►
From YouTube: Board of Zoning Appeals Monthly Meeting - July 11, 2023
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
A
C
B
H
It's
Jared.
B
Perfect
good
evening,
I,
don't
I
think
our
application
is
pretty
well
straightforward.
Again
we're
modifying
existing
facility
pretty
straightforward.
E
B
It's
a
it's
a
small
cell,
that's
that's
been
existing
and
again
we're
just
upgrading
the
equipment
as
part
of
it
just
changing
out
similar
to
upgrading
a
printer.
You
know
it's
time
to
replace
the
equipment
and
because
the
the
law
change
regarding
the
the
the
distance
between
the
existing
facility
and
Residential
Properties
and
other
Wireless
facilities,
we
need
the
variants.
E
A
motion:
first,
we
got
to
do
public
hearing,
oh
I'm,
sorry,
are
there
any
public
comments
or.
I
E
D
F
Taking
a
modification
without
exacerbate
the
existing
efficiencies
factors,
we've
considered
whether
an
undesirable
change
would
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriments,
nearby
properties.
No,
the
proposed
installations
and
modification
of
an
existing
personal
wireless
service
facility,
the
new
installation,
will
replace
existing
equipment
and
adds
similar
equipment
and
there's
no
evidence
that
this
change
will
produce
an
undesirable
change
to
Neighborhood
character
or
have
a
negative
impact
on
nearby
properties.
What
are
the
benefits
saw
by
the
applicant
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
the
variance.
F
No,
the
locations
of
personal
wire
service
are
determined
by
service
coverage
requirements,
while
there's
a
limited
radius
for
the
pwsf
can
be
located.
It
is
preferred,
as
stated
in
the
zoning
organs,
the
co-locate
equipment
on
existing
sites
whenever
possible
to
limit
any
visual
impacts.
Furthermore,
any
alternate
alternate
location
within
one
of
the
radius
will
also
be
deficient
in
the
Resident
setback.
Requirements
of
a
zoning
ordinance,
whether
the
requested
variance
substantial
I
would
say
no.
The
proposed
installation
will
be
located
directly
next
to
a
residential
property
and
a
residential
setback.
F
250
feet
is
required,
while
this
is
a
deficiency
of
more
than
90
of
the
required
setback.
This
is
a
deficiency
caused
by
the
location
of
the
existing
site,
on
which
the
new
antenna
array
will
be
co-located
and
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
The
Proposal
Will.
The
governments
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood.
The
new
pwsf
equipment
will
be
part
of
an
existing
installation
on
the
property.
There's
no
evidence
to
indicate
that
this
modification
will
have
an
inverse
an
adverse
impact
on
your
physical
or
environmental
conditions.
F
D
J
Mr
Kirby!
Yes,
yes,
so
the
variance
has
been
granted
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
write
up
the
final
written
decision
and
get
it
to
you
as
well
as
the
code
instructor.
So
you
can
move
forward
with
the
project.
K
E
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
first,
is:
if
you
can
present
we'll
put
it
up
to
questions
right
then,
and
public
hearing
and
then
before
we
get
into
The
Liberation.
Also
just
I'll
ask
negative
draw
background
on
the
zoning
itself.
Then
you
know
how
we
got
here
so
yeah.
L
That's
great,
so
let
me
present.
L
All
right
so
I
just
want
to
start
with
a
quick
image
of
the
property
from
the
street.
So
this
is.
Can
everybody
see
my
screen?
Okay?
Okay,
so
this
is
605
South,
Albany
Street.
This
is
their
existing
single
family
home.
They
brought
the
property,
maybe
five
or
six
years
ago.
L
C
L
So
basically
our
lot
we
haven't.
We
have
an
undersized
lot
that
has
existing
non-conformities
with
the
rear
yard
setback.
This
garage,
the
existing
garage,
sits
within
the
rear
yard
setback.
It's
actually
clear
of
the
side,
yard
setback
on
the
north
side
of
the
property,
and
then
the
existing
house
sits
within
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
side
yard
set
back.
So
we
initially
explored
converting
the
existing
structure
into
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
for
the
clients,
but
upon
initial
inspection,
the
structure
is
in
pretty
rough
shape,
I
mean
I.
Think
it's!
L
You
know
it's
at
risk
of
collapse
as
is
and
sort
of
a
financial
analysis.
We
sort
of
indicated
that
it
make
more
sense
to
take
the
structure
down
and
rebuild.
L
In
cite
with,
you
know,
more
standard
construction
methods
than
try
to
rehabilitate
the
existing
structure,
and
so,
since
you
know
we're
replacing
replacing
the
structure,
we're
required
to
apply
for
variances
for
lock
coverage,
encroachment
in
this
rear
yard
setback,
and
then
you
know
I
think
Megan
advised
that
we
just
want
to
get
variances
for
the
existing
conditions
for
the
home,
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
side
yard
setback
as
well.
L
So
our
existing
structure
are
the
existing
structures
of
hair
smaller
than
what
we're
proposing
it's
19
and
a
half
feet
wide
by
25
foot,
eight
feet
long.
So
it's
you
know
it's!
Maybe
a
foot
and
a
half
in
this
direction
and
a
foot
smaller
in
this
direction
and
then,
in
terms
of
a
height,
the
the
existing
structure
is
about
17
feet,
17
and
a
half
feet
tall
to
the
peak
and
we're
closer
to
almost
19.
So
we're
a
foot
and
a
half
taller
we
were.
L
L
We
kind
of
have
a
cool
design
with
an
offset
Peak
that
has
a
little
bit
more
space
under
this
side
of
the
Eve
for
the
lofted
bedroom
that
sits
above
a
small
sort
of
garage
storage
space
for
the
clients-
and
you
know
I-
can
show
you
the
plan
real
quick,
but
the
floor
plan
is
basically
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
In
the
back
with
a
storage
space
for
the
clients,
they
actually
do,
Taxidermy,
which
is
pretty
neat,
so
they
need
some
storage
space
and
then
there's
a
lofted
bedroom
over
that
storage.
Space.
L
I
think
you
know.
Outside
of
specific.
L
You
know,
numbers
I
feel
like
that's
a
good
General
overview
of
what
we're
looking
for
again,
you
know
I
think
even
if
the
garage
fell
down
and
needed
to
be
rebuilt,
we'd
be
asking
for
variances.
For
that.
So
you
know
we're
hoping
this
is
within
the
realm
of
of
what's
reasonable
for
this
site.
So.
H
E
Before
we
start
asking
some
questions,
I
have
a
question
for
Megan.
If
the
garage
fell
down
and
they
rebuilt
it
as
a
garage
not
as
an
Adu,
what
type
of
variance
is
with
that
trigger
versus,
what's
being
active
right
here,.
J
So
the
the
setback
requirements
for
an
accessory
structure,
which
would
be
just
the
garage
it
would
be
free
heat
from
the
property
warnings
which
it
is
located
less
than
that
it
wouldn't
trigger
the
double
the
lot.
J
That
having
a
second
primary
moment,
which
is
what
this
is
considered,
does
trigger
so
I
mean
and
then,
of
course,
if
it
was
just
a
kind
of
a
natural
disaster,
because
we
have
established
rates
to
where
it's
at,
but
if
they
were
just
replacing
our
garage.
This
setback
requirements
aren't
as
great
so.
