[0:04] February 18th, 2026 meeting of the Town

[0:08] of Woodside Planning Commission. We'll

[0:10] start with the pledge of allegiance.

[0:34] Roll call, please.

[0:36] >> Chair Weaver,

[0:37] >> present.

[0:38] >> Commissioner Appfell,

[0:39] >> present.

[0:40] >> Commissioner Gonerko,

[0:41] >> here.

[0:42] >> Commissioner Tober,

[0:42] >> present.

[0:43] >> Vice Chair Gar is noted absent.

[0:46] >> Are there any changes to the agenda as

[0:49] published?

[0:50] >> There are no changes to the agenda.

[0:52] However, you do have two desk items. Um

[0:54] they are both for item number uh two on

[0:57] the agenda 133 Marva Oaks. Um one is

[1:01] just a letter of support for the project

[1:03] that was included in the staff report

[1:05] packet as well as um some recommended

[1:10] condition changes from staff and um

[1:12] assistant planner uh KGO will address

[1:15] that during his presentation.

[1:19] So noted,

[1:23] we'll move on to our public comment

[1:25] period. This is a chance for members of

[1:27] the public to address the planning

[1:29] commission on items of interest to the

[1:32] town of Woodside and the planning

[1:34] commission, but which are not on

[1:37] tonight's agenda. Uh such public

[1:39] comments cannot be acted upon tonight or

[1:42] discussed at length but may be referred

[1:44] to staff or agendaized at a future

[1:47] meeting. Um such public comments are

[1:50] limited to five persons max at 3 minutes

[1:54] each. So is there anyone here tonight on

[1:57] Zoom or live that wants to speak on a

[2:00] topic not on tonight's agenda?

[2:09] Oh, if you're interested in speaking,

[2:12] please come up to the microphone. If you

[2:14] grab the red lever, you can adjust the

[2:16] microphone up and down.

[2:19] >> Sorry.

[2:24] » Like you can move the whole

[2:26] >> Can you hear me?

[2:27] >> I know. Oh, here we go. Sorry.

[2:30] >> All good.

[2:32] >> How's that? If it's good for you,

[2:35] >> it's good. Sorry, I'm not very good with

[2:38] speaking in front of a lot of people.

[2:40] I'm going to actually read um Sorry, need my glasses.

[2:49] Um

[2:52] to the chair, the vice chair online and

[2:55] the members of the planning commission.

[2:57] Good evening. My name is Terra Pachuan

[3:01] and I reside at 164 Baret Road. Um,

[3:06] thank you for volunteering your time and

[3:09] service to our town. My family and I

[3:11] truly appreciate it. Um, your your

[3:14] dedication to the community.

[3:16] I'm reading my comment to remain concise

[3:19] and precise. So, please bear with my

[3:21] reading. I respectfully request that my

[3:24] statement be recorded verbatim in the

[3:28] meeting minutes. I will also provide

[3:30] this written copy to Julie um the town

[3:33] clerk for the record. I'm here to raise

[3:37] concerns regarding the proposed new

[3:39] resident at 156 Bardet Road, my next

[3:44] door neighbor

[3:46] as the immediate adjacent property

[3:48] owner. um directly affected by the

[3:50] design and the sitting of the project.

[3:54] The conceptual plan that was submitted

[3:58] um and went on the review board on

[4:01] November 17

[4:03] uh last last year reflects unresolved

[4:06] setback compliant issues including

[4:10] approximately 10 uh foot encroachment

[4:13] into the required setback along our

[4:16] share property line. In addition, the

[4:19] proposal does not meet cutback

[4:22] requirements on the other three sides,

[4:25] especially the front

[4:27] due to the height of the new proposed

[4:30] structure. The project also proposed

[4:34] two tier retaining walls approximately

[4:38] in combination 8.5 ft tall

[4:42] along the frontage of Bed Road in order

[4:46] to create a raised building path for the

[4:49] new resident. So it's all can be in one

[4:51] level ground.

[4:55] Um while these objective code compliant

[4:57] matters remain unresolved, the project

[5:00] has advanced to formal design. I

[5:03] submitted an appeal of that advancement

[5:06] respectfully requesting the applicant

[5:09] first revise the plan to comply with the

[5:13] applicable setback requirements and

[5:16] other objective standard provisions of

[5:19] the uh municipal code and adjust the

[5:22] story poles accordingly. So the

[5:25] neighbors may meaningfully review a code

[5:29] compliant design before the project

[5:32] proceeds further and it has been not

[5:37] unanswered.

