[00:00:02]
[ AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS City Hall - Council Chambers 6131 Taylorsville Road August 4, 2021 6:30 P.M.]
I WE'LL CALL THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TO ORDER MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.ALL RIGHT, MR. DAVIDSON HERE, MR. DEAN, MR. MOCK, DEAR MS. NEWBY, MR. STEWART NOTIFIED US THAT HE COULD NOT BE PRESENT.
FOLLOWING WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE AGENDA AS COORDIN.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR AUGUST THE FOURTH 2021.
MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT MEETING IS APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK OR GIVE TESTIMONY WITH GORDON, THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING NEEDS TO BE SWORN IN.
SO I ASKED EVERYONE TO STAND, RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND AND RESPOND.
OH, DO YOU HEAR BY SWEAR OR AFFIRM ON THE THREAT OF PERJURY TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.
ALSO ANYONE THAT MAY WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT AFTER THE CASE REVIEW BY THE SICKNESS STAFF OF THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS REPORT, PLEASE STEP TO THE PODIUM AND SPELL AND SPELL THE NAME, YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD WHEN WE'LL GET TO THAT PART.
THE FIRST CASE ON, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE SECOND CASE.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AND DO THE FIRST, THE FIRST CASE IS BZA CASE 2109.
THE APPLICANT GENE WEBER IS REQUESTED AT VARIOUS FROM SECTION 1190 1.01.
ACCESSIBILITY BUILT BUILDING LOCATION FOR ASSESSABLE ASSISTED STRUCTURE.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 48 94 FITCHBURG ROAD, MR. MILLER.
UH, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AS ALL OUR, THE, UH, ALL OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UH, AS STATED THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO LEAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PLACED IN THE SIDE YARD.
THIS IS PER SECTION 11 91 0 1 ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATION REQUIREMENT.
THE OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY ARE TO SECTION 11 25 0 2 FOR A STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PERMIT SECTION 1190 1.042, EXCUSE ME, 1190 1.01 THROUGH OH FOUR.
THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, LOCATION STAFF REPORT READS AS FOLLOWS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE AND THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION OF A NON PERMITTED EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING SECTION 1190 1.01 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE REQUIRES LOCATION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IN A REAR YARD, NOT WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE OR ANY OTHER BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A STORAGE BUILDING IN THE WEST SIDE YARD AND AGAINST THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
THE BUILDING WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT'S KNOWLEDGE AS NO ZONING CERTIFICATE WAS APPLIED FOR UPON OBSERVING AN UNFAMILIAR BUILDING IN PLACE.
A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INITIATED A VIOLATION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAME AWARE OF THE UNACCEPTABLE LOCATION AND THE NEED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT.
AFTER THE VIOLATION NOTICE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CITY.
AT THAT TIME, AS WEAVER CAME TO CITY HALL TO FIND OUT WHAT HER OPTIONS ARE.
SHE STATED HAVING RECENTLY RELOCATED FROM ANOTHER AREA, SHE WAS UNAWARE OF A NEED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR THE BUILDING.
THE PROPERTY HAS AN EXTREMELY SHALLOW REAR YARDS SINCE THE HOUSE SITS AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREET.
SO PLACEMENT IN THE REAR YARD WOULD HAVE BEEN A CHALLENGE.
THERE ARE HOUSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY'S EARLIEST BUILT PLANTS THAT ARE PLACED IN THE SAME FASHION AND WHO WOULD HAVE THE SAME CHALLENGES IS LIKELY THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE ENCROACHED INTO THE SAME EASEMENT AND WITHIN THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY LINES, HAD IT BEEN PLACED IN THE REAR YARD.
THE APPLICANT THEREFORE REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 11 91 0 1.
THESE ZONING DEPARTMENT HAS NO ISSUES WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE STAFF ANALYSIS AS FOLLOWS.
THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER ACRE.
THE CURRENT PLACEMENT IS WITHIN A 10 FOOT EASEMENT.
HOWEVER, NO CITY UTILITIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE EASEMENT.
THE STRUCTURE IS A STORAGE BUILDING.
PLACEMENT IS AS A WEST SIDE YARD AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS VARIOUS RECORDS.
[00:05:01]
QUESTIONS FOR MR. MILLER? I HAVEN'T QUESTIONED.I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS HERE OR NOT.
I DID NOTICE IT WAS REALLY CLOSE TO THE FENCE.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE FENCE OR THE FRONT FENCE HERE.
THE FENCE THAT WE CAN SEE HERE.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
UM, ONLY PROXIMITY TO A PROPERTY LINE OR ANOTHER STRUCTURE.
IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO EXTREMELY CLOSE TO A FENCE.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS TO THE REAR OF IT, BUT, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE FENCE REVIEW, AND NOW IT CAN BE LITERALLY UP AGAINST THAT FENCE IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE OKAY.
ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS AND MR. BRETT LARA, I THINK WE GOT THE, DO WE HAVE THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE BETWEEN THE HOUSE IN THAT? WELL, WE'RE ONLY REQUIRED.
WE ONLY NEED FIVE FEET, UH, SEPARATION FROM HOUSE.
SO THAT'S FOUNDATION TO FOUNDATION.
UM, SO THE CONCERN AS FAR AS PROXIMITY TO OUR PROPERTY LINE IS, AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
I HAD, UH, THE ZONING OFFICER WHO, UH, INITIATED THE VIOLATION.
I ASKED HIM LAST WEEK TO STOP BY.
I SAID, GET ME A, A BIRD'S EYE VIEW, IF YOU CAN, OR AT LEAST A PROXIMITY OF THE LOCATION BETWEEN THE SHED AND THE FENCE, ASSUMING THAT'S A PROPERTY LINE.
I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS THREE OR FOUR FREE.
IT LOOKED TO HIM LIKE IT WAS PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S AN EASEMENT THROUGH THERE, WE DON'T ENFORCE EASEMENTS AT THE CITY.
WE DON'T ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ENCROACH INTO THEM.
THERE'S NO CITY EASEMENT THERE.
LET ME QUALIFY THAT IF THERE WERE A CITY EASEMENT THERE, WE WOULD NOT WANT IT IN THE CITY EASEMENT, BUT THERE IS, THERE ARE NO CITY UTILITIES THERE.
UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THIS THE WAY THIS HOUSE IS, IS POSITIONED, IT HAS VIRTUALLY NO BACKYARD, AS YOU MAY BE AWARE.
SO NOT TO REPEAT MY STAFF REPORT ENTIRELY HAD THIS BEEN APPLIED FOR, IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VARIANCE TO BE INSTALLED IN THE REAR YARD AS WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WAY IT WOULD MEET THE SETBACKS THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET.
SO THE BLUE LINE ON THAT INDICATES THE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY BARRIER.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S TIGHT PURCHASE JUST ABOUT NOWHERE YARD TO BEGIN WITH, WHICH I'M SURE IS A REASON FOR THE LOCATION.
THE APPLICANT MOVED HERE FROM A RURAL AREA.
AND WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE FROM FOLKS.
I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD TO HAVE A PERMIT.
I MEAN, THERE ARE FOLKS THAT IT DOESN'T OCCUR TO THEM THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT.
IT HAPPENS TOO IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES, BUT SOME FOLKS, IT JUST DOES NOT OCCUR TO US, TO THEM AS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD WORRY ABOUT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO REPLY ABOUT THAT IS WHEN YOU BUY THESE SHEDS, EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT SELL YOU, THIS SHEDS TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THEM.
YES, WE HAVE OVER THE YEARS, PROVIDED THEM EVEN WITH OUR HANDOUT THAT DESCRIBES TO FOLKS WHERE YOU CAN PUT IT IN WHAT THE SETBACKS HAVE TO BE, WHETHER THEY'RE STILL HANDING THOSE OUT.
BUT I AGREE MOST, MOST OF THESE FOLKS WILL, THE SALESPEOPLE WILL SAY, MAKE SURE YOU GOT A PERMIT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS CAME FROM.
WELL, MRS. CHAIR, YOU KNOW, I DID GO OUT THERE.
UM, I DID LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, UH, PROPERTY IS ON THAT CORNER LOT, WHICH EVEN EVEN ANGLED AT THE HOUSE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT IS A VERY SMALL BACKYARD.
SO, UM, WITH MR. LARA AND I THINK ANY SHED BACK THERE IS GOING TO BE TIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CLOSE THE CASE BEFORE WE DISCUSS, SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THIS CASE IF IT'S NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.
NOW YOU CAN GO ON YOUR COMPENSATION THAT YOU WAS, IT WAS LEADING TO.
BUT JUST TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, UH, I MEAN, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE IS HAVING A STRUCTURE THERE WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR, UH, THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TOO.
AND TO EVEN HAVING A STRUCTURE THERE AT THE SMALL PROPERTY WHERE IT WOULD EVEN FIT ON THAT PROPERTY ANYWAYS.
SO JUST MAKING THAT STATEMENT THAT I DID GO OUT THERE.
AND SPECIALLY WITH THE HOUSE HAD A CORNER.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE FOR IT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY DISCUSSION THERE.
