Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - June 26, 2025 - 2025-06-26 18:30:00

Okay, now welcome to the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals June 26th, 2025 meeting. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Dave Hale.

Here. Andrew Romerdahl. Here. Craig Bennett. Here.

Jason Norris. Here. Jonathan Lang. Here. Brian Bennett is excused.

You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Next item are minutes. We have minutes for Thursday, March 13th, 2025.

Can I have a positive motion, please?

Dave Hale. Move to approve. Seconded by Jonathan Lang. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Seeing none, is there any objection to the motion?

Seeing and hearing none, the motion passes and the minutes are approved by unanimous consent. Next item of business is special order of business, disclosures. Are there any disclosures?

Yeah, this is Jason Norris, Chair. Mr. Norris. Yeah, this is an abundance of caution being my first time dealing with this, but for item H3, I do have a long-time personal friendship with the petitioner, no financial interest, do feel I can be impartial, but did want to give you the opportunity to rule.

Thank you. May I have a positive motion for the participation of Mr. Norris? Case H3.

Mr. Bennett.

I move to let him vote. He said—. Or wait, oh, I move to direct board member Norris to participate in case 2025- 0048.

And Mr. Hale seconds. Would you speak to your motion, please? Yeah, board member Norris said that he thought he could be impartial, and he has always been in the past, so I will— I will move to approve it. Mr. Hale?

Uh, same. Sounds like he doesn't have any financial interest. He's just, uh, knows knows the person, so I don't see any reason why he can't be impartial. Thank you.

Do we need to vote? Okay. Is there any objection, um, to have Mr. Norris participate in case 2025-0048? Any objection? Can you hear?

Okay. So that being the case, seeing and hearing none, the motion passes. And Mr. Norris, you are directed to participate in Case 2025-0048.

Any other disclosures?

Mr. Lang? Whoops.

Oh, Andrew. Mr. Romerdaal. I ask through the chair, I am disclosing that I was absent for the March 12th meeting and therefore will be abstaining from voting on the consent agenda. Thank you. Now, Mr. Lang.

Uh, yes, in case, uh, 2025-0048, one of my work products appears in that. I have no financial interest in anything that's going on with that property, and I would ask to be allowed to participate in the case.

May I have a positive motion to direct Mr. Lang to participate in case 2025-0048?

Mr. Hale, I move to direct board member Lang to participate in case 2025-0048. Mr. Bennett seconds. Would you speak to your motion, Mr. Hale? I had a question just through the chair.

Uh, Mr. Lang, do you— you— did you do this land survey for that and stamp it and everything? Yeah, there's a stamped as-built that I did. So you did—. I also counseled the petitioner's business partner that they should apply for a nonconforming determination, which is also included in the packet, but I didn't participate in the creation of that.

Through the chair, it kind of sounds to me like you're a little bit more involved in it. I'm not sure maybe that you should participate. I don't know how the rest of the board is feeling, but I would— I guess I'm thinking that maybe you're a little immersed in it and maybe shouldn't participate. I don't know how everybody else feels about it. Okay.

Mr. Bennett, I guess through the chair, one other question. So there's no future, um, revenue coming from this? It's already been completed?

Uh, I actually did receive a call from the business partner yesterday to do a follow-up as-built, uh, because other improvements have been made to the property, uh, but there's nothing that this case hinges on with that. All right.

And your feeling?

I guess I'd like to see what the rest of the board says. Okay. Refer to Mr. Lang. Uh, Mr. Norris, do you have anything to add?

I do not, Chair.

Repeat that.

I don't have anything to add. It doesn't seem like there's a financial interest there that he can't be impartial. Those are my thoughts. Okay, thank you. Mr. Romerdaal.

Mr. Romerdaal.

Yeah. Okay. Well, since we have a variety of different things, we're going to vote. So please vote.

Okay, um, so Mr. Romer Dahl, you vote yes, is that correct? Correct. Mr. Norris?

Yes. So that's a yes.

Point of information, Chair. Yes is to direct them to participate. Okay, thank you.

And everybody else, or do we do it by vote? Okay, Mr. Bennett, you're a no. Oh, we're not doing—. I have to do it manually. Okay, I'd say no.

Mr. Hale? No. And I'm a no.

So the motion fails, and, um, Mr. Lang, you will be recused from case 2025-0048.

Any other disclosures? Mr. Bennett? Correct, I have a disclosure in case 2025-0043. My firm did an as-built on it back at the beginning of the year, but I don't believe there's any future financial gain that I know of. I believe it was just the asphalt at the time, and I'll leave it up to the board if they would like to direct me to vote or not.

May I have a positive motion directing Mr. Bennett to participate in Case 20250043?

Mr. Lang.

Yes, I believe that Board Member Bennett should be allowed to participate in Case 2025-0043. Mr. Hale, would you speak to your motion? Well, it's very similar to Mr. Lang's, so I don't know how I can vote yes when I just voted no for for Mr. Lang, so I'm going to say no.

Really, the reason that I'm doing it is not because they have a financial interest, but there's, you know, there may be— someone may think that they have an interest simply because they're involved, and I think that's one of the reasons that people are recused from Things. Okay, again, um, we have a variety of ideas, so, uh, we will vote.

Mr. Norris, how do you vote? Yeah.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote?

Yes. Mr. Lang? Oh.

There are 4 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 abstain. It takes 5 to pass, so Mr. Bennett, you are recused from case 2025-0043.

Right, but it did, but it— but there's only 4 in favor, so it has to have 5. Yeah. Okay.

Oh, anybody else?

All right, we'll move on to the consent agenda wherein Mr. Romerdaal will not participate.

We have 2 items on the consent agenda. Resolution 2025-002 and Resolution 2025-003. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Hale. Move to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Mr. Bennett.

Is there Any objection to approval of the consent agenda? Seeing none, the motion passes and is approved by unanimous consent.

So nothing— no appearance requests, no unfinished business, nothing on the regular agenda, which brings us to public hearings. All 5 cases to be heard this evening are variance cases, and as variance case, Chair will introduce the variance and explain the procedure to be followed. And since they're all 5 variance cases, the procedure to be followed: after the staff presentation is completed on the public hearing items, the Chair will ask for the applicant to state their case. The applicant, including all of his or her Representatives has 10 minutes for the presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant who must convince the Board by a preponderance of evidence that the variance should be granted.

A concurring vote of a majority of fully constituted— of the fully constituted membership of the Board minus those excused by conflicts of interest shall be required to grant a variance. For a variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the applicant through the chair. The chair will then open the public— open the hearing to public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the rules of procedure.

Representatives of groups such as community councils or PTAs groups have 5 minutes, and individuals have 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. Time is kept by the secretary. The display in the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed and then will turn yellow.

At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony. At the end of the allowed time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound. An individual may have appeal rights relating to any action the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes. The parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court. So, that being said, the first case— okay.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Madam Chair, point of order. Sorry, didn't mean to be that loud. Because of the two recusals of Mr. Lang and Mr. Bennett, you now have a short board for the first— for the second and third case.

You only have 5 participating members. So I don't know if you want to read the short board for those two applicants and give them the option to—. Yes. Okay. Can I reorder first?

You may.

He's actually here. He's actually here, so you don't need to reorder if you would like— if you would not like to. Okay, well, I will not. Okay, so, um, Elizabeth Morgan, this is the case 43? Yes, Madam Chair.

Would you come forward, please?

So of the 9 members of a fully constituted Board, there will only be 5 to hear your case. So we go to the rules for a short Board. When there is a short 5-member Board or Commission, and a postponement is offered to and agreed to by the petitioner, they will be moved to the next regular agenda. This should occur within 30 days, which does not require re-noticing the case, new public hearing notices, advertising, and such. If the petitioner is willing to postpone, but will be unable to attend the available meeting date within 30 days, the petitioner has a one-time-only option to choose the next date certain he or she can attend, at no extra fee.

When a postponement is requested by the petitioner, there is a rescheduling fee and a new public hearing date shall be determined by the Planning Division. This will put their case on the next available cutoff date queue as if they were submitting their case for the first time. So basically, right now you have the option to postpone and hope that there will be more than 5, because it takes 5 positive to pass. So we would all have to agree.

So it is up to you. I think I am going to hope for the best. You need to state your name first. And yeah. So my name is Elizabeth Morgan.

Could you move a little bit louder so we can pick it up? Yeah. There we go. My name is Elizabeth Morgan. And I choose to proceed with the short board.

Okay. Thank you very much.

And then— yeah, you are done. Thank you. Oh, I can sit down. Mr. Hornak.

Same situation.

Jonathan Hornak. That was loud.

2025-0048. I wish to proceed with, with the short board. Okay, thank you very much.

All right, first case. Get back to what I was doing.

First case, case 2025-0040, Charles Elliott Group. Is the petitioner.

Yeah, he's here. Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case?