F
F
G
So
one
of
our
goals
is
important
is
that
we
want
people
to
have
as
small
invariance
requests
as
possible.
You
know,
did
you
consider
moving,
you
know
if
you're
ordering
a
new
foundation
and
building
a
new
structure
and
trash,
did
you
consider
moving
into
the
front,
so
we
could
eliminate
the
setback
requirement
and
you
still
have
the
space
and
there
you
put
a
driveway
between
the
two
structures
and
park
in
the
back
and
Achieve.
L
I
mean
that's,
that's
an
interesting
question.
We
sort
of
felt
like
I
guess
my
feeling
was
that
the
board
would
be
most
receptive
to
something
as
similarly
as
humanly
possible
to
what
was
there.
So
I
guess:
I
didn't
go
down
the
road
of
how
to
minimize
the
actual
numerical
variances.
L
We
couldn't
really
have
a
different
way
to
park
on
site
than
the
existing
spot
sort
of
in
front
of
the
garage
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
really
get
around
the
buildings
and
they
sort
of
have
a
nice
Garden
right
in
front
of
the
existing
garage
between
the
garage
and
the
house
that
we
were
trying
not
to
disturb
and
then
plus,
just
from
like
an
urban
planning
standpoint,
it's
kind
of
nice
to
have
these
adus
set
back
from
the
street
elevation
so
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
relief
between
the
main
house
and
the
house
next
door.
L
G
J
Yeah
so
I
think
that
would
be
true.
Foreign
consistent.
J
I
think
that
the
the
zoning
ordinance
does
not
yet
address
kind
of
the
Abu
development
in
a
garage
or
Carriage
House,
or
something
like
that.
So
this
isn't
truly
designed
architecturally
I
would
say
to
be
like
a
second
primary
structure,
but
it's
how
the
zoning
ordinance
treats
it
under
the
current
policy
and
so
I
think
that
it
seems
like
maybe
one
Mike
is
trying
to
do
is
treat
it
as
that
accessory
garage,
as
opposed
to
the
second
primary.
L
I
Obviously
done
a
pretty
good
job
of
maintaining
what
we
would
usually
look
at
as
existing
deficiencies
and
only
slight
exacerbations
of
those
is:
how
much
could
he
put
something
other
than
bedroom
into
the
designs
and
just
call
it
storage,
but
if
somebody
stays
in
it
they
stay
in
it.
It's
a
brew
and
not
trigger
that
definitional
change.
J
So
once
you
create
what
is
considered
a
dwelling
unit
in
in
the
second
structure,
it
becomes
again
under
our
current
quota,
a
second
primary,
whether
it's
one
bedroom
a
studio
and
so
I
mean
I'm.
Sure
there
probably
are
some
people
that
do
just
what
you
describe,
but
I
know
they
were
trying
to
get
everything
lined
up,
there's
also
the
accessory
apartment
option,
which
had
some
Provisions
But.
J
It
includes
deep
restriction
that
the
owner
must
always
be
the
primary
represent
on
the
site,
and
you
know
I
think,
while
that's
the
original
plan,
that
might
not
be
what
they
want
to
be
locked
into
for
the
in
perpetuity
with
the
Deep
restriction.
That
kind
of
thing
so
I
will
say
that
I
think
our
our
zoning
ordinance,
while
we
like
to
from
a
planning
perspective,
would
like
to
see
some
more
of
these
types
of
development.
J
L
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
if
push
came
to
shove,
my
client
would
be
open
to
that
like
if
the
second
primary
structure
designation,
is
a
huge
like
problem
for
people,
you
know
I
think
you
know
being
designated
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
just
asking
for
the
yard
variance
deficiencies
would
be
an
acceptable
sort
of
step.
Back.
L
You
know,
in
my
understanding
and
discussing
this
Megan
is
we'd
still
need
the
lot
coverage
and
yard
deficiency
variances.
Even
if
we
go
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
route,
it's
just
the
lot
size
variance
we
wouldn't
need,
because
we'd
be
compliant
with
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
requirements.
L
F
I
don't
like
pushing
in
that
direction.
I
mean
we
really
created
a
situation
where
then
the
owner
has
occupy
and
we
can
deliver.
Yeah
I
mean
it's
a
unit.
It's
low
impact,
it's
about
the
same
size
as
the
structure
is
going
to
be
now
yeah,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
create
a
situation
where
I
was.
F
C
J
All
right,
so
we
did
not
have
anyone
sign
up
to
speak
for
this
public
hearing.
We
have
not
received
any
written
comments
either.
We
do
have
a
comment
from
the
planning
board,
which
is
the
planning
board
fully
supports
those
variant.
The
development
will
have
minimal
physical
impacts
to
me
growing
properties
and
adds
density
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
it
comprehensive
plans,
and
it's
been
just
sort
of
the
fourth
references
you
go
through.
This
is
subject
to
environmental
review.
J
D
E
We'll
close
public
hearing
going
to
board
no
immigration,
I
guess
I
can
speak
to
the
birth
but
Megan
just
real
quick.
So
at
the
heart
of
this
under
the
current
zoning,
this
classification
is
kicking
them
into
two
multiple,
multiple
primaries
on
one
line,
so
it
picks
up
the
net
you're
added
three
thousand
square
foot
and
the
r2b
of
rock
coverage
required
and
so
we're
running
into
that.
And
then
what
is
I?
Don't
intercept.
What
is
the
setback
requirement?
Career
yard,
foreign.
J
Specifically
makes
reference
to
five
five
foot
seven,
so
it
is
less
than
the
kind
of
second
primary
designation.
So
right
now.
J
E
Okay,
so
I'll
speak
first,
because
I
I
watched
the
planning
boards
meeting
on
this,
in
which
they,
you
know,
voted
to
recommend
we
approve
it
and
I
want
to
just
say
that
a
lot
of
our
urban
planning
proclivities
are
aligned
and-
and
we
have
a
different
mandate
and
I
100-
think
that
this
is
an
awesome
project,
meets
the
city's
stated
goals
and
is
in
line
with
the
type
of
work
that
I
would
like.
People
can
see
them
all
over
your
town.
That
said
we're
running
into
the
zoning
as
the
issue
in
the
inhibitor.
E
It
has
nothing
to
do
with.
You
know
our
approach
to
this
and
there's
a
difference
between
relief
and
exception
from
the
land
use
law
that
that
fundamentally
needs
to
be
changed
and
I
think
we're
seeing
outdated
zoning
preventing
good
quality
projects,
upgrading
properties,
scalable.
You
know
mid-scale
density
and
cities
Flats,
it's
inhibiting
the
increase
of
implemental.
You
know
taxable
structures
coming
on
the
rolls
adaptive
housing
so
by
all
means
I
want
to
see
the
project
built.
E
Sending
the
opponent
through
the
accessory
apartment
option
is
by
no
means
ideal
as
a
property
rights.
Advocate
I,
don't
like
that,
you
know:
there's
the
deed
restriction
there
from
our
occupancy.
You
know
it
ties
up
a
lot
of
capital
and
increases
risk
in
a
property,
but
I
think
that's
their
only
pathway
forward
in
a
way
that
we
can
get
behind
every
moment.
