phones if you have them with you. I make sure that mine is so I'm not the one who is the only one that makes the error. Uh if I get everyone to stand please for pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, >> indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And a moment of silence if you would. >> Thank you. >> Can I get a roll call? >> Stan Schmidt. Yes. >> Scott Stagger >> here. >> Angela Leuk >> here.
>> Daniel Malagon >> here. >> Maria Mills Benet. >> Boi. Thomas Jordan >> here. >> Thank you. Uh can I get a motion to approve minutes from last meeting? >> I make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any discussion? Anyone read through and see anything
that needs to be adjusted? >> Of course we have to. >> Stan, do you have any adjustments that you'd like to make? >> They were very exciting. Well done. Thank you. >> Can I get a roll call on the minutes, please? >> Stanch. >> Yes. >> Scott, >> yes. >> Angela Luke,
>> yes. >> Daniel Mville, >> yes. >> Thomas Jordan, >> yes. >> Okay. Our first item on the agenda is a variance application. Can I get a motion on the variance? >> Make a motion to approve uh let me move up here. Variance from uh variance B
ARC-26-00002 variance from the LDC. Uh, and a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, before we get started, Tim, our attorney would like to, uh, make a few comments. >> Yes. Thank you. If I may. With regard to the variance process, I just want to
remind the planning commission, the city council has established by ordinance the criteria to be used when considering a variance. And that criteria is as follows. A the special condition and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building
involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. B. The special conditions and circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant. C. Literal interpretation and
enforcement of the development code regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the development code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. D the
variance if granted is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land building and structure. E. Granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
the development code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. And lastly, F, the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the code and will not be injurious to the surrounding properties
or detrimental to the public welfare. >> Thank you, J. Appreciate that. >> Yes, sir. Tim, I turn it over to you. >> Tim Burman, Community Development. Um, we have a request for a variance. It's a little bit unique variance in the case that this is kind of an after the fact case here. Um, basically appears that
the fence was installed about 10 years ago um due to a recent um code enforcement uh item there. This came to light there and that's why we are here before you. The property owner um was basically as code enforcement action to remove the fence or to choose a variance
option. they decided to go through the variance option to see if they could basically retain the fence in the current location. So that's why we're here before variance on an item that was installed about 10 years ago without a building permit then. So the subject property is located on the um corner of
Shady Creek Lane and Shady Creek Lane. Um basically by that definition, yes, both Shady Creek Lanes. Um by definition of our land development code, that is technically a corner lot since it butts two rights away um on there. Then so it has two front yards. the main front yard, the principal as we like to call
it, is the um front yard where the garage and the face of the home faces Shady Lane Shady Lane Creek. So that's this area right here is your principal front yard. The code also states that the sideyard that basically abuts to the rightway is considered the secondary
front yard and that applies the same requirements in terms of fence height and location as the primary then. So the way the code states is that on the secondary sideyard, the fence is allowed to be along the front plane of the home. So as you can see, that's kind of the
green line right there. Um is where the front plane of the home is where the code allows for a sixft fence to be located on. The current fence is basically along the um the the adjacent to the rightway here about 5t set back in here. So it's basically within that
area that needs to be 4 foot versus six foot then. So that's kind of the the request again is to keep that existing six-foot fence in that location. Um kind of the back history on to why the code requirements are in place for the corner lots. First one is safety. Um
it is to make sure that the fence height does not impede um the intersection in terms of sight visibility and clearance there for both traffic associated with vehicles also pedestrian bike traffic. event. Um, in this case, the fence is set back fur enough, basically per our code requirements, the site visual
clearance triangles are met. Um, we also conferred with our police department. There has been no reported accidents at this location um in the in past years. Then the second aspect of a the requirement there regarding the fence height in the secondary front yard is
typically when you have um houses that are next door to that property there. that's their front yard facing out there and you don't want to open your front door, go on your front porch, look to the left or the right and see a six foot tall fence. That is basically the justification for why we have the corner
lot provisions in the Port Orange um there in terms of the requirements. Then um in this case again as I said basically the fence is outside the visual clearance triangle. Um, in this case, the while the property does um border adjacent property, it is owned by
the HOA, not a single family residence. However, again, our code does not distinguish ownership of property or what type of property there. It just kind of sets that corner lot as a requirement and basically requires the 6ft fence to be set back. Then, um, so
the property owner does have some options there that the code is allowed. Again, it could be basically the fence could be removed and put back to the green line. The other option is that the fence could be reduced to a 4ft fence in the current location. Or the third option is to request a variance to see
if the variance could be approved and the fence could remain that current location. I think as indicated too, there is a significant amount of landscaping that is in front of this fence. The code does not regulate the height of landscaping um in terms of along that property line. as long as
it's within the property, does not impede the sidewalk and is basically cut to a specific height basically so people can walk underneath that on the sidewalk there. Um based off of, you know, when we were out there a few weeks ago posting the sign to the for the property, the um vegetation was within the property there. But again, the
height of the vegetation is not something that we can regulate. So regardless of what fence height is allowed at that location, that existing buffer um landscaping that's around the property can remain. and that's kind of shown in those photographs that we've included in the staff report um there.
