March 12, 2024 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Mine to order. I I'm calling to order. The March twelfth, 2,024 Boza meeting. This is a meeting of the board of zoning adjustment. And actually, tonight, we don't have any items. We're actually here to have a public meeting discussion about some things for city council. So who's in charge? Well, I don't know if you want to do approval of November meeting minutes. You wanna do that now or at the end. Oh, up to you guys. Sorry I forget the order of operation. I'm just, you know. My order is is we can certainly do it. I mean, if that's minutes, though. I miss. I'm sorry. I believe Thomas sent out, and I could be wrong on that. Thomas sent out minutes, and we review it so that we can approve at the end. How does that sound?

[1:05] I actually don't think I think I was under the impression you guys had had the minutes before I put them on the agenda, but I didn't send out the actual file of the minutes. They are really brief, though. I could send those out right now that'd be great. And then I have. One thing I want to say is that I have this tiny possibility of a doctor calling, and I've already missed this call once. So I if I have to go, I'm gonna have. You'll see me mute, and we'll go from there. Thank you. I think Thomas did. I got minutes from the email that she sent out last week? So you actually did send them out. Cause I'm looking at them. And yeah, let's double check. I'll I'll I'll let him double check that. And and also just real quick while we're at it. I, you guys haven't met Thomas Thomas started with us. I'll just introduce him really quick, if that's okay with you all. Thomas Remy is our new board specialist. He's joined the city in December.

[2:16] and so you guys will be seeing him. In all of your meetings from here forward. Hi! Everyone great to meet you. Nice to meet you. I'm not seeing the minutes in my email. So I did get an email from Thomas. And there was a link to the meeting packet. And within that link the packet is where the minutes are found. So well, I'm seeing an email yesterday with the link to the zoom, there was an email last week, though, too. Friday, the eighth at 1 45 pm, about really. Yeah. they're there. I have them. It's in the within the notice just like you said there was a title of that email is 31224 meeting packet.

[3:07] I don't have it. I really don't think I have it. I'll email address separately. I can. I can also share screen. And we can review the minutes together. Yeah, I don't have that email. I'll forward it to you right now. That way we can move on with the agenda. Great. So I think so. Just to provide you get. So we did send out an email just kind of letting you know. I think about the the prompt from City Council. They invited you all to share your top. 2 or 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind. And or the top 2 to 3 items on your

[4:00] groups existing work plan for Council awareness ahead of their annual retreat. So just to get provide a little bit of background and context. Last year Council did not prompt this letter. And so none of the Boards and Commission sent a letter out last year. But typically this annual letter is done in like the December timeframe, because Council typically has their retreat in like late January. But it's a little different this year. So Council is having their annual retreat on April third, and fourth. So that's why we're kind of getting. If, in case you were wondering why this letter is what, why we're asking you about it now, and why the prompt is coming in March. That's just a little bit of background on it. So this time, I know that you guys don't meet very frequently, and so they've asked for this feedback by next Friday, March 22, which I know is not a lot of time for for you guys to to get something put together.

[5:03] And you don't have, you know. But there's not another opportunity to review as as a board altogether. So just as some suggestions the other boards have done since. That may maybe other boards that only meet like monthly, like you guys do. Is to nominate one or 2 board members to to write up this letter. Erin can help me out with just the logistics of you know. You can't like reply, all, and work on it altogether. Otherwise that invokes you know, an open meeting, and we'd have to notice it again. You'd have to so so there's those kinds of rules, too, of not having more than 2 board members conversing at once. so I'm not sure if you guys have thought about this since since that email went out. And if you have some ideas for some of your top items that you'd like to discuss.

[6:03] does it have to be topics pertaining to Boza jurisdiction? Or can it be about anything? That's what I wasn't clear about? II did. I echo that question. Yeah, same. II believe it's generally what you see as a board with your jurisdiction. But, Amanda, I don't know if if there was different directions given this year. because I mean, we could go in many directions like the homeless yeah for starters. I don't know that we're gonna agree right? I think it's generally like the scope of your business as a board. Wh. What are you? What, if anything, are you seeing that you want to make council aware of like I know in the past boards have written about changing the criteria. and the way it was worded was, It's council, has asked all boards, commissions and panels to share top 2 or 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind and or the top. 2 or 3 items on your group's existing work plan. So I think they do want it to be focused on from a Boza mindset.

