2026-10-27 - Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:12Good evening, everybody, and welcome to

00:14the October 27th meeting of the Zoning

00:16Board of Adjustment. Uh my name is

00:18Jaymin Cara, ZBA Chair. And to my right

00:21is ZBA Vice Chair, Josh Neely. Across

00:24the stage we have member JP Boucher,

00:26member Stephen Lionel, and member Joseph

00:29Patri. And to my left is uh Planning

00:32Manager, Sam Durfee.

00:35Uh so, this evening we have actually one

00:37application. I should note um

00:40for the record that the first

00:41application this evening of Miguel

00:43Bessano, 48 Buck Meadow Road, has been

00:46postponed at the request of the

00:48applicant uh to December 8th. So, we

00:51will not be hearing that case this

00:52evening. Um so, we have one application

00:55before us this evening, and that is for

00:58a variance. So, a variance is a request

01:00uh to deviate from the terms of the

01:03ordinance. And in order to grant a

01:04variance, the Zoning Board has to find

01:06that five criteria are met. We have to

01:09find that the um granting the variance

01:11would be in the public interest, that

01:13the spirit of ordinance would be

01:14observed, that granting the variance

01:17would do substantial justice, that

01:19there'd be no diminution of surrounding

01:20property values, and that owing to a

01:23special condition of the property, uh

01:26denying the variance would result in an

01:27unnecessary hardship to the applicant

01:29seeking it.

01:31Um so,

01:32with that, just in terms of the rules of

01:35procedure, which you are probably aware

01:36of, um so, you um I'll read that case

01:39into the record, and uh you have up to

01:4215 minutes to state your case to the

01:44board. Uh you don't have to use the 15

01:47minutes, but it's available to you.

01:49Um

01:50I see nobody here to speak. Uh well,

01:52potentially. I shouldn't I should not

01:54assume. So, um I'll then ask if there's

01:57anybody in the audience who wishes to

01:58speak in of the application.

02:01And if you do you'll

02:02if you wish to speak you'll have up to 5

02:04minutes to address the board. Come up to

02:06the podium speak into the microphone

02:09starting off by giving us your name and

02:10address.

02:11I'll then ask if there's anybody with

02:13that questions concerns or opposition to

02:15the application. [clears throat]

02:17And once again

02:18anybody wishing to speak can come up to

02:20the microphone state your name

02:23and address and you have up to 5 minutes

02:25to address the board

02:27and then we will allow the applicant to

02:29have up to 5 minutes to provide a

02:31rebuttal if necessary. And then finally

02:34we would allow one person who spoke with

02:36questions concerns or opposition

02:39to address the board for up to again up

02:41to 5 minutes to have the last word.

02:44So those are the rules of procedure and

02:47any other changes to the application we

02:48should be aware of Mr. Durfee.

02:50>> No.

02:52>> All right so with that I will call the

02:54roll Mr. Neely.

02:55>> Present.

02:55>> Mr. Boucher.

02:57>> Present.

02:57>> Mr. Linell.

02:58>> Present.

02:59>> Mr. Petrie.

02:59>> Present.

03:00>> And I J. Mancaro are present.

03:02Are am present. So

03:06I'll read the case into the record the

03:07application of Anand Mahendraker

03:10Blue Coral Canal LLC

03:14at 20 Canal Street requesting a variance

03:16from land use code section 190-16

03:20table 16-3

03:21for minimum land area 10,308

03:25square feet existing 52,272

03:28square feet required for six dwellings

03:31in the LB zone and that's in ward 3. And

03:33if I may just go a bit out of order if I

03:36may ask Mr. Durfee for the the reason

03:38this is before us again I note that this

03:40was previously before us a few months

03:42ago.

03:43>> Correct yes

03:44the applicant had sought

03:45variances that differ from what is on

03:47the agenda this evening in review of the

03:49application actually subsequent to the

03:51submission of a

03:53application to the planning board we

03:55realized that their a density variance

03:57would in fact be needed so So,

04:00with the applicant we've asked that he's

04:02uh return to this board uh to seek the

04:04relief needed uh in order for the

04:06planning board to take jurisdiction of

04:07this complete application.

04:09>> Excellent.

04:09>> Thank you.

04:10>> Uh so, with that, I you are invited to

04:12come up to the microphone. And again,

04:14you have up to 15 minutes to address the

04:16board if you wish.

