 meeting for October 17th. The agenda is accurate as it was posted online, communications, everything has been posted. There weren't any late additions, right, Mary? Everything's been posted, right. The board has been able to review the minutes from previous meetings. Our last meeting was so we will then jump into the public hearing and we are going in the order in which it appears, so that means we are going to 300 Flynn Avenue to have the applicant hearing. Would you mind coming up, introducing yourself and giving us a little bit of a little bit of detail? So who will be speaking with the applicant? So I'll just swear you in. Why is the point there? Thank you. So if you are speaking on this matter, please raise your right hand and swear that the testimony you give tonight is true and complete under our pains and penalty of victory. You swear to me? Yes. So we have all of the drawings here. I'm going to share them by the students. The board does have their on their laptops. They do have options to download any of them. So you saw everybody who's here today to support the project. We presented that sketch plan about a couple months ago. I don't know that I believe Leo, you were here but not Evan. Were you here? I did watch. Okay, good. I just want to make sure I understand what you know what you're talking about because we're going to focus on some of the staff for work comments as well as some of the things we heard at sketch plan and how we address them. Before we get into that, I want to give Sandy a few moments just to introduce the projects Kevin, we'll talk about landscape. I will talk about the architecture. Thanks, Sam. Good evening, everyone. I'm Sandy McGuire and I serve as Howard Center's Chief Financial and Operations Officer. I'm excited to be here tonight talking about our redevelopment project. It's been a long time in the works. We began searching for a solution to our increasing facility needs more than five years ago. The project before you demolishing the existing 24,000 square foot building and constructing a new 50,000 square foot building will enable us to do a number of things. It will enable us to co-locate services, providing efficiencies for those that we serve and to increase the care coordination across our multi-disciplinary teams. It will provide a contemporary workspace that supports technology, productivity, and collaboration while also supporting the more fluid and flexible workplaces of our staff today. It'll support our continued growth as we respond to the community need. It will provide space for on-site primary care services for those that we serve and generally provide a welcoming and safe, inclusive, and functional spaces for the staff and those that we serve. With that, we will be better able to continue helping those that we serve and our community thrive by providing the supports and services that we do that address mental health, substance use, and developmental needs. We're really excited about this project and excited to be here before you all tonight and really appreciate your time and consideration of this project tonight. Sandy? I put a full civil set in the full landscape set. I don't know that we need to go through the full civil set, but Kevin, if you want to just give us a few highlights of the civil site plan, I'll take it to the proposed and come back to meeting existing and there's questions. Sure. Briefly, it's, you know, hasn't changed what since we met with you, it's schematic design, sketch design. And briefly, the parcel is on the corner of Flynn and Pine Street down the road of here in the north half. It's the Anglesbury Rene. It's well-treated on the north and south side of the Rene. There's steep slopes down to the Brook. It's a wetland area and there are protective zones coming to the south towards the development. We met a few about maybe a month or so ago with the conservation commission in this room and had a productive conversation. And our Gilman, the wetland biologist who did the delineation presented that really it's almost park-like down in the Rene because of the overgrowth canopy. There's not a lot of invasions. There's not a lot of undergrowth and it's just open. And probably the main thing to mention is preserving those trees and the shade of the Rene and doing what we can to prevent invasions spreading. It's the main goal there. South half of the site, of course, is the developed site. And we're really staying within areas that would be developed, whether they be building, paving, lawn, built or out of accessory buildings. And as you know from the summary, the building is grown by about 100 percent, double the size of parking, double the amount. And that's done through efficiently laying out the site, putting parking under the building. And I think the main characteristic to mention is that while the existing site drains to the north end of the wetland without any treatment, the entire site now will be collected and treated and retained to the state standards and city standards before being released in the site. Otherwise, circulation-wise, there's curb cut that's maintained on Pine Street, which serves a very small parking area, mostly for use with the function in the Pine Street portion of the building. And then there's the larger parking lot, which is accessed from Flina. The curb cut moves a bit to the east and facilitates people coming and going, but also the shuttle used by the Howard Center, ambulances, other vehicles that would be used to circulate through an efficient area. I think that's about it. We're working with the DPW, continue to work on water and sewer, but all of that's pretty standard, standard fare. Mike, do you