 I guess I have about, oh nevermind, the live stream started so. We do have a quorum. Morning. Meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the July 26, 2022 meeting of the city of Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Michael Rexlis and I am the vice 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 the session law 2020-3. Board of Adjustment is quasi judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina general statutes in 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 Board of Adjustment. On the screen, you will see the members of the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, planning staff and representatives from the city and county 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 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 the 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 conducted using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the Board conducting the evidentiary hearing using the remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing can set to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there's any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing noticed in the newspaper, mail to property owners within 600 feet of the subject properties, posting sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mail notices for today's meeting contained information on how the public can access the remote meeting as a 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 adjustments 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. We'll go to a roll call, Terry. Yes, Kip. Here. Meadows. Here. Wretchedness. Here. Parent. Here. Shane. Here. Major. President. Picket. Here. I see you. Okay. Is there anybody here today that needs to disclose any ex parte communication? Maybe he needs to recuse themselves from any of these cases. Mr. Reschelis, this is Meadows. I need to recuse myself from a handful of cases this morning, specifically B2000018, B2000043, B2000044, and B2000015. I have a working relationship with the appellant, and I need to recuse myself from those four cases today. So, noted, can you turn your video off? Okay, who does that leave us with now, Terry? We have Kip, Wretchedness, Tarrant, Shane, Major, Picket, and Colossal. Okay. So, can we call the first case? Were there any adjustments to the agenda? Yes, there is some adjustments. Case B, I believe 2200021 has been withdrawn. Thank you. Okay, and what about the minutes? Approval of minutes for the 21st? Did everybody get a chance to go through them? Yes. Do you want to go ahead and take roll on that? Yes, please. Okay. Kip? Yes. And I'm not sure if Meadows... Meadows? I'll come back for the minutes. We need to have a motion for the approval of those. Before we call the vote, please. Oh, okay, yes. Tarrant, move approval. Okay. Second. Meadows, second. Okay, we're rolling now. Kip? Yes. Okay, Meadows? Yes. Wretchedness? Yes. Tarrant? Yes. Bushane? Yes. Major? I wasn't present on the 21st, I don't know if I can vote on the minutes for that meeting. Correct. Picket? Yes. Colissa? Yes. 7-0. Do we also need to do the minutes for the 28th? Yes, we do. Oh, Shane, second. Who was the first? Meadows. Meadows, okay. Okay, Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Wretchedness? Yes. Tarrant? I wasn't present at that meeting. Okay, Bushane? Yes. Major? Yes. Picket? Yes. Colissa? Yes. Okay, 7-0. Now for the first case. Correct? Yes. Okay, the first case is the appeals for the three planning directors' interpretations. And this would be 18, be 2-0-0-0-0-1-8. It's a city case. It's a appeal of the planning directors' interpretations regarding the development plan related to the Black Meadow West Point residential development. The property is located at 5-0-0-1 and 5-0-11 North Ross Bar Street. And it's in, within the suburban development tier. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time. And notarized affidavits verify on the sound postings and letter mailings are on file. Seated for this case is Kip, Retchless, Tarrant, Bichain, Major, and Picket, and Colissa. Could I raise a question please about me sitting for that case? Because I didn't realize I was unmuted when they were asking for a conflict. See, I am the volunteer bookkeeper for the Eno River Association. And they were a petitioner. They're no longer a petitioner, but I wonder if that's really gonna put me in a conflict situation. Mr. Wardell. Yeah, George. There was a prior member of the board who was also involved in that association. And he felt that he had, he recused himself. He was going to recuse himself. It is entirely up to you as to whether or not you feel you can be balanced and neutral. If you do believe that you have a conflict then it would probably be appropriate to recuse yourself from hearing any of the matters concerning these appeals. I guess the appearance is there and that would probably raise the issue of a conflict. So I think I should not sit for this particular case, these cases. Fair enough. Okay, George. You can turn your video off please. Okay. And meet yourself. Thanks, George. So I guess the question is, is there another alternate that can be seated for Mr. Colasa? If not, the parties can go forward with less than seven. As long as they agree. But is there... We do not have another alternate. It would just be a six that could vote. Okay. Well, if they agree to that, then you can move forward. Are there any objections from the applicants with going forward with only six voting members? I don't see them. I don't see any applicants. We have, go ahead. Mr. Colasa, can you disengage? Yeah, I will a minute. Yeah. Okay. Yes. This is TC Morfus. I'm the attorney for the applicants. Regarding six, while we would prefer there to be more members, I think for today's purposes, we certainly consent to that. And then at a future date, if this matter is heard again, we could address the number of members available at that time. This is Jeff Rother for Point Ridge Park. I'll echo Mr. Morfus' sentiments. I think for today, the purpose is requesting continuance and we can take up the number of members when this is going to be heard on the merits. So do we need Don to weigh in on that as well? I don't think the city is necessarily a party, but the city would agree to move forward with the motion being heard by just six members. All right, so be it. Okay. So at this point, I think the appellant would have the floor. And if you have a motion that you'd like to make, now would be the appropriate time to make it. So should I start speaking Mr. Wardell or Mr. Retchless or am I willing to be recognized by the chair, sir? Well, I'd like to swear in everyone first, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, sir. And I'll turn it over to our appropriate staff person for the presentation and then, well, I'll turn it over to the applicant and present your case, please. If I can, we'll go ahead and just try and short-circuit this. So my name is TC Morfus. I am the attorney representing the appellants in this case. We appeared before you back in May and requested a continuance to this date. And we are here today and I'm with opposing counsel, Mr. Rother, to request another continuance to September board of adjustment date. And I'd like to provide a little context for while we're asking for a second continuance and for the continued patience of this board. For months now, one of my clients, the Eno River Association, has been working with the developer to try and find a settlement to this case without providing any sort of substantive information. I can tell you that this property that's the issue has been proposed for development is adjacent to the West Point of Eno Park. And my clients would like to see it not developed. And obviously Mr. Rother's client has a proposal for development. The parties have been working very hard to try and find a solution that's satisfactory to everyone. But one of the things that has slowed that down is that the Eno River Association needed to obtain an appraisal of the property which took about seven weeks. We just obtained that appraisal last week. And with that appraisal in hand, the Eno River Association is now in a position to start talking with potential funding partners about funds to help acquire some or all of this property. We are optimistic that by the September Board of Adjustment hearing we'll know either whether a settlement for this project and this property is possible or if we just need to proceed with our appeal. But we believe it's premature at this date. So for that reason, we respectfully ask for another continuance to the September hearing. This is Jessica Dachery, planning staff. I would suggest that we call all of the related cases to this appeal so that we can have one vote for the continuation of all of them at one time if that's acceptable. And I would just add to what Ms. Dachery has said. The parties have already stipulated that there's a single core of facts and they're late to this. So if these are heard, we're going to ask that the Board hear essentially one evidentiary hearing for all four appeals. May I ask a question? Mr. Kip. What was the reason for the May continuance? I was there, it was a live meeting. I remember we came out and it was continued. Can you explain because this is starting to feel kind of weird? Well, that's a fair question. And for the May hearing, I want to echo what Chairman Rogers said that the Board went to a special effort to have an in-person hearing for this, that was because the parties had requested an in-person hearing. And then essentially at the last minute, we asked for a continuance. And that was not for any effort to try and waste Board member's time or the resources of the city and county. But it's because we've been trying for literally months to reach a settlement on this project and it's complicated. And so in May, we rather than trying to have a hearing when a settlement remains a very real possibility, we asked for that continuance. I want to thank Jessica Dockery because she probably back in June emailed the parties and said, hey, where are we on this case? Should we be, do you all need to request a continuance or anything else in July? If so, please let us know sooner rather than later. And so we did that with informed staff. And that's one of the reasons that we're here at a virtual hearing today because I think Mr. Rother can chime in if he likes. Both parties think that this would be better heard live if we have a hearing on the merits. But for the purposes of seeking a continuance, we had no issue with a virtual meeting today. So I hope that answers your question, Mr. Kemp. What is it that we can't understand or process right now on Zoom? I understand you got an appraisal, but again, process is process and process seems to be going out the window. And that's not the way it should be. Fair enough. And I think where we are is both parties feel that having a hearing on the merits regardless of how the board votes could harm the ability of the parties to reach a deal that would be satisfactory to everyone. So we're essentially asking to delay one more time hearing the appeals coming for the board. What's to say you won't delay it in September? It's a fair question. I can't say that. What I can say is that I hope if we do have that delay in September with that, we provide this board enough notice so that resources of the board are not wasted. And that was really the thing Mr. Ryder's hammered us on in May and he was quite right is that you all had set aside an entire day for a hearing and other cases were not heard that day. And for that, I certainly apologize. And we're trying to provide the board greater notice going forward. Good. Could I make a comment? Don. Donald tooled city attorney's office. I just wanted to support what Mr. Morpheus said and I think Mr. Rother would agree. Everyone involved in this case agreed that it would be important to hear this live. There are going to be a number of witnesses. I think if and when this case gets heard, you'll likely hear a lot of evidentiary objections, a lot of exhibits will need to be used. And basically all of the parties agreed that it would be really difficult to do essentially what would be a trial on the remote platform. And so I just want to echo what Mr. Morpheus said. I don't think there was any intention of delaying the hearing of this case. It was just, these cases been pending for almost two years now from the beginning of COVID and they were being held because it was agreed these should be live hearings. So there was no intention to delay this. If I may, Jeff wrote there for Point Ridge Park, the property owner, I'll agree with what Mr. Morpheus and Mr. O'Toole said. We certainly joined in Mr. Morpheus's request to continue this to the September hearing and feel like that puts the parties in effect. Try to get this thing resolved without taking any further resources from the city of McCownie and I do agree with Mr. O'Toole, the parties have been on the same wavelength for probably over a year now that this is something that should be heard in person. And we're appearing today solely to facilitate the request or the continuance that was made to convey to staff weeks ago, but when this is heard on the merits, the request is for it to be in person. Yeah, and I would also just add that there should be no negative