[5:39] In fact, my appeal was rejected.

[5:42] I'm providing the commission with I'm

[5:45] going to provide you guys with a copy of

[5:47] my appeal. Um, I respectfully request

[5:51] that this objective compliant issue be

[5:53] addressed and resolved prior to any

[5:56] advancement of the project to formal

[5:58] design review.

[5:59] >> Thank you very much for your comments.

[6:02] Um,

[6:04] at this point I might ask Sage to step

[6:08] in and address some of the

[6:11] administrative issues. um um one of

[6:15] which is being at what stage is this

[6:17] particular project at?

[6:18] >> So the project uh has was submitted for

[6:21] conceptual design review and so that's

[6:24] the beginning part of the design review

[6:25] process. um that went to the ASRB as the

[6:29] speaker mentioned um at that time the

[6:32] ASRB did not have significant concerns

[6:35] with the general design of the project

[6:37] and forward it to formal design review

[6:40] and what the speaker has mentioned is

[6:41] that um there are some areas where there

[6:45] need to be corrections regarding

[6:46] setbacks. Um they're not significant

[6:49] issues. It's quite common at the

[6:51] conceptual stage where everything is not

[6:53] 100% buttoned up. Um that's always been

[6:56] the intent of the concept review. Uh we

[6:58] actually don't even require a lot of

[7:00] information that would um uh be a allow

[7:05] us to verify 100% zoning compliance. Um

[7:08] so with this project as it progresses

[7:11] through the design review um process uh

[7:15] they will have to be 100% zoning

[7:17] compliant uh when they submit their

[7:19] formal design review materials. if for

[7:22] some reason they're making changes that

[7:25] would provide significant design

[7:26] changes, they would have to go back to

[7:28] the ASRB for further review. Um, we have

[7:31] met with the applicant. Um, there's a

[7:34] couple they're going to do a minor shift

[7:36] in where the building location, kind of

[7:38] turn it a little bit. They're doing some

[7:40] minor adjustments to the roof line and

[7:42] it looks like they'll be able to um they

[7:45] understand the issues that they have to

[7:47] meet in terms of heights and setbacks.

[7:50] uh and they will have to address those

[7:52] items. Um given that the conceptual

[7:55] design review is just the beginning part

[7:57] of the design review process, that

[7:59] process isn't complete yet. Um so no

[8:01] action to approve or deny the project at

[8:04] the concept stage uh is is done and so

[8:08] therefore there's no action to appeal.

[8:10] Um so the speaker was notified um that

[8:14] we couldn't process the appeal and we

[8:17] note the concerns that are expressed. Um

[8:19] we have also offered to we will continue

[8:22] to make sure that she's contacted um

[8:26] when the formal design review materials

[8:28] are submitted. Um she can come down and

[8:30] meet with us. We can go through those

[8:31] materials in details. Um and any action

[8:34] that's taken uh to complete the design

[8:36] review process to approve or deny the

[8:38] design um could be appealed at that

[8:40] time. And so um it's been uh she met

[8:46] with myself, town manager, um town

[8:48] manager, town attorney, myself, we've

[8:50] met several different times. Um it's

[8:53] clearly consistent town practice. We've

[8:56] never had an appeal um processed for

[8:59] conceptual design review. So at this

[9:01] particular stage, the design review

[9:03] process is still ongoing and once we get

[9:06] those detailed materials, they will have

[9:08] to be 100% zoning compliant. Otherwise,

[9:11] they can apply for an exception or

[9:13] variance which would become before the

[9:14] planning commission. Um, and speaking

[9:16] with the applicant, they have no

[9:17] intention to request any type of

[9:19] exception that requires planning

[9:21] commission review. Um, so they should

[9:23] address these things as they've prevent

[9:25] presented to us in a draft form um just

[9:27] at a meeting. So, we don't have those

[9:29] copies, but um the there will be more

[9:32] opportunity to comment um and and

[9:35] provide any uh recourse on whatever

[9:38] decision is made at that time.

[9:40] >> Thank you very much, Sage. Ma'am, we

[9:42] hear your concerns. Um is there anyone

[9:46] else here tonight that wants to speak on

[9:49] an item not on tonight's agenda, either

[9:51] live or on Zoom?

