►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Well,
good
evening,
I'd
like
you
to
welcome
everyone
to
this
evening's
public
hearing
before
we
get
started
to
turn
off
your
cell
phones
and
other
electronic
device
is
to
avoid
any
interruptions.
A
If
you're
planning
on
presenting
testimony
make
sure
you
sign
in
at
the
table
in
the
rear
the
hearing
room
anyway,
it's
Wednesday
the
12th
day
of
July.
The
time
is
six
o'clock.
The
time
set
for
our
public
hearing.
All
three
Commissioners
are
present
man
clerk.
Are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda.
A
Okay,
no
change
to
get
into
the
agenda
we'll
get
into
unfinished
business.
The
first
item
of
unfinished
business
is
application.
Two
zero:
two:
three:
zero:
zero:
zero,
zero;
six,
that's
VCU,
Deanna
butcher.
We
need
a
motion.
I
would
X
ask
for
a
motion
to
remove
this
application
from
the
table.
A
Thank
you.
Oh
you've
heard
emotional,
if
you
ever
say
aye
aye,
okay,
we
have
had
a
public
hearing
on
this.
We
closed
the
close,
the
hearing
and
now
we're
just
going
to
be
considering
revised
findings,
facts
and
conclusions
of
law
that
was
based
on
our
last
hearing.
Could
you
give
us
a
little?
What
did
we
agree
to
change.
D
D
We
tabled
for
revised
findings
based
on
your
decision
to
differ
from
staff's
recommendation,
and
then
you
also
added
a
few
conditions
to
ensure
that
the
storage
along
the
north
property
line
was
a
hundred
feet
from
that
residential
property
to
the
north.
To
make
sure
that
the
hours
of
operation
were
the
same
as
required
by
code,
which
was
8
AM
to
8
pm
and
then
to
require
that
Landscaping
plan
be
submitted
and
reviewed
by
staff
and
those
were
included
in
the
conditions
that
are
before
you.
B
F
A
F
Go
ahead,
chairman
Commissioners,
August
9th
would
be
the
table
date.
B
A
G
G
The
future
and
land
use
map
of
a
county,
comprehensive
plan,
Disney
society
as
rural
residential,
which
is
primarily
intended
for
detached
single-family
homes
on
large
Lots.
The
proposal
to
rezone
the
rule
to
rezone
the
property
to
the
Royal
residential
district
is
in
conformance
with
the
future
land
use
designation
for
the
site
in
goal.
2.3
of
the
county
comprehensive
plan
which
calls
for
providing
opportunities,
a
limited
residential
development
and
then
Incorporated
areas
outside
of
areas
of
City
Impact.
G
The
subject
property
was
created
through
a
one
acre
split
application
file.
Number
98-08-08
in
the
1990s
sharing
cross
Associates
has
significant
land
Holdings
in
the
Boise
Foothills
along
Bogus
Basin
Road
during
the
1990s
sharing
cross
Associates
The
Limited
limited
number
of
one
acre
splits
to
create
smaller
one
to
four
acre
home
sites,
known
as
Bogus
Basin
home
sites
and
on
the
map
on
the
record
survey.
Here
you
kind
of
see
some
of
those
home
sites.
G
G
The
property
is
non-conforming
in
terms
of
its
parcel
size
for
the
role
preservation
district
for
this
property
to
be
buildable,
it
needs
to
be
rezoned
to
a
district
that
allows
for
smaller
parcel
size
with
the
rezone
to
the
rural
residential
district.
The
property
will
be,
can
be
a
conforming
parcel
and
thus
could
be
a
buildable
parcel.
G
It
should
be
noted
that
lot
number
one
on
the
record
of
survey
and
lot
number
one
is
the
basically
the
parcel
that's
directly
to
the
west
of
the
subject.
Property
was
acquired
by
the
city
of
Boise
to
be
used
as
part
of
the
ridge
to
Rivers
trail
system
and
will
not
generate
a
resonance.
G
G
Other
neighbors
have
expressed
concerns
that
the
reason
would
set
a
precedent
in
the
area
giving
other
properties
the
opportunity
to
rezone
to
the
rural
residential
district.
It
should
be
known
that
a
county
does
not
enforce
ccnrs.
