►
From YouTube: January 6, 2022 Zoning Board of Adjustment
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
B
B
D
A
E
B
C
B
B
C
D
B
F
Here,
perry
members
of
the
board
there's
just
one
communication.
This
evening
there
was
an
appeal
of
the
decision
of
the
board
of
adjustment
from
the
last
hearing.
5550
clinton
avenue
55
couldn't
excuse
me.
5550
clinton
avenue
was
a
side
yard
setback
in
impervious
surf,
impervious
surface
setback
that
was
triggered
after
construction
due
to
a
survey,
error
or
incorrect
site
plan
that
will
be
going
to
the
the
next
biz
hearing.
When
we
get
an
outcome
we
will.
I
will
report
back
to
the
board
of
adjustment,
so.
B
Thank
you
his
so
a
related
question
have
they
constituted
the
committees
that
will
exist
and
I
assume
it
sounds
like
there
is
a
biz
committee
now.
F
Yes,
there
is
a
biz,
I
don't
know
if
the
clerk's
office
has
a
better
out
a
better
understanding
of
other
committees
that
may
have
been
formed,
but
there's
still
a
biz
committee
is
still
a
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee.
Okay,
great.
B
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
surrounding
that
appeal
from
the
board
or
any
questions
of
mr
ellis?
B
Seeing
none
we'll
move
on
and
let's
review
the
agenda,
I
will
read
the
agenda
number
and
address
of
the
project
and
state
whether
it's
slated
for
consent,
continuous
withdrawal
return
or
discussion
and
I'll
just
talk
about
what
consent
and
discussion
items
are
consent
items
are
those
that
will
be
passed
without
discussion
by
the
board.
We
will
be
adhering
to
the
staff
recommendation
found
on
your
agenda
under
the
items
recommended
motion
section
and
importantly,
any
applicable
conditions
will
be
listed
in
the
same
section.
B
If
you
agree
with
this
recommendation,
including
any
applicable
conditions,
you
need
to
do
nothing
and
the
board
will
pass
it
as
recommended.
Please
check
in
with
the
staff
member
assigned
to
that
item.
If
you
have
any
questions
following
the
decision,
if
you
disagree
with
the
recommendation,
please
indicate
you'd
like
to
speak
against
that
item.
When
I
ask
and
we'll
put
it
on
the
discussion
agenda,
discussion,
items
are
items
for
which
the
board
will
take
public
testimony
deliberate
on
and
make
a
decision
after
the
public.
Testimony
has
been
heard
for
each
particular
discussion
item.
B
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
that
agenda
item
once
I
close
the
public
hearing
for
an
item.
No
additional
public
testimony
will
be
taken,
but
staff
may
be
asked
to
address
board
questions
after
the
public
hearing.
For
an
item
is
closed
board
members
then
will
discuss
and
act
on
motions
and
the
chair
only
votes
in
the
case
of
a
tie.
B
B
B
B
I'm
here
are
no
one
and
agenda
item
number
seven
is
3804
36
avenue.
South
staff
is
recommending
this
item
for
consent.
Is
there
anyone
to
speak
against
this
item
and
again
press
star
six
if
you're
on
the
line
and
would
like
to
have
this
item
fold
and
just
say,
you'd
like
to
have
it
on
the
discussion
agenda.
B
B
E
C
H
B
I
I
I
I
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
several
improvements
to
the
parcel,
all
of
which
are
shown
on
the
site
plan
here
of
the
improvements
proposed.
Only
the
retaining
wall
in
the
rear
of
the
property
requires
a
variance
for
the
rear
yard
setback.
I
I
So,
for
a
bit
of
background
on
this
application,
this
variance
was
brought
to
city
planners
from
zoning
enforcement.
The
city
received
a
zoning
complaint
in
early
august
of
2020
related
to
unpermitted
construction
at
2222,
grand
avenue,
south
and
2300
grand
avenue
south,
which
is
the
adjacent
property
to
the
south.
I
The
properties
had
both
constructed
a
retaining
wall
structure
across
the
rear
of
the
properties
without
obtaining
permits
for
the
proposed
work.
