[I. Call to order]
[00:00:04]
STARTED? OKAY. WELCOME, FOLKS, TO THE NEW ALBANY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2026. THE AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS. OR CALL TO ORDER AS. FIRST, CAN WE HAVE THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. PRESIDENT, MR. JACOB, PRESENT. MISS BRIGGS HERE. MISS SAMUELS, PRESENT.
MR. WOULD PRESENT COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ HERE. ALL VOTING MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. WE HAVE A
[III. Action on minutes]
QUORUM. THANK YOU. SECOND ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ACTION ON OUR MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24TH, 2026. DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATES TO THOSE ON THE BOARD? CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE AUGUST MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. MR. JACOB. YES.MR. WOOD? YES, MISS BRIGGS, ABSTAIN. MR. YES. MISS SAMUELS? YES, THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. OKAY. THANK YOU.
[IV. Additions or corrections to the agenda ]
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY ADJUSTMENTS? NONE FROM STAFF. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT? BECAUSE IF SO, WE NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN. YES. OKAY. YOU NEED TO STAND UP. STATE YOUR NAME, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. I'M MICHAEL EVANS. OKAY. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. OKAY. FIRST CASE. ONLY CASE[VI. Cases]
TONIGHT IS VARIANCE 54 2026. AND THIS IS A VARIANCE RECONSIDERATION MEETING. ALL WE'RE DOING, APPARENTLY IS DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE DETERMINING IF THEY CAN COME BACK TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AGAIN. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT HEARING A STAFF REPORT TONIGHT. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT? THE REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN.BUT THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT A REPORT TO ME? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO YEAH, GIVE A UPDATE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WERE NOT HERE. OKAY, GREAT. LET'S LET'S HEAR THAT, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A THIS IS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY DENIED VARIANCE APPLICATION. THAT'S 4678 CAVENDISH COURT FOR A GARAGE EXTENSION THAT IS PROPOSED TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK BY 7.5FT AND TO ENCROACH INTO THE PROPOSED OR TO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BY ONE FOOT. THE BOARD HEARD THIS CASE DURING THE AUGUST 24TH, 2026 BZA MEETING AND DENIED THE CASE BY A VOTE OF 0 TO 3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT. THE VARIANCE WOULD SET A PRECEDENT IF APPROVED, NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS WERE SEEN ON THE SITE TO DESIGN ALTERNATIVES THAT THE APPLICANT COULD COULD USE TO REMEDY THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND A SUBSTANTIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACKS. SO AS A REMINDER, THIS IS THE SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CAVENDISH COURT. AGAIN, HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR REFERENCE. AND HERE IS CODIFIED ORDINANCE 159.06 C THAT EXPLAINS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MEETING A RECONSIDERATION.
THE APPLICANT OR DESIGN SHALL CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE. ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STAFF HAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKETS THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THE NEW INFORMATION WOULD INCLUDE TWO LETTERS, ONE FROM A HOMEOWNER AND ONE FROM THE APPLICANT, AND A FEW SITE PHOTOS, AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE MATERIAL AND HAS NOT FOUND ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT COULD NOT REASONABLY, REASONABLY, NOT WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, HAVE PRESENTED AT A PREVIOUS HEARING OR THAT THE PROPERTY HAS SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED. AND I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN CHIME IN BECAUSE WE DON'T DEAL WITH MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION VERY OFTEN.
VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH THE BOARD CAN CHOOSE TO RECONSIDER A MATTER OR SET FORTH THERE. AND THEY HAVE TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT ONE OF THOSE TWO FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT IN THAT SITUATION. THANKS, BEN. AND I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING. IF THE VARIANCE WERE TO BE RECONSIDERED, STAFF WOULD SUGGEST A A MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE VARIANCE. APPLICATION VARIANCE 54 2026 PURSUANT TO CODIFIED ORDINANCE 159. AND THEN TONIGHT. TONIGHT IS JUST TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO DO IT. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF REPORT INTO RECORD. SO MOVED. SECOND. MISS SAMUELS. YES. MR. WOOD, ON
[00:05:02]
THE SECOND. YES. THANK YOU, MR. WOOD. YES. MR. YES. MR. JACOB. YES, MISS BRIGGS? YES, THE AYES HAVE IT. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK THE BOARD IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS TO STAFF. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IN LOOKING HERE, WHAT WE'VE GOT ON THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, THESE ARE THE THE ONLY TWO THE ONLY TWO REASONS THAT WE CAN RECONSIDER. CORRECT. RECONSIDER TO TO VACATE, I THINK NO, NO TO RECONSIDER.THESE ARE THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN OUR CODIFIED ORDINANCES THAT WOULD GIVE THIS BOARD THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE TO RECONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. AND AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST IT'S JUST TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION, NOT NECESSARILY THE RULE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT THAT'S IT. THESE DON'T COME UP VERY OFTEN BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY LIMITED WITH RESPECT TO HOW YOU CAN DO IT. AND SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR. THOSE ARE GUIDANCE ITEMS OR LIKE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE, LIKE, WELL, I MEAN, SO I GUESS THAT THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE LAST MEETING TO SHOW THAT THE ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT DEFINES SUBSTANTIALLY, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT FROM THAT LAST MEETING TO NOW, THINGS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED, OR THERE'S NEW INFORMATION AVAILABLE NOW THAT COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BEEN LOCATED AT THE PRIOR HEARING WITH ANY KIND OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE. SO THAT WOULD BE THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW AT THAT POINT. RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BOARD MEMBERS? I HAVE A QUICK ONE.
I MISSED THE LAST MEETING. SO THIS MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE LAST MEETING. SO WE'RE NEIGHBORS PREVIOUSLY ALERTED TO THIS APPLICATION. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO AT THE LAST MEETING DID WE RECEIVE ANY OR HAS THE CITY RECEIVED ANY NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK OR WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, SO BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE LAST MEETING, WE RECEIVED ONE CALL. THE NEIGHBOR WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT WAS THE VARIANCE REQUEST? AND THAT WAS IT. OKAY. SO SO THE QUESTION IS, SINCE THEN, HAS ANYTHING COME IN FROM ANY NEIGHBORS? SO WITH THE RECONSIDERATION, THERE WOULD BE NO NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION. BUT IF THIS WERE TO PASS THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND WE WOULD NOTIFY NEIGHBORS AGAIN. SO THAT'S THE TRIGGER FOR NOTIFYING NEIGHBORS WOULD BE FOR US PASSING IT THE RECONSIDERATION TONIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THAT WAS MY KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING. THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. EVANS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YEAH, PLEASE. THANK YOU. YEAH. A A A A A A A A A A E CONSIDERATION TO RECONSIDER TONIGHT. I DO THINK IT HITS ON A SALIENT POINT, NUMBER TWO, ABOUT INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT KNOWN. THE LAST MEETING THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REASONABLY ASCERTAINED WITH ANY SORT OF DILIGENCE. AND THAT'S WHY WE CAME TONIGHT TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION OR CLARIFY. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT TO THAT POINT. WE DO HAVE NEIGHBOR STATEMENTS FOLLOWING THIS IN SUPPORT OF THAT, BECAUSE THEY WERE SOME WERE NOTIFIED. AND THE ONES THAT DID RECEIVE THE NOTIFICATION SPECIFICALLY ASKED, HEY, HOW'S IT GOING? AND WE TOLD THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED LAST MEETING. AND THEY SAID, IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO HELP THIS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE'D LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. BUT THE NEW INFORMATION WAS THAT THIS IS FOR MEDICAL NECESSITY, THIS REQUEST. WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S SETTING A PRECEDENT. I CAN APPRECIATE YOURE'S PRECED.
WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S SETTING ONE THAT COULD EASILY BE DEFENDED IN THE FUTURE SHOULD IT COME UP BECAUSE OF THE THE MEDICAL NECESSITY THAT THIS VARIANCE IS IS BEING DRIVEN BY.
IN 2017, MY WIFE KIM HAD A BRAIN ANEURYSM THAT LEFT HER PARTIALLY BLIND AND IN HER EYES.