Other
neighbors
have
expressed
concerns,
as
I
mentioned
before,
that
the
reason
would
say
precedent,
giving
other
properties
opportunity
to
reason
to
the
Royal
residential
district.
G
None
of
the
agencies
have
replied,
have
raised
any
objection
to
the
rezone
staff,
finds
that
this
application
complies
with
a
county
code
and
recommends
approval
to
the
commit
to
the
board,
as
set
out
in
the
proposed
findings
effect
and
conclusions
of
law.
The
playing
and
Zoning
commission
at
their
June
15th
public
hearing
had
recommended
approval
of
this
project
to
the
board.
This
presentation
will
be
exhibit
number
44
for
the
record
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
G
So
right
now,
with
the
current
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Davidson
with
the
current
Rural
Preservation
District
zone,
a
nothing
can
be
built
on
that
property
because
the
proper
the
minimum
parcel
size
for
the
Royal
preservation
district
is
40
acres
and
since
that
property
is
less
than
40
acres.
It's
not
a
buildable
parcel.
With
the
current
zoning
of
of
role,
preservation.
G
A
I
want
to
thank
you.
Okay,
any
other
questions
from
the
commission.
No,
okay,
wait!
Okay!
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Would
the
applicant
like
to
Japan
here?
Yes,.
H
H
Mr
chairman
and
Commissioners
Brent
I'll,
have
you
drive
on
my
slides.
So
this
is
a
street
shot
view
of
the
subject
property.
You
can
see
it's
hilly
terrain,
it's
never
been
farmed
or
developed,
it's
in
its
natural
condition
and
it
is
outside
of
any
area
of
City
Impact,
so
we're
strictly
just
dealing
with
County
ordinances.
Tonight,
no
overlap
next
slide.
Please
really
before
you
tonight
is
a
question
of
whether
this
request
satisfies
five
standards
for
a
rezone,
the
first
being.
Does
it
meet
the
minimum
dimensions
of
the
lot?
H
Is
it
in
accordance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
third?
Does
it
comply
with
the
new
Zone?
We
want
to
go
to
and
its
purpose
statement
and
fourth,
is
it
materially
detrimental
to
public
health
and
safety
and
last
whether
it
demonstrates
any
adverse
impacts
to
Public
Services
all
March
through
each
of
those
tonight
and
show
you
how
we
far
exceeded
all
those
standards
thanks
next
slide
so
has
been
noted.
We
meet
the
minimum
lot
size
of
10
acres
under
RR.
We
are
at
9.2,
oh
sorry,
10.92
and
as
Brenda
noted,
this
is
non-conforming
right
now.
H
This
is
the
creation
of
an
Old
Farm
split,
so
it's
an
RP
Zone
lot,
that's
technically
far
less
than
the
40
acres.
This
rezone
tonight
would
make
it
or
flip
it
to
be
conforming
and
as
it
stands,
that
old
ordinance
that
created
this
abnormally
small
lot.
That
ordinance
was
repealed
long
ago.
So
the
parcel
is
kind
of
stuck
in
limbo
right
now,
unless
we
get
it
rezoned
and
that's.
Why
we're
here
tonight
to
pull
it
out
of
limbo,
make
it
conforming
and
put
it
to
its
best
use
next
slide.
H
So
the
second
criteria
for
approving
tonight's
free
zone
is,
is
it
in
accordance
with
the
comprehensive
plan?
As
you
may
know,
you
cannot
ignore
the
comprehensive
plan
and
making
your
decision
as
established
by
the
whole
Supreme
Court.
So
this
comprehensive
plan
was
totally
revamped
in
2016
and
that'll,
be
crucial
later
on,
as
some
comments
from
Neighbors
will
look
backwards
to
an
old,
comprehensive
plan,
but
we're
dealing
with
the
revised
current
plan,
you
know
which
designates
it
as
RR
next
slide.
Please.
H
The
image
you
see
here
is
pulled
straight
from
the
County's
own
GIS
website
at
the
Planning
and
Zoning
here,
and
there
was
they
wanted
to
see
that
visual,
so
I
made
sure
to
include
that
here
tonight
that
this
is
pulled
straight
from
the
County's
maps
and
the
star.
