[00:01:15]
OKAY. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. IT IS NOW 6 P.M.
[Opening]
OR A MINUTE AFTER. AND I'D LIKE TO WELCOME TO THE CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.MY NAME IS KAREN HARDY AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
WITH ME IS OUR BZA ATTORNEY, JESSE HAMMOCK, AND WE HAVE THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, MATT KOCZYNSKI, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, CATHERINE MCCULLEY, AND VICE CHAIR BEN BUTLER AND MEMBER ERIC SMITH.
IT'S THE DUTY OF THIS BOARD TO HEAR AND MAKE DECISIONS FOR APPLICATIONS MADE FOR VARIANCES, SPECIAL USE, EXCEPTIONS AND APPEALS. FIRST, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR CASE AFTER TAKING THE OATH.
THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM PROPONENTS, FOLLOWED BY OPPONENTS AFTER THE OATH HAS BEEN TAKEN.
THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS HAS BEEN STATED FOR THE RECORD. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT TONIGHT BUT, ONCE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN HEARD AND QUESTIONS ANSWERED, THE APPLICANT MAY DELIVER A CLOSING STATEMENT BEFORE THE BOARD BEGINS DELIBERATION.
DURING THIS TIME, NO ONE FROM THE AUDIENCE MAY SPEAK UNLESS THE BOARD NEEDS CLARIFICATION.
AND WHILE EVERY EFFORT IS MADE TO REACH A DECISION, THE NIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY IS HEARD.
SOMETIMES IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, AND A CONTINUANCE MAY BE GRANTED.
WELL, I'M GOING TO DO THAT AFTER I READ THE, READ IN THE ACTUAL APPEALS APPLICATION DOCUMENT.
[Public Hearing: Mark & Lisa Marianelli-Variance No. 25-0025]
OCTOBER 21ST AT 6 P.M.. AS WE ARE HERE, WE KNOW THAT.THE APPLICATION NO. IS 25-0025. AND IT'S A REQUEST BY MARK AND LISA MARIANELLI FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT 103 SQUARE FOOT SUNROOM ADDITION OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO WITHIN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA 100-FOOT BUFFER AND A 20 BY 30 POLE BUILDING THAT WILL EXCEED THE CRITICAL AREA.
YEAH, THE CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA LOT COVERAGE LIMIT.
SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 23260 HOLLY PARK DR, PRESTON, MARYLAND, AND IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS TAX MAP 41, GRID 9 AND PARCEL 98, LOT 5. AND MATT, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO READ INTO THE THE RECORDS.
THE. YEAH THE EXHIBITS AND THEN FOLLOWED BY THE, YOUR COMMENTARY.
EXHIBIT NO. 2 IS THE STAFF REPORT. EXHIBIT NO..
3 IS THE APPLICATION. EXHIBIT NO. 4 IS THE SITE PLAN.
EXHIBIT NO. 5 IS THE SUNROOM CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
EXHIBIT NO. 6 ARE THE GARAGE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
EXHIBIT NO. 7 IS THE MARINELLI PERMIT DENIAL LETTER.
EXHIBIT NO. 8 IS THE CRITICAL AREA LOT COVERAGE DETERMINATION LETTER.
EXHIBIT 9 IS THE VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE.
EXHIBIT 10 IS THE WATER AND SEWER VERIFICATION.
EXHIBIT 11 IS THE AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT 14 IS THE SIGNPOSTING AFFIDAVIT AND PHOTOS.
EXHIBIT 15 IS THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT TAXATION TAX MAP.
EXHIBIT 16 IS THE APPLICANT NOTICE. AND THEN WE HAVE.
[00:05:07]
17. OKAY. WE ALL HAVE COPIES OF THAT. AND THEN WE HAVE APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TONIGHT.WE'LL DO APPLICANT EXHIBIT NO. 1 IS THE PICTURES THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
3 IS A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 FROM CARL AND LAUREL KOZIOL. DO WE DO WE HAVE TO VOTE IF WE WANT TO DO THIS, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO TAKE THEM, THE 3 EXHIBITS? YOU CAN VOTE TO ACCEPT THEM, INTO EXHIBITS.
BUT THOSE WOULD BE THE EXHIBIT NUMBERS IF THEY'RE ACCEPTED. YOU GUYS OKAY WITH IT? I'M OKAY WITH IT.
ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE.
SECOND ADDITIONAL. THANK YOU. 3 EXHIBIT. OKAY.
WHAT ABOUT THE LATTER. DO WE HAVE THE OR NO, THAT'S ALREADY IN.
THAT WAS IN. IT WAS. WELL IT WAS BEYOND THE TIME.
BUT IT'S ALSO. WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE IT IN.
OKAY. SO EXHIBIT 17, CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION REVIEW LETTER.
YEAH, I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT.
I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.
AYE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO WITH THAT. ALRIGHTY NOW.
THE STAFF REVIEW, RIGHT? YES. OKAY, SO AS PREVIOUSLY STATED MARK AND LISA MARIANELLI HAVE REQUESTED A VARIANCE FOR DISTURBANCE TO THE CRITICAL AREA BUFFER AS WELL AS VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE CHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA LOT COVERAGE LIMIT OF 15%.
SO THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT A VARIANCE APPROVAL WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR BOTH THE PROPOSED ADDITION AS WELL AS THE POLE BUILDING PRIOR TO ANY ISSUANCE OF A ZONING CERTIFICATE. BRENDA MULLANEY, THE APPLICANT'S AGENT, REQUESTED THAT THE COUNTY DETERMINE WHAT LOT COVERAGE COULD BE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NONCONFORMING OR LEGALLY DEVELOPED. LEGALLY DEVELOPED AS OUTLINED IN THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND.
IT MEANS THAT ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO A PROPERTY EXISTED BEFORE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL PROGRAM, OR WERE PROPERLY PERMANENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL PROGRAM AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE POLICIES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
SO THE COUNTY'S LOCAL PROGRAM WAS ADOPTED AND BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST OF 1990.
SO ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS AT THE TIME WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGALLY DEVELOPED OR LEGALLY GRANDFATHERED. SO AFTER THAT REVIEW PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINED THAT EVERYTHING ON SITE FOR LOT COVERAGE WAS DETERMINED TO BE LEGALLY DEVELOPED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EXISTING SHED, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED.
ANY QUESTIONS ERIC? NO, I HAVE NONE. I HAVE NONE.
I GUESS WE'LL WAIT TILL AFTER WE HEAR THE TESTIMONY.
AND NOW I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE EVERYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE OATH.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK, EVEN IF YOU DON'T THINK YOU MIGHT, BUT YOU END UP, IT'S JUST BETTER IF WE DO IT.
SO DO YOU HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THAT THE STATEMENT YOU MAKE AND THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? OKAY.
IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
ELIZABETH FINK WITH FINK, WHITTEN AND ASSOCIATES AT 113 EAST DOVER STREET IN EASTON, MARYLAND, 21601. THANK YOU. BRENDAN MULLANEY. MCALLISTER, DETAR, SHOWALTER & WALKER, 100 NORTHWEST STREET,
[00:10:03]
EASTON. MARK MARIANELLI, 23260 HOLLY PARK DRIVE, PRESTON.OKAY. LISA MARIANELLI, 23260, HOLLY PARK DRIVE, PRESTON.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU BEGIN.
