e
e e
audio on right Karen yeah then record to
Cloud I'm already doing
that I'm recording the cloud okay yeah
you told me
to oh record okay
no all
right
October 2024 meeting of the back B order
please and we
could
will we're Miss some
Str Mr es Runner here Mr Levine here Mr
Marsh here chair chairman Beall I'm
here did everybody read the minutes of
the last
meeting we didn't have the minutes of
the last meeting ready to get them
anybody here somebody right here where
is uh did we
uh come on don't worry we haven't done a
thing yet
so
um I think the record should reflect
that might as well will finish the roll
call
sure so she
gets Miss
L thank
you you just
the everybody get a chance had a chance
to read the minutes of the prior meeting
anybody have any
for comments subtractions
modifications deletions any of the above
they' like to make if not I would
entertain a motion to call to approve
the of the
September thank
you all in favor of proving the say
I all opposed the minutes are approved
with there is a opportunity for public
comment on the operation of a BAP if
anybody is here to talk about the
operation as opposed to any particular
case which we cannot discuss uh please
let raise
your here please come forward and make
sure the green lights on that
baby and then Tak your name your
residence address L 663 new okay and I
would like to know a definition or
between the difference between hardship
and practical
difficulties the difference between
hardship and practical
difficulty well I'm not sure that the
word hardship appears anywhere in the
statute for one
thing I got to look at it here
but let me look for a second to make
sure that I'm right
I don't see anything so I think you're
you're reduced to practical difficulty
it means what it says but things cannot
be practically uh accomplished right uh
then that is a consideration that we
would think parship is a
uh certain Ral difficulties are
hardships on the land own right certain
Ral difficulties are just difficulties
and not exactly the hardship but
hardship is is you know something that
says change is not something that could
easily be
accomplished I think that's essentially
I don't think there's much difference I
think one is a subset of the other
that's my own personal feeling does
anybody else have any thoughts about the
difference I mean you almost have to go
get a dictionary except just
historically
we we've just kind of always known that
practical difficulty is a lesser
standard than hardship that's the way we
practiced it so we we tend to Define
everything by practical difficulty
instead of
hardship that's just
thank
you all right is there any other comment
if if not let's move on to we have any
uh old
business or I think we did have
one uh bit of old business that case has
been uh taged by the applicant correct
that would be case number vz- 24-28
involving 490 to 492 North cidy that
correct chairman he called me about 3 pm
this afternoon asked to be tabled till
next meeting okay so if anybody is here
on that case which involves a special
permit for a food trailer cart to be
located at the side uh Norths side
Southside excuse me of a shopping uh
Plaza on C
Avenue that casee isn't going to be
heard tonight so M will go home and have
it
done all right the first um PE first
case on our docket other than that is a
case
involving 2823
aligan case number bz ap-
24-33 the applicant is Arabella
Anson and the owner is fb9 LLC seat the
applicant is the applicant present
please come forward
my the uh applicant is Seeking a
certificate of appropri for a covered
structure over a Cellar Door as well as
a 1ot 1 in area variance from beex code
section 122.0 n to encroach into the
sidey yard setback would you raise your
right hand to be sworn please state your
name and do you swear or affirm that
your testimony are going to give the
board this evening will be the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth I
do thank you very
much Matt can you give us some
background on this face
please yes chairman
[Music]
um so misson came to us after um I
believe our code enforcement um saw that
she had a structure off the um it would
be the east side of the property
uh here's an overhead aerial view of it
right here this is an R six zoning code
it is or zoning District it's a 40 foot
lot so um the setback is about 6 foot 8
in the structure so there's an aerial
right there the house sits 8 foot 8.5
feet off the property line uh this
structure goes about 5.6 ft from the
property line so there's a 1 foot one
inch variance it protrudes protrudes
into the sidey setback um as well as uh
staff uh did not feel that this one
needed to go to ARB we felt that you
could Grant the certificate of
appropriateness um would you you would
concur Karen yes um I'm perfectly
comfortable helping the applicant with
any architectural changes or just to
finish out to just go inspect it make
sure
it's actually appropriate so as I
understand it uh there's a seller door
and critters and whatnot getting into
the basement so they covered