04:20>> Punch your your frequent uh attendee

04:23>> [laughter]

04:25>> It looks like right

04:26Becoming frequent visitor now.

04:28>> [laughter]

04:29>> But hopefully this is going to be the my

04:31last one.

04:33Um good evening, Mr. Chairman and

04:34members of the board.

04:36Uh my name is Anand Manjrekar. I'm

04:38representing Blue Coral Canal LLC,

04:40the owner of 20 Canal Street.

04:43Uh I'm requesting a dimensional variance

04:45from the lot area and density

04:46requirement to allow a total of six

04:49residential

04:50units on the existing 10,308 square foot

04:53lot.

04:55An important point is that the previous

04:56ZBA hearing,

04:58uh this board already approved the three

05:00additional units, bringing

05:02the property from three units to six

05:05units.

05:06Uh tonight's request is not for a new

05:08six six units concept. It's specifically

05:11for the dimensional density relief

05:13needed for the same six-unit proposal.

05:17The property is an existing developed uh

05:19residential lot with fixed boundaries.

05:21The use will re- remain residential and

05:23all parking, access, building fire,

05:26and life safety requirements will still

05:27have to be satisfied through the city

05:29review.

05:30Although the density formula would

05:31require 52,272

05:34square foot of six units,

05:36I respectfully ask the board to consider

05:38the actual impact of the proposal.

05:40The purposes of the density ordinance,

05:43preventing overcrowding and protecting

05:45safety and neighborhood character,

05:46can still be addressed through those

05:48other city requirements.

05:50For those reasons, I respectfully

05:51request

05:53uh approval of the dimensional density

05:55variance for the six-unit

05:58uh proposal at 20 Canal Street.

06:01And thank you. I mean, I'll be happy to

06:02answer you have of questions if you have

06:03any?

06:06>> Questions from the board.

06:08I just have one. Are there any changes

06:10at all to the plan from when you were

06:12here previously?

06:13>> No, there's no change to the plan.

06:14There's The plan still exists in the

06:16same plan.

06:17>> Exactly the same. Thank you.

06:20Seeing nothing, feel free to sit down.

06:22Is there anybody in the audience who'd

06:23like to speak in favor of the

06:25application?

06:27Is there anybody in the audience who'd

06:28like to speak with questions, concerns,

06:29or opposition to the application?

06:33Seeing none, I'm going to close the

06:34public hearing and open up the

06:35deliberations of the board.

06:38Thoughts from the board.

06:41Mr. Neely.

06:42>> I'm in favor for the third time.

06:46You know, for the same reasons as as

06:47spoken to last time. This is an

06:48irregular shaped building.

06:51This It's going to use up an unused

06:53garage, which is literally just sitting

06:55there. The footprint of the building is

06:57not changing.

06:58They're adding another apartment into

07:00into this very strange kind of cut out

07:02in the building, which actually

07:04eliminates some of the fire safety

07:05issues that were

07:07spoken about spoken of before. So, I

07:10think it's a win-win across the board.

07:12You know, I I feel bad that they're here

07:14again, but this lot has more than enough

07:16parking. And it is in a a zone that's

07:19it's dense in that area. So,

07:21adding in additional

07:24apartments, and they're smaller

07:25apartments. They're between, you know,

07:26500 and 700 square feet, but that is in

07:29character with that area, very in

07:30character with that area. So, for those

07:31reasons, I'm in favor.

07:35Mr. Linell.

07:36>> Yeah, I'm also in favor as I was before.

07:38And uh

07:40and uh

07:41there have been some apparently some

07:42disagreement as to whether the density

07:44variance was required and and

07:46and apparently it is, but okay.

07:52>> Any other thoughts?

07:54>> Yeah, I would just add that I that I

07:56agree. Um you know, it is consistent

07:58with the neighborhood and it is an

07:59unusual lot, a double frontage lot and

08:01very long and deep.

08:04>> Would anybody like to make a motion?

08:08>> I'll make it.

08:11Um

08:12can we just get back to the application?

08:20Got to get better at jumping around.