connotation at all drawn from the fact that either an appellant or opponent chose not to participate in a remote platform. It is their absolute right not to do that. And so we've got other cases where applicants chose not to do it or folks in opposition chose not to do it. So that should really not play into your decision-making at all. If the parties agree that they wanna do it live then that is their absolute right to do that. Thank you, Mr. Wardell. Is there any other comments? So at this time, do I have a motion to continue this? So I believe that there was a request to have all these, to have this motion applied to all four. All right, so you have to open all four of those cases. And I believe that... This is Jessica Dachery with Planning Staff. I've asked Terri if she will read a description of all of those cases and the information that she read for B-2018, the location and zoning information will be the same for all cases, but she can call out the different aspects of each of those cases. We have a paragraph prepared for that. Thanks, Jessica. Okay, so the appeals are for the three of the Planning Directors' Interpretations in the Development Plan and their B-200018 density and B-200043 and uses and B-210044 related to the butt meta West Point Residential Development and an appeal of the administrative approval of the West Point Site Plan and the Site Plan Case Numbers D-1900225 and the BOA case is B-220015. Do we have a motion to continue this, these cases? Oh, Shane, I'll make a motion to continue the cases. Need your second. So the motion has to be to a date certain. Thank you, Brian. The applicant has requested September, the regular September meeting. Okay, so I'll make a motion to continue until the September meeting. Thank you, Natalie. All right, Kip. Yes. Wrenchless. Yes. Tearant. Yes. Shane. Yes. Major. Yes. Colasa. He's recused. Oh, that's right, okay. You should only have six. Yes. Pick it, yes. Passes 60, right? Did you? Don't forget, pick it. Yeah. Pick it. Pick it. Yeah, I said yes. Thank you. 60. Okay. Mr. Roth or Mr. Morfus, your cases continued till September. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming before the Board of Adjustment. So since case 200021 is not being heard today, I'd like to bring back some business from our June meeting. And that would be to continue our elections of finding a new chairman. And I had brought up my, I can't find the word of proposing Chad as being our next chairman. If everybody's okay, I propose Chad. I'd like to put my two cents in as him becoming the next chairman. I think you're going for nominate, Mr. Reschliff. Nomination, that's the word. Thank you, Jesse. I accept. Thank you, Chad. Okay, do I need to do a roll call vote on this? Yes, please. Okay. Meadows. Yes. Reschliff. Yes. Bichain. Yes. Yes. Yes. Tarant. Yes. Major. Yes. Picket. Yes. Colassa. Yes. Most of passes eight zero. I will hand this over to you now. Chad is our new chairman. And I think we only have one more case. Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Reschliff. Thanks everybody. Appreciate the confidence. So let's get rolling. Terry, would you call the next case, please? Yes. The next case, the next case is B2,00025. It's a city case. It's a request for a variance from impervious surface limits. The property is located at 902 Littleleaf Lane. It's zoned planned development residential 2.390, PDR 2.390, and Falls Jordan District B Watershed Protection Overlay. And it's in with it within the suburban development tier. And seated for this case is Kip Meadows, Retchless, Tarrant, Bouchain, Major, Pickett and Colassa. All right, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Terry. Oh, I forgot one thing. Yes, ma'am. This case has been advertised also for the required period of time. And it's been notarized. If a David's Fairfine, the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. Thank you. I'd like to go ahead and administer the oath. If you plan to give testimony today or speak in this case, could you please turn on your camera and your audio? Chris, is there anybody here? Yeah, we're bringing in the panelists right now. Stand by. Hello, Mr. Vandrick. Good morning. Good morning. Morning. Good morning. Thank you guys for being here. Could you both raise your right hand? And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll be giving today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Yes, I do. Great. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. I do. Fantastic. Thank you. I think at this point, it's time to hear the staff presentation. I think Ms. Larkins, is this your case? Yes. Good morning, everyone. My name is Leah Larkins with the City of Durham Planning Department. And I will be sharing my screen. And can everyone see the PowerPoint now? Yeah. Yes. Wonderful. OK. This is a request, as Terry said, for a variance from the impervious surface limits at 902 Little Leaf Lane. The applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum allowable impervious surface area as permitted by the final reported plat for the Lion's Farm subdivision. The applicant seeks a maximum allowable impervious surface area or maize area of 24% as allowed per UDO paragraph 8.7.2B, which governs the SJB watershed protection overlay in which the lot is located. Some context and a little bit of history. The lot is located in the Lion's Farm subdivision, which includes approximately 100 single family lots, which have all been developed at this point. Lion's Farm, the final plat, was recorded in 2003. So this is an established subdivision. It is zoned. I'm going to go back. It's zoned PDR 2.390. Staff research and analysis did not turn up a development plan for this subdivision at the time. This is not uncommon for the zoning to be done and then the final plat to include the development standards. So we are working with the final reported plat for Lion's Farm. Going forward, you can see the aerial. Again, this is an established subdivision. And then I'm going to show the survey that we have available to us. And then I'll give a little bit of the timeline. You can see here, there is a proposed pool in the rear yard of the single family lot. The applicant is seeking the variance for the pool so that they can construct the cladding that goes around the pool. Decking is not going to count against their impervious surface limit. And the actual pool area does not count against their impervious surface limit. It's a pool. It's water. But they are seeking that increase to the impervious surface limit. I was previously stated that the increase they were seeking was closer to about 16% or to be able to go up to 16% impervious surface area. But the applicant