sick yes it is
all right thank you
all right um
let's call to order the
march
2022 meeting of the bexley board of
zoning and planning
um
let's see who's
somebody going to call the world jason
are you calling the role tonight or
you're you're not
you're you could oh karen can do that
okay karen thank you
mr turner
here
here is mitchell here
i'm here as well thank you
all right um
sorry oh you missed that you you missed
the roll call i think they'll survive
without knowing the roll call
we have the i saw two sets of minutes
for the last two meetings
not everybody that is here tonight was
at those meetings but
uh has everybody had a chance to review
them for the ones that you were there
if you weren't there you can abstain
from voting
but if you were there
are there any corrections or additions
subtractions modifications anybody needs
to
bring up here regarding the minutes
ms cunningham do i need to
delay the approval of the minutes on the
february meeting
okay so now we're talking about the
january
minutes
so
um any additions to the january minutes
all right
yeah
so
my recollection you know i'm on medicare
now you're gonna have to help me here
the uh
what month did we not have a meeting we
did we we did not have a december
meeting we did not have a meeting in
february
or december right no we actually had a
meeting december 5th
that's right sorry february was when we
didn't have reports but i don't know
what 224 years
for the 24th of
february
right
january
oh i'm sorry yeah
that's right the january
in fact you sent an email that got rid
of the month of february for everybody
didn't you yeah that's what i thought so
we did have a february meeting
minutes
but what we're going to do today is
approve the
december 2nd
2021 meeting minutes okay
is there a motion to approve
no second
thank you alicia alicia thank you
um
oh
first of all i guess we gotta do this by
roll call karen
yes mr shay
epstein mr marsh
yes mr turner
yes and chairman b hall i vote yes as
well so the minutes of the december 2021
being are hereby approved and we will
take
the take up the minutes of the february
meeting at the next
visa meeting
all right
we have got uh
uh
the first
we've got the um
uh
opportunity for people in the audience
anybody who's a resident of bexley who
wishes to comment on the operation of
the of the board of zoning and planning
this is not an opportunity to talk about
any of the particular cases that are
before us but rather just about the the
general process that we're involved in
here in the city if anybody wishes to
do so please raise your hand and let me
know
i see no indication of such
so
i think we can move on to old business
yes correct
and can you
get me here here we are
so
yeah i should be in yeah
so the
first
bit of old business is
application bzap 21-47
involving 81 north drexel
are those
the owner of the property is consecutive
prime llc and the applicant is
applicants are
keith witt
and nathan sampson
i didn't see in the front row there all
right so
i'm going to recuse myself from this
case because of the fact that my brother
is
uh still employed at
b hall sampson deeds and
brian will you take over sure i will
thank you
if if you could be sworn in sir if
there's anyone else uh here to speak on
behalf of the applicant could also be
sworn in
just in case yeah okay do you raise your
right hand state your names
nathan sampson keith witt
do you swear firm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes it is
mr marsh if if before you get started i
did work on the staff report with kathy
and she wanted me to at least
kind of get the board up to speak
because there's some complicated issues
on this the just in terms of the history
of this site as much as anything
um at least to give maybe the the board
kind of a a road map and may i just
interrupt you for one second absolutely
to anyone that's speaking there's a lot
of material that i have downloaded so
please just
let me know what you want me to bring up
thank you
do we want to start with the background
then probably that'd be great i think
it'll be helpful to the members of the
board
um and
there was a staff report it it also
there's a link to it you may want to
pull it down because it's pretty long
and i i don't know how early that was
posted in the process
um but i know it i believe it was shared
with the applicant early on i think
um and so it's been downloaded
i worked on this with kathy early on
because it was kind of complicated for a
couple of reasons
one is
relating to the special permit
provisions of the fight ordinances which
we can talk about
it talks about granting a special permit
when there's a deviation from front yard
setback but the determinate
determination of that other cause a
little bit unusual for this particular
property so we're going to talk about
that um also this site has had previous
variances granted to it
some from the board of zoning appeals
and some from city council when the code
was a little bit different and they had
jurisdiction
and so you have a multitude of variants
requests before you some of those
variants some of them are what i would
consider to be a new variance
even though on this site there were
previous experiences granted like to
allow a swimming pool in a pool house
which is a request now
um i think in 2007 there were some
variances granted on that i do have the
old variances with me so i can can you
put them on the screen from a flash
drive
or i can get them to you so we'll try to
put them up if we have them
um
no
but they're on my flash drive
so um i do have those with me if you
want to look at those but long story
short there was a there were variances
granted for a to allow a swimming pool
pool house and a generator on this site
almost at the identical location that's
being proposed
but under the in the city of bexley and
also a variance for
an arch over these tall columns that
face
north drexel
under the city code if a variance is not
executed upon or
um
taken advantage of within a year of the
database issued it expires
so because nothing was ever done
those were all two the pool portions
were grounded by city council the
archway was granted by
um
bza at the time
um because those were never done those
variances have lapsed although they were
considered at one time by the city there
are other variances that were granted
for
the fences along the property um
and maybe karen can put up some pictures
of the property or the site so at least
we can sort of point those out or she
can point those out as we go along
um but there were fence um variances
granted because in the city of bexley
you can't have a front yard fence
and in this case there are um there is a
wrought iron front yard fence and some
gates on along the side property line
and so there those all have variances
and those variances specify the height
and the style of fence and all of those
things as you would expect so if there
are changes to those variances that were
actually executed upon and the structure
or whatever it was is there
then i would consider those an amendment
to an existing variance because they do
have the right to have that variance but
they're asking it to be changed in some
way or another um and the reason i
thought a roadmap would be good is so we
can walk through what what's a new
variance what's an old variance what
this whole setback thing means
um
kathy did ask staff did ask that you
sort of determine whether or not the
special per you would even apply the
special permit provisions
so i think i'm gonna if i'll give you a
little background on the site then let's
jump to the special permit provisions
because that's sort of a threshold
question of do we think this applies or
not
and then um i can at least walk through
the variances so you know when you're
hearing the evidence
what the items that those the evidence
is going to point to so you can maybe
pigeonhole it in your minds and and
that'll help you hopefully navigate
through the end game which will be your
determination based on the evidence that
you hear
um on how you want to proceed if that
makes any sense so will we hear
their testimony first or your background
first you'll hear my background first
and then that'll hopefully give you sort
of
an idea of which where what you need to
be looking for and then you'll hear
evidence and whatever other testimony
that there is and i'm sure that
the the applicant is very savvy about
what's being asked there are some slides
that that help with some background on
it so hopefully we'll
everybody can walk through it but it's a
little bit unusual just because of the
the site history karen do you have can
you bring up like a just a general site
plan or an otter's map or anything it
doesn't make any difference
um an application do you know which one
is a good one
um yeah you can scroll down from here so
that's an existing
site plan okay so that just gives you a
little bit of background i'm gonna sort
of read the background in the
in the
in the staff report just because it
gives you distances and i and that'll
that'll help you know what you're
looking at so obviously what is there is
is an existing structure and house
which is kind of the light blue the lot
is a large lot and when you see it you
you will see that to the south is
clifton avenue on the east side is north
drexel
and on the west side is columbia and on
this what what would be considered a
block there are two homes
one is the subject property
which is the front yard is considered
clifton historically because the way
bexley considers what your front yard is
is the way the lot is planted they're
all plotted to clifton so the front yard
is considered to be clifton
the house that is to the west which
fronts columbia
that house actually
unusually the front yard is also
considered to be clifton but the house
the face of the house if you were
looking at it faces um actually columbia
so there's a um the property zoned r3
um so in in
2006
uh
bza granted
a couple of variances one was for a six
foot high wrought iron fence
with six foot high wooden gates and a
decorative wrought iron arch to be
mounted on the existing 98 inch high
columns
on the east driveway entrance on north
drexel
for a total height of 15
16 feet
so there is we don't have a photo of it
i don't do we have a photo of that
the columns and gate
i'm going to
yeah you'd probably you might be able to
get it from google maps from the street
but on drexel on that side there are two
very tall columns
and um those are those are existing by
variants the wrought iron fence along
north drexel and clifton is existing by
variants because you otherwise could not
have that
and um they have some gates that are
there that are existing by variants and
there are some requests and the
applicant will point those out to you
for changing some of those things so
those would be existing variances that
we would be they would be requesting an
amendment of
so in addition to that in 2007
city council granted variances to allow
a six foot high wrought iron fence
around the property
and at that time they granted a
um
a variance to allow a pool in a portion
of the front yard that would be 20 by 50
with the backup generator can be to be
constructed on the western end of the
front yard
so that pool was not constructed so that
variance has been expired should you
decide to allow a pool and a pool house
and a generator that would be a new
variance we would not consider that as
an existing variance
the wrought iron fence some of it
related to the pool i believe some of it
is there so that is existing by variance
and if there are any changes to that we
would consider that an amendment to an
existing variance
typically if city council granted the
variance beez app does not amend the
variance but the jurisdiction changed by
when the codified ordinances changed so
since it's now within your authority and
jurisdiction is different than sometimes
we've had them where you can't amend
that because it involved a lot size or
something where they had retained
jurisdiction this one jurisdiction
passed to you and when the code changed
so we would have you consider that and
they won't have to go to city council
separately as it relates to those
variances
there was also a landscaping plan i
think that was approved as part of that
as well
so
the
i want to talk a little bit about the
existing conditions but i'm going to
back up and tell you what the special
permit says
um so that you can understand what the
existing conditions mean mr turner
just a question so
the location of the previous pool that
was pre that was before the addition on
the end of the building right that was
and then was it in a similar location to
where it is now or was it
where the initiative is now
there was a variance for the edition too
i think
and
the are you talking about the pool yeah
the previous approval where was the
location
i can pass this around and i'll see if i
can get karen the flash drive i don't
have an adapter
oh you don't my only adapter i'm using
is for the
i don't have
can you if you can email it to me i can
yeah i can do that overlay
is that helpful
that was the other variance
oh you do have that okay see if this is
good enough catherine we
we over and lay the previous
plan that was approved and never acted
upon
which is in red
uh
over our
site
yeah yep yep
sorry
can you get a flashlight
so let's talk about existing conditions
anything else
before i move on
okay so let's talk about existing
conditions a little bit and the co what
the code says so there's this provision
in the code
that's if you have the staff report
it relates to the first paragraph and
then i'm gonna
uh
[Music]
drag you all the way to page four so the
page four is where the code provisions
are so the first paragraph is talking
about
um i think on initial conversations with
kathy she wasn't sure about whether or
not this special permit provision um
would apply or not to this
this property so
she included it in it and then when we
talked about it we had real questions
about how to apply it
so there's a special permit that um
allows
for a special permit to be granted
in the front yard where the principal
structure deviates
by more than 20 percent from the
established front yard setback line
and or there's been a variance so
the
the confusing part as it relates to this
site is that that code section directs
that you figure out where the average
front setback is
so if you go to page four karen and we
see the the definitions of front yard
setbacks
what it would say is
the at we're at average setback means
the average distance back for a
structure from the front lot line
of the adjacent three structures on each
side
on any street where principal structures
have been erected on at least 25 percent
of the lots situated between two
existing adjacent streets well you don't
have that here
what you have is
two lots you can't really get an average
there's you know other than the side of
one and the and this particular
structure
sits way back to the rear of the line
so the question was can we even
consider that section when um
the average setback will be determined
based on having more structures um
between in a block on on the uh
when you make that determination
um and that's where the staff there's a
staff note um
i think kathy had all those numbers in
the front and then when she she is
asking that
um in the end she believes that
calculating an average setback based on
only two lots at the short end of a
block is a unique situation and giving
the history of the site and the prior
variances and viewing the applicant she
used the application more as a variance
request rather than a special permit
just because it provides more
information and she doesn't know how to
apply those sections of the code to
create an average setback to make um
a provision she does note in the
beginning i think she did the
measurements and did note uh in some of
the the factual information
how far those properties set back on
page two and she describes existing
conditions she says that the um the
house at
the whose address is drexel north drexel
the subject property is 110 feet from
clifton and the property that fronts
columbia to the west is 80 feet from
clifton so you could average those two
maybe and try to get deviations and you
would probably get a deviation and
arguably wouldn't need a variance but
that is not the recommendation staff and
i agree that it's difficult to apply a
definition that just is
totally inapplicable to the
circumstances that we have here
so the recommendation is that you
proceed with the variance and not
special permits but again it's your
interpretation of the code and so
i would say when i said when we walk
through
that would be one of your initial
determinations because that sort of
establishes then how you move forward
and consider the rest of the information
and i don't want to monopolize
the applicant to go ahead and address if
they've got anything to say
yeah should be doing a great job
so
there you go there's the there's the
road map and um i guess um that chair
marsh vice chair marsh uh maybe if you
could
have a conversation and um direct get a
decision on the board on how you want to
proceed then we'll figure out it from
there what our next step is sure
but before we discuss do they may have
any other questions for
for
cunningham or anyone else
i
do just from a process standpoint and my
lack of familiarity but um these
variances that we're adopting if we were
to adopt them do they
um zero out the existing ones that are
there because i know the ones you said
has already terminated
but if there are any other
variances do we have to make sure that
we are encompassing what's already in
place
with these
these stand alone
they would be an amendment so that what
is already there would remain except for
the extent that you and men got okay
that's yeah that wasn't clear yes and
then you you're asking us to decide
whether we we feel we should go the
variance route or the special permit
route as it relates to the yes to
anything that's constructed in the front
yard the pools basically the pools
yeah yeah
anyone feel strongly one way or the
other can i ask just for a refresher um
from when i first heard this case what
was the reasoning behind moving the pool
further to the other end to i remember
that there was a reason i just don't
remember what it was to the west
uh i think that in you know the idea of
moving a pool to the west side of that
portion of the lot between the house and
the street was simply to move it away
from the intersection
and for that reason you know putting it
in a place that's not
you know a prominent location at the
intersection knowing that the lot is odd
trying to tuck it back
into what would be you know a more
private location with the space that
we're looking at
does anyone on the board have a strong
preference for variance or special
permit
having considered the background uh mr
chair having considered the background
of this and reading the staff report i'm
inclined to adopt the recommendation and
proceed with the variants instead of
special permits
i
agree i agree
so do we
you want us to make a motion i think
that would be most appropriate just for
clarity of the record
i'll second
karen are you getting this yep okay
is this going to be on the exam
everything you just talked about it is
it's on the exam later with mr schick as
the first and mrs mitchell that's the
second
okay
do you want to read i'll call the role
call well you're do you want to read
legally what what you want us to be
proving just that we're going to hear it
as a variant
sure the motion is i i think the motion
was that the um having reviewed the
code
the board determines that
the special permit provisions
uh relating to front yard
setbacks
do not apply to this case when there are
two only two houses and an average
setback cannot be determined
do you need me to read that again is
that that's good that's perfect okay
yeah as a movement i'm fine with that
okay great
mr turner
roll call yes
it was like what do you want
what happened
yes
vice chairman yes
um with with that is there any other
questions for staff before we have them
present
all right if you'd like to go ahead and
present okay
um
as you guys have
been
educated on this property a little bit
it's confusing right it was confusing
for us as well when we started just with
how the lot is planted and so we've been
trying to
you know make sense of that as best we
could as we move forward right
so uh
the variances that we're asking for are
sort of two parts tonight one involves
the
cool house location and one involves an
amendment to previously approved uh
variants for the perimeter effects
around and so i think what may be
what may make sense i guess in my eyes
too is uh may we talk about the fence
one first because we can it's a little
bit simpler so we can
get through that and then dive into the
uh aspect of the pool house okay
so right now the lot if you go
