June 17, 2025 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] All of our board members looks like we have all of our board members, and at least a couple of people representing the application. So whenever you are ready we can go ahead and start. Awesome. Thank you so much, Robbie. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments tonight. We have one item on our agenda, and before we get to that item, I like to for everyone to introduce themselves, because there are always new people on the phone. And it's always nice to know who is who. So we're going to do a round of introductions. I'd like you to introduce yourself. Please let us know how many years you've lived in Boulder, and something that has made you smile recently. So your name, how long you've been in Boulder and something that has made you smile recently, I will start off going first.st Hi! Y'all. My name is Nikki Mccord. I'm the Bosa chair. I've lived in Boulder for 15 years. and something that made me smile. Recently I saw a fat, happy baby, and I loved seeing a fat, happy baby, and it made me smile. So that's something that made me smile today, and I'm going to throw it on over to Ben, our vice chair.

[1:16] I have been in Boulder about 20 years, and something that made me smile was seeing the creeks running full with the spring runoff. Here. I love that. Thanks for being with us today. Ben, gonna go to Katie. I have lived in Boulder for 18 years, and something that made me smile recently was attending the wedding of one of my college roommates, daughters. It was my 1st friend's kids wedding, and it was very fun. Excellent thanks for sharing that, Katie, and thanks for being with us today. True. Yup Drew Eisenberg. I've been living in Boulder for 17 years. I don't know. Finally, the non purple flowers are showing up so

[2:04] my yard is no longer all purple. Nice to have some variety. Thanks for sharing that Drew. Thanks for being with us today, Sean. Hey? Yeah, I'm Sean Haney. I've lived in Boulder for about 3 years now, and something that made me smile is just how green everything is with all the rain we've been having. Feel like we're in Ireland. Excellent. Thank you so much, and that fits with your name Shawn as well, being in Ireland so. Yeah. Appreciate that. Thanks for being here, Aubrey, can you please introduce yourself? Tell us how long you've been with the city, and something that made you smile recently. All right. So I am, Aubrey Noble. I'm the historic preservation program. Coordinator, landmarks board, secretary, long title. I've been with the city for 3 years as of May 31.st So pretty recently I hit that milestone, and I think the rain today made me smile. It's a beautiful day in Boulder.

[3:07] Excellent. Well, thank you for filling in, Aubrey. It's a pleasure to have you join our board today. Thanks so much, Chris. Can you please introduce yourself. Certainly. So I'm Chris Reynolds. I'm a deputy city attorney. I've been with the city of Boulder for just over 10 years, and I'm happy to be here filling in for deshana something that made me smile recently is we're headed to San Diego this weekend with the kids, and we're surprising them with a visit to Legoland, and they don't know about it. So excited, excited for that. Wow! Take a mental picture of those excited faces that sounds exciting. Thank you so much for filling in as well, Chris. Welcome to our board. Last, but certainly not least, Robbie, please introduce yourself. Thank you, Robbie Weiler. I'm with Boulder planning and development services. I'm also the liaison for the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and I have been with the city for going on 13 years now.

[4:03] so a few of these gray hairs are probably city of Boulder, but I'm proud of that. And then something that made me smile is, I just spent an entire week with my entire family stuck on a big boat in the middle of the ocean, and I'm smiling. So that means things went well. So I was happy to see them. They all live out of state, so it's always nice to see you know family who you don't get to see a whole lot. Yeah, excellent. Well, glad glad that she made it back safely, Robbie, and thanks so much for being with us today as well. All right. Y'all, let's let's dig into it. So of course, we have one item tonight, that item is BOZ, 2, 0 2, 5, 0 0 3. And that's our only item. So on each item staff will present 1st and the applicant second. Then the public will be invited to comment, and the board will discuss. But before we get into that I'm going to ask Aubrey if you will jump in and give us our rules of decorum.

[5:07] Yes. Can you see my screen? Okay. Absolutely. All right. So let's get through these quickly. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes. Please visit our website. And that link is on the screen. And I will go to the next slide. For this meeting you will use the raised hand raised hand function to speak. When it is your turn I will adjust the setting, and then you will see the option to unmute at the bottom.

[6:10] Here are some examples on the screen for you. This is my 1st time reading these rules, so I hope that that was helpful to you all. Excellent. Thank you so much, Aubrey, for that. I'm just going to remind us before we get into the meat of things about our timing. So when we get so what's going to happen 1st is Staff is going to present first.st After that the applicant will present. The applicant will have 15 min in total to present. So if there are multiple people that are presenting for the applicant, you'll need to pull your time, and that time will be limited to 15 min. After that we will have public comment. Each person who is speaking from the public has 3 min, and, Aubrey, I hope I'm not putting you on the spot too much, but Aubrey is going to be our timekeeper, and so Aubrey will be able to let us know when that 15 min is up for the applicant, and when the 3 min is up for each one of our public

[7:13] speakers as well, getting back into the business. I'm going to review our voting rules. So here are the voting rules for Bosa. An affirmative vote of 3 or more board members shall result in passage of the motion. an applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative votes. If the 1st okay, we don't have to do the rehearing. I don't have to read that because we're in our second hearing as well. Okay, so I will read our 3rd point, which is a vote of 2 to one or one to 2 on a motion, shall in all respects be considered a tie, and I'll repeat those rules if we need them. When we get to that point as well.

[8:01] So let's get started. Y'all. And we're gonna get started with Boza case BOZ, 2, 0 2 5, dash 0 0 0 3, and I'm going to ask Staff to go ahead and start the presentation. Please. Okay. And thank you, madam. Chair, this is again, this is docket number Boz, 2,025, 0 0 0 3. The address is 3,002, 1020th Street, and this is a setback variance. This is also a returning item issued a continuance at the April 8, th 2025 Bosa meeting as part of a proposal to recognize and establish recent after the fact or non-permitted additions and construction to the single family home, the applicant is requesting a variance to the rear. East Yard setback standards for a principal structure in the Rl. One zoning district. The rear yard setback variance request is for 2 attached covered patios and an attached single car garage carport.

