►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment
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).
B
Okay,
the
meeting
will
now
come
to
order
welcome
to
january
25th,
2021
city
of
asheville
board
of
adjustments
meeting.
My
name
is
pratik
bhakta
and
I'm
the
vice
chair
of
the
board.
The
board
of
justice
is
a
kwajai
quasi
judicial
body
that
is
governed
by
the
north
carolina
general
statutes
and
the
city's
unified
development
ordinance.
B
We
are
authorized
to
hear
requests
for
variances
from
the
city's
unified
development.
Ordinance
appeals
from
final
determinations
made
by
city
officials,
charged
with
enforcement
of
the
city's
unified
development,
ordinance
request
for
reasonable
accommodations
and
other
requests,
as
may
be
provided
in
the
city's
ordinances.
All
committee
members
and
staff
are
participating
virtually.
B
B
We
also
have
an
option
for
the
public
to
listen
by
live,
listen,
live
by
phone
dial,
eight,
five,
five,
nine
two:
five,
two:
eight
zero
one
and
when
prompted
enter
the
code,
nine
two
five
five
again
I'll
restate
this
for
anyone
listening,
the
public
may
participate
by
dialing.
B
I
will
now
go
through
and
introduce
all
the
committee
members
who
are
participating
virtually
please
make
sure
to
meet
your
microphone
if
you're,
not
speaking,
excuse
me,
please
make
sure
to
mute
your
microphone
if
you're,
not
speaking
when
you
have
a
question
or
would
like
to
speak
or
unmute
your
microphone.
Please
remember
to
mute
your
phone
after
you're
done
speaking
committee
members,
as
I
call
your
name,
please
say:
quick,
hello
carter,
webb,
all
right,
suzanne,
gatsy,.
B
I'd
also
ask
that
anyone
speaking
today,
including
staff
to
state
their
names
and
titles
before
speaking,
we'll
now
begin
our
agenda
items
to
help
our
audience
follow
along
I'll
stage
each
section
of
the
agenda
aloud
and
do
a
vocal
roll
call
for
each
vote
additional
additionally
I'll
ask
that
committee
members
raise
their
hand
to
speak
and
I
will
call
upon
them
or
if
you
need
to
interrupt
just
for
a
question.
That's
that's
being
presented
just
go
ahead
and
unmute
and
ask
a
question.
B
D
E
Came
out
back
on
friday,
I
think
it
was.
B
D
A
I'll
I'll
double
check
send
them
the.
I
will
say
they're
89
pages
long.
B
So
without
any
further
discussions,
I'm
gonna
ask
for
a
vote.
Mr
webb.
D
Not
having
read
on
my
you
can
abstain.
Sure
I'm
staying,
I
just
haven't
seen
him.
So
I'm
happy
to
prove
him.
I
just
haven't
seen
him.
Okay,.
F
C
B
Minutes
have
passed
we'll
now
move
on
to
general
introduction
of
the
quasi-judicial
decisions.
We
now
begin
the
evidentiary
hearings
for
the
cases
listed
on
the
agenda.
In
hearing
the
cases
the
board
conduct
not
conducts
a
quasi-judicial
evidence,
you're
hearing.
That
means
it
is
like
a
court
hearing.
State
law
sets
specific
procedures
and
rules
concerning
how
this
board
must
make
its
decisions.
B
These
rules
are
different
from
other
types
of
land
use
decisions
like
rezoning
cases
which
are
legislative
in
nature.
The
board's
decisions
are
constrained
by
the
standards
in
the
city's
ordinance
and
the
facts
presented
at
the
hearing.
The
board
hears
and
considers
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
applies
the
standards
set
forth
in
state
law
and
the
city's
ordinance.
The
board
must
base
its
decision
upon
competent
material
and
substantial
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing.
If
you
will
be
speaking
as
a
witness,
please
focus
on
the
facts
and
standards,
not
personal
profits,
preferences
or
opinions.
B
Participation
is
limited.
The
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
Everyone
is
welcome.
To
watch
parties
have
rights
to
participate
fully.
Parties
may
present
evidence
call
witnesses
and
make
legal
arguments.
Witnesses
may
testify
as
to
facts
to
which
they
are
competent
to
testify
so
long
as
those
facts
relate
to
the
legal
standards.
In
addition,
lay
or
non-expert
witness
testimony
is
limited
to
facts,
not
opinions
for
certain
topics.
This
board
needs
to
hear
open
opinion
testimony
from
expert
witnesses.
B
These
topics
include
projections
about
impacts
on
property
values
and
projects,
projections
about
impacts
on
traffic
safety
for
various
requests.
A
four-fifths
vote
of
the
board
is
required
to
grant
a
variance
for
all
other
hearings
and
matters,
including
the
adoption
of
the
minutes.
The
decision
will
be
made
by
a
simple
majority.
Vote
of
the
board.
Witnesses
must
swear
to
form
their
testimony
at
this
time.
We'll
administer
the
oath
for
individuals
who
intend
to
provide
witness
testimony.
B
Okay
for
all
those
wanting
to
testify,
if
you
would
just
immediately
go
ahead,
ricky.
B
Okay,
for
those
who
who
are
gonna
affirm,
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
evidence
you
will
you
shall
give
to
the
lord
and
this
action
shall
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
B
Okay:
the
first
agenda
item
is
the
petitioner
barry
bialik
agent
for
owner
amy
jones
and
sean
o'connell
is
requesting
a
variance
to
the
development
standard
found
in
section
7-8-4
f-3
lot-sized
standards
of
the
unified
development
ordinance.
D
Mr
chair,
just
real
quick,
I
just
want
to
weigh
in
this.
Is
carter
webb.
I
don't
think
there's
a
conflict
of
interest,
but
mr
bialik
and
I
are
friends
and
and
were
once
neighbors
and
I've
already
had
this
one
full
disclosure
and-
and
I
already
sent
that
to
you
and
to
ricky,
but
I
just
want
to
put
it
on
the
record
in
case
anybody
thinks
I
should
recuse
myself,
I'm
happy
to
do
it,
but
I
don't
see
any
conflict.
A
And
eric
just
let
you
know
he
indicated
it
was
not
familial
financial
business.
It's
just
a
friendship
and
I
don't
believe
that
meets
a
conflict
of
interest
test.
H
A
A
If
we
don't
mind
just
give
us
like
I'm
sorry
for
that,
because
if
can
we
have
like
one
or
two
minutes
me
and
beth
are
trying
to
double
check,
don't
know
if
we
need
to
like
stop
start
the
stream
or
she's
talking
to
it.
So
if
we
can
just
have
like
one
minute
to
kind
of
figure
that
out
if.
A
I
D
A
A
A
A
All
right,
thank
you
board,
members
for
your
patient.
I
appreciate
the
applicants.
Patients
as
well.
We
are
back,
live
on
youtube
streaming,
so
now
the
public
can
follow
along
with
the
material.
That's
on
your
screen.
So
thank
you.
Anybody
listening
in
and
following
us.
We
appreciate
your
patience,
so
the
first
case
that
you
have
before
you
today
is
a
lot
area
of
variance.
A
Let's
see
mr
pratik's
dropped
off.
Let
me
stop
this
second.
Okay,
he's
there
you
are
back.
I
don't
believe
I
have
seen
one
of
these
applications
come
through.
It's
been
a
little
while,
since
you've
seen
a
lot
area
variants
jason,
will
you
go
next
screen
for
me?
A
Okay,
so
mr
b
alec
is
on
a
petition
on
behalf
of
the
owners
miss
miss
jones
and
mr
o'connell
regarding
in
the
required
lot
area
for
an
rs8
zoning
district,
that's
a
4,
000
square
foot
minimum
lot
size.
A
There
is
a
survey
in
the
packet
provided
by
the
applicant.
The
total
lot
area
currently
is
7885.96
square
foot,
and
so
the
end
result
would
be
depending
how
it
was
divided.
The
applicant
could
do
as
an
example.
A
4
000
square
foot.
Lot
and
then
a
resultant
3
85.96
square
foot
lot,
which
is
approximately
2.85
percent
reduction
jason
next
screen,
please
so
here's
the
zoning
map
just
the
way
orientation
hendersonville
road
is
to
just
to
the
edge
of
the
screen
to
the
left,
is
just
off
the
highway
business.
A
That
kind
of
pinkish
color,
that
is
parcels
of
budding
and
fronting
hendersonville
road,
and
this
is
kind
of
the
north
end
of
shiloh.
I-40
is
probably
about
a
quarter
mile
to
the
north,
near
the
hendersonville
road
I-40
interchange
to
your
northwest
next
screen,
please
and
then
here's
a
contour
map.
A
So
it's
the
second
parcel
and
it
kind
of
slopes
generally
from
east
to
west
toward
down
toward
reed
street
next
slide,
please
jason
and
so
here's
a
street
view.
This
is
wilson
street
with
the
existing
house
and
next
slide.
Please
jason,
and
this
is
the
reed
street
side
of
the
property.
So
you,
as
you
can
see
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
of
an
uphill
climb,
fairly
gentle
slope
for
asheville
I'd
say
I
think
the
average
was
about
20
percent
average
natural
slope
for
the
property.
A
It
is
not
steep
slope
zone,
anything
it!
A
below
the
21
22,
20
contour,
but
it's
a
fairly
gradual
slope,
is
what
you
can
see
here
and
then
next
slide,
please
jason,
and
so
this
is
the
exhibit
provided
by
the
applicant.
The
survey
I
mentioned
the
785.96
square
foot
and
you
can
see
the
house
is
kind
of
positioned
very
almost
exclusively
to
the
east
side
of
the
lot
fairly
close
next
slide.
Please
jason-
and
these
are
just
some
reference-
plots
I'll
I'll.
Let
mr
b
alec
go
through
it.