here into that existing site plan okay
in the existing site plan you can see
that there is a sort of
a small dashed line that sort of is in
an arc there in the middle of the
property along clifton and then you can
follow that around the property it goes
a long clip to no longer
so if you driven past the house you'd
see that six foot tall iron fence um
which was noted as previously approved
what we are proposing for
that is an amendment to that fence where
we're taking down the six-foot fence
replacing it with basically a 50 inch
fence i think 48 is the
allowable fence height but
we're just trying to hold it off the
ground a little bit to cover
inconsistencies in the grade so we're
just it's a number that's out there so
we're saying we're proposing to replace
that with a um
50 inch fence and also changing its
location slightly
if you go down to scroll down to the
next slide
okay so in this one the proposed fence
location for that shorter fence is the
line with the circles sort of dashed
with circles along the perimeter
it goes along clifton
up and along drugs
keeping a clear uh corner there at the
intersection
that fence uh
is you know in a black aluminum fence
it is also
when we look at a landscape plan
concealed within the landscaping is a
safe defense privacy fence but it's
really a fence also for the pool
and just meeting the requirements for
the height of that fence around the yard
so
you know as as we think about those two
things the height comes down location
moves slightly but in conjunction with
the landscape plan so it's not a fence
that you would see walking down the
sidewalk it's there
embedded in the landscaping
um
there are a couple of little
detail elements about that about the
average height of uh the grade between
the setback line and the property line
and the fence's deviation from that from
the 50 inches 50 inches just the
constructed fence the height of it
varies slightly because there's a great
change between the setback and the
property line um and those you know
deviations are listed in the
landscape designers plan you know it
ranges anywhere from you know the height
property line to where the fence is you
know 50 inches up to i think
with the grade change it might go up to
60
in one point okay
that from an experiential standpoint you
know along the sidewalk from the street
um
what we're doing is
basically taking down that large fence
remember
planting up and replacing it with a
shorter fence embedded landscape
slightly closer to the property line
um is there i think that there's a
landscape
plan
and photos
yeah
it's in
do you know which one it is
[Music]
so scroll down just a couple of
yep that's it right there
so
this uh encompasses the
landscape development on the lot
so you can see along
both clifton and drexel you know the
shorter shrubbery that sort of builds up
a sort of a green perimeter there which
is the square boxes that travel along
there that fence that we're proposing is
directly behind those uh series of boxes
so just to give you an idea of you know
the goal in the finish condition of that
i think that there are a couple of
access gates which are slightly taller
than the fence as well uh those are
wooden fences and then
to your point about the pillars
we've got
previously approved pillars of the
driveway
what this is a minor thing but we've
brought it up here is
we're proposing to take down those
pillars and rebuild them
same location we're just
orienting them perpendicular to the
drive
where they're slightly off now so we're
changing the
you know that that modification to those
pillars there's not an arch over any
longer it's simply a gate in between
same size same dimensions
different materials
uh yeah it's pretty close
materials materials
okay
so that's a picky thing but
in the same spot we're talking about
right here yeah
along that drive for the game
um
now you know so what we are
amending that variance to is simply that
fence's location
within the setback
and the height
and then in the instances where there
are gates that gate
elevation where the height increases
slightly
depending on the grade as well
don't look up what that was
to a five-foot gate
yeah if you go down a couple of pages
here
in this landscape plan to
6.21
okay next one that's the gate and the
pillars that will be rebuilt
there's a elevation of section of metal
fence just there on the bottom of each
okay
go up a little bit so these would be the
wood gates that uh would be visible
through the green planting around the
perimeter
and you're saying these will
change height depending on where they
hit in the landscape grade yeah the
these fences are all or these gates are
all at five feet
right and
the metal fence that's embedded in the
plantings is at a 50 inch fence
you see these gates where that greenery
breaks basically
and actually i think
back up
uh a couple of pages
there we go
so if
sorry it's that table right there bottom
right of the page
that's a table of the deviations from
the fence height just based on the
elevation change between the property
line and the setback
so some of them may be just over four
feet i think uh
it's very helpful at the driveway is a
six foot gate between the two pillars
the piers are
7.417 feet
uh
so we're just calculating in great
change associated with that
um just to be precise
and chair marsh if you want the
if should the the board decide to
approve something i don't know whether
you want to approve a specific plan or
whether you want to approve an average
or a height not to exceed with the you
know straight average based on grade if
we want if depending on how the board
wants to proceed we should maybe get
some of those details now in terms of
heights and numbers so that you're clear
among yourselves what those are going to
be and what the maximum maybe go with
the maximum height and a style and or
whatever it is you want to do or just to
prove the site plan and what they
have sent sure no that makes sense
and so what i shared was basically the
intent that's shown in these plans i'm
happy to answer any questions anybody
has about the fence or the gates of
their locations
proceed
and is there any any questions on the
sensor gates all right okay
all right well let's dive in here the uh
it's a drawing number so
part two or you know included in this
application is a
proposed
pool and pool house
now um
in reading the uh city code as it
relates to a swimming pool there
you know a swimming pool is required to
sit five feet back
from
any associated either front or side
uh building setback lines
and the pool is an accessory use
function so we currently have that pool
set back
five feet from the side
your accessory used side yard setback
and certainly much further back from the
front yard setback from a construction
point of view so as we're looking at the
pool right now
the pool itself does not fall into a
condition where it deviates from the
building the zoning code
the pool itself
the structure of the pool the location
you're not talking about location
location
because we're more than five feet back
from the front
lot setback
right but then the code you can't have
an accessory structure in the front yard
no accessory structure yes we'll get to
that i've just mentioned the pool
specifically right okay
as as we're reading currently and that's
just underneath uh i think in section
12.
but
with that we are proposing a uh pool
pavilion
uh which we went to the arb uh reviewed
with them
and got approval for the at least
architecture proposed in that pool
building um
let's go i just want to correct that and
just make sure for the record we're
clear there was unanimous recommendation
for the architecture
the final approval is with you all for a
certificate of appropriateness
but there was unanimous no questions
consent on the architecture
um let's go let's take a look uh for a
second at the packet for the pool
pavilion which i think
you can identify the links
i think it's in that it's that last link
on the list
you want this
we can start there
wherever you want uh let's take a look
so this is basically and we can go back
to this but this is uh just some imagery
based on the you know the materiality
and the relationship of the pool
pavilion the pool and the house so we're
looking east
from the west end of the pool here
and you know the pool pavilion itself is
a
open structure with an enclosed core
so it's offering shade on both the east
and west sides with uh some mechanical
and uh bathroom function in the center
um you want this yet no let's go back to
the uh sections through
so if we click back to where your links
are
you want these side sections
yep i think that's it i think we already
opened that but let's just
separate
yep okay
scroll down to existing site close site
keep going
context block okay and go down further
okay
so uh what we are trying to do as well
here is just illustrate the location of
the pool pavilion the house the existing
larger trees beyond and then as we look
towards the right and towards clifton uh
at the side of that section we see the
property line we see the uh lower
plantings or bushes that run along the
property line and
just
north of that to the left of those
shorter bushes is where our fence
that we've just talked about is proposed
to be located so
uh what we're showing here is someone
walking down the sidewalk along clifton
looking
basically across to the house and with
the plantings and with the poo pavilion
location so we can start to understand
you know what that visibility is how
it's related how close it is to the
property line of the site um
the pool is also shown there in between
the two so you know what we try to do
with it is break it down to make it you
know
let as
uh
yes as
less massive as possible and airy so uh
we're getting some shade function but
also not building a
home or a garage or something with a
sloped roof this is a flat roof
structure uh with that solid core so
it's you know you can see through it for
most of the pavilion it's meant to be a
very sort of uh light touch as far as
that cool accessory structure
go down
okay and then on this
section heading east west we see
it's relationship to the house and the
existing larger trees that exist also
along the
west
side of a lot of plantings proposed
there between
this property and the neighbors property
we could go to this rendering
let's see
so there's this view looking uh
west right yeah to the left
scroll down
so in this rendering you basically see
you know what that structure
looks like its presence on the site
again flat roof meant to be able to see
through it uh be a small presence
as
you know where we can make it with the
functionality that we're trying to get
for our clients go is there the one more
on this one there's one from the street
side which is somewhat helpful for the
relationship section
this one yeah so in this the pavilion is
is modeled in there um but this is you
know once the plantings are grown in you
can see where the we're proposing the
fence would be just behind those little
bushes um
and with its you know the type of roof
and its permeability to be able to see
through we're really trying to make it
something that is not
an object that is very noticeable i
guess from from the street
realizing that we are
working with the yard in the space that
we have it happens to be on the south
side a lot between the residences
um
so if we go back to the site there
perhaps
i'm going to close some of these yeah
that sounds good
just tell me when to stop okay
too much open here
okay
um
so
you know with
and that's why we had some confusion
just at first with excessive deviation
on this because we did not you know the
front yard setback and that this is an
r2 the zoning for this and so the
setback requirements for this r3 i'm
sorry r3
according to the report it's our three
yeah
i i think it's just to take them
because all around commonwealth
okay
you did yeah okay you can do it by
address so you should be right
so clearly like you know we're thinking
the excessive deviation creates creates
a solid space between clifton and the
house you know the front door of the
house is actually on the north side you
know it's an odd orientation you know
norm and that's just how it's planted at
this point normally corner lots i think
both us and the neighbor uh to the west
um
the lots were plotted one way that the
houses were built in a different
orientation
so
with this we weren't sure whether to
pursue excessive deviation because we
didn't have an average and we didn't you
know so we're looking at a front yard
setback looking at you know 30 feet of
the average and we're sort of in a gray
area between that
um and the house is certainly all the
way to the north a lot which uh
sort of inverse
versus your thinking because
what we're looking at is the
front on cliff
so
what we were looking at is where
is it possible to
fit the pool and the pool pavilion um
and
as far as the pool improvement you're
certain height-wise size
uh setbacks everything abides by zoning
code except we have it in odd place
because we have an odd site and an odd
platform for that
to go back to one question earlier when
we
did the addition to the west
it was not a variance for that edition
there was a variance for the addition of
the restroom because the rear yard set
back actually the corner of the house
sits within the rear yard setback which
is the north side
um
and so
when we look at this you know the pool
pool pavilion
as a
typical
corner lot as perfect zoning code we
would be just fine but we're not dealing
with that right we're dealing with the
conditions that we have now and that
we've been dealing with for a couple of
the issues that we've been uh
coming and talking to the city about uh
since we started
so you know with that pool pavilion you
know and its location what we're trying
to do is use the space that we have
available to us but also
put it in a location on the site that is
as i guess minimally impactful for the
you know in the spirit of the zoning
code to get it not in the front yard as
much as possible right
so if um
[Music]
and this being a corner lock with
different conditions you're gonna pull
up that map
diagram
does anyone on the board have any
questions for the applicant at this
point
this was just about where we started to
um just try and understand as a
neighborhood fabric you know these are
parcels
that are on corner plots that have
pools pools and pool houses and just
looking at their orientation because you
know what we're trying to do is not have
something that's totally out there we're
dealing with you know almost a reverse
condition just how the lot is planted so
each the yellow lot is our lot and then
each of the blue lots is a corner lot
that has a pool or a pool of glass so go
to the next slide and we've sort of
numbered them where they are
this is just our site plan we can come
back to that if there's any questions
about that
yep
okay
just to cross drexel corner lot
pool
you know positioned at the south end of
that lot much much closer to that
property line now that's likely planted
that
the drexel is the
but we're looking at the orientation of
the corner lot in general with the pool
because one thing we're going to do is
try and stay within the
you know fabric of the neighborhood but
realizing
we have different conditions to deal
with so that's you know zeus house right
across the street
to go down to the next one please
and
neighbor to the west
um which they have a lovely little pool
it's on a corner lot that's behind their
house this picture i think was before
the work i've done but you know it's
tucked up you know just behind the south
east corner of the house but corner lot
pool
okay this one is slightly confusing
because i rotated it for its orientation
but uh on the corner of commonwealth
park um
south
pool stretching down towards the side
yard in this case orientation
reaching down towards uh columbia
i think i think that's plenty of
background okay
there's one there's actually one on the
house let's get to it
okay this one uh on elm and
uh
i think south park view where corner lot
pool is in between the structure itself
and the property line you know so when
we think about the orientation of what
we're composing it's certainly not out
of the ordinary for
the context of a corner lot
but we are here to talk about variances
associated with right and um
sort of
show that that is not an uncommon thing
the orientation for a pool on the line
okay we don't have to look anymore
um
but uh certainly not the first time that
orientation has been
organized
we're just dealing with that odd
condition again
um
and with the
sort of the setback of the primary
structure on that lot you know
a pool house or accessory structure
you know is behind the front yard
setback outlined by the zoning code you
know if the house was pushed up to
clifton that location is fine you know
we're getting we're just
you know i want to have a discussion
with you guys just about you know
answering questions about that intent
and
how we
approach this so we can get a better
understanding of how what we're coming
up against a little bit with uh specific
conditions okay all right perfect let's
see is there anyone from the in the
audience tonight that wishes to speak to
this application
if you could uh please come up be sworn
in
and state your address too for the
record um thomas hadley 90 north
columbia basically
do you swear affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do
thank you
first of all thanks for letting me speak
and uh
apologize that my wife is in here but
you're probably lucky because you'd be
here
twice as long as she was here
um
before i start i've written everything
down so i don't go on too long
but before i start i want to correct the
staff report and
something that katherine said earlier
a couple things and the staff report it
alludes to
the variants that i got for my pool
which thank you for showing that because
you saw my pool is seven by ten
and it sits seven feet from my house
okay so you and you're and you're just
due west i'm the house due west that to
show the corner live pool yeah we just
put it in
and but
the reason i bring that up was
the staff report made it sound like well
we've already grant variants
for other corner lot pools and they're
not all the same as my point and my my
pool is a perfect example of something
that's not the same as what's being
proposed
okay
the other and that's not really a
correction that's just
my head editing
staff report i do want to correct though
the 2007 variants
the city council approved was for a pool
only
you referenced a couple of times pool
and pool house there was never a full
house
in 2007. that's a big deal okay they
they proposed a reflection pool
um with no other structure
around it and never and then never built
it okay so if i can just kind of throw
that out there a couple of corrections
um
just karen has that i sent her those
ordinances but the ordinance refers to
it as a
reflection pool slash swimming pool
i didn't have any of the details or
specifics
um you can put it up if you want but i
don't know if the board needs it i don't
think we need to if and if that's a
question that's important i don't know
if it is
i know there's such thing as precedent
and there's supposed to be no precedent
every case is different everything but
to me that seemed like a precedent and i
want to make sure
everybody knew that the pool house was
not part of the approval in 2007. so why
are we considering a pool
a pavilion
and a pool house to be built in a front
yard in bexley
yes this is a non-conforming lot we've
heard all about that
the house did not conform the house was
built in 1923 so
the minute that bexley passed their
zoning laws later
the house didn't conform so it was
non-conforming
uh from from the minute those laws were
passed the owners were not required the
owners who inherited the bexley zoning
laws were not required to move their
house to conform with the zoning
obviously
a house that size
the fact that that house is a
non-conforming lot
should not
justify
further violations of the zoning
restrictions it's a non-conforming law i
i agree it's
weird the way it was set up
but to say that that allows for other
violations of the zoning restrictions
i don't follow that
they bought the house knowing where the
house was on the lot
they knew what the bexley zoning
restrictions were they did know that a
pool was approved in 2007. i conceived
that
so they did think that a pool in the
front yard
hey they said okay in 2007 why not in
2022
um variances for the addition of an
apartment
with the taps garage currently in the
construction phase at 81 northwest were
granted
and part of the consideration was based
on the property being non-conforming and
nate just pointed out what the variance
they got was for
and i think the architectural review
also took that into account so i totally
okay with that
but
i'll make the same point the request for