08:23So, um I make it a motion that the

08:26application of a nod Martin Drecker a

08:29Blue Coral Canal LLC

08:32um for 20 Canal Street uh requesting a

08:34variance to manage use code section

08:37um 190-16

08:39table 16-3 for minimum land area 10,000

08:43um 308 sq ft existing 52,272

08:47sq ft required for six dwellings

08:51uh in the LB zone in ward three be

08:53approved. Uh we we find that the um

08:56application would not be contrary to the

08:58public interest. Uh it would be

09:00consistent with the character of the

09:02area the overall density. And um there

09:05there would be no injury to health,

09:07safety, or welfare of the public. Uh we

09:09find that the spirit of the ordinance

09:11would be observed uh because again it is

09:14uh consistent with the character of the

09:16area and um the spirit of the ordinance

09:19is to allow for reasonable use of

09:21property. The density requirement in

09:24this case uh given the size of the

09:27property

09:28um is reasonable for this uh

09:30neighborhood. We find that substantial

09:32justice would be done in allowing for

09:34reasonable use of property. Uh we have

09:36no evidence that there be any diminution

09:38of surrounding property values

09:41um and in terms of the uh specific

09:43conditions of the property we note that

09:45it is uh unusually large lot for this

09:48neighborhood. It's a double frontage

09:50lot. It's long and narrow and can

09:52readily accommodate the um increased

09:55density. Therefore, there is no uh fair

09:58and substantial relationship between

10:00density provisions of the ordinance and

10:02its application to the specific property

10:04and is noted that the use is a

10:06reasonable use. So, for all For reasons

10:09I move that the variance application be

10:10granted.

10:11>> Second.

10:12>> Seconded by Mr. Lionel. Is there any

10:13discussion?

10:15Seeing none, all those in favor?

10:18Your application is approved.

10:20>> Thank you.

10:21>> Good luck with your project.

10:24>> [clears throat]

10:25>> All right. And so, I do believe we have

10:27one other agenda item this evening

10:31other than the minutes.

10:33>> Um

10:34>> Two.

10:34>> It's two.

10:36>> Oh, that's right.

10:38Uh so, uh has everybody had a chance to

10:40see the agenda for the upcoming meeting?

10:42>> Yes.

10:44>> Anybody see any regional impact?

10:45>> No.

10:46>> No.

10:47>> See none, either.

10:49Uh minutes, have we had a chance to look

10:51at the minutes from the last meeting?

10:55>> I did.

10:55>> Anybody see any changes, corrections?

10:59>> I did not see any.

11:01>> Spotless. Anybody want to make a motion

11:03on the minutes?

11:04Mr. Lionel?

11:05>> I'll make a motion to accept the minutes

11:06from October 13th, 2026.

11:09>> Is there a second?

11:10Seconded by Mr. Patri. Any discussion?

11:13Seeing none, all those in favor?

11:16Minutes are approved.

11:19And

11:21do we want to talk about the calendar?

11:23Everybody see the um the calendar that

11:25was distributed? Any issues, concerns?

11:29Did you miss anything?

11:30>> No, they don't seem to conflict with

11:32either of the elections that uh

11:34>> Yeah, I I I was going to Google when the

11:37new primary date is, but I don't reme- I

11:40didn't. So,

11:41I'm assuming there's no conflict.

11:43>> Yeah, I mean, I think it would be the

11:45first Tuesday in September, which would

11:47uh would not conflict with this. So,

11:49>> Right.

11:50>> Okay.

11:51So, yeah, otherwise, that looks good.

11:53>> Unless they decide to change it, which

11:54they keep trying to do.

11:56>> I know.

11:57>> Well, and we might not even have a

11:58primary potentially next year.

12:01>> Uh it's possible, yes.

12:03>> Because we only it'll just be a mayoral

12:04primary, and that's only if there's more

12:06than two people running.

12:07>> Oh, you're right. That's right.

12:08And we won't even know that. That's

12:10right.

12:10>> We We know that until June, so.

12:12>> Exactly. Good point.

12:14>> There probably will be though.

12:15>> Probably. I'm

12:16Probably.

12:17>> Usually is.

12:18>> It'll just feel like there is.

12:20>> [laughter]

12:22>> All right.

12:24Should we talk bylaws?

12:26>> Sure.

12:28>> We have to.

12:29>> Um

12:30>> [clears throat]

12:32>> So, I

12:33following some conversations with chair

12:36and vice chair um as we've had a number

12:40of applications recently

12:42seek

12:44postponement of hearings that had not

12:46yet started um

12:50for reasons that might be construed as

12:52not having a full board present.