[9:53] >> For those online, please use the raise

[9:54] hand feature if you'd like to make a

[9:55] comment.

[9:59] There are no raise hands online.

[10:01] >> If not, may I have just one more minute,

[10:03] please?

[10:03] >> Um, no, we need to move on to the agenda

[10:07] items. Um, uh, for the people that came

[10:10] here for the items that are on the

[10:12] agenda.

[10:13] >> Well, I I just have one question, right?

[10:15] Is that

[10:16] >> one question?

[10:16] >> Yeah. Um so because of 10 feet

[10:21] encroachment is not minor and because of

[10:25] that why does it get advancement to

[10:28] formal design review to me now

[10:31] >> the town has not granted anything to the

[10:34] applicant for that property so there's

[10:36] nothing to appeal I think that's the key

[10:38] issue right

[10:39] >> that's it and and the issue isn't a

[10:41] 10-ft difference it's it's when you have

[10:44] to apply this 10-ft difference and what

[10:46] the applicant is doing is lowering the

[10:48] height so they don't have that issue and

[10:50] they're slightly uh adjusting it. So

[10:52] they will have to be 100% zoning

[10:54] compliant and those design those will be

[10:58] presented once we get those materials

[10:59] >> and it's sort of in their interest to

[11:01] draw up their plans that they'll invest

[11:03] a lot of money in.

[11:04] >> In your ASRB agenda, it say that any

[11:08] decision made can be appealed.

[11:11] >> Well, I I'll pass this along. That's all

[11:13] I wanted to do. Thank you for your time.

[11:15] It can be appealed at an appropriate

[11:17] time. Ma'am, so um

[11:21] were there any other public commenters

[11:24] online?

[11:25] >> No, there are no raised hands online.

[11:28] >> Okay, given that we will close the

[11:30] public comment period and move on to the

[11:32] consent calendar.

[11:39] and the consent calendar. Um, the one

[11:43] item on there is approval of the minutes

[11:45] from our January 14th meeting.

[11:49] Is there anyone here, staff or

[11:52] commission members, that would like to

[11:53] make a revision, elaboration, or changes

[11:56] to the minutes as provided in the uh

[12:00] meeting packet.

[12:03] The chair would entertain a motion to

[12:05] approve the minutes.

[12:06] >> So moved.

[12:08] Second, please

[12:11] second the motion.

[12:15] >> Chair Weaver.

[12:16] >> Yes.

[12:16] >> Commissioner Appfell.

[12:18] >> Yes.

[12:19] >> Commissioner Gonco.

[12:20] >> Yes.

[12:21] >> Commissioner Tober.

[12:22] >> Yes.

[12:24] >> Okay. We will move on to the main item

[12:27] of the evening, which is

[12:31] a discussion on a property at 133 Marva

[12:34] Oaks Drive, which involves the granting

[12:38] of a variance for a swimming pool

[12:42] in uh in a setback. And I believe that

[12:45] KGO is presenting the staff report. And

[12:48] I will we will listen to you, Ko.

[12:57] Hello and thank you. I will be

[12:59] introducing the project at 133 Morbida

[13:01] Oaks Drive for planning commission

[13:03] review. For this planning commission

[13:05] review, the applicant requests approval

[13:07] of a variance to the setback

[13:09] requirements for the construction of a

[13:12] new swimming pool that would encroach

[13:14] into the required setback side setback.

[13:17] This application is categorically exempt

[13:19] under the California Environmental

[13:21] Quality Act uh SQA guidelines 153003

[13:26] section E uh which is new construction

[13:29] of small structures including swimming

[13:31] pools. And so uh the planning director

[13:34] mentioned earlier uh there are two desk

[13:36] items for tonight's hearing uh both

[13:38] pertaining to this project. Uh one is

[13:41] from an adjacent neighbor uh reiterating

[13:43] his support for the project and is uh

[13:46] attachment uh number six is the first

[13:48] letter uh that that adjacent neighbor uh

[13:51] originally sent um dated December 18th,

[13:54] 2025

[13:55] uh expressing support uh for this

[13:57] variance request. And the other desk

[14:00] item tonight is amended language for the

[14:03] resolution in particular condition one

[14:07] uh F.