variants a special permit to build a
pool complex with pavilion and restroom
in the front yard is also using the
non-conforming argument
and i don't think that holds here
because of the way
the code is written
to get a variance
you have to decide whether the property
owner's predict predicament
is the actual word and the ranks
whether the property owner's predicament
feasibly can be obviated through some
method other than a variance
i don't think
a pool or a pool house
can be added to a 12 000 square foot
home
is some kind of predicament
i know that they want a pool
but not being able to build a pool house
to go with the pool is not a predicament
that's a luxury it's an it's an add-on
and you've got a 12 000 foot square foot
home
that we're talking about
so
um
you know i i don't want to beat the
non-conforming live thing to death here
but part of what makes bexley unique
from other communities
is our older homes the unique lots like
this
with deep front yards it's part of the
appeal for those looking for something
other than a cookie-cutter
neighborhood
we started noticing all the homes around
us
as
nate has pointed out some of them
where the owners wanted a pool
but they haven't put in the front yard i
mean if you look at all these other
exceptions you're saying they're not out
on the street facing you
if we start
making variances for every pool pavilion
art studio whatever somebody wants to
put in their front yard where does that
stop i guess and again i know there are
no precedents being said but
every time you do allow something like
this somebody else is going to think
they can do it too let's face it
if we start craning variances for front
yard developing
conditioned on adequate screening and
let's face it that's the only reason
this is even on a table is they've
promised to wall it off
if it was out there for the public to
see the pool house
this would not even be presented
the problem with the landscape screening
is it's not permanent
it's subject to disease
climate change poor drainage and the
whims of the next one
so
yeah you can say it's going to be
screened now but you won't know 15 years
from now whether that holds up or
whether somebody's decided to tear it
all down and do something else
we have concerns over the scale of the
pool complex
it is a
17 by 67
pool when you include the spa
our biggest concern is it's five feet
from our lot
i mean they have 300 feet of lot
and they put the pool five feet from our
our plot line
um the size of the pool the pool deck
pavilion is as large as some commercial
event spaces
the scale of events social or corporate
this complex could accommodate as
worrisome
and regardless of the intended use i
know that these owners may intend to
just use it for their own
benefit
we have to worry because we're going to
be there a long time we have to worry
about the next dollars and what they use
it for
we live next door to a more typical
sized private backyard pool
and unfortunately know how much noise
that size pool generates much less
something three times as large
in december we listen to all the
considerations and i'm sorry you're
having to hear this again for those of
you who are
hearing it the second time
we listen to all the considerations the
design team gave to the residents of
bexley
in nate's own words
we pushed the pool to the interior of
the block
to reduce the impact on the drexel
intersection
because we knew
that a pool on the east corner would not
fly with bexley those were the exact
words would not fly with mexican i
totally agree with them it sure wouldn't
have
been approved
they proposed working with bexley tree
commission and providing extensive
screening on the clifton roadside
to mitigate the impact
of the community on clifton
we too are residents of vex land we've
been there for over 20 years and not in
that house that you're seeing
we ask that we begin to the same
consideration to mitigate the negative
impact this will have on this on the
enjoyment of our backyard
the plans show a single
row of evergreen on our light line so in
that five feet you can put about one
green giant right and a five foot space
you can't have a double row you can't
have any kind of
adequate lane screening from from five
feet
the plans also show multiple rows of
landscape screening along clifton which
you've already seen what you haven't
seen
is that to the east of the pool if i
could kind of point to it
the plans show significant mounding and
landscaping to the east
so that from the rest of the yard you
don't see their pool
from their yard you don't see it so it's
screened off from clifton
from the rest of their front yard
the house is there
the only thing that's not screened is us
five feet
we've got
and there's gonna be one green giant
that goes up in that five foot space
um
we just thought more consideration could
have been given it was interesting to
see the old pool footprint
i'd be all for that
um
and one final point i'm getting to the
end i promise
one final point is the pool house really
necessary
we were shown
pool plans one design firm did for the
applicant even before the arb approval
of the edition
so we know that the owners plan to put
the pool in from the very beginning
when they purchase the property should
they have planned for a restroom and
change facilities in the addition
instead of assuming they could get
these have to let them get around zoning
restrictions and build a pool house in
the front yard
in fact
the drawings for the existing house and
renovation that we were given by the
design team show a bathroom just inside
the door nearest the pool deck so
there's a bathroom right there
it's not like you need another one
out in the front yard on clifton because
there's one right inside of the house as
you go in
i've got the plants if you want to if
you want to see how close it is
although pool houses are not uncommon
like i get that other people have pool
houses this pool house will sit in the
front yard which is not only uncommon
but unheard of
the prior owners were granted a variance
for a reflection pool the two-foot
hardscape in the grass
in an english garden design
no pool house or other accessory
structure was proposed or approved
at that time
because this design was in keeping with
the character of the estate
being a
reflection pool no screening was
required for that approval either i
think there was a landscape plan but
certainly no screening
seeing the reflection pool from the
street would be kind of pretty
the zoning board needs to protect the
character of these historic properties
current and future homeowners need to
respect and embrace the board's mission
or choose another property that will
accommodate all the needs
i mean maybe they've got the wrong place
here
i think a pool
is fine
we want them to if if a pool is what
they want
we would just ask that they move it 10
feet
not a big deal i mean you saw the other
footprint
that's at least 10 feet farther it would
just allow for the double row of
screening proposed for for clifton we
would like that double row
as well on the west
side of the property so that's really
all we're asking at the last meeting we
were asked what would be acceptable okay
that would be acceptable less i have to
say the pool house is not acceptable i
just don't see how that's needed
um it sits right on the street
i don't think screenings forever
i think
people would wonder why that was ever
approved that they actually saw
what was what was in front of them i'm
glad you're hiding it but to me
it's not a predicament
and i will stop there
if anybody has any questions again i
thank you for
listening to that some of you for the
second time
but that's it thank you for speaking
uh is there anyone else in the audience
wish to speak to this uh item
any uh
any discussion on the board i do have
some questions and uh
and i think i need fair
further clarification okay that's why
i'm here um
so words really do matter
when you're talking about the intent of
something and so i'd like some further
understanding about that language
predicament place
in the the zoning code as it relates to
the
when someone is deciding like hey we
want to do an expansion oh so the
you're talking about the variance
standards okay so the variance standards
karen there in the staff report they're
probably lots of staff reports but in
this one they're actually on page five
and
six and jason and i the the code that we
usually use online is down for
maintenance so you're gonna have to
randomly down
yeah
you
you can check maybe it's back but it was
down as of five minutes ago so jason and
i are looking at own code that jason
drafted
um
page
five
and end of five
it's back
did you want me to pull it up you can
you can pull it out at least it's all on
one page if you pull it up instead of
over two
but they're the same standards so i'm
just gonna do it from here okay so in um
area variances
ask me what variance criteria yeah
so and look at that they're split on the
page and there's seven of them so you're
working out great
so um
so the area variance criteria are
established in the code and the area
variance it's not about the use the use
is allowed it's just about the
deviations from what i call development
standards typically um or what what it
is they're supposed to do and they don't
want to do
or they're asking for a special
exception or permission to do something
different and that's what really a
variance is so in these variances the
variances are considered to be
um they're you don't have to meet every
criteria it's a balancing so you kind of
look at the whole
ball of wax existing conditions
what the standards are that you're
supposed to consider and you balance and
weigh those in your mind based on the
evidence what you that you've heard and
and how you want to proceed some of the
some of evidence
i think um what they were talking about
is also what you know how has the city
dealt with that historically each is
based on its own facts and circumstances
but
you know if there's a history of
polls on large lots that everybody has
one in the front yard that is certainly
it's not determinative but it's one fact
that you can consider
so when it lists all of these facts all
of them are
if the
if the prep one of their questions i
mean we can go go through them the
the first one is
whether
it will yield a reasonable return and
whether they can get a beneficial use
without of the property without the
variance so you can answer that in your
in you know from the evidence presented
i don't think they've argued that the
property is not going to have a
reasonable return if they don't have a
pool
um
whether the variance is substantial so
you look at you know how big of an
exception is this to what would
otherwise be required you also have to
look at the lot and the way it's
situated in the house and you know
what's causing the need for a variance
and whether they could do it without a
variance
three is whether the essential character
of the neighborhood be substantially
altered or whether adjoining properties
would suffer a substantial detriment as
a result of variance so you did hear
from one neighbor about
you know their perspective on what would
happen and you also heard the applicant
on their perspective
whether it adversely affect the delivery
of government services we can pretty
much answer that no there's plenty of
water and sewer and city services to
this site
um whether the property owner purchased
the property with knowledge of the
zoning restriction that is something
that you can consider but it's not
determinative you could buy property
knowing there was a zoning restriction
and still come in and ask for experience
or a special exception given the
conditions the unique conditions of the
property or is it a property like every
every other without any unique
characteristics that you know that you
need a special exception for
um
then whether
six is whether the owner's predicament
can be feasibly can be obviated through
some method other than a variance so in
this case could they build a people
without a variance on this site
um that's for you to determine based on
the this sort of current circumstances
of the way the site is laid out and the
last one is whether the spirit and
intent of the zoning requirement would
be observed and substantial justice is
done by granting the variance
so in your world you weigh and consider
all of those
you have your sort of scale and you
figure out based on the evidence you
heard
which factors are met which ones aren't
and your mind is a variance justified
how has it's the applicant's burden to
prove it
um that they have met in in their mind
you know the the balance of all of the
factors weighs in favor of the granting
of the variance and not against it so
that's really what you're looking at in
this circumstance
i was i wasn't here at the december
meeting but or the last time this was
heard but you know my thought is this it
i look at and i think what's reasonable
and
it's one of the largest lots in bexley
it's very unique the fact that the house
is pushed all the way to the back and
that in yet that's the front of the
house
i think what they've proposed with all
the screening
you know is going to look fantastic
my biggest concern is pushing that pool
so far to the west
um which i understand you didn't want it
on drexel but now you've pushed it so
far west it just seems
extreme
and i wouldn't be supportive of this but
i'd be supportive of a plan
that provided more screening to the west
and slid
slid it farther east sure well and and i
we hear i just have one question i heard
two different things i heard someone say
five feet but then when i look on here
it says
a 15 foot
yep 15 foot set back yep yeah i wanted
to address uh a couple of those things
as well with this you know
when we look at that section you know
the pool itself is
18.57 feet from the property line right
the um
cool pavilion is just the very corner
which is the south
i guess west corner of that which is
open is 15 feet from the property line
right there there is planting you know
plant that goes up is screening north
south along that west property line as
well so it's it's set back substantially
and you know
by zoning code you know it's set back uh
in excess of what a pool is required to
be set back from a property line and
even an accessory structure set back
we're dealing with an odd location of
that
but you know for
the owners themselves you know we came
into this they had owned the property
already right um i think that with the
planning of the lot at the time
um the planning of the lot is not
something that is easy to find for
somebody off the street though they were
looking at a corner lot
where
the typical uh
orientation for pornographs in bexley
almost everywhere that i know of except
for this
the short picture dimension is the first
right that's that's standard uh
throughout the neighborhood finding the
planning of this is not something they
could have done right i think that
they're just looking at it as a corner
lot now that's not to absolve them but i
think that when they're buying this they
did not know that that was the case um
you know and with the
the use of a lot certainly the zoning
code allows for you know uh an owner to
have a pool or an accessory structure on
their property
and
you know
with this we're trying to find a way to
you know
for them to use the property in the way
they want to use it
but dealing with the hurdle of where's
the open space in this thought
right does anyone else on the board have
any questions or thoughts that's okay he
can finish his stop okay yeah and so you
know the solution that we've come up
with is one that sort of offers
screening on all sides with its setback
um
and it is proposing a pool and an
accessory structure that within
themselves fall well
within the zoning code guidelines
what we're here to talk about today is
simply the location really of that uh
pavilion and knowing that it's in the
front yard and knowing that you know
that was the open space that we had you
know the design of that was based around
its position you know trying to get it
uh
to go away as much as possible knowing
that we are more street facing certainly
uh but there are other conditions around
the neighborhood where there's a pool
accessory structure for a pool um
that sits you know uh much closer you
know either to the front of the house or
to the side yard um
so as a
composition
it's not an unusual composition we're
just trying to propose that under
different guidelines because of the
planning of this one
you'd say 192 south parkview as an
example of a accessory structure and a
pool pushed up to front yard setback
along the
south you know property line
versus behind or
in a different orientation relative to
the house
so you know
we certainly want to be good neighbors
absolutely because everyone's better
together too trying to find a solution
here that we can balance those things
out and you know its positioning its
screening its size and its uh design are
all made to
assist
with the position that we're
given with the front with that front
clifton yard so you define me
um
can i see the
plan that showed the previous pool
placement
plan
because i'd like to ask you a question
specifically
about
um
you know the change with the new plan
i don't remember
where where it was
do one too many things
while she's looking for it and pulling
it up so
um
yeah there you go so
old is red right and blue is blue
okay
um
and red was
along the
orientation of the
old before the home was ex
expanded
the home's really crooked yeah it's like
the different wings uh start to angle
out and i don't know if that was on
purpose or not
uh but it is the previous pool was uh
aligned to be parallel with the street
this pool is aligned to be parallel with
half stacks okay
um so i understand you know
architecturally wise that
looks better feels better um and
enhances the home
but you bought a crooked house to begin
with right
that has a crooked lot um
that in essence
you could get the same size pool on this
cricket lot
but extend to the east versus to the
west and you still get your pool
you still get the benefit of some um
viewing from the way the house is
oriented now
the new portion
and you get to play good neighbor
because you're impacting your neighbor
less and said neighbor also has said
i'd be agreeable to some additional
screening on this side as well
and i just want to point out to the
board i don't know if you guys recall
but we've seen multiple cases where
screening landscape is brought before us
and one of the things that we always
talk about um is how that screening is
not maintained
goes away and i kind of deal with that
in my professional life every day you
know where
you know it looks great on paper five
ten years down the road it's not
properly maintained maybe you sell your
home and somebody else comes in and says
hey i don't like that screening anymore
i want it to be a little bit more open
and we've got a neighbor who's like
i don't even have the screening that was
proposed to begin with so if we're
moving the pool
a little further to the east
allowing for that same screening that
you've called for around the rest of the
property to me that meets that criteria
of
just going back
um
to justice substantial justice done by
granting the variance
and i go back to you know just the
language that's in here about
um
the substantial detriment of the results
of the variance i feel strongly that we
have to consider we're not just talking
about the
detriment to this property but also to
the neighboring property correct i mean
like that's the reason we write it
um
where's that other one that jumped out
at me
it's the predicament feasibly can be
obvious
that right there is pretty
obvious to me it can be physically
obviated with a different solution so i
would be curious to know
um
in talks with your neighbors
and your conversations
why we haven't maybe considered that a
little bit more because for us the way
to line up a pool
with a crooked house and a cricket lot
that you knew was crooked
when you purchased it
and say oh let's make that a little bit
more
aligned that's
yeah
i mean
right or it's position versus right
whether it's straighter
probably
50 50. right but i think that the
question um
brought up maybe is you know if
if the position of the pool
uh is sort of derived out of some of the
limitations to the non-conforming
aspects of the site
um then you know we'll propose this
location but also um
the
willingness to
make adjustments within that
knowing what some of the concerns may be
right
um and and
above and beyond what would be a typical
uh
allowable location for people right
right because
we might want to
check this is the um i do think
currently the pool
uh
is not
is the position where it does not
require variance i think it does you
think it does i think it does because
that the the code requires it the pool i
understand the provision you're citing