E
I
think
our
hands
are
tied
just
by
the
severity
of
the
ass,
and
this
is
fundamentally
a
solution
for
common
Council
and
the
property
owners,
legislators
and
I
think
there's
a
window
in
time
where,
where
perhaps
some
things
are
changing
and
people
start
to
push
for
this,
but
until
then
I
I
really
think
the
granting
the
rear
yard
setback
and
the
additional
the
classification
based
on
the
6000
required
square
feet
is
on
Hannibal,
because
I
I
don't
think
we
can
defend
that.
E
It
really
starts
in
the
policy
and
that's
I
learned
that
you
know
approach
the
hard
way,
but
it's
this
is
fundamentally
a
solution
for
legislators,
not
our
board.
It's
how
I
view
this
and
that's
that
is
unfortunately,
voting.
No
on
on
this,
even
though
it's
a
it's
a
terrific
project,
but
I
want
to
see
how.
F
E
Happy
to
participate
in
a
signed
letter
to
Common
Council
or,
to
the
you
know,
I
also
the
planning
board
members
right.
Perhaps
this
is
something
we
can
work
together
on
and
use
their
platform
to
push
for
this,
so
I'm
happy
to
support
it
in
that
capacity,
but
I
don't
see
how
we
could
might
we
be.
You
know
we
could
either
table
this
and
hopefully
moving
the
project
through
other
means.
E
We
can
unfortunately
vote
no
on
this
or
yeah.
L
I
guess
you
know,
can
I
ask
a
few
questions,
so
I
guess,
first
of
all
it
even
if
we
are
going
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
we're
out,
we
would
still
need
a
lot,
an
area
of
a
variance
for
a
lot
coverage
deficiency,
because
the
existing
home
and
the
existing
garage
together
are
over
the
lot
coverage
requirements
and
even
with
the
five
foot
setback
the
the
houses,
the
existing
garage
is
still
a
foot
from
the
rear
property
line,
so
we'd
still
be
asking
for
the
rear
side,
the
rear
yard
setback,
and
then
we
we
might
as
well
clean
up
the
existing
house
deficiencies
with
the
front
yard
and
the
other
side
yard
deficiency.
L
You
know
Megan
I
guess
we
were
I
mean
just
to
be
frank.
I
think
we
were
on
a
little
bit
of
different
pages.
I
didn't
think
we
were
actually
asking
for
the
the
second
primary
I.
You
know
I
was
if
people
voted
back,
yes
for
it,
it'd
be
great,
so
I
was
fine
sort
of
just
seeing
how
it
played
out,
but
you
know
the
the
owner
intends
to
live
there
and
owner
occupy
I
mean
they
live
there.
L
They
have
a
young
family,
they
bought
the
house
to
live
there,
so
they
were
okay
with
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
designation.
L
J
J
I
believe
that
you
can
I
mean
you're
switching
to
a
proposal
that
is
more
restrictive,
so
I,
don't
think
you
need
to
submit
a
new
application
and
come
back
with
that
I'm
just
going
to
look
up
quick,
the
requirements
to
make
sure
we
get
the
correct
numbers
in
and
if
that's
what
you
would
like
to
do,
we
can
certainly
make
that
adjustment
and
have
you
know
the
with
the
conditioned
upon
approval
and
accessory
Department
special
permit,
which
means
you
will
have
to
go
through
the
planning
board
to
get
that.
J
G
Yeah
I
mean,
as
is
I,
don't
think
we
can
gradually
important
I
mean
I
will
say
you
know
I
I
watch
every
event,
you
know
playing
board
meeting.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
feedback
on
The,
Cutting
Board.
We
don't
take
their
comments
seriously
and
like
we
are
aligned
for
the
most
part
on
this
kind
of
stuff.
G
Like
we
saw
this
with
bar
Argos,
you
know
they
came
in
within
95
parking
variants
or
something
like
that,
and
it
was
just
like
we
have
legal
constraints
here,
and
you
know
we
talk
about
everyone
being
on
board
with
these
types
of
things,
but,
like
you
know,
the
city
has
been
sued
over
the
decisions
that
we
make
and
I
think
you
know
we
have
to
be
able
to
legally
based
on
them.
You
know
it
seems
like
over
and
over
again
we're
talking
about
things
where
everyone's
like
it's
great.
G
Everyone
should
do
it
and
then
we
should
just
don't
do
it.
So
you
know
I,
I,
think
being
forced
to
go
down
and
deed,
restricted
route
or
you
have
to
live
on
property
in
order
to
be
illegal
at
the
EU
I.
Think
that's
pretty
terrible,
but
you
know
if
you
want
to
get
there
and.
D
E
G
L
So,
just
to
throw
some
numbers
out
there,
the
this.
This
lot
is
it's
around
3
700
square
feet.
Lot
coverage
is
limited
to
35,
which
is
around
1300
square
feet
and
the
house
and
the
garage
are
around
1400
square
feet.
L
I
can
get
precise
numbers,
I
could
follow
up
with,
but
that
those
are
rough,
rounded
numbers.
So
you
know
it's.
It's
only
a
couple
hundred
feet
of
lock
coverage
and
then
you
know
in
the
rear
yard
set
back.
The
existing
house
is
a
foot
from
the
property
line,
so
under
the
Adu
setback,
guidelines
we'd
be
asking
for
four
feet
in
the
the
rear
yard.
L
So
it's
really
that
rear
yard
four
feet
and
the
200
200
square
feet
of
block
coverage
that
are
to
ask
because
the
other
two
like
the
front
yard
setback
and
the
the
side
yard
setback
are
for
the
existing
house.
We're
not
doing
anything
to
exacerbate
any
of
that.
Sorry.
L
She'd
probably
start
work
tomorrow.
If
you
guys
said
yes
but
our
schedule,
you
know
it
might
be
closer
to
the
fall
or
something
like
that.
J
J
So
yeah,
so
the
the
rear
yards
sat
back
inside
yard,
set
back
for
the
the
structure
containing
the
accessory
department
has
to
be
five
feet.
They
do
meet
it
on
a
one
side,
but
it's
the
rear
yard
that
it
doesn't
mean
so
I
will
update
it
to
give
the
exact
a
long
citation,
but
it's
in
325
and
10
under
area
requirements
and
so
Mike.
C
J
Sure
you
looked
into
this
too,
but
the
only
other
thing
it
notes
in
this
section
is
about
building
code
requirements
and
I'm
guessing
just
by
the
design
you're
addressing
that
through
where
the
windows
are
placed
and
such
from
what
I
you
know
them
so
yeah.
J
There's
a
specific
provision
in
the
accessory
Apartments
because
that
section
was
updated
fairly
recently
into
that,
but
it's
not
and
I
completely
understand
that
I
agree
completely
about
it.
But
unfortunately,
at
the
moment
that's
very
bad.
E
D
I
Unfortunate
it's
a
good
project.
It
probably
deserves
to
be
built,
but
this
gives
people
the
other
applicants
the
ability
to
come
in
and
say
why
did
they
get
95
for
projects
that
we
might
not
agree
with?
There
are
a
lot
more
aggressive,
I
guess
in
what
they've
been
looking
for,
because
these
applicants
the
the
approval.
So
it's
just
yeah
it's
unfortunate,
but
I
do
think
our
Instagram.
E
Like
so,
we
don't
meet
in
August
we're
comfortable
voting
on
this
at
night.
