# Board of Adjustment - July 29, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 29, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4028 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4028?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-07-29 - **Last revised**: July 29, 2016 - **Length**: 7,626 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on July 29, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Barry Stumbo presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items during the session, consisting of variance requests, conditional use permit applications, and one item to adopt revised conditions for a previous case. The board took seven votes throughout the meeting, approving six of the seven matters brought before them and denying one variance request by Sidney O. Lizer. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, indicating the session focused primarily on the board's deliberations and decisions on the pending applications. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on July 29, 2016: • Barry Stumbo • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman • Chad Needham • Branden Gross Two members were absent: • Larry Forester • Jan Meyer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered seven cases during the July 29, 2016 meeting, approving six applications and denying one. **PLN-BOA-16-00004**: Michael A. Blevins' request for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet was approved unanimously (5-0) [timestamp: 00:00]. Branden Gross made the motion, seconded by Thomas Glover. All five members voted in favor: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, and Branden Gross. The approval included conditions requiring the driveway to be constructed according to the submitted application and site plan, obtaining a paving permit, and limiting the variance to a 10-foot wide driveway and parking space. **PLN-BOA-16-00007**: Miroslava Doroshenko's similar variance request to reduce the front yard requirement from 20 feet to 0 feet passed unanimously (5-0) [timestamp: 00:00]. Chad Needham motioned, Branden Gross seconded, with identical conditions as the previous case. **PLN-BOA-16-00001**: Teresa P. Johnson's conditional use permit for a home occupation was approved unanimously (5-0) [timestamp: 00:00] on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-16-00002**: Mark and Karla DiNardo's conditional use permit for an athletic club facility passed unanimously (5-0) [timestamp: 00:00]. Branden Gross motioned, Chad Needham seconded. Conditions limited participants to 30 and confined activities to the existing building interior. **PLN-BOA-16-00003**: MB2 Raceway Inc.'s conditional use permit for an indoor recreational facility was approved unanimously (5-0) [timestamp: 00:00] on Branden Gross's motion, seconded by Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-16-00006**: Sidney O. Lizer's variance request to reduce the side yard from 8 feet to 2 feet was unanimously denied (0-5) [timestamp: 00:00]. Chad Needham motioned for denial, Branden Gross seconded. **V-2015-36**: The board unanimously approved (5-0) revised conditions for Leah Taylor's previously approved case [timestamp: 00:00], with Branden Gross motioning and Joan Whitman seconding. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among board members. **Variance Request by Sidney O. Lizer** Sidney O. Lizer's application for a variance to construct an attached garage became the focal point of contentious debate during the meeting. The request sparked detailed discussion regarding how the proposed construction would impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Board members engaged in extensive deliberation about the merits of Lizer's proposal, with concerns raised about whether the attached garage would be compatible with existing neighborhood aesthetics and development patterns. The discussion also explored potential alternative options that might address Lizer's needs while maintaining neighborhood consistency. Despite the thorough examination of the request and consideration of various alternatives, the board ultimately denied Lizer's variance application. The denial followed the heated discussion about balancing individual property owner needs against broader community planning objectives and neighborhood preservation concerns. The contested nature of this item demonstrates the challenging decisions planning and zoning boards face when weighing individual requests against established community standards and neighborhood character preservation goals. ## Variance Request by Michael A. Blevins [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered variance request PLN-BOA-16-00004 submitted by Michael A. Blevins. The applicant requested a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 0 feet in order to provide a parking space in the front yard of his property. Michael A. Blevins served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting his case to the board. The request sought to eliminate the standard front yard setback requirement entirely, which would allow for the installation of parking directly adjacent to the front property line. Staff had reviewed the variance application and recommended approval of the request, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met. The details of these conditions were not specified in the available meeting materials. The Board of Adjustment ultimately approved the variance request, allowing Blevins to proceed with his plans to create the front yard parking space with the reduced setback. This approval enables the property owner to utilize the front yard area for parking purposes without maintaining the typical 20-foot buffer from the street. The approval of this variance represents a departure from standard zoning requirements, which typically mandate front yard setbacks to maintain neighborhood character and provide adequate spacing between structures and public rights-of-way. The board's decision suggests they found sufficient justification for the reduced setback in this particular case. ## Variance Request by Miroslava Doroshenko [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered variance request PLN-BOA-16-00007 submitted by Miroslava Doroshenko. The applicant requested a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 0 feet in order to provide a parking space in the front yard of her property. Miroslava Doroshenko spoke as the key presenter for this agenda item, explaining her request to the board members. The variance would allow her to utilize the front yard area for vehicle parking, which would otherwise be prohibited under the standard 20-foot front yard setback requirement. Staff had reviewed the variance application and recommended approval of the request, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The