[14:09] And this relates to the uh existing hot

[14:12] tub, sauna, and deck area that is shown

[14:14] near the near the um uh center portion

[14:18] of the site. And uh just to give a brief

[14:22] background, um since the completion of

[14:24] the main residence, no recent permits

[14:25] appear to have been issued for those

[14:27] site improvements. Um originally the

[14:30] staff has recommended for uh removal of

[14:34] these unpermitted items. Uh however um

[14:37] with this amended language, should the

[14:39] homeowner decide to pursue the process

[14:41] of getting these items permitted, um

[14:43] town staff will be able to work with the

[14:45] homeowner/applicant at that stage.

[14:54] So this is uh the aerial photograph of

[14:57] 133 Marbor Oaks. The subject site is

[15:00] approximately 3.73 acres and is in the

[15:04] RR zoning district. And so the basic

[15:06] setbacks for this lot is 50 ft for all

[15:09] sides. Uh the lot has roughly six sides

[15:12] and extends significantly to the west

[15:14] and north towards the Rayundo roadway on

[15:16] the northern side. The overall site is

[15:19] relatively flat on the southwestern

[15:21] portion with a steep decline from the

[15:23] southern to the northern side. Uh the

[15:26] site contains an existing two-story

[15:28] single family residence with an attached

[15:30] garage and existing hardscape that are

[15:33] located on a relatively flat

[15:34] southwestern portion of the site. And

[15:37] the project site also includes easements

[15:39] uh for public utilities along the

[15:41] western and northern sides.

[15:46] It's a topographic survey for the

[15:48] project site.

[15:52] So the survey itself identifies areas of

[15:55] the site that contain slopes in excess

[15:57] of 35%

[15:59] mostly along the southern portion. Uh

[16:03] the side municipal code section 153 uh

[16:07] section subsection 415 does not allow

[16:10] for development on natural ground slopes

[16:12] that exceed 35%. Uh however, development

[16:16] will be allowed in man-made slopes in

[16:18] excess of 35% uh so long as prior to the

[16:22] slopes being man-made were also 35% or

[16:25] less. And so the applicant also

[16:27] submitted uh a geotechnical report uh

[16:29] certified by civil engineer indicating

[16:32] that the areas to be developed for the

[16:34] proposed pool uh were on slopes um that

[16:38] were man-made uh and prior to being

[16:40] man-made were of 35% or less.

[16:48] And this is the extent of the proposed

[16:51] uh location of the uh pool uh to be

[16:54] encroached into the side setback.

[16:58] And uh to give you a bit bit of a

[17:00] reference, uh there are existing uh

[17:02] permits um under separate review and

[17:07] under a separate permit uh particularly

[17:09] the ADU and the uh the lawn and the

[17:12] surrounding deck area around the pool.

[17:17] And so

[17:21] uh the pool

[17:29] The applicant is requesting approval of

[17:31] a variance um as mentioned earlier to

[17:33] locate a new swimming pool within the

[17:35] side setback and at its closest point

[17:37] from the property line it would be 14.83

[17:41] ft from the side property line.

[17:47] This is the uh proposed elevation

[17:49] section of the pool.

[17:53] The applicant has also provided uh

[17:55] renderings of the pool.

[18:01] And to your left are the uh the actual

[18:05] physical materials of the pool as well

[18:08] as a reference materials list for uh

[18:10] other items uh that are also uh under

[18:13] separate uh review uh such as the ADU

[18:17] and for the decks. And so for the pool

[18:21] uh they are um proposing uh wooden deck

[18:25] tiles for the exterior and pool coping

[18:28] uh with this uh darker shade color as

[18:30] you can see on the bottom right of this

[18:32] materials board.

[18:37] And so findings have been provided by

[18:39] the applicant. Uh the applicant is

[18:41] requesting a setback variance uh for

[18:44] with the following reasons uh listed

[18:46] below. And to quickly summarize, the

[18:48] applicant has stated that the design

[18:50] proposal and variance request is

[18:52] consistent with the zoning ordinance and

[18:54] that it avoids development in areas of

[18:56] the site that might result in erosion,

[18:58] earth movement and degradation of water

[19:00] quality. Thereby preserving the natural

[19:03] and scenic character of the town by

[19:05] retaining most of the property in its

[19:07] natural state. Also that the strict

[19:10] application application of the

[19:11] provisions of the zoning ordinance would

[19:14] result in uh requesting for a variance

[19:16] to develop in areas of the property that

[19:18] are heavily wooded and steep uh

[19:21] requiring significant retaining walls

[19:23] fill and tree destruction. therefore

[19:25] creating a greater environmental impact

[19:28] and also that the swimming pool would

[19:29] not be visible from the road and the

[19:32] proposed ADU under a separate permit

[19:34] would act as a visual and noise barrier

[19:37] and the tree screening that exists uh

[19:39] between the two properties would obscure

[19:42] much of the view um of the pool from the

[19:44] adjacent property.