[7:20] If there is anything that's the other part. it's subjective, too. So yeah, like, it could definitely be a very broad. But I think we've seen many requests to ease parking regulations lately, and where garages, for example, have been converted. In the I don't know 6 lo sixties to eighties, or even even later, and we've been requested to approve

[8:02] approved that variance. I think we could say something towards you know, easing that requirement, maybe, or cause we've approved. We've approved them all the time. Marina. I'm with you. I that was what exactly was on my mind was easing this rule about parking in the front yard setback this people time. Anyway, it's totally not enforced. So it seems ridiculous. Exactly. Yeah. yeah. It was one of my 2 topics as well. What was the other one drew the combined cider setback. But we can get into that later. But yeah, I completely agree. I mean, one of my ideas along those lines. Is, I mean, frankly, the requirement. I think it's 10 feet wide. For a car parking space, and that's just not enough for a garage, anyway.

[9:00] so like we had a I think, in the June meeting. We had one of these questions. If if the person can park in their front yard, they're saying their their garage is just not wide enough to accommodate a car, and it's true it it shouldn't be classified as an existing parking spot. so yeah, I think this is something that should be raised. So I think my question, Katie, do you agree? Are you on board with that? So one question is. who who can write something up? Because I I'm gonna have to decline that role because I'm I'm swamped right now. so is, you know, could Maureen and drew work on a draft of that. It's it's not a lot. I mean, it's really 2 or 3 sentences. And so we would. Just just so we're clear. We would ask

[10:04] to ease parking requirements in front yards. Or is that enough? Or so we could write it. Now, that's the other alternative, because it's really simple. And Erin, you could help us, because we don't probably know the right legal terminology to use that. There's yeah. Robbie's got to stand up. So let's Do. We have an example of our last letter, Thomas or Amanda, because I think that would help us kind of draft whatever we're working towards. But I don't think any of it was parking in the setback, was it? I don't believe so. No. I have one from 2018, one from 2021

[11:02] 21 sounds like our last one. That would have been maybe one of the last ones. This one looks like it's for review. Sounds like they're going with it. So I guess the question is this, Will, would you, Robbie or be able to help us word it out so it's legally, or I don't know. It's per the code, I guess. Oh, yes, let's make you a co-host, Jill. And then I also found a 2022 letter, if that's helpful. so I can share the 2021. You can see what we can see. What it says. Can you see that? Yes.

[12:01] and all my other tabs that are open. so I this still don't for me. I don't have any feeling about writing this introductory paragraph. That was Jack. I just I think I'd just be matter of fact in response to your inquiry, please note the following. and none of this is other than this parking right here. Variance requests. And then do you do you wanna share the the one that's from 2022, Amanda? I mean, it seems to that. Now that I'm reading those the those older letters, it seems that they haven't done anything about anything that we've asked before, so we might as well repeat right. We could repeat what we've asked before.

[13:01] so I think it's better to ask for something specific does when it's general they they can do with it. But if there's something specific that we have in this case, this is specific, just like with ads, it was specific. I think you get a better possibility of seeing something happen. General things. They may think they are addressing all those things. But wasn't the letter you showed? I'm talking about development in in nonconforming lots and using using the requirements on on the. I guess the setback requirements on those. Well, I mean I so what is your question, though? Well, we couldn't a ask again that that they is the setback requirements on nonconforming lots. That's fairly specific, right?

[14:01] I have no problem with it. I just, you know, I think if you're gonna talk about parking. you know, ask. Consider the parking variance parking the front yard set back. There's nothing to do with nonconforming lots. Right? Yes, there, there are 2 separate issues. Yeah. So I don't have any problem myself doing those things. Just have to ask everybody on the board if that's what they feel like they want to bring up. and it sounds like Drew has something else. Katie. Wait any feelings or no, not really And as what we're good it's what what was exactly shown in that letter. I didn't quite read it fast enough. What was the marine? What was the II don't have it either, but I think it was talking about setbacks in for nonconforming lots.