I
guess
you
know
there
are
some
Trends
attached.
So
if
you're
comfortable
Switching
gears
you're
going
to
the
accessory
apartment
route,
we
get
word
of
emotion.
I'd
be
happy
to
take
that
on.
This
is
your
call
yeah.
L
I
think
we're
fine
with
that.
That's
what
we've
been
discussing
all
along
so
I
think
that's
fine.
E
We're
just
gonna
take
a
quick
five-minute
break.
If
you
don't
mind
I
guess
we
just
gotta
look
one
thing
up
and
hopefully.
H
E
J
E
F
J
J
C
J
L
The
house
is
a
20-foot
minimum
and
it
varies
from
12
feet
to
11
feet
at
the
closest
point.
J
F
J
Existing
no
change
to
that
so
basically
for
board
members
there's
we
will
take
out.
J
Okay,
so
they
do
not
need
for
a
lot
area
around
six
which
you
can
cross
out
on
that
they
do
need
lab
coverage
by
buildings,
slight
exacerbation
of
less
than
one
person
front
yards,
other
side,
yard,
rear
yard
and
then
just
to
keep
everyone
on
their
toes.
I
will
read
this
and
I,
reread
it.
It's
325,
10
c
1,
B,
7,
B
and
no
I
didn't
need
that
up.
That
is
the
actual
reference,
but
that
is
the
specific
setback
requirement
for
an
accessory
apartment
in
a
separate
building,
so
c1b
C1
b7b
is.
C
D
E
J
E
All
right,
I
hereby
make
a
motion
for
appeal
number
three,
two
five
three
on
we
have
a
great
design,
build
on
behalf
of
Rachel
and
Daniel
Roger
and
605
South,
Albany
Street
and
the
RGB
Zone,
where
today's
date
is
July,
11,
2023,.
E
We
board
find
the
factors
considered
as
to
whether
or
not
an
undesirable
change
will
be
produced
in
the
character
in
the
neighborhood
or
detriments
nearby
properties.
The
board
finds
no.
E
This
type
of
design
fits
in
with
the
urban
Fabric,
and
these
accessory
structures
are
already
embedded
within
the
neighborhood
and
there's
one
on
Wood
Street,
immediately
adjacent
to
this
property
sizing
and
massing
of
the
structure
fits
well,
there
were
no
unresirable.
Change
will
be
created
number
two,
whether
the
benefits
saw
by
the
iPhone
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
the
variance.
The
answer
to
this
is
no
due
to
limited
land,
passing
and
lock
constraints,
as
well
as
inevitable
process
by
city
code,
no
viable
alternative
or
I'm.
Sorry,
the
benefit
software.
E
E
This
is
technically
a
substantial
ask
how
ever
this
is
a
non-exacerbated
efficiency
and
therefore
the
substantiality
of
that
specific
request
does
not
warrant
denial,
front
yard
and
side
yard
efficiencies
of
the
existing
structure
will
not
be
exacerbated
and
through
the
efforts
of
the
appellant,
the
size
of
the
ass
for
the
lock
coverage
at
0.8
over
what
is
allowed
by
a
zoning
is
not
substantial.
The
board
finds
that
the
number
three
the
answer
is
no
for
number.
Four,
when
variants
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
that
need
the
board
finds.
E
No,
this
will
be
a
soundly
constructed
product
that
meets
all
present-day
safety
safety
requirements.
As
far
as
the
physical
environmental
conditions,
there
is
a
short
environmental
form
attached
that
the
horn
has
reviewed
and
thereby
affirms.
The
answer
to
this
is
no,
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created.
The
board
finds
yes,
that
we
thank
the
impellent
for
finding
a
viable
alternative
within
the
constructs
of
zoning.
They
they
pursue
the
project
of
their
own
Coalition
I.
Hereby
making
motion
that
we
Grant
and
favorable
consideration.
E
C
J
That
I
emotion
has
been
granted
and
I
can
be
a
company
to
care
about
the
special
permit
process
for
the
accessory
Department
I.
Don't
believe
you
necessarily
have
to
secure
network
or
the
building
permit,
but
before
occupancy
in
close
out
of
the
building.
L
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you!
So
much
so
it's
a
complex
little
portion
of
the
zoning
code,
so
I
appreciate
you're
working
with
us.
Okay
have
a
good
night.
D
G
Handyman
works
in
the
house
next
to
you
yeah,
so
if
he
gives
you
any
issues,
let
me
know
so:
Paul's
my
family
man,
but
it's
owned
by
the
Carpenters
okay,
yeah.
E
J
So
this
one
is
a
request
for
Elyria
variance
for
325
8,
pound
11,
front
yard
in
column,
13
side
yards
to
allow
the
construction
of
a
debt
off
the
northwest
corner
of
the
single
family
home.
The
deck
will
align
with
the
existing
home,
but
is
a
lateral
extension
of
an
existing
side
yard
deficiency.
The
front
yard
deficiencies
existing
and
will
not
be
exacerbated
by
this
proposal.
M
M
Yes,
all
right
cool,
so
my
name
is
Jonah
London
and
I'm,
going
to
be
presenting
on
behalf
of
firehouse
architecture,
Labs
tonight
about
the
property
at
409
Willow,
the
properties
currently
owned
by
Julie,
Weiss
and
Jason
willick,
who
plan
to
renovate
it
and
then
occupy
it
as
a
primary
residence.
M
Most
of
the
renovations
are
happening
inside
of
the
house,
but
the
reason
that
we're
coming
to
for
a
variance
is
because
we
are
proposing
a
new
rear
yard,
deck
and
stair
that
we
were
hoping
to
corner
off
at
the
existing
Northwestern
corner
of
the
house.
If
it
were
approved,
Our
Deck
would
sit
at
one
foot
eleven
over
the
northern
setback
line
and
three
foot
one
from
the
northern
property
line.
M
In
addition
to
the
deck
and
stair,
we
are
also
planning
to
build
a
privacy
screen
which
would
sit
at
six
feet
above
the
finished
surface
of
the
rear
yard
deck,
and
this
can
be
better
seen
see
in
this
plan.
Here
now,
we've
spoken
to
the
neighbors
to
the
north,
because
we
believe
this
has
the
biggest
impact
on
them
and
they
have
told
us
that
they
believe
the
request
for
the
deck
the
stair
and
the
screen
are
reasonable.
M
So
long
as
we
do
not
move
this
dilapidated
wooden
fence,
as
seen
by
this
dash
line
here
any
further
north
or
closer
to
the
northern
property
line,
the
owners,
Julie
and
Jason
have
agreed
to
rebuild
that
wooden
fence
in
like
kind
in
the
same
location.
So
we've
got
the
Neighbors
on
the
same
page
and
they
believe
that
the
deck
the
stair
and
the
screen
are
a
reasonable
request.
F
M
G
M
We
held
it
over
the
side
of
the
building
by
one
foot,
eleven
yeah
yeah.
Yes,
we
currently
have
a
French
door
proposed
going
out
onto
the
rear
yard
deck
and
for
the
door,
circulation,
seating
and
ideally,
a
grill
or
some
type
of
a
Furnishing
I.
Think
the
10
to
12
feet
that
we
have
between
the
existing
house
and
the
set
pack
here
would
not
be
sufficient
or
not
ideal.
