 We are live. Good morning. The meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the December 15th, 2020, meeting of the Durham Board of Adjustment. My name is Jake Rogers. I am chair of the board. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are conducting this meeting using a remote electronic platform as permitted by session law 2020-3. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body that is governed by the North Carolina General Statutes and the city's unified development ordinance. The board typically conducts evidentiary hearings on requests for variances, special use permits, among other requests. Today's meeting will proceed much like an in-person meeting of the Board of Adjustment. On the screen, you'll see members of the board, additionally planning staff and representatives of the city and county's attorneys offices are attending in the remote meeting. Applicants, proponents, and opponents are required to register in advance and are also attending the remote meeting. When a case is called for its hearing, 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 a link to this broadcast is on the website for the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin the evidentiary hearings on today's agenda, I would like to provide some important information about the steps taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in the remote platform. Each applicant on today's agenda was notified that this meeting would be conducting using a remote electronic platform. During registration, every applicant on today's agenda consented to the Board conducting the evidentiary hearing using the remote platform. We will also confirm at the start of each hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any adjudging 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 the subject properties, posting a sign at the property and posting on the city's website. The newspaper website and mailed notices for today's meeting contained information how the public can access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. These notices also contained information about the registration requirement for the meeting along with information about how to register. All individuals participating in today's hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document exhibit, or other materials 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 staff's presentations and documents were posted on the Board of Adjustment website as part of the agenda. No new documents will be submitted during today's meeting. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Durham Superior Court. Anyone in the audience, other than the applicant who wishes to receive a copy of the formal order issued by this board on a particular case must submit a written request for a copy of the order. I have a little puppy who I'm fostering and you may hear her cry in a minute. She is not interested in being in the crate so we're gonna see how this goes and I'll try to mute myself as much as I can. Madam Clerk, will you call the roll? Mr. Rogers. Here. Mr. Meadows. Here. Mr. Lacey. Here. Ms. Jeter. Mr. Kip. Mr. Ritchless. Here. Ms. Weymour. Here. Ms. Major. Mr. Tarrant. Here. Ms. Bichin. Here. All right, it looks like we have seven members present and everyone present will be hearing today's cases. So we are lucky to have seven here. First thing on the agenda or really third thing on the agenda here are the approval from the minutes of the minutes from the December 8th meeting. Is there a motion? Meadows, move approval. All right, Mr. Meadows. Will they see second? Thank you. Susan, you want to call? Yes, Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Ritchless. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. And I don't think Ms. Bichin was seated and I don't think Mr. Tarrant was seated. Lacey, they were in attendance. So shouldn't they be allowed to vote on it? Sure. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Ms. Bichin. Yes. All right. Motion here is seven to zero. Good deal. So let's dive into the cases. Susan, you want to call the first case? Hey, speed to 00036, a request for minor special use permit to allow a parking reduction greater than 20%. The subject site is located at 5310 South Austin Avenue, is zoned office and institutional and in the suburban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And to verify the seating for this case, it is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Wymore, Mr. Tarrant and Ms. Bichin. All righty. So everyone who plans to give testimony on this case, we'll need your camera on to do the oath. Mr. Chandler, all right, we got you too. All right, if you'll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do, I do. Did I get everyone? All right, and do you all consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes, sir. Yes. All right, Eliza, do you have this one? Yes, I do. I'm gonna go ahead and take it away. Good morning, everyone. Eliza Monroe here representing the planning department. Planning staff does request that the staff report and all material submit at the public hearing to be made part of public record with any necessary corrections as noted. Thank you. Case B2000036 is a request for a minor special use permit to allow the parking reduction greater than 20%. The applicant is for math associates PA and the subject site is located at 53010 South Austin Avenue. The case area is highlighted in red on the screen. The site is within the suburban tier, zoned office and then just institutional and is in the city's jurisdiction. The site area is currently a commercial center that has three total buildings and those three buildings of them, two of the businesses are existing and the third use or business life international is what's going in and requesting the parking reduction. Let me go to the site plan sheet. Very unified development ordinance section at 10.3.1B.10, except for within the compact neighborhood tiers, reductions of more than 20% of the required motor vehicle parking shall require the approval of a minor special use permit. Staff would like to note that the UDO requirements have changed since the application was originally submitted. So this applicant came in just before that happened. So technically they would no longer need a minor special use permit, but because of the date that they came in with their site plan, they are here before you today. The site plan, which is attachment four on your packet D200106 is currently under review and proposes the addition of two van accessible handicap faces to the existing 245 motor vehicle spaces for a total of 247 parking spaces on the site. The site currently has three separate buildings, two office buildings, which are gonna be these two here, existing building one and existing building two. Those are the two office building and then existing building three is the building that Life International would use. The total required parking spaces for all three uses equals 375 spaces. The applicant is requesting a 34% reduction from the required amount. The applicant has submitted a parking agreement between the three tenants, which corroborates their claim in terms of that there is enough parking for the three uses and that there is an agreement between the three uses. And they've also provided a parking demand study, which the applicant will go over in greater detail later on. The uses onsite are not under review with this use permit and are permitted by a right within the zoning district. Today we're just addressing the parking reduction request. UDO section at 3.9.8 A and B established four findings and 13 review factors that the applicant must meet in order for the board to grant a use permit. These findings and review factors are identified in the staff report and the applicants responding to the findings and review factors are identified in the application. All of this, which was in the packet that was available on the agenda. Staff will be available for any questions as needed throughout the hearing process. And staff will also be in control of the screen for Lynn and everyone if you need me to pull up a specific document or attachment. I do see some hands raised. So I'll turn over the floor to those individuals. So it looks like we've got Chad Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Eliza. Thank you. So this applicant submitted this application prior to a text amendment that basically changes the rules such that a minor special use permit is no longer required. Is there some reason why they weren't allowed to simply withdraw the application and go forward with what does I assume a staff review? If they would have withdrawn, they would have had to then be compliant with all new text changes and amendments. And at this time, we were still pushing forward. That would have, at the time, they're kind of in the later part of their review. So that would have possibly opened them up to another review and a longer review period. They were towards the end when the text amendment went through. I see. But today, had this come in today, notwithstanding any other issues, if this application were filed, it would not require a review by us. If they were able to meet the new standards. So previously, it was a 20% parking reduction. You could do up to 5% if you had like bike parking. You could get another 5% reduction if you had access to a bus stop or some type of public transportation. And then you could also use, there's one other method as well. And that could total up to 20%. And then anything over 20% would come to the Board of Adjustment. Now you have to use a conglomerate of those different things to get to up to a 30% reduction. This site is already built, already kind of in existence so that would have resulted in them adding quite a few different things. And it could have potentially still needed some type of review from you all, whether or not to be a variance from the parking requirements or a minor special use permit. So it's a little bit strange how it happened to happening by one to be totally transparent that they just barely missed it. I see. Liza, this is Tim Cyvers. Can I provide some clarity on that as well? Permitted? Yes. Okay, this is Tim Cyvers for Beth Associates. One clarity item. I do wanna know, Liza, I know you're very familiar with this plan, but in fact, you did know it was building three is the church. It is actually existing building one is the church location, not building three. So I did wanna clarify that. I think it was just a misspoke item. So do wanna clarify that the building, existing building one is where the church will be located. And as for the parking reduction, it's a 34% reduction. So we would still need to be in front of the board today for that additional 4% if it was a new application based on today's ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Liza? I don't see any other hand raised. So please feel free to unmute yourself. All right, here, none seeing none. Tim, are you the one? Are you? Yes, again, good morning. Tim Cyvers with Horvath Associates. Lynn Mitchell will actually be making the presentation this morning and I'm available for any questions along the way, thank you. Take it over, Lynn. Good morning, thanks, Tim. Good morning, everyone. My name is Lynn Mitchell. I'm with Horvath Associates, 16 consultant place in Durham. And I'm here representing Michael Naylor of Life International, formerly known as Life Community Church. I'm a landscape architect registered with the state of North Carolina, license number 2031. We respectfully ask that all testimony and exhibits become a part of the public record of these proceedings, please. So noted, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, planning staff for your assistance and coordination in preparing our petition. Liza, you did a great job of presenting our petition. So I'd like to only highlight a few specific items and reiterate some things that Tim said. This slide plans up. Let me explain the basics of the layout again as it relates to this petition. This project is located at 5310 South Alston Avenue, east of T.W. Alexander and between highways 54 and 55. Life International is in the process of refitting the interior of their building, building one as a place of worship. Associated with these improvements are the addition of a fire line, a fire line, excuse me, a small storage shed, bicycle parking, landscaping to help screen the parking area and improve existing buffers, restriping of parking spaces to provide additional ADA spaces, as well as reconstruction of ADA ramps so that they are in compliance with ADA and ProWag requirements and