2026-10-29 - Board of Zoning Appeals

02:02Mhm.

04:05>> Mhm.

06:07>> Mhm.

07:07>> [clears throat]

07:11>> Right, it is

07:131:03 p.m. and we do have a quorum. I'm

07:16going to call this meeting to order.

07:18Um our chair is away today, so as vice

07:20chair I'm going to chair in the meeting.

07:22Uh the Syracuse Board of Zoning Appeals

07:23is now in session for our October 29th,

07:252026 meeting. The first order of

07:27business is to approve the minutes from

07:28the October 8th meeting. Is there a

07:31motion to approve the minutes?

07:34Is there a second?

07:37All in favor?

07:38>> I.

07:39>> Any opposed?

07:41Any abstentions?

07:42>> I'll abstain because I wasn't here.

07:43>> Okay.

07:45And the minutes are officially adopted.

07:50The board will now conduct the public

07:52hearings on today's agenda. First, the

07:54applicant or the applicant's

07:55representative will state the reasons

07:56for the requested variance and present

07:58any material or documentation which is

08:00to be considered regarding the proposal.

08:02Next persons wishing to speak in favor

08:04of the proposal will be given the

08:05opportunity to address the board. Then

08:07persons who wish wish to speak in

08:09opposition will be allowed to address

08:10the board. And finally, the applicant or

08:12representative will be given the option

08:14to make any closing arguments or respond

08:16to the comments. Um following the public

08:18hearings this afternoon, the board may

08:20make a decision on each applicant heard

08:22application heard. Uh the board may also

08:24decide to hold its decision until the

08:25next public meeting. If the hearing is

08:27closed, no additional information will

08:29be allowed into the record except for

08:31information that the board may request.

08:33The That information will be available

08:35for the public to review at the zoning

08:36office at 1 Park Place, 300 South State

08:39Street. Uh staff will now introduce the

08:41first application.

08:42>> Um before the first items, uh little

08:45update on agenda. Uh V-2026-25

08:49use variance at 807 Constellation Avenue

08:52is postponed by the applicants. Uh we

08:54apologize if you come for this meeting

08:56and

08:58this will be happening in the future

08:59meeting. Uh we will send the legal

09:01notices again to all the neighbors in

09:03the uh buffer.

09:05All right. Um now the first item is

09:07V-2026-20.

09:10It's a

09:11area variance relief from the front

09:13setback front uh fence requirement to

09:16allow construction of 6-ft tall privacy

09:18fence at

09:20401 Academy Place. Owner is

09:23McKenzie Conners. It's R-1 zone

09:26district.

09:28>> Thank you. Is the applicant here?

09:31Please state your name and address for

09:33the record.

09:35>> Yeah. My name is David Conners. Uh my

09:36wife McKenzie and I uh live at 401

09:39Academy Place. Um I am here seeking a

09:41area variance to install a 6-ft privacy

09:44fence um on our

09:46uh street uh side bordering Norman

09:48Avenue as shown in the picture.

09:50Um while we respect, you know, the

09:52ordinances and the, you know, setback

09:54rules, uh we believe that our, you know,

09:56property has a combination of unique um

09:58hardships that would, you know, justify

10:01the uh variance. Uh first of all, as a

10:04corner lot, this section, you know,

10:05technically applies, you know, has front

10:07setback um

10:09ordinance rules, but physically serves

10:11as our enclosed backyard. Uh Um,

10:13complying with the setback rules and

10:14pulling the fence inward to to inward to

10:17align with the setback line is hindered

10:20by an existing deck and a mature tree on

10:23that corner of the the back corner of

10:25the house.

10:26Um, it would also force, you know,

10:28losing about 500 square feet of our

10:30current usable yard space. Um,

10:33second, the main reason why we applied

10:35for this variance in the installation of

10:36the fence is the standard 4-ft height is

10:39completely inadequate for our household.

10:42Athletic build 50-lb mixed breed dog

10:44Baxter is easily able to clear a 4-ft

10:47fence.

10:48So, we are, you know, trying to minimize

10:50the off-leash containment risk and

10:52safety hazards, you know, with a

10:54possible dog possibly running the

10:55neighborhood.

10:57In addition, we serve the local

10:59community by fostering rescue dogs. So,

11:01making a secure 6-ft perimeter would be,

11:04you know, actually increasing the safety

11:05for for those animals as well. We

11:08believe that this fence would have

11:09minimal adverse impacts on the

11:11neighborhood character or safety. Norman

11:14Avenue is a quiet dead end street with

11:17no pedestrian sidewalks.

11:20You know, there's no traffic sight lines

11:22or pedestrian right-of-ways that would

11:23be blocked or impacted. Additionally,

11:27within our neighborhood there are

11:28multiple other corner lots in our

11:30immediate neighborhood within a

11:32you know, block or two radius that have

11:34privacy fences within their setbacks.

11:37Multiple that are directly

11:39along the sidewalk where pedestrians do

11:41walk and you know, we need sight lines.

11:45So, our we feel that our variance would

11:46be actually be less visually intrusive

11:49being that we are on a quiet dead end

11:50street

11:51compared to what is you know, allowed

11:53nearby. To show that this fence aligns

11:56with our neighborhood,

11:58I do have a petition signed by nine of

12:01our neighbors.

12:06That it would, you know, not impact them

12:09adversely at all. That includes

12:11the majority of the neighbors on Norman

12:12Avenue Avenue with the exception of

12:15one neighbor who I was not able to get

12:16in contact with.

12:19>> You said that you can't move it back to

12:21the setback line because it would hit a

12:23deck?

12:24>> Yes, we have a deck that that will get

12:26a line right with the corner of our

12:27house on that on the back side.

12:31>> So, the deck is not currently

12:32encroaching into the front yard setback.

12:34>> No, it is right it's right it's right on

12:36right in line right at the house.

12:39>> Yes, so the fence couldn't abut the

12:40deck.

12:41>> Um, no. So, that would present another

12:44problem. So, the deck, you know, being

12:45elevated with a fence abutting it, we

12:48are concerned that that would allow our

12:49dog to be able to jump that as well from

12:51off of the deck,

12:53you know, with that with his, you know,

12:54vertical leaping ability.

12:56>> Would you be able to put like a trellis

12:58or something

13:00that would rate, you know, increase the

13:02height?

13:02>> Yeah, increase the height. Um, that is

13:04possible. I mean, it is it is tricky

13:06because there's a you see there's a

13:07large mature tree right there as well

13:09that's kind of, you know,

13:11right next to the deck also. Um, so with

13:14the roots and everything there it would

13:15that would also be, you know, somewhat

13:17of a challenge um, with that tree in

13:19place.

13:20>> the roots would be on the other side as

13:21well where you're putting the fence or

13:23>> Uh, well, it's it's a good it's actually

13:25pushed out a couple of feet um, just to

13:27clear the there's actually multiple

13:29trees along that fence line that have

13:30grown. So,

13:31um, you know, it's not going to be

13:32directly where the chain link fence

13:34currently is, but we just moved it out

13:36to clear, you know, that space to be

13:38able to, you know, avoid the trees that

13:40are

13:41you know, blocking that.

13:43>> Uh,

13:44two questions. Have you looked into any

13:46other way to fence the dog whether

13:48through collar or there's the app based

13:51um, things that they have now?

