[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.