So, we're going to have a call to order for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals uh regular meeting, April 29th, 2026. And would everyone please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for it stands nationisible and justice for all. >> Okay, we are going to have roll call for determination of a quorum. >> Chairman, >> roll call. >> Chairman Taylor,
>> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven >> here. >> Member Beckles >> here. Member Green >> here. >> Member Wheelis. Alternate member Wright >> here. >> Alternate member Rafael >> here.
>> Okay. Now that we have a determined that we have a quorum, we're going to have approval of the minutes. A motion for the approval of the minutes for February 25th, 2026. Do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from February.
>> Second. >> Second. Thank you. All righty. I'm going to read a little bit of a notice here. All persons who anticipate speaking on any public hearing item must fill out an oath card to be heard on that agenda item and sign
the oath card contained thereon. These cards are located on the table near the entrance to the council chamber or may be obtained from the recording secretary. This meeting will be conducted in accordance to the procedures adopted in resolution number 241997. Those speaking in favor of a request
will be heard first. Those opposed will be heard second, and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary. A representative from either side, for or against, may cross-examine a witness.
Anyone who speaks is considered a witness. If you have photographs, sketches, or documents that you desire for the commission to consider, they must be submitted into evidence and will be retained by the city. I'm sorry. Will be tetained by the recording secretary. Alrighty.
Um staff, has uh the have the agenda items been properly advertised? >> Yes, they have. And then for the minutes, I believe there was a a motion in a second, but not a vote to >> Oh, we need to do a roll call on >> or of those minutes.
>> Voice vote. >> Vice Chairwoman Van Deeven, >> yes. >> Member Beckles, >> yes. Member Green, >> yes. >> Alternate member Wright, >> yes. >> Alternate member Rothell, >> yes. >> Have any of the members visited any of the sites or spoken to any members of
the public regarding an item to be reviewed today? >> Nope. >> All righty. Consent agenda. We have no old business and uh new business. The first is a variance number 720261
1165 Mockingbird Lane. Staff, would you enlighten us? Thank you, chair, for tonight. Um, so beginning on page 10 of your packet is variance number 7-2026 for 1165 Mockingbird Lane. And then just
before we get started, as usual, the powers of the BAA. uh LDR section 34-226 states that the board shall grant a variance when in the opinion of the board of adjustments and appeals owing to special conditions the literal enforcement of such ordinance or regulations would do manifest injustice
to or impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. In order to authorize any variance to the provisions of such ordinance, the board must consider the following criteria. A special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which
are not applicable to other land, structures or building in the same zoning. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant and granting the variance requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the
same zoning district. that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or
structure. The granting of the variance will preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with its general purpose of and intent and that in granting the variance the public self safety and welfare must be assured. and in no case shall granting of a variance result in a change of use which would
not be permitted in that zone. So with that variant 7-2026, the applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 28 section 28-391C of the land development regulations to allow the cumulative area of all
detached buildings and structures to exceed 50% of the square footage of the principal structure. The subject property is located at 1165 Mockingbird Lane within the multifamily highdensity zoning district and consists of approximately 75 acres. The parcel
contains an existing principal structure of approximately 860 square ft constructed around 1966 based on Bvoulevard County property appraiser records. Section 28-397C limits the total combined area of detached buildings and structures to no
more than 50% of the square footage of the principal structure, which equates to a maximum of 430 ft for this property. The site currently contains an existing detached structure measuring approximately 6 feet by 8 ft or 48 square feet, which is included in the
cumulative area calculation. The applicant proposes the installation of a steel detached accessory building measuring approximately 42 feet by 35 ft, resulting in an area of 1,470 square ft. When combined with the
existing 48 ft detached structure, the total detached building area would be approximately 1,518 square ft. This exceeds the maximum permitted 430 square feet by 1,088, resulting in a total detached building
area equal to approximately 176% of the principal structure where 50% is permitted. The proposed structure is shown to meet the required setbacks. The request does not appear to demonstrate a presence of special conditions or circumstances that are
unique to the property that would prevent compliance with the requirements of section 28-391C. The size and configuration of the lot and existing principal structure do not appear to limit the ability to provide an accessory structure within the allowable area. The property appro capable of complying with the existing
regulations governing accessory structure size. And with that staff recommend denial of the variance request to allow the cumulative area of all accessory buildings or structures to equal 176% of the square footage of the principal structure. There are no special conditions or circumstances
which exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same zoning. And that is all that I have. If if interested on page 24 you can find the plot plan. It's a zoomed in version
of the survey that um shows the house and the where the carport will be and located on the property. But with that I'm open to any questions. Any questions of staff? >> No.