[9:00] The resulting rear E setback will be approximately 20.2 feet, taken from the closest setback marker to the rear property line. Amongst the 3 additions where 25 feet is required and where approximately 20.2 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified. Section 971. Boulder revised Code 1981. And again, this is a continued item, and the good news is, I believe all 5 of the members here tonight were present at the April meeting. So what I'm gonna do tonight is I will again go through the presentation, probably a little more briefly than last time. and at the end of the presentation I do have the 3 specific variance review criteria that the board. Wanted more information on, so I will touch on those at the very end and have a screen if the board needs to look at those later. But I will again go through this presentation just to kind of provide information, and for those of for those out in the public who were not here for the April meeting. I still wanna kind of let you know what's happening tonight. So with that up on the screen, I have the public comments, both in opposition and support, that were provided after the April meeting and before

[10:14] today. And there were 4 letters of opposition. I have those 4 stars located on the map, and then we also received 6 letters of support, 2 of those our immediate neighbors that are located on the map, and the other 4 are located outside of my map. I didn't want to provide an entire city of boulder map, so I just went on and kept those off the map. But all of these public comments were provided and are provided within the application materials that was posted online, and that the board received via email. So with that I will continue with the application. So a little bit in the way of the zoning information again, it's zoned r. 0 1. The lot size is 9,838 square feet minimum for r. 0, 1 zoning district is about 7. Thou is 7,000 square feet. So this is not a substandard sized lot, and the history there is a little bit of history. With this property the home was permitted and built circuit 1958, with an attached one car garage.

[11:16] a second driveway, and a patio awning. Carport was permitted and built circa 1963. It was labeled as an awning, and was constructed as awning at about 23 feet from the east property line from its southeast corner. and then in A, and then in 2024 last year an Enforcement case was opened in April of last year for work without a permit to the carport and potential interior work. That enforcement case then resulted in a building permit. So it went. There was a process for addressing enforcement cases. It typically, it is, you need to get a permit for whatever was not permitted. That building permit was submitted last August. For a carport to rebuild the carport, and for new patio covers, and through that review which was done by myself for zoning setback issues were found and were presented to the applicant, and the next step is, and was Boz 25, 0 0 0 3. So the enforcement case led to the building. Permit review, and the building permit review led to the

[12:24] variance application that the Board is considering tonight and then existing and proposed building coverage, as well as existing and proposed floor area, are meeting the maximum allowances for the property the size of the construction is not of issue. It's just the setbacks, and then also solar access side yard wall articulation, side yard, bulk, plan, and height are all in compliance. They have. Typically, we would say, we'll review these for compliance once it comes in for a permit. But this has already gone through one round round of review for permit. So it's already been verified that all of these zoning metrics are compliant. It really is just comes down to the setback issues that the Board is considering tonight.

[13:08] And this was presented at the the 1st hearing back in April. And this shows you an idea with the survey of the covered patio, or as it was permitted, awning on the east side of the home, and this is just an aerial view prior to what is out there today, showing where that was. And then the setbacks that the board is considering tonight for continuation setback variance to the rear east yard again, this property has 2 front yards. The west yard is the true front yard. The north yard is a secondary front yard because of the adjacent property to the east front yard, facing the same street. The rear yard is the east yard that the board is considering tonight. And then the south yard is an interior side yard, and the 3 kind of structural elements that the board is considering are labeled there on the screen, and I can come back to this drawing should the board need me to go through these specific numbers again.

[14:08] And then these are some photos, the bottom. Photos highlighted in blue, are from July of 2019, showing the street view of what was there. This is the awning that was permitted. Quite a while ago. At about 23 feet, and the applicant tonight it was wanting to redo this awning. Bring it into kind of today's standards, but at the same time there were 2 other roof covers or sunshades that were added without a permit, so they had to seek a permit, and now they are seeking a setback variance for those 3 structural elements and some of the new materials for the for tonight's meeting provided these photos. This just shows you additional exterior photos of the property, especially the backyard and the visual buffer. Between this property and the property to the east, 2020 grape

[15:03] showing the visual conditions, and then the image on the right was also provided as a part of the revised materials or additional materials, and that shows the prior carport and the dirt yard in the backyard, prior to the landscaping and the fencing and the new structures that you see out there today. and these are some proposed elevations. What is out there today is what this Reflects. And these 2 images are the west front, and then the south the side, south elevation drawings, and then we also have the rear east, which is the upper image, and then the Sec. North, second front drawings of the proposed home. and then these are some 3D. Renderings that were provided by the architect showing all of these elements in 3D. View. And this fence right here is that dividing line between this property and the property to the East 2020 grape.

[16:04] and then, as it was requested by the board at the last meeting, and one of the topics or the items that was brought into question was, what would a buy right or meeting code design look like? So the architect did draw up some buy right? What meeting setback drawings for all 3 of these structural elements? And then the drawings on the right side of the screen show what those look like. and this one in particular. The east elevation is the view from the property to the east, which is 2020 grape, and we can come back to this if needed. and then all of the criteria remains the same. Steph, with the additional information, is still in support and recommending approval of the variance item as it has been presented in particular, these were the 3 criterion that the Board wanted further explanation on from the applicant. So Staff really did focus on these 3 when evaluating, reevaluating our staff recommendation. But it remains the same. We do believe that physical circumstances or conditions for the property

[17:17] cannot reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Is a solar shade structure necessary? No, but a lot of properties, especially in boulder, especially, that get the west facing sun, do have covers over their patios and porches. Those cannot encroach into a rear yard setback. and it is worth noting that even though this property is not small by any means in size, it is a corner lot, and the house, as it was permitted is skewed to where it creates somewhat of a wedge in the backyard. So the more north you go in the backyard, the wider that 20, the wider the buildable area becomes. So because of that, it's hard to construct anything on the south side of the yard, and it's a little easier to build it.

[18:10] construct something on the north side, just because of how the house sits in orientation to the east property line. So with that, we do feel that there are physical circumstances in place. That warrant the approval of the variance application as it has been presented, and then would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. We've heard from neighbors. We've read through all of those public comments. We appreciate the feedback and the what sounds like some neighbor interactions that have occurred since the April meeting. That being said, the applicant did provide some. What would it look like, what would it be like if it was a buy right? Meeting code design? And ultimately it really does not change much of the impact, especially from the east

[19:02] if it was constructed at 23 feet versus 25 feet. So with that, we do feel that H. 5 B. Is being met, and then H. 5 c. Would be the minimum variance to afford relief, and would be the least modification of the provisions of this title. Again, the Carport element is essentially a replacement of what was there just with today's construction standards and the 2 solar covers are not unusual for Boulder. A lot of people have back patios and These smallest of the patio covers the solar shade covers. If it were to meet setbacks it would essentially just be a roof overhang. There would be no room for any sort of weather cover, for from inclement weather. So with that we do feel that it's a modest request. It does meet the May. It is somewhat a minimum variance to afford relief, and that relief is determined by the property owners of 3,200 and 1020th Street.