it you can add to it that give us a
pretty good idea of
what that
does in thect you'll see that we have
C the and so that was that was
all right members of the board you have
any questions or
comments or
theoc all right uh then we have findings
of fact conclusions
of oh I'm
sorry the remnant of
thator uh does anybody here Pro or con
this application we have standing no no
indication of such so thank you now we
can go to finan back
conclusion
me
um Bings and facts in conclusion of law
for a certificate of Repro for a covered
structure over a Cellar Door as well as
a 1 foot one inch area variance from
bestley code section 1252 .09 to
encroach into the sidey yard setback um
but from Board of um for application Bap
24-33 the board finds that cerificate
appropriateness should be issued and the
variant should be granted for the
property located at
28 23
alagan with the condition that the
applicant work with the design
consultant
full you except
yes do I hear a motion to approve the
fin
thank
you Mr Levine yes Mr Marsh yes Miss L us
ATT Mr eser yes chairman VHA I vote Yes
also the variances granted and the
certificate granted good luck and thanks
sry through all those over
was
first Mr Mr Le was the
second business
is case involing
59 North
Cassidy it's a case bc-
24-34 the applicant is Tom Brandon Jr
and stepen
vco the brand sign company and the owner
is Cassidy North LLC the out is seeking
approval for ass sign placement in a PUD
District per Vex code section
12605 C with that applicant please come
forward
sir oh you you are neither of those
people
any
questions okay let me ask you to raise
your right hand and do you swear or
affirm any testimony you're about to
give this evening be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth and your
name is Bob okay
Bob thank
you okay if she's didn't testified swear
her R too but well you intend to
testify come on
up take care just in
case say your
namey Randy you swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give the board
this evening be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth thank
you very
much all right staff tell us about this
case a little bit thank you chairman um
this uh this case is a new sign for the
Cassy Avenue Apartments on the screen
you'll see kind of a rendering of the
new sign um the existing sign is right
here uh some of you may or may not know
uh Bexley code section 12 6.05 C for a
planned unit development District which
this is a planned unit development uh no
signage shall be erected or modified for
existing PUD developments without first
being approved by this board so this
one's being modified and that it is that
is why it is before you this evening
staff sees no issue with the new
sign this is
not
arital is it no
no all right so Mr mum are we looking at
the proposed sign on the right on the
right and what's its size compared to
the I can't really read it up
there okay and that sign left has been
up there for a number of
years very
difficult you can actually see this
on
got decide to go exact same size as far
as the
location we don't know exactly where the
foundation is we hit it be just
that
Foundation
okay now there's a longstanding uh
history in Bexley before my time even
that they want signs to have be dark
with white lading as opposed to light
with dark lading and so
certainly anybody here for or against
this application
any member of the board have any
questions or comments or thoughts I just
have one question is the text on the
other side of the sign the same
as thank you okay all right any other
questions or
comments can you give us find it back to
24-34 the board finds that a certificate
of appr appropriateness should be issued
um for the approval of assign
replacement in PUD district for beex and
code section 12605 C the property
located at 509 North
Cassidy all
right do I hear motion to approve the
fin conclusions of law please
thank
you we got to get in
work all
right with that Mr Matt can you please
call the role yes chairman Mr Marsh yes
M leac Mr esner yes Mr Levine yes
chairman beon i v yes also so the
special is granted and
thank thanks thanks Bob thank
you
case
is case bcap
24-36 involving 830 Brandon the
applicant and the owner is Natasha
Kelly the Quest is Seeking a variance
from Beckley city code section 12 64.0 3
to allow side yard fence to exceed 72 in
in
height which happens to vary with the
grade of the property is somebody here
on that case Miss Miss
Kelly you know that's you're here we'll
make it easiest possible for you are you
Natasha Kelly do you swear or affirm
that any testimony you give the board
the city would
the thank you very all right Mr CL thank
you chairman uh this one came about um
right after Miss Kelly replaced the
fence um our code enforcement officer
Dave for Lia drove by and realized um
that there was a hyp issue um Miss
Kelly's been great to work with she came
into the office um she's got some other
things we're working through as far as
building permits but um it was an
existing fence uh and an interior lot um
the neighbor's