guidelines. The site plan for these improvements, case D21006 is currently in review and has received staff approval contingent upon the results of today's hearing. The hours of operation for Life International are Sunday services, Wednesday evening services after 6 p.m. and some periodic events outside of normal business hours, which are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. There are two other existing buildings, buildings two and three, that share the parking lot with Life International. Both are offices whose hours of operation are normal business hours, weekdays 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The total parking provided per site plan D21006 is 247 spaces. Based on the parking requirements for houses of worship and offices, the total required parking for this site is 375 spaces. As stated in UDO section 1031B9A, proposed developments with two or more uses can reduce the total minimum parking requirements by a maximum of 30%, 20%. If the peak hours for each use do not overlap and the proposed amount of parking is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demands for each of the uses at peak hours. In our case, the allowed 20% reduction in parking is 75 spaces. At 30%, it's 112 spaces. So this request in front of you today is to allow a parking reduction of an additional, I'm going at 30%, 4.13% are only 16 parking spaces for a total reduction of 128 spaces or 34.13% through shared parking. As Mr. Joshua Rankie of Ramey Kemp will testify when he presents Ramey Kemp's parking demand study for this case, the peak hours for each of our uses do not overlap and the proposed amount of parking is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demands for each of the uses at peak hours. The proposed reduction in parking will not adversely affect the health or safety of the public. The proposed reduction in parking will have no impact on the site's lighting, utilities, open space or environmental protection of stream buffers or tree coverage areas. The proposed parking reduction will have no impact on surrounding properties. And finally, the proposed parking reduction is in harmony with the area and will not be substantially injurious to the value of properties in the general vicinity. Mr. Jim Chandler of Chandler Property Group is also with us today to make a brief presentation and he will be available for any questions as well. We appreciate your time this morning and I ask that you vote in favor of our petition for the parking reduction of 34.13% for our project at 5310 South Alston Avenue. I'm available to answer any questions before I turn it over to Mr. Rankie. Thank you, Lynn. Any questions for Lynn at St. Tuck? We've got Chad, you wanna question? Quick one and you don't need to answer it now if you would answer it later or at some point when some of the other speakers are talking. Just if you wouldn't mind highlighting any of the elements that you incorporated in the site plan to help address the reduction. I know you've done a parking demand study and I know there's a shared parking agreement. If you wouldn't mind at some point through the process, if you provided any other features or any other amelioration that would be great if you could note that. Thank you. I can speak to that now, Mr. Meadows. Life International and the two offices have signed a parking agreement amongst themselves to share parking. And as such, we have, as a part of that agreement, they have left parking spaces during their peak hours that will be reserved for the office buildings two and three. And in order to accommodate that and to have ADA parking for that, we are adding additional ADA parking in front of the church so that the spaces over in front of building two and three during the peak times for Life International will be assigned to building two and three, allocated to building two and three. All right, any other questions for them before we hear from Mr. Rankie? Hearing none, seeing none. Josh, you wanna? Thank you. Josh Rankie here with Raimi Kemp and Associates, 5808 Farrington Place, Raleigh, North Carolina, registered professional engineer in the state of North Carolina. We were brought on board for this project to look at parking demands during peak times. So in this day and age of COVID, we had to be a little creative, obviously going out to a site and collecting data would have proved there would be ample parking with any sites as not a lot of church services going on, things like that. So what we did is look at different industry standards for parking, to try to get a conservative way of looking at this, find as many of those as we can that are typically used. So what we did is look at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual and use that. The way that kinda operates is it looks at different land uses very separately, not interacting. So it provides a very conservative way of looking at that because it says an office is an office by itself, a church is a church by itself and there's no interaction with the off-peak hours and such that would actually occur in real life. So the other manual that we used was the Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association Dimensions of Parking and looked at that from a standpoint of, we've got the offices and the church on the site as well. Anything where we could look at this conservatively to make sure that the proposed parking would meet these demands we did. So if it was a matter of looking at the number of seats as a parking generator versus the square footage, whichever was higher, that's what we utilized in our parking demand study just to look at this as conservative as possible. We did find that based on the ITE manual during a weekday, the peak demand would be 146 parking spaces. So showing we have 101 extra on a Sunday it would be 222, which would be 25 extra spaces that are currently proposed from what would be expected to be the demand. The Urban Land Institute, because it does more of a looking at things holistically, the peak demand there was showing 108, which is, we would have 139 extra spaces. And that was even looking at that. I know the agreement that's in place shows six o'clock for the church to get some sort of overlap. We actually pushed that up to look at it more conservatively as a five PM to see, all right, still you have some of those office trips, the church is starting to flow in. So we, like I said, as many ways as we could, we tried to look at this in a very conservative way. But during the highest of the peaks we saw between the different manuals we used, we still had a surplus of 25 spaces for what is proposed versus what would be expected to be demanded. So that's kind of a summary and I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the parking demand study. Any questions for Mr. Ranke? This is Mike Tarrant. Mr. Ranke, I appreciate it. And I apologize if I missed this. Were there any previous traffic count data pre COVID that was using your analysis or was this based purely on the manuals that you have at your availability? Yeah, this is based purely on the manuals. The two reasons for that is COVID, it would have been fairly difficult to gather any meaningful data currently and the unique nature of this site where you do have a church and offices. There aren't many sites where we would have collected data previously that had that sort of interaction. Typically we would say if we have something like something fairly typical like apartments and such, but the nature of the office and the church kind of being very offsetting times, they don't typically overlap. We didn't have any available data. Couldn't track any down. We worked with city staff to see if there is anything available and the methodology we came up with seemed like the most conservative and accurate way of doing things with current conditions. Thank you. No problem. Any other questions? All right, we'll move forward. Back to you, Lynn or? Sure, thank you. Mr. Meadows, there is one other item that was used to accommodate this parking and that's bike parking. We've provided more than the required and we have provided bike racks in front of each of the buildings. Whereas we only really had to do it in front of ours. It's now compliant across the site with additional spaces. Thank you. You're welcome. So if Mr. Chandler of Chandler Property Group will make a brief presentation and also be available for questions. Hi everybody, good morning. This is Jim Chandler from Chandler Property Group. I'm a real estate broker and developer. I'm an Apex North Carolina. I am discussed this with the property manager, Zach Fisher. You know, the parking here is the major use of it is going to be on Wednesday evenings after six and that's their busiest days. Wednesdays after six and obviously Sundays and it doesn't affect the business hours of the peak hours of the other businesses in the area. I've spoken to them. I've spoken to the property manager. It is in harmony. It doesn't mess up their hours at all. I think everything's in good shape there. You know, and there are, and it won't, there is apartment complex across the street down the road and the Duke Health Administrative Building across Olson Avenue, but we will not be able to, we won't have to use those at all even in peak times. There's plenty of spaces. So if you have any questions moving forward, you know, Josh said everything really well. I really have nothing else to add. Everything seemed really in harmony. So I'm here for it if you need me. All right, any questions for Mr. Chandler? Mike, do you have something? Not specifically for Mr. Chandler. I did have one follow up with Mr. Mitchell and then our question for planning staff. Mr. Mitchell, you had indicated that spaces would be reserved for the overlap. Are those actually being designated and reserved during specific times with signage, or is it just the fact that the additional spaces are there for use as needed? They have actually agreed to put cones up to define the spaces and there will be an ambassador there to be sure that the church patrons are not parking in the office parking. Thank you. Ms. Monroe had a question regarding the parking agreement. I assume that any change in use with the existing buildings would be subject to a new parking agreement. Concern being if an office use was to change to a use that would need, for instance, if they ran 24 hours a day for whatever reason, that obviously changes the parking agreement. I assume that would be subject to a new site find a new parking agreement at the time that that use is proposed. That's correct. Because if they were to change the use then the parking amount would change the way parking is done by the use. So in this case, a place of worship might have to do a certain number of parking spaces per seats in the assembly area and offices per square footage. If the use was to be a restaurant, for example, that would then change the amount of parking that could be required to result in another parking, another site plan, a change of use permit when it goes through a building permit review, it usually triggers another site plan and then potentially depending upon how far of a gap between and whether or not it's more than a 30% reduction it might have to come back before the board. Hypothetically, of course, if they were to change. Thank you. All right. Michael Retchels is first and then... Mr. Tarrant brought that question. I'm good now. Mr. Tarrant took care of that. All right. And now... Mr. Meadows. Thank you. Just one last question, Ms. Mitchell. Did you guys speak with the property owner across Alston Avenue? I think you said it was Duke or some, I'm not exactly sure who owns the property across the street. Were you able to speak with them or did you have any discussions with them about the possibility of shared parking on that location? No, we didn't speak with anyone about shared parking because we felt that we could handle the volume with the existing parking lot. Thanks. All right. Any other questions for, I guess, anyone, any of these folks? All right. Lynn, does that conclude everything? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Eliza, do you have a recommendation for us? Yes. Plenty of time. We have to know if anyone is here to speak against. Yes. That's true. Has anyone here to speak against this application? All righty. Thank you. Eliza, take it away. Planting staff recommends the approval of case B2000036 of my special use permit request for parking reduction with the condition that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the site plan as well and the information submitted to the board's private application. That's going to, we recommend approval. All right. Thank you. All right. Discussion amongst the board for those sitting on this case. Thoughts? Terrent. I'm a big proponent of parking reductions where it makes sense just from an impervious surface standpoint in use and just not having empty parking lots throughout the city. I think given the Creek, Burton's Creek behind the property, you know, obviously close proximity that reduction in unnecessary impervious surfaces is definitely a good thing here. And I think given the uses that, the timing of each of the uses for each of these buildings, I feel that this reduction makes a lot of sense in this particular case and I support it. Thank you, Mike. Well noted. Regina. My only concern was one that was brought up by Mike about what if the use has changed and or a second church came in or the people started working 24 hours a day if we ever go back to physical work or the change if the church should outgrow its space and the use should revert to office and Eliza satisfied my concerns by saying that it would have come before planning again. So I think it's a good plan. Thank you. Anyone else? Mike. I think they adequately address some review factors and I'm for this. All right, anyone else? Does anyone want to offer a motion? Meadows, I'll offer a motion. Thank you, sir. I hereby make a motion that application number B2000036 an application for a minor special use permit on property located at 5310 South Alston Avenue has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the site plan, case D20000106 and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We have a motion by Mr. Meadows. Is there a second? There it's second. Mike, here it is seconded. Susan, would you like to call everyone? Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Retchless? Yes. Ms. Weymour? Yes. Mr. Tarrant? Yes. Ms. Boshin? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. By a 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. Thank you, everyone. All right, I see that Mr. Kip has joined us. Ian, it's good to see you. Susan, would you like to call the next case and clarify the seating? Case B2000042, a request for a variance from the street yard setback requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling. The subject site is located at 3600 Pine View Circle is zoned residential suburban and in the suburban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. The seating for this case is Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Wymore, and Ms. Boshine. Okay, would the applicants turn on? Krista, did you have something? Okay, thank you. Will the applicants turn on your video? We're gonna administer the oath real quick. So Gordy, would you need to turn on his video? Yes, I'm trying to do it. It's not working out for me. Let me try again on a different device, but I can raise my hand and take the. All right, that'll keep the process moving forward. Well, we do take testimony over the phone, so. Yeah, I can call in. Oh, if we can hear your audio, then I think we can just stick with your current account as opposed to calling in. You know, a lot of people don't hear. Mr. Tannen is assigned, would like to speak later on when there's time for the public to speak, so he's not an applicant. I think he still needs to, is he still, he still needs to. Mr. Tannen, if you could possibly, but there we go. There we go, good. All right, if you'll 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. Thank you. And do you? Sorry, if I could say the same, that I do the same. Thank you. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? Yes. And I do as well. Great, Eliza will turn it over to you. Awesome, thank you. Good morning and everyone. Eliza Monroe with the planning department, planning staff as always request that the staff report and all materials submitted to the public hearing be made part of the public record with any corrections as noted. So noted, thank you. Thank you. Case B2000042 is a request for a variance from the street yard setback requirements in order to construct a single family dwelling. The applicant is Griggy Pseidou and the subject site is located at 3600 Pine View Circle. The case area is highlighted on the screen in red. The site is in the suburban tier. It's owned residential suburban two and residential suburban 20 and is within the cities of Durham's jurisdiction. The site is currently vacant and that's a part of the reason for the request as we'll get into a little bit here today. Essentially, as you can see on this next one, per section 7.1.2 of the unified development ordinance, a 35 foot street yard setback is required for a detached single family dwelling within the RS20 zoning district. As a corner lot, the lot technically has two 35 foot street yards. Therefore, there would be one from Pickett Road and one from Pine View Circle. The applicant is requesting a 12 foot variance from the street yard setback along Pine View Circle and a 25 foot variance from the street yard setback on Pickett Road. This reduction has been requested so that the applicant may construct a dwelling that is outside of the floodplain, which as the blue on the screen in front of you across the lot. Staff would like to note that technically, the applicant can place a home within a floodplain here in the city of Durham with the approval of the floodplain administrator. However, the proposed location is a little bit more in line with the purpose of the floodplain damage protection standards within UDO section 8.4, which aim to preserve and maintain natural floodplain in an undisturbed, vegetated state. UDO section 3.14.8 establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings require an approval or identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet. Staff will be available throughout this hearing for any questions and staff will also be in control of the screen if you want me to pull up a specific attachment. All right, any questions for Eliza? Chad? I was gonna say Chad has his hands. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick question, Eliza. Pickett Road, I believe is a two lane road. Is that accurate? Do you know what the thoroughfare plan calls for for Pickett longterm? I am not aware of that. Totally candid here. I will open it up to anyone else in staff if they have any insight into the thoroughfare plan for Pickett Road. But seeing none, I will say that staff is not aware of what the plan is for that at this time. Thank you. All right, any other questions for Eliza? All right, well, we'll turn it over to the applicant. Hi, my name is Gordy Psilo and I have lived in the Durham Chapel area since 1988. This is my first experience with the city planning department. I actually did not even know of this department. And thus far it has been a very positive experience and I can only say thanks to Eliza for taking the time to guide me through this process. Before I go into the real details about the project I just want to take a minute to describe the property. The property is on the intersection of Pickett Road and Pine View Circle, an area which has been developed between 1965 and 2005. This lot is 1.85 acres which has city water and sewer infrastructure built, but it has not been utilized because I guess it's in a flood plain and no one has been able to get a loan or there has been other challenges which have prevented for this land to be developed. The property does have standing water on it. I have walked the lot several times but the level of Mud Creek which is almost 200 feet down from Pine View Circle, the level of water is six feet below the ground surface level. So that tells me that the standing water on this lot is due to poor drainage and not due to flood water levels rising in Mud Creek. Additionally on the question, I think Mr. Meadows just raised about the traffic patterns. I like to say that there are only five houses on Pine View Circle including 3.6.1 Pickett Road which is across the street. So it is a very, very low traffic area across the street about a mile down from Pine View Circle is not Garrett Road Crescent View and the Crescent Overlook Sub-Division has been developed but that does not intersect Pickett Road. The entrance to that is from Garrett Road. So having an additional house on Pine View Circle will have minimal or zero impact on the traffic patterns. So the reason I have filed this application is just to give you a brief update and it might be part of your packet as well. That the majority of the lot is at 260 feet above sea level and this information is from FRIS website. The base flood elevation is 265.1 feet. So there's a variance of about five feet which is deemed to have at least a 1% chance of flood and maybe that is the reason why it has not been developed in 35 years but I have to put it out that there has to be some condition. However, there is a section of land which is right on the intersection of Pine View Circle and Pickett Road which is outside the flood zone and that is depicted I think in the circle which has been drawn because that area can be developed and hopefully loan can be procured because banks are reluctant to give loans if property is in the flood zone. And that's why I have tried to put this application requesting a variance because currently this being a corner lot needs to have a 35 foot setback both from Pickett Road and from Pine View Circle. There is substantial land on the other remaining two sides which is to the rear of the property and to the side further down on Pine View Circle on which no variance is required because probably more than 100 feet of setback will be left. The hardship that can be caused to develop in a flood plain is that A cannot get a loan and B probably a geotechnical engineer has to be hired to drive micro piles to stabilize the foundation. So based on these, based on the peculiar topography of this land, there is a small piece that can be developed and an underutilized infrastructure which the city of Durham has developed can be put to use. I know that there has been a concern expressed that it may be too close to a neighbor's property and I'd like to take a few minutes to address that as shown in this, what's being projected to address the citizen's concern. The distance from 3600 Pine View Circle footprint assuming that the variance is granted to 3611 Pine View Circle which is the house that you see on the first quadrant which is right is the little house that is outside the flood plain that will be 270 feet and the distance from 3600 Pine View Circle to 3618 Pine View Circle which is the neighbor on in the flood plain area just north of Pine View Circle will be 400 feet. The only question left is the neighbor on 3602 Pickett Road and even the distance to that house will be more than 70 feet. So how did I come up with more than 70 feet? The street width of Pine View Circle is 60 feet and assuming that the driveway of 3602 Pine View 3602 Pickett Road is at least 10 feet and the distance from 3600 Pine View Circle to 3602 Pickett Road will be more than 70 feet. If I had done some comparative studies which I'm not sure if the board will permit but Eliza if you don't mind going to the last page of this Yeah, right here. So in order I've done some comparative studies using the maps which Durham County has provided and so I've compared the distances between existing houses on Pickett Road. So 3602 is the house displayed on the farthest right but it has a neighbor immediately next to it 3604 Pickett Road and 36010 Pickett Road and so the distance between 3604 Pickett Road and 36010 Pickett Road is only 36 feet. That's the distance between those two houses and the distance between 36010 Pickett Road and 36014 Pickett Road is 70 feet. The distance between 3602 Pickett Road and 3604 Pickett Road is 50 feet. Only the satellite view is available for this. I added 30% to the distance measured by the satellite view. Where I'm going with this is that the existing distances between houses on Pickett Road is less than 70 feet. And so having the variance granted will not make this the house on 3600 Pine View Circle any closer than houses that are already existing on Pickett Road. I hope you will consider my request and I'm here to answer any more concerns that you might have. Any questions for the applicant? I don't have a lot of staff here. I don't see any hands, Chair Rogers. Okay, I guess I have one, just some clarification. And so the variance from the street yard setback requirements is this from the Pickett Road or the Pine View Circle or both? I'll ask the last many rows. Sorry. No, Eliza, you go ahead. The last one to our staff here, the