want to join me out here? We'll talk a little bit about the landscape. At the conservation commission, there was a discussion about these immediate species on the site. We had a discussion about that, and I want to sort of speak to that and then we'll talk about the tomatres. Yeah, so as Kevin highlighted, so the main entry to the site there's coming in on Flina. And so there's this building facade that parallels Flina. There's a lot of sort of ornamental plantings along there, and there's sort of a rain garden and stormwater capture treatment there. So it's sort of highlighting and serving two purposes, one for the stormwater treatment, and also sort of to really address that frontage along Flina. So there's a lot of landscape plant material along there that engages on the public side. And that's also sort of the main entry. You come in off the sidewalk, the front door is right there, coming in off the flint and that also sort of coincides with the Bible sequence coming into the building, a signage, that sort of stuff. So that's really the primary focus of most of the landscaping. There are sort of shade trees that are in the parking lot where the islands are created to meet the shade requirements and the sort of large canopy shade plantings. And then as Kevin said, we're not really doing much on that northern portion of the site, just retaining as many trees as possible. Moving to the east on Pine Street, there's a secondary sort of entrance and engagement along that streetscape here. And so again, there's some additional plant material there to sort of highlight that building entry and that public access point on that side of the building. And then there's various, as Kevin highlighted, there's some stormwater treatment areas and those sort of bench dated out as well with additional plant material, just some planting area and enlargement. Yeah, so I'm saying I'm just brought up, this is the site lighting plan. And we really tried to keep it very simple, recognizing that on the immediate west that 288 plan, that's a residential property that existing building exceed running north south. And so the lighting, we try to really keep core to the internal parking lot and maintain good illumination around the site circulation coming into the site. And then there's some building sconces and sort of under canopy lighting that sort of highlight the building entry. And so the parking lot lighting are by the E&F fixtures. And I think there was one staff comment about the site lighting saying that we weren't meeting the city standard for the maximum ratios. And so using sort of the city standards requirements about really keeping lighting dropping off as you reach the property line. And then also recognizing that existing building the residential piece, it's really those like five or six spots up in that north west corner that are sort of there at a point one valuation. If you sort of excluded those from the entire calculation, we would meet the maximum ratios. So to that point, it was designed really purposefully to keep the lighting low as we reach that parcel boundary and doing that, those few spots that are right at the literally the edge of the parking lot are the lowest, which are sort of skewing that sort of calculation. We can certainly meet that requirement, but with that E fixture that's on the left, we would have to increase the wattage of that fixture, putting more light on the site, which we don't really feel is necessary to meet that city requirement. So you would add more wattage, but you would keep the light more in the property. No, the opposite. We'd have to add. So the fixture heights are 22B. City allows 25. We're recognizing again we're next to the residential neighbors. 22 is sort of that comfort zone of traditional parking lot lighting. So for that E fixture, the five or six spots to meet the city standard, we have to increase the wattage of that one E fixture. So we have to go up and wattage to meet the requirement. And sorry, lower? No, keep it the same way. Yeah. You're saying it's stupid. Exactly. It's really an anomaly of five spots of the, I don't know how many spots are calculated. It's literally right after a parking lot. So just skewing the numbers. That maximum ratio is to it reflects an evenness of lighting. So you're not walking through dark spots and fog spots. The lighting plan as it has been designed reflects the intentional diminishment of lighting near residential structure next door. That's not really anticipated when we're reading standards for evenness of lighting. Standard questions on that. So moving along to the architectural piece, one of the things, one of the comments from the board was concerns about green entrance and the comments there. And so we heard that and we worked on some of the design here to increase that promise and make that entry way more inviting while acknowledging the fact that we do need to open towards the parking area, that people will be arriving by car. And so some of the changes are, we brightened it up. We have a terracotta colored siding at that entrance. It's looking a little washed out on the screen, but trust me, that will be brighter. We've got more signage. We have 300 underneath the awning there. And we put a help us here sign out from the landscape as well as a sort of boardwalk style entry way to create that threshold condition so that as you walk through the sort of rain garden landscape piece, you feel like you're going somewhere, rather than just going across a sidewalk. So that was a couple design movements that we made intentionally to try to address some of those comments. Here's another detail of that. You can see the boardwalk a