to that says that a pool is an accessory
use that shall be permitted
so you get the use but it still has to
follow the development standards and the
development standards are accessory
structures which it is
uh cannot be in the front yard it falls
under accessory use
the use is what's allowed but you're a
structure yeah you're the accessory
structure so that
you do need a variance before the front
yard there are development standards
you're right about the development
standards of an accessory structure in
the rear yard and it's distance from a
lot line
there are standards associated with i
want to know where to
where we can work on that and understand
what that
positioning is from the language in the
code right i don't think it's going to
give you a lot of direction in terms of
placement in the front yard because it's
really talking about a rear yard
structure and distance from side lot
lines
and you're in a different circumstance
so we i'm assuming we'd have variances
from all of that for the placement
subcategory of accessory structure
accessory use right
yep okay is there any more discussion by
the board well i just got a question so
the pool house
i i guess the question i have is what
made you put it to the south side of the
pool because if we're worried about the
screening and if the screening goes away
then we've got this pool house that's
sitting just north of the property line
as opposed to building something coming
off the house that blended better into
the house building something
even on the even on the west side
um i i'm just kind of curious as to what
what why why
it's closer to the street than
i mean to me the pool being closer to
the street would be less obtrusive from
the street looking at the house than the
pool house being closer to the street
yeah i think its position at this point
you know is to
sort of a two-way street just involving
privacy at this point but i understand
that's a preference
um but i think that its position was you
know another layer of privacy
you know from you know the right-of-way
of clifton avenue
uh so you know it's you know it's
related to the pool it's related to the
house in a way that
provides again
some screening for the pool for that
pool area relative you know based on the
open yard that we're dealing with and
its position in there so but um
i think that you know
in in understanding you know some of
those concerns a little bit more too
the
as a comparison you know the proposed
pool versus a previous pool that
collapsed i think we're within like nine
percent of the footprint size you know
so we're trying to you know
get that to be you know not totally out
of the ordinary i understand towards
questions about screening you know and
trying to offer that in different ways
knowing that that's a living thing right
it needs to be
um
i think that i guess a question for the
board would be you know with uh the
considerations for the lot the
just the non-conformance of what's going
on you know are we moving in a positive
direction
uh with the idea that we can think about
the you know
having you know proposing a pool and a
structure
giving the neighbor uh more breathing
room as well on that side even if we're
talking about just the pool or pool and
a pool house you know i think i don't
have to i like the design i think it's
beautiful i just think it's
with a big one of the biggest lots and
then it slid within 15 feet of the only
neighbor
that will be interrupted just to me just
seems unreasonable right i'd like to see
the whole thing shifted east
so that
in it's look it's going to be loud
there's going to be big parties out
there it's going to be fantastic but not
not for the neighbor who's going to be
right next to it so i i just
i wouldn't approve anything unless it
moves off of that boundary line and that
that there's better screening for for
the only neighbor that's going to be
impacted that's but i'm just one member
agree and the design is absolutely
beautiful and i understand the the
reason for it i think the reason
that i'm really hung up on it um
[Music]
is
the detriment that it causes the
neighbor
as well um
and i think that's something that i have
to consider heavily
when looking at and it especially when i
see the lot
and it's already relatively
twisted and turning can we move it east
and and everybody be happy
to start i mean i don't know if that's a
conversation
if that's a conversation that you've had
with the neighbor or you know you need
to discuss that with partners and what
have you but no i mean i think that the
discussion about
its uh
placement relative to the west hotline
is something that
you know we are open to
talking to the owners about talking to
the landscape designer about and
understanding where those parameters are
for everybody and um seeing if there's
revisions that we can make
in that direction
one question
so
it's it seems as though
the
where we're sort of running up against
um just the idea that you know we're not
only talking about this lot which i get
you know the
non-conformity and all that but we're
also
you know
dealing with the proximity to others you
know i think that initially we went for
trying to meet all the requirements that
we could that are set forth in the
zoning code for these types of things
but realize we're in a different
location
on the lot relative to where the primary
structure is right so uh i think we can
have that conversation
with the owners and try and understand
that a little bit better where they're
comfortable pushing and pulling to see
if we can move it over
the other thing i was curious about and
this may be a question for you too is uh
understanding pool in the pool pavilion
are kind of
points that may need
some further consideration
can is it possible for the board to
consider the fence portion of the
variance
to
take a vote on
that
and then we can keep working on the part
that is maybe but i think the fencing
goes a lot along with the rest of your
design correct or you're wanting to
that's us
like
fence your property and be
yeah it's just changing i'm going to get
rid of
if we're able to move that within the
boundary and within some of those other
specifics that we pointed out i don't
that they're not tied together
location-wise
i i don't have a problem with proving
the fence unless anyone else
does he did have his hand up for if
you'd like to come speak
sure
[Music]
when i said five feet
i want to talk about the old pool
structure the accessory the whole nine
yards
so you've got a generator that's going
in a pool filter i think they're gonna
put a sculpture right there but there's
gonna be a wall a five foot wall
and the five foot wall
that surrounds that part
gotcha i need 15 feet
so i need the whole thing to go
10 feet so i didn't want to we already
had 15 people
gotcha
yeah
also
do you want to table the rest and then
have us vote on the fence variants
i mean i think uh
at this point that's uh
probably
the right thing to do as far as you know
understanding where the board's concerns
are um with us and and neighbor concerns
and trying to see where
where there is some movement on that for
this position
um
i guess my my only question uh to the
board members too is if there was
anything else you know relative to what
we talked about today that um
it sticks out in your mind as a
as a
concern as we're talking about this as a
whole besides just simply the position
of it relative to the west property line
you know i would be curious if the trade
commission could give a life cycle
recommendation on some of the uh green
recommendations that screening that
would screen up against the residential
side
other
home i would say we can we should
condition it on the review by the
treatment training
sure
maybe it's just about point out whatever
specified like don't look at the whole
sticker right like i just want to make
sure that like
not specifying per se the what they put
but
just that yeah any kind of project to
of this nature the size along a public
right-of-way it needs to go to the needs
to be conditioned on review by the tree
and publicly just do that
so do we need a motion to table this
except house yeah yes it's as fast as
that make sure you're thinking about it
all right
so um catherine how do we should which
one should we do first the tabling of
the
no i think you grant the variance you
you grant the variance on the part if
you're going to
or amend the existing variants i was
actually trying to pull up here when
karen can you pull up that record of
action that i sent you
they emailed
yeah
it's called record yeah see i think that
one might have that fence on it
right here
yeah
yeah no it is
50 52 fence to allow decorative rod
there it went
that was french i'm sure
uh let's see
variance
which limits fence heights to 72 to
allow decorative rod oh this is for the
arch the columns
the driveway entrance the overall
landscape plan
six foot wrought iron fence connecting
the east courtyard wall to the existing
columns and to include the six foot high
wood gates so that's not what we're
talking about we're talking about the
fence in the front of the property right
well i was referring to i guess the
portions of the application that
are separating out proportions that are
not uh related to the pool and poo
pavilion so it would be
columns
okay so this one
so the amendment to the fence for its
position in height
amendment to the pillars just because
we're rotating them to strain them out
with the driveway and then uh
i don't know if there's a specific
mention of gate and height in here but
simply along that fence that we're
proposing the gate height itself and
those one and those certain moments are
at 60 inches
which i have given you the
sheet that includes all that
i'm talking about this one
what i wrote down for you oh that's just
the landscape plan page number
is that what you're talking about
oh yeah that's the page that has the
deviation yeah based on the slope of
that yeah we're not proposing to change
the grade or anything like that it's
simply using the existing grade there
okay so
this is one of the variances that we're
amending you want all this this is what
you're talking about amending all of
this which is the
just what we went over the the
pillars defense the everything that's on
drexel
we don't know i'm sorry
but
yeah
okay right
and all that's drawn out in the
landscape
okay defense the gates and oranges and
is that on i'm sheet l 4.05 the whole
package has that in it
okay we are on l 6.20
and 6.21
specifically referencing gates fences
and colors karen can you put those up
yes
which one does it come nate
um it is the
improvements yes site improvement
so go up three from where you are there
okay so let's make sure that the board
understands what we're talking about so
we can get it appropriately
okay and that is correct as to location
yeah so this is the page i think you're
referring to uh karen with which has set
it up a little bit
yes there and then the elevations of
those particular elements are in the
following
two pages from here yeah
yeah pillars
gate
that is uh
defense perimeter fence yeah okay
and
on this are are you talking about about
putting that same fence on clifton
we're only talking about only on the the
west side east side sorry east side it's
called out specifically simply from the
existing wall garden to basically the
neighbors the property line uh north
south just at the driveway for the
taller fence and pillars
the
lower left-hand corner is the perimeter
face
and that perimeter fence includes
clifton
and the east and the easter that's
separate east and south
and
in
along the west side too
then these are the gates that that fence
has interrupted with
okay and those are found on page four of
that document for access
right the game scroll up a little bit
average
i need to see the page number
there you go
sorry
you always showed me the good picture
but didn't have a number okay
so you got those numbers jason
we got 4.05 6.206.21
6.21
6.20 4.05 that's
his chart
l six point two zero six point two one
do you have a plan date on this
2021
1014 2021
okay
okay and that's that's the only thing
you're pursing out of the pending
application
is that
you got that
do you
and the gates include the gates at the
front of the on clifton correct their
gates are on clifton yeah okay
and they're shown on there as well
that's what you were showing in the
background yeah
okay
are you going to read
it all right
2147 for the property located at 81
north direction
consideration of the application
proposed variance oh yeah thank you
proposed variance and evidence testimony
before the board finds that the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant the area variants in bexley
code section 1226.11 c have been met and
a variance from bexley code section
1264.02 c to allow
a front yard fence as shown
in the plans and renderings submitted uh
dated 10 14 21 sheets 4.05
and 6.20 and l 6.21
okay i'm going to correct that a little
bit jason
um because they're again they're
amending an existing variance they have
all those rights now
so when you say they have proven the
criteria to to amend an existing area
variance
and i think it's granted in
get the record of action which i cannot
send panels frozen
signed by karen um
i would say dated october 12 2006.
in application
675
600.
existing area variance and what is it
granted in application
six
zero zero seven five
dated october 12 2006.
okay
i think that's the other one
okay you want to reread
at least just that portion
sure um
on consideration application proposed
variance and evidence testimony report
the board finds that the applicant has
proven that the criteria to amend the
existing area variants granted in
application 64075
october 12 2006 the investors section
12611c
as i said
uh do you understand the findings of
facts
it's been a while
as read by
jason
yes i do
any discussion
yeah let's have a roll call please
wait who first i'll make the motion he
called
mr turner yes
ms mitchell yes mr schick yes and vice
chairman marsh yes
great thank you for all of you and then
we need to we need to motion the table
right yeah
you do you move to table the remainder
of the application i still move
all right
the board has to accept the applicant's
request so that he can't actually make a
motion or accept them
so
any discussion
seeing none roll call
mr turner yes mr ship
ms mitchell yes and vice chairman marsh
yes
thank you very much thank you
i almost left oh i shouldn't forget who
get us under control
i saw this placard in the uh in the
bar i was in in a little town when i was
there for court and it said
talk is cheap
supply always exceeds demand
[Laughter]
i think we're there
did build a little time on one case
[Music]
all right
in the next
case but there probably ought to be some
limitations on how much everybody can
talk number one on every case that we
have
and because people or when a case that
is you know is going to engender that
kind of
uh
discussion they ought to be last on the
docket so the rest of people don't have
to listen to all this stuff
that's my opinion
i'm not running for any office but if i
do
all right start an exploratory committee
tomorrow morning yeah there you go
this is um
case bzap 22-5
2370 brentwood
the applicant is uh
peter krashmak the owners are emily
theron and rodrigo iglesias
the applicant is requesting approval of
a variance architectural review and
approval and a certificate of
appropriateness
for an addition in a new attached garage
the applicants please come forward
if you don't mind raise your right hand
be sworn
you swear or affirm that the testimony
give this sport this evening will be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do all right thank you very
much please state your name for the
record peter trainiac okay peter
um
i can summarize okay thank you jason
sure um and then uh actually general go
through the architectural aspects okay
give it the zoning aspect real quickly
um basically what is happening here is
that we have a circumstance where you
have a detached garage that is getting
attached and as you recall there are
different setback requirements for a
detached garage versus an attached
garage so if this is allowed to be
attached then we would uh only be able
to do that by granting variances to
essentially allow the footprint to stay
where it is i think entirely is that
correct
pretty close the north and west walls um
but uh it would no longer be in
conformance because we have different
setback requirements so uh specifically
they would need a two foot eleven inch
variance on the side setback and 18 foot
six inch variants on the rear set back
uh because the requirements for a an
attached garage are eight feet and 25
feet based on the fact that we're trying
to uh i think you know philosophically
the idea was not to overfill lots
however in this case the building
already exists based on the fact that it
was detached and it's just sort of a
circumstance that arose
due to what they're trying to change
right now
the other factors that are worth
considering is that this particular lot
has um and this block rather has access
to the garages via the alley and that
would remain the same in this location
so it wouldn't substantially change the
way the operation of the lot or the
block works uh nor should it have any
substantial implications for the way uh
cars would enter for the neighbors um
but with that of course uh you have your
set of criteria that are the same for
every case in order to judge the
variants and that is no different here
so that is up to you to determine if
they need those uh with that i will turn
it over to karen so she can explain oh
yeah sure
if he didn't touch the garage and just
wanted to connect him is there a
variance required for that yeah as soon
as you connect it
even though you're not rebuilding the
garage yeah basically when you connect
it then it becomes part of the initial
building um not sure if that's a great
part of our code but it is the part of
our code
controversial partnership
we won't get it
lots of codes
um
i don't have a lot the architecture
review board approved this unanimously
by consent agenda item and didn't really
have much
at all to say well obviously they didn't
say anything because we now do consent
agenda so if it all looks good um and i
passed a couple of comments along but
they weren't any conditions or
requirements
peter you've heard the the
indications they've given us so far you
have anything to add to help us make
this decision yeah one of the key things
that wasn't talked about is trying to
preserve as much green space as possible
that's why we're locating the new garage
to the northwest corner of where the
current garage is
so it's the same relationship to the
alley to the north which is to the right
of the drawing
and it's the same relationship from the
north
sorry the west wall
which is at the top of this drawing to
the west property line right okay
it's a 20 by 20 garage currently we're
taking that down and building an
adequately wider garage and deeper
garage
and then preserving as much lawn space
to the
east
the
neighbors garage to the east is right on
the property line so
again we're trying to keep the green
space
while allowing for
the new bedroom and the attached garage
to be constructed
okay
is there anybody in the audience that is
for or against this uh proposal
i see no indication of such members of
the board you have any questions
comments
all right
i think we can uh
maybe have a rendition of the findings
of fact conclusions of law
okay give me just one second
okay uh finding facts in decision of the
board
excuse me for application number bzap
22.5 for the property located at 2370
brentwood upon consideration of the
application proposed variants and
evidence of the testimony before it the
board finds that the applicant has
proven that the criteria to grant an
area of variance in backs of the code
section 122611ce have been met any
variants from bexley code section
1252.09 r6 to allow
a um
the
reduction of the side and rear setbacks
as follows uh two foot 11 inch variants
from the side setback and an 18.6 and 18
foot six inch variants from the rear
setback and should we can we put
together the certificate of
appropriateness with that yeah sure
uh okay
oh what's that should be a separate okay
all right uh do uh
peter you heard the the
rendition of the findings in fact are
they acceptable to you they are yes okay
uh do i hear a motion to approve the
findings if that
is there a second second thank you
karen you want to call the role mr
turner yes
mr schick yes miss mitchell yes
mr marsh yes chairman b hall i vote yes
as well the variances are granted now we
need a motion or a
a
actually we need a vote a motion
um and i guess jason you should state it
so that we have it succinctly stated for
the record
just yeah that's i was just gonna ask do
i have a date on those plans per chance
that we're up there uh february 9th
of this year right thursday night 2022.