There
is
right
Square
on
the
parcel
and
it
is
residential
designated
next
slide.
H
The
comprehensive
plan
tries
to
balance
future
growth
and
development
with
existing
land
uses
as
well.
So
what
that
means
is
that
RR
was
not
an
arbitrary
Zone
that
was
just
pulled
out
of
thin
air.
It
looked
at
existing
uses
right
now,
which
I'll
show
in
the
next
slide.
Please,
as
you
can
see
here,
that
yellow
corridor
is
designated
as
residential.
H
Residential
uses
that
would
provide
a
rural
lifestyle
and
that
doesn't
require
excessive
expansion
of
public
services.
So,
let's
talk
about
how
it
meets
all
those
elements
next
slide,
please.
So
it
does
comply
with
that
purpose
statement.
This
area
is
already
rule
in
character
and
nothing
that
would
happen
tonight
with
an
approval
would
change
that
the
homes
are
widely
spaced
out,
there's
a
lot
of
large
lots
and
because
all
the
homes
are
on
septic
and
well,
they
won't
even
be
excessive
expansion
of
Public
Services.
H
There
won't
be
any
expansion
of
Public
Services
next
slide
again,
as
Brent
pointed
out.
This
parcel
that
you
see
here
in
yellow
is
now
owned
by
Boise
City.
Originally,
this
was
maybe
a
developer
parcel
that
could
be
built
upon
and
when
Boise
City
bought
it
that
essentially
created
and
preserved
40
plus
acres
of
a
rural
character
in
this
area.
So
that's
already
baked
in.
H
If
you
will
so
changing
this
to
RR,
to
allow
hypothetically
another
dwelling,
isn't
going
to
dramatically
change
this
rural
nature
and
there
won't
be
any
net
increase
of
homes
that
are
built
here.
When
this
record
or
survey
was
made.
You
know
20
plus
years
ago
they
was
envisioned
about
13
building
Lots.
One
of
those
was
taken
away
with
Boise
City
buying
up
one
of
the
parcels.
H
So
by
changing
this
to
be
buildable,
we're
right
back
to
where
it
was
before.
So
there's
really
no
net
increase,
and
that
was
a
concern
that
some
of
the
neighbors
had
raised
at
the
neighborhood
meeting
and
at
pnz,
and
we
just
want
to
make
it
squarely
in
front
of
you
that
that's
being
addressed,
and
it's
not
going
to
really
be
a
germane
issue.
Next
slide,
please
the
fourth
and
fifth
points
for
approving
tonight's
decision:
does
it
materially
detrimental
to
the
public
health
and
safety?
H
Well,
the
agencies
that
have
the
most
expertise
on
that
have
all
approved.
This
there's
been
no
objections
from
planning
building,
especially
fire
Central,
District,
Health,
Engineers,
Fish
and
Game.
Even
they
say
no
objection
across
the
board
and
as
to
providing
Public
Services,
whether
there'd
be
an
impact
on
that
there's
been
no
such
comment
by
the
public
service
agencies
and
staff
obviously
would
recommend
an
approval,
as
this
does
comply
with
the
future
land
use
map
and
the
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan
next
slide.
H
So
you
you
may
have
read
in
the
packet
for
tonight,
there
was
some
comments
bringing
up
an
old
2006
application,
which
has
some
similarities,
but
there's
some
very,
very
important
distinctions.
The
similarities
are,
it's
the
same
parcel
and
they
were
trying
to
rezone
it
to
RR
and
that's
about
where
the
similarities
end.
It
was
ultimately
denied
in
2006
and
that's
what
a
lot
of
Neighbors
glomed
on
to
hey.
It
was
the
night.
Then
it
should
be
denied
now,
but
the
facts
are
totally
different
and
the
applicable
law
is
totally
different.
H
I
just
want
to
point
this
out
quickly.
The
2006
staff
letter
points
out
that
the
designated
future
land
use
was
called
Foothills
planning
area
which
was
kind
of
a
cluster
and
a
mess
for
a
lot
of
years
to
deal
with,
and
the
planner
specifically
noted
that
hey,
there's,
no
specific
policies
elaborating
on
that.
It's
just
a
name
on
a
map.