Any
retaining
wall,
that's
over
four
feet
in
height
and
that's
measured
from
the
bottom
of
the
footing
to
the
top
of
the
wall
does
require
a
building
permit.
I
So
both
properties
were
asked
to
submit
building
permits
for
city
review
prior
to
the
zoning
enforcement.
The
city
had
sent
the
property
owner
an
order
to
correct
soil
runoff
issues
where
soil
was
exiting
the
site
and
moving
into
the
alley
and
city
storm
water
systems
along
the
rear
property
line,
2222
grand
avenue
south
or
the
subject.
Property
then
submitted
a
building
permit
application
to
bring
the
property
improvements
into
compliance
with
code,
the
building
permit
drawings
and
the
drawings
attached
to
the
variance
application
that
the
board
has
seen
do
include.
I
All
of
these
other
site
improvements,
but
again
the
board
tonight's
only
being
asked
to
review
findings
regarding
the
retaining
wall.
The
retaining
wall
is
the
only
improvement,
that's
out
of
compliance
with
zoning
code,
improvements
to
the
garage
porches
walkways
and
paving
are
in
compliance
with
code.
I
The
applicant
provided
some
information
to
staff,
asserting
that
the
retaining
walls
that
previously
existed
at
2222
grand
avenue
south
had
backfill
behind
them,
but
aerial
imagery
showed
that
any
wall
that
existed
was
permitted
to
fall
into
disrepair,
so
any
non-conforming
rights
that
they
may
have
had
with
that
prior
wall
did
not
move
forward
with
this
application,
because
phil
was
proposed
to
be
added
behind
the
retaining
wall.
The
building
permit
was
flagged
as
requiring
this
variance
for
the
rear
yard
setback
next
slide.
Please.
I
So,
just
to
quickly
note,
there
is
ongoing
civil
litigation
between
the
property
owners
at
2222,
grand
avenue,
south
and
2300
grand
avenue
south
regarding
water,
runoff
and
location
of
property
lines
per
the
applicant
survey,
which
was
created
by
a
licensed
surveyor.
The
proposed
retaining
wall
is
located
on
the
property
at
2222,
grand
avenue
south,
and
so
it's
it's
city
policy
to
accept
surveys
completed
by
licensed
surveyors
as
accurate
and
factual
representation.
Excuse
me
from
both
parties
are
here
tonight.
I
So
if
you
have
any
questions
pertaining
to
that
specific
simplification,
I
would
refer
you
to
the
properties
or
the
excuse
me
to
the
applicant
and
the
representative
for
the
property
owner
adjacent
next
slide.
Please.
I
I
I
I
The
proposed
retaining
wall
and
incorporated
steps
and
trash
receptacle
storage
area
would
allow
for
a
safe
entrance
and
exit
pathway
for
the
property
from
the
alley,
and
they
would
correct
a
soil
and
one
and
water
runoff
issue
that
the
property
has
that's,
causing
ongoing
maintenance
issues
and
has
been
ordered
for
correction
by
the
city
for
the
second.
Finding
the
property
owner
or
authorized
applicant
proposes
to
use
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner,
and
that
is
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
ordinance
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
I
The
proposed
project
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
guidance
and
policies
of
minneapolis
2040,
particularly
pertaining
to
future
land
use,
as
well
as
goal
11
and
policy.
Five
staff
finds
the
proposed
variance
to
be
reasonable
and
in
keeping
with
the
intent
of
the
setback
ordinance,
which
is
intended
to
provide
for
orderly
development
and
use
of
land
and
to
minimize
conflicts
between
uses,
as
well
as
to
provide
adequate
light.
I
It
would
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
locality.
The
location
of
the
height
and
location
and
height
of
the
proposed
retaining
well
on
the
property
would
not
impact
neighboring
properties.
It's
consistent
with
the
retaining
walls
on
either
side,
and
it
would
also
provide
an
environmental
benefit.
I
B
D
I
I
So
we're
really
basing
our
findings
off
of
aerial
imagery
and
things
that
we
can
confine
from
the
inspection
report.
But
it
appears
that
it
was
several
feet.
J
Yeah
thanks
tripp
perry.
I
have
a
question
you
mentioned
litigation.
