[Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
OKAY. BUT HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES. BEFORE WE GET TO THE AGENDA, I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THE HEARING, THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. THE CHAIRMAN MYSELF WILL OPEN THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. THE APPLICANTS WILL BE ASKED TO PRESENT THE APPLICATION. THEN STAFF WILL GO OVER A STAFF REPORT. NEXT, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THE BOARD WILL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT MAY ANSWER THEM DURING THE REBUTTAL PERIOD OF THE MEETING. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION WILL BE CALLED ON TO SPEAK FIRST. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK NEUTRAL WILL BE CALLED ON NEXT, AND THEN ANYONE IN OPPOSITION WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. ONCE CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ARE STATED. IT IS ON THE RECORD. IT WILL BE CONSIDERED AND DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPEATED. FINALLY, THE APPLICANT WILL BE INVITED TO TO REVIEW COMMENTS OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP BY THE PUBLIC IF THEY WISH TO DO SO. THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS TO GATHER INFORMATION TO CLARIFY STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE CHAIRMAN WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE ABLE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMMENT. THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE AND MAKE A DECISION. THE BOARD MAY CHOOSE TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SO WE'LL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THIS PUBLIC HEARING NOW. AND WE'LL START WITH THE MINUTES. LET'S GET
[Minutes: August 26, 2025]
SOME MINUTES APPROVED FROM AUGUST 26TH, 2025. IS THERE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS DRAFTED. I'LL SECOND IT. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26TH, 2025. PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE.THOSE OPPOSED PLEASE SAY NAY. THE MINUTES HAVE PASSED. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE APPLICANT.
[VAR25-002: Variance to reduce the rear setback for an addition to a residence]
SO. MISS MERRILL, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOUR APPLICATION. OKAY. AND IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR. OKAY. MY NAME IS DEBORAH MERRILL. I LIVE AT 1958 ROSEWOOD DRIVE, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, 83402. WE ARE SEEKING THIS VARIANCE TO ENLARGE THE KITCHEN ENTRYWAY TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY FOR MOBILITY DEVICES, AS WELL AS HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM.OUR CURRENT KITCHEN ENTRYWAY TO THE FORMER. THE MIDDLE ONE. THERE YOU GO. OUR CURRENT KITCHEN ENTRYWAY IS 28IN. HOWEVER, MY HUSBAND'S MOBILITY DEVICE IS. WALKER IS 32IN WIDE WITHOUT MODIFICATION. HE CANNOT ACCESS THE KITCHEN. IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE BATHROOM. IF HE NEEDS TO DEAL WITH PERSONAL OR MEDICAL AND HYGIENE NEEDS. WE ARE A CERTIFIED FAMILY HOME. THAT MEANS THREE DISABLED ADULTS LIVE WITH ME UNDER MY CARE. I PROVIDE THEM ANY GUIDANCE THAT THEY NEED DUE TO THEIR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES. THE CURRENT KITCHEN IS ONLY MEASURES 28IN. IT ALSO CREATES A SAFETY ISSUE FOR MY HUSBAND IF HE WERE TO FALL. HE HAS PREVIOUSLY HAD TWO BRAIN INJURIES. HE'S PREVIOUSLY HAD TWO STROKES. HE'S PREVIOUSLY HAD TWO HEART ATTACKS. WE PLAN ON USING THIS MODIFIED SPACE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS BE OUR FOREVER HOME. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS CREATES AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. APPLICANT'S HUSBAND. MY HUSBAND DIED WILL BE UNABLE TO SAFELY ACCESS ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE HOME, DIRECTLY AFFECTING HIS INDEPENDENCE AND HIS QUALITY OF LIFE. ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE THIS RESIDENCE IS A CERTIFIED FAMILY HOME, I AM NOT ABLE TO HAVE ANYONE STAND IN THE KITCHEN BESIDE ME TO PREPARE OR COOK FOOD. WE REPLY WE. RELY ON HAVING TO PREP FOOD ON THE KITCHEN TABLE. EXTENSION OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOME, WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY. WOULD LIKE. NO. WE DON'T KNOW
[00:05:13]
IF THAT YOU CAN SEE IT. BUT ANYWAY, THE PROPOSAL OF THE EXPANSION OF THE HOME GOES TO CLOSE TO THE FENCE, WHICH I REALIZE CREATES A FIRE ISSUE. IF YOU KNOW THERE'S A FIRE LINE.IF WE WERE TO GO TO THE WEST RATHER THAN WHERE WE PROPOSED AND SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION AT THE EAST, IT WOULD RESULT IN CODE VIOLATIONS SUCH AS ABANDONMENT OF COMPLETE DESIGN OF EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM, CREATE FINANCIAL AND LOGISTICAL HARDSHIPS, AND WOULD ELIMINATE ACCESS TO THE OUTDOOR WATER CONNECTION WHICH IS NEEDED FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. IT LIMITS THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR HOUSE. IF WE HAVE TO GO TO THE WEST CORNER.