request by the applicant was for a variance from both Pickett Road and Pine View Circle. So the request was for 12 foot variance from the street yard setback along Pine View Circle and a request for 10 foot variance from the street yard setback along Pickett Road, which would allow the applicant to build outside of the flood plain while still meeting the side distance triangle and other things of that sort that they'll have to in order to place a house there. Thank you. All right, any questions? All right, well, I've got a couple. Sir Deep, make sure that I've got this. From the corner and looking at the image that you're seeing now from the corner of this proposed structure to Pickett Road, what's the distance there? So the distance is about 36 feet. Okay. And Pickett Road is more than 60 feet wide and the house on the other end of Pickett Road is setback 200 feet. So actually you can't see the house because they also have the flood plain restriction but they put the house long back so their house is on the higher ground. So the house is not visible from 3600 Pine View Circle. Okay. Thank you. All right, just before we move on, are there any questions for the applicant? I think we've got someone from the public. Mr. Taman, would you like us to come in? I'm sorry, excuse me. I just wanted to, is this the proposed that it's 35 feet from Pine View Circle including the street width? So it's half of the street width because Pine View Circle is 60 feet wide and your property gets 30 feet of that plus the length of your driveway. And so, and I guess I get 30 feet of Pine View Circle plus the setback. So it's not that it's 12 feet from the street itself, it's 12 feet from the property line? It, well, it'll be a setback. If we go back to the presentation, Eliza, if we go to further down, not this down, where we are discussing the Durham Municipal Courts, UDO 17.3.Y, one more down, yes. So Mr. Taman, this is the Durham City Municipal Court, UDO 17.3.Y, and based on what I'm seeing here, the distance is measured from the street to the house. Eliza, we have staff clarifying note here. So the variance request is from the property. The setbacks are considered from the property line. So in this case, you see where we have rear yard, street yard, side yard. So the street, the right of way is not considered a part of it. So the request submitted was 12 feet from the street yards, the 12th variance from the street yard setback, which would be from the property line, not the street, just to clarify. Okay, great. Mr. Taman, that answers your question. Yes. All right. Mr. Taman, do you have any other questions or did you have any testimony you'd like to give today? I would just say, so I'm a neighbor, I'm the neighbor directly across the street at 3602 Pickett Road. I am not opposed to this. The website only allowed me proponent or opponent. I'm not 100% opposed to it. I do have concerns about the traffic on Pickett Road. It's a 35 mile per hour zone, but people regularly go 50, 60 miles per hour down this road, even though it's a two lane road. So I am a little bit concerned that if the house is tall and is very close to both Pickett Road and Pine View Circle, it could create a blind spot. And I have two small kids who like to play in the yard. So I would worry about cars coming fast around that corner. Other than that, I'm very sympathetic to the property owners concerns, not wanting to build in the floodplain, not wanting to disrupt that ecosystem, et cetera. So I just wanna do express that one concern about if the building is tall on the edge towards Pickett Road and towards Pine View Circle, that could be a hazard in terms of traffic there. We've been trying to get the police to slow it down and they were able to do it for a while, but it just, they took down the radar sign and it just went back up again. So, yes. Yes, Mr. Taiman, I appreciate your concern. And I would like to take a minute to as much your concern as much as I can. We are looking to retire in this house. I'll be 60 years old next month or next year. And we are looking to make a smaller house, which probably will be a one level house because of arthritis, we cannot be going up and down. So the probability of a two level house or a three level house is remote. Additionally, I can say that because of arthritis, the only reason we are interested in this lot is because we are hoping to be able to make a south facing house. Pickett Road is towards the south of the property. Your house, I think faces the south. While we may have the garage on Pine View Circle and the entrance on Pine View Circle, the windows will be towards Pickett Road. And it may happen that it won't be a box form where the typical New England architecture, everything is in one building. It may have to be broken into two buildings just so that we can get sunlight in all the rooms. Of course, it's all much further down the road, but that is the vision. And I can also understand your concern that you have a nice property and I congratulate you for it, that you may be concerned that we don't put a trailer home up over there and reduce your property value. That will not happen. I will not put up a trailer home there. But it probably will be a modest house somewhere between your property value and further up on Pine View Circle. But we will try our best not to pull your property value down. All right. That's all I can say. Okay, before we, Eliza, do you have something? I did want to add in something really quickly to kind of talk towards Mr. Tam's concerns. So there is something called a side-distance triangle and which is the goal here is to, that's to keep things out of the way so not have that blind spot that you were mentioning. So they're not able to put the home within the side-distance triangle, so try to get back to that. In terms of height, Mr. Seedew did give a good explanation of that and their intentions. By right, they are technically permitted to have a house that can be up to 35 feet within the zoning district. The house is not located in the urban tier. It's in our suburban tier. Our urban tier has a little bit more strenuous, it's a little bit more regulate in terms of height, in terms of like neighboring properties, what the height is of those, so it's a little bit more consistent. This is not located in that area, so therefore they are allowed, if they wanted to, to build the maximum height, which is 35 feet. So just to kind of address those two things about the height and then the blind spot, they're not able to build within the side-distance triangle, and then by right, they are allowed to be 35 feet, but Mr. Seedew kind of mentioned his intentions. All right. All right, any other questions for the applicant before we close public hearing? This is Chad, I have one last question. Go ahead. Thank you, sir. I'm wondering if you had indicated that banks are loath to loan money on homes located in the flood plain, and I'm just wondering if you have already made application for a mortgage, and that's how you came to that information. No, Mr. Meadows, I have not made an application yet, but I can extrapolate that in 35 years, if all more than 35 years, 1965 to 2020, if in 55 years, that whole area has been developed, Garrett Farm has been developed, Crescent Overlook has been developed, and new houses have been built along Pickett Road, including Mr. Taman's house, then the only reason why this property probably was overlooked, 1.85 acres in the middle of the city with city water and sewer can only be because someone could not get the money to develop the property. And the footprint of the house will be smaller, and I think most people want a considerably sized house, a builder probably wants a bigger house because prices are based on price per square feet and builders evaluate that for the sale value. We are looking to make maybe a smaller house, and so it's attractive to us and might not be attractive to a lot of the builders. So- All right, what we're talking about is not relevant to the street yard setback. I'm gonna just, we'll just stop there on this. The questions and what we're talking about should be relevant to what we're looking at today for this size of the property. There are already UDO restrictions on that or size of the house. So I'm not seeing how that's relevant here. All right, any other questions? I'm not seeing any hands, Chair Rogers, so I'm going to stop here so we're able to see each other. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak against this case? This is a variant, so we do not get a staff recommendation. So any discussion? I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this if you have any. This is Chad, I have some. The issue about whether or not the property as sort of mortgage is relevant because the applicant says they need the variance to locate the site outside of the floodplain. And the reason they need to locate the site outside the floodplain is because the banks don't loan money to houses in the floodplain. Staff indicated that the house could be built in the floodplain without need for variance. So to my mind, I find that relevant. One other point that I'll make is when you look at GO maps, which is Durham's interactive maps, and you look at the Pickett Road right-of-way, you see that this lot encroaches into an area that looks to be preserved for future right-of-way. Whether or not that's the case, I don't know. I do know that there's lots of new development in the area. I do know that some of the new developments such as Soaring Court, which is about 500 feet down Pickett Road, has been replanted in such a way that it preserves a deeper setback from the Pickett right-of-way road edge. So that to me indicates that the anticipation is that the Pickett Road right-of-way would be widened at some point in the future. That could negatively impact this lot, could negatively impact this site, could complicate the city or NCDOT's acquisition. So those are things that I am factoring in as part of my decision. I certainly understand the applicants' issues. This is a very difficult site to build on. It's almost entirely in the floodplain, and that is a very problematic issue. I see that he's attempting to stay out of the floodplain, and I appreciate that. And that's really all I have to say about it. I am interested in hearing what other people think. Liza, you had clarification, or do you want to say something? Yes, I just wanted to chime in really quickly about the floodplain. So yes, per 8590, technically the applicant can build a home within the floodplain. To clarify, they even have to flood-proof set home. So it's not as if it's like the floodplain who says, oh yeah, cool, you can do this. There are potentially more difficult and sturduous requirements that single family home would then have to do, as opposed to what an average single family home would have to do. So I kind of wanted to clarify about floodplain development. It is possible, but it is meant to be more sturduous and difficult to, of course, stop people from building in the floodplain. So just wanted to chime in, also to flood-proof those structures as well. So I wanted to chime in a little bit about that and about the right-of-way. The right-of-way is where it is currently. So that's kind of what we are dealing with today. So that is, it is where it is currently, and that is at the property line. And from that property line is the request for a setback reduction. So I just wanted to kind of chime in on those two things. Thank you for that, Eliza. Anybody else? Thoughts? I have a question. If they were to widen Pickett Road, how far back, and Eliza may have just answered this, how far would it go up to his house? I mean, if the right-of-way were, if they were to follow the right-of-way today? I, same answer, staff, it does not know for the foreseeable future where that right-of-way would be. That would then be something between that transportation institution and the property owner at that time. But today the right-of-way sits at the property line and is not taking anything from this parcel. So I'm not able to give those exact numbers but that would be then an agreement or something that happy worked out with that transportation institution whether it's the city or NCDOT and that individual property owner if they would have to purchase more of the right-of-way. And I do see your hand, Regina. Lacey, although we can't talk about precedence, we are dealing with the current ordinances and the current plans. And we can't, I don't think it's appropriate for us to project a possibility and use that as a reason to say yes or no to this proposed variance. I think, I can