>> Okay. Um, Madame Secretary, do we have any cards on people wish to speak? >> One card. Glenn Keller. >> Okay. Would you come up to the podium, state your name and address, please? >> Uh, Glenn Keller and I live at Mockingbird Lane.
Well, they took our access away and gave us a 12-oot driveway, which is semi- illegal in the Titusville city because you can't get two-way traffic in and out. So, it ain't zoned R3 anymore. It's not multi-ousing. But, uh, anyway, it's a small house. I
don't think the intent of the law was to penalize people that have a small house. We like to put a shop up so we can house our RV and motor home and car, I mean pickup and car. So, because we've been
ripped off over the last couple years and it's not the best neighborhood. We're right behind the high school area of South Deon and we just want to protect our stuff and keep it out of the sun. We're snowbirds. We're gone for six months a year
and I don't know what else to actually say. I got a letter here from the two neighbors I have. The rest is wooded around me uh saying they don't care. I don't know if anybody cares to see it or not. >> Um does anyone want to see the letter?
You can submit it. We'll review it and give it back to you. >> Hand it to the >> And I know uh your website is compromised. They keep sending me stuff saying I've been approved. It'd be nice if somebody took care of that problem,
but it's not my out of my hands. >> Okay. >> And I don't know what else to say. So, >> all righty. Uh, does anyone have any questions of the applicant? >> It's 3/4 of an acre lot, too. So, it's it's a larger lot, so it ain't like it
would stick out and cover the whole lot for waterhed and stuff. This is your primary residence >> uh up here or down here I should say. We're from Alaska originally. So, >> okay.
>> L-shaped lock obviously >> because last year like I I lost a year of my life. I lost $15,000 worth of tools and it takes me a year to make that kind of money and buy them back. So, I prefer a shed. The t little shed she's talking of is a a pallet shack
that's got a roof on it. I gladly tear that down. So >> I had a question about the access. You said they changed the road. They You said they changed the driveway. You can go back to the podium.
>> He wasn't speaking into his mic. >> Yeah, they changed the driveway. They took it from 20 foot to 10 foot or 12 foot it is now. So, I don't have two-way traffic. So, there's no way I can put a high density housing in there. It's for primary residents only now,
even though it's still zoned R3. But that doesn't change any of the requirements. Right. >> Right. doesn't change the requirements, >> but it just shows the lot is big enough and I can't put anything else on it. >> Okay. >> I have a question. Um, you you're a snowbird,
>> right? >> So, you're here maybe half the year. Six and six. >> Six months. Six month and six months. You're here half the year, >> right? We're here. >> When you go to uh you're from Alaska, right? >> And you have a primary residence also in Alaska, >> right? When you drive to Alaska, what
vehicle do you take? >> Uh, half the time we fly. >> This year we drove down with the RV. >> Okay. >> And I was hoping to leave it here and have it under cover cuz I, you know, I don't want to drive back and forth with it.
>> And you mentioned that you've had in the past things stolen from your property when you were gone. >> Yep. And you do you feel that the this garage would would help with that? >> It'd be metal, so it'd be way harder to get in. I mean, a determined thief,
you're not going to deter, you know, and I know who the thief is, but I don't have proof of it, so it don't matter. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else have any questions? All right. Is there any questions of staff?
>> I have one question. The applicant mentioned that he keeps getting notices that he's been approved. Any >> So, this is the scam email that we were talking about. Um the way that the email is worded is stating that if you your application um please submit payment for
your application to be approved or something along those lines. The scam emails are going on across the country across the United States. There was even a recent article in the National Planning Magazine about local governments having being affected by these. It's not anything that we have
control over. Every information that I get, we forward on to the police department. But what happens is the um our agendas are publicly noticed. Everyone gets those. These people are taking the agendas, getting the information off them and sending emails
for stuff. And so there there really isn't much. We have been um you know trying to let people know as soon as that that's their only payment. We send when we send out the agenda, we've been including um security bulletin emails. There's a security bulletin on the website as well. just kind of saying,
"Hey, the city would never ask for money through a wire transfer. Um, we would never, you know, go in these ways and stuff to check the email addresses, things like that." So, we're doing as much as we can, but with the way that, you know, items are noticed, there's not much we have.