13:53>> Yes, I mean, you know, like, you know,

13:54GPS, you know, things like that like

13:56wireless fences. Um, we we did not look

13:58into that. I don't necessarily trust

14:00those um, you know, fences with, you

14:02know, we're with being in a rescue dog

14:03community we do know that you know, a

14:04lot of a lot of dogs are able to, you

14:06know, get through those. They're not

14:07always, you know, reliable with the GPS

14:10um, you know, things like that. So, I

14:11mean, it

14:12>> [clears throat]

14:12>> it It consideration, but I don't think

14:14it would necessarily work in our

14:15situation.

14:16>> And then how long have you been here

14:17where you've had this existing fence

14:19that you've had issue Have you had

14:20issues with dogs during the fence

14:22current?

14:23>> Uh so I the dog that we that we have

14:24currently we adopted it a year ago. Um

14:26so this is our first you know he it's

14:28been an issue that we've been trying to

14:31you know mediate. Um

14:32you know we started the fence process

14:34about 6 months ago. We were you know the

14:35schedule was pushed back and then when I

14:37applied for the permit it was when I

14:38learned about the setback rules you know

14:40and the fact that it would not comply.

14:42>> And then

14:43>> jumped the fence.

14:43>> Hm?

14:44>> So he has jumped the fence.

14:45>> Oh yes he multiple times. Yes.

14:47>> And then your immediate adjacent

14:49neighbor is he listed as one of the

14:51people who signed or

14:52>> On on which side on the back side?

14:54>> Uh yeah.

14:54>> Yeah so 113 Norman Ave yes that's uh

14:57Mrs. Shed. Um her signature is is on

14:59there.

15:04>> Corner lots are tricky.

15:05>> Yeah.

15:07>> Does anybody have some additional

15:08questions for the applicant?

15:12>> That's all right.

15:14>> Would there be any sort of visibility

15:16challenge created with a a taller fence

15:18in your opinion as far as drivers or

15:21>> Oh for tra- for traffic? No. Um so I

15:23measured the distance from So the the

15:25pink you know painted post there is

15:26where the the new fence would would go

15:29in in in that line. It's the the edge of

15:31the fence would still be 30 ft away from

15:33the edge of the road. Actually more than

15:3530 ft like 34 ft. Um so there would be

15:37no obstruction to any traffic you know

15:40sight lines or anything like that.

15:43>> Yes.

15:47>> All right we'll see um is there anybody

15:48here to speak in favor of this

15:50application?

15:53Anybody here to speak in opposition?

15:58Okay the board can deliberate.

16:02>> Um I don't see an undesirable change.

16:05It's a fence there you're going to a 6

16:06ft fence. I understand that the increase

16:09in the height and the closer setback but

16:11I don't necessarily see it as an issue

16:13and in regards to the issue with the

16:15dogs it's clearly a concern.

16:18Uh I mean I did mention there are other

16:20options he can pursue in order to kennel

16:23the dogs, but due to the uh

16:25nature of the types of dogs that he

16:27keeps,

16:28um might not be

16:30you know, feasible.

16:33Uh substantial

16:36I would say no.

16:38I leave that to anybody else who has

16:40feels differently.

16:42Uh no impact to the

16:44uh the neighborhood. Uh

16:46I

16:47um appreciate the petition

16:50uh that he talked to all the neighbors

16:51and they are in agreement. Uh and

16:54as we previously discussed, this is

16:56obviously self-created, so.

16:58>> I should know the answer to this, but

17:00was the notice posted there for all the

17:02neighbors to see that this hearing was

17:03going to be happening?

17:07>> I would uh

17:08just add that I've had a dog that could

17:09scale a 4-ft fence as well, and it's no

17:12joke.

17:15>> Does this mean in terms of precedent?

17:17corner lots

17:22like you have a dog

17:24>> Legally any corner person on a corner

17:25lot can do this.

17:26>> Does this set a legal precedent for

17:27future applications?

17:29>> I don't believe it sets a legal

17:30precedent cuz I believe uh every

17:32application is supposed to be

17:35you know, viewed as as a separate thing.

17:38>> Cuz as long as you guys prove the um

17:40bare minimum need by the applicant,

17:43regardless like the transparency or

17:45height enough, as long as um

17:48his request, you know, can be met for

17:50the dogs and

17:52there's not like, you know, precedency

17:53for the following

17:55similar case.

17:57>> I do think too with it being on site.

18:00>> Oh, I was just going to ask since the

18:01zoning ordinance talks about

18:02transparency fence if it's going to be

18:04out into the encroaching to there. I'm

18:07just wondering

18:08a white vinyl fence is really a like a

18:10solid block, you know, and is there some

18:12alternative?

18:14Could it be a color or

18:17visible in the

18:18encroachment.

18:20>> I I it's not terribly attractive, but

18:22have you considered chain link?

18:24So that it's more transparent.

18:28>> Yes, our concern with chain link was

18:31with both our resident dog, you know,

18:32being able to get his feet into the into

18:35the chain link as well as rescue dogs.

18:36We also within our rescue we get a lot

18:38of dogs that, you know, are

18:40hard to place because they're able to

18:42climb fences, you know, so that we

18:43thought that wouldn't be able to serve

18:44the rescue a lot better.

18:46>> And you're

18:47confident that the vinyl is durable

18:49enough? Cuz these are big dogs. They can

18:51sometimes

18:51>> Yeah, yeah. So we we did our research in

18:53terms of like the the fence company and

18:55the products that that they have and we

18:56went with the a company that, you know,

18:58had they they they actually a lot of

19:00fences use the, you know, dig, you know,

19:02posts for the vinyl fences. The company

19:04we went to actually digs and, you know,

19:05puts in concrete, you know, footers so,

19:07you know, for each post. So that makes

19:09it a little more durable and more, you

19:10know, long you know, long term.

19:13>> Are you also using a solid fence because

19:16it's a

19:17sound barrier?

19:19>> That was a consideration. Our dog Our

19:20dog is he's not a a big barker, but he

19:22does bark at neighborhood cats and

19:24things like that. And also one of the

19:26main things that why he jumps the fence

19:28is to chase wildlife, you know, so the

19:30the visual barrier is also, you know, a

19:32major consideration for us so that he

19:33did cannot see the the groundhogs and

19:35the, you know, things that are, you

19:37know,

19:37>> If he can't see it, he won't chase it.

19:38>> Yeah.

19:40Yes, sir.

19:41>> I'm wondering would it

19:42um would it be possible to reduce the

19:44encroachment? So you're going out how

19:46many feet? Is that?

19:48encroachment whether I mean could you do

19:50encroach into half that distance rather

19:52than the full distance?

19:54>> Um so again that that it's hard because

19:56of the that large tree that's on the

19:58corner, you know, and that's the large

19:59tree that's right on the corner of the

20:01of the of our house um by the deck. Um

20:04the reason why, you know, we we

20:06decided to put the fence where

20:08uh it not that one. It's the one in the

20:10where the deck picture is if you can

20:11find

20:14Um

20:14so to bring it in further from there we

20:17the tree would be right there. Um and

20:19then to bring it past the tree it would

20:20be abutting up to the deck, you know, so

20:22that would create the the issue of him

20:24being able to jump off the dock again.

20:26>> Your Your the pink stakes are sort of

20:28outside the fence.

20:30>> Uh they're outside of the current chain

20:31link fence, and that's because of the

20:33other trees that are right there that

20:34grew into the into the fence. So, we

20:37pushed it out just uh like another 2 ft

20:40to avoid those other trees that are

20:41right there in that in that

20:43>> all grew up on the fence line, right?

20:45>> What's that?

20:46>> The trees, I presume, all grew up on the

20:47fence lines, so

20:48>> Yeah. They're directly on there.