[15:00] It says it is not unusual to find nonconforming residential building lots and residences scattered within the fabric of older boulder neighborhoods. These lots were defined in earlier times, and in some cases were defined prior to current zoning criteria. As boulder evolves, we are seeing a trend of new owners purchasing nonconforming properties with the intent of expanding, remodelling, and improving the original structures many times these improvements require allowing a request for variance through the Bosa process. Variance requests may include approval of non standard setbacks, building heights, density mass, bulk, floor area, solar access and parking. These types of variance requests are complex neighbors can be unduly impacted by the approved structures. It it doesn't. It just bring it to their attention. We do. We feel solutions to these issues. Do not reflect a broader range of goals pursued by city council.

[16:01] I mean to me. It's not really. It has no specifics, right? It doesn't give them any direction. I read it. I'm like. I remember saying, Okay, Jack, whatever you want to write and kinda rolling over on it, cause that was kinda his thing. And I tend to be really pragmatic and really specific when I'm asking for something. Did did city council previously, I mean, is it their practice to respond to any of these letters from the various boards? No, it's more they they take in the information when considering work, plan like, I imagine I I've heard that at some point there may be title 9 revision. So these might be added to the list of things to consider when there is a is a bigger revision going. and I do know that in the past at least quite a few years ago. Sometimes this board would bring up eightyu variances.

[17:05] and more recently, we've had a lot of significant adu. Standard changes to the point where we're not even seeing those variances come in. So that's an example of is the board. I believe in past letters prior to 2020 did bring up eightyu variances, specifically nothing suggesting, you know, this is the way it should be, but just bringing the idea up. And here we are a few years later, and Council has enacted new adu standards. So that's just an example of. Sometimes these topics are brought to their attention, and it evolves into something more substantial. Well, I can think of specific examples with the garage. It's like, Drew said, you know, and South Boulder Martin Acres. I know of 2 houses where the garage is too narrow. I mean, it probably wasn't too narrow, I guess, originally, but now they're like 9 or 10 feet wide, and it's really hard to open a door, and

[18:04] you can do it. If a small, you know so well, you could argue they should have a smaller car, I suppose? and this is one of those complex things where you know the city had this thing, where they're gonna put less garages, and therefore we'll have less cars. I you know this is a philosophical issue where I don't think you can document that offering people less parking spaces reduces their use of cars offering mass transit likely off, you know, that's effective and efficient probably reduces the people dependency on cars. But I don't know. I like people having a place to park. But in those Martin acres track homes they II saw one a couple of weeks ago has no garage at all. and there's plenty of them have no garages so, and no driveway, no place for anybody to park off street, anyway. True. So green.

[19:01] Yeah, I guess I mean, should we just share a screen and and put bullet points to what we want to say? yeah. I don't know. Marine had reached. I don't know. If you want you're you're leaving the board right? I'm I am. No, I'm not. This is my last board meeting of how I didn't even know my term was ending. I think I am. Did you find? Did they find someone I can fill you all in after that may or may not be. we'll see. But anyway, I'm gonna start with the older letter. the 1 4. That one I just read let you know. That's that is the letter. Actually, that I have. Sorry I it does say on it in our files. 20, the 2022 letter, because it was submitted as part of the 2022.

[20:03] Counsel, retreat, and letter to counsel, even though it was dated December 2021. So There might the one before that, I think, was better. I just changed the date. my email, I it just when you boot it up. It took over my screen. I guess maybe as an intro it might be worth just saying what both it does. I bet Council has no idea for most people. I don't know. What do you? What do you think I think they should know, especially since they're appointing now. So they've been reviewing applications. okay. though. Some are. Some are more familiar than others. For sure.

[21:03] Yeah, I don't know that II disagree with Drew. I mean, I think. go ahead. I'm sorry. Well, I just feel like one of the issues. Is that So let me share. Can I share for a second marine? So I have this other letter, and I can always forward it, I guess if I can start from your letter to. I just sent you all the the last 2 years, the 2,021, and the 2,022 letter in your emails into the Boza email. Okay, so this is this, what did you send the 2020? Is that what you're saying? This one? Yes. Sorry that one so. I think this language is better for me. I don't think, we need the second paragraph.

