows them to fight the fire better

[17:27] as far as gives gives them more more

[17:29] places to fight the fire if there was

[17:31] one on that house versus the other two.

[17:32] >> Cuz the the road is closer. The road is

[17:35] closer. Understood.

[17:37] I mean

[17:38] the fire code and what they can do it's

[17:40] somewhat um

[17:42] it's somewhat subjective.

[17:44] But you know, when it when we showed him

[17:45] these options cuz we wanted to go you

[17:47] know, independent of the variance it was

[17:48] just hey, we want to make sure we're

[17:49] providing access. He said immediately

[17:52] option C was was he felt was the safest

[17:54] option.

[18:02] Okay.

[18:04] Anything else on hardship?

[18:07] Um

[18:08] again I think part of the the concern

[18:10] here is is because this is an existing

[18:12] development where the road is at is

[18:14] where I would probably I wouldn't have

[18:16] put it because you got 500 CFS going

[18:18] through that wash there. It's not the

[18:20] it's probably the easiest place to build

[18:21] it but not the best place to build it

[18:23] and so because we're stuck with the road

[18:25] that's there in a place that probably

[18:26] isn't the best place.

[18:29] He's working with with a a bad condition

[18:31] to start out. When you say the road

[18:33] you're talking about

[18:34] >> the the main road. existing road. Right,

[18:36] the place that he's got to start from.

[18:38] It's it's in the bottom of the wash. So

[18:40] in a in a large flood in a in a 100 year

[18:42] flood event you got 500 CFS running

[18:44] through there. The the road potentially

[18:46] over tops.

[18:49] Do you know when that road was

[18:50] constructed? It would have been like

[18:52] early 2000s maybe five or six now,

[18:54] something like that.

[18:56] I believe it was just the early 2000s,

[18:58] yeah.

[19:03] Are there other

[19:04] lots

[19:07] I mean we've got we've got

[19:11] You guys see eight. This was also a

[19:14] request for variance on 11, but I don't

[19:16] see where lot

[19:19] Well, there's 11.

[19:21] isn't necessarily I mean

[19:23] 11 will will use that cul-de-sac, but I

[19:25] don't think it's 11 is is specifically

[19:28] impacted by

[19:29] the driveway for eight.

[19:32] I mean, it might impact where the where

[19:33] the fire hydrant would go or something

[19:35] like that. I don't think 11 is probably

[19:37] I mean, we're we're changing sorry,

[19:39] we're we're adjusting the lot line. So,

[19:41] the lot the access goes through lot 11

[19:44] to get to eight.

[19:46] And Mr. Burnett owns both those lots. Uh

[19:50] Shawn Honecker is is the Mr. Burnett's

[19:52] the architect.

[19:53] >> Oh, okay.

[19:53] >> Yeah, he actually owns all the lots in

[19:55] the subdivision.

[19:58] Do any of the other lots in the

[20:00] subdivision have the same

[20:03] access issue?

[20:05] No, but but what you're looking at is um

[20:08] when the when the plat was recorded,

[20:10] there were there were pods that were

[20:11] established where the the developer

[20:13] intended the development to happen. And

[20:15] again, if you look at those pods,

[20:16] they're down there at the bottom of the ravine. So, those are the ones that

[20:20] are most most subject to erosion and

[20:21] flooding. And so, if he were to do the

[20:24] lots, you know, not nine and 10 that are

[20:26] across the road, then we would be doing

[20:28] a similar condition there, too.

[20:32] Just because it's it's just not the

[20:33] Again,

[20:34] I wouldn't recommend putting those

[20:37] lots there even though they're maybe the

[20:38] easiest to develop, they're not the the

[20:39] safest.

[20:43] So, is

[20:45] and I guess we'll see when we go out

[20:47] there, but it is

[20:48] the subdivision was started, but but en

[20:51] platted, but never

[20:54] nothing was ever built? No, the

[20:56] subdivision was complete with with the

[20:57] utilities, but but there weren't any

[20:59] houses.

[20:59] >> Yeah, that that is what I was asking.

[21:01] There's no structures there. There's an

[21:03] existing structure where we have the a

[21:05] eight guest house. There's like a some

[21:07] footings and some um there's some

[21:09] improvements and some grading was there

[21:11] and I don't know if that person, you

[21:12] know, went out of business or ran out of

[21:14] money.