[19:47] And so town staff has also uh prepared

[19:50] findings as well uh citing um elements

[19:54] from the Woodside general plan. Uh goal

[19:57] in particular goals open space 1.1

[20:02] uh conservation uh goal 1.1 and land use

[20:05] 1.2 two which are regulating land use

[20:08] and development to conserve open space

[20:11] uh limiting the intensity of development

[20:13] on steep hillsides and uh protecting

[20:16] lives and property.

[20:19] So that concludes my presentation. Staff

[20:21] is happy to answer any questions. Um the

[20:23] applicant has also uh directed story

[20:26] polls at least 10 days before the

[20:28] hearing date and the applicant is also

[20:30] here in attendance to answer any

[20:31] questions. Thank you.

[20:38] Alex, you got any questions for Keo?

[20:42] Richard?

[20:44] >> None for me.

[20:46] >> Uh, neither do I. Um,

[20:50] at that point, if the applicant wants to

[20:53] make a presentation, you are welcome to

[20:56] do so, although it is not required.

[21:04] I promise to keep it short and sweet.

[21:07] Um, unfortunately the applicant would

[21:10] have loved to been here to uh go over

[21:12] the project with you. He's off on a on a

[21:14] ski vacation in Colorado and regrets

[21:17] being here and but uh he's what he's

[21:20] looking for is he's trying to create a

[21:23] environment for his kids and his family

[21:25] for outdoor use of the space. The site,

[21:29] as you've gotten the explanation from

[21:31] KGO, is very constrained. Um, and there

[21:35] really isn't much areas where you can

[21:37] keep a swimming pool close to the house

[21:40] and and also be part of the, you know,

[21:43] the family environment. So, when we

[21:46] started designing all this, we we you

[21:48] know, we added in a there was an ADU

[21:50] that was part of the part of the program

[21:52] as well as a swimming pool. And because

[21:55] of the grade differential, there's a

[21:57] there's an area underneath the house

[21:59] that allows for uh pool

[22:02] functions and, you know, pool house type

[22:04] stuff. Um

[22:09] the neighbors have all looked at it and

[22:12] have approved. In fact, John's here. Um

[22:16] and uh he's the adjacent neighbor and

[22:19] you know, everybody's everybody likes

[22:21] the idea that we can tell. So, um, it's

[22:25] a very constrained site and we, you

[22:27] know, I think the findings are pretty

[22:28] clear in terms of what, uh, how it meets

[22:31] the requirements of the town of

[22:32] Woodside.

[22:34] There any questions? I We have, we have

[22:36] some more pictures, but it's basically

[22:37] the same as already what Keo showed. So,

[22:42] any questions?

[22:43] >> Do any commissioners have questions for

[22:45] the applicant?

[22:46] >> I have a couple. Um, thank you very

[22:49] much. I I was able to get site today, so

[22:51] I appreciate that I had a chance to look

[22:52] at it. Um, can you just um help me

[22:56] understand what what is down below in

[22:58] that large swale? Is that is that the

[23:01] sites owner's property or is that

[23:03] >> Yes.

[23:03] >> What does it what does it go up against?

[23:05] I'm just curious. I couldn't even tell.

[23:06] >> There's a swale. There's a there's a

[23:08] eerial stream that runs through that.

[23:10] So, you can see the kind of white

[23:11] section between the two.

[23:14] >> Um, so it's it's a it's really a big

[23:16] valley. Um, and you can see all of the

[23:19] all the 35% slopes

[23:22] above and some of the stuff on the right

[23:24] hand side of that are man-made

[23:28] report,

[23:29] >> but that goes down. And what does that

[23:30] abut against? What's on the

[23:33] >> There's another There's another house

[23:34] that there's other houses to the to the

[23:37] both above, below, and to the sides.

[23:39] >> Okay. I I couldn't even see the house

[23:40] below. That's why I was asking. Sorry, I

[23:43] wasn't trying to trip you up.