little bit more clearly there as well as the help us here sign, which helps to screen the bicycle parking. The Flynn Avenue facade didn't change remarkably. We still have the dichroic flags. I use the term flags, but they will be fixed glades in elements of the side. You can still see the entryway has changed slightly there. An aerial perspective. And then this was another concern, or I shouldn't say concern, but a question from the board was this pine tree elevation, which wasn't really rendered on a previous application. And so this is updated. And so the brown siding there is a vertical metal siding that extends up and microcades the large format clouded siding that's rendering as white as well as the vertical blue side around our center referenced windows. We brought the same terracotta here as across here, but lowered them to create sort of screened in outdoor patio that opens on to the community room. Those larger doors there, what I was referring to previously as garage doors, they are ed doors, but they're not accessing it. So my apologies again for the words I used previously, but those will be glazed and used similar if you've been to Hula, you have some of those glazed open ed doors that have that nice relationship between the indoor and the outdoors. And that's the smaller pine street lot there. So when your folks are here last time, those garage doors we talked about, that's how we'll separate space right now. Yes, yes, yes, that would be part of, that'll be controlled by our center, but used for more community oriented events. So I can run through architectural plans, but I think at this point, I'd rather turn it over to you guys to see what questions you have from either the staff comments to the comments we've submitted. It wasn't a long ago we saw it in sketch, so we understand what the project is, but it looks very, very good, very good. I'm confused by one thing in the staff report about using a roof terrace, that said something about not using a roof terrace, you know, a roof terrace, right? Yes, I think was it, was it a referencing the potting thing, was that the, yeah, I was talking about that in the first time, yes. So that's a condition. A roof top terrace may be used, but that kitchen, I'm sorry, the potting same area cannot be habitable because we're exercising a high exemption rate. So it can be used, but it's not habitable. Can I have like a roof top deck that you can have? You can have sleepovers. You can't have like a bathroom on a terrace, right? Because that makes it habitable in this place. How bathrooms aren't considered habitable, by definition. There's no bathroom. You can't, you can't use it as a condition when it's space or stairs on the roof top because I think you can have a fence up there. They can. It was just confused. Public, yes. Okay. And I thought the idea was so better. Yeah, several kinds of things I think that really makes a difference. Yeah, I mean, when we came in, it was sketchy and it needed more work. And, you know, we always bet that coming out of the business side. I appreciate it. And then going down the country, part of my frustrations with them today, I apologize for being late. We've worked to increase the pedestrian accessibility to the country in general. Yes. And so I appreciate the changes. I don't know if the changes you need, but I think it's more articulation. Yeah, the articulation of the line street facade is that creating an entry and, you know, at least as to residents or residents or users who have access to living and services. Anybody in the audience here comment on the application? If there's anyone online who wants to speak, would you raise your hand? Do I have no one? Well, I'm not hearing anybody else. I guess let's close the application. Close the joke. Actually, I just have one question to show this. I did see in the staff of one of the proposed conditions is to revise the lighting plan. So that complies with the maximum ratio. And as Mike described, you know, he thinks that what we have proposed is a better lighting plan for the project. So I guess I'm going to ask. Yeah, we're going to deliberate. Okay. So I'll close the public hearing and we'll be right up to you tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. And the next item on the report agenda is the 182311 report of the 7th of October is the Green Appeal of Notice of Violation for Defenders. Yeah, we can go first. Yeah, I'll take it first. That is there. I'm thinking about the orphanage. Just a little bit more. Good to see you. No, let me go right here and realize. I'm probably not happy to see you. Okay, so this is an appeal of a notice of violation. In that situation, we asked them to sit and go first and articulate the basis for the NOV. We didn't do it. Now I understand. So if there's anybody who wants to speak on this application, please raise your right hand if it could be after me. I swear the testimony you're about to give is true and correct. All right. Thank you all for being here. My name is Ted Miles. I'm the Code Compliance Officer for City of Wellington. The property of question here is 457 South Willard Street. The complaint is about a relocated fence and a retaining wall. This is a citizen complaint that came to our office April of this past year. The fence that existed previously was permitted as a six foot stock gate fence back in 1980. Approximately two years ago, the fence was replaced and in its replacement, a retaining wall was installed at the lower fence. The fence was relocated approximately four to six inches from its previous location. It was enough to trigger a complaint. But the retaining wall that the fence sits on, I would point out