We just want to make sure that was known that that landscaping is allowed and would not be impacted um regardless of the decision tonight. Then as kind of indicated in the staff report based off the letter that the applicant provided um after we start discussing
this route with them in terms of why they are seeking this um they have indicated that the 6' tall fence is necessary for a family member that they have in their household. um in terms of security reasons is why they initially installed that. Also too, they you know indicated that basically it does not
impede the visual clearance area. Then also too the applicant has stated that while they understand the code requirements for the corner lot to make sure the secondary front yard setback is fences lower there. They basically believe that the fact that that is a
common area next door to them and not a single family home that basically that aesthetics aspect does not apply then and they are here to further discuss that particular item um when they get a chance to speak up here as on their reasoning. Then again for the overall review of the staff's criteria of the
variance in basically again the code that we have to enforce very standardized with the corner lot. then it basically does not give us any leeway as to what to consider a corner lot and not a corner lot. is essentially anything but it's on two two two rights away then um on there then so when we
went through that review criteria with that code requirement that we have to enforce and follow through there that's why basically staff's recommendation was not to approve the variance there um as basically in terms of the general intent of the code in terms of we have to enforce them
um so I think basically the again the applicant is here to further kind of explain why they feel this variant is justified um and they'd like to give a presentation here and I'm also here to ask any questions that you might have prior to the applicant coming up. >> Does anyone have questions um before we
let the applicant speak? >> Yeah, a question for you Tim. Yes. >> Um so you said the recommendation of denial is based solely on the fact that the um the code says it should be a for >> basic. Yes. I mean basically in terms of our re what we have the review criteria
staff has and how we have the read the code there. Right. >> What we what we what staff review basically was recommendation of um denial there then um but again you know that's why we have the variances to bring that forward here to get your your guys' opinion on that too then. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you Tim.
>> Uh for me if that fence was 4 feet would it be acceptable where it is? >> If the fence was 4 foot tall where it's at right now? >> Yes. >> Assuming they pulled a permit did everything right. Would a likely be approved at a 4ft fence? >> Yes. 4 foot fence would be approved. >> Okay. Okay. So, it's the two feet >> two foot difference is what we're
talking about. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I understood the setbacks are met and it's it's pretty much where it should be. >> Yeah. All y'all talking basically a sixoot fence going down to 4 foot in height then. Okay. >> And that's all we're doing basically separate subtracting two feet. >> Okay. Um thanks for that. Any additional
questions? >> Okay. Uh hearing none. Is the applicant here to make a presentation or speak? >> All right. Scroll down. >> Okay. >> On that there. Get you. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> And do me a favor and please let us know what your name is.