[20:01] So with that I will hand it back over to the chair, and if you have any questions for me, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Thank you so much, Robbie, for your explanation, and for your staff presentation board does board have. Does the Board have any questions for staff. Katie, please go ahead. Robbie? Just 2 questions quick. One. Can you just remind us what initiated the Enforcement action last fall? and then second, if you could just expand a little bit on your analysis of that. H. 5 B. Criteria about not impairing the enjoyment for the adjacent property. And just you know, you said by right would be 23 feet versus the 25 feet and just sort of

[21:00] just maybe just another sentence or 2 about the staff's thinking about how that isn't really a huge difference. Sure. So this was brought through the Enforcement case by what I assume is a complaint from somebody on the property. I do not know who that is, but typically the city does not go looking for enforcement cases. They have plenty to handle, so those are always reported. And then, once it's reported, then the city can investigate it and look into it. And through that report and later investigation it was found that there was no building permit for the work that was done. So what the Enforcement officer told them to do is, hey? You gotta seek a building. Permit to bring this into compliance, and this is a typical process for an Enforcement case. Through. They did submit in August a building permit, and through that building permit review. It was determined that there were setback issues. so we cannot approve. I was the zoning reviewer on that, so I I was somewhat aware that these were going to come up, and through the building permit I was able to verify that that was, in fact, true. There was no permit, and there were setback issues, so their resolution would be to either change the design

[22:15] through the building permit or to seek a setback variance and then pending tonight's outcome. If it were to be approved, they would then go back to the building permit, and get all of that recognized and ultimately approved. If it was not approved, they would have to redesign and resubmit the building permit to a compliant design. So, and then, when it comes to H. 5 B. With the acoustical consultant that provided that information. I know there were some questions that concerns about the height and the shape and the direction of the especially one of the patio covers, and it was determined that it. even with the current location, a few feet in from the 25 foot marker

[23:03] it does not result in a noise level that exceeds what the city of Boulder would allow. And noise enforcement is typically handled through. I believe the police department. So I'm not as familiar with those cases, but it was kind of evaluated and looked into at the request of the Board in April, that acoustics be kind of considered, and that's what that letter provided within the application touched on. And then also some renderings, especially the renderings of a buy right or meeting code design from the East. If you compare that to what is proposed tonight, there's no visual change. And it's really a difference of a few feet when it comes to the extent of those patio covers encroaching towards 2020 grape to the east. So with that Staff did not feel it was inappropriate for that few extra feet to provide a reasonable space.

[24:01] a covered space for the homeowners, and with the acoustical kind of analysis that was provided, and then also the applicant determining what what would change if it was a buy right staff just felt that H. 5 B. Was still being met, based on all the additional information that was provided. Oh, you're muted. Oh, thank you, thank you. You're welcome. That that's very helpful. Thank you, Katie, any other questions for staff from the board. Okay, seeing none. We are now going to go to the applicant presentation. So, Aubrey, if you can, please let the applicants be promoted. and if you can also give us some representation of the amount of time the applicant has for their presentation.

[25:02] Again, I'll repeat that there's 15 min allotted for the applicant to present, and that is all together. So if there are more than one person presenting. Please limit your total time to 15 min. I'm going to ask that everyone who is going to speak on behalf of the applicant. Please identify yourself. Let us know your 1st and last name as well as your address. If you are the architect, you can give us your business address if you're the applicant, and you can give us your home address. but with that it looks like our applicants are promoted, and you can go ahead and turn your cameras on if you'd like. I see Scott. Click it and then click it here. Okay. okay. And you have a short statement. All right. I see Peggy. And if oh, wait, hold on!

[26:03] Who's the applicant here? Scott is representing me. Okay, fantastic and. And make a Stewart State. Okay. excellent, all right, then go ahead with your 15 min. Thank you so much for being here. Please go ahead. I'm Scott Robinson, with Goldstone. Design group address is 5. 0, 1 Walnut Street in Frederick, Colorado, and I'm representing Peggy Walker, the owner for this post application, and I'm here with our principal architect, Jeff Van Sandy, and we're available to answer any questions that the board may have. And then Peggy is going to be doing a presentation on her behalf. Please go ahead, Peggy. Thank you. Oh, gosh, well, can you hear me? Okay, good. All right. Well, I was going to do a presentation. But 1 point I'd really like to make is that soon after we bought the house we became aware that Boulder was at a much greater risk to storm and fire damage than we realized, and an important reason. We hired lodestone design group was to make the house more livable by designing for increased wind, hail, and fire risks, and I heard somebody comment about how happy they were to get rain right now we're getting a complete thunderstorm, so I hope we don't.

[27:22] I end up having a disconnection. But I understand we have a total of 15 min total. And so I've I've gotten some. I've gotten myself confused. I could read. I could read what I prepared, which were rebuttals to all of Joni Simon's 8 page letter. But I actually feel that fabulous job was done by Robbie representing our needs, and Scott probably will be able to do that, too. And I do want to just point out some of the textings that we did try to communicate with Joan. She indicates that that didn't happen. But

[28:05] on on some of the papers that I submitted the texting, Joni did, wrote, I don't think a meeting is the best use of my time, Joan wrote. I have a busy schedule and commitments, and my lawyer, realtor, and contractor also have busy schedules. and I don't think meeting is the best use of my time. And please don't bother me anymore. And we also wrote some emails to her, saying, we're going to meet with our architect, and she have a representative meet with us. We also wrote to Joni. Peggy, I'm so sorry I don't mean to. Well, I do mean to interrupt you because I am interrupting you because I but I but I do ask if you can focus your testimony and to the application. And so the application is for the variances. The 3 variances that we talked about, as well as the Board's questions as related to.

[29:02] Okay. A 1, 5 C and 5 B, and so. I understand. Thank you. One of the most bothersome questions that you are all faced with is the sound our neighbor is complaining about sound. So we went ahead and contacted wave engineering out of Littleton, Colorado. Their acoustic noise and vibration consultants specializing in architectural acoustics, and the letter that you have was written by a senior acoustical consultant, and he agrees with our architect. and basically he gives information about what the decibel level is at 12 feet from the fence. and he points out that the sound levels from people talking farther away from the property line at the seating area under the sunshade shade will be even lower than the 48 decibel level. And and it's also pointed out that the sunshade will tend to reflect sound to the north, due to its slope, and not directly at the property line, which is, as per what our architect recommended, and they concluded that a reasonable person would not find speech to interfere with or disrupt the conduct of activities at such individual's home.

[30:19] So we did. We did try to use those that architectural rendering to direct sound away from her home toward Grape Avenue. and also in rebuttal to her concern about H. 5 B. Would not substantially or permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment or development of Asian adjacent property. We have worked, we have noted her concerns about noise, amplification. and we did hire the professional acoustical report from wave engineering. and it confirms that our sound levels from our backyard are no more or less than disruptive than hers. And indeed, we actually have the same shape of roof patio roof that she had built on her house, I believe, before she bought the house.