At
least.
G
M
Yeah
hold
on.
M
G
M
Yeah,
no,
the
stamp
or
the
stone
patio
is
older
and
we're
we're
proposing
a
new
exit
out
of
the
back
of
the
house
and
so
we're
hoping
to
replace
that
stone
patio
with
the
deck,
because
I
mean
the
rear
yard
has
not
been
tended
to
very
well
over
the
years.
Julie
and
Jason
are
the
new
owners
and
they're
hoping
to
make
improvements.
J
So
our
only
comment
tonight
is
Susan,
so
if
you'd
like
to
come
up
and
speak
to
the
board,
you
have
three
minutes.
Okay,.
D
D
D
D
K
J
E
Okay
with
that
I
will
post
the
public
hearing
and
then,
if
the
account
wishes
to
respond
to
anything
within
the
mobile
comment,
that
is
serenated.
E
Okay,
so
it's
it's
within
your
rights
if
you
wish
to
respond
to
anything
within
the
public
hearing.
So
if
you
do
have
a
rebuttal,
that's
you
know.
Please
take
a
few
moments.
If
not,
we
can
keep
going
with
our
deliberation.
No.
M
I
also
think
that
it's
important
that
we
have
a
positive
relationship
between
neighbors
I
think
we
attempted
to
put
up
a
privacy
screen
on
the
existing
deck,
just
to
kind
of
keep
that
separation
there,
even
though
it
is
on
a
shared
property
line
and
I
mean
I,
guess
that's
all
I've
got
to
say
but
yeah.
Thank
you.
E
All
right,
thanks,
Andrei
initial
thoughts.
G
E
Guess
I
would
just
it
should.
It
should
be
said
that
you
know
whatever's
worked
out
between
the
two
neighboring
parties
is,
is
their
their
thing?
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
what
this
board
has
hurt
you
over
the
defense
and
all
that,
that's
you
know
their
their
deal
and
how
they've
come
to
an
agreement
outside
our
involvement.
So
that's
that's
up
to
them
and
has
no
bearing
amount
of
variance
that
we're
about
to
seemingly
go
down.
So
does
anybody
want
to
make
a
motion.
I
I
Consistent
with
the
non-conforming
communications,
whether
the
benefits
saw
by
the
applicant
can
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
to
the
variants
again
I'd
say
no.
The
applicant
spoke
to
this
about
how
there's
already
a
pretty
dilapidated
stone
patio
there.
So
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
there.
Whether
the
requested
variance
is
substantial.
G
G
I
J
M
K
K
D
A
H
C
J
E
A
Certainly
so
I'm
Michelle,
Palmer
and
I'm
here
from
widham
planning
and
design
with
me,
is
also
Ife
Yan,
who
will
be
presenting
some
of
the
more
technical
aspects
of
the
project.
David
Cox
is
the
with
a
civil
engineer
for
the
project
pass
or
Associates,
and
then
YJ
is
here
as
a
representative
of
DMG
and
YJ
I
think
would
like
to
just
say
a
few
quick
words.
H
A
Thanks
so
we
have
been
meeting
with
the
planning
board
and
and
went
through
a
sketch
plan
meeting
with
them
in
May
and
they're
generally
supportive
of
the
scale
of
the
project
and
the
potential
variances
that
might
be
required
for
it.
A
But
we
recognize
it's
the
bza's
purview
to
make
decisions
regarding
any
variances,
and
so
our
goal
tonight
is
to
share
some
some
preliminary
site
plan
options
and
to
gauge
your
potential
support
for
what
the
variances
might
be
with
those
options
we'll
also
be
showing
some
preliminary
architectural
elevation
sketches
just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
what
the
project
might
be
like,
but
there
are
no
more
detailed
architectural
drawings
available
at
this
point
in
time.
A
So
we'd
really
like
to
focus
on
on
the
site
layout
issues
in
the
implications
of
the
options
and
the
variances.
That
would
be
required
in
particular,
for
parking
requirements
again.
The
planning
board
was
relatively
supportive
of
granting
parking
variants
for
this
project,
but
how
much
variance
we
ask
for
will
depend
on
which
of
the
site
plan
options
get
selected,
so
so
the
project
site,
as
you
probably
all
are
aware,
is
the
wooded
area.
A
That's
to
the
west
of
the
former
Ithaca
Gun
Site
DMG
proposed
and
then
subsequently
withdrew
a
much
larger
project
in
the
spring
of
2022.
This
is
the
same
site,
but
with
a
very
different
proposal.
After
re-envisioning
with
a
combination
of
the
public
feedback
city
of
Ithaca
feedback,
neighborhood
feedback,
they've
they're
we're
proposing
a
much
more
modest
townhouse
project
that
will
be
rental
units
with
a
mix
of
three
and
four
bedrooms.
A
We
believe
it's
a
housing
type,
that's
much
needed
here
in
Ithaca
and
that
the
location
is
compatible
with
many
Ithaca
resident
housing
needs
it's
not
envisioned
as
a
student
housing
project.
It
could
be
families,
professionals,
empty
nesters
or
anyone
who'd
like
to
live
in
the
Fall,
Creek,
neighborhood
and
but
the
site
does
have
some
physical
properties
that
make
site
planning
for
it
a
bit
complicated
and
so
Ife
will
be
sharing
some
of
those.
But
for
starters,
we
could
take
a
peek
at
the
what
the
elevations
might
be
like.
A
So
it's
a
slope
site
and
the
buildings
would
be
individual
townhouses.
That
would
step
down
following
Lake
Street
they're,
envisioned
to
have
a
pretty
traditional
character
that
would
be
compatible
with
what
buildings
look
like
in
in
the
Fall
Creek
neighborhood,
and
they
would
have
entrances
on
Lake
Street,
but
also
have
access
at
the
back
of
the
site
where
the
parking
would
be
so
Ife
can,
and
this
is
just
a
little
more
zoomed
in
view
of
what
the
arc
the
architecture
might
look
like
and
in
fact
Holt
Architects
is
the
project
architect.
K
So
this
will
be
a
town
home
project
and
the
zoning
requires
28
per
key
spaces,
and
then
the
maximum
story
would
be
four
and
40
feet
in
height,
we're
proposing
the
30
feet,
three
stories
with
under
30
feet
in
height,
and
then
the
front
yard
will
be
10
for
the
front
yard
and
the
set
will
be
10
or
5,
and
because
we
have
for
our
parcel
the
rear
years
that
will
be
32.8
feet.
We
have
confirmed
this
with
Megan
a
few
months
ago
again
this.
K
This
should
be
the
accurate
where
you
are
that
we
should
based
on
so
tonight.
We
are
going
to
show
you
two
options
and
like
to
get
your
comments
on
what
you
think
about
this
options
and
what
you
do
about
the
variants
we
are
seeking.
K
Some
of
the
common
design
ideas
into
both
of
the
set
options
is
that
we
will
provide
to
access
through
Lake
Street
and
enter
from
East
Lincoln
Street
East
Lincoln
Street
is
the
city
street,
but
the
city
is
willing
to.
Let
us
use
it
as
a
entrance,
and
the
fire
department
will
be
utilizing
part
of
that
as
the
entrance
to
the
back
side
of
the
buildings.