[21:16] That's all within like the 2005-2010

[21:19] time frame. So, nothing's happened out

[21:21] there for 15 years.

[21:36] Mr.

[21:38] Well, is there anything else you wanted

[21:39] to add?

[21:42] Just basically I mean

[21:45] I think part of

[21:46] one one challenge with the code the city

[21:47] has is is it allows for a concession for

[21:50] 30% slope and other conditions say for

[21:52] building a house or for structures,

[21:54] but it specifically says not for an

[21:56] access road and I don't I don't

[21:57] understand why that would be

[21:59] inherently different than a building as

[22:01] far as access through the 30% zone.

[22:03] So, it seems like an arbitrary reason

[22:06] not to allow it or it doesn't seem like

[22:08] a

[22:09] from an engineering standpoint or

[22:10] planning standpoint I wouldn't see why

[22:12] that reason is specifically inherently

[22:15] different from from building.

[22:17] So, meaning that like I could build in

[22:18] the 30% zone with with some concessions.

[22:21] I it says specifically that I can't

[22:22] build a road. So, I don't that doesn't

[22:24] make sense to me.

[22:25] Road or a

[22:27] driveway you can

[22:28] I see what you're saying.

[22:31] Okay.

[22:33] Mr.

[22:35] Conley, does the town have a position on

[22:37] the application?

[22:40] Um so, we've been working with the the

[22:44] applicants on pre-application design for some time and

[22:50] they've provided different options.

[22:53] Obviously, this was their preferred

[22:55] option and we identified a a conflict

[22:57] with the code and explained that this that the

[23:02] variance process is what they would need

[23:04] to go through if if they wanted to

[23:05] proceed with us.

[23:07] Um

[23:08] as far as kind of stating a preference

[23:11] between different options, I I don't

[23:13] think the town has has a position. I

[23:16] think it's um

[23:18] our our position is that we want to go

[23:21] through the process and make sure that the code is complied with and that the

[23:27] yeah, the the process is followed

[23:28] correctly.

[23:32] So, if if

[23:34] the variance was denied and they went

[23:36] with one of these other

[23:38] two options,

[23:40] um

[23:42] would a variance be needed

[23:45] at some point in in that process?

[23:50] Do either of you know?

[23:52] Sorry, I I mean, get given the amount of

[23:54] disturbance and everything else,

[23:56] if you couldn't do option three or

[23:59] option C,

[24:01] would you need to come back for a

[24:04] variance to pursue either the other two

[24:06] options, one or two? My understanding is

[24:09] that there wouldn't be

[24:11] another variance required.

[24:13] I don't think so. I know that option C

[24:15] was was more developed from a design

[24:18] standpoint than A and B. I know that B is iffy. It's close cuz cuz with

[24:23] the 15% rule with the with the fire

[24:24] department. So,

[24:26] you know, I don't want to say no. I mean, I think

[24:31] I at this point, no, but that doesn't

[24:33] mean they might might find something

[24:35] when we get into final design that might

[24:36] come up that

[24:37] could throw us off.

[24:38] >> You don't you don't know till you pursue

[24:40] it and I'll just

[24:42] cards on the table, it sounds like C is

[24:45] overall the best

[24:47] option for many reasons.

[24:50] Um

[24:52] it's just whether we can

[24:54] whether I can get to the the point of it

[24:56] being an unreasonable hardship as as the

[24:58] law defines it.

[25:01] Um

[25:06] So, anything else to add, Mr. Bates, as

[25:09] to as to that issue?

[25:11] Maybe, sorry, I I'm not an attorney.

[25:13] Explain Explain unreasonable hardship.

[25:15] How do you define that?

[25:18] >> An unreasonable hardship is is

[25:21] can't be self-imposed and it can't be

[25:23] purely economic. So, there's a

[25:25] discussion here about about costs, but

[25:28] costs

[25:29] can't be an unreasonable

[25:31] hardship. So, typically, when I when I

[25:34] find an unreasonable hardship or what we

[25:36] see in the law is if you can't build

[25:40] this driveway in a certain location

[25:45] then there's no other place to put it

[25:47] and therefore you can't construct a

[25:49] house. I mean, it it it almost prohibits

[25:51] development of the property.