here, the difference between these two is just so we understand. Nope, not very good. Is this right here? Okay. And the reason we're able to identify the fact this was relocated is based on the sidewalks. Well, I know the side was the panels. If you go to the previous one, if you can, this is where the fence was previously. Here's that same line in the sidewalk. This word existed previously. So it was relocated further down this way. It was a very good complaint. So that's why we're here. The warning note is that the sidewalk hasn't been rebuilt. The sidewalk has not been rebuilt. It's still poor condition. That's a fun fact. The complaint's warning letter was mailed on April 14 this past year. Notice of violation was issued on August 28. It kind of did appeal in a proper manner. The retaining wall would require a zoning permit. Had the fence been just redone in the exact manner of it was, would not have required a permit. Does it was relocated at all or not? The retaining wall does trigger the requirements for zoning permit. The fence that did exist was six feet tall. It is not currently seven foot three just off. The fence that exists there to the left is a right way. So it violates the Riverside Triad requirements of not more than three feet. The word is does not give any minimums that they can do something with the fence, whether they make it higher, whether they move it four to six inches, whatever it just requires that you can't take a non-conforming to make it more non-conforming, which is why we're here. So they're asking the board to uphold the violation as it exists. What was non-conforming? Previously there was a six foot fence that now when you see there you can see to the left is a driveway. So under today's organs because it violates the Riverside Triad would be non-conforming to today's or it wasn't non-conforming. Right it was accepted and it was permitted as a six foot in that configuration that a lot of that happens to be. There's there's no dispute that a that fence is knocked over by a snow plow, destroyed by a snow plow and they can rebuild the six foot fence exactly that same configuration correct? Correct. Right so it's the increased non-conforming just the amount of events of six feet that's in the Triad. Right. There's a triangle that doesn't allow high events to reach them, but then there's a triangle, but they can rebuild it at six feet. So the increased non-conformity is just the foot and three inches that is above the prior six feet and the section and location because they relocate as a fence. Right but there's not a non-conformity it's the location down slope. Yeah just the non-conformity part is where basically there's a triangle outside of there's a triangle they can have. So they could get a permit to move it to where it's currently located. No they couldn't. They could work three feet. But if you were it's currently located? Yes they would have to go down to a street think height and go on level two even if there's a triangle. So but they would not be able to. So we got ourselves it's in the clear side trying regardless whether or not it's in its current location it's 2020. Correct. If they just rebuilt the fence what is the recovery that we know is correct? I have a question about how the height was measured. We have talked about this before that the retaining wall height doesn't count. Yeah we've talked about this before. So is the height you referenced measuring from the ground or from the top of the routine? From the ground. Yeah because it does it does increase that height. So you're considered from the ground to the top of the fence that entire thing to be a fence? It's part of the fence the fence is fitting on top of it. The way the ordinance is actually written it actually the ordinance says three feet from curving. Right. Do you know what it was? Would it build a six foot fence? I don't understand your question. Do you know how they were made to measure fence height back when they built the six foot fence? I do not. But it's clear from the photo before it was not this was our retainer. I understand. So the fence is on top of the retainer? Yes. Just one portion. Just like the back portion that goes parallel with the driveway there. The rest of it is gone. The rest of it is sitting at ground level. You can see there's here in the newer pictures you can see where the fence actually steps. Yeah. Can I just sorry can I ask solutions here in the city's field? It sounds like they're two. G3. I know two of them. One is move the lower fence line back to where it was. Then they could have a fence that's up to six feet. It's double height within the site. Because a nonconforming has been because this fence has been in existence for two years now. If they replace a nonconforming, it has to be done in here outside of the one year period. So tell me your three solutions. So the three solutions that I have is the one that they need to bring them back. That's why we're trying to get the two and turn it down to the three foot height requirement, or they can move it outside of the fence I'm trying. So three foot in the area that's in the sidewalk. Right. Cut out section with the fence. Right. It would be 15 feet along the driveway side and 25 feet along the sidewalk. But to me, it would have to be between five to the other side. Well, it would take it that 15 feet along the driveway and 25 feet sidewalk. It actually goes back quite a ways. But I'm sorry I got to come back to something. We're talking about the fence, but not all portions of the fence are sustaining. You've talked about the retaining wall increasing the height, but as far as I'm concerned, the entire sidewalk facing part