On May 19, 2025, the Planning Department mailed a total of 178 public hearing notice in accordance with the procedure procedures of AMC 23 21-03-028 notice. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comments. The Tudor Area and Campbell Park Community Council did not provide comments. Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. The subject parcel at 1559 Tudor Road, it's a half acre featuring 4 buildings and a single access point at Tudor Road. This variance specifically addresses Structure 1, a one-story shop building located on the northeast side of the lot. The need for this review was triggered by an open building permit for Structure 2, situated in the southeast portion of the lot, which is not part of this variance request.

Uh, Charlie Elliott Group, the owner, the owner is requesting dimensional variance from AMC 2106-020B, Table 2106-2, Table of Dimensional Standards for Commercial Industrial Districts. The variance seeks to allow an existing one-story shop to encroach 2.1 feet into the 5-foot secondary front setback at Grape Place, 8.2 feet into the 15-foot side setback at the alley, 0.7 feet into the zero or at least 5-foot eastern side setback. The one-story shop building was originally built in the '70s and complied with the Municipality of Anchorage code at the time. However, an attached addition constructed between 1990 and 2000 intensified the existing nonconformity. Consequently, a variance is now requested for both the original structure and this addition.

This addition was put in place by previous owners prior to the Joneses' purchase of the property in 2024. The property is located north of East Toole Road, east of Oaklair Place, south of East 43rd Court, and west of Needles Circle. Zone B-3, General Business District. It is classified as commercial corridor with a greenway-supported development per the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan. Being a double-frontage lot, it has primary and secondary front setbacks and side setbacks, but no rear setback.

A June 24, 2024 Verification of nonconforming status concludes the existing shop is not a legal nonconforming structure. This variance, if granted, will allow the existing shop to remain in place. The owner's intent is solely to gain recognition of the current footprint to facilitate future improvements and beautification effort. Not to pursue, not to pursue additional variance for new construction. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeal to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity to relieve salt and must specify the facts and circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 Standards.

Standard A is not met. The subject, like, property is not affected by slope, streams, wetlands, or any other exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances. Standard B is not met. The lot does have a unique shape with secondary access to Grape Place and a gravel alley, but they are not exceptionally— exceptional physical circumstances. Of the lot to create an exceptional hardship or deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners.

Standard C is partially met because the hardship is not self-imposed, and special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant, since the encroachment was created by the previous owners approximately 33 to 55 years ago. The current owner did not know of these encroachments before purchasing the property in 2024. These encroachments were not on a 1992 as-built, and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute inconvenience. Standard D is met. The structure has existed in the location for approximately 33 to 55 years, and the variance, if granted, will not negatively impact the permitted use of adjacent properties.

The Planning Department has not received any comments objecting to this variance request. Standard E is met. The variance, if granted, does not change the character of the existing B-3 zoning district where the property is located and is in keeping with the intent of the code. It will not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. The variance will not allow any principal or accessory use that are not already permitted within the Zone.

Standard F, it's met. The enclosure does not result in adverse impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Municipality of Anchorage. Standard G is met. The open building permit C24-1223 contains ADA compliance and accommodation details for the structure 2 on the property. The subject, one-story shop, would also need to supply this information for any future building permits.

The site has paved asphalt and a ramp. It's on the— it's built for front access adjacent to parking space on the site. Standard H is met. This is the minimum variance that will allow the property owner to retain this structure that has existed in this location for over 23 years. The request of variance is a reasonable and minimal measure needed to acknowledge the encroachment.

Granted, it will allow for practical land use and facilitate future ongoing improvements that will enhance the site for the benefits of the neighborhood and the municipality. Importantly, as stated previously, the owner is not seeking additional variance for new construction but simply recognition of the existing footprint to enable future improvements and beautification efforts. Review agent's comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page Page 36 of your packet. The department found that Standards A and B are not met. Standard C is partially met.

And Standards D, E, F, G, and H are met. AMC 2103-240G requires that all 8 standards be substantially met in order for variance to be granted. Therefore, the department recommends denial of the variance. If, if after public hearing the board find that all 8 standards are substantially met for dimensional variance, the staff report recommendations is that any approval should be, should be subject to the condition 1 and 2 presented On page 6. Oh my goodness.

So the applicant is here. I'm done with this staff report and the applicant is here to present. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Seeing none, I have a couple of clarifications. If we look at the, the as-built on page 33, am I right in seeing that there's a mistake on the northern border where it says there's a 10-foot rear setback? Because you have explained explained that there's no rear setback. Okay, uh, when the, the non-conforming— non-conform verification of non-conforming status, when it was done, the person that like, uh, created the report did not notice that was, uh, there was a secondary access on the, on the side. But like, whatever is stated during the meeting, that's what it would stay.

They are aware of this, uh, this mistake. They are aware of that. Okay, so instead of a 10-foot rear setback, it should be a 15-foot side setback? Yes, 15 feet because it abuts a residential. Yes, because of the residential.

Yes. Okay, and the only building that we're talking about is that one in the north—. That, yeah, northeast, this one-story shop. Okay, I think I have it. Thank you.

You're welcome. All right, and if the applicant would come forward, please state your name for the record. My name is David Johnston. Spell the last name, please. J-O-H-N-S-T-O-N.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Um, no, I've been just trying to catch up with them and they've been very helpful in the process. Okay, thank you. Then, um, please present your case.

Um, thank you for hearing me tonight. My case is as a new owner. I'm looking to improve upon the site conditions.

I probably should have had a better asphalt done. I worked with the old one and didn't identify the encroachment when I made my purchase.

Being a, a good steward, we've been trying to maintain permits, get permits to do work. It appears the previous owners have not Operated that way, and through the application process for the first renovation on the front building to make that a better structure, we identified this nonconformity for the property, and it is my intent to bring the property to conforming state and improve upon it. And it, it's not very practical to tear down half of a building that's been there for 30-plus years, not harming anybody. I'd just merely like to make this less of an eyesore for the community, clean up the property, and put funds towards that where it benefits everybody.

Okay.

You have 8 minutes and 49 seconds for rebuttal.

Are there any questions of the petitioner, Mr. Johnson? By the board.

To the board, thank you. Mr. Johnston, I'm looking particularly at Condition A.

All these standards need to be met. A and B are always the tough ones. And staff didn't find any exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances. It looks like a pretty flat lot, doesn't look like anything extraordinary. I looked at your application and you don't really note anything exceptional or extraordinary either based on the physical circumstances.

And I'm wondering if maybe there's something you can tell us now that would help us to, uh, to make that condition work, because right now I'm, I'm not seeing anything physical about the property that's causing, causing this.

Typically we're looking at like streams, wetlands, you know, slopes, that type of thing. Or, you know, lot configurations. This one seems pretty straightforward and flat. So because we have to follow the code, I usually flail about trying to find a you know, a reason why this stuff occurred in the first place.

I believe the lot is fairly level in nature in itself. There's a bit of a drop-off towards the back.

The only unusual part is with the arc of the eyebrow there, the corner, there's a The nonconformity of the original structure is not grandfathered because of this additional part put on. So there's, I believe, 3 points at which, you know, it can be 0 or 5, but it can't be in between, and it's in between that 0 or 5.

The hardship imposed is more in nature of— It's just impractical to work with where it's at and trying to bring a property that can be better met for everybody's benefit, right? It is a flat lot. The previous owners, somewhere in the '90s, I believe, built something that didn't have a permit, wasn't a record of. When I did my level of due diligence, I did not find there until trying to move forward.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, are there any questions of the applicant by staff? Okay, no, indicates none. All right, thank you for your testimony.

And we'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 25-0040?

Anyone at all?

Okay. So does staff have anything more they want to add?

No. Okay. And the applicant, anything more? Mr. Johnson?

It was my understanding that you guys do have the ability to look past that first condition of a site constraint. And it's my goal to be able to turn this into a better property for all of the community, right? The neighbors behind me that get to look at things, the neighbors around me. And it's just an extreme hardship to not be able to move forward and make this a viable opportunity for everybody.

I'd greatly appreciate your help in looking into the opportunity for a variance so that we we can do a better part for everybody. Okay. Thank you.

I've been reminded that we can't look past the code. We have to figure out how to make it work. So if nobody else is around that wants to talk. The public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Bennett.

I move in case 2025-0040 to approve a dimensional variance for AMC 21.06.020.B, Table 21.06-2, Table of Dimensional Standards, Commercial and Industrial Districts, to allow an existing one-story shop to encroach 2.1 feet into a 5-foot secondary front setback at Great Place, 8.2 feet into the 15-foot side setback at the alley and 0.7 feet into the zero or at least 5-foot eastern side setback subject to Conditions 1 and 2 as shown on page 5 of the staff report. Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr. Hale.

Mr. Bennett, would you speak to your motion, please? Yeah, thank you.

