[0:02] good all right everybody

[0:04] ready okay uh welcome everyone this is

[0:07] the call to order of the chesap board of

[0:09] appeals 7M uh May 1st 2024 uh we begin

[0:13] as always with a roll call I will

[0:15] announce name please announce if you're

[0:16] present uh Mr Rich Richard Burch pres Mr

[0:20] Paul dhy present Miss Amy Everett

[0:22] present Mr Steven sharp pres and I am Mr

[0:25] jod honstar we have a quorum we are also

[0:27] joined by uh town clerk Sharon hum and

[0:30] legal council Fred susman uh we have a

[0:33] couple uh housekeeping items on the

[0:35] agenda first this morning this evening

[0:38] um first is to accept some documents

[0:40] into the record um the board of appeals

[0:43] is to accept into the record rebuttal

[0:45] comments from parties of record for case

[0:47] 20233 from rodal Incorporated Donavan

[0:49] Estates LLC uh for that case um I guess

[0:53] I will pass it to Sharon for entering

[0:55] these doc documents into the record is

[0:57] that how we're doing this okay should

[0:59] just he need to do we do need to do a

[1:02] motion to do that Mr do we need to do a

[1:06] motion to accept those into the record I

[1:09] think for this one you probably should

[1:11] okay I will entertain a motion to enter

[1:14] the uh document submitted to town hall

[1:16] into the record for case

[1:19] 20233 I will make that motion I have a

[1:22] second second verification the documents

[1:25] consist of

[1:36] a cover memorandum dated May 1st 2024 to

[1:40] the board of appeals identifying six

[1:43] sets of rebuttal comments uh from Daniel

[1:47] dval Goron black welder Kathleen Baro

[1:51] Eric Bliss on behalf of rod reel hoe

[1:54] wall and mayor Patrick

[1:56] Mahone all of those rebuttal comments

[1:59] are attached to

[2:00] memorandum you um I believe we had a

[2:03] second uh all in favor of entering these

[2:05] documents into the record I right the

[2:10] motion passes um share we have a copy

[2:13] and I believe a copy will also be posted

[2:15] for the public okay uh that done next on

[2:19] the agenda is the approval of a minutes

[2:21] from the April 8 2024 case 20241 of

[2:26] puxin property purchases

[2:28] LLC um any concerns with the minutes

[2:31] that anyone

[2:33] noted heing none uh I'll entertain a

[2:36] motion to approve these meeting minutes

[2:38] I will make 10 motion second second in

[2:43] favor right uh the last bit is to is the

[2:48] written decision for that same case uh

[2:51] to review the written interpretation

[2:53] decision for board of appeals case 2022

[2:56] or

[2:57] 20241 Tu and property purchasers l C and

[3:00] if uh my summary is correct the bo uh

[3:03] the board of appeals denied relief that

[3:05] would allow two gravel off street

[3:06] parking spaces the front setback for uh

[3:09] 40111 14th Street I think that was the

[3:11] gist of that um does anybody have

[3:17] issues written decision for that

[3:21] case right hearing none I will entertain

[3:25] a motion to vote on the written

[3:27] decision make that motion second I'll

[3:30] second that all right all in

[3:33] favor right uh so we are going to vote

[3:36] on the uh approval of the written

[3:39] decision that we have in our packets

[3:42] today and we're sent out via email

[3:43] earlier I'll just go around the room

[3:45] answer if uh you vote uh to approve this

[3:51] um this document uh Mr Richard Burch I

[3:55] approve PA dhy I approve Miss Amy

[3:58] Everett I approve

[4:00] even sharp

[4:02] approve the um the vote passes we will

[4:07] sign that document and get it wherever

[4:10] it needs to go uh okay that is it for me

[4:15] um at this point in time I will pass it

[4:17] off to Vice chair Mr Paul dhy to listen

[4:20] to case

[4:23] 20242 Mr chairman are you recusing

[4:25] yourself from participation in this case

[4:27] I am indeed recusing myself thank you

[4:33] all right our last agenda item is toh

[4:37] hear um board of appeals case

[4:46] 2024-25 27th

[4:49] Street um or owners of real property

[4:53] known as 395 27th Street for variance to

[4:57] Article 5 section

[5:00] 29-19

[5:02] a uh dimensional requirements for the um

[5:05] front

[5:07] yard

[5:09] reduction uh and permitted projections

[5:11] in the required

[5:15] yards we have done a roll call um so the

[5:19] order of the uh this presentation will

[5:22] be

[5:23] uh incorporation uh into the file and

[5:26] record provided by staff

[5:31] which we can I guess we formally we

[5:34] formally do

[5:36] that inate the memo from

[5:39] staff well staff will make a

[5:42] presentation before before we get there

[5:44] I think uh the CLK need to advise the

[5:47] board of compliance with the notice

[5:52] requirements in the matter of the

[5:54] application from Michael and Beverly

[5:56] former 3905 27th Street chese Beach