12:54Obviously, with fewer members you need a

12:56greater percentage of the members

12:58present to vote in favor of your project

12:59to receive the variance. um

13:02While we've have typically handled those

13:05as nearly automatic,

13:07um it can

13:09frustrate the process. Um so, I have

13:12written some potential bylaw amendments

13:15to address that. Uh and those are

13:18detailed beginning on page three of the

13:20bylaws subsection O, and that's really

13:23where the the meat of them are. Uh and

13:26then a couple of

13:28you know, pull on those string tweaks

13:31further down in the bylaws to align with

13:34those changes.

13:35And uh

13:36happy to have a robust discussion on the

13:39matter.

13:39>> So, everything's added if nothing is

13:41struck.

13:42>> Oh, no. There There are a couple of

13:43strikes. I will note that on that

13:46section 10 uh what I did strike in

13:49following the reading of this

13:51we have to notice postponements or

13:54withdrawals

13:55that come before

13:576 days prior to the hearing which is

13:59scheduled in the newspaper. Logistic

14:01impossibility.

14:03>> Yeah.

14:03>> So, uh

14:04we are not bound by statute to do that

14:07and to bind us by bylaws is just doing

14:10it to satisfy

14:10>> Yes. Since we don't have a newspaper.

14:14>> There's also that hiccup.

14:17>> [snorts]

14:19>> I think these are long overdue and I'm

14:21very happy to see

14:23especially the thing about well one

14:25about the the quorum and and two the you

14:28know postponement because I don't I feel

14:31like it.

14:32Um

14:34>> I agree.

14:35>> Yeah.

14:35>> Yeah.

14:38And and you know I I I think this is a

14:40value in having when we get these

14:42requests a conversation of the board.

14:46Whether or not we wish to grant that

14:47request.

14:50>> So I think it's worth noting this um

14:536-day period. The way it is currently

14:55written is that if

14:58that 6-day if prior to the 6-day

15:01deadline so 7 8 10 days out from the

15:03hearing if a request is made

15:08typically

15:09we would not even know what the board

15:11panel is going to be. So assume that

15:14information is not available to an

15:16applicant there's no um

15:18strategic decision making at that time.

15:21The way this is currently written would

15:22still allow staff to say okay yes your

15:25request is received and it's

15:27automatically granted. Um

15:30is that something you'd still like to

15:31have or would you like all requests to

15:34come in

15:36and make their case for uh

15:38postponement or a continuance

15:41at the board.

15:43>> So so my concern is I do not want the

15:46public coming here and wasting their

15:48time if we're going to all of a sudden

15:50hear it and I think that's

15:52we've seen a couple of hot topic cases

15:55this year where really

15:57honestly they were they were um we were

15:59we were going to have a full room here

16:01and so

16:02so um

16:05I get I guess

16:07maybe I'll push back on the 6 days then.

16:09Maybe maybe 6 days is too long. Maybe 3

16:11days.

16:13That's still enough time to get the word

16:15out that folks won't come here.

16:17Um

16:19but you know, some of these folks do

16:20have legitimate reasons and I'd rather

16:21not drag that I mean listen, they're

16:23paying through the nose knows when they

16:24when they bring counsel in here. And so

16:27I'm just trying to save anybody money

16:28and time.

16:30>> Mr. Fisher

16:30>> I wonder if one way maybe um

16:33is if it's within the 6-day window,

16:35maybe um the chair has sole discretion

16:38to grant the uh

16:39the request.

16:41Um

16:43>> I'd be really careful with that because

16:45it's it's an appointed member of the

16:47board making a decision

16:49unilaterally without consultation of the

16:51rest of the board.

16:52>> Although I but but you know, my my to

16:53Mr. Newberry's point like

16:56we don't want the spokes to necessarily

16:57like you know, if we if if we

16:59practically we know that the the um the

17:01request is going to be granted. Um we

17:03don't necessarily want them to come in.

17:05I mean maybe maybe one thing is the

17:06chair could grant like a first

17:08continuance and then if they if they

17:09want to delay it further then maybe they

17:11need to to ask all of us.

17:13>> So when do abutters notices go out? How

17:16far? I I think statutory is 5 days but

17:18when what's the practice?

17:20>> 10.

17:20>> You use 10.

17:21>> We we use the same as the planning

17:23board. Yeah.

17:24>> Okay. So either way the notices gone

17:27out.

17:27>> Correct.

17:28>> Yeah.