>> All right. Peter Francis. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Good evening everyone. Uh so the installation is a 6 ft vinyl fence. Uh it was based around 2015. Uh which is over a decade ago uh 10 years ago. Uh the initial purpose was installed for privacy, safety and to addresses
specifically family need uh health needs actually. Uh medical uh according following a medical recommendations and ADA accommod accommodations. Um the original contractor never applied for the uh appropriate city permits at the time of installation. Uh no complaints
were received for 9 years. The first and only complaint occurred in 2024. Um the contractor is no longer around um and statue of limitations on improvements has passed due to latches given the age of the structure. Uh no reported incidents or safety concerns uh in the
fence 10 year history. So this uh lot as Tim here was explaining uh unique corner a typical lot. Uh so it does not corner any other residential lots. It does not border another uh residential lot. It's
adjacent to a common property um common area. Uh there's no impact to neighbors because it faces common area. The fence does not obstruct or obstruct any views, privacy, enjoyment uh of any adjacent res residential properties here. uh
which uh I believe meets criteria A. Uh the subdivision design, the layout of the roads, the common areas were established in 1997 long before the homeowner purchased the home in 2007. Uh the contractor error, the fence was installed in 2015. Uh failed to apply
for uh secure or secure appropriate city permits, I guess. Uh so the statutes of limitations here due to the 10-year latching of the issue and the contractor being no longer available, the improvement has reached a stat status where the homeowner is only made aware
of this nearly a um a decade later. Uh this uh meets criteria B. So let me figure out this. The hardship uh medical necessity uh the fence was installed as protective measure for a family member uh with a medical
condition. So it prevents harm. A 6ft fence prevents unsupervised exit from the yard providing a secure environment for the family member to enjoy the outdoors. Uh a code it's you know a 4T fence can easily be jumped across uh can
be jumped easily. So a code compliant 4 foot would not provide the necessary security. It could be easily climbed or crossed. So we believe that meets criteria C here. So it is a minimum variance necessary. Uh the fence is blazed six feet away
from the shady creek lane right of way. Um it ensures um it does not encroach on public sidewalk as we see. Um the 6 ft is usually the standard minimum height required for priv for the security or
privacy in residential areas or setting. Um, we although a permit should have been obtained 10 years ago, even if the fence wasn't there today, the homeowner would have still requested the same variance due to the hardships and unique layout of this property. Uh, this is not
an excessive request. It's uh it's not a 10 ft brick wall. It's only 2 ft difference. So, we believe that meets criteria the minimum variance necessary. Here's some pictures of what it looks from other
properties from other, you know, from the other sides of the street. So there's so uh so there's hedges there. There's trees everywhere. This is from the sidewalk. It's well maintained.
So existing mature hedges and landscaping outside the fence do exceed six feet. uh the trees are tall, the hedges and the trees would remain even if the fence would to be lowered at 4 feet. So we don't think it would serve any purpose just lowering it
uh to 4 ft at that time after 10 years of of it being there. Um there were no knowing complaints for nearly 10 years. Um so we don't we don't think so that I believe that meets criteria E here.
uh public safety uh I think Tim spoke about the 20 foot uh visual clearance triangle and it is clear uh no obstruction does not interfere with uh motorist cyclists um so it has a proven safety record the fence has been in
place for over a decade and I believe the police department confirmed that there have not been any accidents or incidents or safety concerns there so where are we here. And here's in addition to that, this is
uh the property right across the street from the fence here. Uh this property was sold in 2020 two and it was sold for almost $4.49. Um so almost half a million. And there's
another property right here. Same thing, 550 in 2025. Another property right here. This is where the fence is. So almost every single property around this fence here and here is a summary of it. Almost
every property was sold for comparable values. I mean for for market value. So 2022 430 that's in 2016 to 289 550 almost half a million dollars per property. I don't think if people didn't like the way the
fence looked around this property, they would move in and buy this or purchase something that they don't like the view of it. So, every almost every single property here sold for a good amount. Um,
so again, we believe that this meets uh the criteria here and uh we hope that this gets an approval today. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for presentation. Um, hang out just a second. See if anybody's got any questions. >> Sure. Sorry. >> No, you're okay. Stan, >> no.
>> No questions. >> Angela, >> no. >> Tom, >> so are you saying that the fence was built prior to the current owner purchasing the house? >> No, he was in the house. Uh, it was built when he was in house. He purchased the house in 2007. >> So, this was a result of the property
owner. >> Uh, so he there was a contractor. We the the HOA approved the uh he applied for it through the HOA and he was he let the contractor take care of the city permits. That didn't happen, >> right? >> So at that time Yeah.
>> So one of the conditions was not met. >> I'm sorry. What was that again? >> One of the conditions you just listed on your slide >> Yeah. >> was not the result of the property owner. >> So it's not the result of the property owner because we believe there was a a mistake there. The property owner's contractor is what you're saying. It's
his fault. >> I think so. I guess. >> Okay. >> Well, the property also is a unique layout. Uh, so >> I just point out that one item. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. That's all I've got. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Is it open for me? Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you very much.