is requesting the full 24% as would be permitted in SJB. So that is for the board's consideration if they would permit the full 24% to allow the applicant to enjoy the impervious surface limit permitted in the SJB area or if the board would apply the condition that they could only go up to the 16% as discussed in the SAC report to allow for the proposed pool cladding with the drawing that we have in front of us. So I'm going to bring up the timeline for this case is interesting. Like I said, the final plat was recorded in 2003. Then as you'll see in your packet, there was a preliminary plan that was not recorded, but it was used and provided to the applicant and property owner in 2003 that indicated an increased impervious surface area beyond what was permitted for that lot in the final plat. This, again, is not uncommon because the developer may have decided to do lot averaging with those impervious surface limits as permitted at the time. We don't know if that was done. We don't have a record of all 100 lots of if lot averaging was done and some lots were given more and some lots were given less. So looking at the timeline, I think I'm just going to go through our quick summary here and then I'll be open for questions and then the applicant will, of course, be here. The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum allowable impervious surface area permitted by the 2003 final plat for the Lion's Farm Subdivision in which the site is located and which was approved by the Durham Development Review Board on January 24, 2003 and recorded on April 22, 2003. The final recorded plat allot 2,265 square feet of impervious surface area or approximately 15% of the property on the site. A 2003 plat plan submitted for a building permit application notes a maze of 2,442 square feet. So we're already exceeding what was on the plat in 2003. And then there is a 2021 plat plan, which was done for the purpose of the construction of the pool, where the surveyor noted that the site is at 2,472 square feet. So we've gone from 2,265 square feet to 2,442 to 2,472. With the addition of the impervious surface area for the pool, the site would have 2,547 square feet and therefore go from what it is right now, which is 15%, approximately 15% of the property, impervious surface area to approximately 17% of the property impervious surface area. So an increase of about 2%. And while that does exceed the maze permitted by the subdivision final plat, it does still fall well below the 24% of impervious surface area permitted by the UDO governing the FAD watershed area. Again, the property is located at 902 Little Leaf Lane in the zoned PDR 2.390. And it's in the Falls Jordan District, the Watershed Protection Overlay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Larkins. I had a question. Did you want to, and I'm sorry if I missed this, did you request that the staff report and exhibits be included within the record? Did I miss that? Or would you like to include the staff report and exhibits in the record? I did not. I'll have to defer to Jessica Dockery for that question. Yes, we would like them in the permanent record. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Larkins? I have one clarification, Mr. Meadows. Ms. Larkins, you had indicated that the pool water itself is considered pervious. It's not counted in the impervious surface. And I just wanted clarification on that because my understanding was that because it's contained in concrete, it is actually in Durham considered to be impervious surface. And I just wanted to just make that one clarification, please. My understanding is that the pool water does not count. It is not considered part of the impervious surface. It is considered pervious. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I had one, Ms. Larkins. And I appreciate you explaining this. I just wanted to try to unwind this a little bit. So this is a plan development. This subdivision was approved as a plan development. Back in the day, there wasn't a requirement that a master plan be submitted. And so the city is using the final plat as the record for what's allowable in this plan development. Is that correct? That is correct. OK, fantastic. Would you happen to know? So I understand that as part of the final plat, the total amount of impervious surface was apportioned among the lots in the subdivision. Do you know what the total impervious surface was for the subdivision? Did it exceed the 24% threshold? Or where was that number at the time? So I do have those numbers. The final impervious surface count was 5.48 acres. And the total area of the site was 35.762 acres. That's with the site and the open space area. So that results in an impervious surface area of approximately 15.32%. So the subdivision is under that 24% level. Now that doesn't take into account if other lots have applied or it's been almost 20 years. So as far as the ground truth of the impervious surface area in that subdivision and what's been done or permitted or not permitted, we can't say. But at the time, it was well under that 24%. Thank you. So just to be sure, just to be clear, when it was approved, the subdivision as a whole was well under the allowable impervious surface. But we don't know today whether or not the subdivision as a whole complies with the 24% cap. That's true. Thank you. OK. At this point, I think Mr. Vandrick or Ms. Vandrick, I'm not sure who's going to be presenting. But if you would like to say a few words, that would be great. Perfect. Thank you very much. First thing I'll say, I'm super nervous. I have a 11-year-old boy who really wants a pool. So if my voice cracks, you can make fun of me. Reason we're here today and thank you very much for having us is the reason we're requesting this variance is this home itself, if you'll notice from what Ms. Larkin has presented, is we have a fairly large lot, especially in comparison to our subdivision. Our lot is over 15,000 square feet. And when you look at the total percentages, we were given approximately 15% of our total property allowed as impervious. And at Build, we were already at that. So we really were not given the opportunity to make any improvement or changes to our property whatsoever. And when it came down to looking for something we could do to our property to allow us and our neighbors to enjoy it more, one of the big things we talked about was a pool. And in the investigations and looking for a pool, we kind of unraveled this big confusing mess with all the impervious surface and the variations between the plot plans we've been given and the plot plan from the city. And ultimately, no matter what numbers you get, we're sitting anywhere from 