17:29>> And and typically our practice is if um

17:32cuz we don't if there's been a change we

17:34don't

17:35issue the same communication, you know,

17:37via mail. If anyone has sent us

17:40testimony, we know that they're

17:41interested so we we let them know via

17:43email.

17:44>> And often times they

17:46you know, spread the word.

17:48>> Yes.

17:48>> If it's controversial it hits social

17:50media.

17:52And is it posted on the

17:54city's website? The same time, 10 days?

17:57>> We we update Yes. Yeah, that initial

18:00notice but in terms of updating a agenda

18:03to show a postponement

18:05as soon as we know, we update that.

18:08>> Right.

18:22>> Look like you're deep in thought there.

18:24>> Well, I I guess I there's there's two

18:26things that are on my mind.

18:28Um,

18:29if we shorten the the window,

18:32um,

18:34one is the ramp-up time for us to get

18:36the word out to people, but two,

18:40um, do should there be a difference

18:43between,

18:45you

18:46kind of the first continuance that

18:48somebody seeks

18:50and somebody who's already been granted

18:51a continuance. Um,

18:54and I don't know if that's

18:56reasonable to put in the bylaws, but um,

19:01you know, I really do feel as though

19:04we've, you know, I was at a point with a

19:06particular application where I did not

19:08want to grant another continuance.

19:11And I felt we ought to have that

19:12conversation.

19:13Um, but if our bylaws kind of say,

19:17you ask, you get. Um,

19:21>> So, I see what you're saying that we

19:22could do

19:24automatic 6 days, 3 days, whatever on

19:26the first one, but any additional

19:29would have to come before the board.

19:31>> I I mean, that's that's kind of where

19:32I'm leaning. I don't know if we could

19:33word it that way, but yeah, cuz I I I I

19:35think uh no fault, no, you know,

19:38whatever, but at a certain point, I

19:40think you you ought to be able to you

19:42need to show cause.

19:44Um,

19:48>> Mr. Durfee, is there How does the

19:50planning board handle this?

19:52Is there any consistency we can do?

19:56>> It's very similar to

19:58current practice with the zoning board.

20:00Um,

20:01you ask.

20:03>> Got you.

20:04>> Right.

20:08>> Don't ask me if that's what the bylaws

20:09say.

20:11>> [laughter]

20:11>> Okay.

20:12>> Right.

20:13>> Right.

20:14>> So, I I guess I'm I'm open to 6 days,

20:16more days, but I wonder if we could put

20:17something in

20:19that addresses subsequent requests.

20:21>> So, say a whatever our time

20:26stamp is, if it's within that, the first

20:29time you ask for it, it's automatic.

20:31Subsequent though, it does go to the

20:34board for

20:35>> Yeah, I like that.

20:36>> And something we could do in terms of

20:39for the public is, "Hey, look, there has

20:42been a request for a second postponement

20:44or continuance.

20:46The board's going to take it up at the

20:48hearing."

20:49>> Right.

20:49>> So, at least they're there

20:50>> notice that.

20:51>> They're on notice. It may or may not be

20:52granted. We may not We may or may not

20:54hold the hearing, but

20:56but at least you know.

20:58Um that's kind of I I kind of like that.

21:01And then other than that, I'm I'm open

21:03to whatever the board feels in terms of

21:05the days.

21:05>> Three, six, whatever

21:07whatever.

21:07>> What's What's reasonable for Seth?

21:12>> I mean, six has been in the bylaws. Um

21:14not exactly

21:15>> adhered to.

21:16>> Strictly adhered to. Um

21:19>> And do we define days as calendar or

21:21business? Does that matter?

21:22>> Good point. Good point.

21:24>> believe it's defined. So,

21:25>> probably define that.

21:27>> So, if we if we leave it undefined, I

21:29would default to calendar. So, three

21:31days

21:33that request comes in, you know, that

21:35three would put you on a Saturday.

21:38Yeah.

21:40>> I would not I would not

21:41>> If it's

21:42>> Yeah.

21:42>> If it's three, I'd say three business

21:44days cuz you have to have the time to

21:46get the request and reach out to folks,

21:48and that could take at least till the

21:49next day.

21:50>> days, it's functionally the same if we

21:52leave it undefined and we default to

21:54calendar.

21:54>> That's true.

21:55>> Although if we do Oh, that's true.

21:56>> Right. Cuz if we do three business days,

21:58then they've got to get it in by Friday.