>> Thanks. >> Appreciate the presentation. >> Public comment. >> Anyone wish to speak on the matter? >> I got a couple of questions. First of all, he said that >> you should state your name. >> Oh, my name is um Alcitus Rivera. I go
by Al. >> Thank you. >> I'm the uh the HOA president in SARS at this current time when this situation started. Uh, I believe while we do have a the former HOA member here, um, I do
not believe that he had HOA approval to put this fence up, um, the fact that his contractor didn't pull a permit is not a problem for the neighborhood. And the question I have is he's saying he needs
a 6ft fence to keep somebody in. And then he says it's well it's for security reasons for that person. I'm taking it as him saying that somebody's going to jump over that fence. But could the person that's the fence is there for jump over a 4ft fence because
um they would have to be in pretty good condition because I can't jump a 4ft fence. Um, so that was the question I had is, you know, it seems to be a lot of things said that don't make a whole lot of sense to me as far as the
houses that are sold in that neighborhood. That house that sold for 550. I You can see it in that picture right there. Oh, I have it here. You don't have it up there. Um, is there a way I can show this house? >> Yeah, there it is. Uh, can I walk over
this way? Sure. >> So, this house that sold for 550. I mean, it has it's right here. It has so much improvements to it on the back end of the pool area. It's got the kitchen. It's got a fireplace. It's got
a lot of stuff. Um, you know, and that's the reason why that house sold for so much. And as far as, you know, the house is being bought. Um, you know, everybody's got to buy a house somewhere. You know, maybe the people that left there left because they didn't like the fence. I don't know. I didn't
live there. I do know that that gentleman in the back doesn't appreciate that fence and he has to walk out his front door and see a 6ft fence and I believe on the back end it's even higher. Um, and that's that's all I got to say. >> Oh, thank you very much. Anyone else for
comment? Please, >> if you do me a favor, just when you step up, state your name. >> Good evening. Hi, my name is Mike Anders here. Um, I have a lot of concerns over this fence. First of all,
uh, I live at 846 Marley Drive. At, uh, 852 Marley Drive and also 851 Marley Drive are both corner lots. Neither one of those people could attend tonight. One of them is a fireman, the other one works for United. They were both asked
to the city to have a six-foot fence out there. The one at 851, uh, he has two kids and he wanted the fence brought out to allow to come around where they didn't have to go out. He went with what the city had said,
which wasn't up. He put his up and and as far as 852, he has a pool. Well, everybody can see that, right? So, he wanted a 6oot said no. So they both were denied. So not to allow those two but to someone else is
is not not fair. And like I said, they they would have been here, but they had to uh uh work. So uh and as far as as the the the the fence,
there's more to it than just what we're seeing right here tonight. So the fence was put up illegally 10 years ago. Okay. And that fence at that point was is connected to a fence in the back. The one in the back according to the HOA
rules are to be 4 foot high. So then there wouldn't be an issue. There wouldn't be an issue now had he went and pulled the permit 10 years ago when he was supposed to. So there's just a lot of things that's going on, especially with that the the the fence in the back,
you know, which now it's which and the reason that I'm contesting this is it's brought a lot of problems on to the HOA because with this fence in the back, which is not 6 foot, it's 7 foot6. So I don't know how it even ever passed
through the city to start with. So, what happens is the guy next door, he moves in. He he buys the house. He gets a hold of the HOA and I'm not an I'm not on the board of the HOA and asked for a fence and they said,
"You can have a fence, but only a 4ft fence." Well, they said, "Well, that's not good enough. He has a six-foot. We want sixoot." So, it's it's starting to cause a lot of problems in in the in the area. So, I think we need to follow one set of rules, one set of guidelines for
the whole thing. I'm not picking on anybody. I just it it's already causing problems. It's causing monetary problems for our HOA because now there's civil litigation going on to his neighbor because he stuck the sixoot fence up there cuz he's got one. So it just if we
don't have some set of guidelines and everybody just runs rampant and we start making variances for everything. I don't think that's the right way to handle that. >> Thank you very much for coming. >> I guess sorry. Yeah, there is a time. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else care to speak, >> Mr. Chairman? Yep. >> Um >> Oh, never mind. >> Uh Can I go? >> Yeah. I I thought the public was done, so I
>> No, we've got some more guys trying to get >> I think he was trying to get up. Are you trying to come down, sir? >> Okay. >> Uh Tim Gary, I live in Shady Creek playing a few few doors down. And it's my understanding, Al, I think you could back me up on this, that the back fence
is not on the property, right? It's on HOA property. So, that was put up on not property, not his own property. was put up on HOA property and basically stealing footage from HOA. It's our community property. So, there's
litigation involved there. Our every homeowner in that development paid for this litigation because the egregious thing of putting the fence that wasn't on his parking lot. So, if it's permitted, the city was out there, they
would have saw that stuff. So why is it right for him to steal property just because it was put up 10 years ago and he's blaming the the contractor? >> Well, understand we we can't really >> count it isn't fair. All has to be considered here.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. And it there it came to the the HOA did spend money to fight it and the the court awarded a order to that he was losing and he was supposed to pay the
fees to our community back which he did not do. He knocked on my door to ask for a vote to become a a board member to make our board our our community better. He got on the board and he immediately waved the fines that was due to the HOA.