[23:44] >> Yeah. So, so that gives you a period of,

[23:45] you know, of what's of what's out there.

[23:48] >> Got it. Got it. Okay. Thanks for

[23:49] clarifying. And then my only other

[23:50] question, forgive me if this is seems

[23:53] presumptuous or or maybe aggressive, but

[23:55] I'm just curious, why why are why why

[23:57] are you not doing this as part of the AD

[23:59] why are they separate? Why is the ADUP

[24:01] separate from the pool? Was there any

[24:03] thought about doing it as one cohesive?

[24:04] >> Because we want to be able to start

[24:06] construction on the on the ADU this this

[24:08] spring.

[24:09] >> Okay. Okay. And there is and there's

[24:10] work there that needs to get done. And

[24:13] the variance process, you know, is going

[24:15] to take a little bit of time plus, you

[24:17] know, getting that stuff done. So, our

[24:18] hope here is to get this through the this variance process and

[24:24] then get it in for construction.

[24:26] >> Understood. Thanks for clarifying. I

[24:27] have no other questions.

[24:31] >> Richard, got any question?

[24:35] Alex?

[24:38] >> Okay. Um,

[24:39] >> thank you. If you got any other

[24:40] questions, let me know.

[24:41] >> I do not have any questions.

[24:42] >> Okay.

[24:43] >> In that case,

[24:46] we will open the public comment period

[24:49] on this variance hearing. So, if there

[24:52] are any members of the public that wish

[24:54] to address the planning commission

[24:57] regarding this uh uh potential variance,

[25:00] please come up to the mic or if you're

[25:02] on Zoom, raise your hand and speak up

[25:05] now.

[25:13] John, I know that you know how to move

[25:15] the microphone up and down the

[25:17] >> Been here before.

[25:18] >> You've been here before.

[25:25] » I'm John Hughes. I own the property to

[25:28] the uh north and west of the subject

[25:32] property. And uh I uh we first bought

[25:36] the land there in 2006. We built uh our

[25:41] home from 2006 to 2008.

[25:45] And um uh and as we were building our

[25:50] home, I personally I I like trees. So I

[25:57] personally made sure that we had a whole

[26:00] line of trees

[26:02] uh planted 17 years ago uh all along our

[26:08] uh um uh uh border with 133. We're in

[26:15] 117.

[26:16] 133 is immediately to the south uh west

[26:19] of us. Uh why did I do that? And is

[26:23] because the previous uh one of the the

[26:28] owner when we moved in uh was uh a uh

[26:32] older gentleman. He had a junkyard in

[26:36] his backyard. It was awful. He had three

[26:41] awful uh um uh trailers. of what uh uh

[26:46] the people lived in and that there was a

[26:49] constant I don't know you pick up people

[26:51] at one of the local bars, bring them

[26:52] they lived there. Oh, it was really

[26:55] awful. And I just the only thing we

[26:57] could do is uh patch the fence. So, make

[27:01] sure the fence was and then uh plant all

[27:04] these trees. Well, 17 years later, these

[27:08] trees have done what we wanted them to

[27:10] do and the property is now under uh

[27:14] competent ownership and we love it. That

[27:18] is just the way we want it. We can't see

[27:23] anything that's going on in that

[27:25] property from the upper deck of our

[27:28] house, which is generally where our uh

[27:31] living room and kitchen is. It's it's

[27:33] quite a bit above the so even when we

[27:36] look down on it we can't see. And uh

[27:40] immediately on our side of the fence is

[27:43] uh one of our vineyards. We have two

[27:45] vineyards, one in the north and one in

[27:47] the south. This is a south vineyard.

[27:49] There is nobody near this uh swimming

[27:52] pool within hundreds of feet who is who

[27:56] would ever be uh inconvenienced with it

[27:59] in a in the current setting. So, we uh

[28:02] strongly uh request that this uh setback

[28:07] be approved because at least we have

[28:11] only good things to say about our

[28:13] neighbors and about what he's doing.

[28:16] Second point I'd like to make, I was

[28:19] astounded to to read in the materials

[28:22] before coming here about the sauna and

[28:25] everything that uh was supposedly

[28:29] unpermitted. What I want to say is we

[28:32] never knew about it. We it was all

[28:36] blocked. It's so it even the the the

[28:39] sauna on that property is certainly from

[28:43] our perspective not any kind of

[28:46] impediment to the view to anything. We

[28:48] can't see it. So uh again we uh from our

[28:54] perspective we'd uh hope that uh this is

[28:58] resolved uh uh both the towns and the

[29:01] applicants uh uh um uh mutual uh

[29:06] interests. So thank you very much for

[29:09] your attention. Is there any question?