I see that there was zero community comments objection— objecting to this case. And being that the one-story shop has been there for— was it 33 years? At least, and there hasn't been an issue— no known issues in all that time.

I believe I'll be supporting this variance. You have to talk about the standards. Gotcha.

And standards D, E, F, G, and H are met, with C being partially met by staff, and then A and B are the two standards that staff is saying is not met, with B, the physical circumstances, it is a flat lot.

But with going back to it's been there for 33 years and the other standards being met, I think that's it. Okay. Mr. Hale, would you speak to the motion, please?

Thank you to the chair.

Yeah, I'm having a tough time with this. We do, we are required to follow the code. You know, we can't just give variances out because we want to help everybody. And we want to help everybody who comes here. It's, we're all homeowners too.

So it's difficult, but we do need to follow the code and we do need to meet these standards. And I don't, I can't come up with an exceptional or, extraordinary physical circumstance. I don't think that that standard is met. And unless someone can enlighten me, I'm thoroughly willing to go, go along with it if, uh, you know, we can discuss it and come to an agreement that there are extraordinary physical circumstances. But I'm not seeing them either in the staff report or the application, so I don't know how I can as a board member support it.

At the moment.

Mr. Lang.

Through the chair, uh, Item A states that there exists exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances including but not limited to the ones listed, which are physical characteristics of the land. I would suggest that someone building a structure in the wrong location is an an extraordinary physical circumstance, and we should be allowed to consider that in our determination, because the code right here says, "Including, but not limited to these characteristics." So that's a characteristic of the use, and I would support that as a finding that it meets A. Okay.

Anyone else? Mr. Robert— Mr. Hale. I would just say that if we're going to say that, we need to keep that in mind for a lot of the cases that come before the board. And I— that could be perfectly valid reason, but we need to make a mental note of that going forward because it happens a lot.

Mr. Norris, anything?

Yes, Chair, thank you. Uh, I will be supporting this motion. Uh, the point about the structure being in and of itself a physical consideration, I think, holds merit, but I also do agree that we need to be careful with it. But I recall a recent case in Girdwood where where a deck had been constructed in the setback and it had been there for quite some time and everyone agreed that, you know, ripping it out would be worse than leaving it there. And if a deck meets that standard, then surely a structure of this type that's been there that long would meet it as well.

So noted, and I will be supporting.

Mr. Romerdaal.

Anything? Yes, through the chair, I tend to agree with the comments of the other board members supporting the motion based on the extraordinary circumstances related to the physical structure. So I intend to support the motion.

Okay, then I guess it's my turn.

I believe that the extraordinary physical circumstance for this particular lot is the fact even though it looks basically square, rectangular, it does have 3 frontages. It has frontage on Tudor, it has frontage on the back alley, and it has a frontage on Grape Street. And with these 3 frontages, it— It's unlike any other land in the general area. And so that A and B are then substantially met.

And that's it.

So if there is— Are there any further discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, if we are ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of the motion to grant a variance to— to grant a dimensional variance to allow the existing one-story shop to encroach 2.1 feet into the 5-foot secondary front setback at Grape Street. 8.2 Feet into the 15-foot side setback at the alley and a 0.7, which I believe is quite de minimis, at the east— eastern side setback, subject to Conditions 1 and 2 shown on pages 5 of staff report.

So a yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Norris, how do you vote?

Yes. Mr. Romerdaal?

Yes. Thank you.

There are 6 yes votes, no, no votes, and so the motion passes and the variances are granted.

Moving on to the next case, case H2, case 2025-0043.

Applicant is Elizabeth Morgan.

Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On May 19th, 2025, the Planning Department mailed a total of 120 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-02H Notice. As of this writing, the Planning Department has not received public comments. The Turn again, community council did not provide comments on this case.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, we'll continue on and make a note that Mr. Bennett has recused himself from this case and is no longer in the room. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Elizabeth Morgan is requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal Code, AMC 21-06-020, Table 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, to allow the existing structure, including a roof overhang greater than 2 feet in depth, to encroach 10.6 feet into the 20-foot front setback. The 20-foot front setback is a requirement of the R-1A zoning district. According to municipal records, the original structure at 3414 Iliomna Avenue was built in 1968, just a few years after the '64 earthquake.

Prior to the '64 earthquake, Iliamna Avenue and McKenzie Drive were platted and constructed rights-of-way. After the earthquake, both streets in front of this parcel were destroyed and never reconstructed. There are no current municipal projects or plans to reconstruct this portion of Iliamna Avenue. Turnagain residents currently use this right-of-way as a footpath for recreation. This property currently takes access from Iliamna Illyomna Avenue, which terminates at the eastern property line.

In 2009, the property owner hired architect Mark Ivey and contractor Jeff Wood of Woodwork Homes to remodel the existing structure. A plot plan generated by Shane Holt at that time demonstrated appropriate setbacks for the proposed remodel. The project proceeded based on these measurements. In 2025, the owner recognized the building permit had never been closed, and as-built created by S4 Group exhibited a discrepancy between the original site plan and the as-built, resulting in the recognition of a 4.9-foot encroachment of the structure and a 10.6-foot encroachment of the roof overhang, both into the 20-foot front setback. The effect of granting this variance will allow building addition completed 16 years ago to remain in place.

There is no anticipated adverse effect on the surrounding properties. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. Standard A is not met. There are no exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property. There are no streams, wetlands, or slopes applicable to this property or the surrounding land in the same zoning district.

This property is located within seismic zone 5, very high ground failure susceptibility. Standard B is not met. There are no exceptional physical circumstances that create an undue hardship upon the property owner. A designer and surveyor used creative design to incorporate the unique characteristics of the 1966 structure and orientation on the lot when hired to design the addition in 2009. A single-family structure is a right commonly enjoyed by surrounding properties in the R-1A zoning district.

Standard C is met. This hardship is not self-imposed. The property owner followed the required steps to to acquire a building permit for the addition. She hired professionals to design, construct, and survey the addition. In 2025, there was a discovery that the original 2009 building permit had not been finalized and closed out.

The property owner arranged for the creation of an updated as-built and found the encroachments into the front setback. The variance for this structure does not merely constitute an inconvenience for the property owner. Standard D is met. This structure has existed in this location since 2009. There have been no complaints from the adjacent property owners to date.

Regarding this encroachment. The Planning Department has not received public comments or Community Council comments for the variance request. The right-of-way, Iliamna Avenue, closest to this encroachment is not constructed, and there are no known projects or plans to reconstruct it. Standard E is met. This variance does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located.

The addition constructed in 2009 aligns with the overall purpose and goal of the code, even though it does not perfectly match the exact definition. The intent of this encroachment is to achieve a desired architectural and safety outcome. Granting this variance does not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the R-1A zoning district. Standard F is met. These encroachments within the front setback to date have no known impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality.

Standard G is met. The standard is not applicable to single-family residential development. Standard H is met. This is the minimum variance that will allow the property owner to retain the structure that has existed in this location since the remodel and addition in 2009. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 25 of your staff packet.

There were no objections to the encroachment into the front setback. The department finds that Standards A and B are not met and Standards C, D, E, F, G, and H are met. Therefore, the department must recommend denial of the variance. If after a public hearing the board finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to conditions 1 and 2 found on pages 4 and 5 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff, uh, by the board? Mr. Lang, uh, through the chair, to staff, on page 9 of the staff— or 19 of the staff packet, there is a topo that's provided, and there is only one contour that's labeled on that topo. Is that— is that the slope behind the lot? And can you characterize that?

Is that a gentle slope? Are these 1-foot contours? Are we looking at 5-foot or greater contours here? Through the chair, Mr. Lang, the average slope— it's on page 1 of your staff packet— is 6%. The majority of that lot is pretty flat until you get to the northeast corner where McKenzie and Iliamna come together.

That's where the— that's where most of the slough-off happened in the earthquake.

Uh, Mr. Hatchery, thank you. So, so you say the average slope is 6%, but that's the average across the whole lot. On page 18, there's an old as-built that's provided, and there's a fence line that's shown. Is that approximately the top of the slope, and then it drops off from there? Through the chair, Mr. Lang, that would be a question for Ms. Morgan.

I'm not 100% positive. And, and do you happen to know what the contour interval is on the— on page 19? I believe they're 2 foot. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, sure, Mr. Norris. Yes, uh, I was just wondering, so it— just so I can get a better understanding of the sequence of events here, it seems like the, the property owner hired professionals to design the remodel they hired a professional to construct it. And it, it seems to me— and, and please correct me if I'm wrong— that they trusted these professionals to do their jobs, and then they constructed it in a way that didn't necessarily meet what had been approved. Is that accurate?

Through the chair, Mr. Norris, that is correct.

Thank you. No further questions, chair.

Anybody else?

Okay. Then will the applicant please come forward?