>> I've got copies of them if you want to see. >> Oh, no. I believe you. I believe you. Uh, I have one other question. You had mentioned that you were willing to tear down the shed that's already existing there. >> Yeah. Are there any alternatives? Um because
is the shed attached to your house? The one that's there? >> No, it's just sitting out in the yard. It's a little lawn shed where you can put a lawnmower or something in. It's >> Is there I know this is a very large shed because RVs are, you know, gigantic.
>> Is there any alternative with him tearing down the shed and maybe attaching it? I know the house is small, but attaching it to the house, >> like attaching the the larger carport to the house, >> I mean, I'm I'm not I don't know.
>> And would that give him uh leeway for for the space that he wants? >> I don't I mean, tearing down the smaller shed, I've I've encompassed that into the request. So, if you were to approve, it would allow the old and the new shed
to be in place um without needing to tear anything down. Um adding on to the structure given the um R3 zoning with the single family, you aren't a you are unable to expand on non-conforming properties. So, that would not be a
path. Um it would be the variance process, >> right, >> that we're here for tonight. So the maximum that he can build really is the 50% or of the of the I guess of the space of the house, the tiny house. >> Correct. Yes.
>> 400 square ft basically which barely houses the RV. >> And and is what is your biggest concern the RV or is it maybe the uh pickup and the other vehicles? uh the car and the RV would be
the the biggest concern and tools of course. >> So what's what do you feel would be the maximum that you could just to protect the vehicles? >> I mean it if we took off the lean to part that I was going to park the boat
under I would I would forgive that. >> Does that mean that it's more than the 50%? >> Yes. I don't think that there is an ability to meet for the what their needs are under the and keep it within the 50% given the size of the primary structure.
I think the variance would be the only means for that. >> So you're talking 50% of the square foot of the home >> for for all accessory structures and residential properties whether they are single family, multif family, historic,
however they are all 50% of the primary structure. It would be 200% is I'm sorry 200 square ft. >> That would be >> 400. So there the home based on um property appraisers and things it was saying 860. So their maximum square
footage would be 430 based on current um development standards in the code the 50%. Um so the variance request is to expand that to allow 176% which is the math for what this um for their needs.
>> Okay. It's it's basically a 60s type house. So, it's older, it's small, you know, and like I said, I don't really think the intent of this law was to force real small houses to only have 300 square feet
or 400, whatever it come out at. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff or for the applicant? >> Your access off of Mockingbird Lane is a dirt driveway according to the survey. Is that right? It looks narrow. >> It is.
>> Does it extend? >> There's enough room to get a car through. >> Does it extend past your property to the neighbor to the east of you or does Mockingbird Lane terminate there? >> Yep. >> It terminates. >> Terminates into a big oak tree. So, the neighbor is almost got to come across my
property just to get into their lot. >> Okay. And they live Someone lives there. >> It's what? >> At your neighbor's Your neighbor has a house to you, >> right? >> On the east side. >> Yeah. That's the only close house to me. the other ones off you. >> They use that lane for access as well,
>> right? >> And it's only 12 ft wide. >> Yep. So, for fire, it's not a really good thing because you can't have two-way traffic. And I think it's halfway illegal through the county or the state here, too.
But they granted it anyway. So, >> we'll see. Okay. Very good. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. >> All righty. We're going to talk amongst ourselves. And >> would you like to have a conversation?
>> You want I think you want to leave your mics on when you speak. >> Yeah. When you speak. >> Okay. >> Okay. No, I had a I had a question. So, my first thought was a large carport next to the existing home instead of a
separate one >> and you can't build onto the existing home. So >> you can't expand it. >> The structure would be considered non-conforming and you are unable by code standards to
enlarge a non-conforming structure. So by adding an attached carport or garage would be you would you're you wouldn't be able to do that. But for the detached to have a larger one, you can request the variance. So
>> I see. Okay, that was my question. >> Why did you say it's non-conforming? >> Non-conforming. So the the property is zoned R3, which is multifamily high density. >> It contains a single family structure. I imagine that the structure was built prior to the
>> Okay, I get it. So it's not zoning, so nonforming density. Got it. Any more questions for staff? So, we'll just speak amongst ourselves >> and for the access.