[22:03] but we just said, I mean, please find a response. And then we're probably not adjusting. I mean, I just felt like this letter was more helpful. Okay, so and pointed. we got our answer around. Adu. Is that got taken care of? nobody does the subcommittee, so it won't matter. So I don't know. I mean, it doesn't need to be this long. Yeah. So if you have it, I'll I'll drop it off. But I, you know, Drew, why don't you? Do you wanna give a stab at drafting what you would want to say? Because I thought you said that. Well. on the parting spot.

[23:01] yeah, I mean, I think Maureen, maybe could. Can you write what he says? One sec. Drew. Hold your thoughts. That's okay. Let me share my screen. Okay. so go ahead. would you? yes. you know we've received multiple variance requests. To parking in the front yard setback. at least this year. I mean, I'm going on the board for one year. But but all both of them were unanimously agreed to approve. So let's see a yeah, that's great. And

[24:03] you know. we feel that we can reduce administrative burden by changing these rules to you know. Allow parking in the front yard setback. by right bye, right. You might want to point out that people park in the front yard setback all the time, and there's no enforcement. And II actually met, I was, gonna say, you know, maybe have like a bullet point list of of of yeah. And one of those is that you know people park in the front yard setback. which is actually not allowed. Right, Robby. It's something about if it's a if it's going into a garage or not.

[25:00] Is that correct? That is true and funny thing is, is recently we have completely revised where 80, you specific parking spaces. You can now park in the front yard. So this is actually fresh on councils. Mind the whole idea of parking. So that's this is good timing. But yeah, we still prohibit parking in the front yard that that does not lead to conforming off street parking. which is usually in the way of a garage. Now I I would I would start off with is currently illegal right to park in the front. Then it's 25 feet closest to the curb. The park where. Sorry, Andrew. I guess it depends on the zoning when you're asking a question, too, right at the same. So, so, Robbie, he's asking you to confirm that it's illegal. And I was, I was thinking, sorry of my pause with me, thinking it's more. It's we do not permit for someone to

[26:13] provide their required parking in the front yard setback. It's not that we. It's flat out, illegal to park in your driveway. It's just that that can't count as your required parking. Okay? So so they can't get a ticket. I mean, obviously, no one's getting tickets for this. But yeah. And it's to say that it's not being enforced, I don't know would be completely correct. It's just not something that is easily enforced. I guess you could say because they are enforcing. If somebody reports it, they're gonna go out and look at it and take action accordingly. But everybody's doing it like you said so. It's not something that's unique to the community. So yeah, just the wording, we just wanna be, or you just wanna be careful with how it's worded because the code

[27:03] does allow it for a to use, but not for principal residences. So is that the way I worded it front it said back parking is currently not considered as a conforming parking space. Can you read? I can make that bigger. I don't wanna say parking in the front yard. Landscape setback is currently not not a space that's funny and cannot currently be used as principal parking required principal parking. parking, and cannot currently be used or count towards principal parking requirements.

[28:02] Hmm. so like, I said, they just changed all the adu stuff to where you can park if it's specific to an adu which makes it very hard for us to enforce. Okay? So yeah. And then people would confirm to the new Idus parking requirements. And then people parking the set back. Whether already, I guess so let's see, a driveway is not so. We're not talking about driveways going into garages. Who are we? What my understanding is that it is against the rules to park in a driveway that does not go to a garage in the front yard and setback.

[29:00] So that's which is which is crazy. Is that true. So as it's worded right now for your principle, and I keep saying principle because I'm separating the adu part out of it unless it leads to conforming parking, which usually is in a garage or on the side of the house. Then you're not supposed to park in your driveway if it doesn't lead to conforming parking. So that is correct. Okay, so probably we need that language in there. Yeah. Disney View, if you have conforming parking, you have more parking in your in your driveway. If you don't have conforming parking, you can't park. That's awesome. very true. So we need to kinda explain that and how that doesn't make any sense, because. you know, people do it all the time, anyway. And then

[30:03] and then it prevents people from actually using their property. How they could use it. Okay. I'm gonna take the hold this off right? I don't wanna keep any of this. And maybe, you know, like we could have like a current situation and then potential solutions something like that. like like the your current bullets are the current situation. Yeah.