yard their elevation is higher so
there's a retaining wall there um and
simply as I understand the fence I mean
she she has lots of pictures the fence
was you know it needed replaced um she
has sort of a time lapse here that I put
in your packet uh and she replaced the
fence sort of in kind and fixed up the
retaining wall um and you guys probably
saw that pour new concrete uh so simply
the the variance isn't exact it's just
the it's it's a it's a variance that the
the height of the fence varies with the
grade okay so that's the variance
because in some spots it's seven and a
half feet in another spot it's seven
feet in another spot at the end it's six
feet so it varies as the grade slopes U
with the retaining
wall
okay there's picture not an ARB case I
assume nope no M Kelly tell us what you
did why you did it what we should do you
like us to
doer so that is the start of the F and
as
down
into so those last three four panels
then
tall then 6 as Matt just described to
the alley at the end there is a f is a
gate for
that that is
on so I just replaced what I believe to
be an
existing fence at the same height as
when I purchased it in December 2010
it's already like that if you scroll out
those pictures um of there you go is the
older picture yes and right also here
yes so the fence is in precisely the
same location as the other fence as the
old fence I should say and has precisely
the same height variations or does it
really
okay so is it just a six foot high fence
or a f 5 foot tall fence but it's
because it's on on retaining wall it's
been taller 6ot six 6ot fence but
because it's on retaining wall in
certain areas it's taller
correct correct
yeah
yeah so the fence is not the fence
itself if you just measured the wood of
the fence it's never more than 72 in
correct are yeah yeah are I guess this
would be a variance from the fence from
the fence section that says you can't
Mound the Earth up intentionally to
create a higher elevation so you
couldn't have like a three- foot Mound
and a six foot fence and all of a sudden
a 9 foot fence but it's um the retaining
wall is not I mean it's it's it's
because of the grade of the neighbor's
property it's not like she Mound the it
up
so the neighbor side right yeah this
would be a situation where there's some
practical difficulty probably not a
hardship um all right is there anybody
here that's for or against this
application oh there are all right folks
do anyone of you wants to come up and
testify please do
so okay that's all
right we won't
bite you do have to be in to testify you
swear or affirm that
testim truth and your name please
is where do you live nearby acoss the
street okay very good what's your
position on this request I
think issue with anybody having anything
not going to be able to do that they
were
before and actually on the other side I
think it's better for them to be the
H
because well thank you for coming and
for sharing us your thoughts on that
thank you very
much
right is anything you'd like to add
or that you can think of
I all right any questions for members of
the board or
comments I hear
none Mr can I
have can I have conclusions of law yes
findings and fact and conclusions of law
for the variance for beic code section
12 12 6403 to allow a side yard fence to
exceed 72 in in height which varies with
the grade for application number Bap
24-36 for the property located at 8:30
grandon based on the testimony presented
the board finds it appropriate to Grant
the variance
requested thank
you
that do I
hear motion to approve the finion
why you follow the
LA thank you chairman Mr L yes Mr Marsh
yes Mr es yes m
l chairman beh I vote Yes as well and
the variance is granted good luck that's
a nice looking things thanks for going
through this
process thank you
all right the next case is case bc-
24-38 inv of 2610 Brion Road the app is
Bryce Jacob the owner is Jeffrey Bass
the appan is seeking approval to install
a dormer on an existing non-conforming
accessory structure which is a detached
garage who's here on this case it looks
like there's only one gang left in town
here so
St your name please I'm Bryce J Bry do
you swear or affirm that the Tes about
to give this evening will be the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth thank you very
much all
right Mr CL tell us a little bit about
this
situation thank you chairman this is an
interesting one um so a real interesting
one this might be the largest Garage in
all Bexley um but they the garage did
receive a variance when was built now it
looks um I mean I love the look of it
but I thought it was a real old
structure um and I think that was
probably intentionally done that way
with the slate roof it was built in 2008
2009 we found out yeah Bryce worked with
me on this and uh we did a little
research we do have a variance for it
from 2008 2009 now I don't have my hard
files in here but I did see it in
Viewpoint and it just says they got a um
a lot kind of a coverage variance a
square footage variance and probably a
height variance
