►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment Meeting - 08-06-2020
Description
Board of Adjustment Meeting - 08-06-2020
Agenda can be found at:
https://watertown.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Id=187
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
C
B
E
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
You
know
on
site
instead
of
in
a
storage
unit
or
in
the
driveway
on
the
property,
so
that's
their
main
concern
with
the
14-foot
sidewall
heights
and
then
the
size
of
the
garage
and
then
the
location
is
just
putting
it.
Where
the
you
know,
the
the
back
wall
of
the
existing
shed
is
now
so,
if
there's
any
questions
I'll
I'll
try
to
answer
them.
D
B
D
B
B
F
B
D
Needed
when
I
was
out
there,
I
didn't
notice
that
driveway
I
was
busy
looking
at
the
existing
garage
sheds
and
stuff
kind
of
going
well,
okay,
and
then
I
just
assumed
they
would
just
keep
going
from
the
existing
driveway
and
have
like
the
side
of
the
garage
where
it
faces.
The
street
is
what
I
was
thinking
when
I
was
looking
at
it.
D
B
D
D
B
A
D
D
B
F
B
A
F
E
F
No,
but
this
does
kind
of
tie
into
what
we
did
for
the
cl
lake
commercial
district
and
it's
something
that
we
probably
would
want
to
look
into
when
we
would
create
now
it's
not
created,
so
we
don't
really
have
anything
to
stand
on,
but
I
would
think
that
we
would
want
to
implement
that
as
well.
In
looking
at
the
a
residential
lake
district-
and
that's
really
I
mean
water.
F
C
I
guess
this
is
todd.
Speaking
from
my
perspective,
the
encroachment
on
the
road
front
isn't
as
bothersome
when
you
see
the
continuity
of
the
neighborhood
and
what's
been
done
out
there.
I
think
probably
the
bigger
question
for
the
board
to
to
handle
is
whether
or
not
the
size
of
the
structure,
the
the
cubic
dimensions
and
the
height
is
in
the
best
interest
for
the
neighborhood
community.
Now
I
do
see
that
there
are
letters
from
adjoining
property
owners
that
seem
to
not
have
a
problem
with
it.
C
But
to
me,
that's
probably
one
of
the
bigger
questions,
the
the
encroachment
on
the
road.
You
know
we
can
decide
that.
Well,
we
can
stand
our
ground
and
we're
going
to
take
these
one
at
a
time
for
250
years
to
move
everything
back
20
feet
or
you
allow
them
to
stay
encroached
and
we're
still
at
least
25
feet
back
from
the
edge
of
the
road
and
the
parking
is
not
going
to
be
going
directly
under
the
road.
So
that
to
me
is
not
such
a
big
issue.
C
F
Right
and
I
think
too,
like
bringing
up
the
lake
residential
district,
you
know
people
at
the
lake
for
storing
their
boats
and
toys
and
whatnot
you
know.
Maybe
it
is
something
that
we'd
want
to
look
at
increasing
the
size
of
unattached
garages.
But
then
again
I
don't
know
why
that
just
wouldn't
be
a
thing
citywide
if
it
was
okay
at
the
lake.
A
C
F
B
D
C
B
You
know
my
initial
instinct
was
one
at
a
time,
but
I
I
guess
you
might
want
to
ask
the
applicant
if,
if
one
of
them
fails,
I
guess
would
they
want
any
of
them
to
pass,
if
not
all
of
them
pass,
and
if
the
answer
to
that
is
no,
then
maybe
the
question
that
they're
proposing
is
an
up
or
down
vote
on
all
of
them.
If
they
would
take
two
out
of
four
or
three
out
of
the
four
yeses,
then
you
should
take
them
individually.
B
C
B
F
A
F
C
C
C
B
A
B
B
B
A
C
This
is
this
is
case
I
probably
have
more
problems
with
the
actual
size
of
the
cubic
contents
of
the
garage,
as
opposed
to
the
previous
sidewall
discussion,
because
we
were
looking
at
I
mean
I
could
put
a
30
foot
house
9
feet
off
the
property
line
and
they
were
going
to
be
18
feet
on
a
24
foot
structure.
So
I
didn't
have
the
issue
with
with
with
the
building
height
as
much
as
I
do.
I
think,
of
the
the
increased
attached
garage
size,
but
that
was
just
my
thoughts.
A
A
B
D
F
B
C
A
F
Let
me
get
down
there,
so
this
is
just
one
variance
request
here
and
what
he
is
looking
for
is
for
lesser
setbacks.
So
right
now
the
property.
Well,
it's
zoned
i1,
light
industrial
district
and
typically
the
front
yard
setback
is
40
feet
and
he
is
asking
for
a
five
foot
variance
to
allow
for
a
35
foot,
front
yard
setback
for
a
new
building
to
be
constructed.