[31:02] yeah. I think that the EU thing is already enacted. Right? I believe. So. Yeah. there. no, no. The. The bullet point you copy down into solutions. Yeah, that. So you you remove this one. Right. Is that one? Well, I think that's the current situation. Oh. it does conform. Or, yeah, we had to work on work on the wording. No, I think the solution is to align the requirements way do you use? And for principals, right or almost, they could conform to the new ads parking requirements if Council were to

[32:05] move forward with making changes. So what are the changes that we're asking? I guess I would say that should be allowed, I mean, I guess I don't know the consequences of it, I mean, parking in the front yard setback of farmyard landscape setback. So what if we said something like this and Erin may have to help so fundamentally. The only time that this issue comes to the councilor or to Boza is when somebody is trying to modify their existing structure. and cannot meet this issue of providing off street parking outside of the landscape setback.

[33:02] Is that a fair restatement? That's when it comes to us. Yes. however. people are parking in their setback all day long. Whether or not it leads to a garage. it is fundamentally a rule that only comes up when someone wants to make change. But so the question is. is it accomplished? What is the goal? Maybe we approach it from that standpoint? What's the goal of this rule. I mean, I assume it was to try to keep cars off the street. That but I don't know. Robbie is what is the goal. Is it some suburban myth that we won't have any cars out in front of our houses? Is the goal, maybe to lessen the burden of people trying to utilize existing driveways to count towards their parking. I mean cause right now they would have to get a variance to do that.

[34:09] and but as it was mentioned. All the variances, at least recently, that I've gone to Boza have been them doing work to another part of the house that triggered us saying, Well, you gotta meet your parking, and they don't have a garage. We actually have criteria specific to garage conversions because of that. So I think it's more of a maybe, and I'm just speculating at this point, maybe to lessen the burden of people wanting to provide parking on their property by allowing it in driveways or just in the front yard landscape setback in general. And I guess what I'm saying is, it's de facto. It's just not. It's only enforced in the small fraction of people that apply to the city to change their house and the rest of the time everybody parks in their driveway all day long.

[35:01] so II guess they probably go back to parking in the front yard, set back as soon as they get through. both cause with with enforcement. We don't go around actively looking for people. Parking and dry was even our Enforcement team doesn't do that. It comes through building permits or enforcement cases that are reported and that's why it seems very selective, and there's not a great number of them out there. So I guess that's why is it selective. Is it discriminatory, is it? You know, it just doesn't seem like it's even handed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. It's like. okay, thanks, drew for nodding. II I'm like, how do you say to them? You know, either institute a law that says nobody can park in their driveway or let everybody park in their driveway, and as long as you can have one off street parking spot, regardless of whether it's in the garage in the driveway. I don't know something like that. Does that make sense?

[36:03] Yeah. And I don't think you have to fully bake the solution here. I mean, really, I think what you're trying to do with the letter is the light of fire under council. To realize this is a problem. Be, because you know, anytime someone goes into title 9 for changes. It's a big deal. So it. you know, it's not like they're gonna take a letter and they're gonna pass the ordinance next week with it exactly as you lay it out. So I think, describing the problem and and if you know any solutions that you think might be appropriate. But I but I don't think you have to drill down into the minutia, because honestly, it will have a huge public process to change anything in Title 9, and another solution could be to just reduce the number of required off street parking spaces. Well, it's not specific to the different zone like zoning districts. It's one.

[37:02] So you can't reduce it from one. Yeah. I think what what you're trying to say is maybe reduce having to provide parking in General Street parking. Alright, but I think that's a whole. I think there's a a that actually is a divisive, divisive issue. Right now. It's correct. Well, yes, but as a board, if we agree, we could say whatever we opinion we have. I guess that's what they're asking. They're asking for. In our opinion they're not. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I guess I mean, II personally feel like my neighbors should have the parking spot on their land to take, because not street parking where I live. So like I mean. I guess. I don't agree that there should be 0 requirement everywhere.