K
They
also
requested
to
have
a
fairly
in
front
of
the
buildings,
mostly
for
emergency
vehicles,
access
for
the
most
time
and
then
the
trucks
and
engine
will
be
coming
from
the
back
side.
Some
of
other
design
ideas
that
shared
in
both
scenario
is
that
we
are
going
to
have
this
very
sloped
vegetated
slope
that
coming
from
the
upper
level
audience
one
parking
and
coming
down
to
our
homes.
K
They
will
be
planted
by
Our
intention
is
to
remove
the
invasive
species
and
we
planted
with
Native
species
with
the
retaining
wall.
Transitioning
between
those
two
conditions
and
the
new
set
walk
section
will
be
adding
on
the
side
to
connect
from
the
other
one
parking
all
the
way
down
to
the
neighborhood
another
one
that
we
want
to
mention
is
that
we
have
been
coordinating
with
the
city
and
learning
board
to
see
if
there
is
a
way
for
us
to
utilize
the
East
Lincoln
Street
as
a
potential
place
for
parking
And.
K
This
parking
will
not
be
for
our
resident
only
be
a
public
parking,
so
anyone
who
comes
around
the
neighborhood
will
be
able
to
park,
but
we
feel
this
will
be
a
strategy
that
kind
of
mitigating
the
party
partying
stress
that
we
are
facing
in
our
site.
So
our
parcel
has
this
very
regular
shape
around
it,
which
means
that
we
will
not
have
a
regular
setback
as
a
magic,
big
war,
so
we're
facing
this
32
feet,
10,
inches,
rear
yard
setback
and
then
the
dash
line
you
see
here
is
the
setback
line.
K
K
Dmg
is
willing
to
improve
easily
countries
as
a
public
Humanity,
while
providing
some
Fair
parking
for
the
public
and
our
residents,
and
the
implication
for
this
version
is
that
if
we
are
having
18
parkings
on
our
site,
the
retaining
wall
hide
in
those
two
corners.
You
really
hide,
so
we
have
21
feet
high
here
and
then
22
up
here.
K
So
the
playing
board
suggested
us
to
looking
for
a
bigger
variants,
bigger
parking
variants
to
reduce
some
of
the
retainable
hype
that
we
have
here
and
then
in
the
second
option
is
most
of
the
design
is
the
same,
but
the
only
thing
has
changed
is
that
we
reduced
three
parkings
in
this
lot.
So
in
the
earlier
version
we
had
18.
This
is
15.
That
means
that
we
will
reduce
the
parking
by
three
but
also
reduce
the
retrainable
by
six
feet
in
this
corner.
K
So
we're
looking
to
gather
some
of
her
input
on
whether
this
is
a
feasible
option
for
you
to
consider,
grant
us
a
bigger
variance
for
the
priority
and
also
the
rear
setback
parking.
Or
would
you
be
more
comfortable
with
the
1813
option
for
the
15.?
So,
yes,
we
will
have
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
this
and
we
were
all
coming
back
to
the
funny
world
and
BCA
for
more
detailed
conversation.
A
J
So
the
rear
yard
is
up
against
the
slope
of
the
front
yards
wrapping
around
the
buildings
on
all
the
straight
facing
sides.
J
C
Requirements
for
the
building,
but
there's
an
issue
with
maybe
now
that
once
we
refine
the.
J
Parking
remote
there
could
be
an
issue
with
the
amount
of
parking
in
the
front
yard.
Locating
parking
in
the
rear
yard,
sat
back
and
then
a
few
spaces.
So
it's
potentially
three
variances
but
all
related
to
parking.
E
Thank
you,
questions
for
the
potential
repellent
everything
Andre
I'm,
sorry.
A
Well,
I
I
think
from
the
owner's
perspective
either
option
is
viable.
A
We
did
hear
a
number
of
concerns
from
the
planning
board
that
they
felt
that
the
retaining
walls
were
too
tall
and
they
wanted
us
to
look
at
whatever
we
could
do
to
reduce
the
height
of
the
retaining
walls
and
so
losing
three
spaces
does
substantially
reduce
their
height.
The
owner
likes
that
it
will
result
in
less
psych
disturbance
and
on,
and
it
will
certainly
reduce
the
costs
related
to
the
retaining
walls.
E
Another
question:
the
property
owner
owns
the
site
above
this
one
direct.
The
audit
parking
lot.
A
They
they
have
an
excess
of
parking
there.
In
fact,
that
parking
is
leased
to
the
residents
of
Auden,
so
they
can
keep
track
pretty
pretty
clearly
of
how
many
spaces
are
being
used
at
any
given
time
and
somewhere
around
50
to
60
percent
are
typically
rented.
A
It
was
suggested
by
the
planning
board
that
we
consider
offering
parking
for
the
residents
of
the
townhouses
in
that
location,
but
we're
told
by
the
owner
that,
because
of
the
the
way
that
particular
business
is
structured
and
the
the
agreements
related
to
it,
that
they
are
not
able
to
rent
to
this
new
newer
proposal.
E
It's
just
worth
having
a
conversation
and
then
another
question
I
have,
is
you?
Do
you
foresee
spillover
parking
off
that
new
extension
of
East
Lincoln?
Where
you
do
you
receive
residence
parking
there,
which
is
supposedly
for
the
public
and
if
so,
yeah
I?
Guess,
if
you
don't
perceive
that,
why
not.
A
Well,
I
think
that
the
way
that
it's
perceived
is
it's
certainly
residents
of
the
Town
Homes
will
park
there,
but
that
members
of
the
public
could
park
there
as
well.
It's
we.
We
believe
that
the
most
amount
of
parking
needed
for
the
residents
is
going
to
be
in
the
evening
and
at
night,
when
it's
less
likely
that
the
public
is
going
to
be
wanting
to
park
on
East,
Lincoln
Street,
but
I
think
that
you
know
you
are
correct,
that
this
would
be
a
shared
amenity,
that
it's
not
a
purely
purely
public
amenity.
G
Planning
words
commentary
a
little
bit:
it's
I
think
it
puts
us
in
a
little
difficult
position
as
a
board
when
you
propose
a
project
that
meets
zoning
more
closely
and
then
the
planning
we're
coming
in
and
saying
for
aesthetic
reasons
you
guys
should
provide
less.
You
know
the
zoning.
The
property
takes
precedence
over.
G
You
know
the
aesthetic
considerations
of
the
board
now
I'm
I'm,
very
open
to
either
proposal,
given
the
site
challenges
at
play
and
I
think
that
there's
definitely
significant
costs
of
putting
in
the
larger
retaining
wall
that
don't
justify
the
extra
three
spaces,
but
as
a
common
character
to
the
planning
board.
You
shouldn't
recommend
that
people
come
in
and
you
know
walk
away
from
zoning
versus
what
they
originally
proposed.
D
D
A
It
was
on
the
market
as
a
as
a
mechanism
to
achieve
value
for
the
for
the
project,
for
thought
and
for
some
financing
is
my
understanding
more
information
I'm
not
really
privy
to,
but
it
was.
It
is
still
a
DMG
property
and
my
understanding
is
that
they
intend
to
retain
it
for
the
foreseeable
future.
E
I
think
the
board
overall,
though,
seems
very
receptive
to
the
unique
consideration
of
a
lot:
that's
selling.
So
if
you
pursue
this,
we
will
see
you
down
the
road.