20:50>> go right behind those trees?

20:52Because the roots are spreading out

20:54equally, you know,

20:56on the fence.

20:56>> Yeah, but like to go right behind the

20:58trees that are on the other on that

20:59other picture, that that tree right

21:01there is is right where that would be.

21:05And that's a much larger tree. So, those

21:09>> I mean, you're 2 ft out from the

21:10existing fence, roughly.

21:11>> Correct.

21:16So, if we went 2 ft in in from the

21:18existing fence, we would be right on top

21:19of that large tree that's in the in the

21:21corner of the of the yard there.

21:24>> It may be worth taking out that tree

21:26anyway cuz it's so close to the house.

21:30And it's a Norway maple.

21:35>> It's a volunteer tree. It's an invasive.

21:37>> Okay.

21:38>> Okay.

21:39Thank you. I wasn't aware.

21:42>> Um

21:43all right. So, Vince took us through the

21:46tests. In your opinion, it will not

21:47create an undesirable change to the

21:49character of the neighborhood?

21:50>> Uh

21:51if I feel it doesn't, no.

21:53>> Uh can the benefit be achieved by some

21:54other method

21:56other than applying for an area

21:57variance? I think we've just talked

21:58through a whole bunch of those.

22:01Is the requested area variance

22:02substantial?

22:07>> I mean, I just on the substantial

22:08question, I just want to argue like he

22:10could go out further and ask for more

22:11closer to the street. I think that would

22:12be a deterrent to the neighborhood and

22:14everything else. This is 2 ft out from

22:16the existing fence. It's It's not

22:17impacting anyone's sightlines to the

22:19street, so

22:20Our effort was to We We really tried to

22:22go as minimally as as we could, you

22:25know. We're not requesting to extend it

22:26by, you know, another 20 ft to try to

22:28get

22:29more space.

22:30>> Will the proposed area variance have an

22:32adverse effect on the physical or

22:33environmental conditions of the

22:34neighborhood?

22:38>> According to this,

22:40no.

22:41>> And lastly, is the alleged difficulty

22:43self-created?

22:47>> [laughter]

22:48>> We adopted a dog.

22:50>> Yeah, I mean, so for the area variances,

22:52it's a balancing test. You don't have to

22:53pass all five. So, if the majority

22:56look good, then

22:58it can pass.

23:01Any further discussion or additional

23:02questions?

23:02>> Uh just uh one uh quick question. That

23:05AI-generated photo that's in the packet,

23:09is that what it's going to pretty much

23:11look like?

23:11>> As much as AI could, you know,

23:13reproduce, but it that is a very

23:15similar, you know, style um, you know, a

23:18fence that we're going to install, yes.

23:20>> Okay.

23:23>> Just note that the the setbacks on the

23:26side street are fairly deep. So, I think

23:28this would be a little more concerning

23:30if it were

23:31narrower set.

23:33>> Do you intend to plant anything in front

23:34of the fence?

23:35>> Pardon?

23:36>> Do you intend to plant anything in front

23:38of the fence on the street side?

23:39>> Um we hadn't thought that far ahead so

23:42far, but you know, it may be, you know,

23:44an option.

23:45You know, I know that that would kind of

23:46help, you know, reduce those stark

23:49white, you know, wall along the street

23:51side.

23:52Um

23:53you know, I think it could be something

23:55that we could, you know, put some

23:56shrubbery or

23:57>> Not to say anything more, but I would

23:58just consider, you know, planting

24:00something there to help reduce the the

24:02overall, you know, mass of the fence.

24:04>> For sure.

24:09>> Would anybody like to make a motion?

24:12>> Uh I'll make the motion to approve

24:16uh

24:17variance 2026-20

24:20um

24:21for the following reasons that we

24:24just went over.

24:25>> Yes.

24:26>> I apologize. Should I have done seeker

24:27first?

24:28>> Uh no seeker for this one is a type two

24:30single family.

24:32I do recommend that you include in the

24:34staff condition for the approval.

24:37You direct us to

24:39which page that is?

24:42So yes, so including the proper permits

24:46shall be

24:47obtained prior to conducting any of the

24:49work on the site.

24:54Well, just in terms of conditions. So

24:55why was the only color that you were

24:58offered? It was the it was the only

24:59color that we considered. The colored

25:01vinyl fences are seen to be more

25:03expensive than white. So financially, it

25:06was kind of our you know, the only like

25:07it's the higher end of our budget to

25:09begin with. So to go with a colored

25:11vinyl was a little more cost

25:13prohibitive.

25:14I know they can be painted too, although

25:16that creates a maintenance issue, but

25:18I've seen them painted.

25:20This is in terms of reducing the visual

25:22encroachment.

25:24Visual impact.

25:26It might be more cost effective to do

25:27some plantings. Yeah, plantings over

25:30painting.

25:32We're starting to

25:35I was just going to second

25:37the recommendation.

25:41So we have a motion to approve it with

25:42the condition here as suggested by staff

25:44that proper permits shall be obtained

25:45prior to conducting any work. Um

25:49Sounds like you might be inclined to add

25:51some additional conditions.

25:54What do

25:56I I would just say if

25:59possible to do plantings in front of it,

26:02I think it would be a lot easier than

26:04painting.

26:06Yeah.

26:10So

26:11plantings, you know, bushes if

26:13possible

26:14would be nice.

26:16I think it would just break it up. Do

26:18the landscape designers have any more

26:20specific guidance than that? Certain

26:22number of shrubs, certain distance

26:23apart? Not yet, but

26:26Um

26:27If this is another part of the city, I

26:30would say in terms of how it impacts

26:32code, but I'm hesitant to impart any

26:35specific

26:37uh landscaping guidance on

26:39on this specific application.

26:43>> So, are we making it a condition that he

26:45put landscaping in front of the fence or

26:46not?

26:48>> No.

26:48>> Okay.

26:49Um

26:50All right.

26:51>> It's encouraged.

26:52>> Encouraged, yeah.

26:54All right, we have a motion, we have a

26:56second.

26:57Um

26:58All in favor?

27:00>> I.

27:01>> Any opposed?

27:03Any abstentions?

27:05Okay, motion passes.

27:06>> Thank you very much for your time, guys.

27:07Appreciate it.

27:09>> Next agenda item, V-2026-24,

27:13is an area variance for relief to

27:16um the front setback requirement of 25.4

27:19ft at 229 Orlando Ave or North

27:24Monticello Drive frontage. Uh the

27:26address, 229 Orlando Ave. Um

27:29property owner is Greater Syracuse Land

27:31Bank and it's R-1 zone district.

27:35>> Uh for the record, I work for the

27:36Greater Syracuse Land Bank and we are

27:38the applicant, so I have to recuse

27:39myself from this and will not be

27:40participating in any in any discussions

27:42or deliberations, but because Nora is

27:45not here today and I have to chair the

27:46meeting, I will be commenting on

27:47procedural matters only. Uh so, is the

27:50applicant here to present this

27:52application?

27:53Please give your name and address for

27:54the record.

27:55>> Good afternoon, Luke Avery Doherty,

27:56Greater Syracuse Land Bank, uh 1941

27:59South Salina Street, Syracuse, New York

28:0113205.

28:03Um

28:04I'm here to talk about the property

28:06located at 229 Orlando Ave. It's a

28:08vacant lot at the corner of uh

28:11Orlando and Monticello.