A
If
you
want
to
stop
right,
there
jason
on
the
slides,
but
as
far
as
variances
go.
The
udo
is
kind
of
very
specific
in
variance
guidance
for
the
board,
and
it
says
that
the
board
of
adjustment
is
limited
to
a
not
more
so
no
more
than
a
10
percent
reduction
in
lot
area
in
size.
So
for
a
4,
000
square
foot
lot.
That
means
a
maximum
400
square
feet
that
the
board,
if
they
found
the
reasons
and
evidence
to
reduce
it.
A
So
a
3
600,
I
guess,
would
be
the
reciprocal
number
3
600
square
feet
would
be
the
smallest
lot
that
y'all
could
allow
and
also
just
to
let
you
know
we
there
if
you've,
read
the
udo
or
been
involved
with
a
lot.
There
is
a
flexible
development
standards
and
we
had
some
authority
for
like
very
quantitative
and
we
use
a
lot
with
setbacks,
but
it
mentions
lot
area,
but
it
talks
about
a
historic
pattern
of
development
in
this
area.
I'd
say
that
most
of
the
lots
are
more
than
4
000
square
feet.
A
A
G
A
Yes,
sir
yeah,
you
start
over,
do
you
would
you
like
jason
to
back
up
a
couple
slides
for
you
or
do
you
want
to
work
through
your
example.
J
Yeah,
let's
go
back
to,
I
guess
where
we,
where
it
shows
this
survey
well,
actually,
let's
I'll
reference
back
a
few
times.
Let's
start
with
we'll
start
with
the
survey,
because
I'll
start
with
the
property.
K
Itself
and
yes,
I'm
sorry
barry.
I
still
don't
have
that.
That
document
that
you
were
wanting
to
send
over
for
the
ms.
J
Okay,
well,
I
yeah.
I
can
re-email
email
that
to
ricky
I'll
reference
that
later,
what
did
it
do,
but
what
what
I,
what
I
emailed
in
was
that
just
the
msd
map
ricky.
Did
you
get
that.
A
I'll
say:
okay,
I
did
I
did.
Let
me
check
see
what
I
think
it's
hung
up
in
my
sent
folder.
Let
me
okay,
my
network's
slow
here.
So
I'm
sorry.
Let
me
try
again.
J
I'll
hold
on
to
referencing
that
later,
so
what
this
is
reflecting
right
here.
This
is
the
survey
of
the
property
that
we
prepared.
So
the
the
you
know
the
client
reached
out
to
me.
So
you
know
my
capacity,
I'm
the
builder
for
general
contractor
for
compact
cottages
and
dirt
and
sticks.
So
we
build
a
lot
of
small
footprint
homes
in
town
and
a
lot
of
edus,
I'm
also
the
chair
of
the
affordable
housing
committee
for
the
city.
J
So
I
get
reached
out
a
lot
when
people
are
trying
to,
you
know:
do
small
infill
developments
or
for
build
adus,
so
this
client
had
reached
out
to
me
about
dividing
their
property
or
or
possibly
you
know,
building
an
adu.
J
Obviously
the
eight
you
know
adu
triggers
whole
different
financing
difficulties,
so
the
easiest
way
was
to
look
to
kind
of
divide
it.
So
when
we
surveyed
the
property
and
looked
at
it,
you
know
we
saw
that
we
were.
It
was
at
eight
thousand.
You
know
it
was
under
eight
thousand
square
feet.
It
was
seven
thousand,
was
it
886
square
feet,
and
so
we
we
saw,
we
were
going
to
be
a
little
bit
shy
and
I've
used
the
flex
development
standard
which
allows
for
10
variations
through
staff
level
review.
J
So
I
went
that
approach
first
and
then
you
know
it
was
advised
that
probably
the
board
of
adjustments
would
be
the
better
way
because
staff
didn't
feel
like
it
was
within
their
authority
to
be
able
to
do
that.
So
so
that's
why
we're
here
with
this?
So
we're
asking
you
know.
Obviously
it's
about
114
square
foot
variants,
which
is,
I
think,
that's
like
2.8
percent.
J
So
some
of
the
things
that
are
you
you
know
unique
about
this
property.
Is
you
know
that
to
create
obviously
to
create
the
two
to
four
thousand
square
foot
lot
sizes?
That
would
be
conforming?
They
we
don't
have
this
the
square
footage
exactly
so.
What
we
went
ahead
and
looked
at
is
some
of
the
surrounding
plots.
J
So
exhibit
three
was
the
plot
that
created.
You
know
this
neighborhood
and
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
on
this
flat.
It
is
locked
two
up
in
the
kind
of
the
top
towards
the
top
of
the
screen,
so
it's
lock
two
that
we're
talking
about
and
one
of
the
things
to
note
that
on
this
plat,
the
right
of
ways,
meaning
the
cr,
the
streets
crate
at
that
time,
which
were
brookshire
and
reed
street,
are
not
specifically
denoted
with
their
right-of-way
widths.
J
J
Let's
see
on
school
street,
I
think,
is
now
academy
street,
so
it
re
rejiggered
the
property
lines
of
several
of
the
lots
between
reed
street
wilson
and
brookshire
just
south
of
academy
street.
So
you
can
see
on
this
plot,
which
was.
J
J
All
of
the
others
were
just
slightly
over,
but
this
was
so.
I
guess
they
got
the
short
straw
and
you
know
we
couldn't
have
predicted
what
modern
zoning
would
would
adjust
to
and
how
it
would
play
in,
but
this
lot
was
created
and
it
was
at
that
point
786
square
feet,
so
of
that
it
would
have
been
the
only
one
that
would
not
have
been
dividable.
J
J
So
exhibit
five
created
something
very
similar
to
what
we're
trying
to
do.
It
basically
used
the
frontage,
in
this
case
from
wilson
street
in
berkshire
street,
to
divide
the
lot
in
half
their
their
lot
their.
They
didn't
have
that
short
straw
from
that
first
found.
You
know
the
first
survey,
so
they
actually
were
over
8
000
square
feet.
J
It
looks
like
this
was
the
the
total
lot
must
have
been
8
600
square
feet,
so
they
were
able
to
divide
off
the
existing
house
and
then
create
a
parcel
of
4
000
square
feet
so,
and
that
is,
I
think,
it's
just
kitty
corner
across
the
street
across
the
wilson
street
from
our
plat.
So
even
though
it
wasn't,
it
doesn't
go
below
4
000
square
feet.
The
precedence
is
there
of
dividing
these
locks
into
smaller
lots.
Meeting
current
zoning
standards
next
plot
next
exhibit
I
want
to
reference-
is
exhibit
four.
J
So
exhibit
four
just
for
reference.
It's
the
lots,
d
and
e
on
that
plot
are
directly
across
the
street
from
the
lot
that
we're
discussing
right
now,
so
that
lot
was
wider,
so
it
had
enough
frontage.
So
it
was
divided
into
lots
that
are
about,
looks
like
5,
500
and
5400
square
feet.
J
So
again
that
you
know,
even
though
it's
not
truly
below
four
thousand
square
feet,
lots
have
been
created,
there's
a
historical
pattern
of
creating
smaller
lots
out
of
the
existing
lots
from
the
plat
one
of
the
things
to
note
on
this
plat
is
it
references
where
earlier
I
said
that
the
reed
street
plot
the
reach,
the
reed
street
on
the
other
plots,
wasn't
specifically
denoted
to
the
width
of
it
on
this
plat.
J
When
you
measure
on
the
gis
and
when
you
measure
on
other
standards,
it
shows
reed
street
over
there
being
wider
more
like
35
feet.
So
it
is
possible
that
if
the
right
of
way
was
true,
30
truly
just
30
feet.
Some
of
that
may
have
been
given
over.
Some
of
that
could
have
been
given
over
to
the
lot
in
question,
which
would
then
put
it
over
the
4
000
square
foot
minimum.
J
So
you
know,
I
guess
my
my
point
is
we're
so
close
and
there's
a
couple
of
questions
in
play
that
make
it
unique
to
this
plat
that
that
it's
out
of
you
know
out
of
this
owner's
control
of
what
they
could
do,
that
there's
we're
based
on
1920s
and
1946
as
platt.
We've
got
a
pattern
of
dividing
these
lots
into
smaller
lots
and
all
of
the
other
lots
that
were
created
in
the
plot
that
created
this
particular
lot
were
over
the
8
000
square
foot,
just
by
just
by
a
hair.
G
So,
let's
see,
I
think,
that's
my
that's
the
plot
history.
I
just
wanted
to
walk
through
the
see.
What
else
do
I
want
to
say
about
that.
J
That
there
was
that
you
know
what
I
said
is
that
if
you,
if
you
could
actually
pull
back
just
I'll,
just
demonstrate
that
quick,
if
you
pull
back,
I
think
it
was
the
g
one
of
your
zoning.
Your
exhibit
a
your
zoning
map
shows
see
how
reed
street
widens
out
in
front
of
this
lot
and
how
it
narrows
down
to
be
30
feet
towards
the
towards
the
south
end,
and
then
wilson
street
looks
a
consistent,
30
feet
and
then
reed
street
in
front
of
the
slot.
J
According
to
the
gis
measures
about
38
feet,
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
platinum
consistency
that
if
we
were
applying
just
a
30
foot
right
away
standard
to
it,
even
if
that
difference
were
split
between
the
lots
on
either
side
of
the
street,
that
would
put
it.
You
know
we're
so
close.
That
would
give
enough
extra
to
put
it
over
the
edge.
You
know
to
give
this
one
over
4
000
square
feet.
So
that's
why
you
know
I
thought
it
was
worth
bringing
to
this
committee
that
we're
you
know
we're
so
close.
