 We're live, you can start when you wish. Good morning, the meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the September 22nd, 2020 meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Jacob Rogers, and I am the chair of the board. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and the City's Unified Development Ordinance. The Board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances, special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the BOA. On the screen, you'll see members of the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, planning staff and representatives from the city and county's attorney's offices are attending in the remote meeting. Applicants, proponents, and opponents were required to register in advance and are also attending the remote meeting. When a case is called for, its hearings speakers will be promoted within the remote platform so their video can be seen. The chair will swear in applicants and witnesses at the beginning of each case. Staff will present each case and applicants will then provide their evidence. Control of the presentation and screen sharing will remain with planning staff. Today's meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube site, and a link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I would like to provide some important information about steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be conducting using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the Board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, the case may be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contained information how the public can access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. These notices also contained information about the registration requirement for the meeting along with information about how to register. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material that they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of the order. It's good to see you all this morning. Susan, would you like to call roll? Mr. Rogers. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Mr. Lacey. Here. Ms. Jeter. Here. Mr. Kip. Mr. Wretchless. Here. Ms. Weimur. Here. Ms. Major. Here. Mr. Tarrant. Here. All right. Looks like we're missing Ian. Although we got an email earlier, I imagine he may jump on at some point, but we will continue without him. I trust everybody's had a chance to look over the minutes from our last meeting. Is there a motion to approve those? Delacey, a motion to, I move that we approve them with the changes suggested by, I do believe it was canceled. There was something about a time changed. Anybody else read them? Okay. Okay. Yeah. I still move. All right. Got a motion. Is there a second? Meadows second. Thank you. Susan. All yours. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Wretchless. Yes. Ms. Weimur. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. All right. In view of the number of cases, can we structure in some bio break time, maybe a 10-ish or at the end of the case, close to that, and then noon-ish and then three-ish depends on how long, like last month was significantly longer than previous so. Yeah. I second that. Yeah. They won't be as long. Yes, agreed. We can definitely do that. Thank you, sir. Yes. Susan, would you like to call the first case and clarify seating? Staff, Eliza Monroe speaking. Staff does have a provision to amend to the agenda. They would like to put forth case B2000031 was withdrawn by the applicant. Got it. Let's move forward with the second case on the agenda. Okay, case B2000022. Appeal of an administrative decision to administer a notice of violation for improvements made to the Durham Green Flea Market without an approved site plan. The building is located at 1600 East Pettigrew Street within the Austin Avenue Compact Neighborhood Development Tier and is zoned light industrial. And the seating for this case is Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Lacey, Ms. Jeter, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Waimour, Ms. Major. There you go. All righty. Who's taking this one on the staff side? This is my case here and I'm adding in some individuals that will need to, they'll be a part. Right, Mr. Chair, this is the appeal of the notice of violation. And so I believe Mr. O'Toole will be presenting on behalf of the city. And Mr. Perry and his associate will be presenting and it's actually their appeal. So they'll be presenting. And it's the responsibility of the board to determine whether or not the NOV is in compliance with the unified development ordinance and has been properly, properly issued. All right. I still see people are coming in. I don't see everyone's cameras on. So I guess we can don, Landis Robertson's there and Kim Roberts who will be I think talking later on. So we could possibly just go ahead with just Mr. and Mr. Perry and Mr. O'Toole being sworn in the oath. All right. If those who plan on giving testimony on this case will raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Affirm. Affirm. All right. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I really don't consent to remote. No, I do not. All righty. Given that Mr. Perry does not consent to having this heard remotely then we can't have it heard today. Because all the parties have to consent to having it heard remotely. So what would happen is this would have to be continued to a time that it can be heard in person. I don't know how that's going to affect your appeal, Mr. Perry, but it is certainly your option to do that. And if that is in fact your decision today then we'll have to continue it to a time indefinite when it can be heard in person. And then we'll put it back on the agenda. Mr. Perry, just want to confirm with you if this is what you want to do. Excuse me. I just want to confirm one more time that you don't consent and that you want to continue this. I'm not, I would like a in-person hearing. Okay. All right, I think then we'll need a motion to continue this indefinitely. Is that right, Mr. Wardell? No, you would just have to take it off the agenda. I don't believe this is a little bit different than opening a case for a zoning matter. So you would just need to take it off the agenda and then it would be placed back on the agenda at a time that hearings are being heard in person. I would just like Mr. Perry to understand that whatever enforcement action is in place or whatever fines that are associated with this particular NOV will continue to accrue. But it is absolutely, you know, you're right not to consent to this and we'll just put it back on the agenda at another time when we hear cases in person. We don't know when that's going to be. It could be months from now, but we'll put it back on as soon as we start having in-person hearings again. All right, well, let's do that. Take it off the agenda. We'll move forward with the next case. All right, thank you. Thank you. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Okay, sure. So what? We'll be excused, we understand it will be excused. Is it? Is it out? You just muted yourself. Please, excuse me. No, it's not muted. What you got? You can hear me. Is it our understanding that we are excused from any further proceedings with respect to appearing before you are today? Yes, yes, we're moving forward to our next case. Yeah. Okay, what I'm saying, we are excused. Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Have a good day. Thank you. And Mr. Rogers, I do not need a motion for that case. I don't think so. Okay. No, because the applicant did not consent. So. Okay. Okay, case B2, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3, a request for multiple variances from the project boundary buffer requirements on the North and East sides of the parcel. The subject site is located at 402 North Buchanan Boulevard within the urban development tier and is owned residential urban. The seating for this case is Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, Mr. DeLacy, Ms. Jeter, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Weymour and Ms. Major. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified and notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. Thank you. We are moving right through this agenda. So I can't, I want to have to flip through here to make sure, see who's speaking on this. So I'm assuming that anybody who is speaking has their video on. Oh, we're going to minister the oath. If everyone is ready, thank you, Cole. All right. If you plan on giving testimony, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Yes. And do you also consent to this remote meeting platform? Do, yes. All righty, we can move forward now. Sorry, all right. Good morning, I'm Cole Renner. I'm Cole Renner, representing the plan department. I'm planning staff requests that the staff for normal materials submitted to the public hearing to be part of the public record with any ancillary corrections as noted. So noted, thank you, sir. Case B20, sorry, hold on a second. Case B20-00033 are multiple requests for variances from the property project boundary buffer requirements on the north and west sides of the parcel. The subject is located at 402 North Buchanan Street. I'm sorry. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is in the urban tier, zoned residential RU-5, and is in within the city of Durham's jurisdiction. The existing use is a church. Per unified development ordinance, UDO section 9.4.3D is existing major specimen trees located within a required project boundary buffer shall be surveyed and protected as described in UDO sections 8.3.5. Tree protection and tree coverage and 9.3.2 existing trees. Removal of such trees is allowed only as required to provide access to the property that applicants proposing the removal of several specimen trees to make room for the new additions to rear, second story deck proposed to the south of building, the new proposed driveway and new proposed grotto. The grotto and driveway are located where the old driveway was. There is currently no project boundary buffer along the north or east side of the property. UDO section 9.4.3D requires a 30 foot wide 0.6 opacity buffer between residential and non-residential uses and then should be provided. UDO section 9.4.5.1E states that in no case that minimum width buffer shall be less than half the required width. In this situation, it would be 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a variable width buffer on the east side ranging from a minimum of two feet and nine inches to a maximum of six feet and six inches. The applicant is proposing a variable width project boundary roughing from, sorry, along the northern, the applicant is proposing a variable width project boundary buffer ranging from one foot eight inches to a maximum of three foot and 10 inches. In addition, the applicant requests the variance from UDO section 9.4.8A2, which states it's all walls located within a buffer shall I planted on the side facing the adjacent property with at least one upright shelf for every six feet of wall length. And from UDO section 9.4.9A3, which states it's where shrubs are planted adjacent to the wall, the minimum distance between the wall and the property line shall be four feet. There is one wall approximately 27 feet long located in the northeastern property boundary which continues along approximately 98 feet of the east property line. The wall has no landscaping between it and the adjacent properties, nor is it more than four feet from the property line. Okay, any questions for Cole? And Cole, I'm gonna trust you to watch that raise hands. So would the applicant come forward? Good morning. Morning. I see that I have Father Michael Martin here who's also masquerading as me, but I am Rob Emerson. I'm the applicant in this case representing the Duke Catholic Center. Oh, there we go. And Ellen Casselly is also here with us from Ellen Casselly Architects. As a reminder, do I need to request to have the application materials entered into the, I would like to do that, please. Thank you, sir. Just to give you a little bit of a background, I'm not gonna reread the staff report and everything to you. I'm a landscape architect in Durham. I've lived in the neighborhood where this project is located since 1998 and have practiced as a landscape architect and development consultant in Durham since 1997. Just to give you sort of a high level overview, this project involves an existing structure that is at the northeast corner of North Buchanan and West Trinity Avenue. So we're directly across from East Campus. This building was built as a guest house for Trinity College in 1909 and was then adapted for institutional use in 1965 before being purchased from Duke by the Raleigh Diocese in 2002 for use as their student center. They did get a minor special use permit in 2002 and they have operated on this site since that time. What we are proposing is a one-story addition over a walkout basement on the northeast corner of the building. The addition will extend the planes of the north and east walls to a 90 degree corner. So not getting closer to the property lines than the existing building already is. We're not intruding on any required yards. We're not increasing the height of the building. The footprint of this addition is only 750 square feet but because there's a finished basement below it, we're pushed over the 20% expansion threshold allowed by the current use permit. I understand we're talking about the variance first but I just wanted to give you that sort of overarching view. So our project has three primary purposes. The first one is to provide additional study space so that students can spread out through the facility. Second purpose is to expand the chapel and in doing so reconfigure some interior spaces that don't work very well, office spaces, bathrooms, et cetera, storage areas. Probably the most important improvement that we're gonna make is an accessibility improvement. This is an old house. There are steps that come up to the front door. There's not really much accessible about it. What we're proposing is to lower the grade behind the building approximately 30 inches. It varies from two feet to 30 inches. And then we'll provide a new van accessible parking space behind the building with direct access to the basement level where we'll build a new elevator to serve all the floors. And then additionally, there would be accessible bathroom upgrades made inside. So for the variance, as Cole mentioned, and I believe it's a 0.6 opacity project boundary buffer because we are a place of worship in a residential zoning district. I believe that it's actually a 20 foot project boundary buffer that's required, not a 30, although Cole may wanna correct that. A 0.6 opacity boundary buffer, I believe equates to a 20 foot wide buffer with a six foot high wall, a continuous hedge along the side that faces offsite and other tree and shrub plantings and specimen trees that happen to fall in that buffer area are required to be preserved, as Cole mentioned. We simply don't have the space to provide these buffers. These are existing homes that are more than a hundred years old. They're close to each other, they're close to the property lines. The existing building is less than 10 feet from the north property line. And then additionally, there's a 32 inch diameter willow oak in the buffer. It's very close to the house and it's simply not feasible for us to undertake the project without compromising the