>> Yeah, just for the access the code sections for the detached accessory. There's nothing that makes it larger or less larger depending on the access of the property. There's access to the property. I'm not sure. I I do believe there is something in the works. I don't have that information as far as what the
platting is for the area or what they're working on for access. I I do not know that. But for the variance here, um as far as the percentage of the structure to the it is does not, you know, it's not contingent upon what type of accesses to the house, whether the
roadway is smaller or larger. And the 50% exists whether it's R3 zoning or R1B. Even if it was the correct, not necessarily correct zoning, but if it was single family zoning, it would still be at the 50% requirement as well.
No more. >> But you are correct. They would not be able to enlarge the house. The variance would be the only way. >> I was trying to think of ways. >> That's the variance is the way. >> The Yeah, the variance is the way. It's the only way. And it's
three times as much as the as the allotted space. So the variance would allow him to have a garage that was larger than the home. Yes. because it the request is to allow the variance you're they are requesting
for you to approve the detached accessory structure to be 176% square feet to I would recommend capping at what the the request is 1518 so um a
request to allow 176 square feet to a maximum of 1518 that would have the shed that they currently have plus what they're requesting for the um RV boat storage area. So, so by approving that
you if you were to if you were to approve that, you would allow them to have that type of structure. >> Well, what is the minimum he needs to um park his RV? >> I don't know. So, we don't like do the
design or pick what their size is. The request is for >> Yes, I would. They've asked that question. So, >> what's the minimum you need to um >> probably the size of the shed without the >> I need you to come say mic.
>> Probably the size of the building without the lean to part. >> So, on >> with the car and the pickup and the motor home. >> I do believe that there is um a drawing on page 23. I think it's this one. I
don't have that. >> No, I was just this was what you submitted. >> Okay. >> So, I think this was the outline where this is the structure and that's the carport. Yeah. So, on page 23 of your packet there is the dimensions. So, if >> if that helps at all.
>> What what I was saying is what would be the minimum uh shed size that he would need to protect his RV? I >> Well, the RV is 24 foot long, but I still have the car to deal with and the
pickup. You know, >> the pickup I could leave outside if I had to, but the car is newer. I like to have that covered. >> I'm going to assume there's no garage attached garage to your current residence.
>> Uh, there is none. >> No carport, no garage. >> There's nothing. And it was built in the mid >> just the house itself. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And the sun is brutal on them up here. >> Are we uh have all the information that
we need right now? You can have a seat. We Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion? And then for if you need it, um there is action wording on page eight. Um, I've crafted um language to approve and
language to deny um just to help with wording it if you need on page eight. We're waiting for a motion. I'm going to make a motion to approve the variance. Motion to approve variance number 7-2026 to allow the cumulative area of all
accessory buildings or structures to equal 176% of the square foot area of the principal structure to a maximum of 1518 square ft for this property located at 1165
Mockingbird Lane. Titusville. >> Do I have a second? >> I second the motion. >> Looks like we have a second. And uh roll call, please. >> Do Don't we have an opportunity to ask questions? >> I thought we already did.
>> I mean, what reason? Don't you have to give a reason of why you're >> reason is only for denial? >> Not a denial. >> Usually with a denial. Definitely. Thank you for clarifying that because I was curious myself. I was >> So, we'll have roll call, please.
>> Vice Chairwoman Van Deven. >> Yes. >> Member Beckles. >> No. >> Member Green. >> Yes. >> Alternate member right? >> No. >> Alternate member Rothell.
>> Yes. So, your variance has been approved. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Just real quick, there's the approval of four members variances >> for do I have to get a building permit now or is that
>> check with staff >> the Okay, >> hang on one second. >> The requirement under section 170 of the um ordinances require the concurring vote of four members for approval of variances. >> I do think they need four. So there were two denials and three
>> four. >> Yeah, that's right. It sound like it failed. >> It was two and three. >> Yeah, it passed. >> There's a heightened vote requirement for variance grants. So instead of a
bare majority, you need four >> or approval. >> Correct. >> Is that new? >> Okay. Not sure when that language was added, but it's section 170. >> So, we had two nos.
>> Okay. All right. Well, unfortunately, I spoke before uh I was advised of what the rules are and it did not pass because we had three yes and two no and we really needed to get four four yes.