VERY GOOD. THANKS FOR GETTING TOGETHER TONIGHT.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT I THINK IS A COUPLE YEARS IN THE MAKING NOW.
THE MARIANELLI'S BOUGHT THIS WATERFRONT PROPERTY, AND IN AUGUST OF 2020, THEY APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO PUT AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE GARAGE STRUCTURE, STORAGE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY AND THE COUNTY LOOKED AT AERIALS AND DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE SOME NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS OUT THERE.
THEY CALLED ELIZABETH AND I AND ENGAGED US TO SORT OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHAT WAS LEGAL, PERMITTED, ETC. AND WE SUBMITTED A ZONING VERIFICATION REQUEST TO THE COUNTY ASKING PLANNING AND CODES TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT WAS OUT THERE WAS INSTALLED BEFORE THE CRITICAL AREA LAW WAS ADOPTED, WHICH MEANS IT CAN REMAIN EVEN IF IT VIOLATES WHAT THE CRITICAL AREA LAW WOULD ALLOW TODAY. THE LETTER THAT WE GOT FROM PLANNING AND CODES CONFIRMED THAT ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY WERE PERMITTED, EXCEPT FOR THE SHED. AND IN REVIEWING THE HISTORIC AERIALS, WHAT WE DISCOVERED WAS PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS HAD INSTALLED TWO SHEDS ON THE PROPERTY.
WE BELIEVE THAT THEY PREDATED CRITICAL AREA LAW.
HOWEVER, BEFORE THE MARIANELLI'S BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THOSE SHEDS WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THIS SHED THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW THAT WAS INSTALLED AFTER THE CRITICAL AREA LAW WAS ADOPTED, SO THE EXISTING SHED IS DEEMED TO BE AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE.
THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW NOT AN INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S A RECONFIGURATION OF LOT COVERAGE IN THE CRITICAL AREA.
AND THE SECOND REQUEST IS VARIANCE APPROVAL TO ALLOW A VERTICAL IMPROVEMENT OF A SUNROOM ABOVE AN EXISTING PATIO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE SITE, BUT WE TOOK SOME PHOTOGRAPHS, AND I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THESE JUST SO YOU CAN.
I THINK IT ALWAYS HELPS TO HAVE A GOOD VISUAL OF WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF THE BOARD.
THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH IS OF THE EXISTING SHED.
THAT SHED IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED TO THE WEST FROM WHERE IT IS TODAY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ENLARGED OR OTHERWISE ALTERED, BUT IT IS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED TO, TO ACT AS A, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY, ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPH IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STREET SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
SO THEY NEED ADDITIONAL VEHICLES STORAGE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY STORAGE, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THE REQUEST AND THE NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL 600-FOOT STRUCTURE THAT'S PROPOSED. THE NEXT TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING PATIO ON THE WATER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
WHAT'S PROPOSED AS THIS VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW IS TO LEAVE THE FOOTPRINT OF THAT PATIO, WHICH IS EXISTING LEGAL GRANDFATHERED LOT COVERAGE AND PUT A ROOM ON TOP OF IT.
AND THE REASON THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT AN INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE, THE REASON THAT YOU NEED A VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THE HOUSE, IS TECHNICALLY MOVING CLOSER TO THE WATER.
THE PROPOSED SUNROOM WOULD NOT GO ANY CLOSER TOWARDS THE WATER THAN THE PATIO AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
SO IT'S JUST BUILDING ON TOP OF THE PATIO AND THE LOT COVERAGE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE MARIANELLI'S BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 2020 AND APPLIED FOR BUILDING PERMITS, THINKING THAT EVERYTHING WAS COPACETIC AND THAT THEY WERE DOING EVERYTHING ABOVE BOARD AND GETTING EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEEDED. PRIOR PROPERTY OWNERS CREATED THESE ISSUES.
THE HOUSE, BECAUSE IT WAS INSTALLED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CRITICAL AREA LAW, IS PARTIALLY WITHIN THE BUFFER, BUT AGAIN, IT CAN BE LOCATED THERE AND CAN EXIST THERE.
MOVING FORWARD, BECAUSE IT WAS INSTALLED BEFORE CRITICAL AREA LAW WAS ADOPTED.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RURAL AND IS WITHIN THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AREA LDA OF THE CRITICAL AREA.
[00:15:04]
IT IS 42,263FT², SO IT'S ONLY 0.97 ACRES. THE LIMITATION FROM A LOT COVERAGE PERSPECTIVE IN THE LDA IS A 15% LOT COVERAGE.AND TODAY THE EXISTING LEGAL GRANDFATHERED LOT COVERAGE IS 17.9%.
SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE AT ALL.
THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION SHOWS A PORTION OF DRIVEWAY AREA ON THE SOUTHERN PART, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS INSTALLED PARTIALLY ON THE ADJACENT OWNER'S PROPERTY ACROSS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS GOING TO BE REMOVED.
SO THAT'S REMOVAL IS WHAT'S GOING TO OFFSET THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 600FT².
IT IS GOING TO BE A GARAGE AND ACCESSORY STORAGE TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE SHED THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO RELOCATE IS 179FT².
AND I THINK AS PART OF YOUR APPROVAL, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU VOTE ON BOTH OF THE VARIANCES TONIGHT SEPARATELY, BECAUSE ONE IS SPECIFIC TO THE SUNROOM AND THE OTHER ONE IS SPECIFIC TO THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE LOT COVERAGE ON THE FRONT END.
I, I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU ALL A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND I KNOW THAT WELL, I THINK THAT WHAT'S CUSTOMARY IS FOR YOU ALL TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE CRITERIA ONE BY ONE, WHICH ESPECIALLY FOR TWO VARIANCE APPLICATIONS AND OR VARIANCE REQUESTS.
AND I THINK NINE DIFFERENT CRITERION CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CUMBERSOME.
I WOULD OFFER THAT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. AND DEFER TO YOUR COUNSEL, OF COURSE, THAT IT IS POSSIBLE IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE LEGAL NARRATIVE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED WITH THEIR APPLICATION, IT IS LEGALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD TO ADOPT THOSE FACTS AND THAT WRITTEN TESTIMONY IN YOUR APPROVAL, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TONIGHT SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY ONE OF THE CRITERIA. BUT AGAIN, WHATEVER YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH BRIEFLY EACH OF THE VARIANT STANDARDS THAT THE BOARD HAS TO CONSIDER AND FIND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL.
A LOT OF THESE OVERLAP. AND THEN I'M GOING TO TALK SOME ABOUT THE LETTER FROM THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION THAT I BELIEVE THE COUNTY RECEIVED ON FRIDAY. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED LATE LAST NIGHT, AND I BELIEVE YOUR COUNCIL RECEIVED THIS AFTERNOON.
I THINK IT WAS MAYBE A SURPRISE TO EVERYBODY, BUT I WANT TO TALK THROUGH THAT LETTER AND AND THE WAY THAT WE BELIEVE THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER THAT AND MOVE THIS PROPOSAL FORWARD.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE NINE CRITERIA QUICKLY, AND I'LL JUST ADDRESS EACH OF THEM ONE BY ONE INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH BOTH APPLICATIONS, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY. THE FIRST CRITERION IS THAT STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CODE WOULD PRODUCE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. IF THE CODE WERE STRICTLY APPLIED, IT WOULD DEPRIVE THE MARIANELLI'S OF WHAT WE SEE AS A VERY REASONABLE IMPROVEMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT PROPERTY ON BOTH FRONTS.