J
So
you
know,
I
think
in
my
I
did
some
math
that
I
put
in
my
example
that
the
you
know
that
the
right-of-way
appears
to
be,
and
it's
wide
as
close
to
38
feet
if
30,
if
30
foot
is
accurate
and
then
applied
to
the
slot,
even
with
giving
only
four
foot
to
this
lot,
which
is
half
of
the
excess
width
of
this
slot
and
the
other
half
of
the
excess
lot
to
the
lot
across
the
street.
That
would
create
an
additional
242
square
feet,
which
would
means
we
wouldn't
be
here.
J
So
you
know
that's
that's
some
of
the
history
of
a
lot.
So
as
far
as
the
application,
you
know,
the
other
thing
I'm
just
going
to
address
you
know
is
that
yeah,
obviously
the
one
the
lot
owner
didn't
create
this
hardship.
You
know
this
is
based
on
plots
recorded
in
1946
in
1909,
before
applying
for
the
zoning
variants.
The
I
asked
the
owner
to
reach
out
to
the
lots
on
both
sides
of
it.
J
You
know,
because,
basically,
what
we
needed
was
one
linear
foot
from
either
one
of
those
lots
and
we
would
have
been
over
so
we
reached
out
to
the
lot
above
it
and
the
lot
below
it,
asking
if
they'd
be
willing
to
deed
over
one
foot
of
their
property,
which
would
then
you
know,
given
this
lot,
you
know
made
it
conforming.
J
Both
of
those
property
owners
have
their
their
their
properties
are
uncovered
by
deeds
of
trust.
So
the
it's
not
it's,
not
necessarily
easy
or
feasible
to
go
through
that
process
to
sell
just
a
foot
of
your
lot.
So
it
wasn't
a
practical
solution
for
either
of
those
to
be
able
to
sell
off
a
foot
of
their
lot.
It
would
have
mean
they
would
have
had
to
refinance
the
mortgage
or
go
through
the
partial
release
of
deed
process,
which
is
not
is
not
easy.
J
The
other.
The
other
point
I
just
want
to
make
is
that
I
do
feel
that
the
variance
is
consistent
with
the
spirit
you
know,
purpose
and
intent
of
the
udo
and
it's,
although
it
is
slightly
smaller.
I
think
it's
consistent
with
the
subdivision
actions
that
are
occurring
in
the
neighborhood,
that
there
is
this
pattern
of
dividing
into
smaller
lots
that
are
allowed
by
new
zoning.
J
G
J
K
J
While
he's
working
on
it,
the
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
you
know,
as
is
common
in
the
city
of
asheville,
that
a
lot
of
easements
you
know
easements
for
sewer
easement
for
water,
weren't
necessarily
recorded
back
until
I
think
just
like
10
or
12
years
ago,
so
this
particular
property
and
which
is
common
in
many
many
places
I
build
in
the
neighbor
and
build
in
the
area
they're,
it's
the
the
sewer,
the
neighbor,
this
the
sewer
lines
are
hooked
up
to
neighbor
sewer
lines.
J
So
in
this
particular
case
on
the
msd
map,
which
you
know
when
we
pull
up,
it,
doesn't
actually
have
a
registered
tap
it's
currently.
There
we
go
so
there's
604,
wilson
and
the
property
right
above
it
is,
is,
I
think
it's
600.
J
600
wilson
is
the
one
yet
just
above
it
and
currently
604
wilson
ties
into
this
the
same
sewer
tap
for
600
wilson,
and
then
it
goes
down
to
the
street.
So
by
allowing
this,
you
know,
variants
that
allow
wounds
we
once
we
subdivide
and
as
part
of
the
construction
process,
we
go
through
we'll
be
able
to
remedy
that
by
putting
in
two
separate
sewer
taps
one
for
604,
wilson
and
one
for
a
new
resultant
lot.
If
allowed.
J
So
you
know,
even
though,
while
it's
not
a
city's
responsibility
to
do
anything
of
correcting
it
is
something
that's
a
big
issue
in
our
city
with
our
utilities
infrastructure,
and
it
is
more
common
than
you
can
ever
imagine
how
many
sewer
lines
I
cross
that
don't
have
easements.
So
this
will
be
a
way
that
will
allow
something
to
be
corrected.
J
I
think
that's
you
know
about
the
about
the
case
of
what
I'd
like
to
make.
You
know
the
plan.
The
plan
would
be
for
this
owner
to
build
a
small
footprint
home
that
would
be
in
character
with
the
neighborhood
in
character,
with
what
we
build
at
compact
cottages.
C
Yeah
this
is
paul
wilsinski.
I
have
a
question,
sir,
on
the
application
that
you
filled
out.
There
are
four
questions
that
you
answer
that
relate
to
standards
that
we
need
to
to
be
cognizant
of
sort
of
only
speaks
to
what
the
unnecessary
hardship
is,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
have
the
answer,
if
you
have
the
form
in
front
of
you,
but
the
answer
that
you
gave
to
that
first
question
speaks
to
the
facts.
C
It
speaks
to
the
lot
sizes
and
if
you
don't
get
the
variance
the
parcel
can't
be
divided,
but
it
it
doesn't
really
speak
to
what
the
unnecessary
hardship
is,
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
briefly
speak
to
that.
J
You
know
I
would
in
in
this
case
I
mean,
I
would
say,
obviously
the
hard
hardship
is
if
it
couldn't
be
created,
but
I'd
say
the
heart.
J
You
know
the
hardship
is
that
it
was
created
by
a
plot
process
that
that,
from
like
the
early
1900s
and
1940s
that
doesn't
fully
that
the
math
might
not
fully
add
up
on
and
that
in
this
case,
when
this,
when
the
plot
was
created,
all
of
the
other
lots
in
the
10
plats
were
over
8
000
square
feet
and
there's
no
way
that
there's
no
way
that
whoever
was
creating
that
plot
at
that
time
could
have
predicted
what
current
zoning
standards
are.
J
So
the
current
zoning
standards
that
were
created
create
a
hardship
on
this
plat
that
it
on
this.
Only
this
only
this
lot
in
that
plot.
That
was
created
because
they
didn't
know
at
that
time
to
add
that
extra
200
square
feet
on
it.
But
you
know
I'd
say
that's
the
big
hardship
that
comes
from
this
is
that
it
was.
It
was
the
plat
back
then
was
created
at
the
time
that
couldn't
have
predicted
what
current
zoning
stand.
J
Zoning
standards
would
be
and
there's
questions
in
the
math
and
the
lining
up
of
the
right-of-way
as
to
whether
the
lot,
if
that
right-of-way
were
true
30
feet,
would
be
completely
conforming
to
new
current
zoning
standards.
J
F
E
F
A
Just
I'd
say
kevin:
it
did
in
very
recent
history.
It
was
about
my
memory
is
about
four
years
ago.
I
think
it
was
2006.
F
So
although
the
right-of-way
has
in
the
this
question
of
right-of-way,
has
infringed
on
the
property,
the
zoning
has
changed
in
the
future.
You
know
more
recently
to
make
this
even
remotely
feasible,
so
that
that's
that's
something
that
I
think
is
worth
pointing
out
so
ricky
the
accessory
dwelling
units
and
the
ordinance.
What
would
this
property
be
able
to
put
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
on
it?.
A
J
Yeah,
I
believe
in
this
case
it
would
be.
You
know
it's
based
on.
Obviously,
the
the
adu
square
footage
allowed
is
based
on
the
square
footage
of
the
main
house.
So
you
know
I
don't
have
that
right
in
front
of
me,
but
if
an
example,
if
it's
a
800
square
foot
house,
the
maximum
that
will
be
allowed
is
a
400
square
foot
adu,
you
know
the
maximum
adu
allowed
is
800
square
feet
total,
regardless
of
the
size
of
the
primary,
but
it's
only
applied.
J
If
the
primary
is
smaller
than
1600
square
feet,
then
the
50
only
applies
to
whatever
the
square
footage
of
the
existing
house.
Is
you
know?
Adus,
yes,
certainly
are
a
tool
in
the
city.
It's
you
know
it's
under
you
know
as
a
chair
of
the
affordable
housing
committee,
we
find
you
know
edu's,
even
though
it
seems
like
it's
the
lowest
hanging
fruit.
It's
the
hardest.
It's
not
an
easy
thing
to
get
financed.
J
It's
because
if
you
can't,
you
can't
get
a
alone
to
build
an
adu
if
easily,
if
there's
another,
if
there's
another
home
on
it.
So
with
this
this
creates.
You
know
having
separate
parcels
whether
it's
through
dividing
them
like
this
or
using
the
plain
community
act.
You
know
allows
you
to
then
get
separate,
pin
numbers
and
parcels
which
then
you
could
put
separate
deeds
of
trust
on
which
make
it
easier
to
construct.
You
know,
adu
size
homes.
F
So
I
would
just
point
out,
though,
that
we
can't
really
use
financial
difficulties
and
granting
a
variance,
so
I
I'm
sure
that's
let
me
see
if
that
was
all
of
my
oh.
I
guess
I
guess
I'm
just
having
oh,
I
wanted
to
ask
ricky
one
other
question
have
have
you.
Has
the
city
granted
these
planning
director
lot
variances?
Basically,
in
the
past.
A
Yeah,
I
probably
didn't
clarify
when
I
said
that
earlier
it's
a
flexible
development,
but
I
do
the
the
almost
all
the
flexible
development
for
the
city
right
now
and
we
had
done
some
lot
area
reductions
back
prior
to
the
change
from
five
to
four,
because
there
are
quite
a
few
lots
that
were
planted
years
ago
that
were
47
feet,
wide
46
foot
wide
or
4
800
square
feet,
but
since
the
reduction
to
the
40
and
4
000.
A
In
this
example,
I
I
have
not
granted
any
and
we've
not
really
had
much
a
way
of
petition
for
those
in
that
case,
because,
typically,
what
we
run
across
is
either
lots
that
are
25
foot
wide
like
strips,
but
no
to
say
it
all
to
say
no.