>> Yes. >> Thank you so much for coming. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Okay. All righty. >> We have our next um variance request number 920262035
Cheney Highway. >> Thank you, chair. >> So, beginning on page 35 of your packet, we have variance number 9-2026. So the applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 28 section
28-108C4H of the land development regulations to eliminate the requirement for a 6- foot high masonary screening wall where the site abuts a residential zoning district or use. The subject property is located within the community commercial zoning
district. The subject parcel is identified as lot four of the proposed minor division and consists of approximately 1.7 acres. The overall parent parcel is approximately 8.332 acres and is currently undergoing a minor division process to create five
separate parcels. These parcels are part of the Titusville Common site plan are intended to function as a unified development. Car wash facilities are permitted uses within the CC zoning district subject to excuse me subject to specific design limitations outlined in
section 28-108C4 subsection subsection H requires that a 6- foot high masonry screening wall shall be installed where the site abuts a residential zoning district or use. The subject property is adjacent to the Highland subdivision to the east which
is zoned single family medium density and is subject to this requirement along that property line. The applicant has stated that the existing wetlands and preserved tree canopy provide screening between the proposed use and the adjacent residential properties. The preserved vegetation establishes a
substantial natural buffer that provides visual separation consistent with the general intent of the screening requirement. While the code specifies a six foot high masonry screening wall where the site abuts a residential district or use, the existing canopy and wetlands function to achieve a comparable level of buffering between
those uses. So with that, staff would recommend approval of the requested variance from chapter 28 section 28-108C4 of the land development regulations to eliminate the requirement for a six foot high masonry screening wall. The existing wetlands and preserved tree
canopy provide a subst substantial natural buffer between the proposed use and adjacent residential properties which which are consistent with the general intent of the screening requirement. If you would like the site plan, it is shown on page 51 of your
packet. You can see the wall um area, the masonry screening wall highlighted in yellow and that is what they're requesting to eliminate. Um, and then that is all that staff have. I'm open for questions. >> I have a question for staff. So, where
the wetlands are, that's not changing? >> No, that that is going to um maintain um that area. Um it would just have to be impacted if the wall were to be placed where it is shown on the site plan. So, you're saying because it has the
natural buffer, it meets the requirement, the requirements there basically for what the the the fence would be. >> Well, the the code standard states that the masonry screening wall is needed. Um the they're requesting the variance to
alleviate that. under review of it, we determined that because of that buffer area that for this property they would meet, you know, it meets the same intent of the code to have the screening, >> I guess, just to just to be sure. So, where the where the where the buffering
area is a wetlands with a canopy of trees? >> Yes, that lot five. >> And that's not going anywhere. And that's that's zoned wetlands. No one's going to come in develop. >> It is zoned community commercial. Um but
as outlined on the site plan that is their designated um preserve tree canopy area as part of the master overall site plan. So with this being a minor division, they are sharing their tree canopy requirements, their storm water
requirements, everything like that. And so that lot five um is intended to retain that um meet their tree canopy and meet that their area >> and can't be changed and can't be changed. >> It will Yeah, because it's part of that
approved site plan as it's shown as the preserved tree canopy area. >> Okay. Is that the actual area on page 52? >> Uh 52. 52 the photograph. Um I do yeah I do believe that's from the neighboring property taking towards that. Um I yes I
do believe that that is the it was an applicant provided image. So, but I Yeah, but the copy of the site plan is on page uh 51 where you can see the different lots of the area where it's showing the
car wash in them. Can't remember if the maps have different >> and you said something. You said it was being split up. >> It's a minor division. So each of those different lots are going to have
different businesses. Um but they all share a common site plan >> because I see the construction and >> Yeah. So they have the the Chase Bank. Um I don't believe lot two is filled yet. Lot one is a dental and then the car wash. The bottom area, the lot five
is their storm water and then their tree canopy area and that's outlined. So that will be governed by the master site plan which shows that lot five as being their storm water and canopy. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And the highlighted yellow line on this
site plan on page 51 would be the screen wall. That is where they had proposed to put the screen wall. Yes. >> Okay. Not exactly a straight line. >> No, there was discussion about the So, in the updated variance uh
justification, um they didn't update necessarily the site plan, but there was talk about moving the wall along the property line there or the lot line for the car wash. Um, and then in the justification, you can see they discussed the grading of the the car wash had to be raised so much that
really the wall wouldn't function as anything because it's going to be higher. So the sixoot wall doesn't function. So with the buffering there and everything, it's just reviewed to meeting the intent of the screening requirement.