ON THE LOT COVERAGE PIECE OF THE APPLICATION, THEY'RE PROPOSING A PRETTY MODEST 600 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE AND STORAGE BUILDING. IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE CRITICAL AREA BUFFER AWAY FROM THE WATER, AND IS GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT THAT THE EXISTING SHED IS ON.
THE HARDSHIP THAT EXISTS HERE THAT IS DRIVING THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCES IS IS TWOFOLD.
ONE, THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 0.97 ACRES AND IS A LONG, NARROW RECTANGULAR SHAPE GENERALLY.
[00:20:01]
IMPROVEMENT WITH THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, THE GARAGE.THE SECOND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT THE HOUSE IS ALREADY PARTIALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE BUFFER, WHICH WE CAN'T CHANGE. THE MARINELLI'S BOUGHT IT IN 2020.
IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY BEFORE THE CRITICAL AREA LAW WAS ADOPTED.
THE EXISTING PATIO IS LOT COVERAGE THAT IS ALREADY ON THE WATER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
WHAT'S PROPOSED IS JUST A VERTICAL EXPANSION ON TOP OF THAT PATIO.
AS I'VE SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW, ALL OF THIS PREDATES CRITICAL AREA LAW, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A REASONABLE IMPROVEMENT ON WHAT IS A CURRENTLY NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICAL LOT COVERAGE.
THE NEXT CRITERION IS THAT THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE INTENT OF THE ZONING CHAPTER, AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THE PUBLIC WELFARE.
WE SUBMITTED TWO LETTERS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANYBODY HERE IN OPPOSITION.
I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, AND RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST THAT DOESN'T PLACE ANY BURDEN ON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE IS TO ALLOW REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY BY PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND THIS IS A HISTORICALLY A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH RESIDENTIAL USE ON IT.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A RECONFIGURATION OF LOT COVERAGE AND VERTICAL EXPANSION OF A PATIO, SO THAT THERE'S AN ENCLOSED SUNROOM SO THAT THERE'S MORE REASONABLE USE OF THE LOT COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT EXISTS.
SO THE QUICK ANSWER TO THIS IS EVEN IF THERE WAS A REASONABLE CHANGE TO THE COUNTY CODE, THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. HERE IT'S DRIVEN BY STATE LAW, WHICH YOU CAN'T GET AROUND.
HOWEVER, THIS IS A PROPERTY SPECIFIC HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC LOT COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION AND SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT IS A UNIQUE HARDSHIP THAT IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY A GENERAL CHANGE TO THE CODE WOULD NOT ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP.
THE NEXT CRITERION IS THAT THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM TO AFFORD RELIEF.
AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR A MODEST 600 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS GOING TO HOUSE AND PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND VEHICLES. IT IS, WE BELIEVE, THE MINIMUM THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THEM TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THEIR FAMILY. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, IS THERE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? AND IF SO, EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS. THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP CANNOT BE REASON ALONE FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL.
THE PRACTICAL PIECE OF THIS, FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT THEY HAVE A NEED TO THE MARINELLI'S HAVE A NEED TO PROTECT THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THEIR VEHICLES. SO IN IN LIGHT OF, YOU KNOW, THAT RESPECTIVE THERE IS A FINANCIAL NATURAL PEACE HERE, BUT IT'S NOT A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT'S REALLY DRIVING THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.
THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE SAME LOT COVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE AMOUNT FOR DECADES SINCE CRITICAL AREA LAW WAS ADOPTED. AND IN A MOMENT WHEN WE TALK THROUGH THE WHEN WE TALK THROUGH THE VARIANCE, I'M SORRY, THE CRITICAL AREA LETTER WE'RE GOING TO I'M GOING TO TALK THROUGH MITIGATION AND THE WAY THAT WE BELIEVE THE BOARD CAN APPROACH WHAT MAY BE AN APPROVAL TONIGHT.
THERE'S NO INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT RESULTS FROM THE APPLICATION.
IF THE APPLICATION INVOLVES A NONCONFORMING LOT OF RECORD, EXPLAIN HOW IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECONFIGURE OR CONSOLIDATE LOT SO AS TO PERMIT COMPLIANCE. PROPERTY IS JUST UNDER AN ACRE. THE APPLICANTS DON'T OWN ANY CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT LOTS THAT CAN BE RECONFIGURED TO ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE THAT'S REQUESTED. SO ALL OF THAT SAID, I BELIEVE THAT THE SUNROOM REQUEST IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
[00:25:02]
THERE'S AN EXISTING PATIO THAT'S IN THE BUFFER.AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION.
THEY WORKED WITH THE MARIANELLI'S ALLIES TO TRY TO GET ALL OF THIS SORTED OUT.
AND WITH THE CRITICAL AREA LETTER SAYS, IS BEFORE WE CAN GET THE RELIEF THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS, THE COUNTY HAS TO FIND THEM AND BRING AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THEM.
WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, AND I NEED THE MARION ALLIES TO CONFIRM THAT THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
THIS WAS A SURPRISE TO EVERYBODY WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, AND WE'RE HERE TO SORT IT OUT, BUT ONE POSSIBILITY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE RECONFIGURATION REQUEST WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, WHICH AGAIN IS NO NET INCREASE IN LOT COVERAGE AND ALLOW THE SHED TO BE RELOCATED ON THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER.
AND IF IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE MARIANELLI'S, WE WOULD BE, I BELIEVE, WILLING TO MITIGATE, SUBMIT A MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT THE CRITICAL AREA LETTER SAYS THEY WANT, SUBMIT A MITIGATION PLAN TO PLANNING AND CODES AND MITIGATE ON SITE FOR THE LOT COVERAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ILLEGAL SHED.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT SATISFIES THE CONCERNS OF THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION.
THEY WANT TO SEE AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PROPERTY AND MITIGATION FOR THAT LOT COVERAGE, I THINK, WOULD, WOULD ACCOMMODATE AND ACCOMPLISH THAT.
THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION LETTER SAYS THAT THE COUNTY SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IN THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT THE BOARD SHOULDN'T APPROVE IT. I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS INCORRECT.
THEY JUST SENT THE LETTER TO US IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. I WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AND THE MARINELLI'S WOULD AGREE TO THAT MITIGATION, MAKE THAT VOTE, BUT ALSO TO AVOID THE NEED FOR US TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, I WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD ALSO VOTES TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE APPLICATION WITHOUT THE SHED RELOCATION.
AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS IF THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION RAISES ISSUE WITH THIS, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE LOT COVERAGE RELOCATION ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE SHED.
WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD, AND WE DON'T NEED TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU AND WASTE, NOT WASTE, SPEND ANOTHER NIGHT TALKING ABOUT IT. THE SAME APPLICATION ON THE SAME MERITS.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT APPROACH? MR. HAMMOCK, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO LEND ANY INSIGHT OR THOUGHTS ON THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IT COVERS EVERYTHING. IT WOULD ALLOW US TO GET AN APPROVAL FOR THIS REASONABLE REQUEST, ADDRESS THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION'S CONCERNS BY WAY OF MITIGATION OF THE SHED SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND DEAL WITH THIS IN ONE SWING OF THE BAT. BY MITIGATION, YOU MEAN TAKING ANOTHER 200 SQUARE FOOT SOMEWHERE.
AROUND THE WATER. I THINK OUR ATTORNEY WANTS TO.
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM JESSE. FRANKLY, I, MY APPROACH I TOOK A LOOK AND I THINK I ALMOST COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MR. MULLANEY'S APPROACH. FIRST OF ALL, NOBODY WANTS TO COME BACK.
RIGHT. IF WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT IN ONE NIGHT.
I TOTALLY AGREE. THAT I THINK WOULD BE PREFERABLE FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
MOVE YOUR MIC AROUND, JESSE, SO IT'S, BECAUSE I'M AFRAID YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HEARD. THANK YOU.
SELDOM IS THAT THE CASE. SO WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION, THERE ARE TWO SUBSECTIONS OF COMAR.
THAT IS THE REGULATION THAT THE STATE ENACTED.
[00:30:01]
IT SAID THAT THE LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT ACCEPT AN APPLICATION.THAT'S THE FIRST PROHIBITION, IF YOU WILL. AND THE SECOND PROHIBITION IS THAT THE LOCAL JURISDICTION MAY NOT ISSUE A PERMIT, MAY NOT ACCEPT THE APPLICATION. THAT HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN.
THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE MARIANELLI'S WAS NOT TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHED, SO THAT'S NEITHER OF THE TWO VARIANCE APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO DO THAT.
RIGHT. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THE PROHIBITIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ACTUAL PROHIBITIONS, AGAIN, IT SAYS MAY AND NOT SHALL UNDER A WOULD APPLY.
UNDER B, AND I THINK THIS GOES TO THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH THAT MR. MULLANEY IS SUGGESTING IS THAT, AGAIN, IT SOUNDS IN MAY IT MAY NOT ISSUE A PERMIT.
AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT MITIGATION AND RESTORATION.
IN THEORY, IF THE BOARD WERE INCLINED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, YOU COULD APPROVE IT, I THINK, ON THE ALTERNATIVE THAT IT IS APPROVED WITH THE SHED BEING MOVED AND MITIGATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THERE IS NO MITIGATION IN THE SHED IS REMOVED. RIGHT. THAT WOULD, IF THE SHED WAS REMOVED, THERE WOULD BE NO ILLEGAL STRUCTURE AND THERE WOULD BE NO REQUEST TO LEGALIZE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. THE COMBER PROVISION IS NOT IMPLICATED.
RIGHT. THE MOVE AND MITIGATE, I THINK, WOULD ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE CRITICAL AREA COMAR PROVISION AND THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION LETTER IS REQUESTING WITHOUT OBLIGATING THEM TO DO ALL OF THAT AND THEN COME BACK AND ASK FOR PERMISSION FOR THE VARIANCE, WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN THIS MITIGATION PLAN IN HOPES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET A VARIANCE, PERHAPS ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WOULDN'T. SO I THINK MR. MULLANEY'S PROPOSAL IS REASONABLE, AND IT WOULD, IF THE BOARD WAS INCLINED TO APPROVE IT WOULD SAVE EVERYBODY A LOT OF TIME AND SOME MONEY.
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. MATT, DO YOU KNOW? I DON'T. I JUST, NOT WITH THE DELIBERATION YET, BUT JUST THE WAY THAT IT'S PRESENTED, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT TONIGHT. I DON'T EITHER. NO, I DON'T KNOW. OKAY.
BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHY NOT GET RID OF THE SHED TOTALLY? IF YOU'RE APPROVED FOR THE OTHER STUFF, WHY NOT JUST GET RID OF IT? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S NOT EVEN 200FT². MAYBE THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR MATT, BUT.
SO THIS SHED'S LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FOOT. IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY TO BE PERMITTED.
RIGHT. IT'S NOT, IT'S OUTSIDE THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER.
NO, IT'S THE LOT COVERAGE. IT'S THE LOT. I UNDERSTAND.
EVEN THOUGH A BUILDING PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED, WE STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH LOT COVERAGE.
AND THEY DIDN'T. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS DIDN'T. BUT THE DIFFICULT THING.
WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WHO WOULD TELL YOU THAT? BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR A PERMIT, I GO UP BY PUTTING IN A YARD. YOU SEE. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU'D BE SURPRISED HOW MANY PEOPLE CALL IN AND ASK.
YEAH, RIGHT. BECAUSE LARRY IS. BUT THE ONES THAT DON'T.
NOW, YOU CAN'T BLAME THEM BECAUSE THEY. LOOK, IT'S VERY HARD TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED, ASKING THE QUESTION. BECAUSE, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET IT PERMITTED, I'D GO OUT THERE AND BUY A SHED I PUT IN MY YARD. THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW IT'S THERE IS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO DO AN ADDITION TO BUILD A BUILDING, OTHERWISE. BUT THEN I'M LOOKING AT IT TOO, THESE PEOPLE PURCHASED A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY BOUGHT THAT SHED, AND NOW WAS THE COUNTY WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT. BUT THEY COULD GET RID OF IT IF THEY GOT THE POLE SHED, IF WE APPROVED IT. RIGHT I UNDERSTAND. AND WE'RE I MEAN, WE'RE FIGHTING. THOSE ARE THINGS WE CAN DELIBERATE ON.
BUT LET'S GET BACK TO THE SITUATION AT HAND. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE FOR JESSE? SHOULD WE? I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO ATTACK THIS IN A MANNER THAT GIVES THEM THE ANSWERS.
AND ONE HIT HERE TONIGHT RATHER THAN HAVING TO COME BACK.
AND THEN I THINK ULTIMATELY YOU'VE GIVEN YOUR SHARE OF THINGS.
AND THEN WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND PROCEED. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S, IF YOU WANT TO PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN AND SHOW WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
AND I MEAN, I SAW THIS, BUT I MEAN, WE'VE GOT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WITH WHERE THE HOUSE SITS AND,
[00:35:03]
YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT TO GO OVER OR REVIEW WITH THAT PART OF IT OR HAVE THEM SPEAK ON THEIR ISSUE AND WHATEVER, BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS 600 SQUARE FOOT SITUATION.BUT I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S MINIMUM NECESSARY SEEMS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE FOR MINIMUM NECESSARY, IN MY OPINION. BUT PURPOSES OF EFFICIENCY, IF I MIGHT.
TO SOME DEGREE, THE LOW HANGING FRUIT MAY BE THE LITTLE PATIO ON THE BACK.
THERE AREN'T CONTINGENCIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE WITH REGARD TO THAT.
IT MAY BE MOST EFFICIENT. TO START WITH THAT.
START WITH THAT FIRST. OKAY I AGREE. YEAH. LET'S DO THAT OKAY.
ALRIGHTY. SO LET'S GET DOWN TO THAT. AND YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH SHOWN US WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND WE KIND OF IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY. THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT.
BUT IF WE NEED TO ASK WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK UNLESS.
