 Good morning and welcome to the January 25th, 2022 meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Jacob Rogers. I am the chair of the board. I'd like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and those cities unified development ornates. 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. On the screen you'll see 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 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 the link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I'd like to provide some important information about steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the board conducting the hearing using this platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each hearing that the participants and the hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this platform, the case will be continued. Notice of today's meeting was provided by publishing notice in the newspaper mailed to property owners within 600 feet of subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contain information on how the public can access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. These notices also contained information about about the registration requirement for the meeting, along with information about how to register. All individuals participate participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document or exhibit or other materials that they wish to submit at the 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 the city's staff's presentation and documents were posted to the on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of this order. All right, it's good to see everybody. All right, our next thing about the roll call. Kip. Here. Meadows. Present. OK, Pallada. I see you. Rogers. Here. Wretchless. Here. One more. Here. Major. Tarrant. Here. Bichain. Here. All right. Next on the agenda is adjustments to the agenda. Cole, do you have anything to add or are you going to mention anything? Yes, case B, 21, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1 and case B, 21, 0, 0, 0, 5, 5 have been postponed. All right, so we will hear we will hear three cases today. Roger's. This is Jessica Dockery of the Planning Department. There is also a change to the list of orders that we will hear today. We will not vote on B 21, 0, 0, 0, 4, 2. They've requested that we postpone that. All right, thank you. Cool. So we shall move forward. How about of. Taking a look at the hope everybody had the chance to take a look at the minutes from our December meeting. And assuming that you have, is there a motion for approval? Meadows, move approval of the December meeting minutes. Motion by Mr. Meadows. One more second. One more on the second. OK, Kip. Yes. Meadows. Yes. Polana. Yes. Rogers. Yes. Wretchless. Yes. One more. Yes. That's why I do the alternates as well on this one. Yes. OK, major. Tarrant. Yes. And Bushing. Yes. Bushing passes 80 right. Good deal. So let's move. Do we have folks? Oh, we do have attendance attendees here. So let's hear the first case. Terry, would you like to call it? Yes. Hold on. We've got somebody raise their hand. Here, this is Chris Peterson. Before we start, we have one individual calling in. I just want to see if we can identify them. They came in afterwards. The individual who called in with the phone number heading in 0343. Can you please identify yourself? Press star six on your phone. Identify yourself so we can bring you on the correct case. Hi, my name is Jeff Miller, and I don't have the case number in front of me. I'm just about five minutes from my house, but my address is 1408 Virginia Avenue. It's a B2100051 case. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you, Jeff. All right, that's all I needed, sir. So all right, that is the first case. Sounds like what we're hearing. Terry, would you like to call it? Yeah, it's a city case. It's a request for a minor special use permit for an addition onto the non-conforming structure. The subject is located at 1408 Virginia Avenue and it's zoned residential suburban eight. And it's in the urban tier. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time. And notarized affidavits verifying the signpostage and letter millions are on file. The subject, I mean, the seating for this case is, let's see. Kip, Meadows, Rogers, Ritchless, Waimawar, Paletta, and Tarrant. All right. Cole, would you like to? Well, I guess first I need to swear at everybody again. Sorry. Looks like we've got one person on this. Mr. Miller, I know we got you on the phone here. I want to assume that we can do this. But we'll need to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. All right, thank you, sir. Cole, you want to take it? Yes. Well, pull up my screen, too. OK, hold on. Good morning. I'm Cole Reniger, representing the planning department, planning staff requests to the staff board, and all material submitted to the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary correction as noted. So no, thanks. Sorry. B21-0051 is a request for a minor special use permit for an addition onto a non-conforming structure. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is an urban tier zone residential suburban, RS-8, and is within city of Durham's jurisdiction. The existing use is a single family dwelling. Jeffrey D. Miller, the applicant property owner, requests for minor special use permit to construct additions onto an existing non-conforming single family dwelling located at 1408 Virginia Avenue. The site is on residential suburban RS-8 and is an urban development tier. The applicant is proposing to construct to make the following modifications, expand, expand existing kitchen, add a new laundry room, and add a new office. The original building is an existing non-conforming structure as it does not conform to the current dimensional standards for one of the required street yards. As it is a corner lot, nor the side yard setback for the single family detached housing types per unified ordinance UDO section 7.1.2B, a minimum non-foot side yard setback, and 25-foot street yard are required for single family dwellings in the RSA Zoning District. The site plan illustrates the existing dwelling encroaches within the required side yard and the south side of the property and within the street yard along Pershing on the north side of the property. However, the proposed reconstruction does not protrude past the existing encroaching building lines. Therefore, no new encroachments are proposed. For UDO section 14.4.1C.4, additions to the non-conforming structure are permitted with a special use permit. So as long as the enlargement is the maximum increase of 10% of this existing square footage existing structure. According to the submitted foreplan, the applicant proposed construction of two additions with a total of 331 square feet of new floria. This results in an increase over 16% of the original 2034 square foot single family dwelling, which requires the issuance of a minor special use permit. Cole, the slide. And if the slides aren't progressing properly. I saw that they may- Pershing on 5104 Carrollwood Lane on my- Let me try resharing then. This should be right now. Is this now the right case? 1408, yes. Can I go to the next slide? Yeah, sorry. I can go through the- I don't want to go through the entire spill again. The whole spill again, but it's basically just- It's way in the cut. Right. Okay, and I'll upload the site plan. Okay. Can you start this slideshow so we can kind of zoom in on this? Oh yeah, I'm sorry about that. And if you guys need to pull up a larger form of this last slide, I can. Yeah, I'm just assuming that nobody's got any of this material printed out in front of them. So does anybody have any questions for Cole? Mr. Miller, would you like to come forward and tell us a little bit about your project? Is he still with us? Yes. I switched over to the computer. Are you able to hear me? We are. Yeah, I'm bringing in Mr. Miller as a panelist now. He switched over. Okay, can you hear me? We got you. Thank you. Yes, I would be glad to tell you about the project. I don't want to be redundant. I think Cole has summarized it very succinctly. If you'd like, I can go a little bit deeper or if you'd like to just ask some questions, I'm also open to that. Well, Mr. Meadows, you got a question? I do, Mr. Chair. As long as the applicant's done. Sounds like he's open to questions, yes. All right, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Miller. Just a quick question for you regarding what's happening on the south side of the lot. That's the side that's got the new, I guess that's the office in the screened-in porch that's going in. Can you tell me a little bit more about what is along your southern lot line and whether or not you've had any conversations with the neighbors at 1406? Yes. I don't think you can see my arrow, so I will talk to you. My neighbors are Debbie and Paul and they live just to the south. We share a hedge that separates the property and where this addition is, there is also a wax myrtle tree and so it provides some natural buffer between the houses. Going towards the right on this page as you go back towards the screened porch, there is a hedge that is not trimmed the way you might see more traditionally. It's just kind of overgrown which provides again some natural buffer between our two houses. Thank you. Mr. Miller, one of the things I forgot to ask would you like to have all of your filings and your testimony today incorporated into part of the record? Yes, please. Yeah, okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Miller? Cole, one question just for the group and you mentioned this, but just for reiteration. Why is this case before us? Why is this triggering a minor special use permit? So additions are allowed to be added to non-conforming instructions for 10%. Anything greater than that requires MSRP. So the additions to this non-conforming structure result in 16%. So that's what MSRP is required for. The additions are over the 10% requirement or 10% that can be approved administratively for this non-conforming structure. Right. All right. Any other questions for Cole or the applicant? Cole, do you have a recommendation for the group? Staff recommends approval of case B2110052 all right, accordance with all the material submitted to me. All right, thank you. Would you mind us stop sharing for a moment so we can everyone can see each other. All right, is there any discussion on this case? Potts, what do you think? I have a lot of respect for Belladamas. I've worked with them in the past on other projects and I