I I do. I feel I'm prepared to do so. Okay.
Alright. Anyone wanna take a crack at a motion? Close public hearing? Oh, close we close the public hearing.
I can try the motion. Yeah. So there's the variance for the side yard setback and the front yard setback.
And yeah. So just to clarify the amount, Ron, proposed is 13 feet nine inches, required is 15.
13.9 feet. Okay. So Oh, so that's a point nine. Okay. That's that's yes. Mhmm. So that's where that discrepancy came in. So he's asking for a Point one
foot side yard variance and a 1.1 foot front yard variance. One okay. Be granted for an addition subject to the following conditions and further fines of variance granted herein. Is the minimum variance necessary and adequate?
Any second?
Is there a second? Second the motion. All
in favor? Aye. Aye.
I did second the motion.
You're approved. Good luck with that. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate your help your time. To review the five I
thought we would just leave until the end. Okay, that's fine. Exactly. Yeah, that's great. That's the way we used all this. First one, I kind of did my own version of it.
So the last item on the agenda, let me put this away first, is 39 Palmer Avenue, Cracker. This is for a front yard variance for a proposed addition. Hello? Welcome.
Here's a few surveys. Pass them around. It will be a front and rear yard variance.
Oh, okay. Is it a rear yard? Is
that the change from the application that I read? Because I didn't have that in my notes.
Possibly.
Yeah. It is different. The the application submitted only seeks a front yard variance.
It's it's a front and rear yard. That's a rear yard. Ron Ron and I had a conversation about it aft. Oh, by the way, hello. My name is Lewis Rohn. I'm the architect for the addition. Okay.
And
so You can introduce yourself. And I'm Margaret. So so before we get going, just you just recite to me what's what the rear yard variance request is?
So with this survey, I've marked in in that that area in red is is existing. It's a connection between a garage and the existing residence that's been there and that connection brought about in 2016 the need for a variance because then the garage was no longer a accessory structure and therefore it need to meet the primary structure setbacks. So this is a cleanup Well, there's there's a couple things going on. So That that was a variance that was granted back in 2016. That was done. Oh, okay. And basically, Lewis is extending that connection to the front of the garage. So
Almost. Okay. So a little blue area there. The project that we have in front of us is there is an existing breezeway that's been enclosed, connects the garage to the main portion of the house. There's a door that's recessed from the front of the house. So what we're proposing is to align the front door or it's a side door but on the front, so it's like It's the the the second front The hunter facing Exactly. Yeah. We're gonna align with the run of the house, and then we're gonna have an overhang that extends to the edge of the garage. So the house is existing nonconforming. The rear yard setback requirement or variance that we're looking for based on the conversation I had with Ron is because we're changing the roof. Okay. We're doing work in that zone. We wanna make sure that we're a 100% on board and you guys know what we're doing. So
so for this for this house, Hunter is is the front yard.
It's gonna ask just two front yards. It it has It literally has two fronts. We are talking about the Hunter front yard. We're talking about the front yeah. That's that's what needs to vary. Yes. Yes. Mhmm. Yes. Okay.
Alright. And so you're you're expanding the footprint, and you're gonna have an entry canopy. Yes. The expansion is gonna align with the existing house. Correct. And the canopy is not gonna project beyond the existing garage. That's correct. Yes. I wanna make sure I understood that right.
We think we think it's all within keeping of, you know, the architecture of the neighborhood excuse and
me. And I have two emails from my neighbors on Hunter who are directly across from it that are in support. Okay. I didn't put them in there. Just have them now. Okay. Do you want to give
those to Stephanie? Please give them to Stephanie. Man. We'll enter those to the record. I like to review those before we vote. Do I understand it correctly that the existing garage is at a six foot setback from Hunter?
That because I think I thought I saw that on plan. That's what that's what I have on my plans. But based on the conversation I had with Ron earlier today That's why I got the survey. That's why he marked it up. So that And adjusted the so it's actually, like, eight feet. I looked at the numbers the best that I could because it's an older survey scanned copied, scanned, and put onto my drawing, so he had a more original that was more legible, so the numbers are, I think it's like eight feet to the far left corner, and nine feet or so on the corner of the garage. So okay. So So the numbers are a little bit less onerous. And the proposed 7.3 seven foot three is still the same? It's the nine feet. Request is still the same? No. Because the that corner of the garage It's changed. It's less.
Okay. It's less. So at the corner on this survey that we have, that corner of the garage, that is currently set back 9.1 foot. So he'd be looking for a 5.1 foot front yard variance to get 15 feet. And in the rear yard, the house is currently 12.3 feet Mhmm. For the property lines. We'd asking be asking for a 12.7 foot variance, and this corresponds with the previous variance granted in 2016.
It says we should disregard because what was in the application was a front yard variance of 7.4. Right. And disregard that now? Disregard that 5.9.
So do we do we need do we need a new application to correct the request, or can we just do that? We here have,
fixed it on the resolution.
Got it. But so Is it 5.9? Yeah. I've just just been handed 5.9.
Oh, it's nine. Yeah. And rear yard is
12 what, Ron? 12.7 foot variance.
Okay. Okay. I'm I'm gonna pass these letters of support around. These are from the residents at 1 Hunter And 3 Hunter Place, which are directly across the street from the subject.
Do we know whether these letters are in support of the original application or the revised application or do we know?
It would be the original because it was just revised today. So the numbers that were seven became eight. The numbers that were I'm sorry. Six became eight. Seven became nine. So this is actually a better situation by a couple of feet.
Is this right, by radio?
12.7, yes. Is it on Hunter? That's the variance requested. 9.1. 12.7.
I wanna get these numbers. I wanna make sure I understand these numbers. What is this one?
Side yard, not a put they're not gonna I'm not asking for a range here. Okay. No more total side yard.