F
They
were
in
front
of
the
board
in
the
past
for
the
same
situation
and
actually,
maybe
so,
here's
their
existing
building.
This
is
35.
They
had.
They
got
a
variance
at
that
time
for
a
35
foot,
front
yard
setback
because
they
have
existing
utilities
that
are
stubbed
out
of
the
ground,
so
they
would
like
to
utilize
them
without
having
to
move
them
back
five
feet
I'll
get
over
here.
A
F
E
A
E
I
you
know-
I
don't
know
the
exact
circumstances
for
these
service
stubs,
but
I
can
say
that
they
are
more
or
less
arbitrarily
stubbed
into
these
lots
for
for
use
and
typically
meant
to
be
extended
and
modified
with
the
construction
of
a
structure.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
known
to
the
board
for
your
knowledge.
B
B
A
B
A
E
E
Take
a
residential
subdivision.
For
example,
you'll
often
see
a
stick
of
pipe
up
out
of
the
ground,
some
distance
back
into
the
lot,
where
the
the
utility
contractor
roughed
in
those
service
lines
and
just
left
them
there
for
the
builder
to
then
take
off
from
and
build
from,
and
so
you
know
the
exact
situation
here.
B
B
C
D
C
B
F
B
D
A
C
This
is
caged,
mr
chair.
My
general
comment
and
philosophy
when
it
comes
to
variances
over
the
years
is
that
when
a
building
comes
in
and
they
they
ask
for
a
variance
it's
that
individual
building.
That
triggers
the
variance
for
that
specific
lot.
However,
if
the
community
is
so
inclined
to
to
grant
the
original
variance,
they
basically
made
a
commitment,
in
my
opinion,
that
the
variance
runs
parallel
to
either
the
front
yard
or
the
side
yard,
or
the
rear
yard.
C
C
C
A
C
F
A
B
F
F
F
So
this
is
the
applicant
seeks
variance
to
allow
for
lesser
rear
yard
setbacks.
Well,
that's
actually
front
yard,
so
front
yard
setbacks
required
in
the
r1
single
family
residential
district
to
construct
an
addition.
And
so
sorry
did.
I
say
that
there's
three
variances
in
this
there's
just
the
one.
So
all
we're
looking
at
is
he's
asking
for
a
lesser
front
yard
setback
for
a
10-foot
addition
to
his
existing
structure.
F
B
B
F
G
Request
hi:
this
is
brandon
krause
property
owner,
I'm
just
looking
for
some
more
space
to
expand
or
for
garage
space.
I
guess
currently
I
can
only
fit
with
the
with
some
lake
toys.
I
have
a
golf
cart
and
kayak
and
things
of
that
nature
and
I
can
currently
only
fit
one
vehicle
in
the
two
car
garage
because
of
that,
and
even
with
the
one
vehicle
I
have
a
pickup
that
I
I
can.
G
That
I
mean
that
would
kill
the
project
for
me
because
of
there's
a
stairway.
The
way
the
sewer
is
set
up
in
the
front
of
the
garage
and
then
the
there's
also
all
my
utilities,
furnace
and
everything
else
is
sitting
right.
My
utility
room
is
on
the
lake
side
of
the
garage.
I
guess
you
could
say
so
that's
why
I'm
looking
to
go
the
10
feet
out
to
gain
storage.
D
G
Yes,
as
it
currently
sits,
I
cannot
two
compact
cars
would
fit
nose
to
nose
in
the
driveway,
but
I
cannot
fit
a
pickup
in
a
car.
You
know
it's
not
long
so
for
practical,
I
won't
lose
any
practical
use
of
the
driveway
for
as
far
as
parking
goes
with
this
10-foot
addition,
so
that
I
guess
that's
kind
of
why
I
was
looking
at
the
10
feet
too.
G
G
D
G
F
D
F
That
is
a
little.
I
think
that
might
be
a
little
farther
down
after
you
get
past
this
y,
but
the
south
side.
You
know
it
is
a
large
right-of-way
and
what
you
know,
and
even
when
I
just
turn
on
my
plaits
layer
here
it
does
it's
not
adding
up
to
what
the
survey
was,
but
it's
about
a
50-foot
right-of-way
for
south
lake
drive
and
but
I
think
it's
just
a
little
skewed.
I
think
it
should
be
more
even
on
gis.
F
A
F
And
two
a
couple
years
back,
there
was
a
structure
that
was
in
the
flood
plain
that
was
taken
down
so
and
in
discussions
with
the
applicant
he
had
talked
about.
You
know
someday
building
on
because
right
now,
just
the
there's
no
living
quarters
on
the
on
just
it's
just
the
garage.
Then
his
living
quarters
are
on
the
second
floor,
so
someday
that
he
would
expand
further
to
the
back.
Where
then
dressing
up,
you
know
putting
this
on
the
back,
wouldn't
really
make
sense
for
him
at
this
time.