Do you have any questions of staff? Okay. Then please present your case. Okay. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah. Um, so I'm Elizabeth Morgan, and, um, thank you for allowing me to present this case. It was never my intention to be here. I was never trying to do any sort of nefarious activities. Um, just to reiterate what's already been said, um, I hired architect Mark Ivey and contractor Jeff Wood of Woodwork Homes to help me remodel a home on the end of Iliamna Avenue.

We followed all regulations. We obtained an ASBIL prior to construction that was approved. And to my knowledge, that's what was followed. We, of course, received our certificate of occupancy, and I've been living in blissful idiocy for the last 16 years, I guess. My children left.

I'm now thinking about selling my home and came to discover that there were permits that were still open. At that point, I did get— there was a requested as-built, which I obtained from Mr. Bennett of S4, and that's where the discrepancy, I guess, exists between the original as-built and what was actually constructed, which is why I'm here. Um, to address specifically, um, A and B, which were the issues not met— for A, I think my lot represents an exceptional circumstance in that, um, as already stated, even though Iliamna and McKenzie were platted to be the front setbacks on my lot after they were obliterated after the earthquake, they've never been reconstructed. So, um, my lot is quite different to the surrounding lots in the neighborhood for that reason. Um, I'm not quite sure how to address Part B because I don't quite understand it.

However, um, it would be an undue hardship to have to reconstruct this house that's already been there for the last 16 years. On that northeast corner, the northeast corner allows me to have an area where— for storage and garage storage for my car and other items. But I'm happy to answer any questions that perhaps would allow me to meet the standards for B if I could further understand what those might be. Thank you. You have 7 minutes and 26 seconds for rebuttal.

Are there any questions of the applicant, Ms. Morgan, by the board? Mr. Hale.

Thank you to the chair. I had a couple questions. One is the fence location on the south boundary. Is that still the original fence? I mean, it looks like it moved between these as-builts.

Has that fence been replaced since the original as-built in '09? Let's see.

On the south side. So your backyard and your fence in the back, did you guys rebuild that thing? No, that's always been the same. I mean, yes. Yes, I did rebuild the fence, but it stayed on the same line as it did before.

So in '09, is that the same fence as this current as-built survey? To my knowledge, it is. I was wondering why they're in such different locations. And that's my next question, is if you look at the plot plan from '09, Shane Holtz I don't know if you notice this, Mr. Lang, but he's got a— the original structure, the part that was added to but hasn't moved, that northeast corner is 29.2 feet. He's got the addition 10.5 in there, which puts you right at 20 at your northeast garage addition.

And then you hop up here to today And they've got it basically at 15 plus or minus. Now that looks like it's to the overhang, but I'm wondering why that's to that structure is not 20. That seems like maybe it's not right.

I had, I had a similar question. Again, I'm not a professional at these, so I don't know what I'm looking at. What do you think about that, Mr. Lay?

Through the chair, Mr. Hale. Yeah, there is— there do appear to be significant differences between the as-built that was used for design and for the permitting and the as-built of the final location of the structure. The reason I wonder about all this is if that's the original fence, it sure is in a different location now than it was. And these dimensions don't really add up. I would expect Mr. Holtz and Mr. Bennett's surveys to match.

You know, surveyors use different means, but you know, we're all plus or minus a tenth or two for the most part. It shouldn't be 5 feet different. And that overhang in the front on the north side of— for the garage is that, is that like a 2-foot overhang? Do we know? Through the chair, Mr. Hale, it's more than 2 feet.

I don't know if you can actually tell from Ms. Morgan's photos on page 22. I was just looking at the scale of this thing. Yeah, so you can kind of see the post, and then there's the angled post with the roof. So that's kind of like it's a protruding covered overhang from the garage door. It comes east.

22. I can— can you see sheet 22? Yeah, that's—. Look, it's looking west. So you're right where the picture is taken at.

It's at the end of the constructed Iliamna. The trees and the sign are where Iliamna should be.

I'm just looking at Mr. Bennett's as-built, and it looks like on the north side that, uh, overhang—. Yes, if you look at sheet 17, the dashed line is the overhang, right? And you can see that it's, it's substantial. It comes out quite a bit from the structure. So we've got an even overhang.

What's our—. What's the So through the chair, Mr. Hale, eaves can protrude up to 2 feet into any setback. Anything over 2 feet's then considered part of the structure or to be measured from an eave or an overhang. Yes. Would you like me to find that in— what title?

I know what you're talking about. I'm just— I'm caught up with the difference between overhangs and eaves, I guess. Yeah. So, so So a bay, a bay window, a bay in a structure, any kind of architectural, like, protrusion or design onto the exterior, any of those things can protrude up to 2 feet into any setback. Okay.

It's once you get past 2 feet, then it starts counting. And so the overhang of the roof is more than 2 feet, but it can only be 2 as well. Correct. So anything over 2 feet is extending past. The reason I, I ask about all this stuff is just looking at the fence, if that's the original fence, I have a hard time believing that surveyors would have that much of a difference.

And I think it would affect this, these dimensions. So as you're asking for a variance and it's very specific to 10 points, you know, whatever feet, that would change if that number was wrong.

So if we were to approve it and that number is wrong on the as-built, we're approving something that's not correct.

I don't know, you— what do you think, Mr. Lang? I'm flounder in here. I, I agree. I agree with that assessment. And now that I, I look closer and compare the two different as-builts, if you look at the, the older as-built, there appears to be much more than 20 feet on the west side of the lot, and Mr. Bennett's as-built has that at 13.6 to the structure.

So there's something amiss between the two different as-builts. Yeah, and the original, Mr. Holt, I don't see any monumentation, and looks like Mr. Bennett did have monumentation, so I mean, it looks like the boundary was established well.

So I don't know what the difference is, and I'm thinking, you know, if this gets approved, we're dealing with dimensions that I don't— I don't know how accurate they are.

Through the chair, Mr. Hale, I requested to speak anyways. The other thing too on the 2009 that you'll note is there's no dimension to the south or to the west property lines, and the setbacks are incorrect. So because it's a corner lot, Iliamna is the primary, McKenzie would be the secondary at 10, not 5 on the 2009, if you're looking at the 2009. And then it would have all side yards 5 feet, no rear yard. But it is interesting that there is no dimension to the south or to the west on the original And I, and I did notice the how much closer it is to the west side, to the west property than what the original did.

That was very— all the other dimensions look accurate as far as I can tell. The, the lengths all match up pretty, are pretty close within, like you said, within a, you know, tenth of a foot from what Mr. Holt put on here and what's showing on Mr. Bennett's. And I drew it up real a quick in CAD and I threw it in there and moved it around, and it sure looks like that garage addition is right at 20 feet, right?

Take into account also, Iliamna is not constructed. It's not, you know, it's not like it's that— it is close to the property line, I get that, but it's not— there's nobody driving by it. There's no—. Yeah. So is it okay if we were to approve it, you know, find a way to approve it, say there's exceptional, uh, then we're dealing with approving dimensions that may be larger than necessary.

Is that an issue? No. Okay, so they'd have room to expand more? They could, but I don't think— I don't think Miss Morgan wants to do that. I think she just wants to get her variance so she can close her— close her permit that's been open for 16 years without without knowing about it.

And then the last question I had was, in the Holt survey— this is a lot of survey talk, I apologize— uh, he actually had the overhang on the east side cut off right at that 20-foot, and they just— they didn't cut it off apparently when they constructed it. Did anybody talk about that, or did they just kind of build it that way? I'm asking the petitioner this. Yes. So, Miss Morgan, they— if you look at the 2009, I would assume it's because of constructability.

It would have created a weird roof angle, but that's just my opinion. Yeah.

Do you remember any conversations about cutting off that big overhang on the east side there? Because when, when Mr. Holt, when he did his survey on page 18, he had that go up and end right at that 20-foot line. Mm-hmm. Here, it didn't get built that way, and I'm just curious if you guys had conversations about that. So was—.

What was the reason instead of cutting the roof to match that line? Because now it is just square. Do you remember having a conversation about that with your builder as to why that happened? Okay. No, sorry.

Okay, sorry, sorry, just trying to gather information. I don't know how these things unfold. I just got to ask about it when I see stuff.

I think I have no more questions. Okay, anybody else? Mr. Lang? Okay.

Or do you have any— let's see, Ms. Morgan, do you have any Questions? No, the other way around. Are there any questions to the applicant by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Okay, then thank you for your— is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2025-0043?

Anyone at all? Okay. Um, staff, anything more to say? Uh, I don't believe so, Madam Chair. I think we've covered most of the concerns or the questions, especially with the surveys.

I'm glad, uh, Chair— uh, Board Member Hale and Lang are taking account of those and, and really studying those because those are a very critical part of this variance.

And Ms. Morgan, do you have anything else you want to add? Do you You have 7 minutes.

You don't have to. I would just summarize that it was never my intention to do anything wrong, and hopefully we can resolve this and allow me to close out these permits. Okay. Thank you.