H
Compare
that
to
the
current
staff
report
that
Brent
has
prepared
it
states
here
that
yes,
there's
RR
and
it
expounds
on
it.
It
states
that
it's
in
compliance
with
Goal
2.3,
which
clearly
envisions
development
in
this
area.
So
whereas
there
was
no
Direction
previously
and
that's
why
the
denial
happened,
that
report
says
hey.
We
don't
line
up
with
the
comprehensive
plan
here,
we're
on
all
fours,
with
a
comprehensive
plan
and
right
down
the
Fairway
next
slide.
Please.
H
So
we
wanted
to
give
you
the
benefit
of
why
we're
here
tonight
kind
of
looking
ahead,
maybe
a
step
or
two
not
to
get
ahead
of
ourselves,
but
to
give
you
a
concept,
what
you
see
there
in
those
gray,
cross-hatched
area,
that's
our
parcel!
The
10.92
Acres
that
the
property
owner
also
owns
the
3.98,
that's
in
red.
H
H
What
we're
willing
to
commit.
We
said
this
in
planning
on
zoning.
Is
you
know
to
try
to
honor
the
current
open
space
as
it
lies?
We
will
agree
not
to
build
anything,
that's
in
that
black
and
white
crosshatched
area.
So
as
a
result
of
tonight,
it
does
pave
the
way
Commissioners
to
to
allow
just
to
know
more
primary
residences.
H
However,
the
open
space
stays
exactly
the
same
and
that
hilly
terrain
that's
been
untouched.
That
stays
right
in
place
and,
most
importantly,
the
comprehensive
plan
does
allow
a
path
for
this.
The
policy
has
already
been
said.
We
can't
change
that
conversation,
that's
been
set
as
rural
residential,
which
is
precisely
what
our
request
is
for
tonight.
H
Next
slide,
please
so
just
in
conclusion:
the
county
has
already
set
the
policy
path
for
this
parcel
as
a
future
land
use
of
RR
and
we're
just
catching
up
with
that.
Now
it's
taken
since
2016,
but
here
we
are-
and
this
rezone,
if
approved
tonight,
would
take
this
property
out
of
limbo
and
make
it
conforming
and
it
satisfies
every
standard.
That's
before
you
tonight
to
make
your
decision
with
that.
I'll
stand
for
questions.
Okay,.
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
right.
Any
questions
of
the
the
applicant
from
the
commission
questions
God
at
the
moment.
No
questions.
Okay,
thank
you.
You're
welcome,
I,
didn't
see
anyone
else
signed
up
on
this
application.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
wants
to
speak
on
this
application.
A
I
guess
not
and
there's
no
further
questions
from
the
from
our
staff
or
for
the
applicant
from
the
commission.
I'll
ask
a
few
questions
for
staff.
C
All
right
go
ahead.
Can
you
shed
any
light
on
this
historical
Foothills
planning
area,
designation.
G
Mr
attorney,
commissioner
Davidson,
that
fails,
planning
designation
was
from
an
earlier
comprehensive
plan,
so
in
2006
2007
there,
the
comprehensive
plan
that
the
counter
that
the
county
was
under
was
a
different,
comprehensive
plan
in
2016
the
county
went
and
basically
did
a
new
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
the
applicable
Conference
of
plan
that's
in
place
today
is
is
the
current
comprehensive
plan
that
was
done
in
2000
in
20,
2016.,
and
so
in
that
previous
application
was
made
in
2007.
G
You
know
it
was
under
a
different,
comprehensive
plan
and
so
with
a
different,
comprehensive
plan,
as
Mr
Rudder
had
stated,
it
looked
like
you
know
in
the
in
the
staff
report.
It
just
said
it
identified
that
this
was
a
Foothills
playing
area
and
it
really
just
didn't
really
have
really
any
policies
or
of
of
what
that
really
meant,
and
so
just
basically
identified
that
you're
in
the
foothills
in
2006,
but
didn't
really
provide
much.
E
Yeah
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Davidson
back
in
2006.
We
had
hoped
to
develop
a
specific
implementing
ordinance
for
that
Foothills
planning
area
patterned.
After
essentially
the
fiddles
ordinance
that
Boise
city
had
in
place
for
the
Foothills
and
City
Limits.