you're going to insert that i think you
can insert that just for clarification
i got that let me just let me just see
oh uh actually i just got a note from
our uh
our
laid up leader uh that
that's a great way to say it
is watching live uh that the garage
actually needs to be demolished as well
so do we need to vote on a demolition
then oh there's going to be a
we're going to demolish the current one
so you're not going to build a rent
you're going to tear it down and then
start from scratch which makes a lot
more sense probably so
all right so to demolish that so we need
us they need a special permit to do that
or they need a
what's that what part of the code
i think what kathy was texting was
probably that we always i should have
got that but we always say um
it's
um dependent on the demolition it can't
be issued until demolition of the
current the variance doesn't get
awarded until
i remember
we just always do it as a condition of
the board
of the approval you don't care if it's a
condition because you're not going to
build a new one until you turn the whole
one down anyway
unless he builds a new one over top yeah
that's right i mean he'd be very good
so
so can i entertain a motion to
certificate yeah okay that's the
condition of the certificate of
appropriateness
okay let's do that so let's do it that
way uh i'll make a question for that i'm
sure
i'll i will read it i think here if i
can just real quickly okay should be all
set so um
after view of the plans and
consideration the application evidence
and testimony given uh and the
recommendation of the architectural
review board the board finds that the
certificate of appropriateness should be
issued for
2370 brentwood uh in substantial
conformance with the renderings and
plans submitted to the board and dated 2
9 20 22
as well as that the board recognizes and
grants demolition of the existing garage
excellent
all right thank you
do i hear a motion to approve the
motion or the the stripping of
appropriateness as conditioned
tell me mr turner thank you second a
second i think you have a question
question about the motion is it not just
it would be
a condition of this we're not granting
the permit to demolish correct do we
want to modify that language no
it
i mean we're not going to split in hairs
here
yeah maybe yeah karen said stop okay
[Laughter]
all right
with that we'll call the roll
mr chick
yeah you get the vote first too yeah
yes mr turner yes mr marshall yes
yes as well thank you that's a good
project great thank you
thank you
the lady in the bank asked me is every
case going to take as long as this one
so i just wanted to point out that some
of these move along a little bit more
rapidly
the next case involves the same street
matter of fact very closely located 2382
brentwood amy
is the edmund our house is the applicant
the owners
are janet elgelson
helga's son and fred wrecker
the case number is bzap
22-6 the applicant is requesting a
variance architectural review and
approval as well as a certificate of
appropriateness for a second floor
addition at the rear of the existing
home
karen do you want to tell us about the
architectural aspect first and then
we'll
and then we'll go to jason sure this one
is easy as well this one was also a
consent agenda item by the architecture
review board so
pending um
the variance discussion the
architectural review board would uh
recommend that this
be approved for a certificate of
appropriateness all right
excellent jason there's not too much
here either is there there's not a lot
here um it's uh basically there is an
existing one-story portion of the rear
principle structure and they want to put
it to a second story and that requires a
variance because of the location of the
first floor so the requirement would be
to have a two foot three inch variance
from the mexico section for arctics
which requires an eight foot yard side
yard setback um but basically it's going
on top of the spot where the house
already exists
okay
i think that this is a pretty you know
it just cut and dry yeah it made sense
and i don't have anything to add unless
anyone has questions let me ask if
there's anybody in the audience that is
for or against this application please
no thank you
members of the board questions or
comments
oh um
i don't see it it's february 3rd 2022.
all right
i drilled by this one today too it looks
like
very sensible situation here so
um
adjacent i think we have findings back
conclusions of law certificate first or
do you want the various yeah let's do
the variance first okay sounds good
uh upon consideration our findings of
fact and decision aboard for application
bzap 22-6 for the property located at
2382 brentwood upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence of testimony before the board
finds that the applicant has proven that
the criteria to grant and area variants
bexley code section 1222 11c have been
met and the variants from bexley code
section 1220 1252 0.09 r6 to allow a two
foot three inch variance from the side
yard setback be granted
okay
um amy that seemed yes copacetic to you
all right
do we have any
questions or modifications members of
the board if not i'd entertain a motion
to approve the findings of fact
conclusions law with regard to the
variance request so moved thank you mr
turner second second thank you mr march
call that mr marsh got got in that one
karen would you call the role yes mr
marsh yes mr turner yes miss mitchell
yes
mr schick
yes
i vote yes as well
and now for the certificate of
appropriation so the variances are
granted okay the certificate
inappropriateness after review of the
plans and consideration of the
application evidence and testimony given
uh and the recommendation of the
architectural review board the board
finds that the certificate of
appropriateness should be issued for
2382 brentwood in substantial
conformance with the renderings and
plans submitted to the board dated two
three
two oh two two
excellent
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings in fact conclusions also with
regard to the certificate of
appropriateness
thank you
thank you karen please call the roll
mitchell yes mr ship yes mr turner yes
mr marsh yes chairman
i vote yes as well
the certificate of appropriateness is
also granted thank you amy nice project
all right the next
uh case is case
b z ap 22-7 involving 2525 east main
street
the applicant is david hodge esquire the
owners are empire square llc
and the applicant is requesting a
conditional use permit and a parking
variance for a charitable youth
organization
mr hodge you're would you raise your
right hand and i hate to swear in
lawyers but do you swear the truth the
about the truth that you're going to
give this panel this evening will be the
truth the whole thing is nothing but the
truth i did somehow i spit that out i
think i sat in the back too long
you know with all this with all this
comedy mr chairman we could tell them
like we're going to be here all night
but we don't want to threaten them so
yeah yeah yeah exactly right good point
good point
all right um
jason why don't you give us a little
rundown on this i don't think there's a
lot of architectural uh aspect to this
uh request not at this point so uh we
have two things on our agenda for this
application tonight one is a conditional
use approval and that would be to allow
a use of a public use in a mixed-use
commercial district and the second is a
pair of variances
one is for the number of spaces that are
required for this use parking spaces and
another one is the um allowance of three
of those spaces to be what are described
as compact parking spaces in our code
it's a little ambiguous it says you have
to have 25 percent of the required
number of spaces
or or fewer could be compact
and based on the parking reduction that
means that that number no longer would
be
in conformance with that had they had
more parking spaces then the three would
have been fine but that's neither here
nor there essentially what we've got um
are those two situations and i'll just
go through those real quickly for you um
i will have the applicant describe in
much more detail the use of the proposed
use of the site and how that works in
discussions with them and as we
understand uh the way this operation is
going to happen and what they're going
to be doing inside it does seem to meet
the definition of public use in our code
there is also something that's very
particular to this application that will
be important as we go through the
parking variances and that's the the way
that people will arrive and depart in
order to use this use which is primarily
by bus because it's mostly going to be
used for students in in classes and
again i'll let the applicant describe
how that all works but with regard to
the um the criteria for the conditional
use we have a set of criteria in our
code and that is in 1226 12 b and
essentially those are
a through h
and each one of those has been addressed
in a document sent by the applicant um i
will say that as staff we also went
through there you know that's a little
bit different than a variance
these aren't
quite the same standards and these have
a lot more to do with how we interpret
how the impacts will take place with
regard to the intent of our code uh as
staff we see that we don't feel that any
of these uh we would be detrimental and
all of them are in our opinion uh
very much in conformance with what the
criteria are and should be granted that
would that be our recommendation with
regard to the conditional use
um as far as the variance of course
that's for you to decide based on the
you know your quasi-judicial role within
the bounds of those criteria and i'll
explain what's happening with that very
quickly as well
we've determined based on the fact that
this is a
public use should you grant that
that we would use the criteria of one
space required for every five seats in a
public assembly area our code states you
can either use that if they have a
public assembly area or if they don't
have one then you would use the square
footage calculation in this case they
have two public assembly areas um
loosely defined one of which is
essentially an area for classes it has a
set of tables that students would be
around and they've assumed a larger
number of those students that could be
at those tables which are six there's
six tables so that's 36 and then they
also have space upstairs for up to 20
students to gather which would be the
size of the class to have i would
imagine some sort of you know more group
class type setting um so with those 20
seats as they've shown in their plan
that would be 56 so basically the way
the math all works out they have they
would be required to have 12 spaces
this is a constrained site as you're
well aware this is the former bexley
premier restaurant
and if you just pop up to that site plan
real quickly karen i'd appreciate that
they have three spaces directly in front
of this building which
you know kind of precedent the way we've
analyzed the site in the past is that
those are their kind of their three
spaces and then the ones right behind it
are also their three spaces that we
count toward this application so they
have six spaces so they're a little bit
short of their requirement uh as you
know almost it's almost impossible for
anybody in this
not to be sure no matter what use it is
because this is an existing set of
buildings um there is one on-street
space that is directly in front of them
which would kind of count again toward
their space you need two for that to
really count toward anything because it
only gives you half space credit so it
doesn't really do any good um that being
said uh you know this entire site is
existing we know it's not in full
conformance with the main street uh
recommended recommended guidelines
because we want our buildings pulled up
to the street with the parking behind
that's not the case here we know it
exists we also know that the parking or
i'm sorry the streetscape has been put
in place that does meet the criteria um
you know i'm sure you've all been passed
there many times and sidewalks there and
on street parking street lighting and
the small amount of landscaping and
retaining wall and all that kind of
thing um
the the biggest um thing i think to
consider again it's up to you to
consider that those variants criteria um
is that the
explanation by the applicant of the way
this will work is there are
up to four
uh volunteers and up to four staff
members at any given time
and there will be two times a day when
up to 20 students would arrive on a bus
and then leave on a bus so
you know in our opinion it's probably
about as low of an intensity of use from
a parking standpoint as we're likely to
get in a mixed use quarter we have a lot
of permitted uses on this corridor that
are definitely
they would definitely generate more
more parking than that um and you know i
won't run through them all but as you're
familiar with the main street corridor
pretty much any kind of retail or um
restaurants or any kind almost all that
stuff's permitted um so i i you know i'm
sure there are someone could think of a
way that you could have a use that that
created less parking but i i personally
can't think of any many anyway so uh you
know it seems like this is a pretty good
opportunity to utilize a fairly large
building uh with a pretty low parking
intensity and have a contributing fact
to um you know overall to the
to the
community so with that i'll turn it over
to the applicant uh happy to answer any
questions before that though
um what were the two times a day uh i
don't know let mr hodge tell us these
facts during the day it's morning
afternoon but i'll have to
mr hodge great david hodge attorney for
the applicant happy to be here
uh this evening i think the last time i
had a matter before this board
uh was the affordable housing projects
at cassidy and livingston and i was
looking at all of you
on the screen at two o'clock in the
morning yeah that's right you see i told
you it was two o'clock in the morning
um
so i'd like to talk about this and and
jason uh hit everything um
very well but let me just go over um
briefly what our request is and i'll try
to be measured with the number of words
that i use as we have the conversation
so everybody knows the space it's right
actually premiere which is
has a little history of its own and has
sort of languished and is no longer
occupying the space right uh so it's
it's available this is a this is a
commercial building on our east main
commercial corridor with a host of uses
that are allowed restaurants
offices retail etc no matter what
commercial use you go introduce into the
space
someone is going to have to come here
and get a parking reduction variance
all of those uses that i just mentioned
uh restaurant retail office are going to
have a much higher parking requirement
and they're going to be limited to the
same
number of parking spaces that are here
on the site which is six so that is the
nature of our parking reduction variants
uh 12 required
uh six provided three of the six are
compact because they're
not nine by eighteen they're substandard
eight and a half by 16 feet
the other uh
so that's the variance request the other
portion of the application is a
conditional use request when we
originally filed the application we
didn't include conditional use as part
of it because as jason either said or
alluded to really
uh identifying how this use fits into
the use categories in the code is not
the simplest exercise
i uh
took the position it was office
and these are uses that are uh
consistent with office uses there is
some office space in there and as any of
us who work in an office know there are
lots of things that go on in offices
that aren't just people sitting in a
cubicle or sitting in an office at a
computer all day long there are events
and my office has ted talks and
handicapped children in the evening and
all sorts of things so that was my
initial effort here and uh you know i
think jason
uh probably uh doing his job for the
city said well we ought to maybe uh
unpeel the layers there a little bit and
and and really take a worst-case
scenario they read the code the the
definitions of quasi public use public
use and determined that this is a public
use and uh we we agreed to come forward
with the application on that basis so
uh what is this use it is um
called kitchen of life
this is uh this is a program that uh has
a very thoroughly developed curriculum
i'm not sure if that curriculum made it
into your package it was submitted early
on in some initial meetings with the
city
uh kitchen of life
will have uh students from columbus
public bexley all school districts and
and other you know vocational uh
educational uh uh institutions across
the city uh bust over twice a day
we've talked with bus companies and
we've figured that out how that
interface works here with the property
they'll come into the space
uh they've consulted with cameron
mitchell on this they'll
have a cooking experience it's like my
son has a healthy cuisine at bexley high
school now they'll have a cooking
experience they'll go through the recipe
they'll discuss it with with uh the
leaders of the of the program
they will
enjoy the meal together and then they'll
sit in a classroom space and they'll
talk about how it made them feel the
sense of accomplishment the the the
resiliency it's it has a mental health
component but it's not as if it's the
mental health treatment it's just an
experience for kids on a field trip
basis to to give them something to do
that is that is positive uh and and
reinforces uh
that type of thing i'm probably not the
greatest person to articulate it but
that's the articulation that the the um
the curriculum is is in the package so
that's the conditional use and that's
that's the way uh the space is going to
be used again an appropriate use on our
main street commercial corridor uh a use
that is less impactful than lots of the
other uses allowed in the mixed-use
commercial district uh as it interfaces
with adjacent properties or or anything
of the corridor we believe that we meet
all of the criteria of the conditional
use section we also believe that we meet
a majority of the criteria of the duncan
factor standards for our variances uh
happy to discuss any of those
individually whether it's the
predicament as we talked about
with the pool case or any of the others
but as i stand here i'm uh convinced
that we meet all the standards of
conditional use and at a minimum
majority of the standards of the uh
variance practical difficulty standards
okay lots of folks here to in support of
the application some others possibly in
opposition or just here to learn what's
going on but um i'll do my best to
answer any questions that anybody on the
board has let me ask you this
in terms of kitchen of life is that an a
501 c 31 organization
that is in that is the contract
purchaser of the property okay okay from
the owners of the restaurant or whoever
owned the restaurant from the owners of
the restaurant
all right
and
is it a local organization or is it a
regional or statewide or what is a it is
being overseen by a by a local
organization uh
rabbi kaufman and the son shane are here
they you know are osu chabad and they
are uh they are um running this
organization okay that that's what i
wanted to know what what the local
connection is all right
um
any initial questions for members of the
board back to alicia's question
how what time of day are the buses
coming and what's the plan for unloading
and loading the buses so the the program
will operate generally between 10 am and
2 pm
we have consulted so so a field trip
group in the morning in a field trip
group in the early afternoon during
during school hours
five weeks during the weekdays
uh with the with the busing component we
have consulted with
our local busing people the bexley beat
we have consulted with vat who is the
the primary uh busing transportation
organization in in central ohio
uh and
there's one other we consulted with and
because i wanted to i figured this was
going to be a pretty significant
question and
what we think will happen
uh there are various scenarios of of how
to do this
one scenario is parking just in front of
the property along east main street at
that part of the day jason i think i
heard you say there was one space out
there one of the consultants told us
they thought there were two spaces out
there it's kind of
i mean you could probably
yeah it's not it's not precise out there
so the so the bus the bus would pull up
right in front of the space and there
are many spaces
let the kids out and then and then pull
on the other is to loop around and come
north on montrose and let people out
there on the east side of montrose uh
unload the bus and then the people would
walk through the crosswalk there to the
west back down to the space yeah if i
can clarify just for a second i mean
there's there are a lot of spaces i was
just meant the one that was specifically
in front of yours but there's also room
in front of it right as you go toward
the curve from mantra so it's the
there's the lines kind of end at some
point so it's not
it's hard a little hard to determine
size but not between four and six
they're not gonna sit there they're not
gonna sit there they're gonna unload and
and go on and do what they do and and
it'll be you know beat or v-a-t or the
people that you know drop school buses
on a daily basis to understand and you
know they're going they're going amazing
places all the time in these buses
um
let me let me
yeah let me ask uh about some of the
folks in the audience that want to speak
how many
are here to support the uh the the uh
proposal
and how many you're here to oppose or to
comment on
okay
let me hear
the
opposing comments first please and uh
then we'll
uh
that will also give the proponents a
chance to hear what the
uh objections are
all right
do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give this board this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes
thank you very much state your name
please for the record my name is maureen
ingram and
excuse me i'm the property owner
adjacent to the applicant at 25 27 and
25 29 east main street
to the east yes okay
the applicant's property according to uh
page a1 labeled as the architectural
site plans shows three floors floor one
is shown as consisting of a net area of
2929 square feet level two and that area
2494 for a total of
5424 square feet
according to bexley code
restaurants are required to have 3.5
spaces per thousand square feet for a
preserved building assuming this is a
preserved building
5 424 square feet requires eighteen
point nine spaces
the site plan
um delineates only six parking spaces
three in the front and three in the rear
this is a deficiency of twelve spaces or
sixty
of the required spaces in other words
parking provided is only one third of
what is required
this use is a restaurant this building
has a commercial kitchen has a
commercial food storage facility
it's operated out of this space for
several years under different names but
identical ownership to the applicant
the people patronizing the site will
come to the site for the purpose of
preparing or assisting with the
preparation of food
and this food prepared on this site is
to be consumed the fact that there may
be school-age children involved where
the entity running the operation is a
non-profit does not change the fact that
the use is a restaurant the zoning code