28:13Um we're requesting a variance from the

28:14required uh front yard setback on the

28:17on Monticello Drive side of the

28:20property. We propose a 10-ft setback,

28:23whereas the reference parcels average

28:2425.4

28:26ft. We're requesting this because of the

28:28slope on the western edge of 229 Orlando

28:31that requires a 14-ft

28:34uh side yard setback on that side.

28:38Um

28:40You can see it basically the lower left

28:42corner there is where this it really

28:44slopes um slopes downward.

28:47Um regarding neighborhood character, uh

28:50this area variance will enable us to

28:52build a single-family home there. The

28:54style we selected is meant to blend in

28:55with the 1 and 1/2 story bungalows and

28:57Cape Cods in this area. I do have a

29:00visual here if we will

29:09This home will fit in better with the

29:10surrounding uh contacts than the vacant

29:12lot currently does. The house as

29:14promised is still far enough, however,

29:16from the corner that it won't um

29:19be a visual impediment for vehicles

29:21approaching the intersection of Orlando

29:22and Monticello.

29:24Um regarding alternatives, the only

29:26alternative would be to build a large

29:28and costly retaining wall on the western

29:30property line and bring in a a large

29:33amount of structural fill to bring that

29:35section level up with the rest of the

29:37lot. Um this would be disruptive to the

29:40neighbors next door as well as make this

29:43state-funded project financially

29:45infeasible. Um we're proposing to

29:48repair the existing

29:50uh retaining wall which is towards the

29:51back of the property but not make

29:53significant grade changes along the edge

29:55of the property shared with 223 Orlando

29:58in an effort to avoid negatively

30:00impacting uh the neighbors. Um we do

30:03have the corners of both the lot and the

30:06proposed structure uh staked out um if

30:09you want to take a look.

30:11Um Substantiality, we're asking for a

30:1510-ft setback whereas the required

30:17setback is 25.4 ft. However, many

30:20properties in the immediate vicinity

30:22have 11-ft to 17-ft

30:25um setbacks. You can see that on this

30:28one.

30:29Um that includes the property directly

30:30across Orlando as well as several

30:33properties on the other side of

30:34Monticello. So that would be the east

30:36side of Monticello.

30:39Um and once again, as I mentioned, the

30:41where the house is located, um with the

30:44setback, it will still be far enough

30:45from the corner that it won't present

30:47any kind of impediment um for drivers

30:49coming along um that intersection.

30:52Adverse effect, we don't believe there

30:54will be um any adverse impact on the

30:56neighbors. In fact, neighboring

30:58homeowners will benefit from the

30:59comparable sales data generated by the

31:02sale of this three-bedroom, two-bath uh

31:05house for $215,000.

31:08An investment in a new house and new

31:09landscaping uh will be an

31:12improvement to the neighborhood. Um we

31:15will install rain gutters that will

31:17prevent any kind of uh runoff from the

31:19roof or that will allow any runoff from

31:21the roof to land onto our this property

31:23um and percolate into the uh water table

31:26there.

31:28Um

31:29Self-created difficulty, the land bank

31:31is the default recipient of

31:32tax-foreclosed properties and is tasked

31:34with facilitating their return to

31:36productive use. In this case, there are

31:37two factors inherent to this lot that's

31:40causing the difficulty. As I mentioned,

31:42uh

31:43because it is a corner property, the

31:45Monticello Drive side is subject to

31:47front uh yard setback rules as well as

31:50the Orlando side, so this lot in effect

31:52has two front yards.

31:55Um and then second, along the western

31:57property line, again, the lot slopes

31:59downward, it is in the valley. Uh we

32:01propose setting this house uh 14 ft off

32:04of that western uh boundary to keep it

32:07on the flat portion of the lot. Again,

32:09if we had to shift the house further

32:11west, um it would uh we'd have to bring

32:14in a tremendous amount of uh you know,

32:15fill, all that that would have, we

32:18think, uh a negative impact on the

32:20neighbors at 223 Orlando.

32:25>> Any questions for the applicant?

32:26>> Yeah, I do.

32:27>> Go ahead. You go first.

32:29>> So, you're building on a slab. Is that

32:30why you couldn't get the foundation to

32:32make up the grade difference?

32:33>> Yes. So, this is a manufactured home uh

32:35that will be built um again,

32:37three-bedroom, two

32:39So, it's kind of has like a one and a

32:40half story kind of uh profile. Uh but

32:43yes, it is built on a slab.

32:46>> Yeah, cuz there's

32:47I mean, the house that was there it was

32:49clearly I mean, the

32:52It looked like it was 4 ft from the

32:554 to 5 ft from the property boundary.

32:58So, that's just not

32:59feasible with a slab construction and

33:01and building a foundation is not

33:03>> Yeah, we really look for lots that have

33:05especially with this kind of

33:06construction for lots that have as much

33:08flat, you know, as flat as possible.

33:11Um and

33:13like I said, this could this lot could

33:15be flattened out. Uh but we considered

33:18you know, considering that option would

33:19really I think be pretty disruptive uh

33:21for the neighborhood um and be really

33:25not cost-effective for us.

33:28>> And just maintaining a slope from the

33:29entrance down

33:31that's not feasible because of the slab

33:33construction.

33:34There's nothing to make that up.

33:37>> Um

33:38not the way that this is uh constructed.

33:42The slab really needs to be on a you

33:44know, if you start to build the slab

33:45down several feet that again become

33:48becomes a a cost issue as well as

33:51frankly kind of an engineering

33:52challenge.

33:59>> By the way,

34:00uh

34:02the uh only question that I uh

34:06really have

34:07I just lost it, but uh

34:10it's in the

34:14I'll just sort of paraphrase my

34:16question. The uh

34:21drainage that you're going to put in

34:23>> Yeah.

34:23>> it will not adversely affect the

34:25neighbors. Now, I have total confidence

34:28in

34:29the land bank and the work that it's

34:31done.

34:33But

34:34I'm just concerned about the neighbors

34:36cuz I looked at some of those pictures

34:38in there and they showed

34:39the flooding in those areas, so

34:43the neighbors will not be affected with

34:46the new drainage system that you put in.

34:49>> Yes, and if anything, the additional

34:5114-ft side lot

34:53>> Yes.

34:53>> setback will allow them more area for

34:55the any rain runoff to seep into the

34:58into the lot there.

35:00Being further away from the neighboring

35:02I mean, further away from the

35:03neighboring property.

35:05>> And that's a definite.

35:06>> Yes.

35:07>> 100%.

35:08>> Yes.

35:09>> So, we will work with the manufacturers

35:10and work with the you know, the when we

35:12install the gutters to be sure cuz I

35:13know that is an issue in that area in

35:15particular. Um and we want to make sure

35:17we're if definitely not contributing to

35:19that.

35:19>> But but I you know, I I I trust the work

35:21that the land bank has done. What I've

35:24seen has been

35:25uh very good, but uh that was a major

35:28concern that I just

35:29>> So, we'll take a close look on that when

35:31we work on the gutters and

35:32>> you know, I just don't want to create a

35:34difficulty for them.

35:36>> Absolutely.

35:38>> In the pre-construction notice,

35:40after it is only approval, they still

35:42have to go through the building permit.

35:44Um during that process, there will be a

35:46tons of um city engineering DPW look at

35:50the the sweep, the storm water, make

35:52sure this is a structure sound, and we

35:54will have inspection afterward. So,

35:56>> Yeah.

35:57>> Just kind of help you later.

35:58>> Just just uh asking a question because

36:00I've seen uh some of the rehab

36:04rehabilitation

36:06projects that have uh

36:09you know,

36:10there was a corner cut here or there and

36:13might have caused some issue.