Okay.
J
Sam
sent
these
out
a
while
ago.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
had
any
comments,
I'm
sure
you've
all
read
them
in
girl
detail
over
your
fourth
of
July
weekend.
E
J
To
talk
about
this,
a
bit
at
one
of
the
recent
meetings
about
just
to
recap:
we've
had
a
lot
of
appeals
in
the
past,
I'd
say
a
couple
years
that
are
relatively
lunar,
but
currently
the
zoning
ordinance
does
not
make
a
distinction
in
terms
of
a
limited
approval
process
such
as
we
see
for
landmarks
or
even
cycling
reviews.
So
you
either
meet
the
zoning
or
you
don't.
J
If
you
don't,
you
automatically
have
to
come
here,
so
we've
been
working
with
some
legal
counsel
on
how
we
might
address
this,
and
so
what
under
New
York
state
law?
Only
this
board
can
grant
a
variance,
but
Council
can
change
the
zoning
ordinance
to
change
what
requires
a
variance.
So
we
might
instead
of
right
now
we
say
anything
that
doesn't
need.
Zoning
requires
a
variance.
J
To
you
know,
the
thought
process
of
this
is
to
kind
of
alleviate
some
of
the
load
on
the
board
and
try
to
put
forward
things
to
the
board
that
are
more
complicated
and
need
more
eyes
on
them,
as
opposed
to
some
of
the
smaller
things
that
we've
seen
in
recent
years.
So
I
tried
to
go
through
some
of
our
past
agendas
and
you
know
particular
things.
The
people
that
got
in
the
comments
or
any
questions
you.
J
Kind
of
thing
so
I
put
together
a
list
at
the
top,
is
basically
seven
items
of
things
that
we
with
some
examples
of
cases
in
recent
years.
That
has
come
to
the
board,
where
you
know
quick
approvals
and
then
the
bottom
are
things
that
would
still
come
to
the
board
and
I
know.
You'll
all
be
very
excited
that
telecommunications
modifications
have
to
still
come
to
you
at
the
moment,
so,
but
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
feedback.
I,
don't
know!
J
J
So
one
of
them
that
we've
seen
many
times
is
the
exacerbation
of
a
front
yard
deficiency
due
to
replacing
it
with
steps
to
make
it
co-compliant
stairs
or
changing
the
configuration
of
stairs.
We've
also
seen
several
cases
where
the
the
property
owner
wants
to
expand
the
front
porch,
which
has
been
a
little
different.
There
were
different
considerations
than
that.
So
to
me,
it
seemed
like
expanding
that
porch
should
still
be
a
discussion
of
the
boards,
but
maybe
just
expanding.
The
steps
that
extend
further
into
the
front
yard
might
be
acceptable.
G
J
Do
treat
steps
and
ramps.
Similarly,
just
I
don't
know
no
that's
100,
but
just
because
how
you
option
change
so
I.
J
So
either
a
new
or
exacerbated
yard
deficiency,
provided
that
a
minimum
of
50
of
the
required
yard
is
maintained.
So,
for
example,
if
it's
a
they're,
adding
an
addition
on
the
side
of
the
house,
the
side
yard
requirements,
10
feet
and
they're
gonna
they're,
proposing
eight
they're,
maintaining
half
of
it
required
yard
or
five
feet.
So
that
would
be
okay.
If
they
wanted
to
go
down
to
two
feet,
it
would
probably
it
would
need
to
come
to
the
board.
J
C
D
H
J
We've
had
a
couple
of
these
one
is
like
going
back,
let's
say
the
other
one
is
we
had
someone
that
wanted
a
wider
front
porch
but
had
a
front
porch
deficiency,
so
they
were
extending
it
along
the
front
yard,
but
still
kind
of
that
same
idea.
They
weren't
getting
closer
to
the
property
line,
but
the
proportion
of
the
building
that
was
in
the
yard
is
greater.
That's
great.
G
Don't
that's
correct
I,
don't
care
I
mean
I,
get
that
that's
what
drove
it
but
I
think
like
for
people
for
preferential
reasons
want
to
have
a
a
raised
deck
instead
of
a
stone
patio,
if
I
feel,
like
that's,
I've
got
no
problem
with
someone
said:
30
inch
raised
deck
rather
than
a
seven
patio,
because
I
don't
know
40
inches
I
mean
at
what
point
does
the
the
back
of
my
house
is
I?
Think
48
inches
off
the
ground,
so
yeah
40
inches
would
be
good.
J
The
other
one
and
I've
only
had
this
happen
once
is
a
vertical
extension.
So
we
had
a
house
that
has
was
had
a
side
yard
deficiency.
J
Originally
it
was
built
as
a
two-story
and
burned,
and
then
it
was
one
story
for
a
long
time
and
they
finally
decided
they
wanted
to
add
the
Second
Story
back
on.
It
met
the
height
requirement,
but
it
vertically
extended
the
building
upward
again.
I,
don't
get
these
enough.
That
I
think
we
need
to
worry
about
explaining
what
that
means,
but
just
something.
J
Okay,
an
existing
Frontage
or
LA
area
deficiency-
that's
not
exacerbated
by
the
proposed
work.
So
if
you
have
an
addition
on
a
home
in
an
r2b
or
a
3,
000
square
feet
is
required.
You
meet
the
other
requirements,
but
your
lot's
only
2
800..
J
J
So
part
of
this
make
it
back
to
number
two
as
well
with
my
kids
left.
Maybe
it's
an
exacerbated
deficiency
only
in
lot
coverage
by
buildings,
provided
that
the
deficiency
is
20
or
less
of
the
requirement.
So,
for
example,
today's
case
with
the
605.,
they
were
less
than
a
percentage
off
that
increased
with
less
than
a
percent.
I
know,
there's
other
issues
with
that
particular
proposal,
but
hypothetically
if
it
was
just
expanding
their
deck
a
little
bit,
it
was
like
less
than
a
percentage
of
lot
coverage
by
building.
I
J
G
X
place
thanks
for
staff,
we've
been
I,
don't
know.
If
we're
changing
it,
we
can
always
change
it
back.
It
could
become
a
problem.
Yeah
I
mean
I'd,
rather
err
on
the
side
of
pushing
the
envelope
and
efficiency
and
figure
out
what
happens
and
like
the
notification
of
public
is
always
tricky
because
it's
like
I
should
have
been
notified
on
some
Albany
and
I.
Will
you
know
it's
like
okay?
J
E
G
G
C
J
Location
of
accessory
structure
deficiencies
for
when
they
replace
or
expand
existing.
So
we've
seen
this
probably
five
times
this
past
year
or
two,
where
we
have
an
older
garage
or
carriage
house
that
doesn't
fit
a
modern
bar,
so
they
want
to
make
it
a
little
bit
bigger.
The
original
one
was
built
too
close
to
the
property
lines,
and
now
the
whole
yard
is
designed
around
their
driveway.
J
Going
out
to
this
location,
I
tried
to
look
at
a
percentage
of
like
what
that
would
mean
and
like
it
was
a
very
significant
percentage
like
it
was
they
weren't
a
huge
increase
in
terms
of
the
number
of
feet
but
percentage-wise
that
they
had
one
go
from
a
single
family
to
a
one
and
a
half
car.