found them to be very thorough and knowledgeable. So I think that they do their homework and I'm comfortable that they've done the best they can do within the framework of the existing regulation. So I'm inclined to support this. Thank you. Mr. Tang. Yeah, I think given that the encroachments are not increased in the addition, the additions are not exceeding the current building height appeal. This proposal remains consistent with the neighboring properties and in that respect is in harmony with the area. Additionally, there's no real change to the use or access to the property. And therefore I think the review factors for the MSRP have been adequately addressed as presented in the application materials. Anyone else? Would anybody like to... Oh, Dave, David. A big factor that I found in the materials is there's no increase in the non-conformity and I concur with the comments of the other board members. So I have no issues with this proposal. Does anyone else have anything to add? Anyone like to offer a motion? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Mr. Meadows. I hear by make a motion that application number B210051 an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 1408 Virginia Avenue has successfully met the applicable requirements to the unified development ordinance. And it's hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, the improvements should be substantially consistent with all plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. All right, we've got a motion by Mr. Meadows for approval. Is there a second? Kip, second. Ian Kip on the second. Terry, take it away. Kip. Yes. Meadows. Yes. Rogers. Yes. Wretchless. Yes. One more. Yes. Helena. Yes. Terrence. Yes. Motion passes. Seven. Seven zero, yeah. I vote of seven to zero. Your minor special use permit has been approved. We appreciate you coming for the BOA this morning and wish you the best of luck. Thank you very much. Have a good day. You too. Terry, would you like to call the next case? Yes, it's a county case. It's a request for a minor special use permit to allow for a government facility in a residential zoning district. The subject is located at 7305 Leesville Road. It's its own residential rule and it's in the suburban tier. And this case has been advertised for the required period of time and no rise to affidavits. Bear up on the signpostings and letter mailings are on file. All right. Do you want to clarify seating or not? Seating for this case is Kip Meadows, Rogers, Wretchless, one more, Poletta and Terrence. All right. Okay, thank you. Everyone who plans on giving testimony. Ed McLean, I'm seeing you on here. Would you please raise your right hand to the William Minister of the Oath. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. All right, thank you. Cole, you want to take it? Yes. Make sure I have it right this time. Is this what you, do you guys see case B210053 before I start? That's it. Okay. Good morning, Dan. I'm Cole Reniger, representing the plan department, planning staff request, staff report non-material submitted the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted, thank you. Case B210053 is a request for minor special use permit to allow for a government facility in a residential zoning district. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is in a suburban tier, is on a residential rural and is within Durham County's jurisdiction. The existing use it was previously a fire station and Ed McLean, the applicant request for minor special use permit to allow for a government facility in a residential zoning district. The previous use was a fire station and the proposed use is a storage building for mobile dental office operated by the county which is considered a government facility for all government facilities and residential zoning district and MSUP will be required. The subject property is located in the rural residential zoning district in the suburban tier per unified development ordinance studio section 5.1.2. Government facilities located in ours on districts require minor special use permit. The proposed government use will be continuation of government use on site but will be storage for mobile dental truck. Parking, trash and wastewater disposal will be the only associated uses with this truck. And I see that Chad has a question. Yeah, Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Cole. I'm confused about what's happening. There's a building that was a fire station. Obviously it's no longer a fire station. I'm sorry, you. And there's going to be a mobile dental facility that's stored inside the building and then assumedly that vehicle will exit the building and provide service in different locations or will people be coming to the building to go inside the mobile dental facility? So the mobile dental facility will not be operating inside the building. So it will leave the building to service people. However, the reason it's considered a government use is because the mobile dental office is a county service. It's something that the county, it's a county mobile dental truck, if that makes more sense. So it's considered a government use because it's parking there. But there was no previous minor special use permit to allow for a government facility when the fire station opened. So that's why it's