of the fence is exactly the same height as it was before if I compare those two pictures. It's no retaining wall there. They're net the same. So at Bestick, we're talking about the delta being a few inches on the ground, laterally inward or outward. It would, yeah, we'd be talking four to six inches. But height wise, like the sidewalk facing front that's not on the retaining wall looks to be plus or minus the same as what it is. Yeah, it looks, you can see at the bottom on the sidewalk side there, closer to the corner, it is elevated. Is it on a retaining wall there, or is it just elevated? It's kind of elevated in the old photo, if that's your opinion, to be honest with you. This looks like the grass hat. Well, it looks like it's elevated there. So if they can rebuild things, same material, same size, without a permit, right? You're deciding to replace windows wall touching maybe, but you know, I think so. If they were just rebuilding this same material, they actually wouldn't need a permit for anything, right? Correct, even though it hasn't replaced it exactly the same as it was. How one knows that what was conforming is no longer conforming if they're replacing it in kind. There's no real way to know that until somebody comes along and attracts them and stops them. Correct, correct. I have a question about retaining walls, because I thought that small retaining walls did not require a permit. I think we just had that conversation twice, that the Ronald McDonald house actually came to that conclusion too. That house could be form-based co-districts, yeah. And the big piece is it's a public safety issue, because that is an act of thriving those first homes. It is a public safety issue, that public side I gave that reason. Right, so it's really, it's really more monotonous. The question I have about safety though, if the clear sight line happens that is it really more non-conform, you can either see or you can't see the car. Well, three feet, you can see over it. Right, but you couldn't see over the previous fence and you can't see over this fence. Correct, right. It's once you, if you replace it same-to-same, you can keep that non-conformity, but once you move it, you know, you have to comply with today's ordinance regulations, which is why we're here. I'm pointing out the applicants photos, the applicants, submissions, they're just going to ask, I don't know, the last photo on your screen. Seven-one, this is what we're talking about. Yeah, two of them here, I'll start with here. They're the last photo. Six-one here. Here is, you have a specific page, Jeff, that you'd like. This is the specific page, page, page. The one that looks like it shows the retaining wall with the old fence corner, it's still there. That's the swan track. I don't know, he went down again. Second photo, the last one. Is that the old fence corner or is that the black? That's the swan track. I mean, two, three, six, one, two, three, four, there we go. Yeah, that's it. If you can just scroll a little bit. So it looks like in that photo, you can, I'm trying to understand, maybe I was going to ask this, you scroll also. I'm sorry to hear you. Go back to that photo. This one? Put a little high there, there. It looks like that's the old fence, the old fence post. This here? Yeah, with the new retaining wall built on it. It seems like the bottom of that fence in this photo is very, the old fence, it's very close to the height. Yeah, it seems like the retaining wall is actually, you're not, you didn't take this photo, you're not, no, it's not exactly. I'm trying to figure out if our six feet is measured in the same place. Well, I measure from broad level. Okay. The ordinance doesn't measure from curve level. So like on these properties that actually have a little bit of an ink line, if you actually measure it from curve level, some of them wouldn't have to be added to that fence at all. But that's a good section. Do we know what the actual, how you'd describe the existing grandfathered fence actually is? The fence that was six feet, which is what they're permitted to have. Right, I understand that's what they were permitted to have. Try to understand, do we know the actual, it's grandfathered. So whatever it was, is what they're allowed to be built. Yes. Yes. So we know what the actual height of that fence was. I can only assume that it was actually six feet in height, because in this one here, the newer flow levels, you can see we're actually sectioned to our fence, looks like it was sitting on top of the table and it's actually cut off. It's like someone at the bottom of the fence was cut off to sit on top of the wall. In this one that I have, in the section where it's actually the fence in here, you'll see that part of the fence of the bottom is cut off to fit onto the table. Which is why we have a lot of seven foot three inch fence. Okay. All I have to read. I'm going to give them a question to the chat. Give the applicant part of the number. Opportunity. Introduce yourselves. Well, you heard our discussion. We obtained. I'll try to pick it up where it was in the conversation. Now, that actually works really well. If you look at the base there, the fence, that was added to the new locations. It extends a little bit further into the site train. Our position is the first three feet or three. The site train on the setback doesn't start until you get about three feet. That's 20 inches high. So that is not a nine foot four. With regard to height, the fence is still in the same location as it was originally built in, as far as we can tell. It may be out a little bit higher, but it's not extending into the site line any more than its predecessor