I
have
not
granted
any
since
the
lot
area
a
lot
with
reductions
were
adopted
by
council.
I
have
not
done
any.
F
Okay,
all
right,
I
think
that's
it
for
right
now.
Thank
you.
J
Okay,
yeah
we'll
point
out.
Obviously
this
is
rs8
so
yeah
we
have
that
restriction
in
our
you
know
an
rm8.
You
know
this
this
option
this
we
wouldn't
have
to
again.
We
wouldn't
have
to
be
here
for
that,
because
it's
that
would
allow
whether
whether
it
was
divided
or
not.
This
way
it
could
be
divided
through
a
planned
community
act.
You're
allowed
to
build
two
structures
on
that
property
and
then
divide
them
off
separately.
You
know
it's
rs8
just
doesn't
allow
that.
The
only
you
know.
Other
tool
is
the
cottage.
B
Okay,
we'll
close
that
part
and
open
it
up
for
public
comments.
M
M
Yeah,
my
name
is
ben
martin
and
I'm
the
property
owner
for
616
and
612
reed
street,
which
would
be
to
the
west
of
the
the
subject
property
there.
Okay
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
react
to
a
couple
of
the
things
that
were
said
primarily
that
the
sewer
connection
for
604
that
can
be
made
that
can
be
connected
without
subdividing.
M
A
lot
604
is
in
from,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
is
the
non-conforming
lot,
as
it
sits
now,
based
on
setbacks
off
of
wilson
street,
so
you'd
kind
of
be
continuing
on
that,
and
when
the
lots
across
the
street
were
subdivided,
they
were
subdivided
under
that
5
000
square
foot
udo.
M
So
just
as
far
as
a
precedence
for
the
area,
the
the
area
has
been
under
that
5
000
for
for
quite
some
time
and
recently,
since
it
went
to
the
4000
it's
it's
I'm
having
a
hard
time
understanding
where,
where
we're
coming
from
with
the
you
know
with
this
with
this
precedent,
but
I
just
that
was
just
a
couple
of
things
I
have
you
know
exhibit
four
that
was
presented.
That's
my
survey
there,
so
anyways
just
that's!
M
Basically
my
facts
on
it,
I
don't,
I
don't
see
the
hardship
of
not
being
able
to
subdivide
you
know,
because
you
can't
get
a
loan
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
I
believe
that's
about
it.
If
anybody
has
questions,
I
can
answer
them.
H
B
B
N
N
Ahead,
so
I
wanted
to
talk
about
parking
parking
is
already
at
a
premium
on
our
street.
When
you
take
a
look
at
the
images
that
you
had
earlier,
you
will
see
it's
virtually
a
one-way,
narrow
street
with
little
off-street
parking,
I'm
wondering
where
the
residents
of
that
dwelling
will
park,
and
then
I
also
wanted
to
talk
about
the
historical
significance
of
these
houses.
There
are
five
houses
on
this
street.
All
are
the
same
in
a
similar
bungalow
style,
they're,
all
a
hundred
years
old.
N
Also,
you
can't
see-
and
you
can
see
that
spot
that's
in
this
photo
that
we're
looking
at
right
now,
if
you
see
all
of
that
water
in
the
road
on
reed
street,
that's
actually
damage
from
the
sewer
line.
Houses
were
constructed
up
the
road
613
reed
street
when
they
were
building
those
three
houses,
they
damaged
the
sewer
line
and
that
water
is
constantly
there,
it's
potentially
raw
sewage.
The
city
was
out
to
look
at
that
in
july
of
this
year.
N
I
don't
know
what
the
results
of
that
were,
but
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up,
because
the
infrastructure
of
these
houses
are
very,
it's
very
old.
So
it's
something
that
the
city
will
have
to
take
into
consideration.
N
Also,
the
builder
brought
up
the
zoning
map
that
indicated
that
reed
street
widens
toward
academy.
The
reason
why
that
widens
is
because
there's
a
concrete
drain
put
in
place
because
academy
and
reed
street
floods
when
there's
a
heavy
rain.
N
J
I
would
just
add
that
you
know
it
whatever
gets
done.
You
know
on
that
lot
with
the
parking
would
be
off.
You
know
if
you
brought
up
off
reed
street.
Yes,
you
know
so
parking
would
be
brought
up
and
then
we
would,
you
know
part
of
you
know.
That
is
the
beauty
I
mean.
J
I
appreciate
you
know
old
historic
homes
and
but
new,
you
know
new
construction
when
it
comes
in
does
it
it
gets
to
fix
also
some
of
the
issues,
especially
the
old
infrastructure
issues
that
you
discussed
so
yeah.
So
you
know
we
could
it
has
the
opportunity,
with
things
open,
to
correct
sewer
line
errors
which
we
have
to
do
all
the
time,
and
you
know
I
I
I
think
the
from
the
times
I've
spent
on
you
know
reed
street.
J
I
think
that
you
know
improving
it
and
with
new
systems
and
and
new
driveways
and
paving
would
help
help
predict.
You
know
help
situations
not
hurt
them.
L
B
Okay,
we're
gonna
now
close
the
public
comments
and
open
up
for
the
board
board.
You
guys
have
comments.
D
This
is
carter
webb,
mr
chair.
It
looks
like
we're
struggling
with
the
first
one.
The
unnecessary
hardship
would
result
from
the
strict
application
of
the
ordinance
from
from
what
I'm
I'm
hearing
is.
That
is
that
kind
of
where
we're
going
from
the
other
board
members.
C
Yeah
hi,
this
is
paul.
Let
me
say
that
that
that's
that
particular
question
is
one
that
I
often
ask
if
it
isn't
absolutely
100
crystal
clear
to
me
what
the
unnecessary
hardship
is.
I
think
the
petitioner
made
a
good
argument
to
answering
my
question,
so
I
happen
to
be
satisfied
with
it.
D
Barry,
if
you
could
address
it,
just
a
little
bit
more,
what
what
is
the?
What
is
the
main
partnership,
because
here,
what
I'm
looking
at
is
that
what
we're?
What
we're
trying
to
decide
is
what
what's,
the
hardship
on
preventing
you
from
splitting
the
lot
in
half
right,
and
that's
that's
essentially
what
we're
looking
at
am.
I
am
I
missing
the
issue
eric
and
that
what
we're
kind
of
looking
at
here.
H
It's
you're
looking
at
the
existing
lot
and
whether
there's
a
hardship
that
would
limit
the
use
of
the
existing
lot,
and
so
that's
that's
the
that's
the
question
that
that
you
all
are
faced
with
here
in
determining
whether
there's
a
hardship.
D
H
In
theory,
you're
looking
at
whether
or
not
there's
a
physical
hardship
that
impairs
the
property
owner's
ability
to
make
reasonable
use
of
their
lot.
In
this
case,
it's
a
bit
a
bit
different
because
there's
an
existing
house
there,
so
they
are,
they
are
currently
making
use
of
the
existing
lot
but
I'll.
Let
mr
gallic
characterize
the
hardship
as
he
sees
fit.
J
Okay,
yeah
and
I
see
the
the
the
hardship
really
is
just
you
know
more,
the
fact
of
what's
created
from
the
you
know.
What
is
the
situation?
What
is
the
hardship?
That's
created
from
a
lot-
and
you
know
it's
it's
just
that
when
the
plots
were
created
that
the
they
couldn't
have
predicted,
what
modern
zoning
or
what
demand
would
be
in
the
city,
so
that
ten
lots
that
were
created,
nine
of
the
ten
lots
were
created
over
eight
thousand
square
feet.
This
was
the
only
lot
that
was
under
ten
thousand.
J
I
mean
under
eight
thousand
square
feet.
It
was
just
by
a
hair.
So
when
that
plaque
was
created,
it
was
it
kind
of
created
a
hardship
for
this
lot
that
wasn't
known
until
modern
zoning
times,
but
that
it's
it's
you
know
it's
all
of
those.
Other
lots
are
over
the
8
000
square
foot
and
only
like
a
hair
over
it.
So
where
you
know
we're
114
square
foot,
it's
very
you
know
very
small
amount
short
and
so
the
you
know
the
hardship.
Obviously
I
mean
I
mean
hardship
comes
in.
J
Is
that
it
can't
as
it
is
it?
Can
it
still
could
it
can
have
an
adu
on
it?
A
small
footprint
adu
it
just?
It
can't
have
a
another
house
which
you
know
another
regular-sized
house,
and
what
we're
you
know.
What
we
build
are
small
footprint
homes,
but
with
that
in
our
city
with
you
know
our
affordable
housing
crisis
that
we're
getting
really
we're
having
to
be
really
creative
for
how
to
make
new
homes
work
and
make
things
affordable.
J
For
folks-
and
that's
you
know-
that's
not
the
hardship
from
this,
but
it's
it's
just
the
hardship
that
that
this
lot
was
got
the
short
straw.
I
guess
from
the
10
that
were
created
and
the
short
story
was
not
that
short,
but
it
was
just
short
enough.
Then
it
couldn't
have
predicted
the
current
standards.
So
you.
D
J
Do
exactly
what
we're
proposing
this
is
the
only
lot
that
that
need
would
need
this
variance
to
not
have
that
same
hardship.
F
That's
where
my
my
that
that's
where
I
commissioned
this
and
to
say
our
hardship
is
that
the
property's
too
small
well
yeah,
no
kidding.
I
mean
that
saying
my
hardship
is
the
fact
that
you
have
regulations.
It's
it's
a
challenging.
It's!
I
don't
feel
like
you're
addressing
a
specific
hardship
me
personally,
so
I
I'm
having
a
hard
time
with
the
application
yeah.
J
But
I
understand
I
mean
it's,
it's
like
I
guess,
because
the
amount
is
so
close,
and
I
guess
you
know
the
hardship
is
all
the
remedies
that
would
the
remedies
that
that
the
lot
owner
could
take
in
are
not
feasible
in
this
because
of
the
other.