AND AT THAT TIME, WHILE SHE'S LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DRIVE, SHE DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE IN A STANDARD VEHICLE DRIVING. WITH THE ADVENT AND THE PROLIFERATION OF SELF-DRIVING TECHNOLOGY, SHE HAS PURCHASED A VEHICLE THAT DOES ALLOW HER TO SAFELY HAVE AUTONOMOUS DRIVING THAT HAS NOT ONLY BEEN. A GODSEND FOR HER JUST BEING ABLE TO GET ABOUT, BUT IT'S REALLY DONE A DIFFERENCE TO HER FREEDOM AND HER ABILITY TO NOT FEEL CAGED IN AT HOME BECAUSE SHE NEEDS SOMEONE ELSE TO DRIVE, IF NOT FOR THIS VEHICLE. SO THAT'S THE REQUEST WAS TO EXTEND THE GARAGE INTO A REAR SETBACK THAT CURRENTLY IS SURROUNDED BY MATURE TREES. WE DID INCLUDE A NEW PICTURES. AGAIN, THIS IS INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT PRESENT LAST TIME IN
[00:10:02]
THE PACKET. AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DID NOT ATTEND. WE THERE WAS A SNAFU WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHO WAS GOING TO BE HERE AND WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE. WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ALL IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT AND HAD WE BEEN HERE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I WATCHED THE VIDEO. I THINK IT WAS RIGHTFULLY SAID THAT MAYBE THIS WOULD HAVE GONE DIFFERENTLY. SO THAT'S WHY WE CAME BACK. THAT'S THE NEW INFORMATION. AND I DO BELIEVE WE'VE UPDATED THE PACKET WITH THAT. RIGHT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOLKS. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT DID INDICATE THAT THIS WAS A REQUEST BASED ON MEDICAL NECESSITY, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO YOU'RE STATING THE NEW INFORMATION IS THE DETAIL ON THE MEDICAL. YEAH. YEAH. I THINK THE ORIGINAL SEEMED TO INDICATE IT WAS MEDICAL, BUT IT ALSO SEEMED TO INDICATE AS EQUAL TO THAT IT WAS FOR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, WHICH I THINK WAS A MISREPRESENTATION. I THINK IT'S BASICALLY ALL FOR THE MEDICAL THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS OKAY. AND I THINK IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT, IT WAS FOR THE CHARGING STATION FOR THE VEHICLE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS A THREE VEHICLE, THE CHARGING STATION FOR THE VEHICLE THAT HAS THE MODIFICATIONS IS ACCESSIBLE IN THE TWO CAR GARAGE AS IS. NO, WE DON'T HAVE A CHARGING STATION CURRENTLY. I MEAN, BUT THE CHARGING STATION COULD BE PLACED IN THERE WITH THE TWO CARS. IS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT A THREE CAR GARAGE? I'M SORRY. IT'S IN THE IN THE LETTER IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT A THREE TO COVER ALL THREE VEHICLES INSTEAD OF JUST TWO VEHICLES.
IT WOULD BE AN EXTENSION. THAT WOULD BE A BACK STACKED BAY. SO TECHNICALLY YOU GET THAT FOUR.
BUT WE HAVE THREE VEHICLES. YEAH. OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE ONE FOLD IN A TANDEM AND THEN ONE FOLD IN RIGHT BEHIND IT. SO THE CHARGING STATION THAT WAS REQUESTED IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT, WHICH SAID WITH JUST THE TWO VEHICLES IN THE GARAGE AS IS TODAY, WE DON'T HAVE DRAWINGS FOR THAT. SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT FOR SURE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. YEAH. IF YOU COULD JUST YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS BEING NEW INFORMATION. IF YOU COULD JUST JUST DESCRIBE THEN HOW, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE STANDARDS COULD NOT BE THAT IS AVAILABLE, THAT COULD NOT, WITH REASONABLE, REASONABLE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT SECOND PART, THE HOW IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITHOUT WITHOUT THE SECOND HEARING OR THE PREVIOUS COULD NOT, LIKE YOU SAID, IT WAS NEW INFORMATION. I SAID, HOW IS THAT NOT COULD NOT. THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS COULD NOT BE REASONABLE WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE. HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT A PREVIOUS HEARING. IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD HOW THAT CAME ABOUT. THE WAY THAT I INTERPRET THAT IS BECAUSE WE WEREN'T HERE. SO THAT'S WHY IT. YEAH. OKAY. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, FOLKS? I'LL SPEAK FOR? I JUST HAVE ONE FOR STAFF. CAN YOU JUST REMIND ME WHAT WERE THE TWO ALTERNATIVES? I THINK WE JUST MAY HAVE JUST FADED ONE. BUT WHAT WERE THEY AT THE LAST MEETING THAT ARE POSSIBLY WOULD NOT NEED OR NEED THIS. SO STAFF AND OUR REPORT NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT COULD CONSTRUCT A SMALL SHED IN THE REAR YARD TO STORE THE LAWN EQUIPMENT, OR THEY COULD PARK THEIR SECOND VEHICLE THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHARGED IN THE IN THE DRIVEWAY AND HAVE THE NEW ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARK IN THE GARAGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO JUST WHERE I AM WITH THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE WE NEVER GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THEIR PLAN OR THEIR, THEIR APPLICATION. THEY WERE THEY WEREN'T HERE FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS LIKE, LIKE MATT JUST ASKED US. SO I DON'T, I, I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND LIKE WHAT THE ALTERNATIVES WERE. AND WE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU. I'M GLAD. I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I DID WANT TO KNOW THAT ALTERNATIVE. AND THAT'S I READ THE, THE PART THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING LIKE, I THINK THE, THE FIRST ITERATION WAS PROBABLY HEAVIER ON LIKE A PLACE TO STORE EQUIPMENT. AND IT'S NOT THAT IT'S FOR THE VEHICLES. SO I'M, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT MYSELF PARKING IN THE GARAGE, CAN I JUST SAY I'VE TALKED TO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL BREAK INS IN OUR STREET. AND WHEN I TALKED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE CITY, ONE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO NOT TEMPT THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT IN THE BEST WAY. THEY'VE TOLD US SPECIFICALLY TO MY FACE IS TO PARK YOUR VEHICLES IN YOUR GARAGE. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES
[00:15:01]
WHERE, YES, WE CAN PARK IN THE GARAGE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE EXPERIENCE WE'VE HAD WITH MORE BREAK INS MORE RECENTLY, THAT WORRIES ME THAT WE'RE WE'RE ATTRACTING AN ELEMENT TO THE STREET THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE. AND THEN SECONDLY, OUR THIS IS EMBARRASSING, BUT I ADMIT IT, I HAD FALLEN ON OUR GARAGE IN THE WINTER. IT'S ON A SLIGHT SLOPE. IT'S NOT. THE GRADE IS NOT INSANELY STEEP, BUT IT'S ENOUGH THAT IF THERE'S MOISTURE ON THERE, JUST GETTING IT OUT OF THE CAR PRESENTS A RISK. SO THAT'S WHY THAT THAT OPTION WAS WAS NOT PREFERRED.AND THEN THE SHED ONE. YEAH. AND ANOTHER COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS I HATE TO PENALIZE OUR NEIGHBORS BY NOT FOLLOWING A RULE TO BE HERE. LIKE WHAT? LIKE WHAT HAPPENED THERE? LIKE WHAT WHAT WAS HAPPENING? WAS IT NOT OKAY? SO IT WAS A, IT WAS AN HONEST ERROR THAT YES, IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE. OR I CAN EXPLAIN WHEN I HIRED A CONTRACTOR OR I GUESS I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A BIG PROJECT AND I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING BUT BY THE BOOK. AND I ASKED, DO YOU TAKE CARE OF THIS? THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY TO NAVIGATE THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND IT WAS, YES, WE GOT THIS. IT'S TAKEN CARE OF. AND WE DID FOLLOW UP SAID, HEY, I KNOW THE ZONING MEETINGS, THE 24TH, I WAS ACTUALLY OUT OF TOWN. WE WERE GOING TO BE THERE. AND THEN I LOOKED ON THE 25TH AND THEY WEREN'T. I CALLED HIM. IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN WHO HE HAD ASSIGNED TO COME, THE THE ENGINEER, QUITE FRANKLY. OKAY. AND TALK ABOUT THIS. HE THOUGHT IT WAS ON A DIFFERENT DAY, DIFFERENT SCHEDULE THING THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS. I HAVE ONE FOR THE APPLICANT. SO I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE PLAN, BUT I THINK I REMEMBER FROM LAST TIME YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD TO THE GARAGE, TO THE WEST, TO THE EAST, ACTUALLY TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE GARAGE. YOU'RE GOING TO TOWARDS YOUR BACKYARD. YEAH, YEAH. SO, SO HOLD ON.