So the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Lang.

I move in Case 2025-0043 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC 2106-020, Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards, Residential Districts, to allow the existing structure, including a roof overhang greater than 2 feet in depth to encroach 10.6 feet into the 20-foot front setback, subject to Conditions 1 and 2, as shown on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. And seconded by Mr. Hale.

So it has been moved and seconded to grant variance to allow the existing structure, including a roof overhang greater than 2 feet, to encroach 1.6 feet into the 20-foot front yard setback.

Mr. Lang, would you please speak to your motion? Through the chair, uh, yes, I tend to intend to support my motion. As far as findings, uh, it appears that with this case it is an exceptional circumstance that, uh, the original design relied on potentially relied upon errors in the survey, and I find that pretty extraordinary of a circumstance. And again, I tend to support the motion.

Mr. Hale.

Thank you to the chair. Uh, I agree with staff findings for a Or what is it? C, D, E, F, G, H. As far as A goes, I find that, you know, the earthquake disrupted a lot of things over there on the west side. And the fact that they didn't reconstruct these roads to meet really limits the accessibility on this particular parcel since it's a corner lot. So this house was obviously positioned positioned in a certain way, and you can't move it around too much, and really, the entrance is fixed.

So I think that that extraordinary circumstances of not having complete construction around the parcel makes the Standard A met substantially, and I think that it would be an undue hardship to say that she needed to move the driveway or reconfigure that somehow to roads that aren't built. So I think B, the standard, is also met.

Any further discussion? Mr. Norris? Mr. Romerdaal?

Hearing none, if we are ready for the question. The question is on adoption of the motion to grant a variance to allow the existing structure to encroach. A yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Norris, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Romerdaal? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, there are 5 yes votes, there are 0 no votes, and the motion passes and the variance is granted. Thank you.

So moving on, the next case is Case 2025-0048. Jonathan Harnack is the petitioner.

Mr. Lang has recused himself, and Mr. Bennett is back.

So will the staff Please describe the notice given in this case.

No, there you go. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. On May 19th, 2025, the Planning Department mailed a total of 219 public hearing notices following the procedures of the Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 3, Section 0.020.H, Notice. The Department did not receive any public comments at the time of writing.

The Spinard Community Council did not provide comments on this case.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in the case?

Seeing and hearing none, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. Jonathan Hornack, the owner of 2105 West 74th Avenue, is requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 6, Section 0.020.B, Table 21.06-1, the Table of Dimensional Standards, to allow the entrance of an existing single-family dwelling and an existing porch to encroach And please note a correction: 1.2 feet of the Arctic entry into the front setback along West 47th Avenue. The subject lot is zoned R-1, single-family residential district. The primary front setback is 20 feet, and because the entrance of the— because the deck is less than 30 inches high and because there is no garage, The minimum required setback is only 15 feet for this parcel.

Please note that that was not originally included in the staff report, but is— can be verified by my colleague Paul.

And the history of the site is as such: on February 14, 2025, the owner applied for a building permit to perform internal electrical and mechanical outfits and construct a back deck. Development Services zoning staff noted potential encroachments into the parcel setbacks— excuse me, parcel setbacks— and the owner applied for a verification of nonconforming status. The applicant received the verification of nonconforming status on February 26, 2025, in which zoning staff determined the encroachments into the front setback are not legal nonconforming uses. Zoning staff used dimensions provided in the as-built plans dated February 13, 2025, by Jonathan C. Lang to make the determination. The zoning verification of nonconforming use status states an addition was made to the south side of the home sometime between 1990 and 2002.

A deck was added to the addition sometime between 2002 and 2006. The addition on the south side of the principal structure encroaching 6.2 feet and the attached deck encroaching 10.4 feet into the required 20-foot south front setback at West 47th Avenue are not legal nonconforming structures and are in violation of Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 6, Section 0.020. The verification of nonconforming status initially noted that the porch encroachment of 9.6 feet is an error. The verification subsequently updated to reflect the 10.4-foot encroachment, and I am verbally amending my staff report to reflect the 15-foot setback, as there is no garage present for this parcel, and therefore the full 20-foot setback is not the standard for this parcel. To summarize, the addition of the principal structure and attached deck fall within the 15-foot front setback, and at the time of construction was after the zoning code came into effect.

Thereby resulting in the violation. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve this variance, the application must state, uh, with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 requirements. Staff found that Standard A is not met. The subject parcel is zoned R-1, a single-family residential district. There are no exceptional physical circumstances on the partial— on the subject parcel, including but not limited to streams, wetlands, or slope.

I find that Standard B is not met. As there are no exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances on the subject property, the strict application of the code would not create an exceptional or undue hardship on the property owner. A single-family structure is a right commonly enjoyed by surrounding properties in the R-1 zoning district. Staff finds that Standard C is partially met. The current owner purchased the property with the encroachments.

The verification of nonconforming status confirms the construction of the addition on the south side of the principal structure and the deck to be sometime between 1990 and 2002 and 2002 and 2006, respectively. Jonathan Hornack, the owner of 2104 West 47th Avenue LLC, bought the property on October 20th, 2024, according to warranty deed 2024-029203-0, after the previous owner had constructed the addition and deck. The variance for this structure does not merely constitute an inconvenience for the property owner.

Staff finds that Standard D is met. If granted, the variance will not adversely affect any of the adjacent properties. Neighboring property owners will retain the ability to make full lawful use of their land should the board approve this variance. This variance is to permit an encroachment that has been in place for approximately 20 years. Staff finds Standard E is met.

The requested variance will not change the character of the R-1 district in which the subject parcel is located. The intent of the R-1 District, per Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Chapter 4, Section 0.020.B.1, is, quote, primarily for detached single-family residential areas to have well-developed infrastructure and municipal services. The requested variance will not affect the use of the principal structure as a single-family dwelling. Granting the variance does not permit a use that is not otherwise allowed in the R-1 District. Staff finds Standard F is met.

It does not appear that the existing encroachment into the front setback will result in any negative impacts on the health or safety of the people of the municipality. This encroachment will not affect any public facilities, utilities, or environmentally sensitive areas. Staff finds Standard G is met, as this standard is not applicable to single-family residential development. Staff finds Standard H is met. The variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that would make possible— that would make possible a reasonable use of the land.

The applicant is not proposing to increase the structure or deck, meaning the variance requested is the minimum variance that would be possible to make reasonable use of the land.

Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 31 of your packet. There were no objections to the encroachment into the front setback from reviewing agencies. The department finds Standards A and B are not met, Standard C is partially met, and Standards D, E, F, and G— G and H, excuse me—. Are met. Consequently, the department recommends denial of the proposed variance.

If after the public hearing the board finds all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to conditions 1 and 2 found on pages 4 and 5 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Ben, through the chair, so the front of the house exists in the front setback currently, not just the deck but the building? That's correct.

And they have legal nonconforming for that already? No, they have legal nonconforming for the side setback. Side. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Will the applicant please come forward?

State your name again. Jonathan Hornak. Do you have any questions of staff? No, no questions of staff. Okay.

Then please present your case. Okay. So crossing the easy ones off, D through H, I agree with. It's all compliant. Item A, it is not applicable to the project, to the property.

There is no wetlands, no streams, no slope. It's a flat lot.

The—. So that one is pretty hard to meet.

The addition on the front of the house that carries the only staircase in the house was built in the '90s. This was 3 or 4 owners ago, so that was a correction. The prior owner that I bought the house from did not build that entrance. And so I bought it as a foreclosure, or from a person that bought it as a foreclosure, did no updates to the house. And so there was no as-built when I purchased the home.

There was no known issues in my knowledge of setback conflicts. The front front porch was actually 8 to 10 feet wider than it currently is. It was rotted out and, and destroyed, and I asked the prior owner to put at least a landing there prior to me taking ownership. So I have shrunk the encroachment and the setback by 6 to 8 feet.

The— on to Item B, I would encourage undue hardship to be incorporative of cost of construction. As I pointed out in my packet, I do this for a living. I, I do large-scale commercial construction as, as my career. To relocate the front entrance of this house would be requiring to relocate the front— the only staircase in the house. You're looking at $50,000 to $100,000 of work to redo and re- format the entire house.

Um, on top of that, there is no, no, no good location to put this stairwell into, um, either the kitchen or the bedrooms, um, currently. So the front entrance as it is is the only logical place. Um, it was built 30-plus years ago, um, and has been that way for a long time. Um, in addition to that, The— there are 14 houses on the street that are equal or closer to the street than this property, and the— I don't feel like it should be punished by not being granted the variance.

Okay, you have 7 minutes and 26 seconds for rebuttal.

Are there any questions of the applicant by the board members?

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public wishing to testify in case 2025-004? 8. Anyone at all? All right.

Does the staff have anything additional?

Um, I do not.

Does the applicant wish to say anything else? Nope. All right, then the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Hale.

