Anchorage Assembly: Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - June 11, 2026 - 2026-06-11 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the June 11th, 2026 meeting of the Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Brian Bennett.

Here. Craig Bennett. Here. Jason Norris. Here.

Jonathan Lang. Here. John Walaka. Here. Christopher Schrute.

Here. Andrew Romerdahl and Mark Maisley are excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.

First item on the agenda is— the second item on the agenda is minutes. We have minutes for Thursday, May 14th, 2026. May I have a positive motion for approval? Moved by Mr. Norris, seconded by Mr. Lang. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Is there any objection to approval of the minutes?

Seeing none, the minutes are approved and we move on to the consent agenda. Oh, wait a minute, sorry, special order of business. Are there any disclosures for this evening?

Seeing none, now we do the consent agenda. We have one item on the consent agenda, resolution for approval, Resolution 2026-008. And may I have a positive motion for approval of the consent agenda? Moved by Mr. Norris, seconded by Mr. Schuette. Is there any— does anyone want to remove the item from the consent agenda for further discussion?

Seeing none. Mr. Chair? Yes, I would. You're going to move it?

Yes. Okay, then I don't know what to do next. So with the, with the motion to approve, the item is before us, and I'd like to just have a discussion before a vote.

So there is no items left on the consent agenda, and now we have the resolution for approval for discussion.

Mr. Schulte. Yes, thank you. Sorry for making things complicated. I appreciate the resolution language. I just wanted to highlight for members a possible amendment I would like to make to the resolution, which is simply a criteria or condition 3 as it relates to the placement of the— or sorry, finding 3 as it relates to the placement of the home on the property.

I just wanted to highlight that because I— none of us really made that finding. That if I went back and looked at the meeting minutes and watched the recording again And it was an item that came up in discussion. It was shared by staff, but it was not a finding that any commissioner made. And more importantly, I think given the lengthy philosophical discussion we had about corner lots and what counts as side and back and this, that, and the other, I find that— sorry, no pun intended— I find that finding to be a little confusing. And if any other members feel that way, I would make a motion to amend the resolution just to remove it.

But if I'm the only one, then don't worry about me. Thank you. So you are going to make a motion and then we'll vote on it? Unless you all think I'm crazy, then sure, I will make that motion to strike finding number 3 in its entirety and leave the resolution with findings 1 and 2 intact. Okay, I will second.

It's been moved and seconded to strike the third finding from the resolution.

Any discussion? Hmm, who seconded?

Uh, Norris.

Chair, in reviewing things, I think I would be inclined to support Mr. Sciuti. He makes a good point that I missed, and thank you for bringing it forward. Any other discussion?

Zero. Any opposers? Do you want to vote? No. Is any opposition to the motion?

If not, the motion passes and the third finding is removed.

And so that's the end of that.

No one's ever moved anything. All right, uh, no appearance requests, no unfinished business. That brings us to the regular agenda. Chair, point of order, I believe. Oh, wait a minute, do we need to— now that we've motioned, you know, the amendment's passed, does— are we back to a main motion to approve?

Well, there's nothing— there was nothing left on the consent agenda. I meant the resolution itself.

Good.

Thank you.

So on the— why do we have this?

Tonight's going to be a little awkward, folks. All right, so we are now on the regular agenda, and we have Case 2026-0076.

And the petitioner is the municipality, and we have a representative here. So will the staff please just— was there— this wasn't noticed, or was it? Uh, this was posted to the municipal website. However, Uh, there was no mailed notice, which is the probably the most common notice this Commission receives because it's not tied to a specific property for one thing, and it's also not a public hearing. Okay, any objections to the sufficiency of notice?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case? Yes, thank you, Chair. Uh, so this— we are looking to amend Title 21 to make a text amendment. This is the, the draft AO we have currently, and we wanted to get feedback from this board while we're still crafting this AO. So sorry for some confusion on the logistics of how this would work, but Our thought was you could make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission since this would be a future public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to the Assembly as to the adoption of the AO.

Um, so what, what we've drafted here does 3 main things. So it increases the threshold for minor modifications. So those are essentially encroachments that the director can approve that don't go to this board. Right now, the threshold is a 5% encroachment. We sign off administratively and don't go to ZBA.

The proposal is to increase it to a 10— to allow a 10% encroachment to be signed off administratively. And then it also proposes amending 3 of the 8 review criteria. So for A and B, it makes it so you could consider other extraordinary circumstances that are not just purely physical. So that could be like a surveyor error, I don't know, some other extraordinary circumstances as the board sees that is not just a physical circumstance. I think that's been sort of a longstanding issue with finding those criteria met is that it's very tied to the physical property the way it's written now.