[6:00] Maryland Board of Appeals case 202

[6:03] 24-02 I cause to be published in the

[6:06] southern Maryland News newspaper a

[6:08] notice of this may 1 2024 public

[6:12] hearing on April 19th and April 26

[6:17] 2024 notice was provided to the Planning

[6:20] Commission on April 3rd

[6:22] 2024 on March 28th 2024 notice was

[6:26] provided by registered mail to the

[6:28] applicant and adjoining property owners

[6:31] and the property was posted by the

[6:33] public works department on April 12th

[6:43] 2024 are there any

[6:46] comments written comments Madam

[6:51] clerk yes we have one from Susan Webster

[6:55] page uh she uh speaks in favor of the

[6:59] very

[7:02] all right the uh the next several steps

[7:05] we will hear from the

[7:07] partitioner uh then I have testimony of

[7:11] Staff uh and then public uh testimony if

[7:15] there is

[7:16] any uh summary statements

[7:19] cross-examination summary statements and

[7:21] the closing of the meeting public

[7:23] hearing and then deliberations

[7:30] so the case

[7:35] summary not sure how much this we need

[7:38] to

[7:52] read again the summary I believe is as

[7:56] we as I uh described it earlier 20

[8:01] 20242 consider an application for

[8:04] Michael and Beverly Fulmer owners of

[8:06] real property at 3905 27th Street in

[8:10] ches big beach for a variance to Article

[8:13] 5 section

[8:30] into well required yards including side

[8:37] yards at this point um we will hear from

[8:42] the

[8:43] petitioner and do we need to swearing in

[8:48] yes you can set just raise your right

[8:52] hand you Solly affirm under the penalty

[8:55] of perjury that the testimony you're

[8:57] about to give will be the truth the

[8:58] whole truth and nothing but the

[9:00] truth thank

[9:03] you I let the record reflect that both

[9:06] Mr and Mrs Fulmer were sworn

[9:11] in my wife Beverly and I are here to

[9:14] request a variance to replaced our

[9:15] existing porch and steps with a new

[9:17] front porch and steps I've remodeled our

[9:19] home except for the front porch we

[9:22] submitted our plans with our original

[9:24] permit request which was denied due to

[9:26] encroachment in the required yard areas

[9:28] we thought that width was the problem at

[9:30] the time so we had modified our request

[9:33] for a smaller width front porch um but

[9:36] we were denied then due to the font

[9:38] front yard requirements specifically the

[9:41] side requirements are 8 feet from the

[9:42] neighbor's property and 15 fet from the

[9:44] sidewalk our front door our home is 15

[9:47] feet from the sidewalk um we cannot

[9:51] replace the porch under these

[9:52] circumstances because we're not required

[9:55] we're

[9:56] not allowed to build in the 15 ft to the

[9:59] sidewalk so we are requesting a variance

[10:03] um to increase the lot area for our

[10:07] front porch and steps um originally we

[10:10] had

[10:11] requested um a front porch 21 feet by

[10:15] six feet that would extend to the width

[10:17] of the house so very similar to our

[10:19] neighbors to our left and our right um

[10:23] but then that was rejected we thought

[10:24] because of the 15 because of the side

[10:28] requirements um so then we had uh

[10:31] submitted a uh I guess a another uh

[10:35] option uh which was 15 feet width with a

[10:39] six foot uh coming out from the house um

[10:43] uh we weren't sure then we were denied

[10:45] that because of the 15ot requirement um

[10:48] so then we just re went to if at all

[10:51] possible just replace the porch that we

[10:53] had which is quite smaller than the ones

[10:55] that we're requesting we would like to

[10:57] have the first option which is to the

[10:59] width of the house um option um so we're

[11:03] going to leave it up to the board to I

[11:05] guess decide what we can do with our

[11:06] property at this point um our property

[11:10] our lot is going to be 30 by 100 and it

[11:12] seems that majority of the houses maybe

[11:15] not a majority but about 30% of the

[11:16] houses in the neighborhood have this 15

[11:18] feet problem um not sure if you

[11:22] had seen that in the past um or are

[11:27] thinking about having problems in the

[11:28] future

[11:30] um but I'm sure we're not the only ones

[11:32] who have a problem with this um

[11:40] requirement do we have any questions

[11:43] from the

[11:45] board after the board has questions if

[11:48] they do I

[11:50] have I don't have a question at this

[11:54] time I I have one I have one question um

[11:58] there there there were several options

[12:00] that were

[12:02] proposed and the the depth that you're

[12:06] proposing in one option I think was six

[12:09] feet Yes the other option was I believe

[12:11] it was four and A2 feet yeah but that

[12:13] did not include the step so I apologize