36:15But that's another story for another

36:16time, but I just wanted to make sure

36:18that uh

36:19>> Absolutely.

36:20>> weren't going to be impacted.

36:22>> So, there would be a traffic and storm

36:23water review along the different

36:26reviews from the city departments,

36:27right?

36:29>> Correct.

36:31>> But that would be a financial difficulty

36:33on the applicant

36:35make those

36:36fixes to the storm water. Not

36:38necessarily

36:40the city.

36:40>> No, and my My is more just along the

36:42lines of if there was some reason that

36:44this was

36:46dangerous or or not feasible that

36:48there's a city department review that

36:50could make that decision with with

36:52folks.

36:53>> Right.

36:54>> And I just wanted to

36:56Again, I I just have uh

36:58just looking at some of those pictures

37:00and the amount accumulation of water

37:03that's there that uh

37:06they could solve those issues.

37:08Uh

37:09what their

37:10plans state and

37:13gave me a 100% so I'm good.

37:16I'm good on that.

37:17>> It doesn't seem like the setback really

37:19influences that that much.

37:21I wouldn't think so.

37:25>> Have you considered a smaller house or

37:27what was the So what what was the

37:29selection of this of this product type?

37:32>> It was partly selected um to fit in with

37:35the character like I said of the house I

37:37said like we tried to find ones and you

37:38know they are raised up um you know a

37:40bit and they are we tried to find ones

37:42that had a little bit of a higher

37:43roofline uh to make them fit in with the

37:45existing character of the house. The lot

37:47itself I believe is only 450 ft wide and

37:51when you start to get

37:53much narrower than that including this

37:55you know the setback on either side um

37:57you end up with a

37:59pretty narrow house and people are

38:00really looking for you know I think to

38:02be able to make a a three-bedroom

38:05two-bathroom house um with the entrances

38:08on the front and the back um it really

38:10getting much smaller than that I think

38:12would make it a difficult sell a

38:13difficult sell.

38:14>> Yeah, did you consider a second floor

38:16though cuz most of the houses on the

38:18on Orlando were one and a half stories.

38:21This is only one story.

38:22>> With these kind of housing uh we are not

38:24able to do uh second story. Um it's just

38:28the the nature of the of the design.

38:31Um

38:32so like I said we try to find uh you

38:34know ones where we can make them fit in

38:36as much as possible.

38:38And there is a variety of you know

38:41architectural types in the neighborhood

38:43and we thought this one worked pretty

38:44well.

38:46>> I just wanted to say in terms of

38:47neighborhood character, it seems like

38:49the setbacks that are proposed are more

38:51are seem appropriate for um

38:54Orlando Drive because it's

38:57it's an earlier development and then on

38:59Monticello it seems they're bigger lots

39:01set back farther.

39:03Um

39:04so like imposing that setback on

39:07Orlando seems a little out of it.

39:09>> Yeah, that's the struggle with having it

39:10be the corner having to kind of try to

39:13>> like it's one neighborhood, it's two

39:15periods of development. So they're sort

39:17of we're trying to make them fit

39:18together here.

39:22I

39:24>> That that's a very interesting point.

39:26Uh

39:29but I do like the fact that uh

39:33the price and it's going to enhance the

39:36neighborhood. I do like that and uh

39:40I'm just trusting that the uh land bank

39:44can merge those two thoughts that you

39:47just brought together. I think you know

39:50I didn't think of that but uh

39:53uh is there a possible way in that

39:56design? Is it going to sort of merge

39:59those two schools of thought?

40:04>> Can you repeat those two schools of

40:05thought?

40:06>> Well,

40:06>> [laughter]

40:06>> the two Sorry, you know, when he said

40:08that you had the two

40:09uh periods of time periods of the homes

40:12merging together.

40:14>> Yeah, I think you know, I think that is

40:17you know

40:19we're doing the best we can with the

40:20design here, you know, like I know you

40:21said they're bigger lots on Monticello

40:23but like I said right across the street

40:25they're actually not the houses aren't

40:26set that far back partly I think cuz

40:28there's some there's an incline there,

40:31you know, again it's the valley. Um so I

40:33don't like I you know, this really

40:34wouldn't have I don't think a negative

40:36visual or uh any kind of physical impact

40:39uh

40:40the neighbor.

40:41>> I like that it's a ranch.

40:43>> Yeah, and there's demand for these kind

40:44of housing. It's a neighborhood where

40:45people want to live and uh we're really

40:48excited about it.

40:53>> Any additional questions for the

40:54applicant?

40:56>> Thank you.

40:57>> Is there anybody here to speak in favor

40:59of the application?

41:04Is there anybody here to speak in

41:05opposition to the application?

41:07Please state your name and address for

41:09the record as you approach the

41:10microphone.

41:13>> My name is Sarah Hale and I live at 160

41:16Monticello Drive North.

41:19I sent an email, but I wrote it out just

41:22to make sure it got

41:24mentioned today.

41:25I don't want this variance to be

41:27granted.

41:28The setback of 10 ft is too close to the

41:30street.

41:32Traffic from North Monticello and

41:33Orlando Ave would be blocked on both

41:36sides.

41:37There is a three-way stop sign.

41:40We already have a problem with cars

41:42speeding and ignoring all three of the

41:45stop signs.

41:47We already have a problem with drivers.

41:50But to add to not seeing oncoming

41:53traffic

41:54to this situation would be horrible

41:57for this neighborhood.

41:58We do not allow

42:00Please do not allow the variance to be

42:02passed because this house is too large

42:04for this space.

42:06We have lived at this address for 39

42:09years.

42:10I do not want this variance to pass. I

42:12received this notice 2 days prior to

42:15this meeting.

42:16And for some this is important, I should

42:19have had more time

42:21to go over everything.

42:23The information that was provided was

42:25just too much for 2 days notice.

42:27I don't even know if all the residents

42:29have been notified in our area. We tried

42:33to get out and talk to people,

42:35but they weren't there.

42:38I've been notified. I can be reached and

42:40and I left my phone number, but

42:43there there's a lot of issues with this

42:45going on that corner.

42:47And like I said, the 10 ft visually

42:50standing there,

42:52you're not going to be able to see

42:53oncoming traffic.

42:56Thank you.

43:03>> Kathy Stribling, 316 Monticello Drive

43:06North. I'm a

43:07couple blocks north of this area, block

43:09north.

43:10Um

43:13I presented in my

43:16what is I submitted to I think you got

43:19this. I um

43:21the

43:22uh the

43:23the situation with the drainage in the

43:26neighborhood.

43:27Um

43:29we've had a lot of issues with flooding,

43:32but we don't have storm systems there.

43:35Everything just flows down the street,

43:38right? So, on Monticello, where I

43:41brought I have this diagram,

43:44the water from It's not just

43:46regular

43:48city infrastructure, it just flows down

43:50the street.

43:52And it flows off the hill from

43:54the valley hill,

43:56down Monticello at that corner.

43:59And then water flows from the other way,

44:01the other side of the street.

44:03But then it goes down and

44:05we have additional flooding issues

44:07further down.

44:09But that site is the corner that

44:10receives all that drainage, and it roads

44:13that site.

44:15And there's nowhere else for it to go.

44:16You can't solve it another way. There's

44:18nowhere to put it.

44:20Um so, just there's no underground

44:22system on that street at all.

44:25So, I have had talks with the land bank

44:27about other sites in the neighborhood

44:29where we have even worse issues

44:32with drainage, but this one,

44:35given the design, um

44:38I don't really understand how they can

44:42put

44:42a

44:44swale on the property line, which

44:47the swale has to go down

44:50to a low point, and it has to go up.