Is
that
so
we
don't
really
have
to
consider
that
or
or
was
it
brought
up
to
help
explain
the
process?
I
believe
we're
just
looking
at
a
retaining
wall.
Aren't
we.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question
yes
correct,
so
it's
it's
really
just
to
encompass
some
of
the
background
information
that
you've
received
from
the
public
comments
thus
far,
but
we
are
solely
focused
tonight
on
the
setback
for
the
retaining
wall
in
the
rare
yard
so
where
it
would
be
required
to
be
five
feet,
they're
proposing
1.8
feet.
Sort
of
any
of
these
other
issues
that
have
been
brought
up
in
public
comment
are
not
necessarily
relevant
to
to
the
retaining
wall.
B
Thanks
for
that
question,
mr
johannes,
and
I
was
going
to
mention
and
miss
roman
for
for
pointing
out
that
the
litigation
we're
not
here
to
litigate
what
is
already
in
litigation,
we're
here
to
talk
about
the
findings
of
fact
for
the
retaining
wall.
B
H
I
just
want
to
briefly
share
the
property
when
I
purchased
this
property
was
the
property
was
in
inhabitable
condition
inside
out
whether
the
yard
or
the
building
itself,
the
galactic
for
a
long
time
and
the
retaining
wall
in
the
back
was
falling
apart?
H
I
was
unable
to
work
on
everything
I
was
getting
inside
section
for
the
windows
for
the
wall
for
the
retaining
wall,
but
at
that
moment
I
wasn't
able
to
focus
on
the
wall.
However,
they
have
me
removed
the
the
cement
from
the
retaining
wall
collapse
it
and
I
was
able
to
retain
with
the
wood,
the
erosion
of
the
soil
and
then
put
a
black
stone
block
and
finally,
in
2018
I
was
planning
to
repair
the
wall.
H
When
I
got
citation
again
for
the
while
and
but
somebody
I
hired,
took
my
money
and
ran
away
and
then
2020
when
I
fall
into
someone
who
is
able
to
do
the
work
someone,
I
can
trust
and
I
immediately
focused
on
quickly
able
to
get
done
the
work.
H
I
know
I
failed
to
apply
for
the
application
prior
to
starting
the
work,
but
I
was
just
trying
to
I
thought
I
can
apply
for
the
permit
during
the
construction
which
I
tried
to
do
since
I
was
building
exactly
the
same
size
as
the
previous
wall.
I
did
not
know.
I
was
required
to
go
through
the
variance.
H
B
Okay,
are
you,
are
you
done
with
your
testimony,
or
would
you
like
to
say
anything
more?
No,
I
am
done.
Okay.
Thank
you,
mr
tulu.
Are
there
any
questions
of
the
applicant.
B
I
I'd
like
to
give
you,
mr
toulou
I'd
like
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
address.
As
I
said,
I
don't
want
to
litigate
what
is
already
in
litigation,
but
one
of
our
findings
of
fact,
is
that
the
the
variants
cannot
be
injurious
to
adjacent
properties
and
the
there
there's
your
neighbors
saying
that
this
is
injurious
to
your
to
their
property.
H
B
Okay,
I
I
think
the
issue
I
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
them.
They'll
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
for
themselves,
but
I
think
from
the
material
that
was
in
that
was
submitted
to
us
written
material.
It
has
to
do
with
water
runoff
as
a
result
with
respect
to
the
retaining
wall
being
built,
as
it
is.
H
The
I
don't
know
how
the
the
house
is
about
30
to
40
45
feet
from
the
alley
where
the
house
ends
from
the
front
to
the
back
and
the
retaining
wallets
goes
along.
The
alley,
which
is
their
retaining
wall,
is
also
adjacent
to
my
property,
my
retaining
wall.
So
I
am
not
sure
how
that
affects
water
run
into
their
property
versus
mind.
B
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
that,
since
you
won't
have
an
opportunity
to
talk
again.
H
B
B
Next,
in
cue,
is
mr
galatz:
if
you
want
to
press
stair
six
to
unmute
your
phone
and
we
did
receive
material
from.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
you
on
behalf
of
mr
shurmur's
or
mr
shurmur's
directly,
but
you
don't
have
to
repeat
them
with
all
the
material.