[12:15] for putting that air or having that

[12:17] error in our write up um the front porch

[12:21] presently is four feet uh and then the

[12:24] steps come out to about six foot well

[12:27] six foot total

[12:29] okay so you say the present porch is

[12:32] four feet yes and then another and then

[12:36] the four feet

[12:37] wide I see the picture and then four

[12:41] feet in depth the front porch and then

[12:43] the steps come at the Landing I'd say

[12:45] and how far out does the do the steps go

[12:47] to a full six foot yeah you include the

[12:49] steps include the steps in the landing

[12:51] it's six

[12:53] foot so I guess it would leave

[12:54] approximately 9 ft from the porch

[12:57] landing and that's the dimensions of

[12:59] present our present is 4 and a half uh

[13:04] by six foot with the

[13:08] steps all right that's that's the only

[13:10] question presently we do not have any

[13:11] rails on the porch either so you know we

[13:14] want to have it safe yeah okay ask a

[13:18] follow on then so with the two proposals

[13:21] that you did make six feet and 4 and 1/2

[13:24] ft they would actually extend what two

[13:26] more feet out or three more how much the

[13:28] one with the four put Dimension the 15

[13:30] by4 that would be actually 15

[13:34] by6 six being the the step part

[13:37] including the step that was an error in

[13:40] our part we should have said I don't

[13:42] know if we included pictures or not okay

[13:44] and then the six by 21 foot did that

[13:46] incorporate steps into that six feet

[13:50] already

[13:53] okay so so the only difference between

[13:56] the two options then is just the width

[13:57] the the length of the porch exactly you

[14:00] know if if you have a problem with us

[14:02] encroaching on the sides because our

[14:04] house is 3 feet on one side presently

[14:06] and maybe four or five feet on the other

[14:08] side um it would come to the edge of the

[14:10] house it wouldn't encroach past the

[14:12] house we had a similar situation with a

[14:15] back porch that we had constructed last

[14:17] year where we had to ask for a variance

[14:19] for the width

[14:21] okay and Council has a

[14:25] question in reading your materials I saw

[14:28] something about railings railing part of

[14:31] this proposal are railings included

[14:34] within the uh width or depth yes because

[14:38] they would be uh the porsch and then the

[14:40] railings would be along the porsch you

[14:42] know to help to be there for stepping

[14:46] down off the porch

[14:48] or or being on the

[14:50] porch

[14:52] and the whole width of the uh the of the

[15:00] uh deck

[15:02] caller is that four feet deep along the

[15:06] uh width of the house yeah four feet

[15:09] deep plus uh landing and steps that go

[15:14] six

[15:16] yes thank you for the clarification oh

[15:19] sure but if we um you know whichever

[15:21] option that you all approve of course we

[15:23] would prefer the wider one um but it's

[15:26] you know whatever you approve for us

[15:27] we're willing to accept we just we want

[15:29] to get going finish this it's been a

[15:31] long

[15:35] process are there any other questions

[15:37] from from the panel from the uh board or

[15:41] the

[15:43] council uh at this time we'll hear from

[15:46] uh uh

[15:51] staff thank you um so Michael and

[15:55] Beverly Fulmer requested the permit um

[15:57] as they described

[15:59] um and

[16:02] initially there is a there is a

[16:04] provision in the code that allows an

[16:07] encroachment into the front yard setback

[16:09] if your neighbors are encroached into

[16:11] the front yard I'm not loud

[16:14] enough if you can speak into the Bic yes

[16:17] so there's a there's a provision in the

[16:18] code that allows you to encroach into

[16:20] your front yard setback if either of

[16:22] your side neighbors are encroaching into

[16:24] the front yard setback um and we did try

[16:27] to apply that but but we're unable to so

[16:29] that just so you understand why there's

[16:31] the two option how the two options got

[16:33] generated um the property is at 3905

[16:39] 27th Street it's a pre-existing

[16:41] non-conforming lot um and the lot is

[16:44] about 3,000 square feet where your

[16:47] minimum lot size is 7500 square feet um

[16:50] this means that it is very narrow about

[16:53] 30t wide and 100t deep so either

[16:57] proposed deck can be

[16:59] constructed in a way that still meets

[17:01] minimum or is still underneath the

[17:04] maximum lot coverage and creates

[17:07] impervious

[17:10] surfaces in looking at this there's a

[17:12] few relevant sections of the zoning

[17:14] ordinance

[17:16] 20290 d9a sets lot size and setbacks and

[17:19] this is where we get into the first

[17:22] piece which is the encroachment into the