So once again, taking money out of everybody's pocket. Okay. Then he vacated his spot. So the variance to me, no way. Not the people that treat their neighbors that way. That's where I'm at. >> Thank you very much for coming.
My name is James Torrrent. I was president of the HOA for probably 20ome years. I'm now a vice president. I was president when the fences went up. They never went to the Ark to get
approval at all. We fought it in court and we won. But Mr. Francis and his group took over the board and excused themselves. Now
the the fence violated our rules and it's on our prop the one in the back across the back of the property is on HOA property which we proved because we took a
survey. So, this whole thing is not right. >> Thank you for your time and for the effort coming down the hill. It's a bit of a struggle. >> Uh, any other public comments? >> I would like to
come there. >> So, um, >> state your name, please. >> My name is John Francis. I, uh, recite that actually this property that's, uh, we're talking about today. Um throughout this fence was approved I mean not
approved it was put up 10 years ago for majority of my childhood um I've uh witnessed my family gathering during Christmas Thanksgiving enjoy this backyard in the sideyard there was no issues about this fence for 10 years no
not a single complaint about it today we have a few people saying that the HOA didn't approve it well that's not True. Ha approved the side fence. Um on top of that, this fence is needed for a medical necessity. Okay, we have
somebody commenting over here about whether the person is physically capable of climbing the the fence. Does he really have medical necessity? Well, that's not what determines medical necessity, not strength. Um, also,
um, yeah, I've witnessed family members gathering on Thanksgiving. We've enjoyed this fence for 10 years. And, um, there is no, it's not going to create any difference whatsoever to drop it to 4
feet or remove it because the openance is, um, is determined by the landscaping around the property. So, the view will still remain the same. It's not going to change anything to drop it to four feet or removing the fence.
And um yeah, so I urge you today to approve this variance for the sake of our family member. We don't want to see our family members safety at risk. We don't want to see him see them jump over the fence and god forbid get in get on
the road and get hit by a a car. God forbids. So I urge you today to approve this for the sake of that reason. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. >> I actually, if you don't mind, >> I would like to respond to some of the stuff.
>> If you let us know, it's it's okay if you if you would reapproach because I'd like to ask a couple questions if that's >> Yes. >> Do you have any evidence of the HOA? >> We do. We absolutely do. We have a letter from the HOA. I um I can probably pull it out on my phone right now. Uh I
don't have it actually with me right now, but I can pull it out on my I do I do have >> I don't see how that affects us. >> I do have one. >> Okay. Nothing to do with us. >> So, but I would like >> I was just curious if that >> Yeah, we do. So, uh let me just comment on some of the stuff being said today.
>> I think we have Yeah, we we've already had u comment period, but we will ask questions if >> Okay. Absolutely. Yeah. >> Stan, >> no, I don't have any questions for this, but I just want to talk about the procedure that we're supposed to be working on right now. >> Okay. >> So, are we done with public comments? I
think we are done with public comments. We will call you back up if we have addition. >> Absolutely. >> Anybody else? >> So, what we're considering right now is should the city give a variance and force the owners to go back to a sixoot fence. Correct. >> Correct. It it is literally the 2 ft of
fence, right, >> along that way, the difference between four and six, it's it would be approved if they pulled a permit for a four. And even though I mean the the original problem was that the contractor didn't bother to get a permit and they put up a permit and then for whatever reason the code enforcement never followed up on it
tracked it down and and did all this. Um my understanding too, Mr. Attorney, you can hopefully you can help us a little bit on this. Um what is the order of regulation on this? We've got a homeowners association and you've got city ordinances.