[38:04] What's the regulation, Robbie about adding a driveway on your property. Which regulation what's the code saying about adding a driveway? So you, instead of one driveway on on? You can have 1 point of access, one curb, cut and driveway. You have to go through like a special variance process through public works to have 2, and then also, it's preferred that it's taken off the lesser intense streets. So if you have an alley and a street, the city is gonna want you to take it off the alley again. There are like modifications to that that you can take. So right now it's one per property. But that can be modified accordingly. Umhm, okay. So I was thinking, II don't agree that there should be 0 parking. I I'm just, I think what we're trying to go for is that that individual parking can be met either in a garage or by parking in the front yard set back.

[39:07] Maybe that's a simpler way to say it. If you have the garage fine, that's meets it. If you don't have a garage, you don't have a usable garage. If you can demonstrate that. Then you have that single off street parking in the rest in the setback. I don't know what you guys think, but that feels reasonable to me. I do not want to go, for I think I'm understanding Drew to say, you don't want to go for 0 parking. And II agree, right? Okay. yeah. yeah, you still should have some place to park one car working man, parking count requirement. Yeah, I think like the the question, oh, go ahead. Yeah. I think that's fine. I mean, I think that what you're trying to avoid is people parking all their 5 cars in the front yard right? They don't want that.

[40:03] But you know, if you have one or 2 cars, I mean, do you have to put down? You can have one or 2 cars. What if people pour or put a side drive that they can park, on which plenty of people do. I mean, I don't answer this stuff. I'm just throwing it out there. Yeah, yeah, no. I think I think we just need to highlight this to council as something that's not consistently enforced, like, kind of what you're getting at, Jill is that it's not so. I'm fairly enforced. and you know, should should should it be allowed that people can park in their front yard. That's not for us to say. I like that. But yeah. I like using the word lack of consistent see in the law, you know. However. you guys want to say that part. Yeah, I think that's good to highlight. And then, Marin, you'll take out the whole. The second 2 paragraphs of the intro. Right?

[41:05] Yes, it was only relevant to that time period in that letter. Language. No, the first one you can leave the first sentence can stay the second 2 sentences which are right there. You don't want to remind them what those that does, or it says. We adjusted the language of your original topics. Oh, sorry! And we believe that goes out, cause that's not relevant to right now. There you go. Thank you. I just noticed one other thing you have, dear Mayor Weaver and Erin Brockett's the mayor now and then, you know you don't want to change the date March 20. Whatever you're doing. and the editors while you're typing on screen. Right? Yeah. You know, when people look at your screen, you can't actually type it.

[42:02] And this will probably go via email. Right? Yes. but I guess from the from the editing perspective, like, let's say me and marine, or in charge of this, I mean, can we have Aaron and Robby correct it? Or. yeah, usually they send out a final draft anyway, for everybody to look at. So I'm totally fine with that I think it's it's a great place to leave it. It just seems like there's a couple of things in there that Maybe we need to fix. But I guess from the comment earlier, I mean, if they get sent out sent back to all the Board members. But we can't. You can't comment on it again. You can give him your comments. You can give Erin your comments. You can't discuss it with the Board. It it won't, and it won't be me, because I'll be leaving on vacation, and I'm gone for 2 weeks. So usually it's the secret board secretary that does it.

[43:04] So she can send, or he can send it out, and you can reply to him. So it's really not a time for a substantive debate, because you all won't be able to talk as a group about adding things. But if you see a wording issue, or you know that kind of more technical stuff, you could reply back to the secretary and have that corrected. and then the secretary correct it, or the secretary goes back to me and marine to correct it. The secretaries just corrected it, and then sent it on its way to council. So We can change that. III don't know that it's parking count. It's parking the front yard setback. Yeah. Yep. Landscape setback landscape. If you only be technical. Yeah. Landscape setback not building. Yeah.

[44:05] I'm I'm gonna sell that I like it. Thank you, guys. We'll we'll polish it. Andrew, Drew Andrew. Hey? What do you to tell us, Robbie? What's up? Wait! Are you? Did you have anything else drew side yard. Yeah. So the other. The other item I had. That from just from the last year is the combined side yard setback rules where you have, you know, an old house in front, and then someone's putting an addition on the back where the addition of the combined side you're set back is with the addition plus the front house. I guess I could. I could go into detail on it if you guys are interested in bringing this up or not where they cross over that weird rule.