You
know,
because
of
the
neighbors
not
being
able
to
you
know
they
would
they
would
have
to
refinance
their
property
to
be
able
to
deed
over
that
one
foot
if
that
was
something
they
wanted
to
do.
F
It
sure
would
be
nice
if
the
flexible
development
standard
could
have
been
applied
to
this
considering
it
is
so
incredibly
small
so
that
that's
what
I'll
say
about
it,
yeah.
J
J
You
know
it's
like
udl
allows
you
to
do
this
as
a
board
the
it
allows
up
to
a
10
reduction
and
we're
asking
for
a
2.8.
So
I
you
know
I
look
at
that.
The
ask
is
minimal
and
it
it
allows
so
much
more.
By
doing
it,
you
know
it'll.
It
allows
another
home
for
someone
yeah.
F
So
let
me
let
me
interrupt
you
real,
quick
and
ask
mr
edgerton.
So
the
way
that
that
reads
is
that,
yes,
we
do
have
the
authority
to
grant
a
variance
up
to
10,
but
we
still
have
to,
or
this
property
still
has
to
meet
the
four
standards
of
a
variance.
So
it's
not
just
you
can
go
up
to
10
just
because
you
have
to
actually
have
a
hardship,
and
that
has
to
be
demonstrated
by
the
application.
H
That's
correct:
the
underlying
four
factors
for
a
variance
have
to
be
met,
and
then
the
cap,
then,
would
apply
if
you
find
that
they,
if
they
do.
If
you
have
met
those
standards,
then
that
that
10
cap
would
come
into
play.
J
You
explain
that
you
know,
because
the
way
I
read
the
application
like
the
way
I
read
the
application,
it
seems
like
the
the
hardship
portion
is
really
just
the
stating
of
what
couldn't
happen.
If
this,
I
guess,
I'm,
I
guess
I'm
confu
I'm
trying
to
just
understand
the
the
it's
the
hardship.
J
How
would
one
explain
what
that
is
other
than
just
explaining?
This
is
what
you
can't
do
with
this,
because
of
that,
I'm
I'm
I'm
just
having
a
hard
time
with
that
hardship
on
being
the
the
the
one
getting
stuck
up
on,
because
that
seems
to
be
what
the
purpose
of
asking
for
the
variance
in
the
process
is
it's
it's
that
a
lot
has
a
hardship.
H
Yeah
and
they
said
that,
and
so
that
the
ordinance
states
that
much
and
that's
consistent
with
essentially
every
ordinance
and
it's
consistent
with
the
statutes
that
apply
to
variances,
that
you
have
to
demonstrate
a
hardship
but
there's
a
whole
there's
a
whole
additional
body
of
case
law.
That's
one
off
of
that.
H
That
largely
says
that
just
a
financial
hardship
alone
is
not
going
to
be
sufficient,
have
something
like
a
financial
hardship,
that's
triggered
by
virtue
of
like
a
rock
outcropping
that
prohibits
you
from
building
a
sidewalk,
I
think
is
one
of
the
more
we
had
that
that
clearly
gets
you
there.
H
D
H
And
so
I'm
referring
to
the
it's
a
case
called
turk,
the
town
of
surf
city,
and
it
was
a
very
small.
It
was
a
7.2
inch
incursion
into
a
setback.
I'm
not
sure
what
the
what
the
setback
was,
but
whatever
it
is,
7.2
inches
would
be
an
exceedingly
small
percentage.
J
And
I
think
our
our
udo
has
been
pretty.
You
know
the
the
10
is
something
that's
been
pretty
consistent
language
in
the
flexible
developments
and
in
you
know
asking
for
variance
up
to
that.
It
seems
like
that.
10
has
been
a
pretty.
You
know,
it's
a
pretty
consistent
standard
that
I've
seen
you
know
applied.
I've
only
had
to
use
it
once
before
for
a
foundation
into
a
setback
or
something.
J
But
yeah
it's
alright,
I
mean
it's
yeah
I
mean
I
guess
I
mean
addressing
the
hardship
issue.
You
know,
I
think
it's
really
that
I
mean
we
are
trying.
We
have
a,
I
mean
the
bigger
the
bigger
pictures
we
have.
We
have
a
housing
crisis
in
town
and
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
solutions
and
when
people
are
willing
to
be
part
of
that
solution
and
then,
if
there's
tools
to
help
them
be
part
of
that,
then
we
should
be.
J
D
B
D
B
Okay,
mr
bhakta
says
yes,
motion
fails,
the
variance
is
not.
J
Approved
all
right,
well,
yeah!
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Yeah!
It's
disappointing!
You
know
it's
it's!
I
don't
know
if
I
could
see
anything,
but
it's
a
yeah.
It's
disappointing
to
see.
You
know,
especially
as
someone
who
fights
and
works
and
chairs
the
affordable
housing
committee
for
in
town
when,
when
minor
issues
like
this
come
up
and
we
don't
have
the
ability
within
our
city's
processes
to
entertain
them
properly,
then
that's
really
disappointing.
You
know
if
this
is
a
solution
you
know.
B
Mr
hurley,
can
the
petitioner
come
back
with
any
other
changes
to
re-uh
resubmit,
any
different
way.
A
You
know,
of
course,
city
council
is
always
the
one
that
sets
legislative
action
and
can
always
be
the
one
that
changes
like
they
did
last
time
they
changed
the
rules
from
five
thousand
to
four
thousand
and
would
apply
uniformly
to
all
zoning
districts,
so
that
might
be,
and
I'm
so
that
that's
you
know
what
happened
this
last
time
about
four
years
ago.
So
but
yes,
it'd
be
about
a
year
mr
b
alex
the
unless
there's
substantial
change,
different
type
of
application.
If
it
was
like
a
lot
width
or
something
else,.
B
B
On
our
next
agenda
item
is
the
petitioner
chris
harp
of
green
river
llc
on
behalf
of
property
owner
asheville
urban
infill
2019
qualified
opportunity,
opportunity,
zone
business
llc
is
requesting
a
variance
to
the
uniform
to
the
development
standard
found
in
section
7-8
6
f-5
setback,
standards
of
the
udl.
A
The
applications
is
basically
between
south
charlotte
street
and
huntington
street,
and
the
proposed
lots
would
be
addressed
off
huntington
street,
based
on
some
preliminary
site
plans
provided
to
us
for
the
single
family
homes.
A
A
And
so
it's
a
two
lots
that
are
actually
am
I
muted
here:
okay,
thanks
jason,
it's
actually
two
lots
and
they
were
planted.
Pre-Zoning
regulations
for
the
city
of
asheville
and
then
subsequently
kind
of
truncated
off
to
the
west
by
the
widening
of
south
charlotte
street,
and
so
we
we
did
notify
everybody
within
200
feet
of
these
properties
and
actually
the
property
owner
actually
owns
a
little
tail
to
the
northeast
that
we
notified
off
of
that
too,
just
to
kind
of
be
doubly
safe,
and
so
here
is
the
contour
line.
A
Again,
these
properties
kind
of
uphill
is
huntington
street,
and
then
they
fall
northwestwardly
towards
south
charlotte
and
jason.
Will
you
back
up
a
slide?
I'm
sorry.
I
said
that
I
just
couldn't
hear
it
and
my
computer
was
slow,
so
cbd
is
to
the
northwest
that
is
the
county
property
behind
city
hall.
A
The
jail
complex
to
the
southeast
of
that
and
this
neighborhood
right
in
here
is
on
rm8
and
and
probably
part
of
orientation
there
to
the
southwest
or
lower
left
corner
you'll
see
an
rm8cz
there's
a
conditional
zoning
area
for
some
new
homes
that
reduced
setbacks
and
lot
area
that
city
council
had
approved,
but
and
that
that's
going
to
come
up
later
in
the
presentation
by
the
applicant,
all
right
jason.
Thank
you
next
slide,
please
or
go
a
couple.
A
A
I
don't
think
we
have
quite
got
there
yet,
but
I
would
make
the
assumption
a
legal
non-conforming
due
to
lot
area.
They
do
have
the
adequate
road
frontage,
though,
as
far
as
a
budding
city
street
next
slide,
please
jason,
and
then
this
is
the
applicant's.
I
guess
a
early
site
sketch
plan
on
these
and
they
do
show
parking
that
would
be
off
street.
I
did
do
a
kind
of
a
preliminary
look
at
these.
A
The
the
driveway
would
meet
zoning
standards
as
far
as
18
foot
maximum
width,
so
that
appears
to
meet
I'm
not
going
to
say
I'm
giving
you
approval,
mr
hart,
but
it
does
to
appear
on
first
glance.
It
appears
it
would
meet
our
standards.
A
The
lot
on
the
left
lot
20
the
lower
lot.
Here,
the
there
is
a
little
bit
of
an
encroachment
in
the
front
corner,
and
this
shows
a
15
foot.
Is
this
15
foot
here,
mr
harp?
These
are
the
15
foot
you're,
applying
the
setbacks,
correct.
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you.
So
then,
of
course,
lot
number
21.
The
northern
lot
is
pretty
much
impacted.
The
house
was
impacted
next
slide.
Please,
and
then
this
is
a
looking
south
along
south
charlotte
street,
the
sidewalk,
and
then
you
see
the
neighborhood
advance
crescent.
I
believe
that
was
or
excuse
me
advanced
place
that
mentions
rmit
cz
there
in
the
distance
next
slide
and
that's
I'll.
Let
mr
harp
go
through
these
jason.
Will
you
back
up
a
couple
slides
to
the
there
you
go?
A
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
board
knew
too
that
we
kind
of
said
in
the
report
front
as
being
huntington
and
rear
being
south
charlotte.
These
are
actually
what
we
consider
a
double
front
lot
or
a
through
lot.