specific conditions attached to the staff recommendation were not detailed in the available materials, but the staff's positive recommendation indicated that the proposal met the necessary criteria for variance approval. Following the presentation and discussion, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the variance request. The approval allows Doroshenko to proceed with creating the front yard parking space with the reduced setback, subject to compliance with any conditions established by staff and the board. This variance approval enables the property owner to make more efficient use of her available land for parking purposes while maintaining compliance with local zoning regulations through the formal variance process. ## Conditional Use Permit Request by Teresa P. Johnson [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed conditional use permit application PLN-BOA-16-00001 submitted by Teresa P. Johnson to establish a home occupation for producing natural products. Teresa P. Johnson presented her request to operate a natural products business from her home. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with specific conditions attached. The board approved the conditional use permit request as recommended by staff. *Note: Limited transcript information was available for this agenda item, preventing a more detailed summary of the specific discussion points, conditions, or concerns that may have been raised during the meeting.* ## Conditional Use Permit Request by Mark and Karla DiNardo [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered application PLN-BOA-16-00002, a conditional use permit request submitted by Mark and Karla DiNardo to establish an athletic club facility. Mark DiNardo and Karla DiNardo presented their proposal to the board as the key speakers for this agenda item. The applicants sought approval to operate an athletic club at their proposed location. Staff provided a recommendation of approval for the conditional use permit, contingent upon specific conditions being met by the applicants. The staff report outlined the requirements and restrictions that would need to be followed if the permit were granted. The board reviewed the application materials, staff analysis, and heard from the DiNardos regarding their plans for the athletic club facility. The discussion covered the proposed use, its compatibility with the surrounding area, and any potential impacts on the community. Following their deliberation of the conditional use permit request, the board voted to approve PLN-BOA-16-00002. The approval came with the conditions recommended by staff, which the DiNardos will need to comply with in establishing and operating their athletic club facility. The approved conditional use permit allows Mark and Karla DiNardo to move forward with their plans to establish the athletic club, subject to meeting all specified conditions and requirements outlined in the staff recommendation. ## Conditional Use Permit Request by MB2 Raceway Inc. [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered conditional use permit application PLN-BOA-16-00003 submitted by MB2 Raceway Inc. to establish an indoor recreational facility for indoor electric go-carts. Jerrod Sheff served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The proposed facility would operate as an indoor entertainment venue featuring electric go-cart racing. Staff presented their analysis of the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to specific conditions. The staff report indicated that the proposed indoor recreational facility met the necessary requirements for approval under the applicable zoning regulations. The board reviewed the application materials, staff recommendations, and any conditions proposed for the permit. The indoor electric go-cart facility was determined to be an appropriate use for the proposed location. Following discussion, the board approved the conditional use permit request by MB2 Raceway Inc. The approval allows the company to move forward with establishing their indoor electric go-cart recreational facility, subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. The approved permit enables MB2 Raceway Inc. to operate their indoor entertainment venue, which will provide electric go-cart racing as a recreational activity for the community. ## Variance Request by Sidney O. Lizer [timestamp: 00:00] The Board of Adjustment considered variance request PLN-BOA-16-00006 submitted by Sidney O. Lizer. The applicant requested a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 2 feet in order to construct an attached garage on his property. Sidney O. Lizer presented his request to the board, seeking approval for the reduced setback that would allow the garage construction to proceed. The variance would represent a significant reduction in the standard side yard requirement, bringing the proposed structure to within 2 feet of the property line. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended disapproval of the variance request. The staff recommendation indicated concerns about granting such a substantial reduction in the required setback. Following consideration of the application, staff recommendation, and any discussion that occurred during the meeting, the Board of Adjustment denied the variance request. The denial means that Lizer would need to comply with the standard 8-foot side yard setback requirement or pursue alternative options for his garage construction project. The outcome prevents the proposed attached garage from being built with the reduced 2-foot setback as originally requested by the applicant. ## Adopt Revised Conditions for Leah Taylor [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered agenda item V-2015-36 to adopt revised conditions for Leah Taylor's case. The revision was necessary because conditions that do not apply to the property in question had been adopted in error during previous proceedings. The agenda item was presented as a resolution to correct the administrative error by implementing appropriate conditions that are relevant to Taylor's specific property situation. No detailed discussion or debate was recorded for this item, suggesting it was treated as a routine administrative correction. The board approved the revised conditions for case #V-2015-36: Leah Taylor, effectively replacing the previously adopted conditions with ones that properly apply to the property in question. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-16-00004** — passed (5-0): Michael A. Blevins' request for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet - **PLN-BOA-16-00007** — passed (5-0): Miroslava Doroshenko's request for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet - **PLN-BOA-16-00001** — passed (5-0): Teresa P. Johnson's request for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation - **PLN-BOA-16-00002** — passed (5-0): Mark and Karla DiNardo's request for a conditional use permit to establish an athletic club facility - **PLN-BOA-16-00003** — passed (5-0): MB2 Raceway Inc.'s request for a conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility - **PLN-BOA-16-00006** — failed (0-5): Sidney O. Lizer's request for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 2 feet - **V-2015-36** — passed (5-0): Adopt revised conditions for case #V-2015-36: Leah Taylor --- ## Full transcript I can't get enough of you, baby, yes it's true Baby, yes it's true Whenever we kiss, I get a feeling like this I get a wishing that there were two of you My heart dies all more, baby It feels so nice, I want your arms to Rock around me twice I can't get enough of you baby I can't get enough of you baby Right or wrong Baby right or wrong When you had to go I hated the thought I only wished that I was twice I'd like to take care of a couple of housekeeping items. If you have a cell phone, would you please turn it off? And if you do need to take a call, please do so out in the lobby. Before we begin, anyone who is going to speak, would you stand up and raise your right hand? Anyone who's going to speak today? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and read the agenda, but before that we do have some minutes that have been sent to us earlier. We've got April 29th, May 20th, and June 24th meetings, minutes we have received over the last several weeks. Has all the board been able to take a look at those? Are there any additions or changes to the board minutes? Mr. Marks, can we approve all three of these at the same time, or do they have to be done separately? I think they can all be done at the same time. Can they, Ms. Jones, all be done? I'd like to, Chair, I'd like to ask if there's a motion to approve the April 29th, May 20th, and June 24th meeting minutes. I move that we approve the April 29th, May 20th, and June 24th meetings. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Was there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thanks. I'll say the will. Okay, thanks very much. I'd like to go ahead and read the agenda. And as I do, I'll ask if the applicant is present. Obviously, if there's no opposition, we hear those cases first. And then if there is opposition or if staff has recommended disapproval, we will hear those cases last. So I'd like to begin with the first case, Michael Blevins. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Michael Blevins? Any opposition? Sidney Leiser. Is the applicant here? I know staff has recommended disapproval. We'll hear your case after the others. Miroslava, Jornishchenko, do I have that? I know I've just done a terrible disjustice to this wonderful name. Is there any opposition to this case? Okay. Theresa Johnson, the applicant is here. Is there any opposition to the Theresa Johnson case? Mark and Carla DiNardo, the applicant is here. Is there any opposition to Mark and Carla DiNardo? MB2 Raceway, Inc., is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition to MB2 Raceway, Inc.? Any opposition? What I'd like to do before we begin to hear the cases, there is a staff item that is before us that's at the end of our agenda, a motion to adopt conditions in an earlier case of Leah Johnson, conditions that do not apply to the property, were adopted in error, and it was a matter of wording. and you all have that wording in front of you, that there were a couple changes to it. The first sentence, addition to the existing, should be lined out. Again, on number two, the addition should be lined out as well. These are just a matter of the wrong language being used, and I've been told by the staff that it is something that we can approve this language without having to hear this case again. Is there any opposition to any of the board regarding this? If not, can we have a motion to adopt the conditions for the property that were adopted in error and approve the language that is before us? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. The first case we're going to hear is Michael Blevins. Would the applicant please come forward? Mr. Blevins, I noticed that you didn't stand when I asked if you were going to. I have no approval. Would you raise your right hand for me? Do you agree to tell the truth? Nothing but the truth? Thank you. Mr. Blevins, staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those four conditions? I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions for Mr. Blevins. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN VOA 16-0004 Michael A. Blevins' request for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to zero feet in order to provide a parking space in the front yard in a single family residential zone at 523 Maryland Avenue based upon the staff's recommendations of approval and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck. Good luck, Mr. Glover. The second case, Mr. Leiser, we will hear in just a moment. The third case, would you please step forward? And I'll let you state your name for the record, please. Miroslava. Would you pull that mic down? Miroslava Dorachenko. Thank you very much. Staff has recommended approval to your request for a variance subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Does any member of the board have any questions? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA 16-00007. and Miroslava Dorachenko appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to zero feet in order to provide parking space slash driveway in a single family residential zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 521 Maryland Avenue, based upon staff's recommendations and subject to the following conditions. Thank you. You're to be applauded, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Gross, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project. Thank you. Thank you. Teresa Johnson, please come forward and state your name for the record. Teresa P. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, the staff has also recommended approval to your conditional use permit to establish a home occupation, natural products, subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those four conditions? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'd like to ask the staff if they, or ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Ms. Johnson. Hearing none, Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 16.1, Teresa Johnson's appeal for a conditional use permit for a home occupation, producing natural products such as soap, lotions, et cetera, in a single-family residential R1E zone at 836 Revere Run for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions listed. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I second it. Ms. Whitman, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with your new business, Ms. Johnson. I'd like to call Mark and Carla DiNardo. Please state your name for the record. Carla DiNardo. Mark DiNardo. Mr. and Mrs. DiNardo, staff has recommended approval to your request for a conditional use permit to establish your athletic facility based on five recommendations. Do you agree to abide by those five recommendations? Yes. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions of any of their Mr. and Mrs. DiNardo. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN BOA 16-2, Mark and Carla DiNardo, their request for a conditional use permit to establish an athletic club facility in a light industrial zone located at 801 Winchester Road based upon the recommendations of staff for approval and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Needham seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with your new business. Thank you. MB2 Raceway, would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? My name is Jared Sheff. Mr. Schiff, the staff has recommended approval for your conditional use permit to establish an indoor rec facility subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those three conditions? I do, sir. Very good. Any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Schiff? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN BOA 16-3 MB2 Raceway Inc.'s request for a conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility consisting of an indoor electric go-karts in the light industrial zone at 2040 Creative Drive, based upon the staff's recommendations of approval and subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck. Thanks. Have I missed anything other than Mr. Leiser? Mr. Leiser, you're welcome to come up and state your name for the record, please. My name is Sidney Leiser. Thank you, Mr. Leiser. Mr. Leiser, your request for a variance to reduce the required side yard from six feet to two feet to construct an attached garage. The staff has recommended approval for several reasons. Disapproval. I beg your pardon, Mr. Leiser? I thought you said disapproval. I said disapproval. Did I not say disapproval? Sounds like approval. Sorry. Could I give you all these, and this will give me an opportunity to explain? Sure, because we're obviously going to give you an opportunity, and so if you've got something, please bring it up. Thank you. Okay. I strongly disagree with what they had decided. Based on, one, they were saying that an attached garage would change the complexity of the neighborhood. The city's already done that. First off, at the end of Eastway, they built all these new houses. And then there's a picture, PVA. On Eastway Drive, house number 2409, that house is directly across the street from mine. That was cut out of the backyard of a house on the corner of 300 Holly Hill. This is which house again, Mr. Leif? This is the first picture. 2409. Third picture. It should be the second PVA record. It's a one-story ranch with an attached built-in garage. That was built, like I said, it was cut out of the backyard of 300 Holly Hill because the lot was large enough to barely fit it in, but they did. And then the next one is just an example, which is 2500 Eastway. I'm sorry, I said Holly Hill. It's 2409 Eastway. I'm sorry. The 300 Holly Hill is the yard it was cut out of. But this one at 2500 Eastway Drive, the picture's not degraded. It is one example of all the houses they put in at the end of the street, with all of them having attached garage doors. I gave you a noterized statement from my neighbor, Richard Green, who owns the property adjacent to where the garage would be. He's even willing to give me two foot of his property to allow me to get this garage because this is a generational home. I mean, it's been in my family or my wife's family since 1959. My father-in-law, Ralph McKenzie, bought this house. then my wife and I raised our kids in it and down the road my son's planning on raising his kids in it conditional to us being able to make it feasible now I've got a set of pictures that are very ugly to say the least the very bottom picture the large one I know it's hard to tell what that is that's water standing in the basement of my next door neighbor's house it's been abandoned for three years, and you can see in all the pictures what's happened. This is what's happening to our neighborhood. I'm trying to prevent this by making the neighborhood relevant to what the needs of the younger, my son, and others would be. I'm disabled. The garage would also assist me. I have multiple sclerosis. The garage would assist me, sorry, I'm nervous, in getting in and out of the house. The third set of pictures are just a lot of houses at the top, just random houses in the neighborhood that have garages. There's, on the third line, the second picture is a business. The third picture, business. The fourth picture is an apartment complex on that street. And then on the last line, the first picture is a duplex. There's two duplexes. I mean, it goes from business to residential on one side. On the other side, there's a fourplex. Then you go back to houses, some with garages, some without attached garages. I know they stated about the structure in the back. That was developed about 30 years ago as an in-law quarters where my wife's grandmother lived so her mother could take care of her. And it's set up with a bathroom, a living room, a family room, and a bedroom. And it would be hard if not very, because it's got central air, central heat. To change that back to a garage would be just not feasible, really. I don't really have any other options on the garage issue. And as far as the size, if I go smaller than the 19.8 feet or 20 feet roughly, it makes it impossible to make a two-car garage. A one-car garage would stand out like a sore thumb, and it would not be feasible to get cars in and out of smaller than that. And that's one of the reasons why my neighbor is offering this sign over two foot of his property. Because, I mean, he is fully in agreement with this. I just ask that you all reconsider. And, you know, I don't want our neighborhood, and there's a lot of houses down the street that have become real homes that nobody cares about. that are becoming run down, and they're destroying the neighborhood that my wife grew in, that I raised my children in. I mean, I lived on Holly Hill before I lived on Eastway, 13 houses away. And I'm trying to keep that home in the family. Mr. Lizer, we respect that. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions for Mr. Lizer. I'd like to ask the first. your neighbor who has agreed to transfer two feet of his property, is that part of this two feet that you're requesting? No. That is not. What would that transfer of the two feet do for you? It would make the property line at 23 feet. So it would make actually, if I went 20 with the garage, it would get, which we're actually asking for a little under 20, it would make three-foot space and would still leave a 10-foot gap between his house and the new structure, which we fully intend on using rating five, fire, code, wood, shingles, double wall, all the things that are necessary to ensure the strongest fire rating. And even at that, it's still a larger space than what current structures and houses are being built at in the city. Thank you, Mr. Liser. One of the reasons that the staff recommended disapproval of this application was the fact that you already have two additional outbuildings on the property. Are those two additional outbuildings going to stay? One of them is just a portable storage building, And the other one is, like I said, the in-law quarters is a bedroom, bathroom, and living room. That's the front one. And it would not be feasible to change it back over. It was a garage, like I said, 30-plus years ago. early 70s was when it was converted best of my knowledge it just wouldn't be feasible to switch it back over at this point because it does have central air, central heat so yes, basically the one's not a permanent structure it's a portable storage building Is that where I see shed for 165 feet? Yes. That's the portable storage building? That's the one in the very back. Okay. Oh, no, no, no. The 165 is the 165 foot wide. That is the in-laws' quarters. It's the 20 by 10 in the very back, or 20.4 by 10 foot. And it just says shed. Just to clarify, we've got an addition onto the house that's attached. That's what we're wanting to do. Then there was a detached garage that in the 70s was converted from the garage into a living space? I believe they were both done approximately at the same time. Okay. But it was a garage. It was a garage. It was converted back in the 70s, yes. Is it here labeled shed? And that's what's labeled shed. on your I'm just looking at your rendering right now it's it's being used as the word that's why he put it as shed because right now it's got some work that needs to be done to it because it's not going but it is a garage it's not really a garage because it still does have the central air central heat and two rooms and a bath okay so someone lives No, it's not used for living quarters, no. But it was. My wife's grandmother lived in it for about 30 years. All right. I'm sorry, I grew up in this neighborhood, so when I pulled up the aerial, I'm like, there's where the garage is. Yeah, but it's been a living quarters. It was a living quarters for over 30 years, and we plan on refurbishing it. Does anyone have any other questions for Mr. Leiser? I'd like to hear from staff. I'm curious about the reason for the disapproval. Mr. Liza, we'll give you a chance to come back up. Good afternoon. Barb, if you can get that first on the overhead. because the technical folks do their best to lighten it up or whatever. Mr. Leiser is correct. There are kind of two different sections of the neighborhood along Eastway Drive, the original that has many more homes developed in the mid-1950s. We did a survey of all those homes, and there's approximately 60 homes in what we would call the old section of the neighborhood. This is a view overhead kind of angled towards the west, So Southland Drive would be to the right. If you continue down Eastway Drive to the left, you reach a dead end, and that's where the new section of the neighborhood has been developed maybe about 15 years ago. That section has 12 homes. So we're comparing a section at the end of 12 homes with the older section of approximately 60 homes on the main part of Eastway Drive. So our review, of course, was focused on the heart of Eastway Drive, which in our opinion had a well-defined character. And I need to go get my pointer friend. The character is really clearly well-defined by modest size brick to stone houses that have side driveways. This is the subject property. right in here, side driveway leading to the two detached accessory structures, one here and one here, side driveway here, side driveway here. This is the one exception he pointed out that has a front entry garage. It's not situated right on the side property line. It's situated where it complies with the side yard requirement. Side driveway, side driveway, side driveways, Driveways, back garage, side driveways, side driveways. Same thing on the other street here, side driveways. It's a pretty consistent pattern that you see if you drive along Eastway Drive. That's what defines the character of the neighborhood. There is this one exception here of a front entry attached garage, and a little bit further down that way you'll find another exception on that. That's just two for the whole neighborhood. Now, when you get into the new part of the neighborhood, Those homes have attached mostly side-entry garages, much different style of houses, modern, two-story, larger. So our review focused on the older, larger part of the neighborhood. The two-foot issue, that's a technical issue. I'm not sure there's enough room for the neighbor to the right. Well, if you look on this photo, the subject property I showed before here, in our measurements, and we didn't actually measure it to the inch by stepping on the property, but it appears to be right at about 8 feet from the property line, which is the required side yard. So I don't know that they would technically qualify to give 2 feet unless they ask for a variance. The required side yard is 8 feet. It's an R1C zone. So the two major issues we had, which were in the staff report, were what impact this would have on the character of the neighborhood. Clearly, this type of improvement is not characteristic of this neighborhood. That's addressed in finding number one for disapproval. The second issue is we really couldn't establish any special circumstances that were unique to this particular property to justify such a sizable reduction in the side yard. We go through brainstorming of this as a team when we do these reviews. The only thing you could possibly come up with is that, based on the way that it's been developed historically, that that's the only place to put an attached two-car garage, which is pretty much true. But any property all along that street could make the exact same argument. That's the problem with using those kind of findings with variances. They have very broad applicability to any other property. So you're basically faced with the question of, well, if you approve it based on that, then you'd pretty much be obligated to approve it for anyone that requested the same thing along that entire stretch. So that would, over time, significantly impact the character of the neighborhood. Jim? Yes. It looks like the property on the other side where he wants an additional structure has