required now because during the time the ordinance was created, it wasn't required, but now that the ordinance has changed, it is required. And since they're adding a new government use, that's why the minor special use permit is required. Okay, one last question. I noticed that there's a addition of, I guess it's maybe some paid parking and I understand it's a question for the applicant. Question I have for you is there's, looks like there's inclusion of bike racks. I'm curious about, essentially this is just a, I think it's a place to a storage use. So I'm confused about why there's bike racks here. So bike racks aren't, they're not associated with use, they're associated with square footage. So we do try to reach greater conformity. So in this zone district bike racks are required. So they're shown because the requirement on the site plan standards, not necessarily because they're going to be used or not, but it's because it is required. And when we try to bring properties that are older, that aren't conforming to greater conformity, then we tend to ask for stuff to bring it into greater conformity. So bike parking is a requirement that's based on the site plan standards, not actually, and based on square footage, not exactly they use. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for Cole? All right. Then would Ed, would you want to explain anything else on the project? I think Cole covered it well, the same as before and I'm open to questions. All right. Any questions for Mr. McLean? Mr. Kip? Yes. Just, I mean, this isn't just a sort of a point of clarification. I mean, could this vehicle be parked somewhere else? Does it need to have its own garage and structure? It just seems like it's sort of a large building and property for a storage use. Right, right. So currently they're also using it for storage. They store some mobile trailers in there for the, I think it's EMS and Fire already. And currently the truck is stored on like 50 East Main Street. And since they're getting ready to redevelop it, this is where the county has decided to store. Okay, gotcha. I have another question. On the staff analysis number F2F, talks about a new proposed septic line is being added for a blackwater disposal. What is blackwater? Blackwater is just any of the wastewater from the RV. So anything that comes from the dental procedures that will empty into the septic field. Okay. So there's a new septic field being... There's an existing septic field and we're just gonna provide a sewer lateral to it so the RV can dump into that. Gotcha. Thank you. Yep. Chad? Thank you. I see from the site plan, there's approximately nine existing parking spaces. It looks like they are unpaved. I assume these will be gravel spaces. You're keeping them just because they're there or because of the size of the building, you're not anticipating that there'll be nine vehicles out on this site. Is that right? Could you just talk a little bit more about how this works? Somebody comes and parks their car and then drives the RV to where services will be provided. Am I thinking about that correctly? Yeah, that's correct. I think there's probably two to four employees at a time. So two to four people will park down there to get the RV, go to wherever they're offering services for the day and then come back at the end of the day and that'll be it. Well, are there offices or will any part of the existing building be utilized for this activity other than simply storage of the vehicle? I think there's an existing kitchen or kitchenette in there. I assume maybe they'll just use that for maybe some cleanup at the end of the day, but that's about it, no office use or anything like that. Thank you. All right, Mr. McLean, would you like all of your testimony and written evidence to be part of the record? Yes, please. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Cole, do you have a recommendation for the group? Yes, staff recommends approval of case B-21-0053 based with all the presented evidence and it falls in line with the site plan. All right, any discussion among board Tisha? I have a question, I think for Cole or the county, are there requirements for any kind of additional waste removal? I mean, dental procedures are different than regular garbage. So I was just wondering how that would be handled. I'm sorry, I missed part of the question, my internet froze, could you repeat it? Sure, I'm just wondering if there are any additional requirements for any waste disposal, seeing that dental waste is different than regular residential pickup? Right, so we had our Waste Management Department review this and they didn't bring up any concerns they had with the wastewater disposal. And also county utilities review it. Okay, that's what I was wondering. Okay, so then there's just regular garbage trucks gonna pick up the waste? Correct. Okay. Any other questions? No. Brian? So just to respond to Ms. Weymour, I actually am familiar with the tooth fairy since I represent the health department. So I just wanted to give you a little bit of background on it. It's basically a mobile dental clinic. And so all the hazardous waste that they may have is disposed of just as if they would have disposed of it if it were at the health department or some other facility. So they would have hazardous waste containers and then they would dispose of that as hazardous waste. So it wouldn't actually be disposed of in the regular trash. So there's nothing that would accept them from complying with the hazardous waste required. Thank you. That's what I was getting at. I'm a former dental assistant. I see what goes in the chat. None of that would change. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. All right. Any other questions before or discussion? This is Chad. I mean, I think this is a less intense use in thinking about impact to adjacent neighbors. Perhaps, I think intuitively it feels like it would be less intense than use as a fire station. So with respect to that, I think it's a positive. There's a significant amount of landscaping that's proposed. I guess on the northwest side of the parcel that buffers the existing house next door. I wonder if at some point in the future this use might convert to something else. And if so, I assume if an additional use permits required, then that would come back at that time. So I don't really have too much trouble thinking this is a positive use of an existing vacant building. Thank you. I agree with you. There is a, this board actually approved the fire station that's down the road from this site on Leesville, maybe four, five years ago on that, I remember sitting in on that case. So there's still services out there. But, you know, if that was ever a concern, but in close proximity rather, but yeah, I agree with you, Mr. Meadows. Any other discussion points or thoughts? So you want to offer a motion? It's Tarrant, I'll make the motion. Hereby make a motion that application number B210053, an application for minor special use permit to allow for a government facility in a residential zoning district and property located at 7305 Leesville Road that successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with all information submitted to the board as part of the application. All right, we have a motion for approval by Mike Tarrant. Is there a second? Meadows second. Meadows on the second, Terry. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Rogers? Yes. Ratchless? Yes. Weymour? Yes. Poletta? Yes. And Tarrant? Yes. A motion passes 7-0. By a vote of 7-0, your minor special use permit has been approved. We appreciate you coming for the BOA this morning and wish you all the best of luck. All right, thank you. All right, Terry, if you want to call the next one. Yep, it's the city case. It's a request for a variance from the rear yard setback. The subject is located at 5104 Carroll Woodland. It's on PDR 3.440 and FJ-B watershed overlay and it's in the suburban tier. The seating for this case, oh, this case has been advertised and for the required period of time and notarized affidavits are on, verify on the sign postage and the letter mail-ins are on file. Seating for this case is Kip, Meadows, Rogers, Ratchless, Weymour, Poletta and Tarrant. All right, well, let's swear in the applicants on this one. If you'll raise your right hand, you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting? I do. All right, thank you, sir. Cole, we can't hear you. Good morning, I'm Cole Rinderger again. I represent in the planning department, planning staff requests to the staff report and all materials submitted at the public hearing to be made part of the public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted, thank you. Case B-21-000, it's supposed to say 5-4. The applicant is Matthew Ruderoy's. The site is in the urban tier, zoned residential suburban and is in the city of Durham jurisdiction. Their request is for a minor special use permit for an addition onto an online performing structure. Sorry, rear yet, it's a variance for a rear yard setback. Sorry about that. The existing use is single family dwelling. Give me one moment, I think. Matthew Ruderoy's on an applicant requests the variance of five feet from the rear yard setback requirement of 25 feet. The subject property is on planning development residential PDR and in the suburban development tier and in the Falls of News Jordan Lake protected area, the slot was plated prior to the coordinate ordinance. At the time, the lot was plated. We had an old ordinance in effect, which was section 24-6.1.4a.2. And at the time that required the rear yard setback of 25 feet, the applicant is requesting a five foot variance for the rear yard result to get a 20 yard rear yard setback. The applicant wishes to tear down existing deck and construct a new covered porch and deck along the width of the rear of the hall. And then I do have additional photos. So at this time I'm gonna stop screen share and just, I'll go back to this, but just so you guys can see the photos the applicant submitted, I'm gonna share those now. And I'll go through them slowly. And if you need me to go back to a picture, just let me know. And then I'll take questions. Mike, I see you've got a question. Yes. It looks like the new deck includes a screened-in porch, which I assume is covered. Does that pose any issues with maximum allowable and pervious surface for the watershed? So it doesn't. The screened-in porch is actually, I believe, I'll let that applicant expand us more. I believe it's actually over, it's gonna be where the existing deck is. And that's, and normally decks are