[17:25] front and side yards um in option number

[17:31] one they would need a variance of six

[17:34] feet into the front yard set

[17:37] back and the side setbacks of 6 inches

[17:41] on the west side and two feet on the

[17:42] East Side in option

[17:46] two it would just need a variance for

[17:50] the front yard setback which is 4 feet 6

[17:53] in in the front yard set back and this

[17:54] is the difference between the

[17:56] deck going along the full edge of the

[17:59] house versus the deck being slightly

[18:03] narrower section 29

[18:07] 299d is the part I was talking about

[18:09] that allows exceptions for

[18:11] non-conforming Lots if their neighboring

[18:13] houses have

[18:16] um or sorry it allows for the

[18:18] construction of single family dwellings

[18:20] so we can't apply that because it's not

[18:21] a single family dwelling it's a deck um

[18:25] and so the setbacks still apply so it's

[18:27] 2909 e that allows to reduce the front

[18:30] yard setbacks for buildings based on the

[18:33] average of the properties on either side

[18:36] although the two lots to the east of the

[18:38] fer lot encroach into the front setback

[18:42] the one lot to the West does not and

[18:46] because the way the code is written you

[18:49] have to average either side of them um

[18:53] they weren't able to encroach under that

[18:57] regulation so and

[18:59] 2919 f it limits the size of a deck in

[19:02] the front yard setback to 35 square ft

[19:05] or less um because the requested porch

[19:09] is larger than that it would need a

[19:12] variance if it was to be allowed so they

[19:15] can there's a couple of different

[19:16] numbers there's a couple of different

[19:18] options and I don't want to confuse

[19:19] Everyone by reading them all

[19:21] off um so in 29019 G that allows um the

[19:28] deck to encroach into side yard setbacks

[19:32] as long as you maintain a five foot side

[19:34] yard setback so those are all the

[19:36] relevant

[19:38] pieces of the um code so to look at them

[19:45] in um consideration of variance

[19:48] standards we see that this

[19:53] variance it has extenuating

[19:55] circumstances there's pre-existing the

[19:57] pre-existing front setback of the house

[20:00] there's the condition that three out of

[20:01] four houses on the Block have a smaller

[20:04] setback than for their porches than this

[20:08] one so they're encroaching into the 15

[20:10] ft so those are unusual conditions then

[20:13] when we go under to conditions um with

[20:17] the granting of the variants being in

[20:18] harmony with the general purpose and

[20:20] intent of the chapter and not injures to

[20:22] the neighborhood or detrimental to

[20:23] Public

[20:24] Welfare um in this case the porch would

[20:27] really be detrimental if it was coming

[20:29] right up to the street or if it was

[20:30] impacting storm water runoff because it

[20:32] can be um installed with spaces in

[20:36] between the boards or other mitigations

[20:38] and because it's very small it won't

[20:40] have a negative impact on storm water

[20:42] runoff um additionally because this is a

[20:45] front yard deck and because the filmers

[20:47] are asking for enough space to sit on

[20:50] their front yard deck it actually

[20:52] improves the neighborhood by allowing

[20:54] them to sit on their deck and interact

[20:56] with their neighbors uh which is

[20:58] something that is supported in the

[21:02] code the granting of the variants does

[21:05] not permit anything that's not generally

[21:08] allowed in the

[21:10] district with regard to special

[21:12] circumstances or conditions fully

[21:13] described um I'm going to come to the

[21:15] end of this that say that the strict

[21:17] interpretation and the provisions of

[21:19] this chapter would deprive the applicant

[21:20] of reasonable use of such land or

[21:22] buildings um the strict interpretations

[21:25] don't deprive the applicant of

[21:27] reasonable use of land or buildings but

[21:28] they do deny the residents the

[21:30] opportunity for social interaction and

[21:31] Community

[21:33] Connection

[21:35] um in the next question is is there an

[21:38] unnecessary hardship and the proximity

[21:42] of non-conforming house to the front of

[21:44] the property has eliminated that

[21:47] possibility of the front year porch the

[21:49] neighborhood around their home contains

[21:52] similar non-conforming front setbacks

[21:56] so they are exper experiencing a

[21:59] hardship compared to their neighbors

[22:01] because their decks were there first

[22:03] before the

[22:05] Cod is the granting the granting of the

[22:09] variance necessary for Reon use of land

[22:11] or the building granted with the board

[22:13] is the minimum variance that will

[22:15] accomplish this