22:00>> Um

22:01if we have a meeting on Tuesday

22:02>> Which Which is going to happen. Yeah.

22:04>> Yeah.

22:05>> Yeah.

22:05>> That's right. That's not a bad move.

22:08Would you be okay with three business

22:09days?

22:12>> Let me look at how six pencils My My

22:14hesitancy is

22:16uh

22:17request is filed Friday at 4:45.

22:20>> Mhm.

22:21>> And that's we Is that two business days

22:23or one? I'd say two business

22:25>> You're right. You're right because

22:27>> Um

22:28>> Yeah.

22:29>> If you waited until Monday, it's

22:31probably the weekend when people have

22:33done the phone tree or whatever they do,

22:35the email circuit.

22:37>> So So, I know I'm not trying to put more

22:39work on city staff. We know you guys get

22:41pulled 50 directions a Sunday. So, if if

22:436 days works for you,

22:44I'm not going to push for the three. If

22:46that If everybody's comfortable with

22:48that, let you guys get the get the

22:50request.

22:50>> Six is okay with me. I'm okay with six.

22:52>> Can we define this

22:53>> calendar days?

22:55>> I think I think it should be calendar

22:56days.

22:57>> Yeah. Yeah, six calendar days. That's

22:59right. That's

22:59>> I will add that in there so that it's

23:01clear.

23:01>> Okay.

23:02>> I think that that's helpful. And then

23:03everyone else is on notice.

23:06>> You know, theoretically we could rewrite

23:07our bylaws.

23:08>> Apparently we didn't.

23:09>> [laughter]

23:14>> Lesson learned.

23:15>> Lesson learned is right.

23:17>> But didn't we do say in section 10 such

23:20written notice must be received prior to

23:22noon 12 minutes and 6 days preceding the

23:25scheduled public hearing.

23:26>> Right.

23:28>> And um I I thought I saw in here that we

23:31have to continue it to a date certain.

23:33>> Which we do.

23:34>> Which we do. The one exception that I

23:36can think of recently is the applicant

23:39who we thought that the state was going

23:42to come down and do

23:44um you know, some sort of analysis on

23:47the trees.

23:48>> We did continue it to a date certain,

23:49but I think we recognized that there was

23:51a possibility we might have to kick it

23:52further out.

23:53>> I think it's all right. We did do it to

23:54a date certain. It was just far out.

23:56>> Because if we if we don't go to a date

23:57certain, you'd have to re-notice it,

23:58right, Sandy?

23:59>> That's right. That's right. It's also,

24:01you know, it's in everybody's interest

24:03to know what the date is. So.

24:05>> Yeah.

24:06>> Um okay. That works.

24:12>> So, Mr. Durfee, um

24:14when when there there is these

24:16postponements,

24:18sometimes I I'm not exactly aware why,

24:20but are you given a specific reason?

24:23>> Not all the time.

24:25Not all the time. For Buck Meadow, um,

24:27the reason obviously, was, uh, they've

24:29gotten feedback from the community. They

24:31want to redesign.

24:33>> Perfectly legitimate reason to postpone.

24:34>> Perfectly legitimate continuance. That's

24:36right.

24:36>> Right, right. And and because the notice

24:39goes out X amount of days before,

24:42hopefully,

24:43people don't wait till the last minute,

24:45right, to give that feedback, right? And

24:47and I and um

24:49And in that in that case, let's say

24:51let's say the feedback didn't start

24:52coming until 3 days before the meeting,

24:54then they would come, for example, and

24:56say, "Hey, we would like a continuance

24:58because we want to address this all this

24:59feedback that just came in."

25:02They could come and basically the

25:03process would be if they wanted to

25:04continue with that, this is what they'd

25:05have to do. They'd have to come here and

25:08ask for it.

25:09>> But they would do that before the

25:10hearing actually starts. Cuz there's

25:12that that clause in there about, you

25:14know, once the once the hearing has

25:16started, you can't change your mind and

25:18say, "Oh, I want to postpone them."

25:19>> Right. So so they would physically have

25:21to come here.

25:23>> Yes.

25:24>> Okay. So then

25:25>> their plea a plea.

25:26>> Right. That so the chair would have to

25:27understand that can't stop the

25:29>> Right. We they were requesting

25:31continuance, so we'll take up that issue

25:33first.

25:34>> Right.

25:34>> Presumably, they would have provided

25:36that in writing.