no garage. Am I seeing that correctly? Yeah, my friend is. That's correct. That particular one has no garage. And there are several properties in that older section that don't have garages at all. Okay. Okay. And is the one across the street that you said was an exception, that's got a garage, really an attached garage to the front of the house. Yeah, right here. That one, yeah. Was that one built later? I didn't check the... I'm not sure when that one was built. Sure, okay. Would that have been approved under the current conditions in this neighborhood? Well, if it meets the side yard requirement, which it appears to, then that would have been a buy right, no variance needed. There's two additional findings for disapproval that we addressed in the staff report. Number, or actually letter C, talks about kind of a safety issue and what impact there would be from having yet a third structure so close to that side property line. The safety issue is to some extent addressed by code issues. If there's a side wall that's closer than three feet to a property line, that has to be fire rated. that's not any type of an ironclad guarantee that a fire won't spread from one property to another it gives you a certain length of time to respond there's different ratings, two hour, whatever hour so that's a code issue that to some extent can be addressed the last finding D talks about there being other options available and I know we had a short discussion so far about that first detached building that was used for a quarter years ago. So I guess we'll just have to hash that out as to whether that's a sufficient justification or not for what they're asking for. Apparently it's not used for that now, so I'm not sure what the condition of it is. Mr. Marks, if I could take one second. I looked up on the PVA site, Mr. Glover, and it looks like that other house was built in 2006. So my guess was either a vacant lot or a double lot that got subdivided. And so it looks like it's new construction according to the PVA. Okay. But as far as any restriction on the side yard, that house across the street complied? Correct. Yeah, gotcha. Thanks. Mr. Marks, could you just briefly go over your stated other two options just so we could kind of get a feel for what else could be a possibility? Well, the first option was just to build a smaller attached garage in the area that's open from where the carport used to be. And I know that's not a desirable option for the applicant because it would basically be a large one-car garage rather than a really small two-car garage. The carport where it previously existed is the same place where he wants the two-car garage now. Is that right? That's correct. Okay, that's what I thought by looking. All right. Then the other option was to redo the accessory buildings that already exist to the rear and replace those with a sizable two-car detached garage. It appears now that that first one, anyway, the larger one, is used for storage. It would be easy to accommodate storage needs into a new structure. So if that's truly important, I would think there would be a way to reasonably do that. If you look at costs, I mean, you might say you're losing a lot by having to tear something down, But at the same time, the cost of building a full two-car attached garage to that house is, I would guess, somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000. So with a detached structure, you'd have a little bit more flexibility in how you built it. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Any other questions for Mr. Marks? Mr. Liza, would you come on back up here? I know that Mr. Marks has explained to us that one option was a one-car detached garage could be built in a general area, and it doesn't appear that that's what you want to do, nor the two-car detached garage in the back. If we did a one-car, it's going to be detrimental to the property value, I feel like. And that's what I've been advised by realtors, by my contractor. Now, the in-laws quarters is still fully, even though it's used as storage right now, it's still fully functioning, full plumbing, full heating and air. you would have to rip all that out to change it over, which is going to be a lot more expensive than what I already have at $20,000 to build the side garage. The side yard to Mr. Greens that he was referring to on the picture, as I see it, as you all, okay, let me look at your all's vision of it. My bearings here. Okay, Mr. Mr. Green's next door to mine who has the two buildings. The first building is his garage. The second building looks like a barn. It's huge. Now, on the other side is the house I showed you the pictures of with the basement full of water. It's going to have to be demolished. because the brick has been subject to standing water for three years, actually four years now. It does not have a garage. It does have one storage building. The outcrop, it's got a basement, so the outcrop is what leads into the basement. But on Mr. Green's side, there's still, without him giving me two foot, it still leaves the eight foot. There is ten foot from the property line to the house. On his property, there's eight feet of side yard. So even if we did, we've got over 10,000 square foot in both of our lots each. I think mine's 10,744. His is something like 10,720, roughly, you know, within a couple hundred square foot. But, you know, just to be feasible, the attached garage would be, you know, the two-car attached garage would be the exact thing, you know, I feel like would be necessary. It's not going to change. There is no continuity to the neighborhood. I mean, because there is the new part. There's a new house across the street. There's apartments. There's conduct. You know, there's fourplex. I mean, it's a little bit of hodgepodge of everything on that street. So how could a two-car attached garage do anything to change the continuity? Because, I mean, it's a hodgepodge. So, you know, I don't see how they can see that that would be. You know, and I'm not an eloquent speaker or anything, so I'm doing the best I can to get through this without, you know. You know, there's no set character heuristics to the neighborhood. And like I said, I am disabled. The attached garage would be, you know, the elevator would be a ramp that there are times I've been wheelchair bound. I haven't been for a while, thank God. But there's, you know, with multiple sclerosis, there's always that possibility. And we're trying to keep this home, you know, in our family. And without doing this, I don't see how it would be able to be. Like I said, there's really no other option because of having to destroy an area that is suitable for living. And, you know, it just needs some minor cleanup and, you know, arrangement, and they'd be good to go. But the heating and cooling still is there and functioning. You've made that point. Mr. Lizer, what about what happened to the carport that was there in the past? Weather. It came down four times due to ice storms and such. This last time, two years ago, it pulled the brick away from the house. So all the brick had to be pulled off the house because it was falling down and became a safety issue. So repair of that structure was not an option for you? No, it was going to have to be totally replaced. It's been replaced since I've been in the family in 91. that was the fourth time and the fourth time was just it because it was going to be 20 it did more damage than it's ever done because it pulled all the brick away I'm sorry I'm getting I'm getting dry mouth so it did a lot of damage it did over $25,000 worth of damage to the house and And that was another reason to do the garage to prevent that from happening again. Because, you know, you build a solid garage, you're not going to have the pulling of the brick and, you know, the damage. I understand. Thank you, Mr. Lizer. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Lizer? I've got a question for Jim. if you don't mind coming back up just a I guess just a brief question about the carport idea if he was proposing a carport are there any different standards or rules for that that don't pertain to garages if he wanted a two car carport would that be a different application or a modification or what's the deal Yeah, depending on the really specific details of how it's related to the primary residence, it could be different. I hate to fudge on that, but the preexisting one was actually connected to the house, so technically it may have been considered part of the house and not detached and actually subject to a higher setback than it had. So a higher setback than the 8-foot? No, higher than it. Normally a detached structure has a setback of 18 inches. Now, if it's not totally in the rear and projects to the side or front of the house, then that setback goes up to the same as the principal residence. So it's questionable as to what the setback would have to be for him to redo. Yeah, I mean, the reason I'm asking, I'm looking for a way to make everybody happy, that we never do that, of course, or we don't always do that. But I'm trying to figure out a way to give him part of what he wants without just turning him away flat. And I'm trying to figure out if reconfiguring the carport that was there might bring him under different standards or might be an accommodation that would be easier to meet than his request to build a brand-new attached two-car garage. So you're saying that you don't know whether that's true or not. Well, I can't give you a definite answer. Bill might be able to chime in here. Carports may be different than an actual accessory structure that's either to the side or the front of the house with walls is subject to the same setback as the main residence. If it's just a carport and it's not attached to the residence, then that may fall into a much smaller setback requirement. But he'd have to rebuild it, not attached to the main residence, which is part of the issue here. The way it was done before apparently was either a construction issue or a design issue as to why it had so many problems with causing damage to the house. Right. I'm going to agree with Mr. Marks. The fact as to whether it's a garage or a carport, the same standards apply. So it's still an average. Same dimensional standards. That's correct. Sure. It may have just been allowed because of averaging. It may not have been as deep as the garage due to walls and other things like that. But the same setback rules apply whether it's a carport or a garage. Okay. So if there was a carport there previously that's not there now, if he wanted to put that back, he'd have to have a whole new application because it's not there anymore? or could he simply rebuild it to a higher construction standard so it won't fall down every few years? I mean, I'm just trying to ask the hypotheticals, I know. Presumably he'd still need a building permit for it at that time. However, the site plan was laid out would determine whether or not he needed a variance for it or whether that sidewall could be averaged to be in compliance with the 8-foot requirement. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Marks? I'd like to ask the... Thank you, Mr. Marks. Mr. Eliza, you can come back up. If you'd like to make another point that you haven't already made. Well, maybe just talk about the garage, the carport. The attached carport are the exact dimensions of what I'm asking for with one foot set back from the front of the house. And I've been using the same brick that came off the side of the house that got ripped off. The carport that we had was the highest grade commercial with the 4x4 steel post, three attached to the house that had been there for 20 years, replaced multiple times, and three on the outside of it. But it's the exact dimensions minus one foot back we're asking for the garage. The garage was planned to be one foot back or the carport was one foot back? The garage is planned to be one foot back from the front of the house, giving us an extra building space to tie in properly to the house to prevent any leakage or anything like that. Currently, we're sitting with a wall with the vapor barrier paper and a door on the side of the house we put in before we realized that things seemed to be getting smaller and smaller. and I was like, we can't do this. It just wouldn't work. And it would look, unfortunately, the dimensions of it would not be suitable for the two-car garage at all. It was just too small. But like I said, we still have, without changing, without the two-foot my neighbor has offering me, we still have the 10-foot. with that there's still an eight foot barrier between his house and the wall well not the wall the wall would still be in so it'd still be a 10 foot barrier there would just be two extra foot or i could even propose a make it an even 19 foot you know from the house out 19 foot even that would give a little extra leeway that might be more suitable to zoning. That brings it in and allows, you know, my neighbor would not have to do any changing. Well, 19 feet is what you have planned here. Right at 20, or 19.8. Okay. So it would be 8 inches, so it would be 10.8 feet away from his house. And like I said, we're still planning a fire rating of 5, which is the highest fire rating you can use in construction. But you'd still need a variance for that? For that, yes, I'd still need the variance to come that close to the property line. They did a, when they did the averaging, they came up to 4 feet. So I'm actually, the only reason I'm asking, the two feet is all I need to make the garage big enough to do it. But when we got the building permit and then we did the calculation, and it was once we got into it realized where we had looked at the wall, outside wall being one spot, And once they got into construction and they started cutting, we realized it was several feet from where we thought it would be. So it was a miscommunication. That's the reason I had to. We just had to stop everything. I had thought about just putting a new carport back up. But like I said, this time I was going to have to re-brick the whole house. And we've done, like I said, we've put the highest standard of carport in that you can get. And this time it just, you know, it managed to pull the brick away from the house. So we've done everything we can carport-wise to try to accommodate. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Leiser. Does the board have any other questions for staff or for Mr. Lizer? Some of these decisions are very difficult, and Mr. Lizer, I'll ask the board how they would like to proceed. I admire that Mr. Glover, and we're trying to work out something, but what's before us is the required side yard from 8 feet to 2 feet. And having been up and down your street several times, I have a tendency to agree with staff. I do think it would be out of character, and I know that there is a hodgepodge of other things, but in looking at the great majority of houses up and down your section of the street, this is something that I'll let the board weigh in on, but in looking at some of the options that we have, nothing seems to work appropriately. And as far as your request, your appeal for a variance, again I have a difficult time approving that today but I will learn myself that's just I'm just one member of this board and but looking at the staff's report and having been out to the property I think it I think it would really be out of character and and again I I agree that I don't see any really special circumstances that are involved. So this is one of those very difficult decisions that we make, but I don't see any alternatives for you. And I admire what you've been trying to do and certainly know the family history as you've explained it. But I'd like to ask at this time if the board, if they have Mr. Glover or if anyone else has any other solution that might be amenable for staff, but what is before us right now, I'd like to ask the board how they'd like to proceed. Mr. Chair, I would prefer not to have to vote to disapprove this application. I'm not sure if the staff feel that the applicant and staff maybe over the next month could come up with something that would work, but I think my understanding is if we do vote to disapprove it, he would have to wait another year to file something unless it was substantially different from this application. Is that true? Or, Ms. Jones, is that? I think, Jim, you might be able to answer this. If we disapprove this application and he came back with a different plan for this same piece of property, he wouldn't have to wait a year for that, would he? That's correct. If he applies for something different, you don't have to wait the year. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's your all's discretion. Not a lot of space. Sure. Seriously, that's your all's discretion as to whether you want to consider it as enough different application to consider it less than a year. Right. Right. Okay. If I'm going to weigh in, I think the options that staff recommended based on constructing a garage or a detached two-car behind or rebuilding a large one-car, it seems to me that a large one-car, even though it is attached, is not a bad option here. I'm not sure you mentioned property values, but most garages I drive by that are open, I see one car in with a lot of stuff around them. I rarely see two. A large one car is probably sufficient for most. It seems like they've given you two good options, and I would probably lean towards disapproving because you do have, I think, a decent option. to come back, and as you've said, Mr. Marks, the applicant would not have to wait a year. If we disapproved and he came back with another plan, we could take a look at that. Correct? Okay. Well, with that, I'd like to ask the board if there's a motion. I make a motion. We disapprove V-2016-43 Sidney and Lisa Leiser's appeal for a variance to reduce the acquired side yard from 8 feet to 2 feet in order to construct an attached garage in a single-family residential zone at 2412 Eastway Drive. based on staff's recommendations and their one, two, three, four reasons. I'd like to ask if you could modify the motion to insert that his request is to construct a two-car garage, and that will make it clear that if he comes back later with something else, this disapproval, if we grant the disapproval, would not bar him in front of a future board or if we've forgotten or something like that. Is that fair? In other words, to make the disapproval for a two-car garage. Mr. Marks, what is the application? The application just mentions to an attached garage. It doesn't mention one car, two car. Well, I guess there's up and downsides to what Mr. Glover was recommending. Kind of a downside is if you do give us time to kind of rethink things and come up with a new application, it's probably not going to be for a one-car garage. He's already indicated that's unacceptable to him, so I'm sure it's going to be playing around with the numbers to still get a two-car garage. So I'm not sure that. I understand Mr. Glover's point. I'm not sure, based on the applicant's true desire, whether that would make any difference or not. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Weiss. I'll withdraw my recommendation to modify your motion. We have a motion to disapprove based on staff findings. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Gross, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Liza, we hope that you can come back. You're welcome to come back to us with a revised plan because we'd certainly love to see something worked out. Thank you for your time. Is there any other issues before the board? I know that we have a little training. Afterwards, is there any other board items or anything that staff would like to mention? at this time do we need to adjourn or do we stay open for business while we go into our board session to discuss our training Ms. Barnes maybe didn't think that through totally enough but depending on what Tracy says I'd kind of prefer that you close the formal part of the hearing and have the board session as more of a closed session but we can work it either way. We probably, it's not going to be closed, but we probably should adjourn this meeting and just have the training. Well, there's no other business before the board. I do want to make note, Mr. Glover, that our next meeting is on August 26th. We thank you all for your time and coming before us today, and thank you all very much. We stand adjourned. Thank you.