um um Bryce was telling me I believe the
the owner of this property the husband
is a doctor uh he works late hours and
he's looking for a place you know all
the floorboards in Bexley Creek if you
haven't replaced your floor so did not
wake up as family I'm assuming uh he you
know we're trying to turn this into a
place to stay uh um during the hours of
the evening um I don't exactly
know you know I think we should Grant in
my opinion I think you should Grant
variance if you if you want to that they
can install the Dormer because I'm not
100% sure what the variances were before
and they're existing non-conforming so I
don't think this Board needs to Grant
those variances that are already there
because we do know that variances were
granted if that makes sense the one new
variance and we can mention that will be
the existing second floor square footage
is
lot size the allowable finished square
footage above uh the first floor would
be 50% of the first floor footprint um
the new the new square footage uh will
be
22.75 square feet over the allowable so
that is that would be considered a new
variance if we want to work that into
the language tonight uh but here's kind
of a breakdown this is an R six zoning
the um the allowable height is 18 feet
per our existing Co or per our code this
height is 26' 4 in they're not changing
the height they're just asking for um a
functional Dormer off the side of it um
this is a corner lot accessory structure
the sidey yard setback is 20 feet uh the
existing garage is setback 19 19.7 feet
so there's a slight variance there that
existing they're not changing the
footprint um and then there's the
breakdown of the uh existing footprint
of the garage is
516 Square ft the existing second floor
is
431.073 staff sees no no issue with this
this did come to the areview board it
was um voted
on recommended and positive um without
much of it on the consent agenda item
list which means we didn't it was kind
of a and I do remember when
this yeah there was actually a lot of
discussion at the time it was bu but all
right Mr Jacob wanted you give us a
little background as to why they're
trying to do what they're going
accomplish Varan yeah a great question
so there was VAR with because it was an
existing structure so we were looking at
it as putting a war on and adding a
bathroom the structure is open finish
space existing
so the amount of square footage that we
really be adding that closet in the the
floor plan that you see and then the uh
Dormer that's bumped out the Dormer we
we went with our architectur character
of having a can lever one foot to match
the Canever on the front of the garage
overs
the um again just to complement the
character of the structure
itself and then have the windows in the
in the dorm I see there would be in the
double the bathroom um and we have
actually have a door into the bathroom
that is a glass panel door it's
a
glass frosted glass so light can pass
through and so one they want to have a a
bathroom L again he is a doctor this is
not an air
case something
so there's a a bathroom because he comes
home at all hours as he's
working dictations that he has
for cases he's hand and a place where he
can lay down and go to sleep get up so U
that was the purpose of it folks just
moved into the home not too long ago and
kind of saw that as an contacted us
certainly looked at and talked about the
the the appliance that we need to have
to put a bathroom up there and uh we
were contacted before the ARB there was
a
variance in place because of the height
of the structure we weren changing the
height or anything so uh later than that
actually it was after Rie contact and
said you know there's of other things
found out that this was built in 2009 so
gone through some various proceedings
SL so that that's the gist of it really
and the closet over the stairwell that
would be built over the stair while
that's open currently and where circling
is a closet we be building again for
storage they saw that area
does the does the new dorm or is that
going to face like the back of the house
um it does face the back because they're
on a corner line so it faces the rear of
their
home so this is the corner of Brion and
Roosevelt
Remington Remington the northeast corner
so the entrance to the garage is all
Road uh it is actually the are on
R suppos to the is
therey not an yeah so it does face rton
where the garage doors are and then and
or would face the
rear oh hold sorry I'll pull back up so
the closet Rick is right if you look at
the screen I'm circling it right here so
th this Rick on the left is the existing
footprint so right now it's just the
stairs are open up there and it looks
like like they're you know going to
build a closet and a floor right here in
the corner and the other existing the
new square footage is just this bump out
right
here it as it it that's part of the 31
or 30 additional feed otherwise if the
closet wasn't there it would just be
this it would just be like where this
wall right here see that that kind of