BUT I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME LOT COVERAGE WISE.
AND WHY DID MY COMPUTER GO BLANK? OKAY. NEVER MIND HERE IT IS.
LOT COVERAGE WISE, YOU'RE NOT INCREASING ANYTHING.
SO THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME, A ROOF NOW, HAS THAT BEEN, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SITUATION, IS THAT AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS FURTHER MATT? NO. NO, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY SPEAKING THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO ADDRESS WATER MANAGEMENT FOR THAT ADDITION.
OKAY. IS LESS THAN 5000FT². PERFECT. JUST WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION.
AS FAR AS THAT GOES, THAT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY.
SUNROOM SITTING OVER AN EXISTING AREA. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT? DO YOU? I DON'T, I DON'T, NO. ALL RIGHT. SO WE, SO I, JUST BASED ON THAT, I'M LEANING TOWARDS SAYING I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE SUNROOM.
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, NOR DO I. OKAY.
SO WE CAN PROCEED BY JUST LETTING YOU FINISH UP AND WE CAN VOTE ON THAT.
AND THEN WE CAN MOVE TO THE SHED AND THE AND THE POLE BARN SECOND SECONDARILY.
IS THAT POSSIBLE? IS THAT THE WAY WE SHOULD DO IT? YOU CAN TAKE IT IN EITHER ORDER YOU WANT. I THINK THE NON-CONTROVERSIAL BEFORE THE CONTROVERSIAL.
MAKES IT MORE SENSIBLE. TO ME IT DOES. I DEFER TO THE APPLICANT AND THE BOARD.
THAT THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE TO ADD TO THAT.
THE APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED INCLUDES ALL THE ALL THE DETAIL.
AND I'VE WALKED THROUGH THE LEGAL CRITERIA AGAIN.
AGAIN ARE IN WRITING IN YOUR IN YOUR PACKAGES.
SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE CAN ELIZABETH CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL.
WELL I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO THAT IF YOU READY.
SO YES, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED. EXHIBIT 3 INDICATES THAT.
AND WE'RE HOLDING THIS LOVELY HEARING RIGHT NOW.
EXHIBIT 1 WAS THE ADVERTISEMENT NOTICE ON 10/8 AND 10/15.
EXHIBIT 13 WAS THE PROOF OF MAILING. EXHIBIT 14 WAS THE SIGN POSTED AFFIDAVIT.
WHAT IS THERE? NO, THERE IS NO SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
HOW ABOUT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF SUCH REQUIREMENT POSING A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? WELL, OBVIOUSLY. THIS IS EXISTING BEFORE CRITICAL AREA.
AND ENFORCING THIS KEEPS THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO ENJOY, YOU KNOW, A YEAR ROUND SITUATION.
SO I THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY IN THIS SITUATION WITH IT BEING BEING SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THE CRITICAL AREA CAME INTO PLAY, I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT ADDING ANY MORE LOT COVERAGE.
RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE NAME, THE NAME OF THE GAME THERE.
AND IF IT'S IS SUCH, SUCH DIFFICULTY A RESULT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT GENERALLY SHARED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT OR IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IS THERE SOMETHING PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY, STRUCTURE OR BUILDING FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED? WELL, AS BRENDA POINTED OUT, IT IS, IT IS KIND OF A IT IS A LONG, NARROW KIND OF LOT.
AND THERE'S ONLY SO MANY AREAS YOU CAN DO THIS.
SO I THINK THAT WORKS THAT ONE OUT. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.
AND THEN MAYBE IT WAS AN ACRE AND IT'S ERODED.
NO, I MEAN, THIS IS ALL, THE HOUSE WAS PREDATED THE CRITICAL AREA.
[00:40:06]
SO I THINK WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE WITH THAT. IS THE VARIANCE GRANTED THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF? WELL, IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME PIECE OF, SAME SIZE AS WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.SO IT IS THE IT IS EXACTLY WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD WE MAKE IT SMALLER? WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT THE WAY THAT IT IS, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR IT TO BE BIGGER, WHICH I THINK IS A BIG PART OF THAT ONE. IS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING CHAPTER AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THE PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY.
AGAIN, THERE'S TWO EXHIBITS, THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT, 2 AND 3, THAT THE NEIGHBORS SUPPORT IT, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE OPPOSING IT, SO THAT KIND OF SATISFIES THAT.
IS THE CONDITION, SITUATION OR INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY CONCERN NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRING OF NATURE TO MAKE PRACTICABLE A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CHAPTER? AGAIN, IT'S A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE FACT THAT IT PREDATES, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE REGULATIONS. SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.
WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THAT SOME, THE PATIO OUT BACK.
130FT². WHAT WAS THE DIMENSIONS? WAS IT? 20 BY SOMETHING.
NO, NO, THAT'S THE. THAT'S THE SHED, OR THE SHED.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 7 FOOT 10 AND 5/8 BY 12FT.
OKAY. SO IT'S LITTLE. OKAY. ABOUT 12. OKAY. AND THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP REALLY DOESN'T APPLY.
IF APPROVED, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR SAFEGUARDS? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING EXTRA WE WOULD NEED ON THAT PORTION OF IT? I THINK APPROVING IT AS IS IS FINE. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO.
BESIDES, THEY HAVE TO GO FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND DO ALL THE THINGS THAT WOULD ENTAIL.
SO DO YOU GOT ANY MORE QUESTIONS, ERIC? NO, NOT IN REGARDS TO THAT ONE.
NO. I WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION ON THIS. OKAY. JUST ON THE ON JUST THE SUNROOM.
[Motion #1]
ON THE PATIO. YEAH. OKAY, SO. I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE TO, FOR THE ADDITION OF THE EXISTING 7 FOOT BY 10 INCH BY 12 FOOT SUN PATIO NOT TO EXCEED THAT DIMENSION.WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANY CONDITIONS, SO WE'RE GOOD.
YEAH. SO JUST THAT IT MEETS THE. HERE WE GO. SO I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THAT 7 FOOT 10, 12 FOOT BY 12 FOOT AND A A BUILDING PERMIT AND ZONING CERTIFICATE WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE BUFFER MANAGEMENT PLAN. OUR DECISION WILL BE VOID ONE YEAR FROM TODAY'S DATE, UNLESS A PLAQUE IS RECORDED AND OR ZONING CERTIFICATE OR BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN HAS BEGUN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS DECISION. I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE.
OKAY, SO THAT PART IS PASSED. YEP. SHE GOT HERS.
NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOURS. ALL RIGHT. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANY OF THE OTHER STUFF, RIGHT? NO, I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE HIT IT. AND THOSE A LOT OF THOSE KIND OF WALK HAND IN HAND.
ALL RIGHT. SO NOW SO NOW WE NEED TO GET DOWN TO THE REST OF THIS JOURNEY.
SO IF I COULD. PLEASE. I'M GOING TO HAVE ELIZABETH KIND OF WALK THROUGH THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY BEING PROPOSED SO THAT WE CAN ORIENT YOU IN THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN YOUR PACKAGES. THAT WOULD BE LOVELY. YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF THIS, RIGHT? CORRECT. WELL, IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN. WE HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN AND WE HAVE IT ON OUR COMPUTER.
ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL HAVE ELIZABETH JUST WALK THROUGH THAT AND THEN I'LL HAVE THE MARIANELLI'S AS THE APPLICANT JUST TALK THROUGH THEIR INTENDED USE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. I DO JUST WANT TO NOTE THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT 600FT² AND WHAT'S REASONABLE AS FAR AS SIZE IS CONCERNED.
TO PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE. AND I DIDN'T COME ARMED WITH THE AVERAGE GARAGE SIZE IN THE US OR IN CAROLINE COUNTY, BUT 20 BY 30FT, THE AVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PARKING SPACE ARE 9 FEET BY 18FT.
[00:45:04]
SO THIS IS A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH ENOUGH STORAGE AROUND THE SIDES OF THOSE PARKING STALLS TO BE ABLE TO STORE SOME PERSONAL PROPERTY.THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR MR. BUTLER ABOUT WHY THE NEED TO KEEP THE EXISTING SHED, REALLY TWOFOLD IS THE MARIANELLI'S BELIEVE THAT THEY NEED, THEY KNOW THAT THEY NEED THE ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE FOR THEIR USE OF THE PROPERTY.
ALSO, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT THAT HAS VALUE. SO KEEPING IT TO THEM HAS HAS VALUE.
IT'S ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY, ET-CETERA. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.
SO TWO GARAGE DOORS. THERE ISN'T A LOT OF SPACE IN THE WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE.
SO THIS IS REALLY A TWO CAR GARAGE IS WHAT'S IS WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED.
THERE IS A MAN SIZED DOOR ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
BUT THIS 20FT BY 30FT REALLY IS TWO 9-FOOT-WIDE PARKING SPACES WITH SOME STORAGE SPACE ON THE SIDE OF THOSE, WHICH IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH A TWO-CAR GARAGE, WHICH THEY'RE CERTAINLY ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND ALL OVER THE COUNTY.
BUT, ELIZABETH, IF YOU COULD GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED JUST SO THE BOARD CAN GET ORIENTED, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SURE. SO WE WENT OUT AND DID A PINPOINT AND DID AN EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND STARTED WITH JUST EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND THEN WORKED WITH ME TO LOOK AT THEIR BUILDING PLANS AND FIGURE OUT WHERE, WHERE DO WE WANT TO PUT THIS. AND WE WORKED SOME DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WITH THE GARAGE.
SO THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THIS LOCATION. AND BECAUSE WE KNEW LOT COVERAGE WAS AN ISSUE I WORKED, IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME IN CAD, BUT I KEPT WORKING TO TRY TO FIND A NET ZERO GAIN SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH LOT COVERAGE.
AND AS FAR AS MOVING THE EXISTING SHED I JUST MADE SURE THAT IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE WELL SETBACK.
SUBMITTED EVERYTHING TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WOULD GET AN IMPROVED WATER SEWER VERIFICATION, WHICH YOU HAVE. AND BASICALLY THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE.
WHERE IS THE SRA? THAT WAS MY. THERE IS NONE.
THERE IS NONE. AND LINDEN, I TALKED TO LINDEN WEBB ABOUT THIS, AND HE SAID, BECAUSE THIS IS A GARAGE AND THERE IS NO LIVING SPACE, THEN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN SRID ESTABLISHED.
BUT SHOULD THIS EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM FAIL AT SOME POINT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO THAT.
AND WE DID TALK ABOUT AREAS FOR THAT. OKAY. BUT I DON'T SEE IT PLOTTED OUT IN ANY IN ANY CAPACITY.
SO I MEAN, IS THIS IS THIS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IF THEY DO NEED TO? I MEAN, I KNOW HOW SEPTICS WORK AND I KNOW THAT THAT THERE'S GOING TO COME A TIME THIS IS AN OLDER PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ESTABLISHED IT IS, BUT WHERE IS THAT GOING TO GO ON THIS PROPERTY? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF TREE LINE AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHERE IS THAT GOING TO? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE SO BLASÉ ABOUT THAT.
WELL, I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF THE SAME IN ORBIT.
I MEAN, IF, IF YOU'RE ADDING A THAT'S NOT CONDITIONED SPACE AND NOT FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO ESTABLISH A SEWAGE RESERVE, SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA. OKAY. IT'S JUST THE RULE.
SO HE DID SAY IN THE FUTURE THEY MAY HAVE TO CLEAR SOME TREES, BUT YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO.
YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ESTABLISH A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BECAUSE THIS HOUSE WAS, IS AN OLDER HOUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO ESTABLISH FOR ONE INITIAL AND ONE REPLACEMENT. OKAY. INSTEAD OF THE FULL.
BUT IT COULD BE DONE. OKAY. BUT THERE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME SOME TREES REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY.
DID LINDEN GIVE YOU A SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THAT, BY ANY CHANCE? HE DID NOT. OKAY. IT WAS JUST YOU KNOW, ELIZABETH, I'M GOING TO THIS.
[00:50:03]
AND I SAID. AND DID HE SAY THAT AN SDA WOULD HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED OR THEY MAY HAVE TO REPAIR THE SEPTIC BECAUSE I DON'T, IF THE SEPTIC. REPAIRS CAN ALWAYS BE MADE, BUT SOMETIMES THEY SHUT THEM DOWN AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM PUT IN.HE INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY NEED TO ESTABLISH AN SRA AT SUCH TIME.
THIS FAILS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T REPLACE IT IN THE SAME AREA.
RIGHT. YEAH. SO THERE'S SPACE TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE EXISTING SEPTIC LINES.
THERE'S ALSO SPACE ON THE THE EASTERN SIDE TO THE EAST OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
I MEAN, I'M I'M CLEAR ABOUT THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE THIS APPLICATION AND WHAT'S PROPOSED DOES NOT TRIGGER ANY KIND OF SDA CREATION OR REQUIRE PERC TESTING IN THAT PROCESS, BUT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REPAIR THE SYSTEM.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE REALITIES OF OWNING A PARCEL THAT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE ON THE WATER.
IT IS. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. THANKS. BECAUSE THAT WAS LIKE.
THANKS FOR THE CLARITY. MY MAIN QUESTIONS. SO WHAT IS YOUR HOME CURRENTLY HAS A GARAGE, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO WHAT'S STOPPING YOU FROM USING THE GARAGE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE FOR THAT STORAGE OF AT LEAST ONE CAR.
SO THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE 70S AND IT WAS NOT BUILT FOR ANY CAR THAT YOU DRIVE TODAY.
OKAY. SO IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT A CAR IN THERE.
A 21ST CENTURY CAR IN THAT GARAGE. OKAY, WELL, THAT CLEARS THAT UP.
AND DO AWAY WITH THE SHED COMPLETELY. SO THE CONTENTS THAT ARE IN MY SHED NOW ARE ALL GAS TOOLS.
MY RIDING MOWER, MY WEED WHACKER, ALL THOSE THINGS.
I DON'T WANT THOSE IN MY DWELLING. THEY CREATE A FIRE RISK AND THE ODOR.
SO THEY ARE NOT LOCATED IN THE HOUSE AND THEY CANNOT BE OUT IN THE WEATHER.
SO I STORE THEM CURRENTLY WITH MY CRAB POTS AND LEFTOVER SHINGLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE SHED.