Are there any other questions of staff? Then, madam secretary, we get to the first card, please. I actually don't have any cards. >> Greg Zuckerman. Cliff Reppinger. >> Sir, for the record, can we please have
your name and address? >> My name is Cliff Reperger. Uh my business address is 21101 Waverly Place, Melbourne, Florida. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Whitebird, and we represent the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Um good evening, uh honorable board members.
um staff did a great job of kind of advising you of what this is about and and kind of uh addressing the request, the nature of the request. Um again, just to reiterate, the request is the variance to eliminate the 6 foot high masonry wall um where the property of
Butt's residential zoning as required for a car wash because the lot 4 is planned to to be a car wash pursuant to uh section 28108 C4H. That's where the the requirement is coming from. Um the subject property zone uh community
commercial as uh staff has indicated. Um the area of the buffering is on the for the for the wall is on the west side. Um and staff and in the staff report it noted that the parcels undergoing a non-residential minor subdivision that
has been approved um and completed. So the minor subdivision has been approved. Um, currently lot four now abuts lot five which is also community commercial. So I don't know that that really changes the requirement that we're here for
tonight. Um, but just so you know that lot four actually is adjacent to lot five um which has now been subject to the minor uh division a non-residential division. So, um, for whatever that's worth, um, but as far as the request,
the subject lot, um, for the car wash for lot 4, it's 1.7 acres. Um, and you can see that on, uh, page 51 of 64 of your agenda package, you can see, um, where that lot is. And in answer to the question of the yellow line that, um,
denotes the tree canopy area. So, the wall was planned or or would be planned to be in that area of the tree canopy follow that line. Um, however, if you notice on the site plan, all of five is
left uh is intended to be left um in its natural state and there are wetlands on that property and then of course the tree canopy that must be preserved. And so um in order not to touch that area, not to do any construction in that area, the app, that's what the applicant is requesting for the variance so that they
don't actually have to touch that area. Um all of lot five to the west of lot four and to the south as it wraps around as shown on the site plan will be undeveloped other than the landscape buffering that you see that's on the
site plan around it. um that parcel will be uh placed into uh ownership and control of the association um and it will not be developed. So um we're not intending to um have any uh development
activities on that u parcel. Um lot as shown on the site plan lots 3 to one running backwards run west to east on the north side of the parcel. Um, and as I indicated, the southside will be lot five as it wraps around untouched. Um,
just looking at the photographs that are in your agenda package to kind of walk you through the the photographs. The one on uh page 52 of the agenda package is looking eastward from the west parcel that is uh office professional. So on the west side
of the property, there's an office professional um that sits that fronts uh 50 and then to the south of that is the um is the R1B um that is the residential
on the west. Um if you go to the next so so this picture is taken from the um office professional parking lot looking back at the parcel and you're looking at the tree coverage on lot five that will remain in its natural state as is in
that photograph. Um the next photograph uh which is uh 53 in your agenda package. That's the division I believe between the office professional and the R1B to the west
looking back to the east again at the tree canopy and the tree coverage that will remain um on lot five. And as you can tell if you had that coverage, if you had a wall there, you wouldn't be able to see that wall. uh in any event because the trees are there. Um
lot uh image 54 in the agenda package. Um as staff had mentioned, this is a photograph looking northbound from the south west corner of lot four.