A
So
there's
some
encroachments
or
allowed
in
article
10
that
a
lot
of
people
are
familiar
with
if
you're
in
design
or
building
community
about
you
know
the
deck
on
a
rear
can
be
six
feet
off
your
side
or
rear
property
line
or
accessory
structures
can
be
six
feet
off
the
side
or
rear.
Well,
in
this
case,
they
don't
actually
have
a
rear
yard.
They
don't
have
a
rear
setback,
they
have
two
fronts
and
so
a
deck
that
would
likely
come
off
a
main
living
level.
That's
facing
huntington
is
going
to
be.
A
A
So,
as
mr
harp
shows
here,
the
purple
line
is
the
house
footprint.
That's
the
15.,
any
deck
coming
off
the
house
of
lot
20
is
going
to
meet
the
full
15.
and
any
stairways,
or
anything
like
that.
So
that's
something
else
to
keep
in
mind,
as
you
deliberate
on
the
facts
of
the
case
is
to
keep
in
mind
that
these
are
double
fringe
lots
and
that
the
encroachment
allowances
that
are
just
straight
up
allowed
and
available
by
the
applicant
for
in
article
10
are
not
available.
In
many
cases.
A
A
M
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
hurley,
and
that
was
a
that
was
a
brilliant
introduction.
I
appreciate
you
bringing
everyone
up
to
speed
and
thank
you
for
everyone
who's
here
in
the
meeting
as
well
board
of
adjustments,
the
city
staff
and
any
community
members
as
well.
If
you
guys
are
here
in
this
meeting,
you
guys
clearly
care
about
the
prosperity
of
our
city
and
our
community
here,
and
you
know
I
want
to
commend
you
guys
for
that,
and
thank
you.
M
You
know
you
guys
are
here
to
make
asheville
a
better
place
and
that's
that's
awesome.
So
thank
you
anyway.
So
to
make
the
case
I
understand
you
know
you
guys
have
four
requirements
that
you
like
to
see.
You
know
each
case
meet
and
so
I'll
go
through
those.
You
know
essentially
as
kind
of
the
outline
of
the
talking
points,
but
you
know
number
one.
M
I
guess
jason
if
you
could
go
to
slide
back
to
exhibit
one.
Rather
I
believe
it
is
now.
This
is
the
survey
of
the
these
two
wants,
which
again,
like
mr
hurley,
you
know
referenced
their
existing
non-conforming,
so
these
were
originally
subdivided
as
a
part
of
hazard
heights.
That
was
the
name
of
the
plant
back
in
1910,
so
well
over
110
years
ago,
and
at
the
time
you
know
south
charlotte
street
or
charlotte
street
in
general,
didn't
kind
of
extend
through
here.
M
I
believe
it
was
with
eagle
street
that
these
actually
backed
up
to,
but
at
any
rate
you
know
over
the
course
of
time.
These
lots
have
been
slowly
kind
of
chewed
away
with
the
eminent
domain
from
you
know,
the
widening
of
south
charlotte
street
after
it
became
south
charlotte
street
and-
and
there
was
also
a
right-of-way
as
well-
which
I
believe
was
at
the
time
called
fairview
street,
which
creates
this.
M
You
know
kind
of
now
abandoned
right-of-way
that
wraps
around
as
well,
but
the
I
guess,
the
hardship
that
I'd
like
to
point
out
is
that
you
know
these
lots
have
been
chewed
away
by
eminent
domain
and
also
just
by
it
seems
when
south
charlotte
street
was
widened.
If
you
reference
the
survey
there
on
exhibit
one
you
can
see,
I
tried
to
circle
it
there
in
red,
so
everybody
can
see
it
rather
clearly,
but
you
know
you
see
south
charlotte
street
on
the
survey
and
then
you've
got
the
sidewalk.
M
That
kind
of
comes.
You
know
off
the
street
as
well
also
on
this
side
of
the
road
in
the
same
size
as
these
lots-
and
you
can
see
the
distance
between
you
know
the
edge
of
the
sidewalk
in
the
beginning
of
this
property
line.
For
these
lots
is
it's
like
17.9
feet
almost
18
feet,
so
I
think
it.
You
know
the
strict
application
of
of
the
zoning
ordinance
with
the
15
foot
setback.
M
I
think
it's.
It
sets
an
unnecessary
hardship
to
these
laws,
because
you
know
there's
such
a
such
a
large
gap
between
what
I
would
consider
the
reason
you
know
incorrectly
or
maybe
incorrectly.
What
I
would
consider
is
the
reasonable
right-of-way.
You
know
with
the
sidewalk
in
the
street,
there's
already
a
very
significant
space
there
between
that
and
where
the
property
line
starts,
and
so
you
know
our
intent
with
these
lots
is
to
build
homes
that
you
know
will
be
useful
to
the
citizens
of
asheville
for
generations
to
come
with
modern
construction.
M
M
For
you
know
many
many
years
and-
and
we
think
a
very
slight,
you
know
variance-
maybe
a
less
strict
interpretation
of
the
zoning
ordinance
here
would
allow
really
a
dramatic
difference
in
what
we're
able
to
build
on
these
lots
and-
and
you
know
their
usefulness
to
the
community
through
their
through
their
life
and,
let's
see
here.
M
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
the
key
point
I'd
like
to
make
is
that
the
you
know
the
right-of-way
is
rather
excessive
from
south
charlotte
street
and
and
if,
if
we
could,
perhaps
you
know
use
some
of
that
as
kind
of
the
buffer,
because
that's
the
spirit
of
the
zoning
right
is
to
maintain
a
an
ample
and
safe
buffer
between
you
know
the
public
rights
of
way,
the
property,
the
house
itself,
and
I
think
we
can
still
maintain
that
the
spirit
you
know
the
original
intent
of
the
zoning
without
you
know
strictly
adhering
to
the
zoning
rules
and
regulations
here.
M
The
other
thing
is
that
I
think
it
may
be
best
in
the
best
interest
of
the
community
and
also
these
you
know
just
from
the
useful
perspective
of
these
houses
to
to
kind
of
fit
in
with
the
surrounding
houses
in
the
area,
and
so
as
we
advance
in
the
slide
deck.
I
think
if
we
start
going
to
some
of
the
pictures,
actually,
let's
go
to
exhibit
three,
perhaps
yeah
so
this
this
thank
you.
M
So
this
will
show,
as
you
see
here
in
the
picture
on
the
left
side
of
the
picture,
you
can
actually
see
that
we
went
ahead
and
staked
out.
You
know
that
that
part
of
the
boundary
for
those
lots
so
on
the
left
side
of
the
picture
here.
That's
actually
these
lots
of
these.
M
These
pink
stakes,
you
see
it's
actually
the
property
line,
so
we
did
that
to
try
to
you
know,
show
the
board
and
and
the
public
here
that
there
is
significant
space
kind
of
between
the
you
know
the
right-of-way
along
south
charlotte
and
and
where
these
the
property
line,
not
even
where
the
houses
would
start
but
the
property
line
itself,
so
the
houses
would
be
situated
another.
You
know
10
feet
behind
those.
M
Additionally,
if
we
advance
another
slide
in
the
deck
here,
this
is
right
across
the
streets
of
hazard,
streets
and
we'd
like
to
try
to
fit
in
with
kind
of
the
neighborhood
as
well.
These
houses
kind
of
confronted
a
similar
hardship.
It
seems
they're
in
a
similar
orientation,
have
red
furniture
around
south
charlotte
and
they
also
have
the
kind
of
dual
road
frontage
dynamic.
With
they
come
off
of
advanced
place,
drive.
Ours
are
going
to
be
off
of
huntington
and
then
south
charlotte.
M
So
it's
a
very
similar
dynamic
and
they
actually
were
granted
a
conditional
zoning,
like
mr
hurley
mentioned
from
city
council,
to
indeed
reduce
their
setbacks.
Very
similarly,
210
10
speeds
both
the
front
and
the
rear,
and
mr
hurley
wright
really
corrected
me
that
it's
actually
both
the
front
setbacks
so
front
setbacks
for
these
as
they
do
have.
M
Dual
road
printage
were
reduced
and
you
can
see
here
kind
of
in
the
picture
that,
although
it
was
reduced,
I
think
the
the
spirit
of
the
zoning
you
know
was
still
maintained
because,
as
you
can
see,
you
know,
there's
the
sidewalk
there's
south
charlotte
street
and
then
there's
there's.
Quite
you
know
significant
space
between
the
property
lines,
for
these
houses
are
approximately
where
the
the
black
fence
that
you
see
is
it's
not
exactly
there,
but
that's
about
where
it
is
and
clearly
there's
there's
ample
space.
M
You
know
between
the
right-of-way
and
where
the
property
line
starts
there
and
then
the
houses
themselves
are
are
quite
a
ways
you
know
from
the
right
of
way.
So
that's
just
kind
of
talking
through
those
exhibits.
If
we
advance
further
to
perhaps
exhibit
five,
please.
Thank
you.
That's
just
more.
You
know
another
one
of
the
houses
off
vance
place
drive
and
you
can
see
it
even
has
a
lesser
setback,
potentially
even
off
of
hazard
street
there.
I
don't
know
that
as
a
fact,
though,
I
haven't
measured
it,
but
advancing
further.
M
So
these
next
couple
slides
are
actually
other
houses
off
of
huntington
and
tuskegee
street.
These
are
the
direct
neighbors
to
these
lots.
You
know
right
there
not
off
south
charlotte,
obviously,
but
these
are
off
of
the
kind
of
that
back
road
that
they
would
have
dual
frontage
with.
So
these
are
some
of
the
neighbors.
You
know
on
those
streets
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
they're
very,
very
close
to
the
road
there
as
well.
We
can
continue
on
to
exhibit
eight,
please.