SO IT'S PRETTY GOOD RIGHT NOW. BUT A GARAGE IS ARE SUITABLE FOR STORING GAS POWERED THINGS.
THEY SHOULD BE. THEY ARE. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A WIFE THAT'S VERY SENSITIVE TO SMELLS.
OKAY. I CAN'T STORE A GAS ENGINE AND GAS AS WELL.
AND THAT'S A PERSONAL DECISION. OKAY. OKAY. WE USED TO HAVE A GARAGE WHERE I DID DO THAT.
AND I HAD TO MOVE IT. SO OUR I THINK THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THIS IS OUR SECOND HOME.
OUR FIRST HOME IN HOWARD COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT IS. WE LIVE IN BALTIMORE.
EVERY HALLOWEEN WE BOUGHT HAS HAD A ONE CAR GARAGE BUILT IN THE 70S OR EARLIER.
THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S ONE HOUSE. BUT IT WAS NEVER.
AND WE STORED OUR RIDING MOWER IN THAT GARAGE IN ELLICOTT CITY.
AND I HAD TO MOVE IT FOR EXACTLY THOSE REASONS.
SO WE ARE THAT GARAGE HAS A REFRIGERATOR OR FREEZER.
IT'S GOT MY FISHING POLES IN IT. I MEAN, WE ARE USING IT, BUT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO THIS AND AND MAKE IT MORE LIVABLE FOR US. OKAY. AND THAT GARAGE WHEN WE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY, THE GRANDFATHERING, THAT GARAGE WAS ACTUALLY HAD A SLIDER ON IT. SO PRIOR OWNERS USED IT AS A MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM AND NOT AS A GARAGE.
GOTCHA. OKAY. THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE.
OKAY. YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, THE OTHER ANSWER, THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY ARE WE SO OBSESSED WITH THIS SHED IS, IT'S, IT WAS, WE CONTACTED THE PRIOR OWNERS. WE HAD A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
SO WE'VE BEEN EMAILING WITH THEM OVER THE YEARS.
AND THAT SHED IS FAIRLY NEW. AND TO YOUR POINT, MR. SMITH, WHERE THEY DID CALL THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY SAID YOU CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT THEY DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT.
WE HAVE WRITTEN INFORMATION ON THAT. THAT SHED ITS BRAND NEW.
I KNOW ALL WE'RE DOING HERE IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE.
WHY AM I GOING TO THROW AWAY SOMETHING THAT IS A REALLY GOOD SHAPE? YEAH. THE PICTURES, YOU CAN SEE THE OUTSIDE. THERE'S SOME PEELING THINGS, BUT THE STRUCTURE IS SOUND.
[00:55:06]
RIGHT. SO WHY AM I GOING TO THROW THAT IN A LANDFILL? MAKES SENSE. WELL, THAT THAT HELPS. THAT HELPS.DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO. ERIC. NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
I'VE ASKED ALL MY QUESTIONS. I'M JUST TRYING TO PIECE IT ALL TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO TACKLE THE THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE LOOMING IN FRONT OF US. YEAH. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER, BRENDAN, THAT YOU'D LIKE TO.
NO, I JUST IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REQUEST TO VOTE ON THIS TWICE SHOULD IT HAVE SUPPORT WITH THE THE SHED TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY WITH MITIGATION PLAN RELATED TO THAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO DO IT TWICE THEN. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THEN? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. I'M NOT A FAN OF THE SHED, SO.
I CAN HANDLE THAT HOW YOU WANT. IF I MIGHT ADD ONE MORE THING.
PLEASE. WE ARE. WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS HOME IN 2020, IT WAS DURING COVID.
WE ALWAYS WANTED A WATERFRONT PROPERTY. WE DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THE RULES.
WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A RETREAT, AS YOU ALL KNOW WHAT COVID WAS LIKE.
WE WE DID NOT EXPECT THAT WE WERE GOING TO FALL IN LOVE WITH CAROLINE COUNTY.
AND THESE REQUESTS TO HELP MAKE OUR LIFE EASIER.
WHEN WE FINALLY MAKE THAT TRANSITION, WHICH OUR TRANSITION HAS BEEN DELAYED AS A RESULT OF THESE THINGS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK.
AND SO I'M ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO RESPECT THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHERE A RESIDENT THAT IS ATTEMPTING TO CARVE OUT THE GOLDEN YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THAT THIS WOULD MAKE THAT EXPERIENCE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR US AND WOULD APPRECIATE THAT CONSIDERATION.
ALRIGHTY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR HONESTY AND YOUR PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON IT WITH OR WITHOUT DOING THEM TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
AND YOU SAID THE REASON FOR THAT IS IN CASE THEY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH OUR PROPOSAL.
WELL, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THAT.
ONE, IT GIVES THE MARINELLI'S FLEXIBILITY TO CHOOSE WHICH PATH TO GO DOWN.
OKAY, I GOT YOU. IS TO KEEP THE SHED. RIGHT. AND THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE A MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSES THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION LETTER PROCESS AND PLANTING ON SITE FOR THE CRITICAL AREA.
APPROVAL AS WELL. OKAY. TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU WITH A MODIFIED.
THEY CAN. WHERE ARE WE AT IF THE SHED DISAPPEARED ON LOT COVERAGE? WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE WE AT? IT, YOU DON'T EVEN.
IT'S 170 SQUARE, 179 SQUARE FOOT. SO WE'RE STILL NOT GOING TO GET TO THE 15%.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO IT. AND IT'S SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT, IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO MAKE IT.
IT DOESN'T MAKE, IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT THE OVERALL.
AND BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY TAKING OUT EXCESS DRIVEWAY TO SWAP OUT MAKE IT A ZERO.
BUT THEY'RE JUST REMOVING SOME DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.
AND BASICALLY IT COMES OUT TO ZERO. SO THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY MORE LOT COVERAGE.
AND I HAVE A SHED AND I, AND MY GARAGE HAS TWO CARS, A SUBURBAN IN THE TAHOE AND A TREADMILL AND SOME STORAGE. THE MOWERS, THE LEAF BLOWERS, THE WEED EATERS, THE GAS CANS, THE WHATEVER ELSE IS IN MY LITTLE TINY SHED IN THE BACKYARD.
AND AS THEY WERE SAYING, I, THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD FIT ALL OF THAT STUFF IN THERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MEN LIKE TO HAVE A LOT OF YARD TOOLS.
AND I CAN'T IMAGINE ALL OF THAT FITTING IN MY GARAGE WITH A SUBURBAN AND A TAHOE.
[01:00:03]
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, BUT THERE'S JUST MY, I COULDN'T DO IT.SO I'M JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW. YEAH, I GET IT.
JUST MY OPINION. OKAY. WELL. YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
YOU'RE NOT PULLING A FULL SIZE TRUCK IN EXTENDED CAB, BUT IT'S NOT, THE DOOR IS NOT GOING TO SHUT.
MY TRUCK'S 22FT. IT'S NOT GOING TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
SO I KNOW THAT. BUT YEAH. ANYWAY, WELL, I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE WILL APPROACH THIS AS AT FIRST WE'LL SAY WITH THE SHED STAYING, LET'S VOTE ON THE LET'S GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA WITH THE SHED STAYING AND MITIGATION.