25:36>> And they would have to yeah, give the

25:37notice. Okay.

25:38>> Right. Which they probably should do,

25:40provide us a letter.

25:42>> Um

25:43Uh so yeah, I I think that makes sense

25:45and I I and I assume that staff

25:48discusses with the applicant, "Gee, is

25:50that December date realistic?"

25:52>> Yeah.

25:53>> Right. We have that conversation because

25:54that's the other thing that'll come up

25:56is, "Oh, gee, we thought we had the

25:57time, but

25:59oh, well." Or "Oh, I forgot to consult

26:02with our attorney and he'll be in Aruba

26:04that week."

26:05>> Right.

26:06>> Let's just make sure we're thoughtful.

26:09>> I I I um

26:10>> Covered our bases.

26:10>> We do Well, we'll all go to Aruba,

26:12right?

26:12>> Yeah.

26:13>> [laughter]

26:13>> I I I

26:14I I can't now remember if it was here or

26:16it was somewhere else where we had that

26:19with an attorney.

26:20And he was like, "Oh, we forgot. He's

26:22going to be in Aruba."

26:23>> I think for the most part, though, I

26:25think, uh, when I started on the board,

26:28there were definitely

26:30people postponing because of the number

26:32of people because we had a real hard

26:33time having a quorum.

26:35>> There was a particular attorney who was

26:36big on that.

26:37>> Yeah.

26:37>> Uh actually, I don't think he was the

26:39attorney. He was an engineer. I'm trying

26:42to remember what his name is. But but he

26:44would almost every time he would come up

26:45and and say, "I reserve the right to

26:48>> Yeah.

26:48>> you know, blah blah blah because there's

26:50not not a full board. But I don't get

26:53that there's much of that going on now.

26:56>> It's happened.

26:57>> It would happen. Okay.

26:58>> Yes. It has.

26:59>> Okay.

27:00But not not as frequently as it was

27:02before.

27:03>> No.

27:03>> I don't think.

27:04>> No, it did happen recently.

27:08>> Okay.

27:09Good. It's good that we

27:10>> But I think this code advises

27:11everything, right? So they're all in the

27:12same

27:12>> That's right. Yeah. Yeah.

27:14>> That's why we're having cuz there aren't

27:15times that give you that option. So

27:17there are definitely applicants out

27:18there or their you know, agents who

27:21think that's our policy, too.

27:24So it's good to be clear.

27:25>> It it

27:26And I assume, right, that an applicant

27:28when they put the application, right?

27:31Are they getting this bylaws or they

27:33getting something different? Like like

27:35what do they what do they what do they

27:37know about the process when they when

27:39they the application's being put in?

27:40>> We don't provide them with the bylaws

27:43attached to an application.

27:45My intent with this is if this is

27:47approved at the next meeting is

27:49circulated to our frequent flyers, make

27:51them aware of the change

27:53because it's typically going to be

27:56a representative

27:57who has the foresight to make such a

27:59request. You know, your your one-off

28:02homeowner seeking a driveway variance is

28:04probably not going to be savvy enough to

28:05say, "Hey, look, I

28:07I'm reading the tea leaves and there's

28:08only three members and

28:11So what?

28:12>> But but these will be on the website, I

28:13assume, once we

28:14>> Yeah.

28:15>> Yeah, of course.

28:16>> constructive notice on some level.

28:17>> There's a lot of information on the

28:18website that no one reads.

28:19>> Well, that is This is true. But I think

28:21if we go through the you know, effort of

28:23you know, letting the frequent flyers

28:25know that it'll go a really long way.

28:27>> Yes.

28:28>> It'll go a really long way.

28:30>> So so what happens next? Do you have to

28:32actually put it on the agenda?

28:33>> Yeah.

28:34>> And we have to vote on it next time.

28:35>> It's a formal notice.

28:36>> Yes.

28:38>> And I have to file it with the city

28:39clerk.

28:39>> Do we have to do a first and second

28:41reading or can we adopt this at the next

28:42meeting?

28:43>> That's it. That's a

28:44automatic.

28:44>> Yeah.

28:46Good.

28:48All right, we'll do it.

28:49>> All righty.

28:51>> Anything else?

28:52>> Motion to adjourn.

28:54>> Second.

28:55>> And we are adjourned.

28:57>> 6:58.

28:57>> 6:58.

28:59>> Not bad.

```*