44:52Right? So, it's going down and going up.

44:54So, part of the yard is being used for

44:56the swale, and part of the

44:58the right-of-way is being graded to a

45:00swale.

45:02That's the only way you can do that

45:04to get that water

45:06around the corner, unless you put a curb

45:08in to to stop the water from going

45:10around the corner.

45:12Which is an expense. Okay, I know it's

45:14an expense.

45:15But, the only way to deter the water

45:17from the site is to put a curb around

45:19the entire edge of that site.

45:22Uh or

45:25the DI just don't know what the details

45:27of that are.

45:28I put the question mark there because

45:31there's a crosswalk at the corner, and

45:33the way this is designed

45:35I think it's heading for the corner of

45:37the

45:38crosswalk, and it's not shown on the

45:40plan.

45:41So, if they were showing more details of

45:44that corner, then we we would be able to

45:46evaluate a little better what was going

45:48on

45:49going on with that design.

45:52Um

45:53I also want to point out that on this

45:54site, there's been a stream that erupted

45:58in the middle of spring in the middle of

46:00the site, and it was flowing It was

46:02flowing for a few years.

46:04And DPW came around, and they finally

46:07figured out

46:08that it was a spring that had been

46:10undergrounded

46:12a long, long time. There Springs all the

46:15way across Monticello that go all the

46:17way through the neighborhood.

46:19Had been undergrounded and lost. So,

46:21they came, and they put it back

46:23underground, but it's not on their plan.

46:26Um it's not on their survey. So, it's

46:29there.

46:30But, we know that it was undergrounded.

46:32It flooded um Orlando for a long time,

46:35and I don't think you

46:37can deal with this site until you know

46:39what's going on with that. Now,

46:41I understand some of the neighbors

46:43talked to the

46:44direct neighbor to the

46:46west, and he actually wanted to buy the

46:50site and incorporate it into his site.

46:53So, I know that is a possibility. I

46:56brought up

46:57that there are narrow or miles that

47:00would fit there. But, if you put a swale

47:02in,

47:04people don't understand how to maintain

47:06a swale. They don't like them.

47:08They're going to plan over it.

47:10I just think over time it's going to

47:12fail.

47:13And it's it's again

47:15assuming a lot that all this is going to

47:18work out with this

47:20very, very

47:22cramped space with a very sloping site.

47:26Um

47:29So, I I want to bring up the site

47:31problem issue. I was I've lived there

47:33for over 35 years, too. Long time. And I

47:37was there when the other house was

47:38there, which was a

47:40a two-story, very narrow. It was like a

47:42Sears-type

47:44house.

47:45And when you came up to the corner, you

47:47had to stop and be very careful, look

47:49around the corner. Uh all the time. All

47:52the time.

47:53People

47:55zoom through our neighborhood, blow

47:57through all the stop signs. So, this

47:59will pushing it to our Monticello will

48:01cause issues. We've got scooters,

48:04pedestrians,

48:06bicyclists,

48:08motorists. And we've got people cutting

48:10through from Seneca Turnpike, which is a

48:13big problem. Seneca Turnpike backups

48:17occur frequently.

48:18Last week or 2 weeks ago, we had a water

48:21main break on Seneca Turnpike. It took

48:24all the traffic from Seneca Turnpike

48:26right up through Monticello. And those

48:29people don't follow the

48:31the laws. I mean, they're just bounding

48:33through there to get to the other side.

48:36So, when there's a snow problem, when

48:38there's a water break, which has

48:39happened a lot, when there's a traffic

48:41issue, when there's construction on

48:43Seneca Turnpike, it all goes down

48:46Monticello, and there's no

48:48nobody there to watch that. I mentioned

48:51to the police last week in a meeting

48:53that they

48:54ought to be aware of it and put somebody

48:56there to monitor the traffic that they

48:59send in our neighborhood. So, that's

49:01another thing I just want to bring up.

49:02It's unusual

49:04and but this this site is unusually

49:08vulnerable to the drainage issue and

49:10there is no infrastructure to help it

49:13out. The only thing you could do is curb

49:15the whole site,

49:18raising it would help probably, but the

49:21impact on the neighbors would be would,

49:24you know, probably worse. So,

49:26um

49:28if if a house would fit there, we had a

49:30house, right?

49:32They fit there at one point. So, I'm not

49:34opposed to that, but I think they need

49:36to go back to the drawing board and look

49:38at the

49:39conditions that are here

49:42and they're not they're not normal. It's

49:43not a normal postage stamp Syracuse site

49:47that you can just put a house in.

49:49So, I think that's I

49:52>> Thank you.

49:52>> pictures of all that.

49:54>> Thank you.

49:54>> Look at this now.

49:55>> Is there anybody else that wishes to

49:57speak in opposition?

49:58Please state your name and address for

50:00the record and

50:03let's try to keep our comments to

50:063 minutes or less if possible.

50:08You can pull that down if you need the

50:10microphone closer.

50:11>> My name's Janette Davis. I live at 200

50:14North Manasola Drive. It's going to be

50:16directly across from the proposed site

50:20and I just wanted to reiterate um

50:23what my friends were saying that uh

50:25there is a problem with the

50:27moving variance, having the uh

50:31the house move closer

50:33to the uh corner is going to

50:36be a problem with the traffic.

50:39Uh we've had

50:41years ago I've we've lived at the site

50:43um where we are nearly 50 years

50:46and um we've had numerous

50:48pets, cats that were killed from um

50:52traffic

50:53going

50:54you know, rushing through and everything

50:56and just moving the uh um

50:58the house closer is

51:00is not not an answer and um also we do

51:04have major water problems there and I

51:08just um

51:09don't see that

51:11working out very well either.

51:14Thank you.

51:17Is the

51:18Are there anybody else that wishes to

51:20speak in opposition?

51:21Does the applicant have any additional

51:23information to share?

51:28>> First, my understanding is that there

51:30was not a stream there. It was a storm

51:32drain that was leaking that's been

51:34repaired by DPW since.

51:36Um

51:37that said, we are aware of the drainage

51:39issues there as we've worked already

51:41closely with engineering and the water

51:43department um when we've been talking

51:45about these sites and other sites we own

51:47in that neighborhood. Um we'll continue

51:49to do so as we build this property with

51:51as you mentioned, we'll work with uh

51:53city departments to make sure we're

51:55doing everything

51:56um we possibly can to prevent from, you

51:59know, adding any more

52:01uh you know, challenges that

52:03neighborhood and

52:04uh you know, I do think actually having

52:06a house there in some ways can, you

52:08know, sometimes keep people from

52:10speeding as much. A vacant lot sometimes

52:12can be actually conducive to people

52:13wanting to speed by. Um as I said, the

52:16lot is staked out. You can take a look

52:17at it yourself and see that there is

52:19still quite a dis- distance from the

52:21intersection. Um

52:22visually at least it's really not uh an

52:25impediment to people trying to drive

52:27through there.

52:28Thank you.

52:33>> I was just going to um

52:34I appreciate the traffic issues. A lot

52:36of neighborhoods have this problem. I

52:38But there is that al- alternate thinking

52:40that if sight lines are a little more

52:42reduced, people will slow down because

52:45they don't know what's coming.

52:46So, you know, there are two sides

52:49to the argument.

52:52>> I am not participating in any

52:53discussion. I'll let you guys

52:54deliberate.