[25:53] Um would be the example I would use. So,

[25:57] um where we've got two other options

[26:00] um

[26:03] I'm trying to work through that in my

[26:05] mind as far as as what the hardship would be.

[26:12] And that's kind of where I'm stuck.

[26:16] Yeah, I mean I I want to give you the

[26:18] chance to talk to address it.

[26:20] >> Right. I'm I'm trying the best I can. I

[26:22] mean, it's

[26:24] I I think our presentation is mainly

[26:28] this the spirit of what the code is see

[26:30] obviously

[26:32] uh

[26:33] tries to tries to match that better than

[26:35] the other two options. And so, if if

[26:39] I I feel like

[26:40] the code is is is is lacking in in this

[26:43] particular situation.

[26:48] Um

[26:49] Yeah.

[26:51] I guess I'll have a good answer for you.

[26:53] I I I could maybe look at it and and see

[26:55] if I can come up with something better.

[26:56] Again, I think we're we're you know, what

[26:59] what's best for the the homeowner and

[27:01] everybody is option C. Now, if

[27:04] we're hung up by the code, then I don't

[27:06] know what else to say.

[27:09] Cuz the code should should help

[27:11] development and should provide the best

[27:13] option for the city and the and for the public and and in this

[27:17] case it's not.

[27:19] I I I understand the argument and maybe

[27:21] I'm I'm interpreting it

[27:25] more strictly than Sure. than it should

[27:28] and I'm

[27:29] I mean I It was my intention today to

[27:32] take it under advisement and

[27:36] now that it's been explained to me to

[27:37] kind of look further into it before making a

[27:40] decision, but so you know that's that's

[27:43] kind of where I'm at and and so the town

[27:45] knows as well.

[27:47] Um

[27:48] Brian, do I have an option to to maybe

[27:50] provide an an addendum or some

[27:52] additional information to try to prove

[27:53] that point? Sure. I mean I

[27:57] Meaning get with with my architect or or

[27:59] try to maybe formulate a a better

[28:01] response. Like I said, I'm kind of

[28:02] responding on the fly.

[28:03] >> No, I'm I'm I am open to that and unless you have more for me right now or

[28:09] unless the town has more

[28:13] um I I think

[28:16] I'll

[28:17] take it under advisement. I would like

[28:19] to do a site view. It was my intention to do

[28:21] it before today, but

[28:24] um

[28:27] think if we end and then go go out

[28:29] there.

[28:30] I don't know if you want to wanted to

[28:32] come.

[28:33] Mr. Connelly is representative of the

[28:35] town. I I don't intend to do anything other than

[28:40] I'm available if if you'd like me to go.

[28:42] I'm Yeah, I I I'd be more comfortable if

[28:45] there was a a representative of the town

[28:47] since there's going to be a

[28:48] representative of the applicant. Sure.

[28:51] Yeah, I can be there. So the town knows

[28:53] what it what is said and represented

[28:57] while we're while we're out there since

[29:01] our court reporter can't travel.

[29:02] >> [laughter]

[29:03] >> And then and then I'll take it under

[29:05] advisement.

[29:07] And if Mr.

[29:10] Bates,

[29:11] um

[29:16] if I gave you an additional 14 days from

[29:18] today to submit to the town any

[29:19] additional

[29:22] what the issue I'm focused on, is the

[29:24] town okay with that?

[29:28] Yes, I I think that's fine. Yeah. Okay.

[29:31] I I I wasn't aware of anything in our

[29:33] ordinance that

[29:35] precluded it.

[29:36] Um

[29:39] I think that's totally reasonable.

[29:40] >> And whether you submit it or not, if if it turns out you don't need to

[29:45] 14 days, I'll just um

[29:48] either take what you submit or or don't

[29:52] submit and then

[29:55] draft my decision from there. That's

[29:57] totally reasonable. Okay.

[30:03] All right. Thank you. With that, um

[30:06] unless there's anything else from either

[30:08] party, we'll

[30:10] conclude the hearing.

[30:11] Thank you.

[30:12] Thanks.

04/02/2026 Appeal Authority Meeting

Transcript