Can you guys see the motion to approve, Paul? Are the numbers correct in that?

Through the chair, they are, Mr. Hale. Oh no, they are not. Thank you. It should read existing family dwelling, so the porch shouldn't be included. Sorry, Lori.

And the structure's encroaching 1.2 feet into the 15-foot front setback. Did you guys unders— did the board members understand how that comes about? It's a 15-foot setback, right? It's a 20-foot front setback, but code allows if you do not have a garage to encroach 5 feet into that 20-foot front setback, basically creating a 15-foot front setback. So then we've got existing dwelling, 4.5-foot porch to encroach 1.2.

Okay, yep, you just fixed it. He fixed it. And what's the—. But the 15, right, required 15.

1.2 Feet and 10.4 feet. What's it—. You don't need the 10.4, sorry, Lori. So it's just 1.2, correct, into a required 15-foot front setback? Yes.

I know how you— I know you're typing frantically, Lori. You're fine. There you go.

Awesome. Thank you for catching that, Mr. Hamm. So existing single-family dwelling. Um, so here we go, let's see if it sounds right. Okay, I move in case 2025-0048 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC 21.06.020, Table 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, to allow a portion of the existing single-family dwelling and the 4.2-foot-wide existing porch to encroach 1.2 feet into the required 15-foot front setback, subject to Conditions 1 and 2 as shown on Pages 4 and 5.

And are those Conditions 1 and 2 also need to be updated?

So we'll say, uh, subject to Conditions 1 and 2 as modified. Thank you, Mr. Hale.

And Mr. Bennett seconds. So, um, Mr. Hale, would you please speak to your motion? Yes, thank you, through the chair. Uh, I agree with staff's conclusions on conditions D through H. Regarding Condition A, I believe the big limiting factor on this property is the lot itself, the size. It's not necessarily topography, but the size of this lot.

It's narrow and deep, and that really limits the ability to place structures and whatnot. So they've put this thing in about as good a spot as they could. Back when they built it. And I think that the limiting— the extraordinary physical circumstances is the small size of the lot that really limits what you can do there. So I think that that is the extraordinary physical that allows that standard to be met.

And I also think that this, you know, in Alaska, an Arctic entry is a right, commonly held by most people. Everybody likes them, so you can take your boots off. So I think to not be able to have an Arctic entry in Alaska is an undue hardship. And so I think that by disallowing that, that would be an undue hardship on the property owner. And so I think that Standard B is met as well.

And for these, for C, for not self-imposed, the owner purchased it with the encroachments in place. So obviously it was not imposed, self-imposed by them. So I think Standard C is also substantially met.

Mr. Bennett, I'd just like to add that 219 notices were mailed and there were zero community concern, and I agree with the previous comments on the conditions. Thank you. Any further discussion?

Mr. Norris, you good?

No, no, ma'am. Mr. Romer, doll.

I'm good. Then if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of the motion to grant a variance to allow the existing single-family dwelling and porch to encroach 1.2 feet into the required 15-foot front setback. A yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Norris, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Romerdaal? Yes. Thank you.

5 Yes votes, 0 no votes. The motion passes and the Variance is approved. Thank you.

Want to bring John back?

Next case is case 2025-0053. Uh, Nolan Withers is in attendance. Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On May 19th, 2025, the planning department mailed a a total of 93 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-020H notice.

The Rabbit Creek Community Council provided comments in favor of granting this variance. This can be found on page 26 of your staff packet.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none. Will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. Now Lynn Withers is requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 2106020, Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, to allow a proposed accessory structure to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot front setback within the R-6 district. According to municipal records, The construction of the original structure at 3700 Dora Avenue was in 1980.

Ground slope and standing water at the lower end southeast corner of the lot dictated the structure's location and development of this property. The construction of a detached 40x40 shop garage will allow the owner to securely store vehicles, boats, ATVs, and snow machines that are currently throughout the property under tarps. Initial investigation by the property owner into the possibilities of building a shop garage in a large open area on the lower southeast quadrant of the property exposed significant hurdles in that the water table is at ground level and a large amount of fill, 1,500 to 2,000 cubic yards plus, would be required to make the site functional after the removal of poor soils. Location of the proposed structure in the northwest corner will allow navigation of vehicles, trailers, in combination with the current yard and driveway configuration. If the proposed structure were to be built outside of the required property line setbacks.

The southeast corner would be approximately 30 feet from the corner of the existing house, encroach into the driveway to within 5 feet of an existing retaining wall, and restrict access to the existing garage as well as the backyard. If the board grants the requested variance, the distance from the southeast corner of the proposed structure to the existing house would be approximately 55 feet and minimally encroach into the driveway for better navigation of truck and trailer combinations. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners appeals to to approve the variance, the applicant must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards.

Standard A is met. There are no mapped wetlands or streams, and the slope of this lot is moderate. However, groundwater in the southeast corner of the lot and the septic field in the northeast corner of the lot both create exceptional physical circumstance that reduce the buildable area and locations to build this accessory structure outside of the required setbacks. Standard B is partially met. The physical circumstances of this property and strict application of this code create a hardship, but not an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner.

Reducing the size or locating this proposed structure outside of the setback would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the R-6 district. An accessory structure is a right commonly enjoyed by surrounding properties in the R-6 zoning district. Standard C is partially met. This hardship is self-imposed. The property owner is being proactive in acquiring a variance to build a future structure, but the property owner should still utilize— but the property owner could still utilize the property without building the accessory structure.

It would be an inconvenience to not construct an accessory garage/shop. Standard D is met. This proposed accessory structure will maintain the 25-foot side setback from the property owner to the west. Granting this easement in the front setback will not adversely affect any adjacent properties. The right-of-way Dora Avenue is a 60-foot platted right-of-way with a 24-foot wide gravel section.

Standard E is met. This variance does not change the character of the R-6 zoning district. The proposed accessory structure aligns with the overall purpose and goal of the code even though it does not perfectly match the exact definition. The intent of this structure is for neat and secure vehicle storage rather than having these vehicles scattered throughout the lot. The new structure will create a more appealing and cleaner look to the lot and the neighborhood.

A detached garage shop is a use commonly enjoyed, and approval of the variance does not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the R-6 zoning district. Standard F is met. This encroachment within the front setback has no known impacts on the health, impacts the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality. Approval of the variance would facilitate location of the new structure outside of areas with groundwater, poor soils, or well and septic systems. Standard G is met.

The standard is not applicable to single-family residential development. Standard H is partially met. The minimum variance for this proposed structure is variable. The property owner could reduce the size/footprint of the structure or could move the structure to fit within the front setback setback or impact the front setback less than the requested 25 feet. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 25 of your staff packet.

There were no objections to the encroachment into the front setback. There was one comment from MOA on-site regarding the proximity of the chicken coop to the well shown on the as-built, but not related to the variance request. The department finds that Standards B, C, and H are partially met, and Standards A, D, E, F, and G are met. Therefore, the department must recommend denial of the variance. If after public hearing the board finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to Conditions 1, 2, and 3 found on page 5 of your staff packet.

I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance.

Are there any questions of staff by the board? Mr. Hale. Thank you, through the chair. Uh, you say in, in B that an accessory structure is a right commonly enjoyed by surrounding properties in this district. Is there a typical size in that that people typically enjoy in that district?

Through the chair, Mr. Hale, I'm glad you asked this wonderful question. So in large rural districts such as R-7, R-6, R-8, and R-9, you can have an accessory garage or structure that is 10% of your lot size, up to. So if you had an acre, you could have a 4,356 square foot garage. 40 By 40 is pretty standard. There are other— there are, of course, there's always ones that are bigger or smaller, but 40 by 40 is not an exceptionally large accessory structure for this lot size.

I hope that answers your question. It does. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any other questions?

Yes, Chair. Mr. Norris.

Yeah, through the Chair, I was looking at— I'm trying to get there. There in the request and background paragraph 3, it seems like There's an alternate sighting for the proposed structure, but it's inconvenient for backyard access. Is that— is that correct interpretation? Through the chair, Mr. Norris, it's not only— it's actually convenient to get to. The problem is the slope of the lot and groundwater in the area.

So the southwest corner of— southeast corner of this property has groundwater. It's not mapped wetlands. It's not a mapped stream. It just has— it's just susceptible to high groundwater. And in the northeast corner is the septic system.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Anybody else? We good? Okay. Will the petitioner please come forward?

State your name for the record, please. Now, Lynn Withers. Withers, do you have any questions of staff? I do not at this time. Okay, then will you please present your case, um, as presented by the staff over there I'm requesting a variance to build a shop garage that I might house my accumulation of vehicles and equipment.