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCOMMODATIONS RELATED TO THE NEEDS THAT WILL NOT IMPAIR OUR SURROUNDING PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT POSE A THREAT OR AN ISSUE, I THINK, TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORS. IT DOES NOT CREATE A LINE OF SIGHT ISSUE, AND I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR. NOW MOVE ON TO STAFF FOR. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THE REQUESTED ACTION THIS EVENING IS TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REAR SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY, THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN MAY OF 1954. IT WAS PLATTED IN APRIL OF 1964. I DID NOT FIND ANY RECORD THAT ANY CONDITIONAL USE, PERMITS, OR VARIANCES HAVE EVER BEEN APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE CITY HAS NO RECORD WHEN THE HOME WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED OR AFFORDABLE. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION ON AUGUST 27TH, 2025. THE PROPERTY IS IN AN R-1 ZONE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S YELLOW. THE R-1 ZONE HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7000FT■S AND A MAXIMUM LOT SIZE OF 13,500FT■. THE FRONT SETBACK IS 25FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SIDE YARD IS SIX FEET AND THEN THE REAR IN AN R-1 ZONE IS 25FT TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE LOT COVERAGE IN AN R-1 ZONE IS 40%, SO THAT MEANS ONLY 40% OF THE LOT CAN BE COVERED BY ANY ROOF STRUCTURES. THE EXISTING LOT IS 11,659FT■!S. SO IT'S RIGHT IN TE MIDDLE OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN AN R1 ZONE, AND THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE OF AN R-1 ZONE. IT'S ON A CORNER LOT, SO IT DOES ACTUALLY HAVE TWO FRONT SETBACKS. SO WE'RE ASKING THEM GENERALLY IN AN R-1 ZONE TO MEET A SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ON A PUBLIC STREET AND ANOTHER PUBLIC STREET. THERE IS A PUBLIC UTILITY IN THE REAR OF THIS LOT, WHICH THEY'RE DRAFTSMEN SO KINDLY PUT ON THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S NOT. IT IS ON THE REAR OF THE LOT. AND GET BACK TO THIS AREA. SO IT'S FROM THE PROPERTY LINE EXTENDS INTO THE PROPERTY ABOUT EIGHT FEET. THE HOME SITS ON THE LOT SOMEWHAT AT AN ANGLE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT CURRENTLY MEETS THE FRONT SETBACK TO THE EAST ALONG CAL AVENUE AND CURRENTLY HAS A FRONT SETBACK FROM BRENTWOOD OF 20FT. SO IT IS CURRENTLY ABOUT FIVE FEET SHY OF THE R1. THE FRONT R1 REQUIRED STEP BACK THE CURRENT SIDE STEP BACK, WHICH WOULD BE THE WEST PROPERTY LINE, IS 16FT, SO IT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM SETBACK OF SIX FEET. THE CLOSEST POINT OF THE HOME TO THE REAR OR THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE IS 20FT. SO BASICALLY WHAT I WHY I'M EXPLAINING THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY CONSIDERED WHAT WE CALL A LEGAL NONCONFORMING LOT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT SETBACKS. NOW IN THE REAR. EXCUSE ME. IN THE FRONT.