That's Right. Because you've got you've got you already make the required setback on the side yard. So this is
What's this? Next to yes,
5.9.
And then below it is 12.7.
Then this is not applicable. Alright. I need to get a new one of these. I gotta get someone to do it again.
So let me just understand this. So the proposed setback is five point nine instead of seven point three? Is that work? No.
The branch requested.
So I didn't have a chance to study This is not this is 9.1.
The proposed setback is 9.1.
Okay.
So that that's consistent with this. And the proposed setback for the rear yard is 12.3.
Correct. And that requirement is also 15.
At 12,
seven? No. Rear yard is 25.
Okay. Yeah. That's right. 12.3 is proposed. 12.7 is the variance. 20 Correct. Correct. Okay. Just wanted to square out my notes.
And did you provide a full set of plans to the neighbors?
Yeah. Okay.
So this this survey that was initially submitted,
It's it's it's actually the same survey. It was just in the bringing it into the computer and
that's where the interpreter The resolution kinda dropped off and I did the best I could reading those numbers and Ron has a more original survey. Yes. And it was more legible. Because what I did is I scaled the survey so we can get the numbers and then using the computer came up with the six and the seven.
What's the what's the rough roughly the increase in square footage to the house? About 20 square feet
in that neighborhood. Twenty twenty square feet Correct. Additional? Yes. It's a small addition to infill the little notch that's Little bump there. The little recess. You know, that's the increase of the square footage plus the canopy, but usually we don't count the canopy.
Okay. And the canopy is, I'm just looking for a sketch of that canopy.
There's like a west side elevation, I think. So if if you look at drawing a four Yep. Yep. We have the elevations, and the the roof plan also tells the story.
Got it. The roof so the canopy just goes over the front door and connects to the garage? That's correct. Yes. And and the canopy doesn't come any closer to the it it's really not a setback quest for the canopy, is it? We're aligning with the garage, but since it's construction,
that's the setback. Right. Okay.
Thank you. You bet.
Do you guys have any more questions before I open it up to the public? Nope. No. I I I think I understand the application as revised now. Thank you. So at this point, I'd like to open up to the public if anyone has any comments or questions. Alright. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. I close it this time, Ron. Okay. Noted. Do you gentlemen feel you're ready to make a
decision on this application? I I think I'm ready to make a decision, although I'm not sure I'm ready I'm the right one to articulate the motion right now because it's all changed since reviewed it. Okay. Alright. Let's Matt Matt will give it a crack then. So now therefore, be it resolved that a
five wait. I screwed up. Point nine foot front yard variance and a 12.7 foot rear yard variance be granted for an addition subject to the following conditions and further fines. The variance granted herein is the minimum variance necessary and adequate.
Second.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank Thanks. Thank you. We got unanimous vote. Yeah.
Well, have a great night. Okay. I'm gonna get a new site plan at some point. I promise.
I will do, now we'll go back to the five factors. I was just doing that in the interest of everyone's time. Sure. So let's go back to the first application, which is 59 Sunset. No undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, no detriment to nearby properties.
Yeah. I think I'm on the record already on the five factors, but I I Okay. I agree because I I kinda reviewed them when I was in our discussion period.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method other than requested. We we thought that it could, but that it wasn't really to the level where it was would be required in terms of any detriment. I think we agreed on that. Mhmm. Is the is the variance substantial? 2.3 feet, 3.3 feet, and a five foot width off of eight, twenty, and 50.
I would say it's not substantial. My opinion is not substantial. I think it it's just an extension of the existing the existing setbacks.
The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood. I think we all agreed on that. And the difficulty alleged, it was it is self created, But we didn't feel that that was outweighing the other factors. I agree. Alright. Moving on to 100 Young. No undesirable change to the character of neighborhood, no detriment to nearby properties. Think we probably agree that that is Agree. Not benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by method other than the request variance. I mean, they're going within, you know, the existing footprint. So I don't really think there's any other method to achieving a second floor edition.
I I agree. I agree. There's always another way of doing something, but it doesn't it doesn't I think that the the factors weigh in favor of asking to do that.
Is it substantial 1.1 inch? I mean, 1.1 feet and point one feet. I I don't I think we would agree it's it's not substantial. It's substantial. I think we agree that it will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. I I think I noted in my comments that it's would be very similar to the building directly across the street, which has a similar setback, and it also has a second story. And we have neighbors that all we have unanimous neighbor support and no adverse Right. Comments from any neighbors. So that that's something I would certainly take into account. Right. And I think, again, I think, you know, anytime somebody wants to do something, it's self created. Most most variances are self created. Mhmm. Not all, but most. But I don't think that was a determining factor in our decision. Agreed. Alright. Lastly. 39 Palmer Avenue. No undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood nor debt detriment to nearby properties. It's a very small addition. I think it'll enhance the appearance of the house. It will actually benefit
the neighborhood. I agree with that. I agree.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method other than requested. I think that's true for what they're trying to accomplish here, which again is is a pretty minor minor addition to the house. Now Yeah. I agree with that. In terms of substantial, you know, a 50% variance on the rear yard and, you know, 30 or 40 per percent variance on the front yard, that is that is a substantial variance. But I think that is mitigated by the fact that of the existing nonconformity of the house as it stands.
I agree with that analysis. Tight very tight lot. Yes.
The existing Corner lot. The the pro proposed variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I think we agree similar to number one. It'll be improvement, and I think it was self created again. Agree. Agree on that? Okay. In terms of the minutes for the last meeting, Bill and I weren't here. So I don't know whether we wanna wait till next meeting to approve those minutes. I'm not sure if watching the video
cures that. It probably doesn't. So Alright. Alright.
And I would move that we close the meeting. Agreed. Second. Alright.