But
if.
G
G
Greg
schermers
owner
of
2300
grand
avenue
south
the
neighbor
of
the
applicant
next
door
to
two
two
to
two
grand
avenue
south.
We
oppose
the
application
for
variance
on
two
grounds.
One
is
you
know,
legal
and
technical.
There
is
an
encroachment
and
the
encroachment
does
show
on
the
survey
the
applicant
submitted
with
his
application.
G
I
don't
know
if
you
were
able
to
look
at
the
letter
I
submitted
this
morning.
Have
you
got
that
in
front
of
you.
B
Yes,
we
have
that
it's
all
right,
it's
on
the
screen
too,
I'm
sorry,
it's
it's
being
displayed,
but
we
we
also,
we
also
get
a
copy
of
it.
Okay,.
G
G
G
The
litigation
is
ongoing
and
I
don't
want
to
say:
is
it
relevant
to
this,
but
it's
certainly
independent
of
this.
We
re
raised
it
basically
as
a
disclosure,
so
you
know
there
is
a
dispute
going
on
between
these
neighbors
does
not
directly
relate
to
the
wall
itself
and
it's
not
the
reason
we're
appearing
at
this
hearing
and
opposing
it,
but
we
thought
it
would
be
best
that
it
exists.
G
What's
relevant
is
the
improvement
that
you're
being
asked
to
approve,
do
encroach
on
our
property
and
under
the
minneapolis
code
of
ordinance,
your
board
doesn't
have
authority
to
grant
property
owner
is
permission
to
build
on
other
people's
property,
and-
and
that
is
what's
happening
here.
If
you,
if
you
look
at
the
survey
on
page
six,
you
can
see
the
property
line
runs
between
the
garage,
the
two
garages
and
there's
notes
about
where
the
concrete
blocks
are.
I
assume
that's
a
just.
G
A
misstatement
and
support
concrete
flume
is
what
the
surveyor
was
calling
it.
It's
basically
a
little
trough
that
runs
between
the
garage.
Each
of
the
two
property
owners
have
one
to
direct
water
from
their
backyards
out
to
the
alley
between
the
two
garages
that
space
between
the
garages
has
existed.
G
You
know
before
either
of
these
property
owners
own
these,
this
property
and
it's
always
been
a
path
for
the
water,
and
I
I
don't
know
if
it's
ever
been
a
primary
path,
but
with
the
improvements
the
applicant
has
made
to
his
property,
it
has
become
a
primary
path
for
water
to
discharge
from
the
yards
and
the
way
the
properties
property.
The
applicant
has
altered
his
property
water,
now
flows
to
the
building
at
2300
grand
avenue
and
at
least
backed
by
the
garages.
G
It
pulls
around
the
edge
of
the
garage
and
then
flows
out
back
through
the
through
the
flumes
out
to
the
alley.
If
you
look
at
the
page,
I
think
it's
page
seven
of
the
letter.
It's
got
a
photograph
of
the
wall.
This
is
the
wall,
and
this
is
the
south
line
of
the
wall.
South
leg
of
the
wall,
we're
looking
back
towards
the
alley
below
your
the
portion
of
the
wall.
G
That
you're
considering
is
this
wall
takes
a
right
turn
and
back
along
the
alley,
but
I'm
showing
you
here
because
it
gives
you
a
good
shot
of
the
trough.
That's
the
applicant's
trough
with
the
pink
stripes
on
it.
That's
the
surveyor's
markers
just
showing
you
the
the
troughs
overlaps.
The
property
line
is
part
of
the
project
you're,
considering
that
is
the
applicant
forefound.
G
Removing
the
survey
marker,
which.
G
C
G
The
lawsuit-
that's
not
relevant
here,
the
the
next
picture
on
page
eight
of
my
letter
shows
that
space
between
the
garages
from
the
alley
looking
back
towards
the
yards,
and
you
can
see
there
the
the
wall
itself,
the
wall
you're
considering,
does
in
fact
cross
the
property
line
does
run
under
the
trough
and
but
into
the
wall
at
2300
grand
as
ms
roman
noted,
the
the
wall,
both
walls
were
built
by
the
same
contractor
roughly
the
same
time
and
both
in
full
disclosure.