OTHER VARIANCES HAVE BEEN. GRANTED IN THIS AREA. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LOTS THAT ARE
[00:10:08]
PURPLE ARE ALL LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACKS, GENERALLY FOR GARAGES ADDITIONS. HOWEVER, THESE LOTS ARE SMALLER THAN THE LOT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS EVENING.THEY AVERAGE BETWEEN 7000 AND 8000FT■!S. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOD THAT IF THE HOUSE WOULD HAVE BEEN SITED WITH THE FRONT FACING CALL AVENUE, SETBACK ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE QUESTION WOULD BE A SIDE YARD, AND THE MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIX FEET. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CHANGE AT THIS POINT. THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON TO THE REAR OF THE HOME. THE ADDITION WILL EXTEND INTO THE REAR SETBACK APPROXIMATELY 11FT, REDUCING THE SETBACK TO APPROXIMATELY 14FT TO THE CLOSEST POINT OF THE. THE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION. AND I'M SORRY THAT'S SO HARD TO SEE, BUT THEY'RE PLANNING TO ADD ON THIS WHERE THIS EXISTING SHED IS AND THEN EXTEND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO THAT SETBACK. BUT EACH POINT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD NOT BE ANY CLOSER THAN 14FT IF I MEASURED CORRECTLY. AND THEIR PLANS ARE CORRECT. THE PURPOSE OF THE ADDITION IS TO EXPAND THE KITCHEN, PANTRY AND BATHROOM. AS MISS MERRILL INDICATED EARLIER IN HER TESTIMONY FOR HER DISABLED HUSBAND, THE ADDITION WOULD INCREASE THE STRUCTURE BY 708FT, FOR A TOTAL OF. AND THIS IS A ROUGH GUESS. I JUST MEASURED THE ROOF LINE AND THE ADDITION IT WOULD APPROXIMATELY INCREASE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO 3003FT■, SO THE LOT COVERAGE WOULDN'T BE EXCEEDED. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO LOT COVERAGE IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, AS TESTIFIED EARLIER, FIRE WOULD NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE REDUCED SETBACK IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FIRE CAN FIGHT A FIRE FROM CALL OR BRENTWOOD. THEY JUST NEED A HOSE STRETCH OF 150FT. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. JUST TO CLARIFY. AND THEN ALSO JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER THE CRITERIA OF THE REASONS TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, RESULTS RESULTING FROM PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON A DEVELOPMENT UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. AND SUCH HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONE AS I'VE KIND OF MENTIONED. IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO ANY OF THE OTHER VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN. IN THIS ZONE, THERE'S NO HARDSHIP HARDSHIP FROM A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL LIMITATION. THE PROPERTY SIZE AND SHAPE IS THE GENERAL SIZE AND SHAPE OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE R1 ZONE ON A CORNER LOT, SO THAT HARDSHIP IS NOT ECONOMIC IN NATURE AND WAS NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OCCUPANT. THERE WOULD BE NO HARD, NO ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, AND THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED DIAGONALLY. CURRENTLY ENCROACHES INTO ONE OF THE FRONT SETBACKS AND THE REAR SETBACK BY FIVE FEET. THIS HOUSE WASN'T CONSTRUCTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR CURRENT OCCUPANT. GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR CREATE A NUISANCE OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE LOT IS LOCATED. I WOULD SAY NO. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR CREATING NUISANCE OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I ALSO INCLUDED THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND AND THE NONCONFORMING PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY REALLY QUICKLY THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A NONCONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE, YOU'RE TECHNICALLY OR GENERALLY NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE IT ANY MORE NONCONFORMING THAN IT ALREADY IS. SO I HAD A REALLY DIFFICULT TIME WRITING THIS REPORT, AND I DID NOT RECOMMEND TO APPROVE OR DENY IT. I THINK IT NEEDS AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE CATEGORIES THAT I LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. THE NONCONFORMANCE ACTUALLY KIND OF KICKS THAT CRITERIA OUT. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE APPLICANT MEETING ADA REQUIREMENTS. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, AGAIN, I DIDN'T MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. IT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UP TO THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER OR
[00:15:01]
NOT YOU GRANT THIS VARIANCE. IF YOU DO, I WOULD RECOMMEND THE MINIMUM SETBACK, WHICH I INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS 14FT OR WHATEVER THEY'VE SHOWN ON THEIR SITE PLAN. AND THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL, I HAVE ONE. CONSIDERED THE FIRE LANE BY THAT PROPERTY. THE STREETS, THE FIRE LANE. OKAY. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO DRIVE UP ON THE PROPERTY. THEY WOULD PARK A FIRE TRUCK ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE STREETS OR BOTH. OKAY? AND THEY WOULD FIGHT THE FIRE FROM THOSE TWO STREETS. THEY WOULD NOT ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME ONTO THE PROPERTY TO FIGHT THAT FIRE. I THINK MAYBE JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, IF YOU BUILD A STRUCTURE WITHIN THREE FEET OF THE PROPERTY, A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FIREWALL. BUT AS FAR AS FIGHTING THE FIRE, FIRE WOULD NOT NEED AN ACCESS ON THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC. IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION RIGHT NOW. THERE'S ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. THEY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ADDRESS NOW, IF YOU LIKE. I'M THE CONTRACTOR. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M IN FAVOR. BUT. SO JUST TO GET THAT, YOU'LL HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO RECORD IT, I APOLOGIZE. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. MY NAME IS CHUCK NICHOLSON. I'M WITH CONSTRUCTION. MY ADDRESS IS IN REXBURG, 796 SEVEN NORTH REXBURG. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT IT, WE LOOKED AT A DOZEN DIFFERENT WAYS TO TRY TO GET ACCESS TO THE HOME. WE ARE GOING TO PUT A. WINDOW ON THE LEFT SIDE, A BASEMENT WINDOW THAT WILL BE. ADA ACCESS FOR FIRE. THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLAN.YEAH, LOOKING AT IT UP TO THE WEST. YEAH, SHE'S GOING TO BE ON THAT WALL RIGHT THERE. AND I WAS A FIREMAN FOR 20 YEARS. AND I'LL NEVER GO IN ONE OF THOSE HOLES. YEAH. THAT'S NOT HOW YOU RESCUE PEOPLE THERE FOR PEOPLE TO GET OUT. SO BUT WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF OPTIONS FOR THEM. AND THEY DO. YOU SAW THE KITCHEN. IT'S IT'S PRETTY AMAZING WHEN YOU ACTUALLY THERE AND LOOK AT THE KITCHEN AND. MY RV HAS A BIGGER KITCHEN. BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO GET ANY MORE ROOM BECAUSE WHAT IT DOESN'T SHOW YOU THERE IS.
JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL IS A STAIRS GOING DOWNSTAIRS, AND EVERYTHING LOOKS SO. BUT FOR FEASIBILITY, I THINK THE BEST PLAN IN PERSON. ANY QUESTIONS? YES. IS IS THERE AN. ADA RAMP GOING INTO THE HOME WHEELCHAIR RAMP OR IS THAT NEEDED AT THIS TIME? WE'LL HAVE TO PUT THAT IN AS WE KNOW THAT'S A THAT'S AN EASY SOLUTION. OKAY. PUT THAT FORTH.
SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. YEAH. AND YOU KNOW AS THINGS GET WORSE THEY'LL NEED ONE MORE AND MORE. SO THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. THANKS JOHN. APPRECIATE IT. IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK NEUTRALLY ABOUT THE APPLICATION STAND. SEE NOBODY ELSE. I GUESS THERE'S NOBODY OPPOSED AS WELL. SO WE'LL JUST MOVE ON AND CLOSE THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE MEETING. THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR. MISS MERRILL? AND DO YOU WANT TO REVIEW IT AT ALL OR RECAP OR ANYTHING? YES. OKAY. ONE THING THAT I DIDN'T MENTION CHUCK MENTIONED IS THE STAIRCASES ON THE OTHER SIDE. CURRENTLY, MY HUSBAND IS ABLE TO USE HIS CANE THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. THIS IS A THIS IS A NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE THAT HE WILL GRADUALLY LOSE MORE FUNCTION OF HIS BODY. AND WE WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE OUR FOREVER HOME. AND WE DID WHEN WE PUT IN A NEW STAIRCASE TO THAT SIDE, ALLOW FOR ON ONE SIDE OF IT, FOR THERE TO BE A RAMP IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT RECAP. APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE MEETING AND DELIBERATE. SO. I GUESS FOR
[00:20:10]
ME, THE ONE THING THAT I SUPPORT IT GRANTING HIM THIS VARIANCE, I THINK THE ONE ISSUE THAT I WOULD LOOK AT, AND I THINK WE WOULD NARROWLY NEED TO DEFINE THAT THIS HAS TO DO FOR A PARTICULAR OUTLIER CIRCUMSTANCE RELATED TO THE ADA. AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S KNOWN. SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY CREATING A PRECEDENT FOR SOMEBODY TO COME ALONG AND SAY, WELL, I SHOULD HAVE THIS EXACT VARIANCE MATCHED EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T MEET THIS FORMAL CRITERIA ACROSS THE BOARD. AND WE NEED TO KIND OF HAVE IT IN THERE THAT THAT WEIGHED INTO OUR DECISION SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T CREATE A PRECEDENT.IT'S KIND OF A NARROW RULING. THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT ON IT IN ANY WAY. IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THAT ROUTE THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT IN WRITING. YEAH, WE HAVE WE HAVE THE CODE THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HERE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WAY WITH MATCHING UP WITH THE CODE. BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT EQUATION IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PERSON THAT HAS THE INJURIES OR WHATEVER. AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S IN THE HOUSE. SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN SOME LIGHT IN THIS. AND, AND THERE ARE SURE A LOT OF PURPLE UP THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THIS THAT'S BEEN DONE OVER IN THAT GENERAL SECTION OF TOWN. YEAH. NO, NO, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT AT ALL. THERE'S OTHER STRUCTURES THAT SEEM TO THERE ARE EVEN LEGALLY ALLOWED, LIKE THE GARAGE NEXT DOOR TO THE WEST GARAGE, BASICALLY ON TWO FRONT LINES, RIGHT ON IT. AS SOON AS MORE LIKE AN EYESORE THAN THIS WOULD EVER IMPOSE. AND THIS SEEMS MORE LIKE A HARDSHIP PHYSICALLY FOR THE MR. MERRILL. AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY. SOME OF THE REASONS WHY IT IS HARD IS BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR WHO ORIGINALLY BUILT THIS DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE RIGHT SPOT, AS IT ALREADY WAS. TO ME, THAT'S TECHNICALLY A HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT'S NOT. IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM AT ALL. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO IF THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE APPROACHED ME FOR THE SAME REASON, I WOULD DO IT AS WELL. AND THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT DECREASING THE THE SETBACKS INSANELY. I MEAN, IT'S STILL 14FT FROM EITHER SIDE SETBACK. AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE TWO STREET SIDES, THAT DECREASES THEIR PROPERTY SIZE QUITE A BIT, WHICH I THINK THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A HINDRANCE TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST ACCORDINGLY. YEAH. MY CONCERN WHEN I WAS HEARING THIS INITIALLY I THINK WAS EVERYBODY'S IT'S LIKE, WHAT FIRE RISKS COULD THIS POTENTIALLY HAVE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S AN ISSUE WHATSOEVER. SO I SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF IT. AS DO I WITH THE FOLLOWING. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE SETBACKS AND THE SETBACKS. DID YOU SEE THE DRAWINGS OR DO YOU EVEN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A SETBACK WITH THE. NOT MUCH, BUT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? MY MOTION.
MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. AND THAT WE ALLOW FOR THE SETBACK AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY BY STAFF EARLIER IN THE MEETING, I SECOND THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THIS VARIANCE. IN MOTION. PLEASE. THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE AYE. THOSE AGAINST. PLEASE SAY NAY. THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND WE'LL JUST WE'LL GET A RECENT STATEMENT THAT WE'LL GO OVER NEXT MONTH. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. I'LL PREPARE IT.
SEND IT IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR REVIEW. AND THEN IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ADD OR MODIFY BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID TONIGHT THAT CAN DO THAT PRIOR. OKAY. PERFECT.
THANK YOU. AND THEN WE DO HAVE A VARIANCE NEXT MONTH AS WELL. SO WE WILL HAVE A MEETING THE
[00:25:02]
FOURTH TUESDAY OF OCTOBER WHICH IS THE 28TH.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.