[45:05] Yeah, yeah, it's where it's where they cross over and it creates the variance requests, where often I feel like it could probably be administrative variance, variance, request. When the the new addition is in the shadow of the front house. I think I think the rule is supposed to prevent. you know, kind of like the crisscross where the addition is kind of offset from the the front house. But the yeah, I there's been a lot of various requests related to this. And I, they, you know, usually get approved. So anyway, how's my my other potential topic? But but maybe this is. do detailed Robbie. Do you have a comment about that? So it is the combined side. I call it the crisscross rule the combined side yard setback, which is the combination of both setbacks.

[46:06] needs to be no less than 15 feet. So like, Drew said, if you've got a 5 foot setback. if you do an addition, the opposite setback has to be 10 feet, and that's in addition to the minimum setback requirements. So we do currently allow that to be done administrative as long as it hits that 20 threshold, which is the same for any variance, if it's 20% or less. Staff can look at it. So is maybe a a suggestion, maybe to make it more administrative, cap, more capability administratively to make it not 20, then maybe more or just get rid of the combined requirement. I mean, there's a lot of options that could be suggested. Yeah, I mean, my idea was, you know, if it's in the shadow of the front house. Which II you know I don't fully know the intention of that rule. But I believe that's the intention is to avoid

[47:08] yeah, the the addition being offset. So can I suggest what you're you're sort of leaning towards. True. This is really complicated to try to do in one meeting, and we have one shot at this because it was set up this year, and we're already 3 months into the year. So what if we. you know, like they suggest there are things that are in your work plan. We could do one sentence if Robbie can help us craft something. That's one sentence that you know, moving forward, we'd like to look at, and there'd have to be a way to say that, Robby, so that it's efficient because it's really confusing. Otherwise and if not. and then we'd leave it out for now and pick it up, you know. Maybe each time we meet kind of start working a little bit towards how to

[48:05] say it, simply enough that they can understand it, and also point out the complexity which is means delay person. There's no way for them to understand it. Yep. it almost sounds like you. Wanna maybe suggest more leniency on what is essentially a second setback requirement for the property which is kind of punitive to it. Really, historic properties that have a lot of non-standard setbacks, you know. They're closer than they should be, or they have smaller lots. So II definitely think that's a good topic to bring to their attention what specifically they could or want to do with it. That's to be determined. But I mean, II like the idea of you bringing it up, cause it is something that people ask a lot, which is, why are we required to do 2 setbacks? Why do we have 2 side yard setbacks, the combined and the minimum. So, that's I actually think that's a really good topic.

[49:03] So maybe we can say it about as simply as you said it. and people just say people are asking why I'm trying to help you, Maureen. People are asking staff. Why do we have 2 side yard setbacks, and what's the circumstance? So? And one is combined, and one is the right right correct. You've got the minimum like 5 foot, for example. And then you, on top of that, you've got the combined, which is the 15 for both yards we'd like. And just say we'd like to see these rules simplified, or made more clear. I well, II mean, I kind of think they're it's quite clear. actually and then I mean, I think it's both clear and simple. Currently. II just think it creates.

[50:02] Relax the rules being to be relaxed, or something to be less punitive. Is that what you're saying? yes, I mean, I'm trying to avoid administrative burden with the the Bose applications. Right? I'm trying to. I'm trying to reduce the need for variance requests where they get always game approved. That's basically what I'm coming from is like, if it always gets approved, then why have you know all this delaying cost for the applicant. So II think that's overarching is kind of my thinking, like, okay, what? What applications do we always see what always gets approved. Can we change rules to. you know, avoid that application? And so maybe I kind of like what Robbie's getting at is this, maybe is a little too complicated to do right now. Maybe this is on our work plan, something that we can talk about over the coming year at some point, and, you know, have a little diagram next year. That explains it better.