makes no differentiation between a
non-profit restaurant and a profit four
restaurant
there are restaurants this restaurant
requires 3.5 spaces per square foot
anyone who has patron heights the
shopping center knows that type that
parking is tight i own three spaces i've
had to hire private security to protect
those spaces illegal parking in my
spaces has been a serious problem for my
business the applicant says that they
will have four volunteers and four staff
people that's eight vehicles for just
those operating facility already too
short
of the six available spaces moreover
nothing prevents people who patronizes
from driving to the site and where will
they park
apparently to alleviate this problem the
applicant states that the buses will
transport patrons to the site but where
will they park
just mention that the use of buses on
the site is completely unworkable a bus
cannot make the turn into the parking
lot on the west end of the drive aisle
it's difficult to navigate a normal
sized car in this area moreover my
property line extends to just a few feet
from the median in the front of my
property and no bus can now navigate
this without crossing the property
the conditional use should be denied the
proposed use is a restaurant no matter
who runs the restaurant for what segment
of the public or the tax status the
conditional use is being sought as a
means to obey parking requirements for a
restaurant and the parking variants
should also be denied
i'd also like to find out what the
criteria is for the the food trucks to
come in the front the back
so that's what i have to do the food
trucks hold on we might have some
questions for you too um
the the um
so
from what we heard the buses are never
never i agree with you it's it's hard
for some cars to get in and out of that
particular
entrance way they're very small narrow
driveways
uh from what i heard and
mr odds can correct me if i'm wrong here
or jason
no buses are going to go in and out of
the parking lot they're going to stay
either on the street main street
sort of allowing the children to exit
onto the
grassy area than the sidewalk that's
right there or montrose
where they would come by up and then go
really by the front of your place right
to get into the into the facility you'd
have a trail of people that would go
across but no buses
uh on the actual parking lot now is am i
right about okay does that help you at
all
having been in this location for over 25
years i can tell you spaces on main
street are always not available so when
he said that you know there's usually
one or two they're not always available
they're only available certain during
the times of day that they're going to
bring the buses over so unless you
designate that space specifically for
that bus
i don't know how you can guarantee those
spaces okay that's a consideration
so then the question that i would have
um the operating hours which are 10 to 2
which
my red flag went up thinking school
pick up and drop off in the mornings and
afternoons that would have been a little
hairy scary but there is the afternoon
the lunch period where kids are coming
and going for montrose for lunch the
ones that go home
so a bus traveling down a school bus
traveling down montrose
can get a little hairy scary when you've
got little ones
crossing the street um
where do the school buses drop the kids
off from montrose on the other right
they do they drop off at remington they
do not drop off on montrose at all
and
that's not
much more
room
but i have children that go to montrose
i know how hard it is to find a spot
around montrose sure really at any given
time of day
so i i
that's my only
okay so with the
number of volunteers and you know people
that will be driving to the facility
that could be a little bit
hairy mm-hmm okay use my term harry
scary i did i did you use it i picked up
on it
all right
we might ask you to come back up again
but so don't leave i know it's late but
uh
who would like mr hodge
i mean everyone is your supporter
yeah if you're raising your hand that
you're in support and you don't have
anything to act if anybody wants to add
anything mr hodge is saying you're free
you're free to do so but he's the boss
and he's in charge you know
all right
david it's not a restaurant
it's not a restaurant
that's
i didn't think i would even hear that
counter argument tonight or even came to
mind this is absolutely
uh
certainly not a restaurant this is a
this is a public use
uh
educational facility
for youth enrichment is what this is the
prior use wasn't a restaurant and
well you may not know because
you probably didn't
achieve
the
acquisition of that variance for that
use and i can't remember what we did to
grant that either but i might have been
on the board at that time i think i was
on the board when we did the signage for
that facility
but
uh
i mean
you anticipate this is going to be a
far less
intense i use that word use
than a restaurant such as the one that
was already there is going to be is that
your you take the 5 000 some odd square
feet that make up this building and i
don't care whether it's a restaurant or
retail and office space or any of the
other uses that are allowed by right
there at the property it's going to have
to have a parking reduction variance
otherwise you're depriving the property
owner the use of the the real estate
which is the textbook definition for the
grant of a very a variance
that's a textbook definition for the
grant of appearance if i could uh just
clarify real quickly um there is a very
specific definition of restaurant in our
code um and it basically to summarize
involves selling food
out of the front of we are not selling
anything here you'd have to either come
in there and eat food that was prepared
there and pay for it and you know or
you'd have to sell food that people took
out and you can read the definition
there are no waiters there's no exchange
of money
i mean you're really talking about it
experiential learning that's absolutely
right
that part is clear i think that's not
hard to understand i think
just where the folks who are providing
the experiential learning where they're
going to be and how that's going to
navigate with all the buses i think is
the challenge that we're trying and and
we will certainly uh to the extent
necessary work with the city's public
service department on on the busing
component and maybe the busing component
does need to be over at remington or
maybe there needs to be some alternative
arrangement but
i'm confident that uh within the
parameters of the city within our
existing infrastructure we can determine
an appropriate location for the pickup
and drop off of the kids coming over
here for this experience experience it's
a hard word to say i know yeah so
commercial kitchen it does have a
commercial kitchen
of course yeah because it was a
restaurant we didn't we're not putting
that stuff in there we're glad it's
there
yeah right because because we're going
to make use of the the the
those facilities that are there this is
not
not the same group that did the
restaurant
my clients are buying they are in
contract to purchase the property her
allegation was identical ownership
it's not identical ownership okay that
that's that was the comment
is buying the real estate in the middle
of next month if we're able to be
successful here this evening and and get
them the entitlement that they need to
go forward with with the project
um
i was in the building and
as i recall there's a either a loft or a
some third floor component to it where
there's going to be like a area where
you could have
bar mitzvahs wedding receptions but
things of that nature and you could go
up on the on to the third floor and look
down onto the second floor is my
recollection cloudy or am i no there's a
so that it's shown here uh mr b hall
there's a you know roughly 500 square
foot area i i don't know
does our floor plan call for use of that
space jason i can't
i mean
basically the way the code is written
you it's an ore situation for public use
it's
one per five
seats in the public assembly space or 1
400 square feet
and so honestly doesn't matter if you
are okay with that standard and since
they've had two public assembly spaces
on their plan that's the way we
interpret it as a public use um if we
interpret it the other way then we would
have to do the whole thing as square
footage yeah yeah
so i've been to this shopping center i
live at 211 ardmore here in town i've
been to the shopping center many many
times you know jimmy john's verizon
store piccadilly when it used to be
there i think i even went to great clips
once and walked around like a dutch boy
for a month and a half until my next
haircut that's that's true oh i know the
shopping center well nobody would ever
unless they're insane try to take a bus
up through here you just couldn't do it
you'd be driving on the sidewalk and so
that's not part of the proposal we've
taken the busing situation seriously by
by uh consulting with realty by
consulting with bexley beat
the rabbis have a meeting with uh
superintendent lisa dixon coming up here
the week after next to to to discuss
this program and and get into the
bussing component with with her as well
so we i believe have put together a
thoughtful application
uh we will certainly continue to work
with with mrs ingram uh we uh meet the
the conditional use criteria as set
forth in the code and we also meet a
majority of the practical difficulty
standards for the variance as set forth
in the code and unless there are any
additional questions respectfully
request the board's approval of the
conditional uses
so how does how do currently food
delivery trucks
work and operate they come through the
alley i i believe they come down through
the alley for for jimmy john's which i
think is the only restaurant in there i
believe they were doing the same for
bexley premiere but honestly i i never
set foot in there so
and then jason i have a question
in relation to the parking spots do we
need to have
a solution for the school bus
prior to our decision because we don't
know what the school bus is going to be
doing i mean i'd like to see personally
i'd like to know
the plan for what the school bus is
because we're somewhat counting for
spots on the street the bus may be using
those now we can't count those spots on
the street but it's up to you yeah it's
it's sick i mean
catherine can chime in it's you know
you're basically functioning cause a
judicial manner for variants so it's
really whether you think you have enough
evidence before you that they have met
the preponderance of those criteria um
that that you think so um
yeah our recommendation is uh based on
uh you know not on whether or not you
should approve the variance but based on
the facts of of what we think is a
variance from what is going to always be
a variance i think something's always
going to have to get variance on that
that site because all the permitted uses
would not be able to function there but
whether or not you agree with this
variance is up to you yeah mr mother i
would suggest i would suggest
uh and maybe it's not appropriate for me
to suggest this but i've seen things
like this done in the past that um there
be a condition placed upon the applicant
that uh that that the bus
uh interface with the the building be
reviewed and approved by the city's
public service director before before
there can be uh
if i may um i would suggest uh reaching
out also to bexley city schools the the
business manager who uh or the director
of operations
um dr williams i believe could also
assist
um and just i'm figuring out the traffic
patterns at the buses
um
because i think that's going to be
really key because how it impacts the
schools and that's
my suggestion we will reach out to i
think they can help you
we'll absolutely reach out to them and
go see them
i also think we we need to
as a condition we i think the ten to two
needs to be part of the of the
conditioning here
for several reasons i mean
uh
you've got
first of all there's no parking on main
street between after four o'clock right
four to six am i wrong about that no
that's right right 46 what eastbound
right yeah eastbound yeah so
so
i wouldn't want to get
anywhere near the four o'clock range and
uh
i think it's east and west
no it's it's it's seven and nine in the
morning and four to six in the afternoon
going oh yeah
you're right you're right
agreed
um okay
um
members of the board any other
conditions that strike you as being
appropriate necessary
for safety issues i think safety is our
biggest issue here as well as
uh then the overall
overarching consideration here is
uh the impact on the remaining
tenants
ms ingram being one of them
but there are others there as well
obviously
so
uh
i do share this ingrams thank you sorry
i'm sorry
um i do share miss ingram's concerns and
having done this before uh with my own
zoning matters the city of columbus it's
the first question is have you
investigated
potentially leasing any parking spaces
during the hours of tended to for the
volunteers for the staff members yeah we
have not okay
we have not that that is
uh
you know we we we would take that i
think on an as needed basis i know
the issue came up of what happened with
bexley premier they had a very
convoluted arrangement with several of
the
surrounding property owners and a
commitment to valet during certain hours
if you know the last thing we want to do
is is have a parking issue here or
exacerbate a parking situation in the
shopping center so to the extent
necessary we'll go out and have some
discussions and whether it's fifth third
bank or cvs that has the entire island
of parking that's generally unused over
on the east side of that or or wherever
the case is we're we're we're open to
doing that but have not yet done so
that's where i bring my bias here is i'm
a small business attorney and i just
think i'm worried about the impact of
small businesses because i know that
employees regardless of being told where
to park always park in front of where
they are and take their customers
parking spots and so i want to protect
of course her economic interests
the interest of everybody else and yours
as well and so um if that doesn't become
an issue i would
please hope that you would work with
others committed to doing so thank you
sir
well i think
what we need to consider here is
does that rise to the level of do you
feel
from your perspective and i don't mean
to be cutting anybody else out here
either that that getting some parking
spaces whether it's two or three or one
or seven i don't know
committed
from a neighboring available parking
facility whether it's a bank or or
whoever is a condition i'm one voice but
i would uh but by in
my mind i would like to condition four
spots to be leased off site
mr hodge what do you think about that i
don't think we have any problem doing
that okay
i really i think we can go out and
secure those parking spaces like that i
do too but i think uh you know making it
a condition is a little different than
getting here and i'd like for the
condition to be triggered you know we
need some time we have like the uh
on the issuance of the necessary uh
you know architectural approvals or
building permits for interior
modifications just you know to coincide
with actual occupancy and use of the
building that's fair
can i say something
hey ma'am you certainly may come on up
though you have to come up to the
microphone so that we're
i want to say that i think conceptually
it's it's a beautiful idea i'm not i'm
not saying that i'm saying it's a
disaster parking wise
and it's going to be a mess
and you're not taking it because right
now piccadilly's is empty so we know we
got those parking spaces that we can use
you've um made the parking on montrose
you've limited that parking to just
teachers so we can't park there anymore
i just think that the whole idea this
location
it's it's gonna be a disaster and it's
gonna it's just not conducive to the
neighborhood it's not friendly it's just
not a friendly business
so what would be a friendly business
that is a good question i think that's
an excellent question yeah i do too i
think the restaurant before was not a
deal they went through the parking issue
they went over to cvs couldn't get
parking went over to montrose couldn't
get parking it's not going to be that
easy to secure
i hope
i don't know but but if it's conditioned
upon that and either he gets it or he
doesn't and i'm hoping that this gets
tabled until the busing situation gets
resolved
into the delivery trucks you i don't
think i don't think you can park a
delivery truck in the alley how do they
deliver food to the restaurant do you
know
jimmy johns they park over back in
behind their building to deliver food
but you
you can't the policeman told me you
cannot stop a truck
to just to empty the food truck into the
restaurant look it up i'm not a lawyer
i'm just i'm just stating that you're
doing pretty well
i think i mean the the the parking issue
is always going to come up uh i'm the
one of the people that voted for the
convoluted parking plan for the last
applicant
and
we have a situation and there's certain
places in the city of bexley where you
have this situation and nobody in this
room created this situation but again i
think all the other uses
office restaurant whatever are going to
use a lot more parking than than this
applicant and
again we you know this
the city this board approved a
restaurant bar in this location with
valet parking and other things it was
going to generate a lot more traffic uh
and so i just think when you look at the
uses that to me this is one of the least
intensive uses
the buses don't bother me because
they're going to operate you know per
the per the charter per transportation
laws
and i i think from a youth standpoint i
think it's
very appropriate given the circumstance
and
the code of us is drop off right on main
street um
i think if if you can resolve the issues
with finding parking for your associates
when they're there
when
when it's not available in front of the
allowable spaces i i don't think that
what they use it for as long as it's not
an event space because that would turn
into a hot mess really fast and buses
are not turning down
on top of her property line which i
wouldn't want to see because it's just
tight and not oh yeah it's safe
um
i i think regardless of what's in there
you're always gonna have to your point
um parking issues and parking challenges
so whether that and there's that
conditional use
something we we put on
and when you say either he does it or
a condition means either he's able to
acquire four spaces someplace else
or before the variance doesn't kick in
okay and then are those spaces
parking permitted to the employees
they are permitted like is there a
permit that they have that says hey i'm
allowed to park in this space
for that whole shopping center i i don't
know i'll get the idea i don't know the
answer to that question no
i don't i think those spaces are just
open
because they're open to
customers they want their customers to
parking
and i just think we have to be very
careful trying to police parking and
permitting parking that's off-site and
my view is if if this business goes in
and they don't have enough parking it'll
fail and another business will come in
and they'll it parking will be figured
out and
you know when
when uh the giant eagle got approved
everyone said there won't be enough
parking it's gonna be a disaster
it's i love to come in here and when the
whole parking lot's full and i have to
park out some somewhere and walk in but
the place is vibrant and you get your
groceries or you go to
spin class or whatever i think it's
fantastic parking is better for
the grocery store than it is for city
hall
well
right yeah
franklin county now we're not you know
german village or italian
or victorian village the historic
districts but we are the urban core and
this is an urban condition someone said
a little bit ago nobody in this room
created the condition this is a 5 000
square foot building with six parking
spaces oh well that's right so
you know
it would seem like
[Music]
working with the city
to
say can we create a
parking situation on main street that
says
between 10 and 2
there's no parking other than the bus
is a possibility so that
now that infringes on your
uh your clients
yeah i i mean i don't think that's
really fair with the citizens of bexley
to limit their ability to park to go
over to cvs to you know go to the the
stores in our center when you can't get
a spot right i mean to allow for the bus
that maybe comes for 15 minutes twice a
day and you're going to limit that
i i just don't think that's the right
idea i would i would table until the
bussing situation gets resolved until
the parking situation gets resolved
until the safety issues get resolved and
it doesn't even sound to me like this is
a set program i mean has it been is it
is the business open have they been
operating a business i mean is this
i don't know what we can't ask them that
we will ask them hold on did you have to
come up to the microphone uh
with reference to and i'm not sure
what miss ingram's use is next door or
if it's a if it's i believe it's a
retail shop it is and i don't know what
she whether she is
okay
it's entirely office space
yeah and so i i mean and you have two
two you have two legal parking spaces
you have prior excuses
and so she's under park so she needs i
mean she she's i'm not gonna fuss about
it but she's
if i if i may real quickly yes please
jason
i've been doing this for 20 some years
and people have complained
450 70 since the invention of the first
model t about the number of parking
spaces
and
fussing
about three spaces six spaces eight
spaces here and there in a commercial
corridor
is a fool's errand fussing about one or
two on-street spaces being used or not
used during a certain time of day those
didn't exist guess what they didn't even
exist on main street until so many
however many years ago right you know
our where then traffic
uh consultant said okay fine let's
stripe them and see if anybody gets mad
you know it's a state route but guess
what they haven't gotten mad so we did
it
you know
it's if it you know if it was a thriving
even more thriving commercial corridor
all the buildings would be pulled up to
the street everybody would be searching
for parking by looking down the alleys
and it'd probably be even more
successful i think that the comments of
of uh of mr marsh are very appropriate
here and that everybody thinks it's not
gonna work and a few spaces don't make a
difference now yeah if you were
redeveloping this entire block and you
decided to do with no parking then you'd
have to figure out some solution on the
corridor it'd have to be a public
parking lot or something you had to
figure something out i just don't know
what else you can do in an existing
building that has six spaces where by
right you can do a tavern a restaurant
an office like there's a whole list of
things that i you know can read them
through if we want to that are permitted
they're permitted uses on the street and
it's a mixed-use street so
yeah i mean if we were talking about 50
spaces 100 spaces
we're talking about
six spaces and whether or not this place
survives or doesn't survive or anything
else in that area survivor doesn't
survive i just can't be convinced it's
because of those few spaces especially
in a business that operates from 10 to
6.