bump out that's the Dormer that's a
straight wall right now right so it just
be like N9 feet or something yeah but
then the closet adds so that takes it
from
431 over here square foot to
461 3 foot Delta yeah yeah
itself so the door closet actually has
so it's just
literally who knows what in there it's
not extremely functional PL
and that yellow wall that you see that
fits an alignment CL door that is a half
wall knee wall with a cap on it so that
window Light Window does you
know is there anybody in the audience
that's for or against this matter I
don't think there is there nobody other
than your non neighbors that are in your
Huns
okay
um any further questions it looks like
you're not going really outside of the
perimeter of the current Garage in terms
of footage you're staying within the
current lines of the
garage
right so this is a matter
of they need a variance because they're
adding square footage to a second floor
of a
garage is this he must be it has a split
has mini split
and there are no uh food
preparation
equipment no there's no kitchen there is
Storage and a countertop to put coffee
maker but that's it a beverage
refrigerator
chairman if I may um please Bor just
reminder we um we do the two out of
three rule right so a bathroom and a
bedroom but no kitchen kitchen and a
bathroom but no bedroom so that's
currently how the code is written now um
the land use strategy commission is
meeting uh currently uh over the last
year and there has been talk about
accessory dwelling units and we're
looking into essentially allowing those
with code
language in the future to come so just
some background for you there accessory
dwelling units would have would would
allow would allow all three
features it would have to be the code
correct yeah there would be code
language around
it this this is beautiful the
existing I don't have any
problem you think there's any uh does
anybody have any thought there might be
some some uh issue with the Dormer
facing the backyard of the next
door the only thought I had in terms
of
privacy it doesn't it faces the rear of
the house yeah but so faces the rear of
the house there's a house right here and
you can see the back of the house from
here site plan oh uh yeah I don't have a
site plan um I
mean there you go that's the next house
right so they drive drive to the back
and that's the garage of the next
house so there's it then that's the
garage right there right so you're
talking about that house right right
there the D faces out that way
that's what our that's how we worded it
that all door should face the interior
so I would assume that if the neighbor
did have a problem they
would tonight it was noticed and
actually this is a pretty wide house you
got to
go are these windows are the windows
Fross window
I
don't any other questions or
comments all
right terar can we have find of
conclusions of law yes findings and fact
and conclusions of law for application
number bap 2438 for the property located
at 2610 Brighton Road the board finds
that a certificate of appropriateness
should be issued is it fine with you to
do them together yes okay certificate of
appropriateness should be issued for the
new Dormer on a preexisting
non-conforming accessory structure which
is detach which is a detached garage as
recommended by the architecture review
board and additionally based on the
testimony presented the board also finds
that a variant should be issued for the
new Dormer to conform to the already
existing structure is that a good
okay um that's it you need to have a
staff approval of the final or is that
already done deal it's of the
architecture
done I mean we we do have I should
probably read this but all minor changes
are all minor changes to the design are
subject to the approval by the
residential design consultant we put
that in
um record of decision I probably should
read that too
but we have
any additional comments everybody okay
with that if so I
approve second
Mr please call the RO Mr eer yes Miss L
Mr Levine yes Mr Marsh yes chairman
behall I also vote Yes and
the variances are
granted also thank you for your time and
patience
here thanks
it
was
Maran the 249 uh South
cassingham if chairman would you would
you rather me take tabled ones off of
the agenda or we leave them on okay so
we tabled them two meetings ago to
December 5th oh we
did yeah we're not 100% sure I think
we're I think they're coming back but
we're not 100% sure what the variances
will be right were they going to rework
the
design pretty exensive request for three
variance for garage so we she was going
to talk to the client to see so to be
determined okay well in that case I
don't think we have to take any official
action sorry that t so I think we're
good is there any other business from
any other member of the board I would
entertain a motion to adjourn at 6:44
you be all
time that your
motion so much
fun
second all meeting say
I
name the meeting is a journey
by the way look on your face when you
look tiny with with so dark on light
remember she dark