What is you know how does that work? Just remind us. >> Can you clarify what you're asking? I'm not >> Well, I'm asking you like right now, you know, the homeowners association has some responsibility. The city code has some responsibility. What's the order? I mean, is the city
code the ultimate actual limit or can the city code be overridden by the homeowners association? >> I would say that city ordinances are what would take precedent. Something I did want to mention as well is I know we've talked a lot about that back fence, but I just want to remind us that the focus is on the the front fence. I
understand there's a lot of conversation about whether or not HOA approval, but that is a separate matter from the one we're here discussing. >> And that's really what I'm getting to because our responsibility is to look at the variance from the city code. Now, it sounds like from what we're hearing is there's an issue inside their HOA which
has nothing to do with us and should not be considered. >> Well, that's what I was say. I I don't want to say irrelevant sounds I don't mean to diminish in that regard, but that's not relevant to our discussion here. >> Exactly. >> It's a matter of whether or not we have an interest or willingness to allow variance of the two additional feet on
the fence from the city perspective. >> And not only that, we don't have the final say. We just recommend to the city council, right, >> what they should they are the ones that actually have the binding decision. No, >> this is a variance. This item gets approved or denied by the planning
commission. Okay. >> Thank you for that. >> That's what I was trying to get to where we're having all this kind of stuff. >> It can be appealed to the city council. >> You're a rookie. We're giving you some time. >> I know we both are. So, >> um, additional discussion.
>> Yeah. Tim. Um, sorry. >> Wait till he got his leg up. >> Everybody was talking. I want to go >> dragging the popcorn. >> Just throw something at me. Uh, >> so where it's currently located, it is simply a matter of height. It's not a
matter of location. It's set back appropriately. >> Correct. Height is the issue we're here. >> That's the only issue. Okay. So, it's not on the HA. >> It's not in the rightway. Um, it is a height issue that we're dealing with here today. >> So, the other discussion was about the the fence in the backyard that is on the HOA property.
>> Yeah. That is not an HA. We're basically trying to resolve that issue separately. This is only pertaining to this property in the secondary. But I just Yeah, I just want to make sure I was clear that this is this is on correct location. Okay. All right. Thank you. Before you go, >> I think I'm done. Don't sit down yet. Don't leave. Tom's not done.
>> I'm not figured out. >> Yeah. Really? Let me clarify something here. So, they could put a fence a sixoot fence along the home the ed the line of the house from the house to the back fence.
Is that correct? That would be that's allowed without variance that falls within proper code. >> Nope. Six foot >> if they but it would be like a forward facing wall of the house >> basically to the back line.
>> The green line that you have on >> where basically the sixoot fence would be allowed to place. >> That would give them a sixoot fence. >> Correct. >> And it would be permitted without any question without a variance. >> Yes. And building print would be issued. >> Okay. Thanks. additional discussion or uh questions
for >> I'll just make a comment. I actually drove the neighborhood um yesterday and it's a beautiful neighborhood. You can tell everybody takes really, you know, pride in their gardens and their lawns and and um I went from every angle and
just as like a safety, I noticed that it didn't, you know, it didn't impede my sight. I could see um you know there's established landscaping that's pretty um I know it's not aesthetics that were going on here but I just wanted to bring
that up that it you know it seemed safe so I know it's not to code but it did seem safe to me as I was driving around >> thank you for that observation I did not get a chance to drive over there I appreciate that >> uh additional comments
the chair will entertain a motion. >> We have done make we have the motion to approve second. Sorry. >> Additional discussion, questions for anyone prior to calling a vote. >> Nothing hearing. None. >> Ready?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Stan Schmidt. >> No. >> Scott Stagger. >> That's a tough one, but I'm a no. >> Angela Luk. >> Yes. >> Daniel Malagol. >> No. Thomas Jordan. >> No.
>> Okay. So, um, motion does not carry. >> Count one. >> So, the count is 4 to one. Against. Motion does not care. Thank you, St. Appreciate that. Um, additional business moving forward.
Commissioner comments. >> Nothing from me anyway. >> Thanks, staff. Appreciate you guys doing a great job. and our clerk. >> Tim, appreciate you running back and forth across the room several times. Uh, thank you very much for that. Um, staff
comments. >> Comments? >> No one. Okay, hearing nothing. I will comments. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Are there additional public comments? >> Please, please excuse my uh my rookie as
chair. Uh, if you're interested in coming down, you're welcome to. Yeah, it's it's just that for the record microphone's necessary. >> No, Mike Anders again, I appreciate everybody's time tonight, you know, and your effort in all this, especially Tim.
He's put a lot of time into this, you know, and all I wanted was fairness because I I was hoping it would go this way because otherwise we'd be right back in here again for two other people that are are are living in our neighborhood because they're both wanting that that that variance themselves. So, I do
appreciate it. And and and as far as the medical issue, you know, if he moves the fence back, it's still 6 foot tall and and I think everybody's still safe, you know. Okay. >> And the environment, but thanks again. >> Additional public comment.
>> Hearing none, I will adjourn at 608.