J
It
was
like
a
60
increase
over
the
existing
footprint,
so
percentage-wise
it
looked
more
significant
than
it
really
was
so
I
was
trying
to
think
of
like
a
square
footage
of
like
one
was
in
the
400
range
and
one
was
in
the
300
range
of
the
two
most
recent
but
I'm
open
to.
E
G
Well,
what's
what's
a
handicap
parking
space
now
with
the
grayed
out
areas
on
either
side
and
then
go
to
Wegmans
later,
but
I
feel
like
because
that's
the
like
yeah.
E
G
E
J
Is
a
provision
in
the
ordinance
yeah,
so
the
burns
are
tree
falls
or
something
like
that?
Is
it
two
years
it
is
I
drove
back
in
love
this
two
years,
but
then
with
covid.
There's
this
random
provision
extended
that
extended
it
from
the
end
of
the
state
of
emergency.
Actually
so
I
don't
know
who
saw
medical
print
on
representing
and
built
that
in,
but
it
extended
that
expiration
period
for
everything
which
is
even.
J
If
the
year,
so
it's
normally
a
year,
if
the
year
ended
before
the
first
state
of
emergency,
then
yes,
but
like
there
was
a
lot
of
restaurants
and
things
that
kind
of
still
are
closed
that
had
established
okay.
So
we
talked
about
that
in
the
accessibility
improvements.
A
couple
of
examples
there
that
we
saw.
How
do
you
all
feel
about
so
on
number,
two
and
number
five
I
put
new
or
exacerbated
deficiencies?
Do
you
just
want
to
keep
it
exacerbated
and
not
new.
E
J
J
C
G
J
So
it
would
be
an
existing
buildings,
only
not
new.
Oh
that's
a
word
too
long.
So
sorry
I
need
to
clear
clarify
that
language.
So
you're
right,
it's
not
I.
Don't
I
don't
want
some
of
the
new
projects
to
come
in
that
are
like
a
brand
new
build.
It
would
be
like
adding
the
Decks
that
we
see
they're
already
over,
or
some
of
that
kind
of
thing
is
really
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at
I.
Don't
want
any
new
construction
of
a
brand
new
structure.
J
If
it
doesn't
need
the
code
would
come
to
this
board.
So
sorry,
does
that
get
it?
What
you
were
yeah.
J
H
G
J
And
then
on
the
bottom
and
he
so
again
any
definitions
that
he
created
by
the
construction
of
a
new
one
I
my
new
primary
structure.
I
put
it
could
be
new
structure,
all
off
street
parking
deficiencies
in
terms
of
the
number
of
spaces.
However,
I
do
want
to
take
out
a
section,
that's
currently
in
there
that
if
you
right
now,
if
you
have
a
parking
deficiency,
you
can't
expand
or
enlarge
your
building
without
a
variance.
So
that
means
even
though
you're
not
increasing
your
occupancy,
you
can't
make
your
deck
bigger.
J
The
one
that's
Dormer
in
the
bathroom
that
we
got,
they
were
expanding
the
building
to
give
a
little
more
Headroom
in
the
bathroom,
but
they
were
deficient
of
parking,
so
they
had
to
be
because
I
also
don't
think
that
helps
us
analyze.
The
impacts
as
well,
because
you're
just
feeling
like
this
is
ridiculous.
I'm
gonna
grab
the
variants,
whereas
in
the
future
again
telecommunications
setback
deficiencies
yeah
what
area
deficiencies
resulting
from
an
increase
in
residential
units
or
occupants.
So
until
R3
has
changed.
J
If
you
add
units
in
a
building,
you
need
more
light
area
to
do
so,
and
that
seems
to
be
sometimes
a
hotline
issue,
but
I
felt
magic
so
and
then
any
deficiencies,
as
referred
by
staff
like
so,
if
I,
if
something
technically
met
but
was
controversial
or
like
to
Mike's
Point,
something
right
behind
it
was
very
sensitive
or
somebody
did
an
iron.
Somebody
I
would
probably
honestly
some
people
not
doing
here.
I
would
probably
send
that
to
the
World
War
II.
So
I'm
sure
you
want
that
as
staff.
G
F
J
So,
typically,
when
we
like,
when
a
property
is
purchased,
then
I
have
to
write
a
zoning
compliance
letter.
It's
what
is
on
the
ground
now
in
exactly
as
is
not
so
we
identify
any
zoning
variances
in
non-conformities.
We
also
will
or
look
at
building
and
housing
code
in
New
York
state
code,
variances
and
if
there's
like
I,
do
get
usually
some
of
these
bigger
projects
after
they
get
their
site,
then
for
those
you
know,
financing
or
whatever
I
have
to
do.
J
One
and
I'll
just
say
there
was
a
site
plan
approved
on
such
and
such
a
date.
If
it
hasn't
expired,
but
otherwise
I
typically
wouldn't
it
doesn't
typically
require
anyone
to
get
a
company,
a
variance
now
or
permit
so
and
I
think
the
only
thing
I'm
I
personally
am
hoping
by
this
is
one.
Is
that
I
mean
there?
J
Also
get
a
lot
of
calls
from
people
that
are
like.
Oh
I
want
to
make
my
back
steps
code
compliant
and
only
you
have
to
go
to
the
BCA
patriotic
I'll.
Keep
them
I'll,
just
keep
them
I'll,
just
repair
them.
I,
don't
want
to
you,
know
and
I.
Think
we'd
rather
see
people
make
yeah
safety
improvements
and
other
improvements
to
the
properties.
So
is.
J
J
So
I'm
gonna
bring
this
concept
to
the
planning
and
economic
development
committee
in
August,
and
then
it
will
circulate
for
further
comment.
So
I
was
hoping
that
it,
the
September
meeting
the
board,
might
be
willing
to
consider
some
type
of
comment
or
recommendation
on
it
from
the
board,
because
you
know
part
of
that
will
be.
People
will
want
to
hear
from
you
all
as
members
about
any
concerns.
Whether
you
think
is
a
good
idea.
A
bad
idea.
J
H
E
G
J
G
J
Yeah,
so
I
would
I
think
that's
a
great
point
and
I
think
certainly
sending
with
the
materials
we
send
out
information
and
examples
of
past
cases
that
they
can
revealed,
which
are
all
public
records.
So
we
can
even
include
a
link
to
the
appeal
packet
that
they
can
review,
but
one
goal
that
I
have
for
the
zoning
in
general
is
to
make
it
more
user-friendly
and
readable.
This
is
not
yet
so
I'd
like
to
get
it
there.
I.
J
Office
the
reason
it's
very
in
tune
with
zoning
and
other
issues
and
they're
like
this
they're.
Like
you,
don't
know
zoning,
it's
still
hard
to
understand
so
I'd
like
to
get
it
and
that's
just
a
goal
in
general
I
would
say,
is
a
homeowner
shouldn't
have
to
ask
for
a
professional
engineer
planner
to.
J
It
so
so
any
feedback
on
that
too
is
welcome.
I
just
haven't
gotten
there,
yet
with
it.
Okay,
so
last
things
we
are
not
going
to
meet
in
August
gets
that
month
off
and
I
heard
from
several
of
you
about
the
September
meeting
date,
September
12th,
the
second
Tuesday
work
for
everyone.
Yes,.
J
Okay,
so
that'll
be
the
date
in
September
same
place.