Both
parties
had
those
walls
built
without
permits.
G
Mr
shermers
was
the
city
found
that
mr
shurmur's
wall
was
a
lawful
non-conforming
use,
so
he
didn't
have
to
come
back
for
a
variance,
but
we
can
see
they're
both
the
same
location
that
us
we're
not
objecting
to
the
location,
as
as
it
affects
the
alley
itself,
we
object
to
it
crossing
our
property
and
him
seeking
approval
for
improvements
of
property.
He
doesn't
own.
G
The
the
practical
reason
for
the
objection
is
the
regrading
of
his
property
has
caused
significant
flooding
in
the
sherman
property
and,
while
we're
trying
to
get
that
corrected
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
might
correct.
That
problem
might
be
opening
up
that
the
wall,
as
it
encroaches
into
the
alley
and
letting
some
of
the
water
flow
through
the
the
encroachment
is
legally
significant
because
minneapolis
coda
ordinances,
section
525.470.
G
Requires
that
the
person
initiating
a
variance
application
have
a
legal
and
equitable
interest
in
the
property.
That's
the
subject
of
the
application,
because
the
approach,
the
encroachment
the
applicant
cannot
perceive
and
the
board
cannot
approve
the
application
without
mr
shermer's
consent
and
mr
schermer
doesn't
consent.
G
G
The
encroachment
significantly
reduces
the
flow
to
the
app
and
increases
the
flow
to
mr
schumer's
basement
we're
trying
to
get
that
straightened
out.
The
applicant's
been
working
on
this
project
since
2019.,
without
permits,
without
review
until
the
retaining
wall
became
an
issue.
The
applicant
had
avoided
city
review
and
obtained
no
permits
at
all
for
any
of
the
work.
Mr
schermer
is
just
doing
I'm
sorry,
sir.
G
I'm
sorry
the
applicant
is
pursuing
the
sure
mr
schumer's
has
bought
applicants
cooperation
since
applicants
started
this
project
initially
by
direct
contact
with
the
applicant
and
later
by
contacting
the
city.
We
now
finally
have
the
city's
attention
and
we
urge
the
board
to
reject
the
application
and
require
the
applicant
to
obtain
appropriate
review
of
the
entire
project
if
the
board
nevertheless
determines
it
will
issue
the
requested
after
the
fact
variance.
G
We
urge
the
board
to
at
least
condition
its
approval
on
applicant,
incorporating
appropriate
drainage
features
into
the
design
of
the
retaining
wall
and
the
related
construction.
So
the
rain
and
snowmelt
do
not
drain
from
the
applicant's
property
to
mr
sherman's
property
and
removing
the
portions
of
the
retaining
wall
and
the
trench
that
encroach
on
the
shermer's
property.
G
We
understand
that
the
issue
you
are
being
asked
to
resolve
today
is
only
the
relate
the
retaining
wall
in
relation
to
the
alley,
but
we
urge
you
to
consider
that
had
mr
tulu
come
to
you
before,
he
started
his
project
to
the
city
before
he
started
his
project,
the
whole
project
would
have
been
reviewed
and
a
planner
would
have
made
a
determination,
as
miss
roman,
has
that
the
only
formal
approval
the
project
required
was
this
variant,
but
the
funds
you're
looking
at
it.
H
G
The
only
thing
you're
looking
at
is
the
variance
and
no
one
is
looking
at
the
overall
project.
So
I'm
we're
urging
you
to
reject
this
application.
Send
mr
tulu
back
to
the
city
for
review
of
the
full
project
and
a
resolution
of
the
storm
water.
The
surface
water
problems
he's
created
for
mr
shermers.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
of
mr
gallots.
B
K
Thanks,
thank
you.
My
name
is
greg
schermers,
I
own
the
property
adjacent
to
mr
toulouse
and,
as
eric
has
pointed
out,
my
address
is
2300
grand
avenue
south
I
purchased
the
home
back
in
october
of
1991.
K
K
K
K
You
know
mr
tulu
continued
with
the
project,
and
so
I
had
reached
out
to
regulatory
services.
They
had
got
a
hold
of
code
construction
and
there
was
a
gentleman
by
the
name
of
john
sutherland
who
came
out
to
the
property.