root zone of that tree. So this is a unique urban condition in a historic neighborhood directly across the street from East Campus. We didn't feel that suburban landscape buffers are appropriate here and they're not possible. The house, as I said, is less than 10 feet from the north property line and the existing driveway is less than three feet from the east property line. So we're not, we're certainly improving the condition versus what's out there now, although we are obviously adding on to the northeast corner of the building. We have worked with our most immediately affected neighbors. The house to the east sits about 70 feet east of the property line. It's a huge lot. So I wouldn't say she is as directly affected as our neighbor to the north whose house is, I believe, less than 10 feet from the property line, probably closer to six or seven feet from the property line. And in working with those neighbors, we've revised our plans along the way. And in fact, I have sort of a procedural question for you all. We've been working with Mr. Caudill who is our neighbor to the north. And in response to his input, we have revised our proposal. We had been proposing just low brick walls and a wood fence along the north property line. And we have a revised plan that replaces the wood fence with an eight foot high brick wall. I guess that's actually the plan that's shown here in front of you that we submitted to Cole yesterday. Is that correct Cole? Yes, this is a plan you submitted yesterday. Great, so this may be, this is slightly different than the plan you've seen in the packet, but this is the plan that we would like to move forward with your approval today. And do you have the elevation sheet Cole? Could you show the revised elevation looking from the north property line towards the project site? Second, it's looking. Yes, so that is the top view with the cloud around it is looking from our northern neighbor's property back towards the project. And we've been working with him on how to preserve his property as much as it's practical to do so within the constraints of an eight foot high maximum wall allowed along that property line. So we think we're striking a good balance. And I guess with that, I would turn it over to you all to ask questions or Father Mike may want to say a few words. May I Mr. Rogers? Have you been sworn in just want to make sure? Yes, sir. Alrighty, please continue. Thank you. Grateful for the opportunity to speak to all of you this morning. We're very excited about our project. We feel that not only have we served our students well as they've utilized this space as a bit of a retreat, but we also believe that the project as a whole will be a benefit for the entire Trinity Park neighborhood. We have worked over the last six to eight months with both of our neighbors. Mr. Caudill I believe is in the meeting today. Mrs. Grignolio is not on the meeting, but has been very supportive of our project as we have tried to listen to what her needs are and create an environment that is supportive of what she's doing. So we feel that we've engaged the Trinity Park homeowners association and been in conversation with them, attended their meetings and continued to try and say, here's who we are. This is what we're trying to do. But as I think Rob pointed out, the primary issue here is the grade elevation that in order to allow students who might have accessibility issues, we really have to lower the grade in the back and in order for the elevator to go in and be utilized. And in order to do that, those trees, the root systems for both of those would never withstand the grade reduction. So we're grateful for your consideration. We think we've been a good neighbor. We're not a frat house by any stretch of the imagination. We are simply a place where students can come to pray, to study, to gather together. And I think our neighbors would validate that we've been a benefit at large to the community. And we hope to be that as well. We believe that the grotto area that we are creating in the back of the house is in the spirit of the Trinity Park neighborhood, which is very beautifully landscaped. And so a quiet space to come and reflect that will be open for the community as well is something that we think will be value added. We do believe that the wall separating our property and Mr. Cottle's property will be value added for both of us. We've worked hard together with him to make sure that he feels that we're adding to his property value for the long-term. And I think he can speak to that as well, but we feel like this is a win-win for everyone and would be grateful for the accommodation to the ordinance. All right, any questions for Mr. Emerson or are there other witnesses? Delacey, are those the all of the witnesses who will be presenting? I believe so unless Ellen, do you have? Oh, you're muted, Ellen. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Okay, thanks. Mr. Chairman, I have a question about sidelines on the East end of the property. How tall is the barrier fence wall going to be with respect to the driveway for sight line distance? Because there's a driveway right next to it and is that going to be tall all the way to the sidewalk? I think the elevation shows it best. I am, can you show me? Oh, with the little kid walking, so it'll be three feet high there? Yeah. Thanks so much, Ellen. Thank you. No other questions. Thank you, Mr. Lacey. Any other questions? Mr. Lee. Meadows, I have a question or two. The first one is, I wanted to be sure that I understood, this is an existing basement. The basement is there. There's no grading necessary for the basement. Is that accurate? Go ahead, Ellen. There is an existing basement and one has to go down a few steps to get into the basement presently. I see, so the plan is then to apply some fill so that that's an accessible access way to the elevator. Well, I wouldn't use the word fill. We're taking earth away to lower the grade to get down to the existing grade. Understood, understood, okay. And that grading is taking place in the location of the accessible parking space and the entrance to the elevator and so forth. Is that right? Yes, we're lowering it obviously at the door, but to get there with proper slopes, everything needs to go down. Rob, you wanna add on to that? Yes, so the low point of our site is the southeast corner, so the bottom right-hand corner. And I guess it's frustrating not being able to point at anything. So you see where the van accessible space is? I do, I do, yes. North of there, just immediately north of there is where the elevator is inside the building. Is that correct, Ellen? Yes, right there. And the door is just... A little bit further north, there's a door. So to the right. To the right. There's a little notch in the back wall of the building and that's where the door is, right there. Could you elaborate a little bit on the reasons why the 32 inch willow oak that's a specimen tree that's at the back at the north lot line and how the grading in the south and south, the southern portion of the lot is necessary or how that would affect the 32 inch oak on the north property. Okay, so the building addition, the L-shaped building addition which forms the northeast corner of the building will also have a basement under it. So there's a great deal of excavation happening in that part of the site for the building addition itself. And then north of there, we're bringing pedestrian circulation around the north side of the building. We're adding some bike parking out in front and we want folks to be able to walk around the north side of the building and come to the back. So there's a lot of work going on up there and in the vicinity of the building addition, not only the basement addition, but the site work adjacent to it is all in a cut situation that varies again from, you know, we're matching grades essentially at the northwest corner of the building and then we start digging our way down along the north side. So really the, because the northeast corner of the site is kind of our high point, I guess, in the back half of the site, that's where we're doing most of the excavation. And then the northeast corner of the building addition, I think ends up about 12 feet from the trunk of that 32 inch willow oak. So there's just no practical way, unfortunately, for us to build this addition without compromising the root zone of that tree. The other issue, if I may, would be that if we kept the grotto area at the current grade, then it would be inaccessible to students with accessibility needs. So it has to come down to the rest of the grade as well. So even if we put the addition on without disturbing the root ball, which I think would be hard, but if we were able to do that, and then the grotto would stay at the same current elevation, then it would be in a corner of the property that would only be accessible. Cause then we'd have to put either stairs or a massive ramp. So that's where we run into some problems with accessibility as well. And we do have a small ramp just to raise it up a little bit. Right, right, exactly. No more questions, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Cole, will you stop sharing the screen so I can see folks? Thank you. All right, well then let's have some discussion then. If there are no questions, thoughts on this application? So Lacey? Hold on, first of all, I've got to make sure there are no opposition. I didn't, I made, is there any opposition to this? Mr. Rogers, I would like to speak over the proposal. Go ahead. Good morning, I'm Gordon Caldwell. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I live at 406 North Buchanan Boulevard which shares the Northern Property Line of 402 North Buchanan. I've been the owner of this property since 2001. I am in support of the revised changes that have been submitted, I guess yesterday, the applicants and their landscape architects and architects have been very accommodating and creating what I think we both agree is a suitable barrier between our properties and also agreeing to replace the specimen tree that is gonna be taken down and putting a specimen tree on my property. And so hopefully that will, it's too bad to take down that tree but certainly understand the design difficulties and it would probably die, I think anyway. So looking forward to a new tree coming in and, but just in summary, I think that I'm in support of the changes, applicants have been very accommodating and I hope you guys pass the proposed changes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cottle. Mr. Meadows, do you have a question? Thank you, thank you, Chair. Did, is there anything in the staff materials about the location, the placement of the additional specimen tree? I missed that, was that in there? So since that was submitted later than the staff report created, the staff report was created based off what application materials we had since this change was so recent, it was not reflected in the staff report. Thank you. All right, any further questions? Any witnesses or the applicant? My only concern was about sight lines for, with regard to traffic and safety and those, my questions were, I felt answered appropriately and that was my only concern other than that, I like it. Thank you, Mr. Lacey. All right, well, any other thoughts? I'll share my thoughts. You know, we've spent a lot of time thinking about, you know, understanding how proposals comply with the requirements for the variance. And the variance, as I understand it here, it's three-fold. There's supposed to be a suburban buffer that doesn't fit. I think that's pretty understandable. The specimen tree issue, you know, problematic for sure. I'll come back to that one. The other issue about the plantings on the outside of the wall, I'm not sure if there was inadequate space for that or what the situation was. I didn't feel like that element of the variance request was addressed in a meaningful way. So I don't understand why that's not possible. And then to the specimen tree, I mean, I understand that there's an additional basement that's going in, but there was no indication about why that additional basement was necessary and the amount of grading that that would trigger. It seemed to me that the variance for the removal of the specimen tree turned on the issue of the grading necessary for that basement addition. Yet there was little discussion about why that was necessary or how that was the only way that the site could move forward. So those are my reservations about it. Philosophically, I think it's great, but that's my standpoint, thank you. Mr. Meadows, anyone else? Mr. Wreckless. I just want to voice my support for it. I think it's consistent with the spirit and purpose and intent. I think it's gonna be, I think it's gonna work. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Does anyone want to offer a motion? There's seven of us. I'll make a motion. Wreckless, seconds. Mr. Wreckless, I believe they're waiting for your motion, that the substance is in your motion. Yeah, I thought you were pulling it up, Mike. I am, I really am. I'm just getting frightened here. I thought I pulled it up and I found out I pulled up the draft orders instead, so I had to go back into the website. We've got this, we've got this. Yes, sir. Okay, here we go. I hereby make a motion that application number B2000027, application for a quest for a variance for reduced pole width for a, no, that's not the right one. You need 33. 33. 33's orders. So order number 27 was on 33's. Wreckless, this is Jessica Dockery staff. The motions are at the bottom of the staff report if you can find the staff report for number 33. Yeah, number 33 has number 27's information in it. Yeah, number 27 is on 33's. I get it, sorry about that. So would that be in the revised, maybe PDF? No, those are elevations. That's the planning revised. So if you can get that motion to me, I'll definitely say it. Mr. Chair. Yes. This is Christa Cooker with the city attorney's office. I think if you'll give us just a few, maybe just a minute, we can come up with that revised language. Absolutely. Okay, thank you. Beautiful weather we're having. Indeed. Summer left us and didn't even tell us bye. Mr. Chair, the motion language is in the chat. So I don't know if Mr. Retch just wants to pick that back up. Are you going to mic? All you're asking. Okay. I hereby make a motion that application number B2000033 an application for requests for multiple variance requests from the project boundary buffer requirements on the north and east sides of the parcel on property located at 402 North Buchanan Boulevard has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as all of your applications. Lacey second. We've got a motion by Mr. Retch so second by Mr. Lacey Susan. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Nope. Did you say no? I did. Okay, thank you. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Wamour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Major. Yes. Motion carries six to one. A vote of six to one, your variances have been approved. So let's move on to the next. I think you're on our next case as well. Susan, would you call that case? Case B2000033, a request for multiple variances from the POP Project Boundary Buffer requirements on the north and east side. We already read that one. Oh, I'm sorry. Case B2000034, a request for minor special use permit for an expansion of over 20% of the area that was originally approved in the previous minor special use permit. The subject site is located at 402 North Buchanan Boulevard within the urban development here and is owned residential urban. And the seating for this case will be Mr. Kip, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Lacey, Mr. Jeter, Mr. Wretchless, and Ms. Weymour. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time. Property owners within 600 feet have been notified and notarized at the day that's verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. All right, we got a new minister. All right, we got a new minister again. So for those who plan on speaking and giving testimony for this particular case, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Yes, we do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform again? Yes. Thank you. Cole, is this yours? Yes, it is. Break it up. Good morning. I'm Cole Renier representing the planning department, planning staff requests at the staff report on all materials submitted to the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. The applicant is Emerson Land Planning, PLLC, represented by Rob Emerson. It's in the city of Durham jurisdiction. The request is for a minor special use permit for an expansion of over 20% of the area that was originally proved in the previous minor special use permit. The case area is highlighted in red and the zoning district is RU-5-2. The existing use is a church, it can be seen here. The applicant on behalf of the property on a Roman Catholic of Raleigh proposes a 1,700 square foot one story on basement rear addition to the building located at 402 North Buchanan Boulevard. This project is on 0.24 acre site that is currently used as a place of worship. An expansion of more than 20% that was originally approved for the MSPP allowing a place of worship in a residential zoning district shall require a new MSPP for the expansion per unified development ordinance section 5.3.3J1. A site plan case D20-00154 is currently under review of this project and is included in this attachment to the application C attachment for site plan. All right, Susan, did you clarify the seating for this case? Yes. Okay, and is Ian, I just saw that Ian has joined us. Mr. Kip. Yes. Okay, just- Do you want me to verify that again? Yeah, I don't remember it. Yes. So the seating for this case is Mr. Kip, Mr. Lacey, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Wymore and Ms. Jeter. Thank you. All right, would the applicant come back? Come forward again. Hello, I'm still here. Rob Emerson with Emerson land planning. Again, I would ask, as Cole did, that the staff report and all our materials are made part of the public record. Thank you, sir. Again, we're here. This is not a new use. This is a use that's occupied this site since the special use permit was originally granted in December of 2002. We've occupied this site for almost 20 years without any known problems with our neighbors. The proposed addition is just one story over a basement with a footprint of only 750 square feet. So although the floor area is being expanded by 29%, putting us over that magical 20% threshold, half of that new floor area is in the basement. The addition is located to the rear of the building and is defined by extending the planes of the existing north and east walls to a 90 degree corner. So the addition is not any closer to the property lines than the existing building. It will not encroach on any required yards and will not increase the building height. Traffic impacts of this addition are minimal, mostly because of the nature of who's using this facility. These are students. So they're walking from East campus or they're taking transit to East campus and walking to the site largely. Our parking requirement is driven by the size of the small chapel that's in the building and part of the interior renovations involves increasing that chapel. So we were required, we're now required to provide 10 off street parking spaces. We're providing five of those on site including our van accessible space. And the other five are borrowed from Duke. We have an agreement with Duke University for five spaces across Buchanan Boulevard near the Epworth building. I think that's all I have. I won't read the findings to you, but I am happy to address any questions or concerns that you may have. Any questions for Mr. Emerson? Any questions at all? Or for Cole, Mike, Rachel, do you have your hand up? Let's just come through. Yes, Mr. Emerson, do you know how many, is this gonna be increased as students at this facility? And do you know how many that increase would be? I would like to defer to Father Martin on that if he'd like to answer how the facility is used and how that might change. Or I don't foresee an increase in students. It will just be that they're not on top of one another. That's the real issue is that the same number of students are pretty much gonna be coming and accessing the, I could show you pictures of, when we're in our current chapel. I don't know if you know anything about Catholic Mass, but we have to, for communion, we have to have some of the students walk into another room just so we can get people moving around. It's not that there's, the other is the study that's gonna be sort of the great room in the addition. Currently what students are doing is they set up plastic tables and chairs wherever they can find some space. And we just would like to create a more accommodating study space that will benefit them. So it's not gonna increase traffic at all, but rather just allow for the students that are already there to have a space that's, yeah, that's nice. And did you have any traffic study or anything for this? No, sir. Okay. Thank you. Again, given that our students, most of them don't drive there. I mean, I would say maybe one or two might drive like grad students from the neighborhood or something, but most of them just walk across the street from campus. And Cole, clarify for me that something like this doesn't trigger the need for any kind of TIA transportation. Based on the city code, we don't require any transportation analysis or impact analysis. Thank you. Thank you. We did review that early on during the site plan process and I don't remember the threshold off the top of my head, but it was, was it 150 vehicle trips a day? Is that right Cole? I believe that's correct. Yeah. And we just weren't anywhere near that threshold. Got it. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Is there anyone on the call to speak against this case? All right. Cole, do you have a recommendation? Oh, yes. Staff recommends approval as long as it's consistent with the site plan D2,000154. Right. Discussion, any thoughts on this particular case? Meadows, Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. Continue. I hear by make a motion that application number B2000034, an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 402 North Buchanan Boulevard has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Mr. Meadows. Is there a second? Regulus, I'll second that for a board vote. Regulus is the second. Susan, will you call? Ms. Jeter? Yes. Ms. Waimour? Yes. Mr. Regulus? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. I vote a seven to zero. Your minor special use permit has been approved. We thank you for coming before the BOA this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Very great. Good luck. All right. We're moving along. Does anybody need a break before we move on to the next case? Usually I wouldn't ask before 10 o'clock. How about 10? How about after this one? All right. All right. Susan, I'll let you call the next case. Case B2000037, a request for minor special use permit to allow an addition of more than 10% of the existing floor area to a non-conforming structure and a height increase. The subject site is located at 1307 West Knox Street within the urban development tier and his own residential urban. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Wyemore and Ms. Jeter. All right. Thank you for that. Do we have everybody? We'll need everybody who plans on speaking to have your camera on. So to live there, Eliza and our staff speaking currently, Mr. Gravesman, there's a second. You, is this someone else or are you on an additional device? I am only on one device, but Jackie Graves is probably logged in as me as well because I asked, I think, wants to get her registration. So I sent her my registration. Gotcha. Okay, we just changed her name and we'll just need her to turn her video on too as we can then proceed, Mr. Chair. All righty. You know if she's on the other side of that screen? I am sending her a text message. Okay. Can I ask a question of staff while that's happening? Is that efficient? Is it your case, Eliza? Yes, it is. I think that's okay. I don't think we have to call it. You know, if it's related to the case, I think we might have to formally start the hearing, but if it's... It's just a question about, we just had a case that involved a minor special use permit and a variance and we heard the variance first, I assume because if the variance wasn't approved, there was no need for minor special use. Here's another pair of cases that are on the same site, but the variance is after the minor special use permit. Is that just a scheduling thing or was that deliberate? That was a scheduling thing. I will, if I mean, I'm open to the swapping of the two of them if we would like to do that. So the variance request is for a parking variance to a single family dwelling to provide some context. The minor special use permit request is for the proposed single family dwelling. So if the use permit is not approved, then they would no longer need the variance. But I am open to swapping if council or staff. I mean, I see how this one is just fine. I mean, you're okay with this, Mr. Meadows? Good. All right, it seems like we've got a video here. If you plan on giving testimony, would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Jackie, I'm sure I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. I think she might be muted. She appears she's muted. I just tried to unmute her as the co-host and it didn't allow me to do so. She might have to unmute herself. Hello. Hi. All right. So you do swear or affirm that I didn't get any of that. Miss, we'll have to have your video back on and. Okay, one second. Yes. I realize this is kind of a weird way of doing this. Unconventional, if you will. And I'm in my car. Yeah, here, if the car is in motion, would council, is there opposition to getting just an audio confirmation? Yeah, Krista, how'd you feel? If the car is in motion, I think audio is acceptable. All right. Well, do you both consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Yes. All righty, thank you. Eliza, you can take it over. Thanks everybody for bearing with us there. Can you all see that screen share? Yes. Okay, good to go. Okay, Eliza Monroe. Good morning, everyone. Eliza Monroe representing the planning department, planning staff requests of the staff accord and all materials submitted at the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any unnecessary corrections as noted. As noted, thank you. Thank you. Case B-200037, is there a place for a minor special use permit to allow an addition of more than 10% of an existing floor area to a non-conforming structure, any height increase of said non-conforming structure? The applicant and property owner is Tlaib Graves-Mans and the subject site is located at 1307 West Knox Street. The case area is highlighted and read on the screen. The site is zoned, the site is zoned residential urban five two and within the urban tier. The site is currently used as a commercial structure. It is a legal non-conforming structure. The use itself predates our code, so therefore the existing use is a legal non-conforming use as well as legal non-conforming structure. Per UDO section, 14.4.1B, 0.3D, additions to a non-conforming structure permitted as so long as the enlargement is a maximum increase of 10% of the existing square footage of the existing structure. According to the submitted floor plan, which this was the originally submitted floor plan, if you were able to look at the agenda in the past couple of days, it has been revised. So there are revised floor plans and elevations which were at the end of this presentation. But per the original submitted floor plan, the applicant was proposing a second story, single family dwelling unit of a total of 1,457 square feet of floor area. This was an increase of over 55% of the original square footage, which requires the issuance of a minor special use permit pursuant to section 14.4.1B. Additionally, the scope of work includes a heightened freeze of the original structure from one story to two stories, which require a minor special use permit pursuant to UDO section 14.4.1B.381. The height increase does not qualify for an exemption as the proposed height is not consistent with or less than the existing height of the structure. Lastly, given the property's location in this urban tier on a site less than four acres, it also must meet the infill requirements, infill development requirements of residential zoning districts per UDO section 6.8.1D.1. The new height of the structure, including the proposed construction per the original, as well as the updated elevations is 24 feet, the infill development standard state that the maximum height of the structure shall be the maximum height permitted within the zoning district or no more than 14 feet taller than any existing structure, whichever is less than that situation. Lastly, staff does want to note, and just to make sure I'm clarifying, I'll probably say it again because it might be confusing. The existing current is the bottom floor is going to be currently commercial. The applicant's proposing a single family dwelling on the second floor. The height increase and floor footage increase is what is triggering the minor special use permit that you all are hearing this morning. Per UDO section at 3.9.8.8 and B establishes four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order for the board to grant a use permit. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses. And to the finding the review factors are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet and staff will be available to answer any questions about this case this morning. Any questions for Eliza? And Ms. Graves, Ms. Jackie Graves-Mann, I'm going to mute you just at the moment because we're getting a little bit of feedback from you. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any raised hands. Well, that was a lot of happening, was that my fault? All right, so we don't have any questions for you. All right, would the applicant like to speak? Yes, this is Todd Graves-Manns. Can you hear me? Yes. All right, so as we get started, I'll give you a little bit of background on myself. I came to Durham to live and to be a resident in 2015, working primarily with entrepreneurs focused on diversity and inclusion within the entrepreneurship and tech sector and decided to kind of make this home again. So this is my family neighborhood, Waltown, which is where this property is. My great-great-great-grandfather was George Wall, the founder of this community. And when I got back to Durham in 2015, I realized there was so much happening within this community and other communities across Durham and decided I was going to invest my time and money in the community here in Waltown specifically and have been working, you know, hard to advance entrepreneurship as well as work with STEM and kids within the community across Durham. And I've always wanted to invest more into the Waltown community to improve it. And that's why I purchased this property on 1307 West Knock Street. Where we are now, I think to get my property to its highest and best use is to add a second store for residential dwelling. I want to be clear that the image on the screen is not the current rendering of the property. That rendering that we're looking at probably would not work. So I have updated it and this one is the current rendering for the second story dwelling on 1307 West Knock Street. Jackie Graves is on the call. She is a real estate broker. There were some questions about having to discuss effect on property values and that's why Jackie Graves is on the call. Unless she is a licensed appraiser, we can't take testimony on values. All right, Mr. Meadows, I think you have a question. Very quick. Just one for the applicant, Mr. Chair. And that is, is this a separate living unit or do you anticipate the people who would be working downstairs would reside upstairs? The plan is for it to be a separate dwelling. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Staff has a clarifying question for the applicant. So Mr. Tlaib, is there the architectural drawings that I propose? So this is the floor claim drawing. Are there any current architectural drawings? The ones that we have, are these no longer applicable? That is applicable, but the one that was on the first, The original, this one here. Yeah, the ones with the steps that you see on the left side of the building, that is no longer the architectural rendering. That should be this one here. Correct. Staff did have one follow up question. Do you know the distance? It's not clearly shown here between the balcony and the property line. Do I know the precise measurements of the balcony and the property line? Is there, yes, the distance. So the balcony, the existing looks, the existing just has this bottom floor in this ramp, if I'm familiar. Yes, that's the existing. When you come out of the property now, there's an existing ramp, wheelchair accessible ramp and steps to get into the building. And it's approximately, I'd say 48 inches wide. The balcony? The, yeah, they mirror each other in this design. They're right on top of each other essentially. Yes. And what do you know that distance of the structure itself from the property line? I do not have that specific measurement. Mr. Kip has Henry's. Mr. Kip. Yes. Just wanted to understand. So office uses are allowed here. I didn't understand that. Is this not a residential neighborhood? Good. Elizemar or a staff speaking, that gets into that legal non-conformity. So the office use is a grandfathered legal non-conforming use that predates our code in 2006. There were recent renovations to the physical structure, but there was not a change of use. So therefore they're not, they don't have to go forth and get a use permit for the offer, the office. Okay. But there will be building requirements for fire separation, et cetera, right? They will have to go through the building permit process if approved by the board. Okay, another question. This lot is less than 0.05 of an acre. It seems quite small to try to have an office on. Does the code speak to that at all? Does the UDO speak to minimum lot size? The code does have minimum lot sizes. Ideally, or I can make sure I wrote this correctly. It's a legal non-conforming use in building. So therefore the building itself does not meet our current code. It would not be able to be there if it was built close to 2006 when the UDO was adopted. But therefore it is considered a legal non-conforming structure since it predates that. So yes, the lot is smaller than what would standardly be approved. And if proposed today, this would not fly without a variance. Thank you. Mr. Minnows. Eliza, could you scroll to the survey, please? Is it possible to zoom in? Yeah, I think that will show the distance between the driveway and the structure. I'm more interested in the handicap ramp, which appears to be outside of the lot line, but I'm not sure about that. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about that. Apparently not. So this is Jessica Dacre staff. That would actually be an issue for the balcony to extend past the property line into the right-of-way. That sounds like that's more in line with the building permit process than our... No, I believe... I'd say so. It would be a safety issue for sure. That would at best be another variance if that would be allowable from... Since it's a second story, they could potentially get permission from the public works for that. And we would have to discuss that with the applicant for that balcony. I'm a little confused. Is this a safety and building permit question or one for this variance meeting? So you're proposing a balcony that extends into the right-of-way, which would not be allowed under the unified development ordinance as written. So if you did want that balcony to extend, you would need to work with staff and public works to see if an allowance for that could be made most likely through a variance process, but not through the current application. Well said. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Eliza, will you mind stop sharing so I can see everyone? Thank you. Any discussion, thoughts on this particular case for a minor special use permit? Are there any other questions in regards to the design? Eliza, do you want to give us a recommendation? Planing department. Eliza, I don't know the planning department. Can I place this, I want to make sure before we move forward that we're taking the correct course of action. So I'm just requesting a couple of moments here while I consult. Take your time. Thank you. Does this, I have just a general discussion question for the rest of the board, I guess. Is there any other precedent about the non-conforming residential business use in this neighborhood that we've heard? Well, I think we really need to take a look at this case on its own merits. I know, I'm just wondering if there's any other precedent that's been made for this type of in this neighborhood. I just don't know that. I can tell you there's no other property like this in this neighborhood. The story of this building, just to be clear was this was the community grocery store in the wall town for many, many years. This was a place to come and get your bacon and eggs and it was a nice family community neighborhood. When drugs and high unemployment hit this community in the 80s and 90s, this turned into a corner store where a lot of nefarious acts were happening. The community complained about the building and ultimately self-help ended up acquiring the building and putting in things that were much different than a convenience store for the improvement of the community which included the wall town neighborhood ministries and the food pantry for the community. Then prior to my acquisition of community organization called Step Up Derm was in this building. And I have continued that use of improving the community through the work that I do here. That's really the true history of this building and where we are now. Just so you know. There is a property that's a commercial property that I think has a residential component on Buchanan Street. I'm sorry, on Gregg's Street which is not that far away from this property which has a very similar footprint that we can discuss if you'd like. Thank you very much. I was just curious. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Thank you so much for that time. I'll kind of give my thoughts and process here and then just for the record and for everyone. So essentially this case does have a variance right after it. So in the essence of you can couple as the board is aware you can couple variances. So I want to make sure that we're not moving forward with the next one because if the applicant does need to get variances for said balcony, that way they're able to come back under the same case number as opposed to having to go through a new application and fee. So it's kind of my thought process in terms of how I've received with these two cases. And I'm not really hearing anything other from the staff and council. So I think we can move forward speaking out for everholder peace to my coworkers. But Mr. Chair, you asked if I had a motion so I can't make a motion or recommendation, excuse me. So staff does recommend the approval of the minor special use permit with the condition that the information and that it be substantially consistent with the plans and information provided to the board as a part of the application. Thank you, Eliza. I'm kind of on the same thought about, if it does trigger another variance, I mean, I think it would make sense to couple those and definitely financially, I would imagine. Mr. Tlaib, what do you have an opinion on this? My opinion is that when I would, the final building plans have to be approved by the Building Permit Office, correct? My feeling is that when I take my plans to the Building Permit Office, if the variances are, and special use permits are allowed, then it would get corrected at that point if there was anything that needed to have a slight change that is still adhering to this plan that I've submitted. Well, you're right, but they could come back and say, well, you're gonna need another variance if you wanna do that balcony, and then you'd have to go through another application with another fee. And if you wanna do that, that's fine. We'll move forward. I don't mind calling for a vote on both of these cases, but I want to be respectful of your time and money, and that's why I'm saying that. I guess what I would say is, if indeed I got to the point and the Building Permit Office said, you would need another variance for that, and it's highly likely that that won't happen, I would say, then I will remove that aspect of the building. Understood. All right, then we'll move forward. So we've got a recommendation from staff, had a little bit of discussion. Is there any more discussion before there is a motion? Give a motion. I hear by motion that application number B2000037, an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 1307 West Knox Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. Number one, that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as a part of the application. All right, we've got a motion by Ms. Jeter. Is there a second? This is Meadows. Can I make a friendly amendment to that motion? Ms. Jeter, your thoughts? Sure. My motion, my amendment to the motion would be that, that this minor special use permit also be approved, provided it's substantially consistent with any subsequent site plans for the same development as they may be submitted. The site plan that we're getting ready to approve and embed as a condition in this case requires variance and we know it. So I think the applicant might decide to get a variance or decide to take the balcony off. Is there some way council for us to apply a condition that recognizes a site plan that might be revised? Is that necessary? Mr. Cougar City Attorney's office. As you worded it, I would not prefer that language. I think it was rather open-ended and I think, I mean, I understand what you're trying to do. I think maybe, you know, staff can chime in here too. There's also a possibility for minor deviations and I would wonder whether it would make sense to allow for site plans that would be in compliance with the UDO, because that's really what we're trying to achieve here. Agreed. So could I amend that to say that we would add a second condition and that any site plans would be consistent with the UDO? Is that acceptable? Eliza, I'm gonna staff here. So they will not necessarily need a site plan. It's a single family dwelling unit. Therefore, those usually don't trigger a site plan. There's no impervious or things of that sort. I don't know if there'll be a site plan. So I would suggest removing the word site so that any subsequent plans possibly. Or submittals. Or submittals. Okay. You can chime in if that's a little too nitpicky, but... What is the purpose? Because, I mean, isn't the UDO is enforceable by it's on its own without us saying force it? I'm just trying to see where we're getting at right there. We're approving a minor special use permit for use that has a site plan that requires a variance. And we know it, but the application does not include a variance. If that doesn't bother the attorneys, it certainly doesn't bother me. I mean, I... Christopher Graves City Attorney's Office, I think what Chad is getting at is that if this minor special use permit is approved per the plans that are currently existing, and Mr. Graves man has expressed, well, he'll just change those plans if necessary in order to sort of be expedient about his process, then we have a minor special use permit that was approved with plans that are no longer relevant to that. Is that kind of what you're getting at? That's absolutely what I'm getting at, yes. Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry, I was gonna ask staff whether a minor deviation might be acceptable here if you could speak to that. This is Jessica Darkry staff. We can have minor deviations. It's the comfort level of the board on what they consider minor that we would want to ascertain. I think removal of a balcony or recessing it back so that it's flush with the front of the building. Either of those probably would resolve the issue, but would you consider that a minor deviation that we could approve essentially on your behalf? Eliza Monroe staff here, we sometimes, I thought that was the discretion of the planning director that if like we don't, so sometimes there might be minor changes to a use permit or variance, it then goes to the planning director who then determines whether or not triggers a new use permit or variance. So I don't know if the board can provide that it's true, it's definitely at the discretion of the planning director, but I also want the board to be aware that those are the options that we would probably be looking at and would like them to feel comfortable also that that is minor. Just so we have, we're all on the same page in understanding what we potentially will be looking at. The Lacey, I think it comes down to our definition of substantially is what we're wrestling with, that we usually give the condition that it's substantially like what it was submitted. So there's wiggle room, but are we knowingly letting somebody build about any out onto over the sidewalk would cause people to not get rained on for those eight feet, but. Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw the request for amending the motion. It sounds like there's much to do about nothing. So I'll withdraw it. Thank you. Alrighty, we've got a motion by Ms. Jeter. Is there a second? Lacey. Mr. Lacey is the second. Susan, what do you call? Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Wamour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Vote of seven to zero, your minor special use permit has been approved. We will move along to the next case. Are we taking a break after this? Motion to take a break. Yeah, let's take a second. Before we take the break, I do have a matter of clarification for the board. That's right, please. Okay. I do have a matter of clarification on case number B2000022, which was the appeal by Mr. Perry. I did inform him that the fines and enforcement action would continue since he did not consent to having the virtual hearing. We did have a cracker jack board member that brought to my attention that he believed, and that would be Mr. Meadows, that there would be a stay on any fines. And he is absolutely correct. UDL section 3.15.7, under the circumstances of that particular appeal, would stay any enforcement action and would stay any fines until the matter is actually heard in person. So I didn't want to let the board know that and put that on the record. And we will contact Mr. Perry and let him know either I'll contact him or we'll have staff contact him and let him know that the fines are in fact stayed and enforcement action has stayed. And I did want to get that on the record so that the board knows that and that as a matter of public record, that that is in fact the case. Delacy, I have a question for counsel. Yes, ma'am. Does, are you staying any fines or such from the time he submitted his request for relief or from the, from today? The time that he submitted his appeal. Thank you. The original appeal. All right, we will take a 10 minute break. We will reconvene at actually 11 minutes at 10, 20. All right. And I think we've got everybody at set in. Thank you for the break, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the, for pushing me. I only convince you what you know in your heart is right. That's right. All right. I think we're ready for our next case. Case B2-0-0-0-0-3-8, a request for a variance from the Park Inn requirements for a single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 1307 West Knox Street within the urban development tier and his own residential urban. This case has been advertised for the proper, for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified, notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Mr. Lacy, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Waimour and Ms. Jeter. All right. I guess we need to administer the oath one more time. So everybody who plans to give testimony, would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Thank you again. Eliza, is this one yours again? Yes, it is. See the screen above? I'm trying out new technology y'all. So that's why I double check. Okay. Good morning Eliza. I'm representing the planning department, planning staff requests that the staff report and all materials submitted at the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. Case B2000038 is a request for a very long time from the parking requirements for a single family dwelling. The applicant and property owner is to leave Graves Mann and the subject site is located at 1307 West Knox Street. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is zoned residential urban 5-2 and within the urban development tier. The site is currently being utilized as a, or currently has a single story commercial building located on it. Pursuant to the previous case B2000037, the applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling unit on top of the existing office space. Pursuant to section 10.3.1 of the unified development ordinance, all household living use is required to motor vehicle parking spaces per unit. The existing office located on the first floor is a legal non-conforming use as I mentioned before. That was established prior to the adoption of the ordinance and therefore does not currently meet the parking requirements and is not required to as a part of this proposal. This proposal and request is in relation to the second story single family dwelling that is going to go on top of that. Per UDO section 10.3.1 C.2, one required motor vehicle space shall be satisfied for every 23 feet continuous feet of street footage for which there is an adjacent permitted on street parking. So in this case, it only allows the street footage that the survey shows and I'll zoom in as needed only allows for one parking space to be one parking space that meets the UDO standards. Credit for on street parking shall only be counted towards one of the uses when you have any type of multi-use development. The applicant therefore is requesting a variance from the requirement to have the two motor vehicle spaces for a household living arrangement. Staff would like to note for the record because I feel like the question will come up about the actual parking requirements for the office space, which is not in question. One space would be required for every 250 square feet of the total office area. So that would require five parking spaces for the existing office use, which is not being met because it is a legal non-conforming use as mentioned previously. The request that you're hearing before you is a variance from the parking requirement solely for the new single family dwelling going on a second tour. I feel like I'm going to circle back to that once again, but that is all the testimony that I have at this time. Media section 3.14.8 establishes review factors and findings that the ward must show in our met in order to grant a variance. Staff report as well as the applicant's responses to those findings and review factors are located in the packet, which you all received and staff is available for any questions if there are any. And I do see that Mr. Meadows has his hand raised. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Eliza. Are there any site distance triangles applicable for that alley that would interfere with on-street parking in front of the use? Yes and no, the existing building is already there. So there's not, the proposed structure would be a second story. So the existing building survey does not show the site distance triangle, but it's already there. So if it is located in the site distance triangle, the current proposal previously approved with the last case would not create any additional infringements. And are there any no parking signs or anything like that in front of the building? Not that staff is aware of. I'll reflect to the applicant here to see if there's any specific signage for the in general in front of the space as he can probably provide more details. Thank you. There is not any no parking signs anywhere on Nock Street. All righty. Any other questions for Eliza? All righty, Mr. Tlaib, I'll let you take it over from here. Thank you so much, Eliza. The required to have parking, I don't have much to say. There's plenty of parking there. 1307 West Nock Street is the only property that faces West Nock Street here. As someone who comes and works here every day, there's plenty of parking. There's never been an issue with any parking on the street. I spoke to the Walltown Neighborhood Association of which I'm a member for. All of them supported it. We discussed parking on our call a week or two ago. They all expressed their support and said there's never been an issue with parking and they don't think it would be one. And that's really all I have. So, association, unfortunately, can't take the testimony unless they're here, but I do appreciate you reaching out and talking with them. Any questions for Mr. Tlaib? Raise your minds. Mr. Wretches has his hand raised and I'm gonna stop share so we can see everyone unless and I can pull this back up if it's needed. Perfect. Mr. Wretches. Yes. Tlaib, do you have any more supporting evidence to like pictures or anything showing that there is no parking signs on that street and any evidence supporting there would be complications from parking? Am I able to share my screen? I mean, I can just go on Google Maps if we can walk down the street. There's no, oh, I can go outside and take a photo real quick and upload it. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I just didn't, I didn't take a photo of the street to prove that there's no parking street signs on this block of 1307 West Knock Street. I'm just trying to give you more, the burden of proof is on you to show us that there won't be a parking problem there. Staff, I'm pulling up street view. If you all want to continue the discussion that I am pulling up street view at this time. I think Ms. Delacey has a question as well. I visited the subject site and I saw that there were no parking signs. There's a gravel driveway or alley to the left of the property as you face it but there were no street signs saying anything that other than stop at the corner. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Delacey. Thank you. There is a no parking, this is Meadows. There is a no parking sign in the alley beside the building. Lacey, yes, but that's the driveway. It's the alley behind all of the houses so they can get to people's garages and that's, but it's not on the street. Okay. Staff is circling said alley in the screen share or circling said parking sign. And here is the street view and question in front of the existing building. Thank you. The only sign I saw was the Board of Adjustment sign in front of the building when I was there. It's here. This is Meadows for the record. There are on street parking. There's vehicles parked on the street one block up. So that, you know, it is accurate that there is parking taking place on the street now. Believe one believe that parking on the street is acceptable. I have one question for the applicant. Is there any ability to park vehicles on the property behind the building or elsewhere nearby? Is that a possibility? Is that something that you've explored? The property behind the building is owned by the partial property. I believe that's Anzlo Street. That's their backyard. I'm going to switch back to the other document the survey I think showed that a little bit. So I believe this is what Mr. Graves-Mann is referring to. Yes. And staff would like to chime in to Mr. Meadows. Your most recent point about there being adequate on street parking. What can be credited for this specific address is what staff was denoting too earlier because they only have 31 street frontage. They can only technically be credited one space. Isaac, can you zoom in please? Yes, I can. This is the space. Please let me know if you need any further see it as well, Ms. Peter. That's great, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? I'm going to stop sharing again, Mr. Chair, again so you can see everybody. Thank you. Any thoughts? You may want to share anything about this particular case. All right, is there a motion? I just want to be clear about something. So there's a deficiency of three parking spaces. Is that how I understand this? Because one is credited. There is a deficiency of one parking space. The parking requirements that you are in observing today are in relation to the single family dwelling unit that was approved with case B2000037. And a single family dwelling unit requires two parking spaces. If the applicant would like to use the one existing space as credit, then they have a shortage of one. So just to clarify on the numbers in which use we're looking at. And I believe this is why more hazard hand rates. Thanks, Eliza. You're welcome, Ms. Ruches. No, you answered it, Eliza, thank you. Any, anybody want to offer a motion? Meadows. Mr. Meadows, I hereby make a motion that application number B2000037, I'm sorry, B2000037, an application for a major minor special use permit on property located at 1307 West Knox. Minor special use permit on property located at 1307 West Knox. Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. That the improvements shall be substantially consistent with all plans and information submitted to the board as part of the application. I think that's for the minor special use permit, isn't it? Yes, they're the same address. Bad on me. Let's try that again. Well, we understand the bull. Yeah, how you feel? Yeah, right there with you, right? I hereby make a motion that application B20038, an application for a request for a variance from the parking requirements for a single family dwelling on property located at 1307 West Knox. Has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion by Mr. Meadows. Is there a second? Delacy. I'm thinking about Mr. Lacey. Susan, take it over. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Motion carries eight to zero. By a vote of seven to zero. Eight to zero? I'm sorry, seven to zero. Yeah, by a vote of seven to zero, your variance has been approved. Thank you for coming for the BOA this morning. Wish you the best of luck. Thank you. I will treat myself to a rise chicken biscuit. Thank you. Sounds delicious. It is. All right. Thank you. I have a good day. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Sure. Case B2-000039, a request for a variance from the vehicular use area landscaping requirements. The subject site is located at 3829 South Miami Boulevard within the Research Triangle Park North Campus Neighborhood Development here and his own light industrial. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file and the seating for this case is Mr. Delacy, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Weymour, and Ms. Jeter. All right. Eliza? Mr. Farris, I believe Mr. Mark Farris is going to be speaking. Staff would like to note that Mr. Mark Farris was not the original applicant, the original applicant from in the five engineers had a family to take care of this morning. We do have a notarized letter on hand from the property owner stating that Mr. Farris can speak today on behalf of this case, if needed. And Mr. Farris, we'll just need you to turn your video on and unmute yourself so we can get you sworn in and get started. All right. Anyone who's speaking. So Mr. Farris, if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that your testimony today will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. Thank you. Eliza? Okay, okay. Good morning, everyone. Eliza, we're representing the planning department, planning staff request that the application materials submitted for the board be all made, all be made for a public record with any corrections, necessarily corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you very much. Case B2000039 is a request for a variance from the Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Requirements. The subject site is located at 3829 South Miami Boulevard and is located within Zone Light Industrial and in the Research Triangle Park North Compact Neighborhood Development Tier. The site is currently being, the case area is highlighted in the screen on red and in red, excuse me. The site is currently being utilized by the property owner, which is unified to global packaging group. There are some renovations that are being taken place in the back portion here that staff is circling of the site. Per section 9.8.3D of the unified development ordinance, trees shall be planted at a rate of one, two inch canopy tree. Per 2000 square feet of Vehicular Use Area and no canopy trees used for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Credits shall be planted farther than 10 feet from the edge of the VUA. Within Vehicle Use Area 2, which we're showing here on the screen, the applicant is required to provide a UDO to provide 13 canopy trees. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide only three canopy trees within that area instead of 13 due to the sanitary sewer easement that runs through this property. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings in which an applicant must, in which the board must, in which the board must review in order to grant a variance. The staff report analysis of those findings as well as the applicant's responses to those findings and their application is available in the packet that you've all received beforehand and staff is available for any questions as needed throughout the hearing. And I can also, I understand that this is pretty detailed sheets all go ahead and zoom in, start to the area and we'll go from there. All right, any questions for Eliza before we continue? All right, Mr. Ferris, we'll turn it over to you. Yes, I'll, I'm the chief estimator for ACH constructors. If this project is all approved, we'll be building this addition. It's a 50,000 square foot addition behind the existing building. I've never done this before. So I'm filling in for the civil engineer. No worries, just tell us what kind of, what you wanna do and why it's necessary. Like I said, it's a 50,000 square foot warehouse parking for the people that work into there on the top of the drawing, a turnaround area. There'll be loading docks along the left side of the new building, seven loading docks. And we'll be providing as much landscaping as we can in the small area we have. Are there any questions for Mr. Ferris? This is Meadows. It may be a question for Mr. Ferris and it may be a question for staff. Where would these trees, is the sanitary sewer easement that appears to the left of, I guess the area of disturbance. I'm not sure what to call it. It's marked 50 foot sewer easement. Is that where these 13 canopy trees would go? Eliza, I know staff speaking. Am I unneeded? Yes, I am. Sorry. So this area here is vehicle use area two, which staff is circling on the screen in front of you. Please let me know if you can't see my cursor and I'll try and use the highlight tool. So within this area of the applicant, there is a sanitary sewer easement that runs through it and the applicant is technically supposed to be providing required by the unified development ordinance to provide 13 canopy trees. Given the UDO's requirement and the location of the sewer easement, they cannot provide those. And actually I meant to mention something a little bit earlier. There is a section in the code which does allow provisions in which they can move trees throughout VA areas. But unfortunately there's no other place for them to relocate it due to location of the sanitary sewer easement and they're not permitted to construct within that easement for the DERM reference guide for development, which was linked in the staff report. So they can't put it there. Public works will probably not be happy with them. Thank you, Eliza. Any other questions for Mr. Parris or staff? Delacy. Mr. Lacy. You can't put trees on a sewer easement. I understand that Eliza. Can bushes be planted without upsetting the sewer authority? The reference, Eliza and our staff, the reference guide language states that no landscaping is allowed in existing and proposed sanitary sewer easements. The site plan is under review and public works has been a part of that review. So this variance request was triggered not just by planning department comments on that site plan, but also comments from the public works department. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions? All right. Eliza, will you share for a moment? Thank you. Any discussion about this particular case? On this particular case? Mr. Wrenches. All the questions for Eliza. Was there also power lines that were keeping any other trees being planted? Eliza, my own staff here. So yes and no, our landscape manual is pretty hefty. I'll have to give a shout out to the other staff members that are working on that. But there are options. So there are options. So there are trees that are permitted to be planted underneath the power line. So that is not a factor in which is being addressed or needing to be addressed as there are options for them to plant specific types of trees underneath the power lines. Thanks. All right, any others? Mr. Meadows. Meadows. I'd like to hear a little bit more about how we're not able to plant any more trees on the site. I didn't hear any evidence about that. Mr. Farris, you wanna address that? If somebody put the site plan back up on the screen, it's a very tight site, top to bottom, the building and the existing driveway, the existing building is there on the left in a hashed area. And it's a very long building. There are parking lots that's in front of the building now along Miami Boulevard goes right up to the road almost. There are trees up there. Their property line and the driveway running down the left is almost right on top of each other. And there's nothing you can really do along that area. The bottom of the existing building is a drainage swell it looks like. And I guess it's the emergency fire exits for the people that could come out if they have to. There's some space over there. It's mainly a grassed area. It's a very steep hill going up to the property to the south. So it's very pretty hard to get anything in that area. So the pretty much the only area to work in is around this new building. And by the time you put the building, the back property line, the parking lot to the top, the truck turn around to the left, we've used almost every bit of space that was allowed. We could probably sneak some more bushes in somewhere. Thank you. All right, any other thoughts, questions? All right, does anyone want to offer a motion? Lacey. Histories. I hear if I make a motion that application number two, 39, an application for a request for a variance from the vehicular use area landscaping requirements on property located at 3829 South Miami Boulevard has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted to subject to the following conditions that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've got a motion. Is there a second? Retchless. Retchless. Susan, turn it over to you. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. A vote of seven to zero, your variance has been approved. We wish you the best of luck. Thank you for coming before the BOA this morning. Thank you. Have a good day. Susan, would you like to call our final case? Sure. Case B2-000-0040, a request for a variance from the rear yard setback requirements to construct a single-family dwelling. The subject site is located at 1611 Maryland Avenue within the Urban Development Tier and is zoned residential urban. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Retchless, Ms. Weymour, and Ms. Jeter. We need to have a few people to turn their camera on. Mr. Barbazza? It's Barbazza and I cannot turn my video on for some reason. OK. Sorry for mispronouncing that. All right, then we'll have to move forward. I see you, Mr. Fields, if you plan on giving testimony, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony today will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Barbazza? I swear. All right. And do you both consent to this remote electronic meeting platform? Yes. Yes. All righty. Eliza, we'll turn it over to you. Thanks so much, everyone. I did want to, quick before I share screen, I want to kind of provide some corrections. Actually, Eliza Monroe Planning Department Planning Staff has a couple corrections to make. With regards to this case, when this case was originally submitted at the time, the parcel ID numbers and parcel identification, the pins, were not yet set by the Register of Deeds Office. So therefore, the staff report says a different parcel ID number, as well as some of the graphics that were included. We were, at that time, that was the only thing that was available. But in the midst of this process, they were giving pins and those parcels for the flaglats are now recognized by Register of Deeds as well as on the DERM maps. So I would like to just make a minor correction to the staff report with regards to the parcel ID number for the back parcel of the flaglot in question for 1613 Maryland Avenue. The parts of the pin is going to be 228341. The address is 1613 Maryland Avenue. And the year is updated documents that were submitted by the applicant, Mr. Fields, that kind of support this additionally. So I want to say that before we get started. Are those corrections accepted, Mr. Chair? Yes. Thank you very much. Case B2000040 is a case for a variance from the Grayard setback requirements to construct a single family dwelling. The applicant and property owner is Robert E. Fields. And the subject site is located at 1613 Maryland Avenue. Once again, we're getting into that previous document that I mentioned earlier. So I'm going to kind of explain a little bit better by going two slides down. So currently, the flaglot that is located to the back here, 1613 Maryland, is going to be vacant. The primary structure for the flaglot is going to be here in the front. Per UEO section 7.1.2B of the unified development ordinance, a 25-foot Grayard setback is required for a detached single family dwelling in the RU-5 zoning district. The applicant is requesting a 19-foot variance from the Grayard setback, resulting in a 6-foot Grayard. This reduction is being requested as the applicant will be oriented in the house in a manner in which the Grayard will become a functional side yard of the proposed future home and the next slide kind of shows what I'm referring to in relation to the request. So what you have here, the original hatch, that's in, I apologize if you can't really see it very well, but the original hatching here shows what's required by the UDO on any given day in relation to the Grayard setback. The applicant, given the orientation and kind of terming the house a little bit is we're proposing a 6-foot Grayard. So here in this area here, that staff is highlighting what the cursor is going to be the variance request and the proposal for a variation of 19 feet from the required 25 to the six feet that is being proposed here. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings in which the applicant must, in which the board must make and granting variance. The applicant's responses to these findings as well as staff's analysis of these findings are included in the staff report and their application also. And these are all that were part of the packet in which you all received. Staff is available for any questions throughout this time. And if there's any confusion, please let me know because I am aware that what was originally shown is not what you're seeing today. All right. Thank you, Eliza. Any questions for staff? Mr. Lacey, your lips are moving, but you're muted and Mr. Lacey. My lips are moving, but I'm not thinking. Okay. My question has to do with the 1611 Maryland. The property line has moved over significantly and the aerial view shows a car parked at, comfortably for a large parking space. But I wanted to know if there is sufficient room for the existing home to have a driveway or will this be a shared driveway? Yeah, that one. Yeah, so... Parks like I do. I'll kind of ask the applicant to speak a little bit about that as they are the original property owner of 1611. In terms of driveways, where that car is currently located is now the flag leading up to the flag lot for 1609 Maryland Avenue to provide some clarity there. So technically that is the flag for the flag lot, 1609. Yeah, but it looks like he's parked in the neighbors, in the new, what is it? The one directly behind. So I just wanted to make sure there was enough space or the other question is, will it be a shared driveway? So Mr. Fields. Yeah, I can address that. I'm not sure it's within the scope of this, but I'm glad to give you the layout of what it is we're doing. We currently reside at 1611 Maryland Avenue, my wife Beth and I, and have recently subdivided creating two flag lots, 1609 Maryland and 1613 Maryland. So there are two flags. The car you're referring to is parked in the flag for 1609. The intent is to construct a house on that lot that's consistent with the neighborhood and the size of the surrounding houses. And to construct a house on the rear lot, which is 1613. In order to provide parking for 1611, we will have shared driveway agreements. The current plan is actually for the parking for 1611 to be to the rear of 1611 on the north side, which would use the flag for 1613. So it would change where the current parking is and would actually put it to the rear of the house accessed through the flag on 1613 is the current plan. But we will also have an agreement once we get the, it's not clear whether the flag for 1609 is going to be driveway or walkway, that's still under design, but it will be well within the UDO requirements for that new structure. So does that answer the question regarding parking? Thank you. You said it quite early with a shared parking agreement. Thank you. Any other questions for Eliza before we move on? All right, Mr. Fields. Mr. Fields had his hand raised, but I wanna make sure he doesn't still have a remaining question. Sorry. Yes, Eliza, can you go to the other topographical print that you had up earlier? So I might understand that this 13,000 square foot area, we're just kind of changing the setbacks. Is that what's being requested? Yeah, no, Eliza and her staff here. So the rear setback, even though they're orienting differently, the rear setback will always be the rear setback. So that's why they're having to have this request. They're changing, the applicants proposed changing of orientation doesn't make the rear setback over here now. Or sorry, yeah, over here now. That doesn't work that way. So the rear setback will always be the rear setback as it's going to be the rear of the lot as it relates to the Maryland Avenue street yard setback, which doesn't really apply to fly lots, but it will always be the rear setback. Okay, and that's on the bottom of the 1613 Maryland. That is this here. So this is the rear yard setback. Right, okay. So the orientation aside, it will still always be the rear, which is why they're requesting that variance. Yep, I understand now, thank you. You're welcome. All right, any other questions for Eliza? All right, Mr. Fields, we'll turn it over to you. Thank you, good morning. I think our request is perhaps more restrictive than the staff recommendation may be. If we could go back to the diagram, Eliza. Yes, right there. This one, okay. The goal that we have is to change the buildable area from what's provided by the current ordinance, which is with an existing side yard setback of six feet and an existing rear yard setback of 25 feet. What we're proposing to do is to change the buildable area. So there's an existing rear yard setback of six feet and an increased side yard setback of 25 feet. And the purpose of that is to align the buildable area with the existing structures that have already been built on Sunset Avenue and to provide adequate spacing between the structure that has already been built on 2313, which is a non-conforming structure that does not have a rear yard setback of 25 feet. So reducing the rear yard setback of 1613 to six feet will line that setback up with the setback that currently exists for 2013 on Sunset. So that 2015 Sunset enjoys the same setback that it currently has for 2013 for the entire length of its property. So nothing will be built any closer could be built any closer than what can currently be built on 2013. And the plan would be that we would not be any closer to that lot line than 2013 is. But in addition, we want the side yard setback increased to 25 feet, which will roughly line up the setbacks for 1613 with the buildable area setbacks for 1609 and 1611. 