[31:13] but we've also gone and planted a row of juniper trees along the shared fence line for sound and visual buffering. We've also added vegetation in the backyard to absorb sound. We've installed a small natural water feature for white noise we've installed drop down patio blinds to control light and sound we're offering to. This is a big one we are offering to upgrade the 6 foot open fence between us to a solid 8 foot fence. and do that at our expense. That would help provide privacy and noise control. and we intend to finish the ceiling in the overhang and enclose the carport with a door to further Buffer Sound. and we will be using dark sky, compliant down lights to reduce the light pollution.

[32:03] So in our residence, our our 2 people that are in there are quiet professionals in their mid fifties, working on climate problems and habitat concerns, and our son is a retired 28 year captain at United Airlines. We're quiet professional adults, with no children or dogs and no intent to host frequent outdoor gatherings. and we ensure our activities outside, remain within the Dba or decibel limit set by the Boulder County Noise ordinance. and another. Another note that's really of interest is the h. 1 b. and which states the unusual circumstances or conditions that do not exist throughout the neighborhood or zoning district in which the property is located. So Miss Simon's argument is that the orientation is not uncommon, and the adjacent rule

[33:04] applies throughout the district and alleged violations on other properties are irrelevant. But it's really important to point out that there are 90 corner lots between Iris Avenue to the North and Edgewood driveway to the south, and Folsom Street to the east and 19th Avenue to the west, approximately a half a square mile. and of those 90 quarter lots. There are 3 other lots that have the same irregular lot configuration with the rear yard adjacent to a side yard, including ours, which makes a total of 4 lots out of 90. So that means it's a 96% of the lots are regular and 4% are irregular. We're one of the irregulars so, and another another thing to consider is h. 1 c. Because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property can't be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions.

[34:03] Miss Simon's argument. Says there are other areas for expansion on the West Side. but we're adapting the house to changing climate by providing weather protection and enhancing energy efficiency. So that that's another point to consider of the 3 points. Let's see, was there another? So we we recognize that H. 5 c. The minimum variance that would afford relief and would be the least modification. We we recognize that what we have done of taking out that fiberglass roof represents reducing fire risks. and we're very concerned about representing that that original car part was deteriorating, and our new presentation of the new car part design

[35:02] which you verbally approved. Thank you. But that was presenting a storm and fire risk, and we're very concerned about keeping our house safe as well as our adjoining neighbors. Safe we have had. We have had some good responses from our neighbors. We have been very conscientious about our plantings. What we would really like the board to focus on now is what further we can do to represent a good neighbor policy. Joanie is disturbed by the change that we put in the backyard. It used to be dirt, and it wasn't developed. And now it's beautifully landscaped, and it has stone patios, and the roof does direct sound away from her house. but we do have a 6 foot open open fence, and we would like the Board's consideration about putting in at our expense an 8 foot board to board fence to help with privacy. We can see in her her bedroom windows, and that's not a good thing.

[36:09] so we would like that 8 foot fence to be considered as well. So I don't know. I think that's pretty much my my representation and Kia does have a couple of letters that didn't get into the Board's consideration, and perhaps they would be Kia, are you there too? And then Scott can do more representation for us. And please, if you have continuing questions, please ask Scott, even if you're at the end, and you're still concerned about what's going on. Scott has our answers. He is our architect. He is Boulder County approved, and we want to. We want to use his best educated judgment on how all of this should proceed for us, for all of our benefits.

[37:02] Thank you. Thank you, Peggy and Kira. Before you start, I just want to ask a question of Robbie with the testimony so we received. There's a time period to receive the written testimony. It's entered into the record. Can you please help us understand that process? Robbie? And I'm a bit confused with the question. So here it was my understanding that you're going to enter other other support letters that you said that the Board did not receive. Correct. There were 3 other letters that were sent. So start 11. Okay, so, Robbie, what is our process for entering any type of support or opposition letters having them be in the packet. Can you just let us know what that process is? Please. Yeah, the Board can decide to consider those if it was mentioned during the the applicants moment, and they just want to provide those materials for the record. You just need to accept it and be okay with it, and then we can add it to the record.

[38:02] As chair. I'm okay with with adding the additional and adding it to the record. Am I seeing any opposition from? Doesn't look like it. Okay, please go ahead, Kira. Thank you for the explanation. Sure great question. I won't read them, but I just want you to know Robbie did such a nice job of putting that map in the front. And it's my mistake because I gave Dnella, our neighbor, directly across the street. A 2015 grape. You're wrong address email address. And I didn't catch that till today when I was looking at the packet when we just got it today. But she is very much in support and actually came over, because she just said she. as so many neighbors have said, Oh, I love your landscaping, who does your yard work? And I, said my brother, but so she was complimentary. And then I told her that we're applying for the setback variance. So Dianella Acosta, 2015 grape across the street, as well as another neighbor directly to our south. Terry Weichel, and he's at 205 Glenwood Avenue, and these are his words, and this isn't pertinent to the setback variance. But this is not a solicited

[39:11] email. But he said, I just want to share that. I believe the neighbors at 32, 1020th Street should not be harassed by the neighbor who is now preventing them from being compliant. and a 3rd letter was from Charlene Rosenblatt, who's a very successful and well-known realtor here in Boulder with Coldwell bankers. She's a 25 year resident of Boulder County, and she wanted to write in. She asked me for your email, Robbie, because she came over to visit it was at 2 Pm. On Sunday, June first, st and our neighbor started playing music very loudly. It was Prince which I love. But and it made our conversation difficult, and she just wrote. I noticed that the neighbor wasn't even outside while her music was playing, so it created the impression that this act was intended to disrupt our visit.

[40:00] and then the music stopped after she left. so she asked me to write in her support. I think the bottom line is we. Our 2 houses are close together, and we want to have friendly relations. it's feels like it's it seems as though that those efforts have been thwarted. My boyfriend went over and offered to help Joan put up some Napalese peace prayer flags. She kind of put up a fence, maybe because we our fence is so short they're really colorful. They're beautiful. The offer to help. And she just dismissed them. So we hope that in addition to just being able to complete the patio, overhang, as she has her own overhang. that we can put in a taller fence, because maybe that would solve. Improve her ability to enjoy her property with just greater privacy. And we'd be happy to close in the carport, too. We didn't even know that was a possibility.