M
I
forget
which
house
this
is,
I
believe
it's
22
tuskegee,
but
this
one,
as
you
can
see,
has
you
know
maybe
a
five
foot
setback,
if
not
less
with
the
porch
there
I
mean
it's
very,
very
small,
almost
a
zero
setback
and
again
these
houses,
were
you
know
many
of
them
on
the
street
were
built
long
ago
kind
of
around
the
time.
You
know
this
plat
was
the
subdivision
was
created
with
this
plaque.
You
know,
maybe,
in
the
early
1900s,
advancing
onto
exhibit
nine
please.
M
This
is
another
house
right
across
the
street
from
that
one
I
believe,
15
tuskegee
and
again,
you
know
minimal,
minimal
setbacks
here,
and
I
think
you
know
to
try
to
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood
and
also
to
to
maintain
the
spirit
of
the
zoning.
I
think
you
know
both
of
these
can
be
accomplished
along
with
maximizing
the
usefulness
you
know
of
these
houses
for
generations
to
come
for
the
citizens
of
asheville.
M
I
think
all
this
can
be
accomplished
with,
without
you
know,
strictly
adhering
to
the
zoning
variant
or
the
zoning
zoning
code.
Rather,
I
think,
that's
all
the
exhibits,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
oh
and
there's
another
house,
this
one's
off
of
huntington
again
with
kind
of
a
minimal
setback,
but
that's
most
of
what
I
I
believe
I
have
to
say
about
these.
Thank
you
guys
so
much
for
your
time
and
and
and
hearing
this
case
again
really
appreciate
your
your
dedication
to
the
city
and
and
all
that
you
guys
do.
B
Do
we
have
any
questions
for
the
petitioner
or
mr
hurley.
L
L
F
I
have
a
couple
of
questions,
so
mr
hurley
is:
is
there
a
section
in
the
ordinance
that
says
you
can
take
an
average
of
the
existing
front
setbacks
to
create
your
own
front
setbacks?
A
Yes,
ma'am
there,
there
is
a
section-
and
I
believe,
that's
also
an
article
10.,
and
we
did
approach
that
one
first
before
we
recommend
the
variants.
The
the
thing
is
in
one
case,
there's
not
any
houses
on
that
side
of
the
street,
because
the
houses
that
are
on
huntington
and
tuskegee
are
on
the
most
are
on
the
inside
of
the
loop
okay
and
then
the
the
lots
that
are
pretty
much
beside
to
the
east
southeast
of
this.
A
F
That
would
have
been
such
a
great
way
to
go.
Okay,
there
are
some
tools
in
that
toolbox
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we've
explored
so
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we
don't
actually
have
two
site
plans.
We
have
two
theoretical
site
plans
with
two
theoretical
footprints.
F
We
don't
have
what
I'd
like
to
know
from
the
applicants
for
lot
21.
F
F
I
didn't
know
if
you
had
explored.
You
know
smaller
footprints,
since
you
know
you're
going
to
stack
these
units
down
the
slope
if
you're
going
to
be
constructing
them
by
the
same
methodology
as
the
pictures
that
you
showed.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
that.
M
No
certainly
thank
you
and
that's
a
that's
a
great
point
and
we
have.
We
did
investigate
quite
a
few
different.
You
know,
building
footprints
and
different.
You
know
house
designs
for
these
lots
really
what
we
get
into
and
the
real
impetus
for
requesting
this
variant
is
parking,
so
even
with
the
smaller
footprints,
as
you
can
see,
kind
of
on
the
site
plan,
that's
on
the
screen
right
now
to
orient
the
houses.
M
Kind
of
the
locks
are
kind
of
in
a
funny
shape,
and
so,
as
you
orient
the
houses,
if
you're
going
to
have
parking
on
site
as
well,
which
I
think
you
need
you
kind
of
need
to
this.
Tuskegee
and
huntington
are
a
one-way
street
and
there's
really
no
parking
on
those
streets.
And,
of
course,
we
all
know
south
charlotte,
not
really
any
parking
there
so
and
not
to
disturb.
You
know
you
know
the
beautiful
roadside
of
south
charlotte
with
any.
You
know
parking
or
anything
like
that.
M
I
think
it's
best
to
perhaps
orient
the
parking
off
of
huntington
street
here
and
we'd
like
to
do
you
know
off-site
with
just
the
driveways
we
show
kind
of
in
that
preliminary
side
plan,
and
in
order
for
us
to
kind
of
have
that
in
there,
as
you
can
see
on
there,
the
kind
of
the
north,
the
northeast
corners
of
each
of
the
building,
the
potential
building
footprints,
they
kind
of
that's
where
they
they
start
to
sit
outside
of
the
setback,
and
so,
if
we're
able
to
push
those
back
a
little
bit
and
reduce
the
setback
in
on
both
sides,
really
we're
able
to
accomplish
that.
M
M
You
know
for
the
citizens
of
asheville
I'm
right
now,
I'm
in
a
house
that
was
built
in
you
know
1910
and
it's
it's
quite
old,
and
I
construction
is
quite
different
now
than
it
was
then,
and
things
are,
you
know
much
more
quality
and
they
last
a
lot
longer.
So
I
can't
imagine
how
long
these
houses
are
going
to
last
and
if
we're
going
to
build
houses
that
are
going
to
be
there
serving.
You
know
the
citizens
of
asheville
for
potentially
200
years.
M
I'd
really
try
to
like
to
maximize
the
usefulness,
for
you
know
the
occupants
and
the
users
of
end
users
of
these
houses,
and
they
we
just
found
as
we
go
through
these
different
floor
plans,
that
just
it
seems
like
a
slight
reduction.
You
know
at
first
glance,
but
it
really
makes
a
dramatic
impact
on
on
what
we
can
build
there,
and
you
know
how
useful
it'll
be
for
the
end
user.
F
So
these
aren't
gonna
have
garages
they're,
you're
envisioning,
just
street
parking
I
mean
park,
driveway
parking,
that's
right,
and-
and
so
mr
hurley,
as
these
are
configured
with
these
driveways-
is
that
what
you
were
alluding
to
about
whether
these
driveways
would
be
permitted.
As
shown,
I
thought
that
you
couldn't
show
any
cars
parked
inside
of
a
right-of-way.
A
Well,
the
the
maximum
driveway
width
is
18
foot
for
an
apron.
I
haven't
done
an
apron
review.
I
don't
do
the
apron
review,
but
the
you
cannot
create
a
parking
lot
or
a
parking
area
within
the
front
step
back
now
you
can
park
within
the
driveway,
so
you
pull
in
that's
an
18
foot
wide
drive,
you
pull
in
perpendicular
and
that's
about
enough
room
for
two
cars
to
be
side
by
side
and
that's
pretty
much
it
like.
A
You
can't
come
in
and
turn
to
the
riding
and
pave
and
kind
of
like
parallel,
the
curb
so
this
sort
of
like
orientation
that
they
come
straight
in
and
that's
18
foot
and
and
I'm
getting
a
message
too
that
enough
to
pull
in
fully
so
that
the
tail
end
of
the
car
should
not
be
hanging
out
in
the
right
of
way,
ideally
not
in
the
right
way
at
all,
but
definitely
not
hanging
out
into
the
street.
A
So
you
know
there
there's
it
looks
plausible.
I
don't
know
if
a
ford
expedition
get
off
the
road,
but
it
looks
like
that
the
general
layout
doesn't
flag
up.
Now
I
haven't
again.
I
haven't
shown
the
apron
for
20
that
apron
the
arc
of
that
or
the
the
that
arc
would
be
probably
wider
than
18.
So
that
might
be
a
little
bit
of
a
problem.
But
now.
F
Up
yeah,
no,
no,
no
you!
You
answer
my
question
and
that
makes
complete
sense.
So
the
last
question
I
had
was:
are
we
granting
variants
for
each
one
of
these
or
is
it
a
joint
application
where
we
could
approve
like
if
you
prove
one
you're
proving
the
other
one.
A
Well,
what's
the
joint
application
eric
do
you
do
you
think
that
they
could
always
condition
the
variance
right
eric
like
you,
if
I'm
correct,
correct
me,
you
don't
have
to
approve
both
fronts.
You
could
prove
what
one
front
right
or
how
did
we?
What
do
you
think
eric.
H
You
could
yeah,
you
could
split
them
up
and
treat
them
separately.
They
are,
I
just
checked
and
they
are
separate,
pin
numbers
so
when
we
the
way
that
this
would
happen,
if
it's
granted
is
the
order,
would
would
specify
each
pin
number
and
we
would
do
it
in
one
order.
If,
if
you
find
one
property
problematic
for
any
reason,
we
can
split
them
up.
So
we've
got
flexibility,
but
they
are
two
separate
numbers.
F
Thank
you,
so
my
last
point
would
be
when
I'm
taking
a
look
at
these.
It
looks
like
lot
20
you
could
you
could
build
a
nice
sized
footprint
home
and
and
with
some
creative
configuration,
get
a
driveway
on
there
and
and
meet
everything.
But
21
is
a
lot
more
problematic
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
don't
think
that
apple
can
even
point
it
out.
F
Was
that
or
maybe
if,
if,
if
he
did,
I
wasn't
really
clear
on
it,
but
you
know
you've
got
this
really
odd
right-of-way
that
just
continues
on
through
and
doesn't
curve
with
the
road
and
had
it
actually
curved
with
the
road.
Instead
of
not
jutting
straight
to
the
northeast,
you
know,
you'd
have
more
land
and
potentially
not
even
need
a
front
variance.
F
So
I
think
that
is.
Is
a
constraint,
that's
unique
to
this
piece
of
property,
not
to
argue
his
own
case,
but
it's
just
something
that
I'm
seeing
that
really
ties
in
more
to
lot
21
versus
lot
20,
and
so
that
that's
all
I
wanted
to
mention
and
I'll
be
quiet.
Now.