52:55>> Do we know what the width of what the

52:57previous house was?

53:00>> We don't have this stuff. I can provide

53:02more detail later when we go back to

53:04check the demolition permit.

53:07>> Is that helpful to

53:09just what the width of the original

53:10house was compared to this. Cuz I mean

53:12this house isn't really wide enough.

53:14You know, adding

53:16how much wider is it comparatively?

53:21And moving the house even 2 ft further

53:24to the west, I mean, is that something

53:26that would make

53:27uh

53:32You know what the slope would be, I mean

53:38>> [clears throat]

53:40>> It's a 2-ft drop over 7 ft,

53:43right?

53:46Over 14 ft, sorry. 2-ft drop over 14 ft.

54:11>> Is this a rendition

54:13of what the house is going to look like?

54:15>> Yes.

54:16>> Yes.

54:22>> And the finished ground elevation

54:24uh elevation at the front corner towards

54:27Monticello is actually below the

54:30street at the property line, is that

54:32right?

54:36Oh, it's 0.7. Okay.

54:38Yeah, never mind. It's 0.7.

54:50So, I just wonder with in terms of the

54:51drainage issue, whether something could

54:53be accommodated between the existing

54:54sidewalk and the edge of

54:56Monticello Drive.

54:58DPW I think has put in um

55:01number of these

55:03rain gardens. I don't know if there's a

55:04Is there a

55:06combined sewer system there that I'm

55:07presuming it could go into the

55:09>> It's a possibility. You know, that's

55:11something we can discuss with the city

55:12departments as we're moving forward.

55:15Um anything we can do to help alleviate

55:17that problem.

55:20>> Um I just want to note that I I

55:21recognize the

55:23the issues of the community, but I don't

55:25see how the setback is this particular

55:29request for the setback is

55:32impactful to the other broader issues.

55:35>> Um just to echo what John said in

55:36regards to um traffic. Um

55:40something does need to be done. I don't

55:42know if it's for this board to handle or

55:44uh it's for the planning board and

55:47the engineering department to work out

55:48uh cuz these are obviously broader

55:50issues that

55:51hit this neighborhood

55:53uh more than other neighborhoods

55:54sometimes. Um

55:57So, I do find this application slightly

55:59difficult in that regard.

56:05I would feel I would feel as though we

56:06can run through the

56:08>> I I would just agree with I think the

56:10city

56:11>> [clears throat]

56:11>> ought to do something

56:12in to the extent that they can about the

56:15issues with the traffic, but I'm not

56:16sure that existing traffic issues should

56:19place a burden on uh proposal

56:22for this project.

56:27>> Is there a four-way stop or a two-way

56:30stop?

56:31Three-way.

56:34And is there's no obstruction with trees

56:37or anything else of that?

56:40Okay.

56:43All right. And there's no obstruction.

56:49None. Okay.

57:11>> This the driveway this model was made

57:14before

57:16when the project first started, it was

57:18on the spreadsheet. It was there before

57:21they looked at the site.

57:23So,

57:24I think that's an issue I think about

57:26with the hardship that it's kind of

57:28created a hardship by choosing a model

57:30that's even bigger. It's a bigger than

57:32the other one.

57:32>> We're coming up on 2:00 and

57:35I think that I'll let the board members

57:36deliberate the

57:37>> Well, yes, I just wanted to bring that

57:39up that there there are other options

57:42with manufactured homes

57:44and and other models that could be used

57:46and this was chosen way before

57:49they looked in the site in detail, so.

57:57>> Before

57:57>> With the the setbacks as proposed on

58:00either side, 14 ft and 10 ft on the

58:02other is typical of um that street.

58:06Orlando Street. Is that or is that out

58:08of the norm?

58:15Oh, the setbacks that you're proposing

58:17not just only on Monticello but on the

58:18other side, the west side, too, is

58:20pretty typical of the spacing between

58:22houses on that street.

58:23>> requirements, yeah, on our

58:26Orlando.

58:27You know what I mean on

58:28Orlando.

58:31But it looks

58:32so

58:33I'm just wondering whether yeah, it

58:35it will be similar at least I'm thinking

58:36the next door neighbor it'll come out to

58:39a similar lot.

58:39>> coverage is similar, too.

58:41>> And the lot coverage is within zoning.

58:44>> Yes.

58:46>> Yeah, if I think for that reason, I

58:47don't necessarily see a negative impact

58:49to neighborhood character.

58:52Um

58:58as far as uh

59:00the feasibility of alternatives, um

59:04I think there's there's cost impacts

59:07with with some of the possibilities

59:09there that were discussed. I think, you

59:11know,

59:12I'd be curious for you guys' thoughts on

59:13this one. Um

59:15Uh

59:16I for substantiality, I think because

59:18there's some similarity to other

59:19setbacks on it, I don't see this as

59:21particularly substantial.

59:23Um

59:24it when it comes to adverse effect,

59:27I tend to feel

59:30that

59:31in this case, the city reviews are

59:34particularly powerful. Um

59:36You know, engineering things, folks that

59:38have really studied this issue that that

59:40I tend to feel

59:42that they are best to make that decision

59:44in in this case.

59:46Um and then I think self-created

59:48difficult analysis, I kind of agree

59:49always.

59:51Um and and to your point.

59:54You know.

59:55>> Uh

59:57just to mention on the on the fence

59:58issue. If they were to add the fence,

1:00:00that the

1:00:02setback on the fence would be such that

1:00:04it revert back to the 25, not

1:00:08where the new establishment of the house

1:00:09is.

1:00:10You'd still have to go back to the 25 ft

1:00:12for front yard setback on a fence. And

1:00:14they'd have to come back if they wanted

1:00:16a fence that was closer to the road.

1:00:18>> Hypothetically, if the buyer wants to

1:00:20build a house

1:00:20>> Hypothetically, yes.

1:00:21>> Yes.

1:00:39>> Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca

1:00:41Baker. I work for the city of Syracuse

1:00:43zoning administration. Just to clarify

1:00:45the question the board member asked

1:00:47regarding the front setback and fencing.

1:00:49After a primary structure is established

1:00:52on a lot, we divert back to Article 7

1:00:55Section 7.4A definitions to define front

1:00:59setback based on the existing structure.

1:01:01Um so, if there is not a structure, we

1:01:04have to look at the rule of measurement,

1:01:06which is a separate separate a separate

1:01:08section of code in which we are

1:01:10identifying reference lots to define

1:01:13each setback relative to the street uh

1:01:16the corner. So, there are two different

1:01:18setbacks set by different reference lots

1:01:22on each street [snorts] way. So, once a

1:01:24primary structure is built, the setback

1:01:26then is established based on the

1:01:28foremost portion of the facade of that

1:01:30structure. Um eaves that hang over are

1:01:33not included. It's We usually go by the

1:01:35foundation line.

1:01:37>> Thank you for the clarification.

1:01:39>> And uh before the board makes any sort

1:01:42of

1:01:44uh determination, I would recommend

1:01:46going through, you know, whether you

1:01:48think, you know, for all five, whether

1:01:50you think the applicant meets them or

1:01:52not, just so we have it on the record.

1:02:00>> I didn't

1:02:01elaborate any more on uh those or

1:02:03>> I think you hit pretty good points on

1:02:05it.

1:02:06>> I Yeah, I think I mean, in I think with

1:02:09neighborhood character, I think there

1:02:10are setbacks in this neighborhood that

1:02:12are are similar. Um I think the house

1:02:14build is not all that different than

1:02:16than many that exist currently. I don't

1:02:18see substantial negative

1:02:20uh

1:02:20negative neighborhood character impact.