[41:01] I think there's a lot of emotion around this, and it's around setting precedent. And also, why should neighbors be allowed to get away with something. So we're really appreciative of this formal process because our intent is to be compliant. And you know, we started out of state. We hired a licensed contractor. We hired a licensed architect through this process. We've been informed we need the permit. We need the setback, and we're doing all this. So we've we've been living in just a construction mess for a year. and that's fine, because we want to do the right thing. So, thanks for considering our full application. Thinking here, anyone else. I just like to add that. Yeah, I agree that Robbie did a good job of kind of representing and answering the 3 questions that you guys had remaining as well as the owners. And again, if we have any questions I asked myself or our principal architect, Jeff, we'll be. We're happy to answer any questions you guys may have.

[42:14] All right. Thank you, everyone. Thank you to to the applicant. Robbie, please go ahead. I didn't want. To take up 15 min, but I just want to mention that there was some discussion of a fence making it taller. We would permit upwards of a 7 foot fence if they wanted an 8 foot fence, it would require a new variance that would be taken to the Board of Zoning adjustments. So I just wanted to put that on record before any additional fence possible fence discussion went on, but we would permit upwards of a 7 foot fence, and right now that I think there is a 6 foot fence out there. So that's all. Thank you so much for that clarification. Robbie and I just want to remind our Board that we are. We are considering the variance that is before us right now, and the matters that that it's before us. So just to remind us of that as well, thank you for that explanation, Robbie, thank you. Applicants for your presentation as well. Does the Board have any questions of the applicant.

[43:25] Sean? Please go ahead. Yeah, just real quick. I wanted to ask what? Cause I know. Some storm and weather resiliency was brought up. Is there any particular with the carport and the 2 other overhangs? Any facets of those that would contribute to said resiliency? Scott, do you want me to answer? Or my husband could answer that in detail? I guess you can.

[44:01] So if your husband's gonna answer, if he can just identify himself for the record, please. He's my husband of 58 years. Barrett. Sorry. Can you guys hear me. or do you want to do it? Scott? In regards to the the carport it would replace the existing deteriorating Carport that was several years old and kind of intrigued it to modern automobile sizes and protection for automobiles, and as far as the other coverings in the back, so that the whole back of the house was exposed to the weather. So the carport, I mean the new patio covers also serving that capacity as well as adding additional roof area for solar panels in the future, because the existing roofs are in the optimal orientation for solar panels. So that's another reason why we chose the orientation of that roof and the low pitch of that roof.

[45:01] Right, Great. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Sean, for your question. Drew. Do you have a question of the applicant? Yes. So for the H. 5 C. What would be the minimum variance for relief with the lease modification? Yeah. Thanks for including a drawing of a buy right? Solution. Maybe you could describe that a little bit, and what is the size of the the main patio covering that you would be able to do by right. And why, that's Yep, you don't feel meets a required size. Yeah, Rodney, if you can go to the the the buy right drawings that we provided in our back in the packet. Think there's there's 4 of them.

[46:00] Oh, that's pretty. That's right. Let me try this again. It's and okay does. Do you see the drawings? Now. Yeah. I will! So if you see on on the on the left drawing of the site plan I'm not sure if you can, if you can zoom in on that where the the car and the table and chairs are. there, there's you see, there's there's dashed lines that represent where the the buy right edge of roof is, and at the with the buy right. The the patio cover would only be, I believe, 7 and a half feet. Why, and you can see that the last 2 chairs wouldn't even be covered. And on the bottom cover

[47:09] where that single door is. That's essentially just a a roof overhang where you would not be able to to sit there in the morning and have coffee or anything, and and protect the the door there from from the sun, and also with with the buy right there, there's a area that's clouded there. There's a post that needs to be there, and you wouldn't be able to open the door if there's a post there because of the crisis of the Crawl space access to the south of that. So in order to get that coverage, even work, we need to push those support columns out past the setback line. and, Robbie, if you can go to the the next sheet. So on this one the the red line is the by right setback line. The blue line is the permitted 2 and a half foot encroachment into the overhang or into the setback by the roof overhang, and then the green line is the the minimal distance for the setback variant that we're requesting.

[48:18] and you can see that on the bottom view, where the the new roof covering covers all the furniture, and it provides, and on the south side it cover completely, covers the door and clears the crawl space access. and then, if you go to the the very next next one, Robbie. See, and I am in presentation mode so full packet. So my apologies, the next one may not be what you think it is. Yeah. So actually, it's the the roof plan. I believe it's the next should be the next one.

[49:03] And I can pull up the actual packet and go to that. If you just give me a few minutes. Okay. Well, Drew, is that 3D view helpful with the the green, red, and blue lines in terms of kind of understanding the limits of the the buy right? So how how much extension? Would the buy? Right solution be from the main over main roof line? For that center patio is about 7 feet about 7 feet. Yeah. And then, with the additional 5 feet we had on, you know. So oh. and and a 7 foot covering it with the direction of the of the where the sun comes in. You wouldn't have any protection from the sun until you know. Well, it's at half through the day, like, you know. 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock for the rest of the time. The rest of the in the morning. Through that that time the the covering wouldn't really protect that that side of the house.

[50:03] Alright. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Drew. Are there any other questions for the applicant, Ben? Katie, none from Ben, none from Katie. Okay. trying to think if I have Drew, I think you. Add one other thing. Your time is the problem, are you? And are you answering Jew's question that he had. No. I wanted to just address one other point about the well, about the minimal impact. Yes. that hasn't been mentioned, but was in our application, so I just wanted to flag it, which is about our adjacent neighbor also mentioned that her views were impeded. and I just wanted to make sure that everybody saw in this 3D. Renderings that the patio overhangs are lower than the apex of the house.

[51:06] Okay, thank you for that. I don't think I drew. I see what you're getting to, and I think Drew. You asked the question in a way that I'm also thinking about the question. So I'm not going to belabor the point. So thank you, drew for your question any other questions from the board to the applicant. All right. With that I am going to close the oh, we've got a question from Robbie. Go for it, Robbie. Really question. But if anybody did want to see that roof plan that was provided within the application, I do have the packet, and can show that on my screen, but if the board has moved on from that, then no need to share it. I just wanted to let you know. I found it. Drew. Do you need to see that because that was in relationship to your question.

[52:00] No, I think I'm good. I I have a good idea of the sizing now. Excellent, wonderful! Thank you for that, Robbie. All right. With that we will close the applicant presentation part of our meeting, and we are going to go on to citizen. Comment so for citizen comment. All speakers must speak into the microphone and give their names and addresses. So please give your full name and address as the speaker. You will have 3 min for speaking. Let me just make sure that I read this as well for our public comment. All comments should be addressed to the hearing body should be relevant to the application, and should not be of a personal nature. You will have 3 min to speak. Avoid repetitive comments and unruly behavior, such as booing or hissing or harassing remarks, is prohibited. So with that, Aubrey, I'd like for you to let us know if anyone has raised their hand to give their 1st citizen comment.