B
Now
is:
is
the
petitioner
asking
for
two
separate
variances
on
this
petition
request
or
or
is
that
the
petition
are
just
asking
for
one
request
for
both
properties.
M
Thank
you
good
question.
No,
we
we'd
like
a
variance
for
both
it's
an
application
for
both
law,
20
and
21..
M
We
feel
you
know,
there's
that
unnecessary
hardship
again
for
for
both
that
you
know,
although
it
is
possible
to
to
construct
a
residence
on
lot
20,
it
just
becomes
very
difficult
with
the
parking,
and
we
think
you
know
it's
quite
easily.
We
could
maintain
the
spirit
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
which
is
to
have
ample
spacing
you
know
between
the
right-of-way
and
other
houses
and
other
structures.
M
We
think
it's
very
easy
to
maintain
the
spirit
of
that
without
strictly
adhering
to
it
and,
additionally,
we
we
think
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
community
at
large
to
have
these
houses
kind
of
be
uniform
and
look
good
and
feel
like
they
kind
of
you
know
mesh
together
and
if
you
know
their,
if
their
setbacks,
you
know
vary
significantly,
not
only
with
the
one
right
next
door
on
lot
21,
but
with
other
houses
on
the
street
and
and
other
houses
across
hazard
street
on
vance
place.
M
It
would
just
it
could
perhaps
seem
kind
of
out
of
place
and
again
just
we
we've
applied
for
both
and
again
in
the
spirit
to
to
try
to
really
make
the
highest
and
best
use
out
of
these
lots.
If
we're
gonna,
you
know,
take
the
the
resources
and
and-
and
you
know,
cut
down
some
of
the
trees
on
these
boss
to
build
homes,
we'd
really
like
to
make
sure
that
they
provide
the
maximum.
You
know
usefulness
to
the
citizens
of
asheville.
M
B
Okay,
thank
you
any
more
comments.
A
M
Yeah
I
apologize
just
wanted
to
quickly
tackle
what
mr
hurley
said.
He
brought
up
a
good
point
that,
because
these
lots
also
have
the
dual
road
frontage,
you
know
if
we're
gonna
have
any
kind
of
useful
outdoor
space
for
these
lots
and
get
parking
on
site
yeah.
I
think
it
would
be
paramount
to
to
have
the
variance
for
both
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
have
any
kind
of
porches
or
decks
or
anything.
C
Yeah,
this
is
paul,
moved
to
a
move
to
approve
the
request
for
the
variance.
B
F
B
A
Well,
mr
harp
can
get
together
about
we
can
evaluate
flexes
and
or
footprint
designs.
I
I
think
maybe
let's
look
at
number
20,
especially
with
flex,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
any
additional
outdoor
living
area,
whether
it
be
a
patio,
might
be
an
option
too.
A
M
Sure,
thank
you,
mr
hurley,
and
thank
you
to
the
board
for
for
hearing
this
this
case.
If
I
may
ask
just
if
I
could
just
know
why
the
members
that
said
no
voted,
no,
I
would
I
greatly
appreciate
that,
if
not,
I
understand,
but
thank
you
guys
either
way
for
your
time.
F
If
you
had
broken
them
up,
I
would
have
voted
for
a
lot
21
for
variants,
because
I
do
think
it
has
some
hardships,
but
as
it
stands,
no
I'll
throw
out.
Another
thing
that
maybe
you,
mr
hurley
could
talk
about-
is
potentially
recombining
this
land
to
give
lot
21
a
little
bit
more
frontage
area
that
might
help
you
out
a
little
bit
as
well.
I
don't
know
something
to
consider.
E
Oh
this
bill
on
the
lot,
the
small
lot
right
there,
where
it's
to
me
it
was
too
tight
for
your
watch.
What
you're
trying
to
put
there?
If
you,
I
think
it's
like
20,
which
was
a
bigger
lot.
I
would
have
voted
for
that
one,
but
the
21.
I
did
not
like
that.
One
other
thing
that
I
thought
of
also
when
dotp
came
there
and
bought
that
they
probably
paid
the
previous
property
owner
dollars
for
getting
that
land
from
them.
E
Basically,
you
should
become
part
of
dot
because
they
may
be
too
small
to
meet
the
requirements
right
there.
The
other
thing
I
can
see
right
there
that
you
could
possibly
do
is
just
combine
the
two
lots
together
and
make
them
into
one
lot
for
development
right
there.
Sometimes
lots
are
too
small
to
develop
and
I
feel
like
that's
what
you
got
right.
There.
M
D
B
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
all
your
input
and
we
will
move
on
to
the
latter
part
of
our
agenda,
and
that
is
the
nominations
and
vote
for
chair
and
voice
chair.
C
Yeah,
this
is
paul,
considering
the
quite
admirable
job,
mr
bach,
that
has
done
on
this
meeting,
I'd
like
to
propose
that
he
become
the
chair.
I
B
Any
comments,
thoughts,
no
okay,
we'll
take
it
to
a
vote,
mr
carter.
Yes,
ms
godsey,
yes,
mr
newman,
yes
and
mr
wizinski,
yes,
okay,
I
will
abstain,
so
you
have
four
votes
to
zero.
B
A
Do
we
get
a
vice
chair?
You
want
to
see
somebody
want
to
be.
B
A
vice
president,
sorry,
I
thought
was
wrapping
up.
Sorry,
I
as
as
as
a
chair,
I
I'd
like
to
ask
nominee.
Mr
wizinski
he's
done
a
pretty
admirable
job
as
well,
not
to
mention
mr
newman
has
as
well.
I
I
I
you
know.
I
I
just.
E
C
Thank
you.
Let
me
just
say
before
you
vote
that
I
I
very
much
appreciate
that
nomination
and
I
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
that,
because
of
health
reasons
and
age,
I'm
not
as
old
as
I
look,
but
I
I'm
not
sure
how
comfortable
I'm
going
to
be
coming
back
to
live
meetings
anytime
real
soon.
F
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question:
do.
Does
the
city
have
a
live
date
when
we
think
that
we'll
go
back?
Mr
hurley.
A
I
haven't
heard
of
a
live
date.
I
I
mean
beth
can
check
in
on
that.
I
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
it's
maybe
the
summer
time.
At
this
point
I
mean
the
vaccine.
Rollout
is
not
moving
as
fast
as
we
had
all
hoped,
and
you
know
it's
it's
taking
some
time
so
and
I
it's
gonna
be
interesting.
How
the
public
is
really
a
lot
of
public's,
very
happy
with
this
public
call-in
input
and
be
able
to
watch
the
meetings
live.
A
I
think
the
the
greater
availability
to
access
these
meetings
and
and
to
not
actually
get
off
work
and
to
to
interact.
I
think
we're
we're
gonna
have
to
find
a
balance,
because
I
think
the
public's
gonna
demand
that
continue
to
some
degree.
M
A
B
And
paul
to
that,
to
that
request
you
know
if
it
comes
a
time
where
you
need
to
step
down,
you
know
we
will
understand,
but
right
now
I
think
we
we're
fortunate
to
have
you
and
you
know,
I'm
gonna,
take
it
to
a
vote.
B
Godsey,
yes,
mr
newman
I'll,
say
I
as
well,
mr
wazinski,
okay,
four
votes,
one
abstain
and.
A
I
was
going
to
say
mr
bhavko,
thank
you.
We
appreciate
mr
harden,
you
know
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
speak
earlier.
We
had
some
stuff
going
on
in
the
background,
but
you
know
his
term
he'd
serve
two
terms,
and
so
he'll
have
to
wait.
I
think
it's
at
least
a
three-year
period
correct
before
he
could
be
reappointed
be
eligible
to
be
reappointed
if
he's
so
desired,
and
so,
as
part
of
that
you
know
we
have
mr
webb,
who
was
appointed.
A
I
think
we'd
say
that,
but
he
got
a
point
to
feel
the
position
was
vacated
suddenly
last
year,
unexpectedly
with
a
passing
and
then
as
part
of
that,
mr
angelus,
david
angeles,
you
wave
here
david.
This
is
his
first
meeting
as
an
official
alternate
he's
been
waiting
in
the
wings
actually
listening
on
a
meeting,
so
he's
been
kind
of
very
excited
and
david
I'll.
Let
you
tell
them
we'll
do
your
background
real
quickly,
but
I
also
recognize
miss
suzanne
godsey.
A
She
got
appointed
as
of
january
because
of
mr
harden
rolling
off
term
expiring.
So
now
ms
godsey
is
now
a
full-time,
regular
member.
So
welcome
and
congratulations
to
all
you
all
so,
mr
angeles,
would
you
give
them
real
quickly
your
background
so.
I
B
Thank
you
welcome
board
guys.
This
is
our
new
board
and
look
forward
to
working
with
you
guys
and
every
month.
If
you
got
any
questions
or
whatnot,
you
know
we're
everybody's
here
doing
the
same
thing:
I'm
not
a
good
speech
speech
giver.
So
with
that
I'll,
we'll
we'll
adjourn.
Unless
we
have
anything
else,
I
was.
A
Going
to
let
you
know
our
new
council
represented
liaison
is
mrs
sandra
kilgore,
so
she
was
now
our
council
representative.
So
I
I
realized
in
the
meeting
that
I
didn't
invite
her
to
this
meeting,
but
I
think
she'll
be
probably
joining,
or
at
least
following
with
us
a
little
bit
more
involved
moving
forward.
So
you
may
see
her
in
our
meetings
moving
forward.
So
just
want
to
make
sure
you
all
knew
about
our
new
council
liaison.
B
Yeah,
I
absolutely
love
that
you
know
the
more
involvement
we
have
with
the
council,
the
better
so
yeah.
Instead
of
voting
for
a
motion,
I'm
gonna
go
with
that.
No
objection
motion.
If
there
are
no
objections,
we
will
adjourn
all
right.
Thank.