At
the
time
I
had
voiced
my
concerns
because
of
the
yard
buildup
that
had
happened
roughly
a
year
earlier.
K
There
was
soil
brought
into
the
property
in
july
of
2019,
and
that's
when
mr
tula
started
building
up
the
front
side
and
back
of
his
yard,
which
really
started
the
water
runoff
issue,
and
we
were
had
we
continued
to
have
discussions
about
that.
This
is
now
this
retaining
wall
is
being
constructed
in
the
summer
of
2020..
K
When
I
talked
to
regulatory
services,
they
had
indicated
to
me
that
a
permit
had
not
been
pulled,
and
when
john
sutherland,
who
was
the
code
construction
employee,
I
was
told
to
talk
to
when
he
would
be
on
site.
When
I
spoke
to
him
on
site,
he
I
talked
about
the
water
concerns
he
did
state
to
me
at
the
time.
He
assured
me
that
you
know
the
work
was
not
permitted
and
he
was
not
going
to
allow
damage
to
buying
property
by
allowing
it
to
be
constructed.
K
He
indicated
because
it
encroached
on
my
property
that
it
was
now
a
civil
matter
and
that
I
would
have
to
pursue
it.
Mr
tulu,
legally,
I
didn't
agree
with
the
answer,
but
that
is
a
path
I
started
to
go
down:
john
sutherland
retired
in
november
of
2020,
and
I
have
had
several
conversations
with
the
city
about
this
situation
since
some
of
which
occurred
with
ms
roman.
I
did
also
send
photographs
of
the
property
to
miss
roman.
K
So
I
guess
my
only
concern-
or
my
only
plea
for
you
is
that
I
would
just
ask
you
to
consider
all
the
facts
of
the
situation
and
look
at
the
bigger
picture.
I
know
ms
roman
had
indicated
that
the
meeting
today
is
simply
to
decide
on
whether
or
not
to
grant
mr
tulo
of
variance
for
the
retaining
wall
he
built
without
a
permit.
K
B
I'm
hearing
none.
Thank
you
again.
Is
there
anybody
else
on
the
line
who's
not
been
registered?
Who
would
like
to
speak.
B
B
Ms
roman,
if
there
is
a
mr
gallups
cited
some
code
that
said
that
you
could
not
improve
upon
property,
that
you
do
not
own
and
that's
in
the
zoning
code
or
the
munico,
I'm
not
sure
where
it
is,
but
how?
How
do
we
rectify
that?
Since
we're
only
looking
at
the
property
owner's
survey.
I
I
For
things
that
have
already
been
constructed,
it
is
a
civil
matter
to
build
on
another
property,
so
mr
sutherland
was
correct.
You
know
once
it's
already
there
it's.
It
is
a
civil
matter
between
the
two
property
owners
in
terms
of
the
variance.
I
The
only
thing
that
that
we
can
approve
under
our
variance,
is
improvements
being
constructed
on
the
subject
property.
So
anything
that
was
not
on
the
subject.
Property
like
that
scupper
or
gutter
area
that
they're
discussing
that
was
built
together
between
the
two
property
owners
wouldn't
be
under.
This
approval
is
my
understanding.
Maybe
mr
ellis
can
clarify
if
that's
incorrect
in
any
way.
B
Okay,
so
the
approval
of
the
variance
is
for
what
is
on
the
subject,
property
that
will
be
determined
through
litigation
and
it
if
that
results
in
something
having
to
be
removed.
So
be
it.
But
we're
talking
about
what
the
subject
property
is
as
determined
by
law.
I
F
B
Okay,
is
there
any
board
comment
or
questions
or
emotion,
fair
fairy,
fennel
son?
Yes,
mr
fennelson.
B
E
B
Okay,
that
means
that
the
variance
request
is
approved,
mr
tulu
and
mr
shirmers,
you
can
talk
to
staff
if
you
want
about
what
your
options
are
going
forward
or
get
clarification
about
what
we
discussed
today
with
that,
let's
move
on
to
the
other
items
on
our
agenda.