[53:09] Thanks, Nikki. It looks like we have one raised hand right now. If anyone else would like to speak, just raise your hand, and you will be next. So 1st up we have Amina. Excellent. Thank you, Amina. Please identify yourself as well as your address, and please go ahead. Hi! I'm Amina. I'm representing myself and my mother, Joni, both at 2020 great Avenue. Thank you all so much again for addressing this issue. I'm doing my best to set aside some of the emotional conflict that has happened in some of the claims that the applicants are making, that from our perspective, are misrepresented at best, and sometimes false about interactions between us. But I know that the Board is concerned with whether their application meets the city's requirements for a variance or not. So I'll focus on that.

[54:04] Respectfully, we do disagree with the city staff regarding their application meeting the criteria for a variance, including criteria on h. 1. a. The unusual physical circumstances, h. 1 b. That these circumstances do not exist throughout the neighborhood. h. 1 c. That the property cannot reasonably develop, be developed without a variance. That one I'd like to just elaborate a little bit more, since it was just a topic of discussion. I think it's fairly clear from the drawings provided from the architect that a roof line within the by right setbacks would be an adequate patio cover. All you have to do is move the chairs, or maybe have chairs that are not quite so massive. And it would be a usable space, particularly for that middle patio. So not convinced by the argument that it cannot reasonably to be developed also criteria in h. 1 d. That this hardship has not been created by the applicant.

[55:02] The hardship is primary, that construction has already happened, and that they didn't know before buying the property. But that's something that could apply to literally any property that anyone buys ever on the question of H. 5 B. Impairment of enjoyment of adjacent property as well. You know about our issues with noise. We wanted to note that it's not something to do with noise limits, but with the clarity with which we can hear conversations and interactions coming from the patio and have heard things. We maybe wish we hadn't So just another comment on that. I can't do that. Also. H, 5 C. The minimum variance question to afford relief. Again, I think the question is relief from what? And it seems to be a problem that was created by the negligence of the applicants when starting their construction with the citation of worries about climate change or about climate protection. One would think that a permit would have been sought if that was a primary priority, and that junipers would not be planted which are known to be a very flammable type of tree. You've seen all of our arguments in the email sent before the meeting as well.

[56:18] Ultimately you, as a board, get to decide how important the rules that the city sets are, and whether people deserve special treatment because they were negligent in their application process. We don't wish to be bad neighbors. We just wish to see rules enforced fairly and evenly across the city, and not have a sense of entitlement simply because one has made a mistake. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your testimony, Amina. Now we will go to our next. We'll go to our next person who would like to enter. Citizen, comment.

[57:00] If anyone else is speaking, please raise your hand now. I'm not seeing anyone quite yet, Nikki, so let's just give it a second. Thank you, Aubrey. All right. I think I think we're okay to move on. Okay. Is kiara allowed to. Oh! Done it like that before. So so, Kira, we've already done the testimony from the applicant. And so this is going to be public comment. Now. Okay, understood. My brother just wanted to speak. He's another resident since Am. And I used to live with her mom. It just felt like it might balance it out to have my brother also speak. So let me let me ask. Skip it. That's fine. Oh, okay, thank you so much. Okay. All right, seeing no other hands raised for citizen comment. I'm going to close, citizen comment at this time. And now this matter is open to the board for discussion. So customarily we in our discussion, we talk about how

[58:08] the Board is feeling about voting for one or the other. But before we actually do that, Robbie, if you can remind us a little bit about what? And maybe it's Robbie. Maybe it's Chris about our voting. So this is a continuance. So what I'd like to understand before we open discussion is what our votes mean in terms of a continuance. How many votes need to be in favor in order to go on. What happens if there are not enough votes in favor. If you can just remind the Board of that before we start discussion. That would be great. Do you want to take it, Chris? Or I don't mind doing it. Why don't? Why don't you go for it? Robbie and I can clarify if any anything comes up. Thank you. So this is a continuation. So the Board did not vote at the last hearing. So this is just a continuation of that there's just to be additional deliberation. We focus primarily on the 3 criterion h, 1 CH, 5 B, and H. 5 C. Because it didn't appear there were any issues with any of the other ones at the 1st hearing.

[59:14] So what the Board can do tonight is they can just continue that deliberation. You can touch on other criteria, and if needed, you can focus on just these 3. Then ultimately, the board can make a motion. If you feel you're at that point. And then for tonight, since we have a full board of 5, it would just take 3 for an approval to occur. The majority of the full Board would be 3 votes. If it's a vote of 4 to one. 3 to 2, or 5 to oh, it would be an approval. Anything less than that would not be an approval. And I don't believe you're prohibited from another continuance. I don't think there's a kind of a limit to continuances. I don't believe 2 continuances has ever occurred. But

[60:00] it could happen, depending on the ultimate vote of tonight. Should the Board decide to do that so hopefully? That helps answer your question. It does. Thank you. And I had one other question, Robbie, if I remember from the conversation in April, there are 3. There are kind of 3 parts of this variance that we're looking at. We're looking at the carport. We're looking at the middle patio, and we're looking at the the last patio. Can you let us know what happens? Because from our deliberations in April. it seemed, and everyone has the ability to change their mind based upon new information, but from that last conversation it seemed that the board was supportive of the variance related to the carport. The questions were to the other 2 structures. Can someone, Robbie? Chris, anyone help us understand what happens if that continues on tonight, if board members are okay with the carport, but they still have questions with the other 2 structures.