did. So that's not increasing. The fact that it's a little bit higher at this point, maybe a foot higher, really is meaningless because unless you're meeting with a 7 foot 12 person versus a 6 foot 5 foot person, you're not increasing the degree of the nine foot four. And this is actually designed for cars and pedestrians, normal people. Going up a little bit does not increase the amount of conformity. So we're sitting here looking at the situation the fence has been in here since 1980, it's 43 years in this location. It has incredible landscaping on the inside. If you could show those pictures, which we would have destroyed to sort of re-build the fence at a different location. And with regard to the idea of safety, I could go to Hedge Row in here, completely blacking out all visuals. There's eight feet tall and no one could stop me out of the Domingoia. So the idea that this, as it relates to the fence, actually provides the safety that people are talking about. It does, on one theory, but not on another. So we're looking at this from a standpoint, is we're allowed to change and alter the nature of the fence as long as we don't increase the degree of conformity. In this case, the area of the fence that counts relative to the sight line is not extended. And therefore, we feel like we exist as a pre-existing family, in compliance with both statute and the ordinance. Essentially, six foot fence versus whatever the measurement is today does not materially affect the degree of conformity. Yes, it's in the basement. I mean, you're already above three feet. So it's, you know what I'm trying to say, unless you're below three feet, it's being material. Yes. And to the extent that there's any expansion further into the sight line by the base of the fence, that's below three feet, as long as not even close to the set. That's, like, set three feet forward. These, the sections of the new fence, those are just standard six foot section nails fence, right? It's pieces of panel fence, which is what we had before. The reason we put in the base there, but you know, the retaining wall. Yeah, yeah. No, we put that in because the feet, and I foolishly did not take pictures of the fence that were in place. We replaced it because it was sagging out into the driveway really. I mean, it was, the old fence was rotten. My husband and I had replaced the fence once, since it was put, we bought the house in 1986. This is the second replacement, the first replacement. Wasn't holding, that wasn't holding. So, so the guy who was putting in for me said, they see you. And so we put that in because it's not a hill, and it's rain, you know, and it just goes down, but it has the same kind of fence panels. If that's actually a much trouble. If the city's position, we always struggle with this. It's the language and cases say, any increase among the performance is not a lot. I think the cases actually say the house. One of the cases say, if you're going up, as long as you're not increasing, if you're talking about a setback, if you're going up and not out, you're not increasing the degree of conformity. I think there's a case that said, case where it was a semi-editing volume to a resident's above the site line. Somebody complained that they were extending conformity above the setback. And the court said, no, that's not extending the conformity. That's good to not conform, maybe the deal with it there was horizontal. We're dealing with a conformity. Yeah, but then there's a vertical. Then the vertical, there's no height limitation. I'm excited as to how high a fence can be in this location. I would agree with you in this location. The ordinance says, if you can't be having a 10-door with 5P high, we'd be in violation. But there's no such thing. We're going to be using our fences to call. So we're not increasing the degree of conformity. I mean, the question is, the question is if you look at the first case, Google, and you say, is here with Donald in this yard? And you say, okay, here's the fence in 1980. That's in this location. And then you come in, actually, that was in 2003, and you look in the same location, and you see the same location. That's what we, that's what we, this is all setback. This isn't nice. But I mean, it's the view trying. Yeah. The view trying will set us a limit on the height. I understand you have an argument that you're currently about to go above that I am based on your grandfather's degree, just not conformity. But is increasing your grandfather's height from 7, 6 feet to 7.3 feet? I'm still not clear. But I haven't heard. I haven't heard. I haven't heard either of you. So what do you know? The increase. Yeah. I would think it was less than that. But to me, I didn't question it because we're still using the thing. You know, the standard amount. Can we get a picture maybe of the inside of the wall? We do have pictures of the pictures. It may be some sense of it. Of the inside part? Yeah. Yeah. The older section is so different. That's true, that's true, that's true. So I think 6 to 7 feet would really, I would agree that it doesn't have an effect except for a limited amount of people. But, right, under the same framework, you know, we're going to have an all-section. And what height be, right? This text is going to be more or not uniformity. But I think any normal person could be able to see it. Yeah, I mean, over that, that's a point. That's a point to be made. If I was in 3 feet or if I was 4 feet from that, I decided to go to 7 to be in 2 feet. Then you could see over it that I... Well, what was that? I don't know. I don't think it's the standard. You just don't know. 6 to 6 to 5 to 7 makes a difference. Relative