Um, in regards to the exceptions that are on there, um, physical circumstances, item number B, um, The reduction in size, as the gentleman stated over there, what I'm, what I'm looking to build is a 30 by 40 or 40 by 40 building over there, which is within the realm of what's enjoyed by properties that surround me. To make it smaller, make it difficult. I mean, when you have trucks, trailers, and equipment, stuff like that, much smaller than that. Does not provide the room that I'm looking for. So, um, and then in regards to H over there, um, the variance has been, uh, provided to properties that surround me for various reasons, uh, right-of-way roads on two sides of the property would be reasons for two of them.

And one has a— is a variance that's built into a code for a large domestic animal facility that allows a 25-foot setback for a facility, which they have constructed and built within 25 feet of the property line. So with that in mind, I would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. You have 8 minutes and 0 seconds— or 8 minutes and 8 seconds of rebuttal time.

Are there any questions of the applicant by board members?

Mr. Hale.

Hi. Thank you. We appreciate you coming to the board before you built it. Most people come after. So we certainly do appreciate that.

I was just curious about the placement, how you guys came to this exact placement in regards to how far it needed to be from the existing house and whatnot. Placement of— okay. So you guys have it encroaching so far because you wanted adequate space. Between it and the house, and the house to allow access on the northwest or on the west side of the property over there. That's my access to the lower portion of the lot.

Oh, okay, okay. So you can't pull it south because that's an access area that cuts the driveway off and it shuts that off? Yes. Yep. Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?

Hearing and seeing none. Are there any questions of the applicant by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Right. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anyone in the public wishing to testify in case— 2025-0053, please come forward and state and spell your name for the record, please. My name is Jerome George. I happen to be a professional engineer, 39 years with the Department of Transportation, retired for 30, and you're probably all too young to remember me, but, uh, I understand your process and the reasoning for what you're doing. Uh, I live right next door to Mr. Mr. Withers. I have to use the road in front of Mr. Withers to access my home.

We're not in a road service area. We have to pass the hat. Some people contribute, others don't. Now, and I contribute to this road, others do not. The fire trucks, we have asked them to come down once a year to make sure the road is passable for the trucks.

We comply with what they ask every year, uh, and they haven't asked us in the last 10 years to do anything, but they come every year and we make sure that they can access all the properties on the road. So this has no impact on other traffic. The garbage truck can get down this road. It doesn't— this encroachment doesn't impact access to other properties.

We're not on a school bus route or anything else. It doesn't impact snow plowing. It doesn't impact— have any adverse impact on drainage.

Every neighbor that uses this road in the neighborhood has all signed a petition in favor of this variance. The community council has voted in favor of this uh, variance. Plus, it will improve the neighborhood. It shows that the neighbors are willing to invest in their community and improve their homes, which sends a message to potential buyers that this is a positive neighborhood willing to grow.

I would like to add one other thing. Megan is not here right now, but during my discussions with Nalin, he's been very supportive of Megan, saying what a professional and how helpful she was in making this happen for him. And I wish you as a committee would pass on to Megan, as a 39-year public employee, when the public compliments a government employee. It's an odd thing. And please pass on to Megan our appreciation for her help in making this all happen.

I'm available for questions. Any questions of Mr. George?

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public wishing to testify in this case?

Anyone at all?

If not, does the staff have any rebuttal?

I do not, Madam Chair. And does the applicant have anything further to say? No, I don't. Okay, hearing none, the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Hale. Thank you to the chair. I move in case 2025-0053 3 to approve a dimensional variance from AMC 21.06.020, Table 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, to allow a proposed accessory structure to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot front setback subject to Conditions 1 through 3 as shown on page 5 of the staff report. Thank you.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr. Lang. Mr. Hale, would you please speak to your motion?

Yes, thank you. I agree with staff on conditions A, D, E, F, G. And regarding conditions B, C, and H, there are quite a few different natural features that limit the development on this property, the groundwater, the septic drain location, which you also have to have a backup drain location, which I know from experience. And so you gotta keep all that space clear over there for that in the future. There's also the access issues on the west side. So it sounds like the placement of this garage is exactly where it can go.

So I think that the physical circumstances are completely met, and for B, condition B. Condition C, the odor is not, it's not self-imposed. He didn't create this problem with groundwater, contours or where the septic field needed to go. That was all a natural thing, so it's not self-imposed at all. So I believe that C is also substantially met.

Uh, regards to Condition H, I think the minimum variance to make this reasonable use includes the fact that 40-foot by 40-foot garage is a typical size and use that's commonly enjoyed by others in the same district, and it would be reasonable— a reasonable use. And so I think that allowing this variance would be a minimal variance to allow them to enjoy the same right as their neighbors. So I think that H is substantially met as well.

Thank you. Mr. Lang. Through the Chair, I concur with Mr. Hale's findings, and I would also like to say that the 25 feet sounds like it is typical of variances that have been granted in the area already. I intend to support the motion. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Mr. Romedahl? Mr. Norris?

Hearing none. If we are ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a dimensional variance to allow a proposed accessory structure to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot front yard setback. A yes vote will grant the variance and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Norris, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Romerdaal? Yes. Thank you.

There are 6 positive votes and 0 no votes, so the objection— let's see, the motion passes and the variance is granted. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay. Moving along, we have one more case.

This is case number 20250060. Petitioners are Ryan and Phillip Eastler, and the representative is Jeremy First is— and he indicates that he is in attendance.

Staff is temporarily out of order.

Sorry, Madam Chair, I feel like I'm a one-man show tonight. You are. Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. On May 19th, 2025, The Planning Department mailed a total of 101 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 21-03020-H, Notice.

As of this writing, the department had not received public comments. The Rabbit Creek Community Council did not provide comments on this case. Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing and hearing none. Will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. Brothers Ryan and Philip Eastler— I hope I said that correctly— are requesting a dimensional variance from Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 2106020, Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, to allow the existing single-family structure, covered deck, and ancillary structures to encroach 48.7 feet into the 50-foot rear setback. The R-6 district requires 50-foot setbacks from both front and rear lot lines.

The original single-family structure was built in 1953. An addition to the structure was built in 1969, and a garage was constructed in 1975. The first zoning regulations came into effect for this property on January 31st, 1974, with an area-wide rezone. The property owner at the time obtained a variance for the house encroachment of 48. 18.4 Feet into the required 50-foot rear setback.

On March 25th, 1982, Case Z-8231, the property owner established nonconforming rights for the garage encroachment of 18.7 feet into the required 25-foot east side setback. With a letter dated January 11th, 2007, in accordance with AMC 2112-040, nonconforming structures. After the 2007 nonconforming determination, Mr. Eastler built a small addition to the west side of the house and a roof over the deck and a greenhouse, all within the setback. The improvements were to keep weather elements out and to complete the deck along the structure. These improvements did not increase the encroachment closer to the north property line, but they avoided the nonconforming rights for the rear setback encroachment.

Brothers Philip and Ryan Eastler recently discovered the need for the variances after the passing of their father, Richard Eastler, who constructed the improvements They are seeking a variance in order to sell the property. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards. Standard A is partially met. The lot size is 1.14 acres, which exceeds the minimum lot area in the R-6 district by 0.25 of an acre. There are no streams or wetlands on the property.

The slope of the lot is generally flat, but there is some sloping topography in the north— northern section of the lot where all the structures are located. Kashwitna Kitana Complex and wetter Pioneer Peak silt loam— loam soils encumber a significant portion of the lot, as indicated on the soils map provided by the applicant. The original placement of the structure factored in the higher and more suitable ground for construction of buildings, also a private well, and and an on-site septic system serve the property, which are site physical constraints that limit the placement of structures. East 142nd Avenue is an undeveloped right-of-way that provides legal access to the lot. Physical access to the lot is from Dearman Road to the north through a 12-foot access easement.

The most affected neighbor by this encroachment is the lot to the east. There's approximately 40 feet separating the two garage/shop buildings. The space between the two structures and other homes is dense forest with mature trees and vegetation. Standard B is partially met. The R-6 district requires a 50-foot setback from the front and rear property lines.

While there is ample space elsewhere on the property to legally locate the structure, the poor soils and original placement of the house existed prior to the zoning requirements. The existing house had nonconforming rights before the minor building additions, which avoided the nonconforming rights. Removal of the covered decks recent addition would create an undue hardship on the property owners. The original house, decks, and garage enjoyed nonconforming rights or approval granted through the variance process in 1982. The logical, logical place for improvements to the decks and the 2017 12 by 16 addition were in the place where they already existed.

Certainly, these structures are common rights enjoyment on residential properties. The houses in the neighborhood have a rural character and are primarily primarily older stock— housing stock, there's a wide variety of different housing styles on the street, from split-level and ranch-style homes to self-built cottages and cabins. The physical circumstances of this property and strict application of this code create a hardship, but not an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner. Reducing the size or locating this proposed structure outside of the setback would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other— Standard properties in the R6— sorry, enjoyed by other properties in the R6 district. An accessory structure is a right commonly enjoyed by surrounding properties in the R6 zoning district.