[61:07] So when it comes to a possible additional postponement or continuance, it would be best to keep them all together. But the Board could decide to approve 2 of the 3 they could approve all 3 of them. They could approve one of the 3 through like a conditional approval. I believe that is, and Chris correct me if I'm wrong on that. That is possible for the Board to do. But I would only say that if there is to be another postponement or continuance to keep them all kind of active in the application, and not approve one, but continue 2 of them. so probably a motion on all 3 or a continuance on all 3 would be good. Chris anything to add. Yeah, and that's correct. So if the board wanted to do another continuance, and the the member who made the motion for continuance with state

[62:00] the reason, and then the applicant and spokesperson in opposition would get to put their position on the record in terms of whether they agree with the continuance or disagree with the continuance, but ultimately it would then be up to the board to decide, and then this would be scheduled for the next Bosa meeting. Excellent. Thank you, Robbie, and thank you, Chris, for those explanations. All right, I have all of my procedural questions answered. I'm going to start with you, Sean, for your discussion on the matter before us. Yes, thank you. So all of this extra material that we've learned tonight has been super helpful as gaining more context about what has been done to try to mitigate especially h 5 b it seems to be. That's the one that's causing the most friction here. But you know, assuming, you know, looking at, if we were to look at this for the 1st time, you know not built yet. I would think that it does satisfy the requirements. I think a lot of the

[63:15] discussion around. H 5 b, which is noise. That would be out of the purview of this board. Any other concerns about reducing the noise would have to be handled outside from us. And then also, I think the biggest hardship I see is the southernmost overhang because of the way that the foundation and the crawl space entrance is built. It wouldn't be able to have the post there right in front of the door without significantly modifying the structure and moving the door. So with all that, I'm inclined to approve. But also I'm happy to hear what the rest of our board thinks about. All this.

[64:00] Excellent. Thank you so much. Sean drew. yep, I guess you know what I really focus on with these applications is that you know, it's a permanent structure. And these structures will be here well beyond whoever is living there? And and likewise, you know, the the neighborhood changes and so when I when I'm looking at that, I'm looking, keeping that perspective in mind and and not the conflicts between neighbors. And I also focus on what exactly is in the setback, that is you know, in in violation of the current codes. And so you know what actually is in the set, the extended past the setback past the the Buy right? Blue line is, you know, at a low height, and and definitely, I would not think impacting

[65:07] the neighbors considerably. And going to the the h 5 c, the the minimum variance. You know. I do think that having a back porch. on the order of yeah. Looks like 6 7 feet, is is not? there's not that much coverage, and and so I'd be inclined that it also passes that requirement. And I would also just emphasize that. You know, on the question of precedent, you know, these these boards, you know these the there's objective criteria, but they are also subjective. And every board approaches it differently, and every variance is unique, and this does not set a precedent.

[66:04] anyway. Given. Given all of that, I would also be inclined to vote in favor of the the variance. Excellent. Thank you so much, drew Katie. Yeah, kind of echoing what Drew and Shawn have said. I feel like Robbie. Your pre presentation was very helpful in sort of addressing the 3 the 3 criteria that were at issue, and and I feel like the applicants additions to the packet and their work with the sound engineer, and all of that has has sort of addressed the primary concerns, and I'm inclined to support it. And you know, as Drew said, it's it's, you know the Fo. The focus is on. Are they meeting the criteria? Not so much the the friction between the neighbors?

[67:08] I you know I'm sorry for both of them. That that there is that friction, but I think just going strictly by the criteria. I feel like the applicants have met it, and so I'm inclined to approve the the variance request. Thank you so much, Katie. Ben. Yes, I find myself well, first, st I'll say this has been a hard one for me, and I think maybe for some of us, you know, as is evidenced by a couple hours worth of hearings here, I think it. It did come to us, maybe in an awkward posture of quite a bit of work already done, of course, but I don't think we can really focus on that. We have to look at it as if the work hadn't been done. Is this an approvable variance under the criteria? And you know, I thought each of you know what Shawn Drew and Katie have said makes a lot of sense to me. I found the additional staff analysis helpful, the additional materials provided by the applicant helpful.

[68:12] So I'd be in favor of approving 3. Excellent. Thank you so much, Ben. Okay, so I'm not there in terms of approving all 3. What? I'm so we asked the the applicant to come back and consider. H. Oh, what is it? One, a 1, a and 5 C and 5 B. I'm not there with a 1, because I'm not convinced that there are unusual circumstances or conditions

[69:00] that don't allow this property to be developed adequately. I was convinced by the buy right drawings, especially when it relates to the middle structure. What I'm dealing with is looking at this as a brand new application, as you will, but also being a human who understands that there's already a structure there, and so being able to separate the 2 that this is a new application. But there's also a structure there. So for that, I was not convinced by the buy right structure, I do believe that this can be constructed by Wright. it's okay, that I'm the lone personnel we don't have to all agree. And understanding that from our discussion and our deliberation, it seems to be that I may be the only one in opposition that this variance can go forward. So

[70:12] I'm going to be a no vote on this. I'm I'm not convinced of one a I do think that this can be developed by right when we go to 5 B and 5 C. Again. What what I'm dealing with is the fact that the structure already exists. So if I'm looking at 5 B as a new application that went through the process of being permitted, and they found that there was going to be a setback. Perhaps I could say that there is no issue with be because there's nothing there yet. But as a human who understands there's something there.

[71:02] I know that there are some opposition. There is some opposition to this, the same with 5 C with the minimum, with the minimum variance would be afforded, relief would be the least modification of the applicable provisions of this title. For me. My major sticking point is the a 1. Excuse me, the h 1 a. That's my major sticking point. So for that reason I'm going to be a no vote. But and then that's my rationale for my no vote as well. Is there any other conversation from the board? 10. I did have one question, and I'm not sure if this is for Robbie, or Chris, or or board discussion, but and that would be as the conditions of approval. And maybe I'll just put it out there for you, madam Chair. Would there be any conditions of approval that we could add.

[72:07] that would change your no vote to a yes vote. whether it be to the fence. And I'm I'm just referring only to things that the applicant is offered up like this fence application or walling in the garage. Carport, I think they mentioned. I'm not sure that would change your mind, but I just wanted to put that out there. Robbie, go ahead. Thank you, Ben, for your question. So the board can add conditions of approval. Just note if the fence is involved in that by right they can only have a 7 foot fence, which would be a 1 foot extension. Anything taller than that would require a new variance taken to Bosa. But yes, it is possible to add conditions of approval. Sometimes the hard part of doing that is, it's then up to staff to make sure that those conditions are met and followed something like a fence wouldn't be too difficult to do. They would have to get a permit for that fence work to be done something like adding a wall even though it's not a design board, it seems like an appropriate

[73:12] approval. It's not necessarily a design change. It's just a condition of approval of making this a solid wall versus opening. Of course the applicant would before you made that motion and took action on that motion. You'd probably want to discuss those conditions with the applicant themselves to see if they're feasible. But doing stuff like that is possible. Assuming that the applicant is okay with them, and that the Board can be very clear of what those conditions are. Thank you, Robbie. Thank you for your question, Ben. That's a good question. Here. Here's where I stand on that. I'm hesitant to ask the applicant to expend more resources based upon my approval of the of the of the variance. So

[74:08] I get what you're saying, and I understand what you're saying, and I've heard from the applicant their willingness to make some modifications, and I'm supportive of that I'm less supportive of putting that in a motion for my approval. If that makes sense. I don't. I don't want to compel people to do things that they haven't, that they haven't come to the board and said, You know, specifically within their application, within something that's official that they want to do. I'm I don't really want to compel people to do do things. Does that answer your question, Ben? It does. Understood. Thank you. Yeah. Of course. Go ahead, Katie, please. I was just gonna say you know, with all due respect to Nikki's opposition, but if there are 4 of us who approve it. I I don't see

[75:03] I don't see what adding that kind of condition would accomplish. Just you know I I feel like maybe the fence the fence thing might be a separate issue, and but for our purposes today, if there are 4 of us who approve of the application as is I don't. I don't. I'm not sure we need to add any conditions. Just just a thought. Thank you for your commentary, Katie. Any other discussion from the Board. And just so it's clear. Nikki. Yeah, you're you don't think it passes the fact because it's a corner lot, or because so is it, is it h. 1, a or h, 1 c. h 1 a i.