13 and a half up to about 15% of our total property being as impervious and kind of locked to that number. And being in the Jordan Falls Lake watershed B protection area, we know we can technically go up to 24% if it was a private property and not within a subdivision. But really the basis for our request is to allow us to get closer to that 24% number. So we do have the opportunity to make some improvements for the enjoyment of our family and our neighbors. What we are actually asking for is closer to that 24% number, which in our case would be a run around 35 or 3600 total square feet of impervious. We don't plan on using all of it, but what we would like to do is put a small concrete deck around approximately one third to half of the pool because the other option, if we are only able to do the coping and the equipment would be wood decking, which we know of the saltwater pool would be constantly being replaced. So we'd like to put a small concrete deck if at all possible as well around it just to help with stabilization of the water flow around it. In our subdivision, there is a hundred homes exactly. We're actually one of the original purchasers in the subdivision, so I can't believe it's been 20 years already, but there are 19 of those homes are our model. And if you look at the lot sizes for our model specifically, half of those are under 10,000 square feet lot size. And they, according to the original plan have exactly the same amount of impervious we do. So for example, the smallest lot in the subdivision with our home size is only 8,050 square feet. So it's current impervious is the way it stands is at 28%. So almost double what we have. So we just want those numbers to be a little bit more in line with some of the percentages of our other neighbors to allow us to make some improvements given our lot size. What do you think, Jenny, was that? I would say that kind of thing is the same thing. We're not looking for anything grossly above. We're just kind of looking for somewhere around there that we can continue. We are, during public schools, we have made this our forever home. So we're not going anywhere. So just wanted to have that little bit of flexibility to do things and then to do things the right way. Because I think you spoke to, we don't know what everyone's done around the neighborhood, but wanting to ensure that if something is done, if something is built, it's done the right way. It's done correctly and with the board's approval, obviously. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants? And I think my little boy's message this morning was, please. Mr. Retzlis. Hi, Mr. Ramesses-Fandrick. There's no kind of community pool like that in the neighborhood. Just kind of curious why they were at their limit when they built this place out. I know a lot of communities have those in place. And also, my other question. Oh, so did you have something drawn up already? We had, very briefly, the builder we've already been in contact with said, until we can even address the impervious issue, he wasn't going to go through the plan of doing official architectural drawings just because it'll be dead in the water if we can't get an increased amount. The proposed pool location that Ms. Larkin showed you is a very good estimation of the location of the pool. It will be just a slightly larger pool than that, probably about five feet. And it will be a lagoon style instead of a kidney shape, but it's very close to being accurate as to what it will be. Gotcha. And have you researched any other kind of methods other than concrete? Yes, so the other things we went through is we looked at the options for how we could, first of all, the impervious surface, purchasing it from the neighbors. And that was kind of a non-starter because everybody has pretty much what they had at build. So nobody even had extra to give to us. So that wasn't even an option. We can't even build the pool if we can't even get enough for the coping and the equipment pad, which is approximately a three or four by six piece of concrete to put the heater and the pump and all that stuff on. So without anything, it's a non-starter. Other options besides concrete decking around it would really be either wood decking or the kind of fake wood decking, the PVC type decking. I think one of the challenges with that is our backyard, there's two challenges, is 100% sun. So I've already had to replace our current deck three times in 15 years because the sun beats it up so badly. And we know a saltwater pool would make that even worse. So we'd have to constantly be replacing that decking with new decking. And the other challenge with decking versus concrete is we know it's significantly hotter on the feet. So my little 11 year old, we were also worried when I'm burning his feet as he's running towards the pool. So that was kind of our thought process to make it more of a permanent structure for our enjoyment, for ease of use and ease of maintenance, a small concrete area around approximately half to one third of the pool because it won't surround the entire pool. It'll only be a small deck. It will not be up to 24%. We won't get that number yet. I understand, you thought this out. You very much so, yes. We tried. Yeah, I'm originally from Canada and you can't have pools up there because it's too cold. So the fact that I could maybe have a pool was very exciting. Got it, thank you. Other, Mr. Tarrant. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Mr. Vader, could you, and I may have missed this. I know the plat was recorded in 2003 based on what I've heard this morning. When, can you confirm when your house was built and you're your house was built, please? It was built in 2003 and we moved in was a December, Jenny of 2003. I think it was, it was November or September somewhere in that time, Brian. Yeah, we were the 15th house to close in the subdivision. Mr. Ocary. Yes, thank you. I want to add a little bit of extra information that we have recently learned. There was a period when stormwater limitations were enforced through the maximum allowable impervious surface limit per lot. And that was how they were assured that the stormwater control measures could handle all of the stormwater runoff for the entire development. And so that, the MAIS that was placed on this lot would have been part of those calculations. And an increase could potentially make those stormwater control measures less effective. Thank you. Other questions from the board for the applicants. And we will pretty much do whatever we need to do as well. I know I've also investigated other ways to increase impervious in a subdivision. One of the things I know you can do in pervious pavers which our subdivision does not allow to replace our driveway or our sidewalks with. We are even willing to do things such as a water garden somewhere in the property to help collect water instead of letting it runoff. So we're pretty much willing to do whatever it takes and whatever recommendations we can get to kind of offset what we're asking for. Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in support of this application? Seeing none. Is there anyone here who'd like to speak in opposition to the application? Okay. All right, thanks guys. Normally with variances, we do not hear a staff recommendation. So I'd like to go ahead and close the public hearing and move into discussion, okay? So one of the things that I am excited about doing as being your new chair is to do a little bit better job documenting the consistency with the findings. As you know, the variance has four findings that we need to make in order to approve the variance request. And so I'm really hopeful that we can discuss this request within the context of the findings. I'm also really keen on hearing from everybody if you have any thoughts or any questions at all. I hope that you will raise those. The chances are good that there's one or more members who have the exact same question you do. And for our long-term effectiveness, I think it's always good to have questions and discussions. So with that, are there any board comments, questions? Mr. Tarrant. I just hope to share some initial thoughts. I appreciate it, Mr. Meadows. I'm kind of on the fence with this particular application. I love that the applicant has been in this home for a long time and wants to continue to make improvements and continue to stay there. I think that's what we all want from our community and our residents here in Durham. I also understand how developers allocate and produce surface in these types of communities. And I also feel that you accept that, right? When you purchase a home in a community built by a national home builder. But I do feel that there are some odd things going on here. Right? I feel that, A, this was platted, it was approved, platted and the home was built prior to the effective date of the current EVO. I don't feel that the impervious surface had been appropriately or fairly allocated in all of the lots that it was clearing in the applicants summary and the materials that it was just a park launch, taking even the amount across lots. And so I think that in a sense provides a hardship. And I feel that in many ways that there's just some challenges that are beyond the applicants control that I could see or kind of weigh in as a hardship that may be familiar to this type of property. So those are just some initial thoughts and certainly appreciate some thoughts from the other board members. Thank you. Mr. Ratchalus. Yeah, I kind of concur with Mr. Tarrant. With the overall size of their lot, the 282 square foot, they want to add in proportion to that oversized lot they have is acceptable. I don't believe they were dealt a fair hand and the overall impervious surface is allotted from the builder and developer. So I think I'm gonna improve this. Thank you. I had a question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Ratchalus, just your thoughts about this. I think the applicant had, the application was filed with a request to increase the amount of impervious surface on the lot from what was recognized as 15% upwards to approximately 17%. And then we heard testimony and evidence today that the applicant might prefer to go to 24% impervious, which would be the threshold limitation where it's located. Does, if the applicant insisted that they would like to go up to 24% impervious, are you still of the same mind or is that a horse of a different color for you? Let me think about that. Okay. While you're... Mr. Meadows, just to provide some context to that with the written documents that we submitted at the time of the application, that's what we indicated is that we were asking for an additional 1500 square feet of impervious surface. We are not going to be using anywhere near that. But once we got back from Ms. Larkins that we were at the 2265, not the 2442 that we thought we were, I actually wrote in an addendum and sent it back to her saying that now that we know what our total impervious is according to the city, we're requesting an additional 1385, which would bring our total property up to 24% of impervious surface. But like I've said a couple of times we are not going to use that total 1385 for the pool. Between the pool coping and the decking, I think we're sitting somewhere around 700 or 800 additional impervious. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Terri, do you have another question? Your hand's up again. Yes, I just wanted to, I think your comments are spot on. I appreciate you making your remarks. I just, I think where my head is at is if we can confirm that the total build out of the neighborhood, the entire community was, I think it was at 15 and change percent versus the total 24%. There is, I feel there is some flexibility but to all of Ms. Dr. points about not knowing who might have added what, when and where and that the storm or control measures are designed for certain, each lot of design to drain to a certain drainage structure that feeds into that storm or control measures. So there may be extra burden put on those but I feel in the grand scheme of things this request is fairly negligible. Thank you. Other board members? No. Okay. Well, let me ask a couple of questions to the board. Our first finding is unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. Obviously the strict application of the ordinance would control the amount of impervious surface on this lot to an amount that's less than what the applicant wants. Certainly the site is already over what was anticipated in the final plat. So they're already in excess of what they were supposed to have. I don't think that's necessarily any fault of their own but that's neither here nor there. How do people feel about this notion that unnecessary hardship would result from a strict application? What's proposed here is a pool and some supplemental decking and so forth. Anybody have any, Mr. O'Toole? I'm sorry, sir, go ahead. Yeah, I've sort of been on the fence about whether to weigh in or not but there was a question earlier about whether a swimming pool is considered built upon area or not. And so I did look up the general statute that applies to this question just for the record. It's GS143-214.7 and to be clear impervious area or what the statute refers to as built upon area it specifically does not include a slatted deck for the area of a swimming pool. And so I just wanted to make the board aware of that. I know that there's a stated preference for concrete decking but I think we all know there are a variety of decking materials now and it is possible to accomplish some of what I've heard discussed today without increasing what the state law says is impervious area. So if it's a slatted deck or the area of a swimming pool that's not adding impervious decking. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole. Excellent. That sounds like it might solve some of our problems. Mr. and Mrs. Vandrick, what's your thought about the application of a condition to your variance request that your decking not be concrete but rather be slatted, be a decking material that has slats or is comprised of slats? Vinny, you wanna want me to take it? Sure. Okay. I think yes. We will do whatever it takes to allow us to put a pool in for my little boy and us to enjoy. Like I've mentioned before, our preference would be concrete just for ease of maintenance and ease of design. Our pool builder has also said it allows him to better control where the rainwater will go instead of underneath a wooden deck at poolside which you cannot actually visualize where the water is gonna be running but whatever it takes to let us do this. The other reason, one of the main other reasons we were asking for concrete as well as it's significantly cheaper as we well know compared to wooden decking and everything right now. Sure. Understood. Mr. Meadows, this is Jessica Dochery in the Planning Department. I just wanna point out that if there is no additional impervious if it's just the pool itself and decking then there is no need for variance and you would not need to vote. It could be withdrawn by the applicant. There is actually because we are at our impervious limit without the coping or the equipment pad that's required for the deck as well. So that coping no matter what you do you have to have a foot-wide coping all the way around the outside of the pool. And then our builder, the pool builder we've talked to, he says he uses a concrete pad to put the equipment on so it doesn't shift. Okay. Well, thank you for that clarification. You bet. So just a scooch. For the applicant and the board would it be agreeable to just grant a variance for those limited surface areas that Mr. Vandrick just described? I don't wanna speak for the board but I would be comfortable with that variance. And I think my question to that is I know the impervious surface is kind of calculated total subdivision as well as per property. If our entire subdivision was at 15 and change versus 24 which is the allowable limit in the area is there not that increased flexibility to give us an additional 600 or so to do a small concrete pad at that part of the pool by the shallow end and the deep end? This is Jessica from planning again. It's my understanding that in that era when stormwater control measures were calculated it would have been based on whatever that MAIS was. And so those stormwater control measures would be smaller to account for the smaller allowable impervious surface. So they're not set up to do the 24% most likely. So what you're saying is the storm drains themselves, the stormwater runoff area is calculated to that 15 and change? Yes, sir. Gotcha, okay, that makes me understand that. And I know I can't say it officially because I can't actually tell you that but we've been in the subdivision since it started and there's only been three homes that I think have done a paver patio or a shed in the backyard. So there's been very little improvement or changes done mostly because of the issue we're discussing today. But I think back to the original point or the question of if we would be comfortable than saying for the coping and for the amount for the two paths to place the equipment. If that's what the committee feels is best for the city and for everything else, I think that's definitely something that we could do. And as to that exact number we're kind of, I think it's, I'm not sure what the exact number is. Yes, and that's something we discussed in generalities with our builder. It's anywhere from 150 to 200 total to give us just a little bit of leeway. So that would be roughly it. I don't know how that would work with your, with kind of the documentation and all of that. Okay, so I definitely wanted to clarify for the record that this situation isn't one of the applicants making. You guys didn't create this. I agree with Mr. Tarrant that the total impervious surface was allocated in a way that did not necessarily represent lot size and or fairness. So I concur with that. I agree with Mr. Retzlis that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a significant increase. And frankly, I think that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to adjust their application for consistency with the spirit of the ordinance. So, I would support a motion that for approval of this variance with a condition that the amount of impervious surface be limited to the coping and the equipment pads necessary to serve the proposed pool with a maximum square footage of up to 200 square feet. That would be comfortable to me. Does anybody have any other ideas about that or suggestions? No. If not, I will entertain a motion. Do you want to do that motion, Chad, with that wording of the change of 200 square feet of the coping around the pool? That would make me comfortable. I think, yes, I would want to see that language incorporated into the standard motion language that we use. I'll second it if you word it correctly. Can I make the motion, Councilor? Is that okay? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. All right, so this is Meadows. I hereby make a motion that case number B220025 an application for a variance from impervious surface limits on property located at 902 Little Leaf Lane has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted to the following conditions. One, that the total amount of additional impervious surface be limited to that associated with coping around the pool and the two equipment pads necessary up to a maximum of 200 square feet of additional impervious surface on the lot. Rachel's here, second the motion. Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Go ahead, Teri. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Wrenchless? Yes. Tarrant? Yes. Bichain? Yes. Major? Yes. Pick it. Yes. And Colossus? Yes. Motion passes 8-0. All right, well, thank you very much. By vote of 8-0, your variance has been approved and conditioned with the approval. So thank you very much for coming before the Board of Adjustment. And thank you guys. And then do I work with Ms. Larkins just for paperwork and documentation for the pool building company? Yes, yes, just work with staff. You'll need to sign some paperwork. So thanks for coming before Board of Adjustment. Thank you guys. Have a good one. Bye-bye. All right, thanks, guys. I guess at this point, our last case was withdrawn. So we have any old business? Mr. Meadows, we do have, the orders were emailed very tardily this morning. I apologize to everyone. I think that you should have all of them now. If you would check your email and if anybody needs a moment to look at those before we vote. I do not have those. Does anybody else have them? I did not get them. Yes, I will say you will not be able to vote on B-25, B-22, 0-0, 0-25 today, the case that you just heard because of adding that condition. So you will be to vote on that at the next meeting. So I was looking at the approval of orders. I did not see 25 on our list today, but I agree that 25 is not on our, there's a handful here. Boy, this is way more complicated than it needs to be, but I don't see the order language up. There we go. Sorry about that. I was looking. It has come and saved today. I was looking and what had happened was, it was sent out to the BOA, but there's two BOA emails, there's BOA group and the BOA email that we have as a city and it was accidentally sent to the BOA staff instead of BOA group, which is you guys. So there was some error there, but I just sent them. So you should have them now. Sorry about that. No worries, Cole. So I did not see orders for 22 and 11. Those were ones I sent using Cole's email. So let me take the BOA email off and try it again. I think everybody used my email, so it probably didn't work. Awesome. Do you have any listener email just because you had an email? They're coming right now. Okay. Thank you for your patience. We apologize. It's been a crazy day, guys. So I appreciate that. I, Terry, when we're going through this, these cases actually span, well, they would have span three meetings, but they span two meetings. And we've had a lot of change in membership and a lot of sort of people who were absent or recused or whatever as we go. So as we move through these, I'm hoping that you can remind us, if you can, I can help out. What the case was, what the date was and what the seating was, because there's some folks who are not gonna be able to vote, et cetera. I have the seating. I went back and got the seatings. I don't have the dates. I got the dates. You guys are so efficient. It's cool. Are we ready? Sounds like my dogs are ready. Can I follow the first one, Terry? Yes. B20-00022. And seated for this case was Meadows, Wretchless, Tarrant, Pickett, and Colasa. Okay. And this was the appeal of the membership violation for the Durham Green flea market motion. That's correct. Is there a motion on this one? Wretchless motion. Wretchless, second. Colasa, seconds. Fantastic. Terry, would you wanna call it? Yep, Meadows. Yes. Wretchless. Yes. Tarrant. Pickett. Yes. Colasa. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Okay. Thank you. 22-00011. This is the balloon test variance. Back on the 21st. Who is seated for this one, Terry? Kip, Meadows, Wretchless, Bichain, and Major. All right. Motion. Anyone have one? Bichain, motion. Second. Major, second. Okay. Kip. Yes. Meadows. Yes. Wretchless. Yes. Bichain. Yes. Major. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. Passed on. Okay, 22-00014. This was a variance from the riparian buffer slash no-build setbacks for a deck that was proposed at 1608 Gunter Street back on the 21st of June. Terry, who's seated for this one? Kip, Meadows, Wretchless, Tarrant, and Bichain. All right. Is there a motion? Mr. Meadows, would you pause just a moment? It looks like we have an attendee in opposition. I need to confer with the attorneys to see if it's too late for us to have him come in. I believe it is, but I just want to hear from... Okay. One of our counsel. Jessica, is it someone who wants to speak on the approval of the order? I believe it was somebody who spoke during the actual hearing and is also here again to speak on objecting to the approval of the order being approved. That's appropriate. Okay. This isn't a public hearing, it's just the board approving its own order. Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted confirmation. Okay. Thanks, guys. Okay. So we were on 22-0-0-0-14, I think. And, Terri? Kip, Meadows, Wretchless, Tarrant, and Pickett. Okay. And is there a motion? Who was that? I'm sorry. Tarrant. Oh, thank you, sir. That's your second. All right, Kip. Yes. Meadows. Yes. Wretchless. Yes. Tarrant. Yes. And Pickett. Yes. I should pass this 5-0. Okay. The next one is B-2-2-0-0-0-1-6. This is a variance from the project boundary buffer standards at 1101 Andrews Road. I think this was like a attached single-family home development near 15501. This was on 628. Terri, what is the seating? Kip, Wretchless, Bichain, Meadows, and Pickett. Okay. Is there a motion? Bichain, motion. Yep, second. Okay, Kip. Yes. Okay. Wretchless. Yes. Bichain. Yes. Meadows. Yes. Pickett. Yes. Motion passes 5-0. All right. That's it for the orders. Before we adjourn, I had a question for staff. I, our next meeting is set for August 23rd at 830 in the morning. And I understand that we have been meeting virtually because of the governor's emergency order with respect to the pandemic. I understand that that may be lifted on August 15th or that we anticipate that it will be lifted. If the governor's order is lifted, what does that mean for us on August 23rd? At this time, we do expect to go in person from now on. And as part of that, we also will not have our YouTube channel version of our meetings. It will just be the audience that comes to the meeting that will have access to the information. Bichain, I just want to add to what Jessica said. The governor did sign something. So the order will be lifted as of August 15th, the emergency order. Okay. So, Board of Adjustment members, our days of remote meeting have come to an end, at least for now. Our next regular meeting will be Tuesday, August 23rd at 830 in the morning. Unless anybody has anything else, I will, I'll hear a motion to adjourn. And I understand you won't be there, Chad. Sadly, no, I will be taking my son to college. So there'll be a lot of weeping there in my family that day. So I, but my heart will be with you guys. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you for the big one in September. That's right. You better believe it. But you'll be recused. I will be recused, but I'll still be there. Okay. Sounds good. All right. We are adjourned, 951, Tuesday, the 26th. Thanks so much, guys. Thanks. Thank you. Go.