We
just
never
adopted
an
ordinance.
So
that's
why
the
staff
report
back
then
would
have
said.
There's
no
applicable
policy
for
that.
That
area.
C
And
then
the
the
applicant
mentioned
changing
the
the
boundary
of
where
he
would
develop.
Is
that
already
incorporated
into
the
report,
or
would
that
have
to
be
amended
to
include
that.
G
So
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Davidson
it
would
require
the
applicant
to
apply
for
a
property
boundary
adjustment
application,
so
the
property
boundary
adjustment
application
is
an
administrative
or
staff
level
application
application.
That
would
require
public
hearing
to
go
in
in
front
of
you.
C
Is
that
kind
of
boundary
change,
I,
guess
from
his
testimonium
interpreting
that
that's
what
the
neighbors
would
prefer.
G
That
might
be
something
to
test
the
applicant
I'm,
not
sure.
If
the
neighbors,
you
know
what
their,
if
they
have
a
specific
preference
one
way
or
the
other,
but
that
might
be
something
to
ask
the
applicant
okay.
G
Mr
Davis
I
think
some
of
the
the
residents
that
are
also
part
of
the
ccnrs
for
that
bogus
basic
home
sites.
I
think
a
few
of
the
the
neighbors
really
don't
want
any
additional
homes
up
there
and
so
I
think
their
main
objection
was
the
ccnrs
and
then
that
record
survey
showed
that
to
be
an
agricultural
parcel
or
non-buildable
parcel,
and
they
want
it
to
remain
that
way.
G
So
they
don't
want
any
changes
to
that,
and
so
I
think
that
was
the
the
main
you
know
they
were
using
the
ccnrs
to
make
their
point
that
they
do
not
want
any
additional
homes
in
their
neighborhood.
C
G
And
Mr
chairman
well
Mr
Rutter's,
coming
up
to
the
dice
I
want
to
just
mention
that
his
presentation
will
be
exhibit
number
45
for
the
record.
Okay,.
C
Just
rephrase
that,
but
just
to
clarify
you
were
proposing
that,
because
you
feel
that
the
neighbors
would
be
happier
with
that
area
not
being
developed,
then
what
the
current
layout
is
yeah.
H
And
that
was
not
Mr
chairman
and
commissioner
Davidson
that
wasn't
per
specific
request,
but
rather
as
a
neighborly
gesture,
courtesy
that
they
would
preserve
as
exactly
as
it
lies
right
now
and
with
that
Boise
City
lot
that
was
purchased
for
parks
and
trails
and
whatnot
the
building
site
and
the
ccrs
for
that
is
just
beyond
the
property
boundary.
So
it's
almost
as
if
you're
shifting
what
would
have
been
built
initially
down.
Maybe
a
few
hundred
feet
is
all,
and
so
the
big
concern
was
the
number
of
homes,
and
that
goes
to
my
point.
H
I
had
made
that
there's
really
no
net
increase
of
how
many
homes
could
be
built
here
as
a
result
of
tonight,
because
Boise
City
took
away
one
building
lot
by
absorbing
that
lot
and
now
we're
just
replacing
what
was
taken
away.
So
there's
no
net
increase,
and
that
was
as
a
neighborly
gesture
and
a
courtesy
to
try
to
configure
that
in
such
a
way.
Or
it
looks
just
about
the.
A
All
right,
I
think
that's
all
I
had
anybody
anything
else.
Hearing
nothing
else.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two
zero:
two:
three:
zero:
zero:
eight
six,
four
zcda
Clark
Wardle
LLP,
so
the
public
hearing
has
been
held.
We've
heard
testimony.
Is
there
a?
Is
there
a
motion
to
consider.
C
Zc-D-A
Clark
Wardle
LLP,
based
on
the
findings
of
fact,
in
the
testimony
heard
this
evening.
C
All
in
favor
was
discussion
or
any
discussion
just
just
to
state
that
it's
a
it's
a
sizable
lot.
It's
10,
acres
and
and
I
think
putting
one
home.
There
is
not
going
to
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
on
Warm,
Springs
and
I.
Don't
see
it
as
any
kind
of
significant
imposition
on
the
the
neighborhood,
so
I
think
that'll
it'll
fit
in
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
despite
it
not
being
as
large
as
some
of
the
other
parcels.