tell that Regina is a past chair of this board. Thanks for that, Regina. I was going to say the same thing. I think we were bound- Great minds, my dear, great minds. Anyone else? I'll chime in that, I mean, clearly this site has been sitting like 1.8 acres and never developed. There's a reason for that. It's a constricted site. I'll basically vote for this because I think that if the private property owner wants to create this on this small corner near the street, which is somewhat busy because it is a cut through going towards Irwin. But I'll just say it's the property owner wants to do this. I'm okay with that. Thank you, Mr. Kip. Natalie, did you get a question answered? I just wanted to follow up. Yes, yes, thank you. You feel better. All right, anyone else? I'll echo what Regina said as well. And I want to thank Eliza for permission of this kind of this clarification, points of clarification there. There are no other thoughts or comments marine. Nobody wants to share. Is there emotion? Maybe there might need to be more discussion. Just type of, that we throw that there. Raps thought if there is that, if nobody's ready to make a motion, I think we do definitely need discussion. I'd like to know where everyone sits on this. Lacey has done a problem making a motion, but I just have not been successful bringing up the paperwork. Sorry. We'll give you a couple of minutes. Tisha, you got something? No, I'm still deliberating in my mind of everything that's been presented thus far. That's why I haven't spoken up, but I'm just thinking about it, but I tend to want to want to be in favor of it similarly to having someone having such a challenging site to go through all of these processes to build a home and further to research future potential issues and considering all of the factors involved with environmental concerns and other homeowners concerns. I feel like they have done a good job of presenting their case. Thank you, teacher. Brian, you had something. Yes, I just wanted to recommend that the board just go through the review factors. Seems like this is a case that fits well into the variance review factors. And if you just go through the four of them, it would sort of facilitate some discussion on whether or not the facts fit into granting of the variance. It seems like that would be a good way to spark the discussion. All right, and you put those in the chat, so anyone else have any thoughts? This is Chad. I want to clarify my point of view. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be approved. I'm just wanting to know what is the base flood elevation? How high up does the house have to be to stay out of the base flood? Has anybody investigated that? Has anybody investigated whether or not the house can be built being in the flood plain? Those were my questions, not necessarily that I didn't support the variance. I was interested in getting a little bit more detail on the explorations that took place prior to coming and asking for variance. That's all. Not that I don't support it. This is Tisha. I thought I read in here, 260 feet was the most of the property elevation and 265 is the base flood plain. Is that what I read? A lot of people are trying to get in here. Gertie did prepare some documentation about the BFB that he found on the first FRIS map. However, I will just note that those numbers and calculations are from Gertie's research, and more than likely would then have to be reviewed by not just the flood plain administrator, but probably someone with a little bit more expertise in the subject for those to be final. That's based upon his research that he found on the first map, which is an online service that anyone can access to look at flood plains and potential elevations. Any other thoughts, Mr. Rexlis, you got anything? Rexlis here. Well, there's definitely a hardship here, and it is peculiar to the property location. I think what I'm lacking from the homeowner here is more the burden of presenting evidence and persuading me. In other, I can't relate to that, but there is ways to build a house on a flood plain, and that's all I'm saying. This is a flood plain. There are ways to build a house, a type of house, and I'd like to see some evidence of that. Does that make sense? Matt Sheiman, it's gotten harder and harder to build. I'm not a flood plain specialist, but I've seen the machinations that owners have to go through in building in a flood plain, and it's really pretty intense. You do an elevation survey, you've got to bring the foundation level up, and then there likely will still be the need to carry federal flood insurance, which used to be pretty cheap. It used to be a payment, $50 a month. Now it can be $300, $400 a month. It turns into a sizable amount of money, $4,000 or $5,000 a year. I too wish that there had been some look at building the house in the flood plain, but that said, that's a process that's a bear. Again, I'm comfortable with this presentation, and I think there is a hardship created by the property, so I'll just leave it there. Natalie, do you have any thoughts? No, I'm working through this. No, nothing that hasn't been answered yet. Thank you, then. Well, is anyone ready to make a motion now? Lacey? Mr. Lacey. I hear them make a motion that application number B, 0 is 42, an application for requests for a variance from the required street yard setback in order to construct a single family dwelling on property located at 3600 Pine View Circle and successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions, that the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information to the board as part of the application. We've got an emotion for approval by Mr. Lacey. Is there a second? Second, Kip. There's a second by Mr. Kip. Susan, would you? Oh, Mr. Meadows? No. Mr. Kip? Yes. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Ms. Weymour? Yes. Mr. Regulus? No. Ms. Bouchain? Yes. Motion carries five to two. By vote of five to two, your request for a variance has been approved. We thank you for coming for the BOA this morning. Wish you the best of luck. Thank you so much. Thank you. Do we want a five or 10-minute break before the next case, or would you like to continue? Tisha, is that a yes? Okay. Regulus is probably saying yes, too. Let's take a 10-minute break. We'll come back at 9.57. Could you show us your dog, Ben? I've got to go down and get her and get her out real quick. All right, we'll see you guys then. All right, we're waiting on Mr. Regulus as soon as he gets here. We'll continue. He's here. All right. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. Case B2000044, a request for a variance from the rear yard setback requirements. The subject site is located at 509 Simmons Street, is in residential urban and in the urban tier. This case has been advertised for the required period of time, and property owners within 600 feet have been notified. Notarized affidavits verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. And the seating for this case will be Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Regulus, Ms. Wymore, and Ms. Bochine. All right, Eliza, do you have this one? I guess you have this one. Oh, that's good. Thank you to Minister Diaz. She did email stating that she would try to join via video. I'm seeing a video non-grotto logo across her name right now. But Camille, if you could just join us via audio, and we'll see if we can figure that out. But right now, just audio should work. Hi, good morning. This is Camille. I believe if I can do it from my phone, that it will show the video so I can try that really quick. Otherwise, the computer is not letting me include the video. We can hear you fine now, so we'll go ahead. If you want to try the video momentarily, that may be fine, but we'll continue with audio here. So if you plan to give testimony, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. And do you consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. All right. Are there any other, Eliza, are there any other? OK, OK. We'll turn it over to you. OK, I'm going to go ahead and share this agreement. Good morning. Once again, everyone, Eliza Monroe here with the planning department playing SAF request of the SAF report and all materials submitted at the public hearing be made part of public record with any necessary corrections as noted. So noted. Thank you. Thank you. Case B2000044 is a request for a variance from the rear yard setback requirements. The applicant is Camille Allen. And the subject site is located at 509 Simmons Street. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is within the Urban Tier, Zoned Residential Urban 5, or RU5, and is within the city of Durham's jurisdiction. On the site, currently, there is an existing legal non-conforming single-family dwelling. Per audio section 7.1.2B, a 25-foot rear yard setback and 25-foot street yard setback is required for a detached single-family dwelling in the RU5 zoning district. The existing structure is thus then considered non-conforming as it does not meet the street yard setback requirement on the Simmons Street side and is also encroaching into the rear yard setback. Per audio section 14.4.1B.2, no enlargement or reconstruction of an existing legal non-conforming structure shall create new non-conform use or encroachments unless the variance is approved, hence why the applicant is here before you all today. Since that proposed addition, which I'll go to the next screen to kind of talk about, the proposed issue encroaches further into the rear yard setback than the existing structure. The applicant is requesting a 19-foot variance from the rear yard setback, resulting in a six-foot rear yard setback. Given the non-conforming nature of the existing structure, staff would like to know that any addition really would kind of need to come before you all unless it was going towards Merrick Street, which with any addition outside of anything that's going towards Merrick Street into the rear would probably need to come before the board for a variance and the applicant is here today due to that. Audio section 3.14.8A establishes the four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings are requiring approval, identifying the staff report and the applicant's responses to these findings are identified in the application, both of which are within your packet. Staff is available here for any questions as needed during the hearing process and Staff will as always have control of the screen if anyone needs to pull up a specific attachment. I will note that in addition to the task that you see on the screen, there's also some building plans and things of that sort that the applicant provide as well. All of this is on the agenda, but as need be, I can scroll through these things. All right, any questions for Eliza before we move forward? I think Mr. Meadows has his hand raised. Just one quick question. I'm in Eliza, I'm looking at the survey and it looked like there was a jog in the building so that the addition did not run the full course of the, I guess that's the western property line, but the drawings look like the building does run the full course. I was just curious about, am I crazy? Is that a difference? What's the situation? I will allow the applicant to speak a little bit more towards that. Camille and I had emailed a little bit about the drawings based upon some planning concerns that we had. So they are two different things. I'll kind of allow Camille to speak about the nature. I did a little while back, me and Camille, when we did speak, I said that we'll probably need a more updated and detailed version of the survey going forth with the building permit process because there are size limitations for additions onto non-conforming structures, which this one kind of leaves a little bit vague. So I'll allow Camille to answer questions about any discrepancies between the survey and the proposed drawings. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Eliza? All right, Ms. Allen, would you like to present? And everyone, Steve and or hear me now? We can still hear you. All right, hi, good morning everybody. So I am the contractor in agent representing the owner for this property who already has a buyer based on the design of the house. And part of that design was putting a addition that you, the addition on the left side that you see that comes out 11 feet. But in order to go the full length of the house, we needed more setback, more yard for setback, which goes into the property that the County of Durham owns currently. And so we went to the County first and what we offered is that to the left of the 11-foot addition, we wanted to keep just about eight feet or 10 feet for the side setback to keep there, but it was 600 feet that we were actually willing to swap for the square footage that we needed from the back of their property to be able to put the addition on. And so we went to the Board of Commissioners first because it was a property owned by the County and they have unanimously approved the swap, but then I definitely had to come before the Board of Adjustment for the variance to be able to get the building permit for it or yes, to get the building permit for it. And so the request is for the variance for the setback to be able to build the full addition, but in that we're actually giving up 600 square feet of the remainder of the lot, which actually does allow the County to use that as additional parking space, which is why they bought the property behind us in the first place to be able to use for additional parking for Stanford or Warren Library and giving them 600 square feet of additional property allows them for even more parking, which sure was their motivation for approving a swap in the first place, but I am here requesting now the variance so that we can have the approval for the build. Okay, questions for Ms. Allen? I think Mr. Meadows had the, Eliza Moro staff speaking here had the question about the differences between what's shown here and then the shape of this here if Ms. Allen wants to speak to that. Okay, so yes, you are looking at the, what you see here is the fully proposed addition and what you see on the survey is actually what it would look like. We would have to delete about six feet. We wouldn't be able to have the full master suite that you see here built out for the proposed addition. We would only be able to do maybe three quarters of the length. So that's what you're seeing on the survey. All right, Jen, you've got your, go ahead. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Yeah, so I just wanna be sure. So I think I understand you're gonna square off the building and in order to do that, you needed to adjust, I guess, what is the Northern lot line so that some of that land area would come onto the subject site and another portion of that land area assumedly to the West would in turn transfer to the County of Durham's jurisdiction. Is that right? Is that? That is correct, yes. And so I'm having a hard time understanding about how much land we're talking about. I'm assuming that were this land swap to take place that would not create a non-conformity in terms of a side yard setback, is that accurate? Correct, it doesn't affect the side, only the rear. I see, I see. And so once the land swap takes place, then the rear corner, I guess the Northwest corner of the structure would be six feet from the lot line. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Chad, thank you for that, that clarification. That was well put. Eliza, can you go back to the survey? Trando. So what is the required rear yard setback for this? I know I think you mentioned it, but I wanna make sure I get it. Yep, Eliza Murrow staff here, the required rear yard setback for a single family detached in the Sony district is 25 feet. In this case, it's Eliza Murrow staff continuing on. In this case, it's a legal non-conforming structure because it's currently, that corner is kind of going into it already, as well as some issues with the street yard on 7th Street in terms of the house not being exactly 25. So therefore any new non-conformities or encroachments into the rear yard results in the variance need per that section in 14 that I mentioned a little while ago that I'll look up now to reference further record. Understood, I think what was tough about looking at this right here is like, well, where is that new property line? I'm trying to figure out what it looks like without this, but I think I understand the case but I'm looking at it and be different. Does anybody else have any questions for Ms. Allen? Regina. I'm trying to figure out where the swap would be and I understand they're gonna put parking behind it. Good luck selling the house. But would this, the property called County of Durham parcel number I had, read it, I'm an old woman, would that sliver be deeded to the property owner or where's the swap coming in is my question. Right, that's what would happen. It's about 90 square feet is the really small corner. So the swap, so we're asking for 90 square feet in return was 600 square feet. But yes, it would just be that little notch out that you see. So the Albert, Ruth, whatever is in the middle where the majority of the property is that property line would continue straight across so as to reduce the encroachment. Is that what we're trying to talk about? I don't think that the Albert Smith property has anything to do with it. No, I'm just talking about the rear property line of the Albert Smith. I'm trying to figure out where you would get the extra land from the city and from the county to replace the 1.62 acres. Where would it come from? It would actually come from the bottom right corner of the county of Durham, Parsville. Okay, so basically if you'd envision the Albert, whatever, line, it would just continue on straight back so as to reduce the encroachment of, again, I'm an old woman. I can't see that the, whatever feet that is, so that would be less of an intrusion onto the county property, right? Is that a corner four that the corner that's marked by four? Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, we're actually talking about corner four. So Mr. Smith property line wouldn't be affected. No, it wouldn't be affected, but it would continue that his property line would, if you draw an imaginary vector left, it would continue that way? Or it's, you know, I want to see the new boundary. The house is all pretty, but that, you know, with a land swap is what has been continuously. Alize my own staff here. Can you all see the purple line I just drew? It's not straight by any means, but Camille, if- Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say, yeah. Yes, yeah. Some from four to whatever that left one. And then it wouldn't even go as far as that purple line goes. It kind of stops where, and it's a real small, it only really goes a little bit past the number four, starting at Mr. Alford's property line. Okay. Okay, so you get, you know, you get a little chunk in exchange for all that left. It's a little notch out. Okay, cool. Thank you. Cause I was trying to figure out where the swap was. So from there to back, go ahead, Liza. About right there. And then keep just that little launch, said he's getting a big deal. I would have gone to the 4168 or the, at least the number E. I don't want to be greedy. I just want what we need. And then if we're able to help the county, then absolutely we're willing to do that. God bless you. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Allen? I have a question. Is the little house that the county owns on the piece of land still there? It is there, but their plan is to tear that down so that they could use it, extend the parking. Right. And has Mr. Albert Smith, who's right behind the subject property, has that person chimed in at all? Not as far as the, no, he hasn't chimed in. Okay. We've only really spoken to him about his clothesline, but he hasn't said anything about, and I guess because his property isn't affected, and from what I understand, he had already given up, his line actually previously, historically, it came closer because the property line was flushed all the way across. And he actually did give up some of his property previously for this lot. So his has actually been, that's already sort of been addressed in terms of where this house sits. Gotcha. Okay, because that to me seems like the person who would be annoyed, bothered, or possibly harmed, but I see what you're saying. The squiggle back there was land likely already given by Mr. Smith. I don't think your house is gonna bother the county library parkers. So to me, you know, this is fine. Thank you, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows. Ms. Allen, would you talk a little bit about why the addition on the left-hand side was configured in such a way? Was it necessary for you to run the entire length of the house or could, was there, help me understand why you've proposed that configuration? Because that's what they do buy your, there's already a buyer for the whole. My client, I'm the contractor, but it's for a client who has a buyer, it's, you know, he's an investor and he already had a buyer and that's what the buyer was requesting for the full length. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right, any other questions for Ms. Allen? Do we understand the hardship? Lacy, I think the hardship exists that it is an illegal non-conforming structure and anything they do to it to change it would, in my view, become a hardship. You can't change your house because it was already, it was legal when you built it and it isn't now. This is Chad, I have a question about that. Meadows, question for staff. Staff, if they did this addition in such a way that the floor plate of the existing house did not change and the addition was configured in such a way that did not worsen the non-conformity, would they be required to get a variance? A lot of staff here, they would not. I did kind of mention a little bit that the addition as it is in kind of pushes towards variance but if the addition did not go any further towards that rear or if the addition was on the Merrick Street side to the rear of the property where this little divot is and stayed in line, it would not create additional, any additional issues. That would warrant for you all to have to review it. However, this was the desired layout that, as Camille mentioned, the buyer proposed. I'm gonna stop sharing it on Jacob because I think people are raising their hands and you can't see them. I'm sorry. Tisha. I just have a question on some visuals. Are there a visual that shows where this parking lot would go to the property line? Eliza, my staff here, staff was unaware of this parking lot prior to today because we're not working with the city where kind of primarily have been working with Ms. Allen for the request. So that's not anything that staff has have able to show you all today. And Camille might be able to speak whether or not it's something that the city has on like a website or plan, but we weren't given anything from the city or county of Durham with relation to the library. Okay, then maybe I'm misunderstanding. Isn't this the swap of the land part of the application or no? The swap of the land, my last one, my staff here, yeah, the swap of the land was something that the applicant went to the board of county commissioners for and that is a separate review process. Today is about the encouragement into the rear yard. That was the primary subject of the staff report. So in terms of the parking, I wasn't aware of the parking that wasn't something that was a deciding factor for the rear yard setback variance report that I was prepared. Okay, this is, I can speak to that. Ms. Weymour, where you see on the survey, if we can pull the survey back up, I may be able to help up a little bit. Where you see the addition, the 11 foot addition, we are going further left, only eight feet, and then that'll be the cutoff. And the additional from that point is all being given to the county. So an additional eight feet from the 11 foot but the entire, it's a total of 30 feet. So from the property line to the addition is a total of 30 feet. And we're giving it about 25, 23, 23. Okay. Thanks. I can't see anybody's hands raised. So if we'll want to... Sorry about that, I'm gonna stop share again. It's helpful to see all this, but here we are. Any other thoughts or questions? Is there anyone else to speak in favor or against us? Then we know how it doesn't look like it. All right, let's bring it back to the table. Thoughts. This is a variant, so we do not get a staff recommendation. I'd just like to add, this is a very strange site, the size, shape, length. So it would be very hard to make any changes to this without going in front of the board. So again, I'll just say that I think this is okay. In my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Kip. Anyone else? Does anyone have any objections to this or issues with it? This is meadows. I don't have any issues per se. I will say that in the past, we have looked at variants applications and ask applicants to clarify why something was configured in such a way as to trigger the need for a variance. In this case, what has triggered that is that that was the way that the buyer wanted it. And I understand that. I don't know if that is parallel with some of the rationale that we've used in the past, but I do understand where they're coming from. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. All right, anyone else? Final call. All right, is there a, does anyone want to offer a motion? Well, Lacey, I hereby make a motion that the application number two whole bunch of zeros 44 an application for request for a variance from the required street or its setback on property located at 509 Simmons street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the unified development order and is hereby granted to the subject to the following additions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. All right, we've got a motion for approval by Mr. Lacey, is there a second? Regulus second. I would like to note that's a rear side, a rear yard setback and not a street yard setback. Okay. And a second by Mr. Regulus, Susan, take it away. Mr. Regulus. Yes. Ms. Weymour. Yes. Ms. Bouchain. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Kip. Yes. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. I vote of seven to zero. Your variance has been unanimously approved. I wish you the best of luck. Thank you for coming for the BOA this morning. Thank you very much. All right. Susan, would you like to call the next case? Yes. B2-000045, a request for a variance from the 10-foot no-build setback requirement for the construction of an accessory structure. The subject site is located at 1213 North Mancom Street is zoned residential urban and in the urban tier. The case has been advertised for the required period of time and property owners within 600 feet have been notified, notarized, affidavits, verifying the sign postings and letter mailings are on file. The seating for this case will be Mr. Lacey, Mr. Kip, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Wretchless, Ms. Weymour and Ms. Bouchain. All right. May I say something? I'd like to, I need to recuse myself. I own in the notice area. Okay. So Mr. Tarrant would fill Mr. Kip's seating of this case. Okay. I think that's been cleared. And anyone who plans on giving testimony will need your camera on. Seems like we've got quite a few here. Just want to make sure. And... Dev Dashi. Dev, you're kind of, we're unable to hear you. Are you there? Can you hear us? Yeah, I can hear you guys. Oh, I see. My microphone changed. Can you hear me better now? Yes. Are you going to be joining us via video today? Sure. All right. So I wanted you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Lou Beck, I think we could hardly see you. Do you do as well? I think Lou Beck is muted. Unmuted? I will need to affirm that you said that. I did. Okay. And the applicant, does everyone consent to this remote meeting platform? I do. All right. Thank you. Eliza, take it away. Good morning, everybody. I'm Eliza Monroe, staff with the planning department staff. Planning staff does request that the staff report and all materials submitted here at the public hearing be made part of public record when the necessary corrections is noted. Noted, thank you. Thank you. Case B2000045 is a request for a variance from the 10 foot no build setback requirement for the construction of an SS restructure. The applicant and property owners are Tori, Ben and Senator Phillips. And the subject site is located at 1213 North Maygum Street. The case area is highlighted in red. The site is in the urban tier, zoned residential urban five and within the city of Durham jurisdiction. The site area currently has an existing single family home. The per UDO section 8.5.9 C is required that buildings and other features that require grading and construction shall be set back at least 10 feet from the edge of a riparian buffer, which all hints were referred to as the 10 foot no build setback. To the rear of the lot, as shown on the survey on the screen, there is an intermittent stream which requires a 50 foot buffer to be measured from the top of bank on both sides per UDO section 8.5.4 B.1. An additional 10 foot no build setback is also required for all streams here within the city of Durham per UDO section 8.5.9 C. Strict application of the ordinance would require the proposed accessory structure to be located out of the no build setback and the riparian buffer and closer to the primary structure which would require that the existing tree be removed and the tree is also shown there. The plan showing the proposed location of the structure indicates that the structure would encroach approximately 5 feet into the no build setback but not into the required riparian buffer which would then of course require additional review from the state as that's a state requirement. UDO section 3.14.A establishes four findings that the applicant must make in order for the board to grant a variance. These findings requiring approval are identified in the staff report and the applicant's responses to the findings are located in the application both of which are within your packet. Staff will be available for any questions throughout the hearing as well as the incomplete control of the screen. So if you need a specific attachment fold up or a specific diagram, please let us know and we'll do so. And I would like to note and I kind of mentioned it a little bit here that this request is a little bit interesting because technically the accessory structure could go behind the primary structure however given the peculiarity and uniqueness which I'm sure Mr. Phillips will talk about their desire to preserve the tree they're instead proposing it to be a little bit encroached into the 10 foot noble. So I will now turn it over to any questions from the board excuse me or to the applicant himself. Thank you. Any questions for Eliza before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none, seeing none, who is the applicant? Mr. Phillips is the applicant and I believe everyone else is his party or neighbors. All right, Mr. Phillips. Well, can you hear me clearly? Yes. I'd first like to apologize for any noise in the background. My family is spending the month in a cabin in rural Virginia that does not have internet. So I am sitting in the parking lot of a McDonald's at the moment, which is a great place to attend a meeting. And this is also my first time attending a meeting of the board of adjusters. So thank you for taking the time and Eliza, thank you for your help and guiding me through this process. A bit about our lot and our project, we are planning to build an accessory unit that I will use as a music studio. I'm a professional musician and audio engineer. We've spent the last year and a half working with Bronwyn Charlton architecture on the design. We were aware of the intermittent stream at the back of our lot, but we're utilizing a survey that was done in 2010 when my wife, Tori Ben, bought the property by Rudy Griffin, did that survey and he drew the stream as a line running parallel to the back of the lot. The intermittent stream in question is in a heavily wooded and bambooed area, so it's incredibly difficult to access. So we weren't exactly sure where it was. We chose that site because we'd like to preserve the Linden tree, which is an unusual tree, because the tree blocks the view of the new building from our home. I found out that there was an issue with the riparian buffer when I hired cradle engineering to mark the corners of the building. We'd already been granted a permit based on our earlier understanding of where the intermittent stream was. So our hope in the variance is to save the life of the tree as well as to move the building as far as possible from our home and the street noise of Mangum Street, which has allowed heavily trafficked street, which isn't exactly conducive to recording acoustic music like the kind that I make. I'd be happy to answer any questions or go into further depth and any of our thinking on the site and the project. Any questions for Mr. Phillips? Lacey, what's the concrete pad that would be to looking at this plan to the right? What do you use the concrete pad for? That's just a seeding area that has a small fire pit that we use in socializing. It's getting heavy. Okay, so is there a reason that you would keep that and you would get rid of that and move the building outside of the dough build? Or that's just established in whatever? I'm not sure I understand your question. Okay, if you didn't have the concrete pad, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, the building would still endanger the tree. We're not about the concrete pad. We're worried about the linden tree. Okay, thanks then. So the concrete pad is just a red herring. Okay, thank you. Sorry. All right, it looks like we've got a question for Mike. Tarant? This is Mike Tarant. It looks like it's a 15 inch diameter linden, if I understand these drawings correctly. It's a 30 inch diameter linden. And so 15 feet from the tree. Okay, I think it'd be helpful to better understand just what the critical root zone of that tree is and the impacts because if that's a 30 inch linden, then you've drawn a 15 foot circle down this plan, then locating it five feet into the no-build versus shifting the building five feet east, I don't feel has a significant impact on what you're proposing. Then the other question I had is regarding the foundation design and what the footing of this foundation will be. Basically the total depth of it, it looks like in addition to the foundation, there might be a perimeter foundation drain that would further impact just the five foot encroachment into the no-build zone of the buffer. Can you speak to me a little bit about that design please? Could I have Brahma and Charlton, our architects speak to that? Yeah, the design for the foundation is kind of just as it stands, all of this was done before we realized that the survey that we were working with was inaccurate. So we haven't, I guess if it's necessary, we could potentially readjust how the foundation is being designed, but we were designing it for the strongest foundation rather than for the least impact in a construction buffer zone. So it's a standard foundation CMU wall with a standard footing. I'd have to actually look at the, let me pull up the structural drawings quickly. It's been a while since I've looked at this. Ronan, I just had a quick question for you. Are the structural drawings anything that I can pull up on the screen so the board can also see them? I don't know what Sumner Phillips has sent you. Can you see what's on the screen currently? Is this anything that would help you? Is there another page after that? Yeah, there's this one. Yeah, there's the structural drawings there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So there you go. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Yes. Foundation plan you can see is in the bottom right there and there are two columns essentially made of CMU in the middle and then there's a perimeter CMU with a footing. It's a, let's see. Oh my gosh, it's so small. I can give you the specific- Please give me a moment. I can zoom in if you all will give me a moment here. I can give you all some zoom and can see everything a little bit closer. Thank you. Yeah, so it's a 24 inch by 10. There you go. You can see the footing there. 8 inch CMU on a 24 by 10 inch footing all around the perimeter. And again, this was designed when we weren't trying to encroach into the buffer when we were working off of an inaccurate survey. So the footing width then is 24 inches, correct? Well, it's, yes. 24 inches wide? Right, with the center line being in the center of that 8 inch CMU. So it would stick 8 inches past on the outside if that makes sense. Because you've got the width of the inches and then the, yeah. Sorry, go ahead. Nope, go ahead. Is the other question I had was just regarding the orientation of the design and was there any consideration for essentially mirroring the footprint so that the deck was in fact on the buffer side and potentially creating less impact than having to construct an entire footing and foundation? We did not consider that in part because we are hoping to use the deck for acoustic performances for the neighborhood. And therefore, you know, putting on the back of the building what it would face is wood. And quite a precipitous drop-off ultimately. There's a change in grade that happens, you know, midway through the property. And it would be, yeah, impossible to use it as a performance space and have seating around it. Oh, I have it this time. Thank you. All right, Mr. Wretchless. Mr. Tarrant brought up exactly what I was trying to reach. But Eliza, is there any overlay protection on trees in this area? I'm just assuming there is not. There is not a requirement for overlay protection on trees or tree conservation for this single family detached home. Thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eliza, could you bring the sketch up drawings back up? I had a question about one of the sides of the building. Which sheet would you like to see, Chad? This third sheet. I think it's sheet number five. It's that sheet right there. Okay. Thank you. Is there a, okay. So the deck is out of the side of the building that faces the existing home. And it showed as cantilevered, but there's actually, I think I saw posts going down into the ground to support the deck. Is that accurate? Yes. So there are posts to support the deck. It is not cantilevered. Okay. So there is some additional excavation necessary for the deck. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right, any other questions for the applicant before we hear from any of the others? All right, Mr. Phillips, we'll turn it back over to you. I'm not sure who you wanted to speak. I wanted to clarify that the 15 foot from the tree that number that we arrived at, I got from leaf and limb tree folks who came out and looked at our lot and the way you arrive at that calculation is six times the diameter of the tree for significant construction. So that is where we landed on that 15 foot number. I believe everyone in attendance are neighbors in support of the variants, as well as a friend and contractor, Aaron Lubeck, who has walked the property and has an understanding of the issues that I bring before the board. I'm not sure if any of them need to speak beyond support. Most welcome, they're welcome to say anything that like pertinent to this case. So we'll let you call on whoever you'd like. Quick staff here before we begin. Mr. Phillips, typically we stop share when we have this many people talk at once. Do any of the individuals need this document showing that way that everyone can see each other? I don't believe so. Okay, I'm gonna stop share just so we can all see each other. And now you'll go forward back. So Aaron Lubeck, would you like to speak to anything else that you've observed in walking the property with me? I believe you're muted. Sorry, I'm having a morning of technical difficulties. This is Aaron Lubeck, 1,002 LeMond. I am a designer and builder here in Durham. Friend of James, familiar with the property and the case. I think it's a super simple case. There's a need to save a rare tree. I do a lot of walking in Duke Forest and Eno and I've not seen any tree like that tree. It's a pretty substantial one and a beautiful one. So I think that there's aesthetic reasons for the variance. There's environmental reasons for the variance. The hardship is pretty clear in that the buffer's buffer, the buffer to the buffer, causes any accessory structure there that's functional for James's need to threaten the tree. And so to have to maximize the buffer's purpose and to save the tree, variance is necessary. So after you pass it, I would also note that these cases, I think there should be some path to do these administratively because it is a burden for small homeowners like James who are doing recording homes or accessory structures and accessory dwellings. I think we're not thinking enough of the financial burdens to do the applications and hire consultants when needed to process these actually are a significant burden for citizens and we often forget that in this process. So I ask you to keep that in mind as well. Thanks. I agree with you, Mr. Lubeck, but this is what we've got right at the record for us at the moment. Who else do you have, Mr. Phillips? Thank you. I have two neighbors. Tom Trousseau owns the two houses to the south of us. So it's our direct same side of the street neighbor. Do you have anything to add, Tom? Yes, I'll be very brief. So I live at 1207 Northmangham, two houses to the south with my family and we also own this house and also 1213 directly to the south. So I'm sitting just a few hundred feet from the site and I fully support the variance. It seems like a very minor thing for a very good value. Any questions, I'm happy to answer. Thanks. Thank you. Glad your burden was able to make the call as well. And Dev Dashi lives directly across the street if he has anything to add. Greg, I'd say the same thing as Tom. I think it's a, I think it'd be a nice to have and doesn't seem like it's a large impact. Thank you. All right, thank you, sir. Anyone else for Phillips? No, sir. That's it. All right, any questions for the applicant? Mr. Tarrant has his hand raised and I think after that was Mr. Retchless. Mike, do you want to go ahead, Tarrant? This is Tarrant. I'm just having one follow up question. Did Leaf and Lim provide a sort of a constructability maintenance plan for actually preserving this tree? I remain concerned that if it is a 30 inch tree, I don't think they were really staying out of that critical root zone and therefore fully protecting it. But I'm familiar with Leaf and Lim and we would defer their recommendations. They have, we've actually even begun work on that on this particular tree in the hopes that the variance would be granted. But what we've done is trimmed several dead limbs from the tree and then we're going to do several rounds of fertilizing around the tree as well as a pested side treatment on the tree because the stress of nearby construction could lead to an invasive beetle that we'd like to avoid. And prior to beginning construction, we were going to hire Leaf and Lim to aerate the ground around the tree to just really baby it through the stressful process. Should we be granted the variance? Thank you. All right, Mr. Ritchells. I was circumventing those same questions. Just wanted to know if there was any expert testimony from Leaf and Lim that could be here today to speak on that tree. Unfortunately, there was a scheduling snafu on my part. I thought I was going to be in the January meeting. So by the time that I was notified I was in the December meeting, my arborist had already had his schedule full for this morning. So he sent an email, but it couldn't be entered as evidence because it's hearsay. Any other questions? All right, thank you for your time. Let's, anybody here to speak against? I don't see anyone listed on here. All right, we'll move forward. Discussion wants to board. Thoughts? There is no staff recommendation and other variants here. Mr. Lacey. Thank you. What we have here is the attention between vegetation and aquifer, which means that we're talking about balancing out environmental concerns on a couple of hundred square feet of property. I'm pleased to hear the sworn testimony of the applicant that he's consulted with an arborist and is doing the best he can to preserve vegetation. Trees are falling like flies these days and it's good to know that someone's caring for what we've got and on balance, I think he's doing the most responsible thing that he could do. Thank you. Well said, Regina, anyone else? This is Meadows. I agree that saving the linden tree is laudable. I think that's really good. I wish that the applicant would have explained a little bit more about why the building had to be constructed with the corner encroaching into the no-build area. It would have been helpful to hear why the applicant could or could not shave the corner off the building and avoid the no-build. So that's, I'm generally in support of this, but I wish that that information would have been forthcoming. All right, anyone else? This is Terrent. I agree. I think it would have been helpful really to see a grading plan to see what the ultimate impacts of the no-build are based on the footing design. I feel that even with excavation and construction, that footing, you're still going to stay out of that buffer. So I think you've done the best you can to balance the location of this to save the tree and not impact the buffer in any way. So definitely a challenging site. And I appreciate the thought and the efforts you've put into this consideration. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, I'll share Regina's sentiments as well as Mike, Terrent, and Chad, George as well. I appreciate their tenderness. I kind of wish somebody would from the arborist, but I understand how scheduling works especially how this went ended up. Does anyone want to offer a motion? I will. This is Meadows. It's Meadows. I hereby make a motion that application B2000045 in application for a request for a variance from the no-build setback requirements on property located at 1213 North Mangum Street has successfully met the applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions that the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and all information submitted to the board as part of the application. We've had a motion for approval by Mr. Meadows. Is there a second? This is Bo-Shane. I'll second. All right, I'm gonna second by Ms. Bo-Shane. Susan, take it away. Susan, you're on mute. Sorry about that. Mr. Lacey. Yes. Mr. Meadows. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Richlis. Yes. Ms. Wymore. Yes. Mr. Tarrant. Yes. Ms. Bo-Shane. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. A unanimous vote of seven to zero. Your request for a variance has been approved. But thank you for your time for coming forward via away and wish you the best of luck. Yeah, thank you guys so much. Thank you. All right, that concludes our cases today. We are seeing no new old or new business on the agenda. Eliza, are there any updates or anything else we need to go over before we continue to order? Just going to note about the orders really quickly. We are going to not be doing one. I think it was 42. Yes. That's right. That's right. Yes. So 42 will not be doing order four today. Quick note about January. It will be proceeding as normal. Haven't received any new information about those appeal motions with relation to Black Metal Ridge just to give you all an update on that. The files are relatively large. So I'll be sharing just so you know ahead of time that I'm not trying to scam you. I'll be sharing either a SharePoint or Box link for you to access those. Because the files I mentioned for the appeal last time that you all wanted a little bit earlier, they're a little bit large. And they'll also probably be the same way. We'll share those out if they add any more. That way I'll just have a folder we can dump there and everyone can have access to it. We don't have to worry about a file size limit for an email. But that's all the updates I have. Thanks you all so much for being here today. And I hope everyone has a great holiday. Thank you. All right, we'll nick for the approval of orders. We are not going to do 42. Chris will come back next month. Oh, I'm sorry, Tisha, you had something? So we'll have it, that one will be a special order. So we'll need a motion and a second for each one of these and we'll have to go through everybody. So we've got B2000036. Is there a motion for approval? Meadows, move approval. Is there a second? One more second. One more second. Susan? Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Retchless? Yes. Ms. Weimour? Yes. Mr. Tarrant? Yes. Ms. Bushing? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right, I need a motion for B2000044. Delacie? Mr. Lacey, is there a second? Bo Shane. Thank you. Susan, take it away. Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Kip? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Retchless? Yes. Ms. Weimour? Yes. Ms. Bo Shane? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. This one, Ann, you set out for this one. Mike Tarrant set in, so vote accordingly. B2000045, is there a motion for approval? Meadows, move approval. All right, Meadows, is there a second? Delacie? Mr. Lacey? Mr. Lacey? Yes. Mr. Meadows? Yes. Mr. Rogers? Yes. Mr. Retchless? Yes. Ms. Weimour? Yes. Mr. Tarrant? Yes. Ms. Bo Shane? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Good deal. All right, then it concludes all of the business for our agenda today. Our next meeting will be January 26, 2021, at 8.30 AM. Tisha, do you have something? I'm sorry, I keep seeing your hand. I think it was raising up. So sorry for keeping doing that. I wish you all hope you all have a great Christmas and first of the new year. And is there a motion for adjournment? Delacie. Thank you. I think we'll do need a second. One more second. All in favor, just raise their hands. All right, we'll see you all in January 26. Have a great rest of your week. Happy winter, everybody. Pictures of the puppy.