Standard C is partially met. This property has nonconforming rights for the existing garage and an approved variance for the structure before additions after 2007. This hardship is not self-imposed by the current owners. This variance will memorialize the prior nonconforming rights and variance approval for the original structure while allowing the existing new additions of the enclosed deck and 12x16 constructed house addition to remain. This variance for the existing structure and new addition do not merely constitute an inconvenience for the property owner.

Standard D is met. Approval of the variance to correct the encroachment violation will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. There are no structure separation violations. Drainage and runoff do not appear to be issues. There have been no objections from the neighbors or from the Rabbit Creek Community Council.

Standard E is met. This variance does not change the character of the zoning district. The addition onto the existing single-family home and roof covering over the decks align with the overall purpose and goal of the code, even though it does not perfectly match the exact definition. The intent of these encroachments is to achieve a desired safety outcome commonly enjoyed by single-family residences. Approval of the variances does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the R-6 zoning district.

Standard F is met. These encroachments within the rear setback to date have been— have had no known impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality. The owner is seeking relief from the rear setback requirement in order to keep an existing single-family structure and greenhouse. Standard G is met. The standard is not applicable to single-family residential development.

Standard H is met. This is the minimum variance that will allow the property owner to retain the structure that has existed in this location since its construction in 1953. The previous property owner lost the legal nonconforming rights in 2007 when the 12 by 16 addition was built, but— and the decks were improved with a pitched roof. For this property, these encroachments are the minimum variance that will make it possible for a reasonable use of the land because all the structures put in place by the previous owner would need to be relocated elsewhere on the property to comply with, which is not realistic. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 33 of your staff packet.

There were no objections to the encroachment into the rear setback.

Reviewing agencies had no comment or, or were in support of granting the variance. The department finds that Standard A, B, and C are partially met, and Standards D, E, F, G, and H are met. Therefore, the department must recommend denial of the variance. If after a public hearing the board finds that all 8 standards are substantially met, then the approval should be subject to conditions 1 and 2 found on page 5 of your staff packet. I can answer any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner and the representative are in attendance.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff by the Board?

Seeing none, will the petitioner's representative please come forward?

State your name for the record. Hello, my name is Jeremy Hurst with 49th Surveilling and representing the Eislers here today to seek a variance to the dimensional setbacks. Do you have any questions of staff? None at this time. Okay, then please present your case.

I'd like to first start by reading a letter that was given to me by Ryan and Phillip Eisler, who are in Oregon, out of state. They inherited inherited the house after their father passed, uh, somewhat recently. Um, so they state, hello, my name is Ryan Eisler, and on behalf of my twin brother Philip and myself, I want to sincerely thank you for your time and consideration. On January 4th, 2024, Philip and I inherited our father's home. Our dad Rick was a builder by trade and a craftsman at heart.

He poured his passion into his property, turning it into a warm and welcoming home and a place filled with great memories. Whether it was building a wheelchair ramp for a family friend or researching every project to ensure quality and durability, he approached everything with care and purpose. It saddens us to part with the home, but our lives and work are based in Oregon. What brings us comfort is knowing that the buyers have shown such deep appreciation for the house, willing to wait 6 months because they love it so much, as our father did. It's a great relief to know it will be in good hands.

Thank you again for your time. So I guess you can tell that you obviously have a family who just, you know, really put their heart and soul into this house, and unfortunately it's now time for that to pass on to another family. But here to present the case, as the staff report indicated, I will not focus on conditions Conditions D through H, as they seem to be adequately supported in their adherence to the conditions for approval of the variance. So instead, I will focus on A, B, and C, which were stated as being partially met.

As you can see in the as-built that was in the packet there, the— let me get to it here.

The topography didn't scan very well in your copies. I apologize for that. The minor contours, the 1-foot contours, don't show up all that well, but the major 5-foot contours do.

So as you can see there, it's as it was described as being— I'm sorry— mostly flat. The mostly flat spot is the rear, or I guess technically the front front 3/4 of the property that fronts the 142nd Avenue, which is undeveloped. The rear of the property, which is really kind of like the front of the property because that is where they access it, there, there is a bench there that really is the only adequate place to construct. The soils map, which was included in the packet, indicates— you can see that there's two different soil types and over this property the Kishwitna, Kachatna soils, which is a complex and undulating soil, and then the Pioneer Peak soils, which is in that lower land. After consulting with a civil engineer and I asked about the suitability of construction on Pioneer Peak soils, and I was told that that is very, very, very poor soils to construct on.

So Mr. Eisler wisely put the house only place he could. Uh, he did, um, working with the, uh, the house as purchased and with the, uh, uh, legal non-conforming status, um, he didn't have much of a choice but in building that one addition there that is within the setback but within the property. So specifically addressing Condition A. Um, we believe that there are exceptional physical constraints on the land that require the need for the variance.

The poor soils that make up the most— properly— that make up the most— most of the property placed physical constraints in the location of any development. Most of the other lots in the neighborhood do not have to deal with such a high proportion of, of poor soils as this lot does. Uh, so I think that makes this lot fairly unique, uh, compared to other lots in the surrounding area. Um, and B, uh, because the physical constraints on the land mentioned above, it was not possible to build the houses or to have a house of the kind of the size that's commonly associated with other properties in this area, uh, in the area, at least the surrounding area, is single-family houses, typically occupied by families. Strict application of the code would render the owners unable to commonly enjoy their property like the owners of those surrounding properties.

And C, the physical constraint hardship is not self-imposed by Ryan and Phillip, and majority of them weren't even imposed by, uh, senior Eisler, uh, Ryan and Phillip's father. The main house, garage, shed, and smokehouse, and most of the deck was or should have been determined as illegal nonconforming status in the 1982. Satisfying the need for an additional space by adding the existing house was the only way in which the existing code was not strictly adhered to, but this encroachment of the addition was required to facilitate a home of sufficient size for a family. And again, was not done by the current owners of the property.

So with that said, I think, you know, the Islers are trying to do what's right and trying to get a house into conforming status and to make something that will be adequate for the next family to occupy and to raise their family. So with that said, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttals. A little more than 4 minutes. Are there any questions of the applicant by the board members?

Are there any questions of the applicant by the staff? No, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify?

In case 2025-0060. Okay, then does the staff have anything additional? I do not, Madam Chair. And the applicant, you have 4 minutes.

Okay, then the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

You can do it. Moved by Mr. Lang.

Through the chair, I move in case 2025-0060 to approve a variance from AMC 2106-020, Table 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards, Residential Districts, to allow the existing single-family structure, covered deck, and ancillary structures to encroach 48.7 feet into to the 50-foot rear setback subject to Conditions 1 and 2 as shown on page 5 of the staff report. Seconded by Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Lang, will you please speak to the motion? Through the Chair, yes, the— I believe that the standards are more than partially met. Looking at the as-built, there are no improvements there are no additions that could ever be added to this structure without encroaching, increasing the encroachment, because everything is entirely within that setback. And I, I see that as very extraordinary, and that's due to the poor soils in the area. With regards to Standard B, again, the, uh, the circumstances of the way the land is don't allow for anything to be done anywhere without a variance.

Standard C, the hardship is not self-imposed, again for the reasons I've cited. And I agree with staff's analysis of items D through H that the standards are met, and I do intend to support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

I agree with the stated standards, and I'll just add that the original house was built prior to code or zoning code, and there were no community concerns.

Any further discussion? Mr. Hale?

Mr. Norris, Mr. Romer, then if we're ready for the question. The question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow the existing single-family structure, covered deck, and ancillary structures to encroach 48.7 feet into the 50-foot rear yard setback, subject to conditions 1 and 2 shown on page 5 of the staff report. A yes vote will grant the variance and Yes and a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Norris, how do you vote?

Yes. Mr. Romerdaal? Yes. Thank you.

6 Yes votes, 0 no votes, and the variance is granted.

Okay, the end of public hearings.

So next item on the agenda, reports. Chair has no report. Secretary?

Through the chair. There is no meeting next month, but I may call a special meeting to approve the resolutions if they cannot wait a month. Okay. Thank you. No committees.

Board member comments? Mr. Flang.

Through the chair, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Hale's concerns about propriety and recusal, and I'm wondering I'm wondering if there's any specific standards or guidelines that we should be following as far as recusals. If there's, I don't know, who do we answer to ultimately? We're appointed by the mayor to perform this role, and we serve at the pleasure of the assembly, and I'm just wondering if there's any specific guidelines on that. There are.

Madam Chair, may I interject? Um, Maylee Sabab is coordinating currently with the ethics lawyer at MOA Legal to actually get all the boards and commissions additional training, so it's forthcoming, Mr. Lane.

Thank you. Basically, if it's bad or it looks bad.

Okay, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Hale moves. Second. Mr. Lang. Second. Without further comments, we are adjourned.

Thank you, Andrew and Jason. You're welcome. Thanks, y'all. Thank you, guys.