B
Just
just
as
a
follow-up
comment
sure
go
ahead:
it
does
keep
the
basic
design
as
as
originally
complemented
contemplated
in
my
opinion,
so
sure.
C
A
All
right,
any
other
discussion,
nope,
okay,
you've
heard
the
motion.
All
in
favor
of
the
motion
signified
by
saying
all
right.
All
right
all
right
motion
carries.
Thank
you.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
application.
Two
zero:
two:
three:
zero
one:
zero:
three:
zero
V,
Doug
green
and
we'll
ask
for
a
report
from
our
staff.
G
Chair
Mr,
chairman
and
Commissioners
project
number
2023-0130v
is
a
variance
for
a
500
square
foot
accessory
structure
to
encroach
into
the
20-foot
rear
yard
setback.
The
property
is
located
at
5210,
South,
Maple,
Grove
Road
and
contains
a
half
acre.
The
property
is
located
in
the
southwest
community
is
south
of
Amity
Road
and
North
of
desert
Avenue.
G
G
Health
safety
and
Welfare
staff
finds
that
the
variance
does
not
constitute
the
granting
of
a
special
wire
privilege,
because
there
are
other
accessory
structures
with
similar
setbacks
in
the
neighborhood,
as
shown
on
the
aerial
maps
and
on
the
map
on
the
screen
in
front
of
you,
I've
kind
of
did
caviello
ovals
kind
of
showing
some
of
the
other
properties
that
have
similar
accessory
structures.
It's
what
the
applicant
is
proposing.
G
Steph
also
finds
that
the
variance
release
an
undue
hardship
due
to
characteristics
of
the
site,
the
single-family
dwelling
is
situated
in
such
a
way
that
the
only
location
available
to
have
an
accessory
structure
would
be
in
the
western
side
yard
or
the
rear
yard.
In
addition,
half
of
the
rear
yard
is
encumbered
by
the
septic
system
and
drain
field
and
existing
mature
trees.
G
Steph
also
finds
that
the
variance
is
not
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
and
Welfare,
because
the
applicant
will
be
required
to
secure
a
building
permit
to
construct
the
structure.
In
addition,
information
regarding
the
variance
was
transmitted
to
affected
public
agencies,
charged
with
the
protection
of
the
health,
safety
and
Welfare
of
the
public,
and
the
agency
responses
did
not
indicate
a
detriment
to
the
public
health
safety
and
Welfare.
G
B
B
G
You
Mr
chairman
commissioner
daily
that
is
correct,
that
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
remain
the
same
with
this,
with
a
privileged
variance
for
that
can
to
construct
the
structure.
A
I
All
Doug
Greene
all
right.
I
C
I
With
yeah
20
feet
and
the
20
feet
gets
me
again:
if
I
move
it
South
in
the
back
facing
the
other
direction
in
the
backyard,
then
I
get
in
20.
Feet
comes
up
and
I
get
into
the
tree
and
the
sewer.
So
that
was
the
reason
why
I
went
back
over
to
the
most
obvious
that
there
was
nothing
there
and
the
setback
is.
The
reason
that
is
back
is
I
got
a
travel
trailer
that
parks
in
front
of
it
in
a
another
trailer.
C
Which
side,
whatever
would
be
wherever
you're
encroaching
on
I,
guess
closest
neighbor.
A
All
right,
any
other
questions.
You
have
a
question,
you
have
any
other
questions
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Any
questions
of
staff,
hearing
no
questions,
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
on
application.
B
Mr
chairman
I,
moved
to
approve
the
application
number
two
zero:
two
three
zero
one:
zero:
three:
zero
V
green
based
on
the
findings
of
action,
conclusions
of
law
contained
in
the
staff
report
in
the
testimony
of
her
tonight
and
just
make
an
additional
statement,
I
think
the
three
items
that
we
had
to
comply
with
the
No
Rider
privilege.
It's
a
change,
doesn't
change
the
character
of
the
of
the
community,
not
a
special
privilege,
and
it
doesn't
impact
health
and
safety.
B
So
I
think
he
complies
both
with
the
the
law
as
well
as
the
community
itself.