JUST, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE GOING THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THIS? NO, THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHAT'S RELEVANT FOR TONIGHT. THAT'S WHY IF THEY ACCEPT THE RECONSIDERATION THAT'LL BE RELEVANT. SO THAT TO MY POINT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. YEAH. SO NEVER HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND THAT PERSONALLY. THAT'S WHY I REJECTED IT. OKAY. WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT MORE QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL UNANSWERED. YEAH. AND I THINK TO THAT POINT, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH AND I DON'T KNOW, BEN, IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU OR STAFF I'M STRUGGLING WITH, YOU KNOW, THIS LAST PIECE HERE ON THE ON THE APPLICATION, IF THE MOTION PASSES, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD IMMEDIATELY TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING DATE SO THAT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS CAN BE NOTIFIED OF THE HEARING, AND STAFF CAN PREPARE A STAFF REPORT CONTAINING THE FULL EVALUATION OF A PROPOSAL. I FORGET THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REPACKAGE IT UP AND BE ABLE TO PRESENT IT TO US IN PERSON, SO. BUT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED IT. WELL, NO, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PASS THE RECONSIDERATION. YOU'RE ONLY PASSING IF YOU GRANT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER TONIGHT. YOU ARE JUST GRANTING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO TO, TO RECONSIDER WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DENIED. THE REASON IT WILL GET SCHEDULED THE NEXT MEETING IS SO THAT STAFF, BECAUSE IT PRESENTS THE STAFF REPORT AGAIN AT THAT POINT, HITS ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEIGHBORS SO THAT THEY CAN COME SPEAK OR PROVIDE INFORMATION SHOULD THEY SO DESIRE. SO THE CONTENT OF THE APPLICATION, WHAT THEY'RE SEEKING REALLY ISN'T RELEVANT. THIS IS REALLY JUST DO WE WANT TO HEAR THIS AGAIN? AND IF SO, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HIT OUR NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOLKS? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. 5426. I'LL SECOND. MISTER. YES, MISS BRIGGS YES. MR. JACOB NO. MISS SAMUELS NO. MR. WOOD YES, THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSES WITH THREE VOTES IN FAVOR AND TWO VOTES AGAINST. AND, MR. JACOB, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR REASONS FOR THE RECORD. OKAKAKAE SCREEN IN FRONT OF ME, STARTING WITH THE. LOOKING AT THE EXACT WORD SUBSTANTIALLY, I HAVE NOT HEARD SUBSTANTIALLY ILLUSTRATED THIS EVENING. AND THEN THE SECOND, AS IT PERTAINS TO LISTENING TO WHAT INFORMATION I
[00:20:06]
HAVE, I WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT. REASONABLE DILIGENCE I. NEW INFORMATION ON REASONABLE DILIGENCE, SIMPLY BECAUSE I LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF. THE NEIGHBORS WERE NOTIFIED FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, JUST LIKE THEY WOULD IN ANY OTHER CASE. AND THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVERYTHING FROM THE MEDICAL SIDE OF THINGS, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER REASONS THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT AN APPEAL. THE LAST TIME THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US.THANK YOU. AND MISS SAMUELS, ECHOING WHAT MR. JACOBS SAID, LOOKING AT THE FACTORS FOR RECONSIDERATION, I DON'T FEEL THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL NEW EVIDENCE WAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED TODAY, AND THE STAFF DID A VERY ROBUST JOB OF PRESENTING THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IN THE LAST STAFF REPORT. THE ACTUAL REQUEST AND THE OPTIONS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FAILURE TO PRESENT BEING CONSIDERED A REASONABLE FACTOR FOR RECONSIDERATION, BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD, THAT COULD CREATE A VAST PRECEDENT WHERE WE HAVE MASSIVE RECONSIDERATION ACTION. THANK YOU. SO WILL THIS BE SET FOR THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING? JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THEY CAN BE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. I MOVED TO TABLE THE CASE FOR THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.. YES, MISS BRIGGS. YES. MISS SAMUELS. YES. MR. WOOD. YES. THE AYES HAVE IT WITH ALL THE VOTES TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
YEAH. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ANY OTHER BUSINESS STAFF BOARD. NONE FOR ME. ANY COMMENTS QUESTIONS, CONCERNS. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SO MOVED. SECOND.
MR. JACOB. YES, MISS. SAMUEL, EXCUSE ME. YES. MR. YES, MISS BRIGGS. YES. MR. WOOD. YES.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.