[22:16] purpose um and this is where we get into

[22:19] the different options so option

[22:23] one is going into your both your front

[22:27] and your side yard back so it's a little

[22:29] more option two is a smaller more

[22:32] minimum variance um because it's not

[22:35] going into the side

[22:36] setbacks so option one is larger than

[22:39] option

[22:40] two I'm going to say some more about

[22:43] that after we evaluate the critical area

[22:45] um because if you think about the visual

[22:48] character of the

[22:49] neighborhood

[22:51] um the the width

[22:54] matters so with regard to critical area

[22:57] because this is in the critical area we

[22:58] have to consider um a few other factors

[23:02] uh which is is there an unwarranted

[23:05] hardship that the applicant would be

[23:07] deprived of reasonable or significant

[23:09] use of the parcel or lot without this

[23:13] request um so we you the applicant would

[23:17] still have reasonable use of the

[23:19] property but they lose that Community

[23:21] Connection and

[23:23] because this deck isn't impacting the

[23:26] critical area elements through storm

[23:28] water because it can be considered

[23:31] pervious surface through slots in the

[23:33] deck um it doesn't this section doesn't

[23:36] have to apply to

[23:38] it um the Lal interpretation of the

[23:42] critical area

[23:44] program dep would deprive the applicants

[23:46] of the rights commonly enjoyed by other

[23:48] properties in similar areas within the

[23:50] critical area district and this would

[23:53] because even their neighbors have this

[23:56] ability to be on their front porch um um

[23:59] that the granting of the variance

[24:00] doesn't confer any special privileges it

[24:03] does not confer any special privileges

[24:05] and that the granting of the variance

[24:07] doesn't adversely affect water quality

[24:10] um even if the porch was impervious

[24:12] surface it is a very small porch and it

[24:14] can be easily mitigated storm water but

[24:17] it it can also be constructed with gaps

[24:19] and not be considered impervious

[24:22] surface all of that is to say that this variance request meets all of your

[24:27] variance standards

[24:31] in in

[24:32] conclusion we staff recommends that you

[24:37] provide a variance to the property owner

[24:40] um what we were recommending is that or

[24:43] what I'm recommending is that you not

[24:45] give option one or option two but a

[24:48] third option which is to allow the porch

[24:53] to enter into the side setbacks and Go

[24:55] the whole length of the front build of

[24:57] the building but not come out quite as

[25:00] far as their initial

[25:01] request is my understanding now that

[25:04] they needed to come out a little further

[25:06] for the

[25:07] steps um so I can I can try and do some

[25:12] quick math and phrase that for y'all I

[25:15] can do do some quick math as to how that

[25:18] would look but I think one of the

[25:20] questions for yall to consider is are

[25:23] the steps going to be the full length or

[25:27] are they going to be a small small

[25:30] entrance um as to how you're going to

[25:34] grant that variance because when we go

[25:36] to option

[25:38] number hold on a

[25:42] second option

[25:44] number one we're encroaching

[25:49] into the side setback I got to go back

[25:52] and find

[25:56] it I don't is she allowed I don't know

[25:59] she's allowed sorry um in option number

[26:05] one we're going six feet into the front

[26:09] setback and in option number two we're

[26:10] only going four and a half feet into the

[26:12] front setback the board can

[26:15] choose to allow can choose to allow

[26:18] option number one or it can choose to

[26:21] allow this option number three that I

[26:23] provided

[26:24] you and additionally allow the stairs to

[26:29] encroach 3 feet you know we can say how

[26:33] wide would we want the stairs you would

[26:35] we allow the stairs to be they can go

[26:37] three foot feet in and this wide you

[26:40] guys can add that to your

[26:44] decision

[26:46] um have I covered every there's a couple

[26:49] of other sections they requesting

[26:51] variances to but if you provide it to

[26:54] the front um if you just provide the

[26:57] variance to 29019 that will cover

[27:00] everything and you don't need to provide

[27:01] the other

[27:05] variances all right thank you okay uh

[27:08] any questions Miss

[27:10] Franklin the from the

[27:15] board and the applicant had a question

[27:19] Sor we just want to let you know it is

[27:21] going to be a small entrance that was

[27:24] the original attent the steps are not

[27:26] going to com out the door and

[27:29] down and and how wide do you anticipate

[27:33] the steps will be I I guess pretty

[27:37] much on the

[27:39] [Music]