A
Hearing
no
further
discussion.
All
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye
aye
aye
motion
carries
congratulations.
Mr
Green!
You
got
your
application.
Thank.
C
A
J
J
So,
as
you've
heard
in
other
variance
applications,
our
code
requires
three
specific
findings
in
order
to
recommend
approval.
The
first
is
that
the
variants
would
not
Grant
a
special
writer
privilege
that
is
not
otherwise
allowed
in
the
base
District.
The
second
is
that
the
variance
will
relieve
an
undue
hardship
due
to
the
characteristics
of
the
site,
and
the
third
is
that
the
variance
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health
safety
or
welfare.
J
The
all
properties
within
the
R2
zone
are
required
to
abide
by
the
appropriate
dimensional
standards,
so
granting
this
variance
would
be
considered
a
special
writer
privilege
according
to
code
and
lastly,
the
variance
would
does
not
find
that
there
would
be
any
detrimental
effect
to
the
public
health
safety
or
welfare
of
the
surrounding
community.
J
It
should
be
noted
that
Based
On
A
Brief
Review
of
the
surrounding
properties
in
the
immediate
area
that
there
were
several
other
properties
whose
principal
dwelling
seemed
to
encroach
on
the
30-foot
collector
Street
setback.
But
these
properties
do
not
have
any
Associated
variance
applications
for
the
setback
and
it's
likely
due
to
the
structures
being
built
prior
to
the
establishing
of
the
current
setbacks.
J
No
comments
from
submitted
by
neighbors,
neighboring,
Properties
or
who
were
for
or
against
the
application
and
other
notified
agencies
did
not
submit
comments
in
opposition
to
the
application.
J
Let's
see
so,
the
rear
setback
is
a
20
feet
and
the
furthest
in
that
it
would
encroach,
would
be
to
16
feet
so
four
feet
into
the
rear
setback
and
The
Collector
street
is
30
feet
and
this
would
be
encroaching
10
feet
into
the
30-foot
setback,
so
it
would
be
20
feet
away
from
the
property
boundary.
J
C
So
when
it
so
that
is
where
it
says:
West
rootzel,
that
that
borders-
the
road
yes.
C
B
Go
ahead
so
that
there
you
didn't
receive
any,
we
didn't
receive
any
comments
from
that
neighbor.
No.
B
Another
question
yeah
go
ahead:
you
you
indicated
that
there
are
some
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood
that
do
have
encroachments,
but
they
were
violate
the
current
code,
but
didn't
at
the
time
they
were
billed.
That's
likely
the
case.
Yeah.
Do
you
know
how
many
of
those
were?
They
were.
J
Just
approximately
it
depends
on
how
far
out
we're
looking
I
would
say,
roughly
four
other
four
to
five
others.
Homes.
B
J
F
F
You
know.
Sometimes
we
don't
get
down
to
that
fine
grain
level
of
what
the
impact
will
be
at
the
property
by
property
basis.
So
this
likely
was
developed
at
a
time
when
a
20-foot
setback
was
appropriate.
But
there
was
lots
of
zoning
in
the
area
that
we
wanted
to
increase
the
setback,
and
so
this
is
probably
one
of
those
that
just
kind
of
got
caught
in
the
mix
of
a
consideration
like
that.
But
all.
A
H
J
Streets
designation
was
changed
to
reflect
that
increase
in
density
and
the
setbacks
were
just
decided
on
at
that
case.
In
that
case,
Okay.
A
Is
the
applicant
here
for?
Would
you
like
to
speak?
Give
us
your
name
and
your
address
for
the
record.
K
K
K
Our
next
basis
of
variance
request
is
fiscal
conservative,
conservativity
of
The
Proposal
for
approximately
15
years.
We
worked
diligently
in
sacrificed
to
make
additional
payments
on
our
home
with
the
goal
of
being
mortgage
free
as
early
as
possible.
We
achieved
our
goal
becoming
mortgage
free
15
years
early.
K
If
our
variance
is
denied,
we
Face
the
unfortunate
reality
of
having
a
mortgage
again
in
order
to
be
mortgage
free
in
another
home
that
is
equivalent
to
what
we
currently
have.