AND THEN WE CAN DO IT WITH THE SHED BEING REMOVED.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. YEAH. YOU DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA BOTH TIMES OKAY? OKAY. UNLESS MR. MULANEY FEELS OTHERWISE. FOR THE RECORD, WE DON'T HAVE TO.
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH IT BOTH TIMES, EITHER.
ONCE THEY CAN SUBMIT, WE CAN JUST ADOPT. ROLL THROUGH THE CRITERIA.
YOU CAN JUST ADOPT THE FINDINGS THAT YOU DID BEFORE. YOU CAN ROLL THROUGH THE CRITERIA, MAKE THE FIRST VOTE, ADOPT THE SAME CRITERIA. MAKE THE SECOND VOTE.
OKAY. ALRIGHTY. SO NOW I'M CONFUSED. I'M LIKE, HOW THE HELL DO I DO THIS? SO WE'RE DOING JUST REGULAR VARIANCE. YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO CRITICAL NO MORE, RIGHT? NO. YEAH, YEAH. WE'RE OUT OF THE CRITICAL AREA.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO. SO DO YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH THEM OR NOT? JUST ONCE. JUST ONCE. OKAY. YES. SO, YEAH. WELL, WE ALREADY KNOW, JUST AS WE HAVE BEFORE, THAT THE WRITTEN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT, EXHIBIT 3. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A DULY ADVERTISED AD ON EXHIBIT 1 ON 10/8 AND 10, 10/8 AND 10/15. AND EXHIBIT 13 WAS THE PROOF OF THE MAILING.
EXHIBIT 14 WAS THE SIGNPOSTING. WHAT IS THERE A SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THIS, BY THE WAY? FOR THE. NO, MA'AM. NO. SO THERE IS BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND, IT'S.
THERE IS A SETBACK REQUIREMENT BUT IT IT'S BEYOND.
WITHIN THE 100-FOOT BUFFER. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THAT OKAY.
CORRECT. AND HOW WOULD THE STRICT APPLICATION OF SUCH REQUIREMENT POSE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? WELL, IF WE DON'T GIVE THEM THIS, THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THEIR CARS OUT OF THE WEATHER.
AND THEIR SHED PROVIDES THEM WITH OBVIOUSLY WITH TOOLS AND THINGS THAT THEY CAN PUT IN THERE.
ADDITIONALLY ANYTHING FURTHER ON THAT THEN, ERIC? NO. NO. AND IS SUCH DIFFICULTY A RESULT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOT GENERALLY SHARED BY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? AND WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT TOO. AGAIN, IT'S THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
IT'S HOW THE HOUSE IS POSITIONED. THERE'S JUST SO MANY THINGS AND THE WAY THAT IT SITS.
THERE'S ONLY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY COULD PUT IT NEAR THEIR HOUSE, I'M SURE THEY WOULD PREFER THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD WORK. IT WAS BUILT IN THE 70S.
YEAH, 70. SO IS SUCH DIFFICULTY THE RESULT OF THE APPLICANT OR THE PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST.
AGAIN, IT IS. IT'S ALL TO DO WITH THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT PREDATES THE ZONING.
IS THE VARIANCE GRANTED THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF? WE'VE HAD A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. I THINK IT COULD BE MINIMIZED FURTHER, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY FURTHER LOT COVERAGE, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THAT.
THAT'S JUST ME. AND WE'LL WEIGH IN ON THAT IN WHEN WE VOTE.
BUT NO. 8 IS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT.
RIGHT. AND IS THE CONDITION, SITUATION OR INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY CONCERNED NOT SO GENERAL OR RECURRING AS IN NATURE AS TO MAKE PRACTICABLE A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CHAPTER, AGAIN, UNIQUE HARDSHIP TO THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ON EVERY LOT.
SO IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CRITICAL AREA? YES.
[01:05:01]
BUT WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT AT CURRENTLY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THAT.THIS IS ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE WE ARE OUT OF THAT.
AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON THAT. RIGHT. RIGHT.
SO ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? AND THIS IS WITH THE SHED OR WITHOUT THE SHED? THIS IS KEEPING THE SHED WITH MITIGATION AND APPROVING THE GARAGE.
I'LL LET ONE OF YOU TWO MAKE A MOTION. THAT'S FINE.
[Motion #2]
I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. SHED WITH MITIGATION. OKAY.[Motion #3]
AND BUILD A NEW SHED AND BUILD WITH THE. WITH THE ZERO.THE ZERO WITH THE 20 BY 30. RIGHT. BUT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SPECIFICS.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN. WHAT WE'RE SAYING. OH, YEAH.
FIND THAT PAGE THAT YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS. OH, YEAH.
I KNOW YOU GOTTA SAY THAT. YOU GOT TO APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.
IT'S A STAFF REPORT. RECOMMENDED ACTION. YES.
IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE. YEP. IF YOU WANT TO READ THAT.
OH, YOU GOT IT RIGHT THERE. HEY, PUT THE APPLICANT NUMBER BECAUSE I DIDN'T.
YES I DIDN'T PUT THAT ON THE FIRST ONE AND I SHOWED UP.
YEAH. JUST READ THE APPLICANT NUMBER. APPLICANT NUMBER IS 25-0025.
IN REGARDS TO APPLICATION 25-0025 I PROPOSE TO ALLOW THE OWNERS
[Motion #4]
TO KEEP THE SHED WITH MITIGATION AND BUILD THE NEW 600 SQUARE FOOT POOL BUILDING WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE FINAL SITE PLAN, APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLETE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND OR ZONING CERTIFICATE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.BUILDING PERMIT AND ZONING CERTIFICATE WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION AND SITE PLAN, AND THIS CAN WILL ONLY BE UP TO ONE YEAR. RIGHT.
I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ONE AGAINST.
I'M A NAY. OKAY. SO TWO IN FAVOR, IT PASSES THE TWO.
NOW WE'LL GO BACK THROUGH AND WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT THOSE SAME THINGS.
AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AGAIN TO APPROVE.
I'LL LET YOU MAKE ANOTHER ONE. YOU DID GOOD. THAT'S YOUR TURN. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT THE SHED, SINCE YOU PREFER IT WITHOUT THE SHED, YOU GET TO MAKE THAT MOTION. HOW ABOUT THAT? ALL RIGHT,
[Motion #5]
SO I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT THE SHED.APPLICATION NUMBER 25-0025. DO I HAVE TO ADD THE OTHER STUFF OR NO.
JUST AS ADOPT AS WE ADOPT IT. AS WE ADOPT IT.
YEAH. THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE BUILDING CODE.
THERE YOU GO. I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALMOST.
OH, YEAH. I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. IN FAVOR? ARE YOU IN FAVOR? NAY. ON THAT ONE. OKAY. NAY ON THAT ONE. OKAY.
SO IT'S 2 TO 1. 2 TO 1. OKAY. WELL THEN THERE WE GO.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH OUR SHENANIGANS.
ALL GOOD. GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. AND THANK YOU FOR MOVING THIS FORWARD TONIGHT. YOU'RE WELCOME. NO PROBLEM. NOT HAVE TO COME BACK AND SEE. I'LL COME SEE YOU ON SOMETHING ELSE. WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE, I'M SURE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DO? NO. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:09.
[Adjournment]
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.