[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