1609 and 1611 with a 20 foot flag and a six foot setback, which is the current requirement would put them 26 feet from the houses on Sunset. And so this request would put 1613, 25 feet from the houses on Sunset. If Eliza, if we could go to the updated information where we had the photographs, this is a photograph that shows the looking east from towards the rear of the 1613 lot. To the left is the house that's located at 20, I think it's 2009 Sunset, which is the house next door to 2013. And if you see the, there's a pole that looks like it has some sort of birdhouse on the top of it. That is roughly the corner of between 2013, 2009 and would be on the lot line of what's now 1613 with its flag. The cone, the orange cone that is closest to that pole which is roughly the corner shows with the existing six foot setback, how close building could occur to those adjacent homes and the cone that's further away to the right is the side yard setback that we're asking for as a condition of the variance with regard to the rear yard. If we could go to the next picture. This is showing 2013, the cone that is in the foreground of the photograph closest cone shows where the six foot setback would fall. The cone that's in the backyard of 2013 shows the grade change. So this is not only a proximity issue, it's also a drainage issue. Any structure that was built with as close as six feet to 2013 would create some significant drainage issues with regard to the backyard in that home. So we're trying to solve not only a proximity issue, but we're also trying to solve a drainage issue that's been called by pre-existing grading. So that's the hardship that we're trying to fix is the proximity of these of the building and the portable area for 2013 to the existing structure on 2013 and the drainage issues. All of these conditions are pre-existing with the exception that we did create the flaglots which did mean that we are able to build a structure here. Creating those flaglots was permissible for the recent revisions to the unified development ordinance and is entirely consistent with the philosophy of the revisions to the unified development ordinance to encourage infill in appropriate ways in the area where 1611, 1609 and 1613 where these lots currently exist. So that's our request. There are other pictures that show other angles, but I think these two illustrate the conditions that we're trying to address. And it is very important to us that not only do we get the variation from 25 to six on the rear yard, but also that there be a variation from six to 25 on the side yard as the trade-off for that. That gives us essentially the same buildable area. There may be a couple hundred square feet, three or 400 square feet of additional buildable area by doing this, but it lets us put the house and also requires it all future construction on the site, be put in a location where we'll have better drainage and it will be more consistent with the existing structures that are around it. So that's our request. All right, thank you, Mr. Fields. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Chairman, have you asked him to make all of his deposition and materials part of the permanent record? I can do that now. Mr. Fields, would you like all your testimony and written evidence to be part of the public record? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Barvaza is the owner of 2013 Sunset, and he is here today to speak with regard to this for the benefit of the board. Okay, Mr. Barbeza, would you like to? Please. Thank you. First of all, I'm glad that my son's cleaned up our backyard before those pictures were taken. But my main concern is that any variance of the rear setback be conditioned upon the variance increasing the side yard setback. As you can see, we're already ran for our end and at the current requirements for setback for our yard. And we would love to have that additional 25 feet where nothing could be built in close to our house. And especially since we are at a great lower, anything closer to the house would be basically looking down into our house. All right, well, thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? Rachel, I have a question for Mr. Fields. Do you have any evidence supporting the drainage issue which you're saying is a hardship? My evidence is the difference in the grade. It's about between 36 to 48 inches difference in grade that occurs over about 10 feet from the six foot setback within 10 feet going towards 2013 sunset. You lose between 36 and 48 inches of grade depending on where you are on that lot line. But nothing supporting any flooding or water, water run-ups? Well, I think Mr. Barbaus can speak to that. I don't know if you can see from those pictures, but the corner of our house closes to the back lot setback has floating words running, there's actually a flooding issue on three properties where it's running into our property and then from our property's running into the next property. We've had somebody out from the county and we're looking for that as well. And Mr. Fields has been working with us. We're trying to figure out something for that whole issue. And part of it is we hope that having that 25 foot side setback in the set of some kind of a fringe situation where we can alleviate that running onto our property and to the property next to us. I don't have to confirm the person who came out from the county if that's what you're asking for. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Staff here, staff just wants to chime in and kind of talk about the language about the condition. So as mentioned, we didn't, I took Mr. Fields about this a little bit during the lead up to this. And it was under the interpretation of staff that the board went to make a condition to require a 25 foot side yard. If a six foot side yard is what the unified development ordinance requires. And therefore if someone was to come in with a six foot side yard, they technically would not be in the room by doing that. Staff does think that it's great that Mr. Fields has taken into consideration Mr. Barbazza's proximity, as well as the environmental and existing conditions on the lot. But I just wanted to clarify and Krista or Brian, if you want to chime in, I do not think it was under our interpretation that the board can't make conditions stating that you have to have the trade off has to be a thing. If six foot is what the ordinance requires in section 7.1.2B. The property owners consent to a condition on this variance of a side yard setback of 25 feet. Alize my staff. And I definitely understand. I just don't know if the board has that authority to require a condition requiring a greater setback than what is originally approved by the unified development ordinance appointed by city council adopted by city council. So I just want to clarify that. I think that it is, I think it's a great intent and the reasoning behind it, based upon the testimony received by these two gentlemen today, does make sense. I just don't think that the board has that authority and I'll allow council to weigh in if they think otherwise. This is Krista Kukarai with the city attorney's office. Man, do you think the board has authority to impose conditions related to the physical attributes of the property if it can mitigate some of the potential harm or other impacts that the development might have? So I think that this could be an appropriate condition. Brian, I don't know if you have any other thoughts. I see that you have unmuted yourself. Yeah, I would agree that it can be a condition as long as the property owner can sense to it. And it is a condition that would run with the property as the variance and as long as the property owner can sense to that particular condition that would be more stringent than the UDO, then it's enforceable, but it has to be something that is consented to by the property owner. And my understanding is the property owner does consent to it or will consent to it. Claire, for the record, then Mr. Fields would need to consent, which I think he said that the neighboring property owner did. So I think we would just need it on the record than that Mr. Fields property owner does. I consent for the record, I'm an attorney, so I've consulted with myself, so I've got the benefit council and we do consent to the condition. Well, you know what they say about that, Mr. Fields. I know, I know. But yeah, so it can be conditioned as long as long as it's consented to. I guess that's if we put it on there, huh? Right. Let's any further discussion? Please, Dave. All right, does anybody want to offer a motion? The plane department staff here, the motion that is at the bottom does not include any potential consenting items. Right. Just to give you all a reminder of that, if you want to read it. Rachel, just in discussion, I would like that verbiage worded somehow as a condition in there noted on the record, please. I don't know how to do that, but I think it's important. And, you know, being that this flag lot, Eliza, my understanding of the flag lot was put in place at what time, do you know? When was that done? I think if Mr. Fields, I'll probably have to ask you, it's been in the past two and a half months that the plot was done. Am I right in that timeframe, Mr. Fields? Yeah, the plot was filed. The plot was filed, was approved by planning and was filed with the register of deeds before the application for this variance was filed. So at the time the application for the variance was filed, the plat had already been filed. The administrative process of getting the parcel IDs and the numbers changed and the addresses changed and then the records throughout the system had not been completed at the time the application was filed. That's what occurred afterwards. Does anybody want to make a stab at it? So it seems Eliza and my staff here, it seems like we're just having some questions about that second condition in addition to the usual one that's in the motion. So to just reiterate and kind of maybe simplify, so then someone else can say it from the board, the applicant is wanting a condition then that's in granting the variance for the 19 foot variation for a six foot rear yard, they will now, the property owners consenting to a condition of a 25 foot side yard. I think that's as layman's terms as I can get it for... Very well said, Eliza. It came to me simply. Can we make clear that it's a 25 foot side yard on the north to the north for the portion of the property outside the flag? I mean, outside the pole, the flag pole. We sure can. Okay, I'm gonna mute myself then. If anyone needs me just holler. Mike, are you still interested in this one? If I know how to read it. I think you're gonna do a fantastic job. Well, I don't have it pulled up, Jer. I would really like someone else to take a stab at this. I'm not good at it, adding a condition. Meadows, I'd love to help you out but I'm voting no on this one, gang, so. Can you tell us why? I don't believe that the burden of evidence has been indicated about the rationale for the reorientation. I'm not sure that the objectives couldn't be achieved without the variance. I believe the applicant created the need for the variance in forming the flag lots. And I don't think that there's an unnecessary hardship here. A building could be built on that rear lot without need of a variance. Certainly the driveway will be on that side of the lot anyway. So that's my rationale. Ritchie, I was kinda leaning toward that too because the hardship was a result from the actions taken by the applicant and property owner. But being, it was an accepted flag lot then brings up the other items met before the UVO of the flag lot. So I'm kinda confused on where to go with that. Right, I think we need some further discussion on this. And I'd like to know where everybody stands on it. I'm gonna create a red cross here. I'm gonna say no with Meadows. Yeah, I think he brings up a really valid point about the hardship. Others? I think I'm confused much like Michael was around. If the flagships were approved, then being approved, does that still... Make it an owner created hardship if it was done with approval? Or maybe that wasn't Michael's question. Maybe it's just mine. Can I ask a question? Sure. So I was not, obviously when the flagships were approved, the flag lots were approved. I was, did not have an opportunity to say about the condition of the six foot setback then. And so on top of everything, so obviously my concern is I'm already grandfathered, our setbacks are already grandfathered and they're lower than the 25 feet from my house to the edge of our yard. And so this flag lot was approved before I even had a chance to say anything about that sort of situation. So I'm not quite sure. Well, Mr. Barbeza, it doesn't sound like there is any approval for that. You got something? Yeah, staff was actually gonna go on record and state that we, there is the, as Mr. Retchels mentioned and as well as Ms. Jeter, the flag lots, the lot, the primary structure and the area that is behind 1611 is the, there's adequate amount of space for 1609 and 1613. Therefore there was not a variance request needed in order to put the flag lots in. They were able to meet the flag lot standards. So therefore Mr. Barbeza, I'm sorry, I'm saying am I wrong, I can't think it was a hard day but Mr. Barbeza, there was no public hearing process in the flag lot portion. The proper owner had the right to do that division since they were meeting all of the standards that were required by the code. That's right. So in a flag lot you can build six feet off of this property line. That is the current standards within the unified development ordinance for a side yard setback. Yes, sir. There are hands being raised left and right. I don't know if we want to go with Mr. Fields or Mr. Lacey? I'll go with Mr. Fields first. With regard to the creating the hardship, as I understand the existing development ordinance, I could do an accessory structure, could have done an accessory structure on 1611 toward the rear of the property and we would have exactly the same hardship. So the dividing of the lots does not actually create it. The hardship is created and it is very much the 2013 sunsets hardship but the hardship was created by the existing property that I had no control over and pre-existed the development ordinance and it is something that pre-existed Mr. Barbazza's ownership of the house. So neither he nor I were involved with creating this particular hardship and the division of the property doesn't change any of the geography, doesn't change any of the setbacks and doesn't change the fact that construction could occur within six feet of his property. With regard to the hardship itself, again, yes, we can construct a structure but if you look at the diagram, if we could put the diagram back up just very briefly, if one of the things we considered was whether to sell these lots to a builder, we're not gonna do that but we did consider selling these lots to a builder and if a builder was going to put a structure in the current buildable area, the logical place to put a garage would be to have the driveway go directly into a garage shortly after you hit the flag part of the flag lot and to build that garage within six feet of the 2013 sunset. That would be the way to maximize your use of the buildable area is to put the structure right there, put living space over top of that structure right there and that would create a significant hardship for that. So what we're trying to do is to eliminate that possibility and to require that the construction that occurs occurs to the south side of the lot, the south and rather than to the north side of the lot. So