So you're looking north and you can see the elevation change. um if the wall was to be placed along that lot line, you would see how it's below the actual um intended use. So, the wall would serve no purpose to be constructed in that
location. Um and again, you've got the natural area to the west there that you can see that we're trying to avoid um impacting. Um and then the final picture in the agenda package that you have um
is looking this is the lot four looking back to the west. So that's looking into the canopy and you can see that you cannot even see the uses that are already developed past lot five. So you're looking back from lot four at lot
five. Um and so uh you know we believe that it's appropriate and justified uh to not have to construct that wall. Um if you look at your criteria just kind of walking through your criteria um in 34 226 that
are identified in the staff report. Um the special conditions that exist that are peculiar to the land or structure uh building involved which are not applicable to other lands or structure in the same zoning classification. Obviously, this area in lot five um left in its natural state with wetlands and a
tree canopy. Um that's just we're just asking to leave that and and the uniqueness there of that parcel being in its natural condition. Um that the special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. Obviously, the land is in its natural state and so we are not touching that and and don't
have anything to do with the way that the property exists in its natural state. um that the granting of the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that's denied uh by ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning classification. We're not really
asking for a privilege. The screening will be provided. There's buffering that will still be provided based on the existing tree coverage um and natural state of the land. And so although we're asking for a waiver of the variance, we're really not asking for any special privilege since the buffering is still going to be provided. um that the
literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance. um that obviously requiring us to construct the wall there just
doesn't make any sense um when you've got this level of coverage and we're trying to preserve um lot five and so it would just force us to have to impact lot five um where otherwise we would like to leave that in its natural state
um that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make it possible for the reasonable use of the land building and structure. Obviously, this is kind of a all or nothing thing. You're either going to have the wall or you're not going to have the wall. So, asking for a complete waiver of the wall is kind of the minimum variance we can
ask for here. Um that the granting of the variance will preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with the general intent and purpose or general purpose and intent. Um again, we recognize the fact that we need to have buffering and that's why we want to leave the lot in its at least in part in
its natural state. Um and so buffering will be provided. Um and that obviously serves the same purpose that the wall would serve. So it's completely in harmony with what the code requires. Um in the next criteria
that in granting the variance um the uh uh the uh public safety and welfare must be assured. um preservation of the wall or uh the presence of the wall really has nothing to do with uh the public safety or welfare other than the
buffering which if you want to suggest that that's the welfare of the adjacent lots well then we're providing for that with the with the natural state of the land and the buffering that will be provided. Um and in no case shall the granting of a variance result in a change of use and obviously there's no
change of use that we're proposing here. So, with all of that being said, we do believe that we meet the criteria um of 32, I'm sorry, 3422 six and we appreciate the staff recommendation of approval and we would respectfully request that you uh grant
this variance and if you have any questions, we'll be glad to answer them. >> Thank you. Any questions of this witness? So, we're lot four looks over to lot five and then there's a business on the other side and I forget what you said the
business was. The um so the lot's not staying there. You have to leave a certain amount of canopy. Is that correct? Yes, that lot five is intended to not be developed on. >> My only concern is that it might be used
at some future point and then would someone be required to put this the >> if there was anyone ever to even ask it would be an amendment to the site plan which would come before >> okay >> boards such as this >> or zoning or council or things like
that. It would be amendments to site plans. >> Okay. So that's >> and that could potentially have additional review, but as this site plan has been reviewed and approved or will be approved, I'm not quite sure we're in the process, but as part of the minor division, that lot is intended to
maintain their preserved tree canopy and to where if they were to request an amendment for whatever reason down the road, they would be taking away a requirement that they had to meet. So I I don't see Okay. That would be >> part of that is a setback is included
that in that um area as well. >> Seems the witness would like to address that also. No. >> Oh, we're fine. >> All righty. >> That answer. >> Any other questions of the witness? With that being said, we appreciate your
time. >> Thank you. >> We have a another witness. >> No more speaking cards. >> No more. >> Okay. All righty. Uh, any questions of staff right now?
This is the same site we were talking about signage on at the last meeting. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Not that that influences or has anything to do with what we're doing here tonight. >> This is on a different one of the lot that was for another um and it's a different type of request. Every one is,
you know, viewed on its own. >> Got it. >> Merit request >> if needed. Um action word draft action wording is on page 33 of your pract for language for approval or denial if >> if you'd like. Any
more questions of staff? How about we any need to talk amongst each other? >> Okay. All right. So then we're ready for a motion. >> Motion, please. >> I'd like to make a motion. Um, I'd like
to make a motion to approve, let me see, variance number 9-2026 at 3035 Cheney Highway for um, where's the wording? To eliminate the requirement of the 6 foot masonary
screening wall um, where the site of Butts, a residential zoning district. Is that adequate? >> Yeah. And that was 2035 Cheney. Yes, I said located at 2035 Cheney Highway. >> That's sufficient.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Beckles. >> Yes. >> Member Green. >> Yes. >> Alternate member Wright. >> Yes. Yes. >> Alternate member Rael. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Van Deivven.
>> Yes. >> So, your variance has been granted. >> We have a unanimous approval. >> Right. We only needed four, but we got five. Good luck.
>> All righty. Do we have any um petitions and requests from the public present? It looks like no. any uh let's see reports. >> No, there will be there are two current
variances for May. Um and either Christy or Eddie will be joining you that evening. >> All righty. >> Thank you. And now we're adjourned.