to the standard. Yes, I do. So the point's in the letter. Hey, Mary, I have a question. Ted referenced something in the ordinance of definition of fence height. I just spent looking for it. We know a fence there. As I know, the clear side triangle says... The provision on the clear side triangle says 3 feet from the curb. But where do we actually... Is there a definite... I just look at fence and height. And building and height doesn't say where to measure a fence from. Where to measure a fence from. I mean, as a structure, max on I would be 35 feet. You're just looking where to measure a fence. Yeah. Where does it say like a 2 would be 6 feet to our fence? And where do we actually have to measure it? Like where do we measure a fence? Like who we measure from the top of the bridge, maybe 12. So we measure the fence. We measure the slope of the ground. Well, there's a lot of self-wavering requirements on that. So we're going to do the ground-rave on the assumed property one. And that's certain. You're going to notice the violations for the triangle and anything else. So you're basically... Fence and plan. I don't think that you're right on that. It's in the same case it was previously. The retaining wall rejects out. Well, if you want to just pass it and say, it doesn't fence itself. The dirt is where it was. So that the wall is against the ground. In the picture that's up on the screen now, the old fence considerably higher than the new fence. On the back there, yeah. So the reason for the retaining wall is just to keep some fence horizontal. So it doesn't go downhill if that's the idea. Exactly. Because the previous one obviously had that. And I'm sorry I don't have a picture of it. It was not optional, believe it. It's a longer fence that applies. Well, yeah. Usually they twist the wall if you come down. Yeah, it is bad. And the purpose of it really is to store the fence. Forty-three acres of fence has been essentially the same configuration. Essentially the same spot. Plus, minus. Probably from the front of the planet. I mean, those rotted entrance are fabulous in there. You can plant those rotted entrance and you can easily grow up to seven or eight feet. Yeah. In fact, you're the best I try to do. Yeah, so we could do anything. I mean, it's the vegetation. I mean, it's not something that the vegetation is. So I've had another fence like this. It's the see-through fence. Yeah. We couldn't put the see-through fence out, but we put the trevaries all along. So what can I just go? What? I have another question about this. Just to be maybe perhaps in the future. Sorry. This is then a dry voice would be 15, that would be fine. That way, is that right? Yeah. I mean, it would just, there would be no fat there. We'd have to take it out. Take it out otherwise we'd be escaping under that. And then we'd tell the fence that picture. Or we'd go out for the, for the, for the, for the dry road. And then, let's see. I think it's kind of a good thing. There's not anything that's too full of pictures. Any more questions from the board? I have one more question. I mean, one of the photos where it shows that retaining all the baby belt in the section of the old fence, still there. Can you tell me if the corner post that's in the corner was replaced? Or if that was too cool? I bet it was, but I don't know. That would tell a lot. Because if that post is still there, it's the same thing. I'd be surprised if we left it on the post, because they were well, they were really funny. If the person who posted might still be okay. Yeah. It might be certainly replaced. That's true. It might be the same length as the fence for a while. The difference would be now. Did you do a built-in permit? I did not. And that is absolutely on me. I assumed that I was doing a replacement, but now I didn't even have to do it. I'm not a medic, Gary. No, I mean, but at the same time, as Brad said, you're just doing a replace. You read the ordinance, you say I'm doing a replace, and I'll go in and get permanent. I should call them. And I did. Were you here to speak on this? No, I'm in the neighborhood. I went to access to that where I went to. Well, thanks for replacing my past. I'm curious what all the feedback will be before I go in. Okay. Well, there's a number of questions from the board. Is there anyone online that would like to participate? Is that it? I guess that is your answer. Is that, so you said that was a way away. Is that your, so we're saying like, you know, there's a strange language in my title that says that I have access to it. So it's hoping that we have a way. We have a right of way down that road. Yeah, okay. So you're on the other side. He's, he's decided to have a quarter of a step really to the power of it. He is. I'll just talk a little bit. Okay. This is how we're going to set it here. That's how we're going to set it here. Language says. Embassy. Online. She is. Okay. Okay. So it's yours. Hello. Thank you. So I wasn't familiar with this prior to it coming before the board, but I did review the material that you've seen and also looked at the appellants memo. And why don't you just kind of point out a couple of things to the board. First of all, there was an assertion about a case in redon it in the materials. And I don't think that's a totally accurate portrayal from my read of it at least is the memo talks and allowing an increase in the roof line height and volume of the not from a structure because the degree of non-cremory relative to the setback was not increased. In that case, the roof line is specifically says also is noted above the court determined that the roof line was a permissible enlargement still within the line, the