[27:54] plans look up

[28:00] would

[28:02] be where we presently have was it four

[28:05] and a half fet out the door we have

[28:08] presently have that Landing it wouldn't

[28:10] extend it's not going to extend it's

[28:12] just going to come out the door probably

[28:14] about a 4 foot width and come down to

[28:16] the sidewalk so we're not we're not

[28:20] planning on steps out of the whole

[28:22] farewell steps yeah sorry how high is

[28:26] this front porch going to to be like I'm

[28:28] just wondering how many steps does it

[28:30] require because each step is an extra

[28:32] foot correct I think presently we have

[28:33] two steps and then the landing that's

[28:35] what we're gonna do and it's gonna be at

[28:37] the exact same height yes okay so this

[28:39] is kind of like a ground level yes front

[28:41] porch not a

[28:43] de porch we call it a porch okay that

[28:47] makes a difference with how much it

[28:48] would then but out

[28:51] so so you were saying when you can I ask

[28:54] a question now so in this back and forth

[28:59] so the first ask was the length of the

[29:02] house 6 feet out including the steps

[29:05] correct and then the second one was

[29:07] shorter or was was shorter but the steps

[29:10] buted out and it didn't include the

[29:12] steps okay so do the

[29:14] steps are you walking up two steps and

[29:17] on the side it's graduating up to the or

[29:21] a sidewalk comes up you would walk up

[29:22] two steps then you're on the landing and

[29:24] that's our front door we've always had a

[29:26] small entrance no matter the length of

[29:28] the house was going to be it's always

[29:30] going to be the same small entrance yeah

[29:33] we were never going to have the the

[29:34] steps go across the

[29:41] side also extend

[29:44] the the porch out yeah I'm just trying

[29:47] to figure out how it comes out six

[29:49] feet anybody else confused by

[29:53] that right we should have worded it that

[29:56] way on both of the thank you documents

[29:59] right but to the left and right of the

[30:01] steps the first one asks for six feet

[30:04] out you see we were asking for the full

[30:07] length of the house and the other one

[30:09] was the half length and then but she's

[30:11] talking about the sorry I'm just trying

[30:14] to actually picture I'm confusing just

[30:16] making sure it's not six and eight you I

[30:17] don't know I guess that's included I'll

[30:19] just take it as six so

[30:21] okay I believe if I understand correctly

[30:24] the steps and both options would be the

[30:26] same yes same width same yes same

[30:31] length did I understand you mentioned

[30:34] another option was to have the side

[30:36] steps that I I Envision in that no so um

[30:40] so because what we were trying to do

[30:43] was make the codes exception for front

[30:46] yards work for them so they didn't have

[30:48] to go through the lengthy

[30:49] process we tried say what happens if we

[30:52] reduce the sidey yards rate um but

[30:56] because of that one neighbor with the

[30:58] big front setback we couldn't apply that

[31:01] I think for their use and for the look

[31:04] of the street and how the other porches

[31:06] are that it makes sense to allow the

[31:09] encroachment into the side yard

[31:13] setbacks in your scenario

[31:16] the porch itself the for the width or

[31:20] length of the house would be four

[31:23] feet and then the steps would be another

[31:26] two feet yeah four and a half feet four

[31:29] and a half feet um and so I think if I

[31:32] mean I can read in what option three is

[31:34] for you all but just if you accept

[31:37] option three and then also allow you

[31:41] know 3 feet by four feet for the

[31:45] stairs I I think rather than talking

[31:47] about options the board should consider

[31:50] what does it feel is reasonable in terms

[31:52] of a width and in terms of a depth right

[31:57] seems like uh in options one and three

[32:01] the width of the uh porch is the same as

[32:05] 4

[32:06] feet the depth so the the depth the

[32:09] depth is is it sounds like um the

[32:13] intention of option one was also 4 and a

[32:16] half foot so that the the porch deck is

[32:19] always a depth of four and a half feet

[32:21] it's actually steps that are encroaching

[32:25] that extra little bit I don't know if

[32:27] that's correct but I think okay oh see

[32:30] that makes more sense to me then I

[32:37] was so yeah option number one is

[32:40] probably fine because it's smaller than

[32:42] I measured it to

[32:45] be are there any other comments um I

[32:48] might have a question hang on one

[32:52] second

[32:55] so you actually brought up the option

[32:58] three but now it sounds like option

[33:01] three is actually option one yes so

[33:04] we're really just choosing between two

[33:06] if we want to choose either or whatever

[33:08] right

[33:10] okay thank you

[33:12] [Laughter]

[33:16] sorry Franklin you have a written staff

[33:18] report don't you I do and I have it's

[33:21] got all the different options all the

[33:22] different numbers I realize that all I'm

[33:24] saying is let's make sure that's made

[33:26] part of the record

[33:28] as well as the entire application

[33:31] package yes because when I calculated

[33:35] everything in option one I was counting

[33:37] the whole area as being the deck but

[33:41] what we're hearing is that it's actually

[33:43] only this the the stairs in that Beyond

[33:47] four and a half feet so I think option

[33:49] three is really what the applicant was

[33:51] asking for an option

[33:56] one all right at this point uh we would

[33:59] open it to public comment um I see no

[34:02] one in the audience and no one has Comm

[34:05] in to sign in uh to uh provide comment

[34:09] we do have one written comment should I

[34:12] read that into the

[34:17] record I believe it's been accepted into

[34:19] the record

[34:24] okay all right hearing no more public

[34:27] comments uh we will close the public

[34:30] comment section of this uh

[34:35] hearing

[34:38] um now at this point

[34:41] um I guess we will go into

[34:48] deliberation comments from the board

[34:59] like there's actually agreement between

[35:00] the parties I don't think there's that

[35:02] much to discuss well unless we have

[35:05] disagreements with that but I mean my

[35:08] person my personal feeling is that

[35:10] um a deck of the full length of the

[35:13] house was

[35:15] reasonable

[35:17] and as far as the depth as you

[35:21] described six feet total including the

[35:24] steps which would make the deck itself

[35:27] approximately four four and a half fet

[35:29] in depth I think that's reasonable as

[35:32] well yeah from the paperwork it seems

[35:35] like it'll truly be six and a half with

[35:38] the steps from what you have now that's

[35:40] what an exhibit in there three so is

[35:43] currently like six by six and a half or

[35:45] something like that I just want to make

[35:47] sure that there's that

[35:49] like buffer in case those stairs come

[35:53] out like we I think we should decide is

[35:54] it six is it six and a half what not if we do that does that make any sense I