1:02:23Um

1:02:24I think there's there is a potential

1:02:25value add, especially if, you know,

1:02:28the builder and the city continue to

1:02:29work with the neighbors.

1:02:31Um feasibility of alternatives, I do

1:02:33feel the applicant went through some of

1:02:35the cost constraints uh related to what

1:02:38it would take to literally kind of

1:02:39reshape this this lot.

1:02:42Um

1:02:44for

1:02:45substantiality,

1:02:47um

1:02:50you know, quantitatively,

1:02:52I I think it is um

1:02:55uh I think, you know, it's it's

1:02:57substantial. Uh I think as far as

1:03:00adverse effect, I I

1:03:02don't think that there is one

1:03:04necessarily on um traffic. It sounds

1:03:07like there's a a challenge with traffic

1:03:09that exists currently that I hope the

1:03:10city will address um to the extent that

1:03:12they can, but I don't necessarily see

1:03:16this house contributing to it further.

1:03:18Um

1:03:19uh I also think that as far as adverse

1:03:21effect, there's city reviews coming that

1:03:24um if there is one substantial enough to

1:03:26kind of warrant this project

1:03:28not worthy of of taking place, I would

1:03:30hope that, you know, the those uh

1:03:32specialists would would make that

1:03:34determination. I'm not sure that I see

1:03:36that in in what's been presented to us.

1:03:39Um

1:03:39and I think with self-created difficulty

1:03:41analysis,

1:03:42um I think it it is because there are

1:03:45you know, different things that could be

1:03:46done. So, for me, I do find that three

1:03:49of the five pass

1:03:51personally.

1:03:52>> I concur with the the same assessment.

1:03:55Um I I There are issues here that are

1:03:58broader than the application itself um

1:04:01that need to be addressed. Um how this

1:04:03board can address these issues with this

1:04:06application, um

1:04:08I find uh

1:04:10difficult and non-feasible.

1:04:12Um

1:04:17>> I would motion to approve. Um

1:04:19are there uh

1:04:22>> Conditions?

1:04:23>> Conditions.

1:04:24>> Yes, the condition.

1:04:27Two conditions there.

1:04:28>> Uh if the board thinks it's necessary to

1:04:31add the condition for the fence, you can

1:04:33do do to do that now in the certain

1:04:35feed. Um but it will be just, you know,

1:04:38based on the discussion.

1:04:40Um

1:04:45I don't know. That was will be just two.

1:04:47All right.

1:04:47>> I I would motion to approve and include

1:04:51uh conditions one and two listed by the

1:04:52staff that proposed single unit

1:04:54residential building shall maintain a

1:04:56minimum front setback of 10 ft along

1:04:58North Monticello, and

1:05:00that the prior to issuance of the

1:05:03building permit, the applicant shall

1:05:04obtain approval of a zoning

1:05:05administrator adjustment for the

1:05:07proposed structural coverage of 31.7

1:05:10exceeding the maximum permitted 30% in

1:05:12the R1 zone district,

1:05:14or revise the site plan to comply with

1:05:16the applicable structural coverage

1:05:17requirement.

1:05:21>> Question.

1:05:22condition one, is that not what

1:05:25we're

1:05:26ruling on? It's not really a condition,

1:05:28that is the variance.

1:05:30>> It is a condition like if

1:05:32any further like the site plan that it's

1:05:36proposing any close to the property line

1:05:39and that require your approval. You only

1:05:41approve for the 10 ft. If they are like

1:05:44doing 9 ft and that require your

1:05:46additional approval.

1:05:48>> Closer to Monticello. Right.

1:05:51>> Cuz that's encroach more to front

1:05:53setback.

1:05:54>> I understand that, but would they not

1:05:56wouldn't that mean they'd have to come

1:05:58back before us anyway because of this

1:05:59ruling here?

1:06:00>> add this as a conditions.

1:06:01>> Okay.

1:06:02All right.

1:06:06>> I think it's just redundant.

1:06:07>> Yeah, yeah. Oh, that's what I was

1:06:09>> [laughter]

1:06:09>> But not conflicting, so

1:06:10>> Correct.

1:06:15>> Nate, uh

1:06:16let me just ask one more question. I

1:06:19heard that the neighbors were saying

1:06:21that uh

1:06:23there wasn't enough notice

1:06:26given.

1:06:27Was there enough notice given uh

1:06:30concerning the meeting?

1:06:32Uh the building that was going to go

1:06:35into that neighborhood, etc.

1:06:38>> Um so by law we send the notices 10 day

1:06:42before the public meeting.

1:06:44>> And you did send it to

1:06:45>> This our department that our zoning

1:06:48assistant here and uh we cooperated.

1:06:51And with the update on the website too,

1:06:53um as applicant I believe they do put

1:06:56the post the notice

1:06:58on the property as a huge signage.

1:07:02>> Okay. The signage was on 10 10 days

1:07:04before.

1:07:05>> Yeah.

1:07:05>> Yeah.

1:07:07>> And the land bank will continue to work

1:07:09with the neighborhood to ensure that uh

1:07:15when that creating

1:07:18flooding conditions which will need to

1:07:20build some type of wall.

1:07:22Right?

1:07:24>> Did you say arc?

1:07:25>> Arc, yes.

1:07:28I did say that.

1:07:31No pun intended, but I

1:07:33I'm just concerned uh

1:07:36that uh

1:07:37I I love the project. I love the house.

1:07:41I love where it's going, but I want to

1:07:43at the same time uh try not to impact

1:07:47the neighborhood or the neighbors as

1:07:48much as possible.

1:07:50And uh

1:07:52just from past experience, I just know

1:07:55that the land bank really takes these

1:07:57things into consideration.

1:08:00Is my assumption correct?

1:08:03>> Yes.

1:08:05I have a procedural question because

1:08:07we're a board of six people. There are

1:08:08five of us here, but I'm recusing

1:08:10myself, so there are four voting.

1:08:12Do we need a majority of the full board

1:08:13to vote yes in order for this to pass?

1:08:16So, we would have to have all four

1:08:17voting people vote yes.

1:08:20>> I would just argue it's in our best

1:08:21interest also. We're going to be selling

1:08:22this to a a new homeowner, and we want

1:08:25to obviously make sure they have a house

1:08:27that's going to be, you know, brand new,

1:08:29low maintenance, and we don't want to

1:08:30saddle them with any of these kind of

1:08:32problems, either. So, like I said, we'll

1:08:33do whatever we can to make sure that we

1:08:36you know, contribute to improving this

1:08:39neighborhood.

1:08:41>> James made a motion.

1:08:42>> I'll second the motion with the

1:08:45conditions.

1:08:47>> All in favor?

1:08:49>> Aye.

1:08:50Aye.

1:08:51>> Any opposed?

1:08:53No abstentions?

1:08:55Motion passes.

1:08:58There will be additional city reviews

1:08:59separate of the project.

1:09:02>> This is off. I'm hesitant to speak at

1:09:04all.

1:09:05Right, so this isn't the final This is

1:09:07This is about the

1:09:08setbacks and the zoning.

1:09:10>> the construction, all the same standards

1:09:12does um building permit.

1:09:16>> All right, that being all of our new

1:09:17business, do we have a motion to

1:09:18adjourn?

1:09:19>> I make a motion that we adjourn.

1:09:21>> All in favor?

1:09:22>> Aye.

1:09:23>> All right, meeting a turn.

1:09:25[clears throat] Thank you.

```*