it's just well so that's my professional
planning opinion and you know it's up to
you to make that that determination i
just i think we get really hung up on
these tiny little numbers of parking
spaces
we um we also have the reality that none
of the kids are going to be driving
there
is that a fact the kids will be driving
there they're bused in from whatever
school or organization they're coming
from
because some kids do drive to school to
bexley high school i know that i see
them parked on cassingham right in front
of my house every morning yeah there you
go sanctions field trips typically have
to be transported by
the school kids wouldn't drive to a
field trip
okay
all right
and from bexley they'd walk
they would they wouldn't bust the kids
do
you
feel like um
that if you had
more time that you could
uh
work out more details regarding the
busing issue
i think the location of the busing you
know i think that in terms of our
preparation for the meeting today our
consultation with beat our cons
consultation with vat our upcoming
meeting with superintendent dixon at
columbus public our commitment to
ongoing uh collaboration with the city's
public service department that
we're in a we're in a good spot and with
the busing i think miss mitchell made
the point a little bit ago dakota bus
stops on main street
all over main street if you've ever
ridden it they saw too many times on
main street and broad street and all
their other routes
don't get caught behind them either
we're just we're flying by the stops
because they
one of the other ert's on the way that's
a whole different discussion um you know
i think i do have a set of criteria or
if conditions as enumerated by okay
please the board so i can just read
those through first to see if those are
are in right in the right direction then
i can do the whole thing if if we have a
motion at some point um so the
conditions that i've picked up are that
uh the details of the bus pickup and
drop off will be determined in
conjunction with city staff
that the hours of operation will be
limited the boss operation will be
limited to between 10 am and 2 pm and
that an additional four spaces will be
leased off-site in advance of the
issuance of an occupancy permit those
are the three that i have so far and the
two that are in the staff report
yes is it ten to two monday through
friday weekdays okay okay so i don't
know that additional four is required
it's just
additional
i don't know additional four spaces
would be required and fair for that
condition because
their count of employees or staff would
only put them two spaces over so they
really need to only secure
two additional parking spaces off-site
not four
that would be that would be a matter of
whether mr ship will vote for it with
two and not four but yeah however we
vote for it but like we can't say hey
you need four when he doesn't he won't
even use four he has six at his disposal
potentially if he wanted to use
well
i want to i want to go if if four earns
mr six vote i'm willing to go find four
parking spaces to be fair
that particular location
i mean if you're going to
the hair shop
the short the eclipse whatever it's
called there
i don't think that that that there has
never been in the history of that center
somebody that parked in front of her
store that went to the hair clips or
parked in front of jimmy john's that
went to the
hair clips with i hear i'm getting the
name what is it great great clips thank
you great clips
right so i'm not sure
that saying hey you have to have four
spots
doesn't
possibly just make that whole
congested center a little freer
i mean i i don't know if they can get
them and they're willing to get them
sure i don't see the i don't see why
we'd want to say let's do two instead of
four that would be my you know i was
just saying putting a restriction that
if he's not able to obtain four and we
said well you've got to go get four but
he doesn't need four that's not fair
either
that's all i'm saying
but whatever thoughts from everybody
yeah
i mean if the employees can park off
site to free up additional spots in the
front and if they're okay with it then
then
i mean
you sound like you're okay with the four
then i have an issue before exactly and
then maybe that would help this ingram
too because it it would free up two
additional spots that are going to be
yeah it gives a little wiggle room
i'm good with four but i personally i
wouldn't put any i personally wouldn't
ask for any off-site parking again i
think it's up to the business to solve
it themselves
without without this without this group
dictating but but i'm fine with four
okay
it's up to you because you need four
votes
four votes three votes four votes you
need four out of three three just three
out of five read the code during the
earlier case it's four affirmative votes
of the board
yeah but we changed that rule oh you get
over defense majority majority of
attendees yeah minimum three okay good
so three out of five
yeah with a minimum of three right my
preference is to include the four
parking spaces okay
uh one thing mr chairman there are other
folks out there so i don't know if we
wanted to offer the opportunity for them
to comment or not yeah we've already
done we did okay we missed it i'm sorry
yeah sorry all right i mean i think this
is a as as ms ingram has stated i think
this is a
a decision that we have to make about
the overall
parking
transportation drop-off issue in view of
what we have here what we have been
given so i think that we should um
i don't think anything is going to
happen that is going to change
drastically if you go to
the city of bexley or
the jetsons or whoever you're going to
go to to talk about what to do with
these vehicles between now and next
month so i think it it either passes or
doesn't pass on its own merits
and i would be
uh
well i'll entertain of course because i
can't make a motion but i would
entertain a motion to approve findings
of fact conclusions the law after
they're read
uh
by jason jason would you give us a once
the final reading on that yeah let's and
we also have conditional use so they'll
do first oh that's right yeah
the variance yeah um upon consideration
of the application proposed variance and
evidence of the testimony before the
board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to grant an area of
variance vexilla uh code section 1226
11c have been met and a variance from
becc's code section
1262.02h2 allow a reduction in required
parking spaces from 12 to 6 and a
variance from bexley code section
1262.01 a to allow three of the spaces
to be compact spaces
uh that should be granted with the
following conditions one the details of
the bus pickup and drop-off will be
determined in conjunction with city
staff two the hours of bus operation
will be limited to between 10 a.m and 2
p.m and three an additional four spaces
will be leased off-site in advance of
the issuance of an occupancy permit and
then the other conditions will go with
the other
with the other aspect of the of their uh
application
very good all right
with that reading
are you
willing to accept that reading as was
just read by jason yes sir and members
of the
uh board are you
okay with the substance of that in terms
of making it the voting issue here
all right
then do i hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law with
regard to the parking variance so moved
second second thank you
karen please call the role yes
yes
my vote's irrelevant but i vote yes
it's not irrelevant mr chairman
additional use now now that do the
conditional use upon consideration of
the application proposed conditional use
the board finds that the applicant has
proven the criteria to grant a
conditional use and actually code
section 12 26 12 b
uh
oops
sorry i got extra words in there from
the variants
um
uh conditional use in mexico section
1226 12b
uh and
oh shoot sorry i messed up my words here
sorry take your time
after that first case you know you could
take an hour it's no problem you've been
batting a thousand all day ah well no i
had to mess up eventually right um
anyway and then to allow uh public use
in bexley code section 1262.02
h
uh with the conditions any signage or
exterior building changes will be
submitted to the city of bexley for
review and approval we didn't mention
that earlier but basically they agreed
to come back if they do anything to the
outside including signage yeah and that
the site should be in substantial
compliance with the renderings and plans
dated 209 2022 as submitted to the board
okay
i think that summarizes it any uh mr
hodge any problem with that reading
okay
um members of the board any additions or
modifications
no
all right
entertain a motion to approve the
findings of facts regarding the
conditional use permit all right so
moved okay thank you
second thank you
who is mitchell and uh
mr shik second
you can call the roll okay
mr shake yes
yes mr march yes
yes
i vote yes also thank you all very good
uh good uh interesting project
thank you
all right um
we have
possibly some other business the the now
i'm trying to see who was here you were
here last month ryan and uh you aren't
no he's not you were not either no
so there were four lawyers here as i
recall
uh and we
accepted the
i guess what we did is we accepted the
jurisdiction to hear
the the motion was should we accept the
case involving
uh a fence
that was put on a residential property
the neighbor
did not
wanted to object to the issuance of the
uh permit
and
um
the the
we we read through all the statutes very
carefully
out loud in most cases and we made a
conclusion well we voted on whether we
should or shouldn't and it was four to
nothing i believe that we accepted the
the
case which was set
for next month
april now
subsequently in discussions with
the city attorney and ms cunningham on
behalf of the city
the
position
of the city attorney's office is that
that
we do not have
jurisdiction
over that case
no matter what we decided to do because
of the central fact that the
a building permit is is a property right
only of the owner of the property
not of neighboring property owners
and that the idea that if
the building permit is denied in writing
that they then have the 10 days as
you'll recall ryan the the that we had a
10-day time period
and uh
they they can
argue that they should have gotten the
permit and that they were denied
inappropriate right and then from there
if they get that they they can come to
the bees app to get to hear that case
and and if they don't like the result
here they go to city council and then
they go to the court of column please if
they want to appeal the city council's
decision so there's a process for how
that occurs
i think our ruling was based upon the
fact that we said
you know there's and i don't have the
language of friendly so i don't want to
to to corner us into this position but
we basically said
how can anybody have a 10 day
time frame when they don't know that a
decision has been made because they're a
neighbor and
uh it did provide there was one word i
forgot what the word was but it provided
for objection
to be made to the issuance
a written issuance uh the issues of a
written written
decision by a city administrator i think
is the way it rather that
so
we pieced it all together and every one
of the so
just happened to be lawyers here that
week
uh that month uh
decided geez this doesn't make any sense
any other way blah blah blah and we all
voted and we voted to take the case now
the the city attorney's office believes
and to be fair mark did
uh send us
uh mark the city attorney did send us a
notification that he believed that we
did not have jurisdiction
and so we we did have that
uh
opinion from the city attorney
so
now
the matter has already been set for
hearing
and we did set it for hearing we did
accept the the jurisdiction and and now
the the city attorney is is basically
saying that we shouldn't have a hearing
at all because we don't really have
jurisdiction over this matter
so
now
i i think we all
feel like
for the sake of the general public
that the statute could be clearer
and
that we would certainly urge
city council to make it clearer
because it can't be that much work to do
that i realize they have to go through a
lot of stuff to change an ordinance they
have to have two readings they have to
go through all that stuff but
nonetheless
it should be clear to the we have four
lawyers vote
not everybody is a lawyer thank god
right so
uh i i think that and i would personally
urge the city council to to
take on the task of making that a
clearer statue
well i think catherine should probably
speak to it but or or you know in terms
of
what do we do now
because
we do
have the authority to accept or not
accept jurisdiction on cases
when
they are appropriately before us and i
think catherine's position is it was not
appropriately before us in the first
case
right so
no
not exactly okay but one i'm talking
about your mouth catherine give us give
us the
cliff notes version of it all right
so
the case involves an app uh
property owner
that's issued
[Music]
without any design
being provided to the city they don't
have to permit to provide a design right
fence permits
in bexley you come in and you apply for
a fence permit they give you a permit
they tell you here's the you know it has
sex code information on it you have to
build a fence in compliance can't be 20
feet high can't pop up right you get the
standards you got to build in compliance
um and
and so you get your permit then you can
go put up your fence if your offense is
not in compliance then you get a notice
violation and somebody issues a stop
work order first typically and tells you
you got to stop or if you get a
complaint after the fact the fence is
completed
and there's a
it's not built to code then you're going
to get
not a stop work order then you'll get a
notice violation or they'll tell you
you've got to fix it and bring it into
compliance that's typically the way it
works
it's a little unusual for you to deal
with those kinds of issues because it
involves a permit of something that's
allowed
and if something goes south on it
sometimes you do get those cases when
somebody comes in and asks for a
variance after the fact because whatever
happened did not comply with the code
and they got an enforcement
either from zoning staff or design
enforcement officer that to that they
had to come into compliance
so this is sort of along those lines
where there was a permit issued to a
property owner
the property owner bill defense they
believed in was was in compliance with
the code
um
from the time you issue your permit till
the time you actually build you've got i
think you've got a year under that
permit and actually you see there's
usually six months a year i can't really
tell you for sure
so the permit was issued a fence was
built the neighbor complained and said i
don't think
it wasn't his fence but i don't think
this fence is in compliance with your
code i think it violates this section
so he calls zoning the city of course
and
talks to kathy and kind of registers a
complaint
well right in the middle of the debate
yeah
it looks like we're having fun here but
we're not
you can listen to it it's it's public
information
um so then then the neighbor contacts
the city and says hey this fence is in
violation the code staff looks at it and
says we don't think it violates the code
and
that was a telephone conversation it
wasn't you know anything formal
and um and kathy did say to him you know
my decisions can be appealed so he
appealed a telephone conversation about
a complaint about a fence
that a permit had been issued for and
staff had determined was in compliance
with the code
so this sort of outside of the norm of
the process that you have because it
really the only application was
for something that was allowed and staff
determined that it was allowed
and there wasn't a written decision and
it wasn't the permit of the neighbor
so normally you would look at that as
the decision to be appealed would be the
issuance of the permit
if there was
something constructed that wasn't in
compliance with the code then it would
be an administrative determination or
prosecutorial determination of the city
to get the property owner to bring it
into compliance
but when typically when staff makes a
discretion you know determines that
something meets code
that a loan
for a neighbor is not an appealable act
particularly when that is based on a
permit that was issued to somebody else
so that's really what kind of happened
in this case and i i mean i understand
how those things all get confused
because they all look a lot alike and
you see different phases of those
but because of that um
and you know i i did spend a lot of time
talking to mark about it and and the way
the circumstance rose and even kathy
about it to you after it happened
because
you know if you think about what really
happened i mean you've got somebody
who did not get a written opinion or
decision
appealing a telephone call to you
because they disagree with staff
it's really what it boils down to and
that is not
an appealable determination under your
code there was no written decision made
the written decision was the issuance of
a permit and then a determination
separately after it was up that it was
in compliance
so that's why when there was a
discussion about it coming before the
board
mark and i talked and i think that's why
in part he issued the letter because
it's the the responsibility of the city
attorney to
to help you guide you in your
interpretation
if i was the person who requested the
appeal just so they know hey
well one of the things in from a
lawyer's standpoint um the issue of
jurisdiction is never waived
so you can always reconsider that
because it's really about the
fundamental power of whether you have
the authority to do what you did in the
first place if you act anyway and you
didn't have the authority then it's you
know a court could determine what
lawyers would say is void ab initio or
as as if you never did anything because
you can't do what you don't have the
power to do
um so it can be reconsidered i'm not
sure about moving forward how to do it
um i know that you know you've got
property owners who are anticipating
coming in if if to a hearing that's been
set
and they certainly are i think where bob
said oh i think you know
i can't remember what you said that i
fought or agreed with i was like i'm not
sure