[36:00] can show you

[36:03] which like we're saying 6 feet but if

[36:06] you look at in the middle of the packet

[36:09] exhibit

[36:11] three was to replace current landan

[36:13] steps with same footprint six feet wide

[36:16] and 6 feet 3 in in length which includes

[36:19] the steps I think it's only 3 in I don't

[36:23] want this to come back to us them if we

[36:26] agree to this at six feet

[36:28] just I'm throwing that out there for

[36:29] getting

[36:32] specific the terminology is a little

[36:34] confusing when you talk about length and

[36:37] width so when I think of w the width I

[36:41] think of

[36:42] the facing the the the

[36:47] U length along the side of the

[36:50] house and depth I call it

[36:53] depth okay which is from the front door

[36:57] out to the bottom of the steps yes

[36:59] according to exhibit three that length

[37:03] currently is 6' 3

[37:07] in just thrown out there for technical

[37:10] reasons is that

[37:12] correct the six fo3 including steps yes

[37:16] so if they're talking about doing that

[37:18] same kind of Landing with okay you know

[37:20] decking on either side or whatever

[37:23] ultimately that's the reality I think of

[37:26] what the ask is whether that makes a

[37:30] difference or not I don't know well

[37:31] three inches is not not a lot in my

[37:37] mind but I don't want it to like become

[37:40] an issue so I I would be willing to uh

[37:43] allow 6 fo3

[37:51] in any other uh comments deliberations

[37:54] from the board

[37:58] I guess I add one question are we would

[38:00] we have to do two variances one for the

[38:04] front and then one for the

[38:07] sides if we go with option one SL option

[38:10] three yeah because all of those are in

[38:13] the same section there's you can just

[38:16] say it's it's

[38:18] 2909 tables requirements exception a

[38:21] tables of dimensional requirements in

[38:24] the rv2 zone and I think you can do it

[38:27] all in one motion I'm not talking enough

[38:30] into it I think you can do it all in one

[38:34] variance because it's all one table do

[38:38] you agree Mr

[38:44] sesman because they're the table they're

[38:48] adding variance to the table so do they

[38:50] need a separate variance for side and a

[38:53] separate variance for front but I'm

[38:56] saying I think because it's all in the

[38:58] same section they can do one variance

[39:00] for both side and

[39:03] front you agree with

[39:07] that

[39:09] one is that is that the agreement with

[39:11] you that we would just do one variance

[39:13] for 219 in general yeah I think

[39:19] so there was also something in the staff

[39:21] report about landscaping or whatever

[39:24] else so you intend to put Landscaping in

[39:25] front of this

[39:36] two

[39:41] okay all right um at this point I'll uh

[39:45] entertain a motion to

[39:47] vote and uh direct Mr susman to draft a

[39:51] document

[39:54] resolution motion

[39:57] should be clear as to exactly what it

[40:07] is prove the varas has

[40:18] discussed not sure everybody is

[40:24] fully if we this is part of the the

[40:27] public record so if we

[40:29] say decide on which exhibit would that

[40:39] be all right if if I can summarize what

[40:43] I

[40:45] believe um we are in agreement

[40:49] with a uh variance to

[40:54] allow a a deck which

[40:59] is all the full um the full width of the house full width

[41:07] of the house which I believe was

[41:10] 21t and as far as depth a depth of 6' 3

[41:17] in which includes the steps include the

[41:23] steps all right so at this point I will

[41:27] entertain a motion for a

[41:31] vote talk

[41:33] about width of the house being 21

[41:37] ft depth of

[41:40] the P not including the

[41:44] steps four

[41:46] feet four and a half believe would be

[41:48] four feet four feet and

[41:51] then to come

[41:55] out 2 foot 3

[41:59] are we going to stipulate the width of

[42:01] the steps with it because I know I heard

[42:05] steps mentioned about going the width of

[42:08] it we're going to say a certain portion

[42:09] for the

[42:11] steps so should we say like up to six

[42:15] feet roughly like

[42:18] four four feet or

[42:21] so right so I'm just going to reference

[42:24] that exhibit three in in or yeah exhibit

[42:28] three in what we were provided it states

[42:30] it's 6 by six and 3 in so I think

[42:35] that standard stairs that they'll

[42:38] probably be using could be up to six

[42:41] feet so that is what I would recommend

[42:44] being able to otherwise if we say four

[42:46] feet they're going to have to go try and