[76:01] Okay. The fact that it's a quarter lot. Yep. Okay. Thank you, Drew. Go ahead, of course. Go ahead, Sean. And I guess expanding on that do we normally overlook HA 1 or HA oops. Hold on! I'm gonna move my screen. h, 1 AI do. We overlook that specifically for corner lots like, does that have do corner lots usually have a different criteria than we would say, with an irregularly shaped non corner lot. That. Do you want me to speak? Answer that. Sorry I wanted to be called on. Go ahead, Robbie! No corner lots don't get special treatment. The criteria used universal, it being a corner lot could play into it. Staffs, kind of review of one of h. 1 a one. Now I see why it's confusing.

[77:13] Does include that. It's a corner lot. But primarily where the current house sits on that corner lot, and the fact that it has 2 front yards not all corner lots have 2 front yards. This one has 3, 25 foot yards. So all of that kind of went into our kind of evaluation of h 1, a one specifically. But corner lots are not given a unique criterion. It's looked at universally. And maybe I didn't speak very well. There, I now I understand Vicki's objecting to the unusual physical circumstances. Criteria. So. That is correct. Yes. Yeah, thank you for that. That makes sense. The reason I bring that up is because my reasoning is when I look at one, a 1 i see definitely. It has an irregularly shaped lot where the house does sit, kind of closer to the back edge, the back corner of the lot than, say, most of the other houses on Grape Street, for example, do.

[78:18] because it's on the irregularly shaped corner lot, and I assume it's the houses on that placement in the lot, because they had to satisfy both front and side setbacks from the street. So where it gets tricky is one A or one B is that several of the lots in that part of the neighborhood also have similar conditions to that. So this particular lot isn't the only unique one, but from what it looks like, most of the neighborhood does not have the same issue. So, for example, if somebody else further down on Grape Street were to build the exact same type of structures in their backyard, they probably wouldn't face any of these obstacles.

[79:06] So that was my reasoning for it satisfying one A and one B in my mind. Yes, and I agree with you. I was generalizing there on the corner lot piece. But yeah, it's a it's an irregular corner lot with the house oriented awkwardly. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. Drew any other conversation from the board. With that I'll offer. I will open it up. If someone would like to offer a motion. I'll move that the board approve. Boz. 2025, dash 0, 0 0 3, as presented by staff. My second motion. Excellent. Thank you, Katie, so we'll call the role Sean.

[80:02] I vote? Yes. Drive. Yes. Katie, up, Katie, you're on mute. Yes. Sorry. Ben. Yes. Nikki. No, all right. With that our motion passes. Thank you. Everyone, for your participation in this process. I'm just going to say something here, because the vote has already been taken, and so there's nothing else for us to be able to vote on. But this was this was like a mess. This was a mess, and and I don't. I don't like messes, and I would really encourage folks to be able to work together. Neighbors are going to live next to each other hopefully for a very long amount of time. I was a lobbyist for a very long time, and we always say in the lobbying room of the lobbying world. If everybody leaves the table a little bit disgruntled, then you passed a good piece of legislation. So

[81:06] in these types of negotiations. Nobody is going to get exactly what they want. No one is going to get everything that they want. New people are going to move in. That's going to change your relationship with your neighbor. You're going to move into a new place and not know people. And so you have to make relationships with people. So I encourage everyone to understand that change. When when change happens, we have to be able to pivot and be nimble and adjust to that change, and so I would encourage the applicant and all of the neighbors, not just the the next door, neighbors, but I would encourage the applicant and all the neighbors to come from a point of a growth mindset that you're going to grow from this and learn ways in which to give and receive. because it's not just the giving, it's the receiving as well. So I wish everyone a lot of luck in the process, and thank you everyone for your participation.

[82:10] Thank you. Is there any other discussion from? Because I gave my little 2 cents, so I don't want to prevent anyone else from giving their 2 cents, so is there any other conversation from the board now that the vote has been taken. hearing none, we are going to mosey along alrighty. So the application is in the. So let's go to minutes. Are there any corrections to minutes seeing? Then do I have a motion to approve? Minutes. I make a motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by. Second. All right, thank you, Ben, and then we'll call the roll. Shawn. Yes.

[83:00] Drew. Yes. Katie. Yes. Ben. Yes. Nikki. Yes, all right. Do we have any other matters from the board? Seeing none. Madison City, attorney Chris, is your time to shine. Nothing from me. Thank you so much for allowing me to be here, and to Shawna should be back at the next meeting. Wonderful. Thank you for your participation, Chris. We appreciate it. Any other management staff. And speaking of the next meeting, we do have the application deadline for the July meeting was last week, but somebody had to go out of town. So the meeting was pushed back a week. So the July 8th meeting we do appear to have one item moving forward, so we will have a July meeting. It looks like and like always. If anybody has any anticipated absences times away, just let us know all of us know as soon as possible, so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting, but it does appear we are going to have a July 8th meeting.

[84:08] Awesome. Thank you, Robbie Robbie, do we get a summer break. Yes. When's our summer break? I don't know. It's whenever you want it to be. Okay, well, obviously not. July 8.th Alright? Well, thank you so much for that, Robbie. I just wanna thank everybody for your participation. I know that these are like really heady topics, and I really appreciate the fact that we can all come with our own thought processes. We can all come with our own opinions, and we can respectfully have debate and discussion in order to to move things along. So I appreciate every single one of my colleagues. Thank you to Chris and Aubrey for filling in. We hope that our regulars are back, but we would love to see you again as well here at Boza. So with that I will say meeting adjourned, have a wonderful rest of your Tuesday night. See? Y'all later. Bye, everybody.

[85:08] Hi! Everyone. Thanks. Bye, everyone.