[51:01] Okay, why don't you just say simplified and handled by administration more routinely. And then. yeah. And then that, I think, is that what you were trying to say? And is it staff or administration, Robbie? Well, administrative as we define it, it usually means a staff level when we say administrative. So I guess it's just about wording. Says by staff, okay. by staff, administrative or by staff. Yeah. Mean the same thing. Okay? So that at least gets the door open. Since we know they don't always listen to us, it's sometimes good to just start bringing these topics up. And then maybe we can like, I said, think about it through the year. okay. if that's okay, let's move on. Got a letter to work with there.

[52:00] so Drew, you'll help you'll we'll tackle this, I guess. Nice. I'll I'll send you the link so I can think at this point. It sounds like Drew. It's going to be in your hands right now, but the next step is for you to forward it to Thomas, Amanda and myself. Is that correct? And that's a question II wanna make sure I'm not miss speaking. Well, I think that ties into the fact that this may be marines last meeting. So I think you have to address that piece that you haven't shared with us. But Drew, based on the fact. It's possible that marine won't be here next time. Can you handle finalizing this and getting it to Amanda and the team? Sure. But it's due next Friday. Right? So yes, we need to send it to them by next Friday. I mean, if you think it's in good enough shape right now, send it to them. And if you guys want to clean up the grammar, do it.

[53:06] you know, I think I think it'll take another. And next Friday is being the 20 s or this week next Friday, the twenty-second. Okay, if are we? Good. With that, it's going to. Drew drew will take it onto Amanda. We now, because if that's I'd like to close that matter and move on to approving the minutes and then finding out what else we need to know from staff sound. Good. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes that I think everybody's renewed? Now I'm I make a motion to approve. Thank you, Katie. Second second. all those in favor individually, please, Drew. I wasn't there staying Katie. Hi! Until I so

[54:05] the minutes are now approved from that. and we have matters from the attorney. II have no matters, and I'm going to sign off now because I have a childcare situation that I need to go deal with. But but thank you. See you next month. Robbie, what do we got? Take care, Erin? So not much. But it sounds like we definitely will be having an April meeting to postponed items and a new item. So very likely we'll have items. And then regarding the marine last meeting part. We're still kind of in limbo, because I believe Thursday they make appointments for boards and commissions pending the snowstorm that's moving in, apparently. But we'll know hopefully after Thursday. And correct me. If I'm wrong, Amanda, we might know by as soon as Friday what the status of we had one interview for Boza and if they choose that person, then that person essentially is replacing Maureen.

[55:12] and this will be marine's last meeting. For some reason, if they do not choose this person, it kind of goes to a we reach out to Maureen and say, Would you like to stay on month to month until we can replace that, or they'll open it back up at Midyear for new applications. So that's why I keep saying it's a big, maybe if it's marines live meeting. But we'll know after Thursday. I mean, was the person qualified, or I. We don't know they were, they were qualified. I sat in. I didn't get to partake, but I did sit in on the interviews, so there was just one. So we'll know after Thursday, because it's ultimately Councils decision. And I have not heard anything beyond just knowing that this person's being considered. Okay.

[56:00] well, Marie, I always like to say, cause I might not see you except in some public setting after this. Thank you for your service on the board team, appreciated it, and if you're still here. Great, and if you're not here. wish you the best. Thank you. Hmm! I will provide an update as soon as I know. I promise you that. all of you. Thank you. Are there any other matters from the board? By the way, I didn't say, Hi, Thomas! Hi, Thomas! Nice to meet you. Hi, Jill. Nice to meet you as well. Alright we good. May I adjourn the meeting? Can I just ask Robbie W. What would be the date of that April meeting. April ninth. It's an early one in April. So Tuesday, Tuesday, April ninth. So II probably am gonna have to miss that my husband is having heart surgery the day before. So I expect to be in hospital. If for some reason it goes super well,

[57:10] I may be able to sign on. But I'm just. I'm probably not going to be able to do that one. Okay, thank you. Yeah, definitely focus on. You know the your husband and the healing. But I will probably send out another. This is what we know about the April meeting, and at the end of it. I always ask if you have any anticipated absences, let us know. So. I'll probably ask that again, but just feel free to respond to that email and let us know if it's, you know likely that you're going to be absent. And that's fine. That's understandable. Okay, okay. thank you thanks everybody. Oh, good! Whatever we have left here. Thank you.