allowed to encourage into the rear yard setback, but when it changes to a covered porch, it becomes part of the structure, which are not allowed to encourage from the setbacks. So I don't think the actual location of the porch is in the deck is changing. It's just gonna be a screened-in porch. But like I said, I'll let the applicant expand more on that. All right. Any other questions for Cole before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none, seeing none. Matthew, root of worries, would you like to tell us a little bit about the project? Sure, so thanks to Cole and the staff for putting the analysis together and thanks to the board for hearing the application. So as you've probably noted in the materials, the request is for a variance to demolish the existing rear deck and replace that with a covered porch and side, covered porch and a side deck. So the application requires variance because we would like to build the covered porch to a distance of 20 feet from the setback rather than the required 25 feet. Ultimately, if we were to construct the rear covered porch in conformance with the UDO, it would only allow us to have about five feet of width on the covered porch, which isn't really feasible. Hence the request for the variance. I think there was a question earlier about the impervious surface area. Wasn't sure whether that was answered, but we did submit an application to the city for a normal building permit and that's where the question about the variance ultimately started and we didn't receive any comments on anything about the impervious area in what was initially submitted. So my guess is that that is not an issue, but ultimately I feel that what was submitted speaks for itself and the staff has put together a good analysis. So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to take those. All right, thank you, sir. Chad, get your hand up first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. And I just had a few questions about what's going on inside the house and the reason that I'm asking these questions is I wanna understand a little bit more about why it's necessary for the screened in porch to be in its proposed location. It looks like there may be the possibility of accommodating some sort of structure to the west or on the west side of the existing home I know that you're not proposing that and I'm wanting to hear a little bit more about why the screened in porch must go in the location where you're proposing it. Sure, so you're right that there's a little bit of buildable area in the Northwest as shown on the survey. The reason that we would prefer and the only buildable location is where we've submitted is due to the integration with, as you noted, the inside of the home. So on the backside of the home there, the door that leads to the existing deck is about eight feet up. So building in that location in the northwest would require us to reorient the location of the door to the northwest side or create a set of stairs that runs all the way around the backside of the house down to the screened in porch to that location because the elevation on that northwest side is very different than where the proposed structure is based on how high it is over on that side of the home. So the proposed location is certainly the best integration with the existing layout of the home. We also have a chimney over on that northwest side of the property. I think you can see the cantilever there that's shown on the survey. So building a screened in porch there and accommodating that would pose a challenge. So we feel that the most feasible location to build is the location of the existing deck. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Rechels. Yes, hi. Have you talked with your neighbors about this? Is it something in the positive light of what you're trying to do? I haven't had any formal conversations with the neighbors about the application itself, informal conversations about our intent to pursue such a project. We have submitted the application to our homeowners association and that was approved a lot of the pictures and application materials that you see here of our neighbors as well and was approved. I would also say that the structure itself a screened in porch of the design that we're proposing is pretty prevalent in the development in the neighborhood more broadly including the folks just off of the rear line of our property have a pretty similar structure. So in summary, no formal conversations with neighbors about the application itself but certainly haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that it wouldn't be viewed positively. And you're saying that the HOA is okay with this? Yes, we submitted a formal application to the Hope Valley Farms Homeowners Association and that was formally approved. Well, it's certainly being done right from the plans you've provided and thank you. Thank you very much. All right, any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Cole. We do not get any recommendation from staff on this one. Is there any discussion? Is there anyone in opposition to this? Well, that's something I should ask. Is there anyone in the opposition of this? Seeing nobody else on the attendee list, so not Dave? I'm not in opposition. I just wanted to comment that on this one, I