that's how we're addressing the hardship and that's what the hardship is. Actually, it seems like you are trying to reduce the hardship for the neighbors rather than yourself. Absolutely. Rather than just trying to reap the available lot. I mean, actually if we walk away from this and deny it or not deny it but not approve it, say they build it, 2013 sunset is going to be pissed. Well, and it's all going to be, I think I'm fine either way honestly, when I look at this because, but I think that if we're looking at what the neighbors consider and I think I actually appreciate very much Mr. Fields talking with this neighbor and trying to figure out what's a good solution for what he wants to do and that's what would come up or what he is trying to do here. It's admirable. Those are my thoughts. Mr. Fields, did I interrupt you? I was just going to say as I read the hardship requirement, I don't think it has to be a hardship to my property. I think it can be a hardship to a neighbor's property. I understand it's odd for that to be the justification for the request. It is a hardship to my property with regard to the drainage though, because I do have some obligation to make sure that as the property gets, as buildings get constructed, they don't get constructed in a way that they put water onto his property. So changing this buildable area, allowing me to go closer to an area where we don't have a drainage issue to get away from an area where we do have a drainage issue does relieve a hardship on my property as well. So it benefits both properties. I want to make sure staff here that we don't forget Mr. Lacey, she did have a question. I'm sorry, Regina. That's okay, honey. I think we're clashing between our charge to take care of the unified development ordinance. And then we also have to know that we are charged to see that substantial justice is achieved. And if you want to be putting a house so that you could salt your neighbor's soup, that would be a strict application of the ordinance. However, I'm confronted with substantial justice. And I don't think it should speak for one person at the applicant, but this shows a consideration that he has the intent to see substantial justice is served and I'm gonna vote for it. Regina, you much more eloquently said it than I could. Very well done. I agree completely with what you said. Rachel's here. But Regina, don't you think, I mean, there's a driveway coming up and how do we know there's not gonna be a parking lot there with cars in that set, you know, that adjustment? That would be part of the building approval process. That's an enforcement. And we have the maximum amount of buildable area per lot. Do we not, Steph? A lot's under us staff speaking here. There is that in relation to some of the strange concerns and things of that sort. There are maximum amount of buildable area as well as there is buildable area in which they're permitted to be in. So they could not go over a certain amount of impervious surface per lot. Impervious surface. That's what I was thinking, yes. Retchless. Yeah, I, this is really an unusual variance because the flag lot created, I'm still not, I haven't decided yet. Delacy, well, here's my thought. We have to talk about the hardship that was created about this one lot. The lot was subdivided. We've had, well, I've got five, six years ago, a similar thing when somebody divided and made a flag lot on Anderson and he wanted, there were other overriding issues but we could not then talk about what it used to be. We have to talk about the is. I meant to. So it's about this lot. Chris, did you disappear? I think Kristen was just gonna make the statement that there's no precedent but Eliza Monroe staff speaking possibly into what Kristen might have said. She did disappear for a second but I think she just might have been saying which you kind of wrapped off towards the end of going down that road that whatever we did six years ago whatever we did yesterday or even earlier today doesn't set a precedent. I think that might have been what she was gonna say. Correct. Anybody else have any thoughts? Would like to share them. All right, is there emotion? Would someone like to offer one? In relation to Eliza Monroe staff speaking in relation to that condition we talked about what seems like five days ago that is in the chat. If you all want to see that Fervage read it over if it does not suit your liking play with it some but just to put that out there. Okay, so I hear I make a motion that the application number B200000040 an application for requests of a variance from the required rear yard setback on property located at 1613 Maryland Avenue has successfully met the applicable requirements of their unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as a part of the application. And two, the property owner consents to the conditions that the approval of a six foot rear yard setback requires a 25 foot side yard setback on the north side of the lot for the portion outside of the flagpole. All right, we have a motion by Ms. Jeter. Is there a second? Lacey. And a second by Mr. Lacey. Susan. Okay, Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. No. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retchless. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Motion carries six to one. All right, by a vote of six, yes, by a vote of six to one, your variance has been approved. We appreciate your time this morning coming forward to be away. Wish you both the best of luck. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Have a good day. All right, we're gonna move along. We have no old business on the agenda. Is there any new business that anybody would like to talk about? Seeing none. We'll move on with the approval of orders. We've got a few, I'll mention that the third on the list and the fourth won't be, you know, we won't have to vote on them. But B19, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair. I do recall on the last case there was some mention about additional, consent to additional conditions. Was that in the motion? I just, that wasn't the motion? Yes. Okay, all right. I just couldn't hear it. Yeah. Before you go down the list, Mr. Chair, one, I just wanna make sure that everybody remembers if you voted yes or no for the ones from August don't vote today. And then I want to confirm with council about which orders we would probably need freshened up from today. So would that be just to make sure we don't vote on something? So I know we've had 53 and 30, 31 was withdrawn, 22. I don't think we're voting on at this time probably next month, 33 and 34. Councilor, are you okay with us going four foot voting on those orders as they were drafted? Double checking. We had a no vote on 33 and 40. So I mean, unless you need to in 40, I imagine you're gonna have to revise and we're not gonna vote on today. Yeah, but then also I wanna know about 37 too, which is the one where we had all that deliberation amongst the board. So I just wanna make sure we get the unanimous vote. You meant, okay. Yeah, I think we can vote on 37. And I was thinking all the ones that were heard today could be voted on. I don't think we need special orders. Okay. 33 and 40 included in that, Christa. 40 no. 40 no. I wouldn't imagine because we added this condition. Christa, tell me otherwise. Oh, sorry. Yeah, you're right. All right. 40. And I did go back and look on 53 Meadows voted no and then on 30, Delacy and Jeter voted no. All right. So those you three, well, now you know. So we're gonna need a motion and a second for each one of these. And then we'll have to do a vote. So I'm gonna try to get through them very quickly. So for B1900053, is there a motion to approve? Delacy. Delacy, is there a second? Rettulous. Which is Rettulous? Mr. Meadows, you can't vote on this one. Okay. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Rettulous. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Is this for last or this the last time, right? Last meeting. 53. I wasn't, she wasn't there. It was Miss Major. Okay. Wasn't that you? Wasn't that the day Jessica got the vote? No. And it must have been Mike Tarrant. It was Mr. Tarrant. Yeah. That was the one I couldn't sit in on, right? We determined halfway through the hearing. That's right. Just to confirm that I couldn't, I couldn't fill in. Good job, Mike. So, yeah. Keep messing. Okay. So Ms. Walmore. Billy Perpuneral. Yeah. We're not, okay. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Bob DeZero. Okay. All right. Pass B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0. Ms. DeLacy and Ms. Jeter, you cannot vote. So is there a motion to approve this one? That is. Can I make a motion without approving it? Oh, no, I can't. I move approval. This is Meadows. Second. Tarrant. Meadows, Regulus. Okay. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Again, I don't think I was present. Okay. This will be a four or five one as well. So Mike, Tarrant actually made the second on that one. Please. Okay, Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Motion carries five to zero. All righty. All right, next one will be B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 3. Mr. Meadows, you'll have to sit this one out. Is there a motion to approve this one? Motion. Second. DeLacy. Okay, Ms. DeLacy. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Is this for the, this is for today? Okay, then he has. And Ms. Jeter. Yes. And Mr. Kip was not in sitting in this so that motion carries five to zero. I voted. Should be six to zero. Oh, yeah, with Jessica. Ms. Major. I think I voted on the first two cases we heard. You did. You did. Okay, motion carries six to zero. All right. B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7. Is there a motion to approve? What about 3, 4? That's what we just did. Nope. B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 4. Is there a motion to approve 3, 4? DeLacy. Is there a second? Regulus. Mr. Rogers. Okay, Ms. Major. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Yes. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Ms. DeLacy. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right. The next one, B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 7. I think I heard Ian take this one. You did? I'm trying to move this along guys. Guys, I just can't make them all, but you know, that'd be hogging. Who wants to make the motion? Anybody can. I'll make the motion. I'll make them. Thank you. Regulus will be the second it looks like. I'm sorry. Who made that motion? Ian Kip. And then Regulus. Okay. Ms. DeLacy. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Deal. So we got two more. So B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 8. Motion. Thank you, Ms. Jeter. Is there a second? Second. Thanks. All right. Pisha got that one. Okay. Mr. Lacy. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. We are moving along. We're doing so well. All right, next one. Final one. B2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 9. Meadows. Meadows. Okay. Meadows got it. Who's got the second? I'll take it. Mr. Lacy. Okay. Mr. Lacy. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Retzlis. Yes. Ms. Walmore. Yes. Ms. Jeter. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right. That is our last one. And our next meeting will be October 27th at 8.30 a.m. Does anybody have any final things? Kip, Ian, you've got your hand raised. Is that my mistake? He does it. I just have a question about the case, where the 1600 East Pettigrew, where the applicants refused to attend in this format of Zoom. What's next? The city is not going to allow for meetings from what I understand. So they're just floating in space? Yes. Until we have in-person hearings, there's status quo. All right. Ryan, do you have any idea how long the quo is going to be status or the status is going to be quo? No, I know there are some discussions about the possibility of having some in-person hearings with appropriate social distancing and safety controls. I'm not really in favor of that, but I would anticipate that until there's some form of a viable vaccine or a lifting of the state of emergency or the safer at home order issued by Durham City and County, I don't think that we'll be having in-person hearings. Oh, with the vaccine? Yeah. The vaccine, that before it's widely available, that could be another year and a half. Right. So there's a possibility it could be six months. I think the bellwether will be what the state does in terms of the state of emergency. And so I think we would sort of look at that and see what happens. But there are discussions about attempting to have some form of in-person meeting, but I just don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Alrighty. Krista. I just wanted to let you all know for next month, I've been talking with staff, there have been some changes to 160D that I think necessitate some changes to the board's rules of procedure. So I'm going to be working on getting those to the board for next month. That's right. Cool. All right then, guys, looking forward to seeing you next month. I move with your journal. Costumes. What's that? Costumes, she said. We wear costumes. Oh, well, if you will. Yeah. Before everyone leaves. I might as well bring this up now because there's going to be a fairly. Significant and contentious appeal that will be heard in October. There is going to, there is information that has been submitted by both parties. It's going to be very important that you review that information. They've both made motions. And these motions will be considered by the board. And whatever the board decides on these motions will determine how that appeal will go forward. So what's going to be heard in October. Are the motions. One is a motion to dismiss. And the other one is a motion to stay. Review of a site plan. Related to. A particular issue, but. But it's a, it's a case that has a lot of interest. And so it's a little bit different. Then the normal cases that you hear, but these motions will, will determine how this appeal goes forward. So it's going to be, there's going to be a motion to dismiss. And there's going to be. A motion for a stay. Of a site plan pool. And you'll get that information in. In your packet prior to October, but it's really important to read. All the information that the attorneys. Have submitted. Because you'll have to make a decision on these motions. I've signed two subpoenas for this. Right. Which is, which is. Right. Right. It's very unusual that, that. That the board issues subpoenas for information. And for testimony, but there have been two subpoenas issued in this particular case. So. So just, you know, review the packet and. Be familiar with it so that, you know, when we, when we get back together in October, it won't be a surprise to you. That's right. All right. Well, looking forward to see. How do you, how do you execute a subpoena to force somebody to go to a zoom call? That's interesting. No, it's more. Bringing in. Forward information. Oh, okay. But, but you could. For someone to go to a zoom call. You could absolutely do that. Cool. Jacob has the power to do that. If he says. Everybody knows how I like to wield it. No, it's good to see you. We got a motion to adjourn by Mr. Lacey. So all in favor. I think we even had a second by Mr. Jeter or someone. Hi. Hi. Looking forward to seeing you all next month. Thanks everybody. My guys. Good day. It's almost real. Bye. Bye bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.