D
F
G
F
D
A
G
F
Yes,
thank
you,
so
this
is
board
consideration
of
a
conditional
use
request
in
the
c1
community
commercial
district
for
contractor
shops
on
the
property
located
at
317
first
avenue
southeast
and
this
conditional
use
came
before
the
board
previously.
If
you
recall
it
was
in
april,
and
so
at
that
time
he
was
asking
for
conditional
use
for
storage
units
and
a
contractor
shop,
and
I
think
where
the
board
had
issues
is
having
the
bathroom
facilities
for
storage
units
and
the
the
definitions
and
whatnot.
F
Same
he,
he
did
utilize
the
same
setbacks
that
the
board
had
suggested
previously
as
well,
just
because
he
is
in
the
downtown
district,
so
it's
zone
c
one
community
commercial,
and
it
is
also
within
our
downtown
overlay,
our
downtown
aesthetics
overlay
district.
So
he
would
have
to
comply
with
that.
F
I
did
and
I'm
not
sure
if
greg
is
online,
but
if
he's
not,
he
did
call
in
and
greg
hof
teaser
is
a
adjacent
landowner
and
he's
not
opposed
to
the
general
idea
of
personal
storage
in
a
garage,
but
as
opposed
to
contractor
use
in
that
location,
because,
basically,
what
the
applicant
joe
calhoff-
and
he
is
here
if
you
guys-
have
questions.
But
what
he's
wanting
to
do
is
it's.
He
lives
downtown,
and
so
he
wants
to
do
something
that
would
be
for
his
personal
storage,
not
necessarily
commercial
or
contractor
shop
at
this
time.
A
F
F
So
he
is
setting
it
back
to
the
max,
which
would
be
12
feet
and
that
would
be
off
of
kemp.
I
believe
that's
kemp,
first
sorry,
first
ave
and
then
from
the
alley.
He'll
be
set
back
five
feet
and
then
he's
also,
but
he's
not
putting
garage
doors
where
it's
five
foot
off
he's
setting
that
back
further.
F
As
you
can
see,
he
has
a
diagonal
wall
and
then
that
is
12
feet
as
well,
where
the
garage
door
will
be-
and
that's
you
know,
that's
where
the
garage
doors
are
that's
allowing
for
clearance
for
a
vehicle
backing
out.
How
that
how
those
adjacent
properties
are.
You
know
we
have
storage
units
that
are.
F
They
and
they're
about
12
foot
off
as
well.
It
appears
yep,
so
he'll
be
in
line
with
what's
existing
in
the
alley
and
then
for
first
here
you
know:
he'll
have
an
additional
11
feet
and
then
he's
setting
it
back.
12
more
so
he
wouldn't
be
able
to
park
a
vehicle
in
front
of
the
garage
doors
because
he
would
be
encroaching
in
the
sidewalk.
D
F
D
F
A
B
C
Well,
I
guess
the
question
still
comes
back
to
I
mean
I
understand
that
we
have
the
12
foot.
If
you
want
to
call
it
that,
but
you
also,
you
know
you
have
the
downtown
feel,
but
the
downtown
field
here
is
not
what
I
would
call
a
typical
downtown
feel.
This
is
on
the
outskirt
of
that
cl
district,
where
you
have
primarily
residential
or
residential
light
use,
design
in
a
school
and
a
in
a
church
across
the
street
as
well.
So.
C
F
F
F
E
Yeah,
I
think
that
it's
safe
to
say
that
the
the
application
was
generally
denied
now.
The
specific
reasons
why
I
think
brandy
cited
a
few
of
the
talking
points
from
the
last
meeting,
some
of
which
were
the
original
application
months
ago,
included
some
storage
units
on
the
northwesterly
part,
and
then
the
contractors
shop
to
the
southerly
part
of
the
building,
with
some
restrooms
in
there
and
the
definition
of
storage
units
prohibits
the
the
existence
of
water,
hookups
and
restroom
facilities
for
storage
units.
E
I
think
the
other
part,
though,
was
the
setbacks
on
the
south
side,
that
was
maybe
even
a
larger
concern
with
the
access
and
backing
out
directly
onto
first
the
sidewalk
being
right
immediately
adjacent
to
those
garage
doors.
I
think
that
that
was
another
point
of
concern
that
we
had
with
that.
The
board
discussed
with
the
application
originally.
A
F
E
A
F
B
E
Mr
chairman,
I
don't
think
it's
anything
you
that
the
board
would
want
to
consider
in
the
motion,
but
I
I
would
just
reiterate
to
the
the
parking
restriction
that
would
be
created
here,
where
a
vehicle
would
not
be
allowed
to
be
parked
in
front
of
those
either
garage
door
due
to
the
blocking
of
the
sidewalk
that
exists
there
today.
So
just
so,
that's
noted
again
for
the
for
the
record.