[42:48] find some specialty

[42:50] stairs I don't I think that if six feet

[42:53] is a normal width or whatever else I

[42:55] think that that's justifiable especially

[42:57] for

[43:05] safety they don't have to go six feet

[43:08] I'm just saying that's what it said it

[43:09] waset seems a

[43:10] little more than necessary to me so if

[43:14] you look at the picture does it I mean I

[43:17] don't know does it to me it doesn't look

[43:19] extreme and according to the these

[43:22] exhibits that's what if they were to

[43:25] replace exactly what they have now it's

[43:27] 6 feet wide

[43:28] already um I fear that if it's narrow

[43:33] well you'll have the the porch

[43:35] itself but I

[43:38] that's it allows for

[43:41] ample walking steps currently

[43:44] are look to be about four feet

[43:50] wide six feet

[43:52] wide right no yeah

[44:03] with the steps on your exhibit three you

[44:06] do you have one there six feet wide

[44:10] so I think that's keep it six feet wide

[44:15] the steps being six feet

[44:18] wide and if you find that they're only

[44:21] four and a half and that's what you're

[44:22] getting then you're still within the

[44:24] variance you don't I don't right don't

[44:27] have to go 6t wide we're allowing up to

[44:29] 6t wide to accommodate the steps is what

[44:32] I'm

[44:34] proposing

[44:37] okay all right six feet wide First

[44:41] Steps

[44:45] okay all right that being said I will

[44:48] now entertain a

[44:51] vote

[44:52] Bo

[44:55] um to um Mr sesman write a

[45:01] memo

[45:04] um

[45:06] approving the description of the

[45:10] variants which we have uh

[45:14] summarized I make a motion to have the

[45:18] vote we have a second second all in

[45:21] favor

[45:24] okay all right um

[45:30] [Music]

[45:36] so Mr Burch how do you

[45:39] vote why don't we say what we're voting

[45:41] on just clarify that we're voting on

[45:43] something can we to make sure we are

[45:45] saying the same

[45:47] thing believe we're voting on allowing a

[45:52] variance to allow or granting a variance

[45:55] to allow

[45:57] the applicant to in to

[45:59] build a deck which is 21

[46:04] feet

[46:06] wide 6 and a half or 6 6 feet 3 in in

[46:12] depth which

[46:15] includes 4 foot

[46:19] deck a deck in depth a 4 feet

[46:23] depth stairs which extend further out

[46:26] another 2' 3

[46:29] in and stairs which are 6 feet

[46:35] wide I I think oh go ahead think we

[46:39] should it should be 21 by4 and to allow

[46:43] the 2.3 for the steps think that

[46:47] probably four two 2.3 by four feet wide

[46:53] for the steps six foot wide

[46:55] yeah I thought that's what six foot yes

[46:57] I'm sorry six foot yes it's just the the

[47:01] way in which it's phrased to to indicate

[47:05] that there is the actual porch and then

[47:07] there's a step portion how much that

[47:09] step portion can

[47:11] extrude 23 inches correct six feet

[47:17] wide wide

[47:20] yes remaining porch being 21 ft long 4T

[47:23] deep

[47:25] correct let's go through motion one

[47:30] time Grant the variance to allow 21 fet

[47:36] width of the

[47:40] PS 4 feet depth across the entire width

[47:44] of the

[47:47] PCH 2 feet 3

[47:49] in steps extending further 2 feet 3 in

[47:54] out

[47:57] those steps being six feet wide up to

[47:59] six feet wide six feet

[48:04] wide and also if we need to that this

[48:08] would include

[48:09] railings are included within this

[48:13] variance in railings would be included

[48:16] in those

[48:17] dimensions in the 4 feet by 21 ft

[48:21] dimension

[48:27] all right with that being said I will

[48:28] entertain a

[48:32] vote I move to

[48:39] vote another

[48:41] motion another

[48:45] motion all right I'll entertain a motion

[48:48] to vote and ask Mr susman to uh draft a

[48:52] uh

[48:55] resolution I will make that motion right

[48:58] is there second second all in favor

[49:03] I all

[49:05] right Mr bur how do you

[49:07] vote I vote in

[49:09] favor um Miss Everett in favor Mr Sharp

[49:15] in favor and I Paul Dy will also vote in

[49:25] favor no motion passes the motion

[49:32] passes all right so Mr susman would you

[49:34] draft a document for the

[49:39] board I'm going to be out of town

[49:41] overseas for two and a half

[49:53] weeks all right is there any other

[49:55] business

[49:58] I will entertain a motion to

[50:01] adjourn I move to

[50:04] adjourn for a second all in favor I right hearing is

[50:13] closed thank

[50:18] you through it

[50:30] where are you going

May 1, 2024 Board of Appeals

Transcript