found the photos that the property owners submitted are very helpful to me to understand what was going on. And so I just wanna say that was a good, those photos were very useful. Thanks and I don't have any issues. Anyone else? Regulus here. Yeah, I mean, under the plans he provided, it's certainly being done aesthetically correct. I don't think this will be any kind of eyesore and it being elevated definitely doesn't encroach any problems with impervious services. So I'm definitely for this. Right. Mike, can you see the meadows? Oh, hold on, Mike had his hand up first. That's fine, appreciate it. Yeah, I think just given that this parcel was recorded prior to the adoption of the current UDO, those are some challenges for sure. I think if this was designed, the subdivision was designed in using today's regulations and standards and requirements and so forth, there'd probably be a little bit more breathing room for decks and patios and so forth. So given that justification for a hardship, I'm inclined to support this application. Mr. Redis. Thank you. I wanna pick up on what Mr. Tarrant said and also there is a location on the site that such a porch could be. So backing up, complying with the requirements would render a screened in porch of five feet in width, which is not necessarily reasonable. And there is a location on the site that could potentially accommodate a screened porch of the size that's proposed. However, locating the porch in that particular spot would necessitate removal of a chimney, would necessitate removal of a door or installation of a door in a perhaps an inoperable or in desirable location and undesirable location inside the house. So I think that the site conditions are such with respect to the topography, with respect to the existing structure, through no fault of the owner, got a difficult site to deal with and this is a reasonable solution that is as close to the intent of the ordinance as I think they're able to do. So I'm inclined to support it as well. All right, anyone else? Does anyone want to offer a motion? Regulus, I hereby make a motion that case number B2100054, an application for request for a variance from the rear yard setback on property located at 5104. Carol Wood Lane successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby granted subject to filling conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. All right, we have a motion for approval by Mr. Regulus. Is there a second? I'll second. Dave Paletta on the second. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Rogers? Yes. Richless? Yes. Weymour? Yes. Paletta? Yes. Tarrant? Yes. Motion passes 7-0. All right, by a vote of 7-0, your request for a variance has been approved. We appreciate you coming before the BOA this morning. Wish you the best of luck. Thanks, everyone. All right, moving on. We do know that is the end of our case load for today. I don't see anything on the agenda for old business or new business. So let's move on to the approval of orders. So the first one we have here is B, all right, again, I would need a motion and a second for each one of these and we gotta go through the ordeal. So the first one being B210051. I believe Chris does send everybody a copy of that order. Oh, no, that's 5-2. Sorry. Is there a motion for approval on this one? Meadows, move approval. Rachel, a second. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Paletta? Yes. Rogers? Yes. Richless? Yes. Blimey Moore? Yes. And I'm not sure about the alternates. I believe it's Natalie looking. I don't, it wasn't me for the, it wasn't me. I don't have the minutes pulled up. I guess I can do that. Oh, let me see. I'm gonna be on the list for a quick. B210051 is from today. So I believe it's Major and Terrent. Okay. So Big Terrent. I don't think it was, yeah, okay. Yes. Motion passes 7-0. All right. B210052, a motion for approval on this one? Meadows, move approval. One more second. And I just dropped in the chat, the folks who were seated and can vote for this one. Thank you for that. Okay. Who made a motion? I'm sorry. Meadows and then Weymore made the second. Okay. Okay. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Paletta? Yes. Rogers? Yes. Richless? Yes. Weymore? Yes. And I'm gonna bring up the chat. Major? Major? Yes. Okay. Right. Motion passes 7-0. All right. These next two were today as well. B210053, who wants to offer the motion on that one? Weymore, let's move to approve. All right. Is there a second? Retro second. Retro on the second. Okay. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Kip? Rogers? Yes. Richless? Yes. Weymore? Yes. Okay. Paletta? Yes. And was this one major too? No. Tarrant? Tarrant. Okay. Tarrant? Yes. 7-0. All right. One more. B210054, our last case. Just a moment ago. Who wants to take motion on this one? Retro. Retro. Move to approve. Second. Who wants to do that? Kip second. Kip? Okay. Kip? Yes. Meadows? Yes. Paletta? Yes. Rogers? Yes. Richless? Yes. One more. Yes. And Tarrant? Yes. Motion passes 7-0. All right. This is the first time in a very long time where I think we've got through at least three, well, three cases and approval of orders in an hour. We're right at an hour. Cool. All right, guys. Our next meeting is February 22nd at 8.30. And unless anybody has anything else to add, I'll see you then.