[29:10] Anybody have any question for me? I'd be

[29:13] glad to I have a quite a history with

[29:15] this house next door. Uh, so I've we've

[29:19] watched it for a long time.

[29:21] >> Does anyone have any questions for John

[29:23] since he is the neighbor who's

[29:27] on the property

[29:29] um affected by the setback?

[29:32] >> Okay.

[29:32] >> No questions.

[29:33] >> Okay.

[29:34] Thank you.

[29:35] >> Thank you, John.

[29:36] >> Is there anyone else here live in the

[29:38] room that wants to speak?

[29:41] Failing that. Is there anyone on Zoom

[29:43] that wants to speak?

[29:44] >> No, we have no raised hands online.

[29:49] If no one else in the room wants to

[29:52] speak, I will close the public comment

[29:54] period and we can move on to

[29:56] commissioner deliberation on this topic.

[30:00] Who wants to start?

[30:04] >> You're looking at me. Um well I'm

[30:06] persuaded by all all of the applicants

[30:09] uh findings uh specifically finding

[30:11] number two that rejecting this variance

[30:15] would force them down into an

[30:18] environmental

[30:20] hit I'll call it down at the bottom of

[30:21] that swale. This is clearly the best

[30:23] location for it. Um, I'm also quite

[30:26] pleased that the really the only

[30:28] neighbor affected not only wrote a

[30:31] letter but came tonight and spoke very

[30:32] eloquently about their support or his

[30:35] support of the project. So, I'm fully

[30:37] supportive. I see no issues.

[30:44] » Use the microphone, Alex.

[30:50] » There you go. Sage, I have a quick

[30:52] question. You have a desk item here when

[30:54] we arrived and and under the original

[30:57] packet,

[30:59] it addressed the unpermitted Anna and

[31:02] hot tub. And I think on the desk item

[31:04] that was here when I arrived, there's an

[31:07] alternative.

[31:10] And the alternative is to pass this and

[31:14] require the applicant to get the sauna

[31:19] and the hot tub permitted by the time

[31:22] this swimming pool is finally approved.

[31:24] Is that correct?

[31:25] >> That's correct. So, yes, it's it's just

[31:27] really clarifying the different options

[31:29] that the applicant has. They can either

[31:31] remove the work or they can pursue

[31:33] obtaining permits. From a planning

[31:35] perspective, location, paved area,

[31:39] things of that nature. It's unlikely

[31:41] there will be any significant issues

[31:43] from a planning perspective. We'll look

[31:44] at those details closer when the uh when

[31:47] if a permit submitted. And then they'll

[31:49] also work with the building department

[31:50] to make sure they comply with all those

[31:52] uh requirements for a permit. So, um the

[31:54] desk item that you have is simply

[31:57] clarifying the two different options

[31:58] that the applicant can pursue. And yes,

[32:01] they would do that um kind of uh uh

[32:05] >> parallel with with the swimming pool

[32:07] project.

[32:08] >> So, so I'm I'm persuaded. I mean, for

[32:12] the reasons that Matt mentioned, you

[32:14] know, this I've been to this site, it is

[32:17] severely constrained with slopes.

[32:20] the variance, you know, as a neighbor

[32:23] spoke, I mean, it's it's not an

[32:24] intrusion on the neighbor's property,

[32:26] but I just want to make sure that of the

[32:28] two options that we have, I am for the

[32:32] option of having this run in parallel,

[32:34] that is not delay this, but require the

[32:38] applicant to get the get the unpermitted

[32:40] structures permitted and hopefully it

[32:43] all by the time the final approval

[32:45] happens, it all happens at the same

[32:46] time. So that's that's the flavor of the

[32:49] motion that I am inclined to support.

[32:53] >> So you were in favor of the revised

[32:56] >> I was

[32:57] >> resolution as written or did you want

[33:00] tweaks to that?

[33:01] >> No, as written.

[33:02] >> Okay. Okay.

[33:03] >> In the desk in desk item number two.

[33:05] >> Okay.

[33:07] Richard,

[33:14] » I don't have anything to add either

[33:16] other than to echo what's been said

[33:18] before that this is a good example of

[33:23] neighbors cooperating.