limit of the lesser of the 35 feet or three stories a finding supported by the record. So the roof line still met the structural requirements. So just kind of going to the point, I don't think that case supports exactly fully what it was trying to be supported as far as going up doesn't matter, because I do think going up in this instance is a non-conformity as well as going out. So just wanted to point that out and certainly can provide the case if the board so chooses. There was also a statement just about kind of the the de minimis amount of it or not substantial. I mean, I guess it goes to the question of what is and what isn't right. You know, does that mean nine feet is okay, eight feet, 10 feet? You know, where's that line as far as what would be okay? The ordinance is pretty clear no increase. So it would be none. I think under the ordinance, but so those are just a couple of things I wanted to point out. And I also had a question under the original permit. It does say that there is a setback from the front of 15 feet and from the side five feet and from the rear five feet, but from the pitchers, I'm not seeing that. So I don't know if the property owner could if there's evidence regarding what the actual setback is. You know, I don't think there is. The fence is where it was when we bought the house in 1986. The setback is where it is and that really has not changed. Don't you own a portion of the driveway? I don't. Well, I thought I did, but I went to the dean and the dean says I don't. He says I own up to the edge of the driveway. Yeah, no, I checked that out last week. Yes, I'm serious. I don't know. Does that come up with the person who filed the complaints and say that you own part of that rightfully? I always thought I did. I told my lawyer too that I own up. Yeah. Yeah. It's a right away. The houses, those two had joined this house in mind. It was really all the property that they didn't buy the houses and they were deeper and people before my time sold automatically. Hey, Jake, can I ask you, can you hear me? Yes. Thanks. Welcome to the party. Thank you. Sorry not to be there in person. That way you've offered some opinion. I'm interested in solutions here. So the city did not issue the applicant here a notice of violation for the setback. The notice of violation only mentions the site line nonconformity. So in my view, that's all we're here to address is the site line. If the city's got another argument, that's a different proceeding, but it hasn't been raised notice violation. I understand. To resolve the site line issue, I didn't like this option, but I think the limited solution to address the claim of the site line violation would be to reduce the existing height of the fence, the height of the prior fence within the site line area. Would that solve your concerns? I don't think so. I think at this point you have to come into conformity, so it has to go down to the three feet. Well, but that doesn't make any sense to me, because their grandfathered in the nonconformity up to the six feet. They could rebuild this fence up to that six feet, not because it's been over a year. Is that what you're saying? Because it's been a year since this was combined up? Yes. If they came in to get a permit to rebuild this fence, they could pretty much do what they did, right? I mean, without the retaining wall, they could put the fence back up the way it is now. The same footprint of it, the same height, it's just because they were grandfathered in and they were just rebuilding it. So the site line triangle is only there because of the time duration between the time it was built and the time it was out of the violation right now. The violation happened within three months. Yeah, I mean, I would strongly take issue of legal position back with the fence that was put in place a couple years ago. The news are not in public status. That is why. How long has it been since you were first founded by it? Since I joined the class, the initial verification, I think, was an ACOR. Name, appeal of it. And the fence went in late summer and early fall, 25. The whole idea of losing your grandfather status comes if you took the fence down for 15 years, that'd be one thing. If we took it down, put it back up right away, different mollusks. There's no case law to see our statutory law to support the notion that if you didn't build it right, you'd lose that. It's part of your status. We don't like the chainsaw solution. I know you don't like it out. I noticed you guys, I don't think the height of the fence was there was a woman on the height, you know, the idea of why they're thinking chainsaw is just sort of serving them. I disagree with you on that. I don't like the chainsaw solution either. It doesn't feel like an elegant approach. But I'm not convinced you have an increase in size. So I would agree. So what we're doing, just to be clear, that you're talking about just the height of overall, that's not the location of it. I don't see that today's giving you notice of violation of the location. I mean, in terms of, we can keep it in the same location. I think we have to work through it. I'm just trying to give a sense because we think about this in terms of what are you thinking about in terms of the corner being changed or you think it's just about the height of the fence. We haven't deliberated yet, so we can't turn that off. Portions? Nope. All right, I'm going to close the public hearing and deliver it. I'm going to deliver it on tonight. Thank you. We have nothing else on our agenda about our business. So you're adjourned, and we can now talk about it. Okay, that's fine. Oh, they're going to step forward on the fence.