[00:10:01]
DISCUSSION? I, I AGREE.I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH AT A LOSS TO PUT IT ANYWHERE EXCEPT WHERE IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT YARD.
SO, SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT DIDN'T GET A PERMIT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, AND THEY DON'T DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER PLACE TO PUT IT.
CAUSE I, WHEN I WENT AND LOOKED AT IT, BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE IT COMING FROM DOWN THE STREETS, NOT, I SAW IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND IT TOOK ME BY, I GO, WHOA, THAT'S A BIG, YOU KNOW, BUT YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WASN'T LOOKING AS I WASN'T PLAYING A ROLE TO HAVE A BEING ON THIS COMMITTEE ON THIS BOARD AND SOUND ONE, IF THEY GOT A PERMIT, I JUST SAW, IT JUST TOOK ME BY SURPRISE ON THAT.
WELL, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS, UM, I MOVED, I ASKED FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE, OR I GUESS I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I THINK IT KEEPS ON COMING BACK TO GETTING THESE STRUCTURES PUT UP WITHOUT GETTING APPROVAL FIRST.
UM, UH, SAME THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I BOUGHT SHEDS AND USING THE PEOPLE THAT SELL YOU THE SHIT, YOU KNOW, BRINGING IT UP TO YOU ABOUT HAVING PERMITS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE PLACEMENT OF THAT, UM OKAY.
BUT, UH, TO NOT HAVE A PERMIT, I'M NOT OKAY.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE A 50, 50.
WE ARE, WE GOT EMOTIONAL ON THE FLOOR, SO WE HAVE TO PROVE, AND THEN I NEED A SECOND FROM SOMEONE.
SO THE MOTION IS THAT WE'RE PROVING THE VARIANCE FOR THE POSITION OF THE CORRECT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. JAMISON AS SECOND BY MR. MARK.
THAT CASE A B Z CASE 2109 B F POOL FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE SECTION OF THE VERSE, 1190 1.01.
IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION, CAN YOU READ THE VARIANCE? I MEAN, THE VARIANCE FOR SURE.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WILL YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN AND WHETHER IT CAN BE A BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE.
WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL.
GUESS WHETHER THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED OR WHAT THEIR ADJOINING PROPERTIES WOULD SUFFER AS SUBSTANTIAL DETERMENT AS THE RESULTS OF THE VARIANCE.
WHETHER THE VARIANCE WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES SUCH AS WATER, SANITARY, SEWER, OR GARBAGE REMOVAL.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED A PROPERTY WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ZONING RESTRICTION.
NO, WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER PARTICULAR FEASIBLY CAN BE OBLIGATED TO SOME OTHER METHOD.
DIDN'T THE VARIANTS KNOW WHETHER THE SPIRIT AND INTENT BEHIND THE ZONING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE OBSERVED IN SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTICE DONE BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
MADAM SECRETARY, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL MR. DAVIDSON? YES.
SO THE BEERS APP CONSPIRACY HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR TO ZERO ADAM, MADAM CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY JUST, SO THOSE GOES INTO THE RECORD.
UM, THE APPLICANT WAS, UM, AWARE SHE NEEDS A PERMIT AND WAS ADVISED BY ME NOT TO APPLY FOR, UH, UNTIL WE THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING, BECAUSE I COULD NOT REFUND HER APPLICATION FEE.
SO SHE KNOWS THAT SHE HAS TO GET A PERMIT.
I WANT TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD IN CASE SHE MIGHT BE REVIEWING THE VIDEO OR STREAMING, UH, AND WE WILL CONTACT HER TO LET HER KNOW THAT SHE'S BEEN APPROVED AND SHE NEEDS TO OBTAIN THE CORRECT PERMIT FROM US.
WE ARE, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS BZ CASE 2110, THE APPLICANT, STEPHANIE LAWSON IS REQUESTING A VERITE SORT OF SECTION 1180 POINT 11 B TO LOCATE A POOL IN THE SECONDARY.
YOUR FRONT YARD PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 60 91
[00:15:01]
GENDER GALE GATE.MADAM CHAIRMAN HAS STATED, AND THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AS ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE A APPLICATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD SECTION 1180 1.01, ONE B SWIMMING POOL LOCATIONS.
A SECTION OF CODE THAT YOU'LL SEE.
YOU HAVE AN ATTACHMENT SHOWING AN ARROW VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF THE CITY OF HUBRIS ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE LOCATION OF A SWIMMING POOL ON A CORNER PROPERTY SECTION 1181 POINT 11 B STATES.
THE POOL SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD AND NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO ANY PROPERTY LINE.