[33:25] And I think that the Burmans are very

[33:27] lucky to have Mr. Hughes as a neighbor

[33:30] and and the fact he has no problem with

[33:33] this. Um, so it's always good policy to

[33:38] get along with your neighbors. So

[33:40] unless any other commissioner has a

[33:44] comment to make, I would the chair would

[33:47] entertain motions on this.

[33:52] » Go ahead.

[33:57] >> It is.

[34:00] So it is the So um the commissioner is

[34:03] asking for which flavor is it and it's

[34:07] the flavor that says alternatively the

[34:09] owner may pursue permit approval of the

[34:12] unpermitted development if the

[34:14] development complies with all permit

[34:16] requirements from all applicable

[34:17] agencies and obtains permit issuance

[34:20] prior to the start of construction of

[34:22] the swimming pool. And then it says, if

[34:25] the owner pursues permit approval of the

[34:27] unpermitted items listed in condition

[34:30] one, if those permits shall pass final

[34:35] inspection before or at the same time as

[34:37] the permits for the swimming pool. If

[34:39] the owner proposes to remove the

[34:41] unpermitted items, the unpermitted items

[34:43] shall be removed prior to the passing of

[34:45] final inspection for the swimming pool.

[34:48] So that would allow both projects that

[34:51] would allow the pool to start.

[34:54] >> That's correct. They could uh pursue the

[34:56] permits for the pool in parallel with

[34:57] the other permits or even ahead of the

[35:00] other permits. Um I've I've spoken with

[35:02] the applicant and um looking they they

[35:06] just wanted to make sure it didn't hold

[35:07] up their building permit for the pool.

[35:09] Uh so the way it's written um it's all

[35:12] fine and agreeable and they can uh

[35:14] pursue that prior to the construction of

[35:16] the pool.

[35:20] Perfect. I mean, I I'll make a motion on

[35:23] the 133 Marv Oaks Drive with regards to

[35:26] the variance request.

[35:28] I move that we approve the motion with

[35:31] uh um with the conditions that I just

[35:34] read

[35:36] found in desk item number two.

[35:39] >> Second.

[35:41] >> Chair Weaver.

[35:42] >> Yes.

[35:43] >> Commissioner Abfel,

[35:44] >> yes.

[35:45] >> Commissioner Gonarco,

[35:46] >> yes. Commissioner Tober.

[35:47] >> Yes. All right. Takes care of this item.

[35:54] Sage, what else do you have for us

[35:55] tonight?

[35:56] >> Um, just a couple brief reports. We we

[36:01] have the the January director's report.

[36:05] Um, just notable, you know, kind of the

[36:07] new thing we've kind of focused on with

[36:08] these is that looking at housing

[36:11] numbers. Uh unfortunately in January

[36:13] there were no permits issued um for ADUs

[36:16] or single family dwellings. Um but I I

[36:19] did take a peek into February just to

[36:22] give a little um better news uh that

[36:25] within within the first 10 days of

[36:27] February already three permits have been

[36:29] issued um for new units. Um I think one

[36:31] house and two ADUs. And so, uh, you

[36:34] know, different months yield different

[36:36] numbers and hopefully we stay on track,

[36:38] uh, for our goals of at least 15 ADUs

[36:42] per year, but, um, hopefully per our

[36:46] last few years, over 20 would be great.

[36:49] Um, and then that's it for that stuff,

[36:52] but I do just want to thank Commissioner

[36:54] Abfell. Um, this is his last meeting. um

[36:58] uh he's served on the ASRB as well as

[37:01] the planning commission for a number of

[37:03] years. Been a

[37:05] great contribution to the community. So,

[37:07] just want to say thank you very much for

[37:09] serving. Um it's it's been great to work

[37:11] with you.

[37:11] >> Thank Thank you, Sage and team. I really

[37:13] appreciate it.

[37:14] >> It has been a pleasure to work with you,

[37:16] Matt.

[37:18] >> I would just encourage the thousands of

[37:20] people in the room and the millions of

[37:21] people watching at home to get involved

[37:23] with public service. It's actually

[37:24] really great in this town.

[37:27] Thank you.

[37:31] » All right. There being nothing else on

[37:33] the agenda, we will close this meeting.

[37:35] Thank you very much, everybody.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting - February 18, 2026

Transcript