that the permit is a property right of
the of the well no that that it's it is
within the purview of this board to
determine its jurisdiction that that
that staff which should not
if somebody files an appeal staff would
not say well you can't do that they
would bring the appeal as is what
happened they would bring the appeal you
would hear it and then it would be your
determination of whether or not you have
the authority to hear it and you know i
i'm not sure if you had enough guidance
or enough understanding and and
and uh you didn't have legal counsel
here at the time but
that really we would never say as bob
was saying we would never say you can't
file it or it wouldn't go forward we
would always let the person who wanted
to file something file it first
may say don't think you have
jurisdiction but that it would still get
on your agenda and come to you anyway
because you would have to make that
decision that would not be a staff
decision
this was a very good example i'm sorry i
have no plead on my mistake
for the members of the board who are not
here uh this is a very good example of
why getting four attorneys together is a
really bad idea
it was not neces it was not the fence
that really gave us enormous concerns
about um
the stroke of justice what had happened
here was the permit had been pulled in
september the individual who lived next
door had no knowledge constructive
actual whatever
of the of the issuance of that permit
which we deal with all the time
he came home i want to believe in
october
from an osu from an osu game right and
the fence had been constructed and there
was an issue with regards to the outward
facing portion of the fence which
appeared perhaps decorative
all those facts aside
the issue that we had was he only had 10
days to appeal the issue and said that
permit but had absolutely no knowledge
whatsoever of that issue of the issuance
of that permit in the first place and
that's what really rested
with all of us just
in a way that it wasn't necessarily
about this board it was us looking at
this ordinance saying that's going to
change that's right i think that it's
clear that it wasn't about
the merits of
the the claim and bob made it very clear
i did listen to the part of the date bob
made it very clear that this is not
about we don't hear about marriage i
don't want to see this yeah
i don't care about fans
but but i think it is very typical
i don't know of any jurisdiction where
if somebody comes in to get a permit and
they meet code that notifies a neighbor
because you wouldn't what would they
appeal if you meet the code you're
entitled
so it's very i know it's hard for
lawyers to think about that because we
think everything will be challenged but
the the
property interest
for the issuance of the permit is the
applicant of the permit
if you comply with it's like if you take
a test you know and 70 is passing an
unsubjective test you put it in and you
get 70
like nobody else has the right to argue
about that because you have met the
objective standard and that's the way it
is and usually it's staff's job to make
sure that you do that so 100
so that's kind of what happens and
typically when we see these appeals
typically
it's the property owner who applied for
the permit that was denied was appealing
the denial that's now that's not to say
that that if somebody had knowledge that
a permit was issued and they thought the
permit was wrong
they would have appealed but in this
case it wouldn't have appealed because
it wouldn't have had a picture anyway i
mean it was just a a permit to build
right so
one of the things that came out of the
last meeting was we suggested to the
staff why don't you tell somebody who
comes in for a permit on a fence to show
you what the fence looks like
right why can't they show you when they
ask for the application what is it going
to be
how tall is it going to have grading
bubble right but but additionally
the issue is
what happens when i draw a permit
and then i flat build the fence
outside of code or i build it so that
the ugly side is facing my neighbor
instead of me i don't know how that all
works but
and
i'm the neighbor and i don't find out
about it till the fence is built that's
way past 10 days after the
issuance of the permit right right and
that's just the city code enforcement so
right that's all right if the city code
then i understand that so the city you
call the city they built the fence wrong
the city goes out
and the city makes a determination
that it either was or wasn't and you
don't agree or you think that the city
inspector made an error do you have file
a mandamus action then conjunction you
try to get an injunction well that was
the case because without getting into
the details of it defense is
right evaluation
so
how
how is it that now we're going to talk
about this next month well that's a good
question that's that's
why
it's a procedural issue because well
it's on the agenda next month so it will
have to either you'll either have to
reconsider just
you'll have to reconsider jurisdiction
because there was a vote or
and and
um or
ignore that ignore the city attorney and
and it can't be removed now i mean with
no notice it's been provided or anything
like that or a month out why can't we
just remove it from the agenda you can
make a measure
that's what she's saying is that we
could do that we could make a motion
tonight you have to make a motion
and the motion would have to be
to reconsider the decision
about
jurisdiction
in other words we accepted the case that
needs to be
reconsidered and there needs to be an
affirmative vote that says we're going
to change our mind or we're going to
reconsider the decision
and then
first a motion to reconsider
i would make a motion that we reconsider
the decision from the last uh
meeting
okay so it sounds to me like we're
discussing something that we don't have
jurisdiction to discuss that we've got
an agenda item that
isn't something that's
something that we should that we don't
really have
the jurisdiction over to make the
decision for the hearing right i mean
that's still that's right so we're gonna
have to share that we don't have the
power to control well you notify the
parties and let them come in and argue
whether you do or don't have it listen
to the argument make your decision
i mean you can put that on the agenda as
one of the
i items understand why how we can argue
something that we don't understand
so okay
it's not really a standing issue
jurisdiction is a power issue that's
kind of different you are and that's
okay though why would yes because it
seems a little similar it is similar in
some ways it's if we did something wrong
well
yes
the wrong and saying we didn't have
authority to make that move so from from
a lawyer's standpoint when lawyers argue
about whether
decision makers have the authority to do
what they do all the time that's what
we often do that and normally we make
those arguments to the decision maker
now you considered that last time if you
want to give the
the
the i think the
neighboring property on the the permit
holder
who had the fence
was not at the last hearing because i
think kathy told her it wasn't going to
be on the agenda she was or something
so
she has never actually appeared and
she's the one with the permit and the
other side did appear
right um and then there was a discussion
of jurisdiction
yeah so we we really didn't need anybody
here making any arguments we just read
the statutes
right
so i i would say
i mean procedurally
um the question is whether you want to
give the parties the opportunity to try
to convince you whether you do or don't
have jurisdiction and then make a
decision well so let me ask you this
since we
the the complainant
was here
and the vote was four to nothing to
accept the case
do
you think it would be
appropriate
or inappropriate to
say we have to set the motion for
reconsideration
for hearing
you could do that set it add that to
your agenda for the next month
set have a motion to set
instead of reconsideration next month
and the parties can appear and argue or
you can do
just say we didn't have jurisdiction and
take it off i mean i have a feeling
there's going to be some litigation here
if we do not
i i think the person is
but if we do and we don't have the right
to do it there's going to be litigation
then too well
but you haven't read the statutes
like we all four of us did last night
you're right but i'm just saying
in
i mean she might be wrong
i could be
it wouldn't be the first time i just
don't think that having people come in
and talk about offense is going to
change we're not going to talk about the
facts you first decide if you have
jurisdiction and then if you choose to
take it then you hear about defense if
the
city attorney
suggests that we don't have jurisdiction
i'm i'm good with that
you can i think we should vote then i
think we should vote well we're
definitely going to vote there's a
motion in a second so we can't avoid
that
the question is how do we handle the
motion to reconsider
because emotion reconsider says we're
going to reconsider an issue not we're
going to reverse the issue
right we're going to reconsider the
issue
and and i think the way that we've done
it in the past is it has to come from a
board member can't come from an
applicant
and
then we set the case
for rehearing and reconsider the
decision that was made
but that that can't happen tonight
because
nobody that's affected is here
you know it's
it's a due process thing to some extent
you know i think the safest way to
handle it is vote on your motion
and the second
if there's three votes
we set it for hearing in the april
and and ironically it's already set it's
going to be on the docket for april
anyway yeah so we'll just set
this motion
ahead of the
hearing that's currently and then next
month then next month
all we're
going to consider is whether we have the
right to consider first first if you say
we do
then we hear the hearing and if we vote
that we don't then we don't hear that
here
that's
why why don't we just do that tonight
well lawyers think about constitutional
due process
to make sure the people involved are
notified
that's really why you you have a fervent
person who's on the other side and i
think they're gonna
if if we
make a move that
takes away his
his due right to due process i think
we're making another mistake we're gonna
compound our errors and he's gonna file
a lawsuit we're gonna be in column
please court you know instead of here
whereas if we have a hearing everybody's
notified we're going to reconsider this
uh then he can show up if he wants and
he can bring his lawyer and tell us why
he thinks we do have jurisdiction
well you the city attorney may show may
come too
because he's got he he issued the letter
and he'll be sure that sure he's here
yeah yeah
yeah
that's what i would recommend so that's
what i would recommend doing
can we can we
call the question on the motion that's
on the table
yeah so we've made a question you two
both got whatever you got you're giving
it to the other guy yeah i'm glad i'm
over here on this side of the room
i'm stepping down it was that first case
i'm telling you
it's freezing
my toes are cold
so we've made a motion to
reconsider
the jurisdiction jurisdictional issue of
defense issue you don't even know what
cases
but whatever yeah
but we know what the case number is
you've got that information yeah
so
so the motion is made with reference to
the case involving i forget even the
address or the case number but can you
pull that up so that we can for the
record we can say what the case number
is
i think that's probably appropriate
yeah it was it was
it went on 18
18 north ashburn
appeal 21-3 21-3 okay good so that's the
case
and
with that case number with the
understanding you have your emotion is
restated right brian that we reconsider
whether we have jurisdiction right if we
reconsider the issue because that's the
only issue that was decided
there was no substantive decision made
about defense it was just did we or did
we not have jurisdiction so you you're
making a motion to reconsider that
particular topic
correct and you're making this okay
then i think there's no further
discussion is there any further
discussion required alicia or
ryan okay then call the roll on that
mr sugar yes mr marsh yes
mr shake
no
miss mitchell yeah
i don't know also but the but the motion
passes and so we'll put that on the
docket next month
okay
i think that's a good way to handle it
now
but let me ask you we're on the record
here and you know these are all uh taped
and this is a quasi-judicial
event going on here
is this something we need to talk about
on the record
i think we should
go off okay
okay
[Music]
okay that's okay
we should be on we should be on done
yeah
you should be on the record one last one
last thing before we adjourn
i think we need to set a time limit for
presenters
and let them know ahead of time and
and we
well yeah and we always talk about it
we've always not done it and then it it
comes back to haunt us and it's not fair
to say to one person
but i think i think we got to get a
timer okay
and a time limit and and i think if if
presenters know that they only have five
minutes or whatever it is they'll be
concise yeah and i don't think it's fair
to any of us or the public
and i don't know if we need to come up
with like big project there was a little
bit of there was some filibustering
going on tonight yeah yeah so and so
i i don't know again but i think we
should come up with some standard and
and apply it i will hardly agree with
you just if i could um
just because we operate off of a
30-minute allowable public comment
five-minute limit
uh rule is part of our policy it's very
successful so i will offer that but like
tonight
i felt like i
needed to ask a few more questions and
if that's not the time that we should be
doing that
when
the person is presenting is a little
different in this instance like i don't
have that back and forth your question
extends the time right see don't you
agree oh yeah yeah and i'd rather have
time for questions than
like showing photos of every house in
bexley that has right
so
you know your initial presentation
it's a little different again
where i normally direct my questions to
my fellow board members i don't direct
questions to
and this is a different audience in a
different situation so
if that extends the time
your point i would rather have the
opportunity to be able to ask questions
sometimes i'm learning i'm listening and
learning sure not just from them but
from the perspectives of the other board
members as well i think your your
suggestion is excellent and i think what
you're saying is the initial
presentation yeah of a presenter should
be five minutes and i think that the
presentation by an objector should be
probably three minutes yeah you know or
something like that i mean the objection
lasted about 20 minutes
and i had already listened to that when
i did sit here last night right right so
luckily i was out in the hall i didn't
listen to it but
uh
so motion to get a timer yeah the
promotion do it motion to
consider motion to make time limitations
on the initial presentation of five
minutes and on any objection to three
minutes
which can always be extended a by motion
of the board
or b
by questions being asked of
by the board members
of anybody who's a presenter
i will say you may want to see if
there's like a
city-wide approach that the
administration wants to take not saying
you shouldn't do it um i i would imagine
there's probably some comments that the
administration may want to weigh in to
systematize it throughout the boards but
that's just my advice but i agree let's
let's agree to vote at the next meeting
okay let's bring something matter up at
the next meeting okay
yeah
um
um i always think that that helps
applicants i know you know when i'm
doing these kinds of things i'm always
looking at their rules and to see what
what happens and yeah speaking of which
i'm a little wary
about
talking about this case
without
mrs
ingram being here yeah and i i would
prefer
that we do not
talk to these folks on the record
because the case is over well from my
perspective
um if you're going to talk about it at
all it should be on the record
on the record if you're not because the
i mean the hearing is closed but i think
it's public meeting we're in a public
meeting they're talking about to a
majority of the members of the board so
that should be a record thing from a
sunshine perspective
um or
you
well let me ask mr hodge to come up and
tell us what the nature of what they
want to discuss is i think that's a
certainly affair so uh david hodge
attorney for the applicant in the
property on the 2345 i think is the
address uh east main street case um
criticized by my client and some of the
people that were here in terms of my
exact explanation of the use felt that
the board should have had some
additional detail
possibly the board would have been more
comfortable voting if they understood
the charitable purpose of the kitchen of
life organization so some folks were
interested in sharing that perspective
with the board
okay yes
voted in favor of it correct
right right they just want to provide
you with some community information it
appears let's just we're good
so that's it thank you all have a great
night
thank you
very good i i understood what it was
enough i like the words you used it's
experiential learning an experiential
learning endeavor
this is this is
just and i'll say this
through covid
um
there have been you know there's been an
uptick in mental health issues
associated with
masking and kids not being at school and
and and
mental health and and youth mental
health is really sort of about before
same thing right sure as mental health
is it you know we all got impacted by
this pandemic that we've been living
through and so in part what this what
this organization does is it
they're not targeting at-risk kids but
they're giving
kids a positive
environment atmosphere structure to
teach resilience and to feel good about
themselves to have peers positive
feedback from the people that they're
cooking with that's that's the gist of
what is going on in kitchen of life i
felt like that was clear and apparent
just if your
clients that was clear and apparent
is there anything yeah all right can i
have a motion to adjourn
so much second
the meeting is adjourned thank you very
much thank you folks for coming