SUCH DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE EDGE OF THE POOP SECTION NINE, 20.01 STATES FRONT YARD, REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SHALL HAVE THE SAME DEFINITION AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 11, 23 OF THE HUBER HEIGHTS, CODIFIED ORDINANCES PROVIDED.
HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT, A LOT IS ON A CORNER, SUCH THAT BOTH THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD ABOUT A STREET, THE SIDE YARD THAT ABUTS THE STREET SHALL ALSO BE CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO INSTALL SWIMMING POOL THAT WILL ENCROACH UNTIL THERE'S SECONDARY FRONTAGE ON CHARLES GAIT.
THE APPLICANT THEREFORE REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1181 POINT 11 B.
THE ZONING DEPARTMENT HAS NO ISSUES WITH THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE.
THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 0.2, SIX ACRES AND OCCUPIES THE CORNER A 15 FOOT EASEMENT WITH A UTILITY, EXCUSE ME, WITH A CITY UTILITY SOUTH OF THE SIDEWALK ON CHARLES GATE AND A 10 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT.
THE STRUCTURE IS A SWIMMING POOL.
THE PLACE IS PROPOSED FOR REAR AND SECONDARY FRONT YARD.
YOU THEN JANUARY DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
THERE IS A 15 FOOT CITY UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK OF CHARLES GATE.
WE'RE IN LIES AT EIGHT INCH SANITARY MAINE, THE ATTACHED AERIAL MAP SHOWS THE SANITARY SEWER REMAIN AS A GREEN LINE WITH A MANHOLE AT THE WEST EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO ISSUE WITH THIS PROPOSAL SINCE THE POOL STAYS WELL OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENTS, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.
AND I WANT TO STATE THAT THERE WAS SOME EXTRA, UM, ADDITIONAL PAPERS GIVEN TO YOU TONIGHT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN EMAIL WENT OUT.
ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MEMBER, MR.
ONLY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE 10 FEET OF SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINES.
THERE IS NO SEPARATION REQUIRED FROM THE HOUSE FENCE DOES NOT, UNLESS THE FENCE DEFINES THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS, IT WILL NOT IN THIS CASE.
CAUSE WE'RE SEEING A SIX FOOT IN BETWEEN THE PROPOSED NEW FENCE AND THE SWIMMING POOL WAS FUN.
DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK THE RESIDENT OF THE HOME? COULD YOU SPELL YOUR NAME, STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? STEPHANIE LAWSON.
AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF Y'ALL HAD ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
THERE'S NO SISTERS, NO QUESTIONS FROM, FOR THE APPLICANT.
LET ME CLOSE THE CASE BEFORE I ASKED FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE VCA CASE 21 DAYS.
CAN I GET A SECOND? A SECOND? OKAY.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. UM, I'M HAVING A BRAIN THING THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME TIME.
IT'S BEEN, THE MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY MR. DEAN AND SECOND BY MR. DAVIDSON.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION?
[00:20:01]
THERE'S NO QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION.CAN YOU, MR. DAN, CAN YOU READ THE VARIOUS STANDARDS? WHETHER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WILL YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN OR WHETHER THERE CAN BE ANY BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE? YES.
WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL.
WHETHER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED OR WHETHER ADJOINING PROPERTIES WOULD SUFFER A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT AS A RESULT OF THE VARIANCE.
WHETHER THE VARIANCE WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, SUCH AS WATER, SANITARY, SEWER, OR A GARBAGE REMOVAL.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH, OF THE ZONING RESTRICTION.
WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNERS PREDICAMENT FEASIBLY CAN BE OBVIATED THROUGH SOME METHOD OTHER THAN A VARIANCE.
AND WHETHER THE SPIRIT AND INTENT BEHIND THE ZONING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE.
MADAM SECRETARY, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL MR. DAVIDSON? YES.
YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN APPROVED.
UM, GET WHAT WOULDN'T THE CITY STAFF TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL STUFF THAT YOU MIGHT NEED TO DO.
SINCE THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL BEDS, THIS WILL GO POOL MEN.
THE MINUTES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS.
THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 7TH, 2021 BZA K BZA MEETING OR APPROVE UPCOMING MEETINGS.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1ST AND OCTOBER, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6TH, THE SIXTH WILL BE OUR NEXT UPCOMING MEET.
THERE IS NO FURTHER ADDITIONAL, UM, I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SECOND ONE SECOND.
AND SECOND THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 6 52 ON WEDNESDAY.
UH, AUGUST THE FOURTH CLOSED RIGHT THERE.
WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THERE'S NO NEATO VOTE ON APPROVING THEM UNLESS THERE WAS CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED WITHIN THE MINUTES.