We
do
have
approval
of
the
22,
the
2022
boa
calendar,
but
before
that
we
have
new
and
old
business
and
under
new
business,
our
officer
nominations
for
our
annual
meeting
in
at
our
next
meeting
in
on
january
20th.
So
for
officer
nominations.
B
What
I'd
like
to
do
is:
I
am
seeking
reelection
as
president
of
the
of
the
board
so
I'll
hand
this
over
to
mr
finlesson,
who
is
not
seeking
an
officer
position.
Mr
finlayson.
E
Thank
you,
chair
perry.
Let's
make
this
concise,
it
may
nominate
someone
else
or
you
may
nominate
yourself.
I
am
seeking
nominations
for
president.
E
E
E
B
Thank
you,
so
what
we
can
do
at
our
annual
meeting
when
we,
since
we
have
positions,
one
person
for
each
position
and
only
one
person,
we
can
vote
on
a
slate,
and
we
will
do
that
at
our
next
meeting,
our
annual
meeting.
So
now
we'll
move
on
to
approval
of
the
2022
boa
calendar,
which
was
included
in
your
packets.
B
B
Okay,
so
what
we'll
do
is
review
it
for
for
our
meeting
at
our
annual
meeting
and
I'm
simply
accepted
for
review
tonight?
B
F
Chair
perry,
members
of
the
board-
this
is
mr
ellis.
This
probably
could
have
been
a
communication
as
well.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
the
next
two
board
of
adjustment
meetings
will
still
be
virtual,
so
the
january
20th
and
the
february
3rd,
the
the
emergency
declaration
ends
on
february
13th,
so
the
february
17th
meeting
would
be
in
person
unless
something
changes,
but,
of
course
we'll
keep
you
posted
if
the
emergency
declaration
is
extended
or
anything
along
those
lines.
J
F
Care
perry
board
member
joe
henderson.
I
would
leave
it
to
the
clerk's
office
to
maybe
explain
it.
I
know
that
they
have
worked
on
trying
to
get
to
a
hybrid
model,
but
right
now
I
don't
know
what
that
would
look
like
either
way
we
would
need.
You
know
some
board
members
in
person.
As
I
understand
it,
I
think
that
everything
would
still
have
to
be
in
person.
However,
if,
in
the
event
maybe
somebody
was
ill
or
there
was
some
other
sort
of
conflict,
they
could
attend
virtually.
F
L
Mr
chair,
I'm
happy
to
add
a
little
bit
of
context.
You
know
everything
brad
said
is
accurate.
This
is
ken
taylor
from
the
clerk's
office.
Everything
mr
ellis
said
is
accurate.
The
the
council,
when,
when
they
end
the
public
health
emergency
is
expected
to
you
know,
deliver
some
to
provide
some
instructions
to
the
city's
various
boards
and
commissions
as
to
how
to
proceed.
L
There
are
some
hybrid
options
that
state
law
provides
for
how
the
body
continues
to
meet
in
the
future,
but
I
I
expect
the
council
to
provide
some
instruction
as
to
whether
the
hybrid
model
is
an
option
for
this
body
or
whether
they
will
require
the
body
to
return
completely
to
in-person
meetings
for
for
members
of
the
body.
Even
if
we
we
do
return
to
a
hybrid
option.
The
the
options
for
you
to
attend
remotely
are
relatively
limited
in
in
a
typical
meeting.
L
L
Although
there
is
some
ability
to
miss,
I
believe
three
meetings
a
year
due
to
illness
and
you
would
be
then
allowed
to
participate
remotely
if,
if
that's
an
option
so
and
it's
it's
all
to
be
determined.
I've
already
heard
some
discussion
amongst
some
council
members
that
they're
looking
to
do
already
an
additional
extension
with
omicron
currently
raging.
So
I
expect
some
more
information
to
come
out
on
that
in
the
next
week
or
two.
B
So
I
would
just
say
speaking
for
myself
and
not
for
the
board.
Obviously
I
have
with
omicron
being
quite
ver
virulent.
I
would
say
that
I
have
some
concerns
about
going
back
to
in
person
when
businesses
and
other
institutions
are
pulling
back
from
having
people
get
back
back
in
place.
So
I'd
just
like
to
voice
that
as
a
member
of
the
board.