We
would
be
forced
to
relocate
to
a
more
rural
location
that
would
lack
the
quick
accessibility
to
hospitals,
doctors
and
pharmacies
that
we
currently
have.
K
The
variance
allowance
would
not
impact
the
use
of
any
public
walkways
sidewalks,
current
municipalities
or
other
use,
as
evidenced
by
other
homes
in
the
neighborhood
being
less
than
40
feet
in
distance
to
neutral
Drive.
For
instance,
the
home
at
49,
40,
59,
South
Somerset
way
is
approximately
15
feet
from
the
inside
of
the
rutzel
drive
sidewalk.
C
Is
there
due
to
the
nature
of
the
layout
of
your
house
currently?
Is
that
why
you
designed
it
to
go
into
setbacks
instead
of
a
different
design
that
might
avoid
the
setbacks.
K
Well,
it's
tri-level
and
it
makes
sense
from
a
from
a
money
standpoint
to
do
it
on
the
main
level,
and
then
you
it's
not
on
the
well.
You
can
see
it
on
the
rear
patio
to
the
left
of
that.
Drawing
I
should
point
over
here
right.
There
is
a
septic
tank
so
and
then
the
drain
fields
are
are
behind
the
shop,
so
that
prevents
you
understand
everything
in
the
white
next
to
the
yellow,
to
the
left
of
it
is
the
current
house,
so
it
would,
it
would
be
really
tough
to
do
it.
C
Okay,
and
did
your,
did
you
talk
to
your
neighbor
there,
that's
on
the
right
across
the
line,
any
any
issues
from
him.
K
A
A
K
A
Do
the
thing?
Okay,
because
it
looks
to
me
like
it's
quite
an
extensive
addition:
I
mean
the
tough
part
will
be
the
roof
tying
it
together.
Yeah,
yeah,
okay,
all
right!
Well,
I,
don't
have
any
any
further
questions.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
questions?
Okay?
Well?
Well,
thank
you.
We
will
I
will
then
close.
The
public
hearing
on
application,
two
zero.
A
A
B
Mr
chairman,
yes,
I,
just
just
a
comment
in
in
advance
of
making
the
motion
I
based
on
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
comments
that
are
made
here.
I,
the
three
I
I
think
the
three
issues
have
been
complied
with.
It
doesn't
Grant
a
special
writer
privilege
because
the
neighborhood
is
what
it
is
and
he's
he's
basically
doing
that
so
I,
don't
think
you're
grants
a
special
writer
privilege
so
I
think
it
complies
with
all
three
of
those.
So
I
would
move
to
approve
application.
B
E
Mr,
chairman
and
Commissioners
that
you
can
move
to
approve
and
table
right
for
revised
findings
and
and
just
to
help
Elias,
as
commissioner
Daily's
alluded
to.
We
have
heard
from
the
testimony
tonight
that
there's
additional
properties
in
the
vicinity
that
also
encroach
in
the
setbacks,
as
well
as
the
characteristics
of
the
site
with
the
home
location,
the
septic
septic
tank
drain
field
locations
that
identify
undue
hardship
based
on
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
site,
so
that
this
well.
E
E
A
Okay,
so
the
motion
should
be
the
table
the
table
and
to
to
approve
the
application
subject
to
the
findings,
revised
findings,
in
fact,
and
conclusion
of
law
that
will
be
presented
that
will
be
prepared
and
ready
for
final
final
approval
on
the
25th
of
July.
C
I'll
I'll,
second,
that
I
think
that
the
characteristics
of
the
site
qualifications
have
been
met
when
I
first
looked
at
it
I
thought.
Well,
you
could
build
in
the
back,
but
if
the
septic
tank
is
there,
then
obviously
that
makes
it
impossible
and
the
testimony
we
heard
about
the
the
the
main
level
of
the
floor
is
in
the
in
the
front,
not
the
back
of
the
house.
C
So
that's
where
the
addition
would
need
to
be
and
I
think
it's
in
the
interest
of
Ada
County
to
allow
people
to
stay
in
their
homes,
especially
their
their
long
time.
Family
homes,
I,
think
that's
in
the
interest
of
our
community
and
in
our
history
and
so
I
think
it's
a
valuable
Endeavor,
so
I'll.
Second,
your
motion.