And then for Criterion G, that's the ADA accessible criteria. It's, it's reworded slightly where it just says that the, the variance would not adversely impact access or reasonable accommodation. It doesn't Uh, it just changes the wording slightly, so it lends you to find it met even if it doesn't apply to a single-family residence, is the idea. And then I'll note that this is still being reviewed by our legal department. Uh, we haven't sent it around for other reviewing agency review either yet, so this is an early version to get feedback from the board.

Um, so you can formally, with a resolution, say if you support this version as is, or if you'd like us to look at including additional changes, you could also do that. Uh, we have a recommendation for you to go into more open discussion. I believe that's committee of the whole is the, the motion you would make where It's so you wouldn't have to go into committee of the whole. It's so you could freely discuss this as you would in a work session, say, but you don't have to follow Robert's Rules. We thought that might make it easier to discuss any proposed amendment ideas or ask questions of staff, etc.

And then I'll clarify that this is not a public hearing, so there's There is not an opportunity for the public to testify at this point in time. There will be when it's a public hearing before the Assembly and Planning and Zoning Commission. But the— this is being streamed to YouTube and it's open to the public so people can observe your deliberations. So that's all I got. Thank you.

And I'm here to try to answer questions as best I can. And if I can't answer it or I don't know the feasibility of something, I will certainly note any ideas presented here to try to follow up upon them.

Any questions of staff?

Mr. Narms. Yeah, through the chair, good evening. I was wondering, in B1, the increase from 5% to 10%, what was the logic behind that? Is it because you saw a large number of potential minor modifications that would have been approved if it was 10%? Or was it that you felt that that was reasonable to ask for in one bite?

What went into that decision? Thank you.

Through the chair, this— I guess for one, it seemed like a reasonable increase. Um, I suppose we could go back and get some, some more hard data numbers to support that. So say how many went to a public hearing that we could have approved administratively. Uh, the zoning and land use manager, so, so they sign off for planning and all of the building permits. He actually, uh, came to me the, like, about a week ago, or maybe it was just a few days ago, and, and said that he was going to propose the change from 5 to 10%.

Um, because we haven't sent this around for agency review yet, he actually didn't know that I had already drafted that. So it, it made me feel confident that he was coming to the same conclusion because it's often in those building permit reviews that a lot of these encroachments are caught. Um, I will expand because I know there was an email sent to the board on potentially increasing that threshold even higher. Um, I could throw out another idea because I, I think this may have been an old Title 21 where there was like a— there was a foot limit. So because the setbacks vary by zoning district, so a 10% encroachment into a side setback of 5 feet, that's only— that's 6 inches.

Uh, whereas if it's, say, a 10% encroachment into a 25-foot front setback, that's 2.5 feet. So you could have something where, I don't know, you could say a 10% encroachment or 1 foot, um, or you could change it to allow a 1-foot encroachment. I, I don't know, just throwing out some, some ideas, but that's how we got to the 10%. Mr. Norris, you okay? Yeah, nothing further, thank you.

Probably we should go into a committee of the whole just to make things— so I don't have to call on people and we can just talk about this. So if I could have a motion. Move to go into the committee of the whole. And I'll second that. Got it.

Okay, so are there any objections to going into a committee of the whole? Seeing none, we're there. Talk. All right, well, I have things, I have things, and I'll start where Ms. Appleby left off. I believe that 10% might not be enough if we're going to move this and give the administrative— the administration leeway on these matters.

I feel that we may want to look at 20%. I would also be open to what Miss Appleby suggested, uh, in that it could be 10% or less than a certain number of feet. I might defer to some of the senior staff here, or senior members, to help determine where that's at. But that would be the first thing I'd like us to look at. And I try not to bring too much of my professional, like, Corps of Engineers into this, but when we're looking at modifications to projects, we're allowed a 20% deviance our deviation on the project before we have to go back to Congress to ask for permission to be further authorized.

So that kind of aligns with my professional experience, and so that's why I landed at the proposed 20. I'll stop there, but I have others.

I'd be curious, just like staff was talking about earlier, the The more data that we could get of, like, the distribution of cases where if it's a 6-inch, which would be a 10%, I think, or even 5, or up to 20, knowing what the distribution of cases that come in that are a 6-inch— say there's 10 6 inches, you know, and, and like 100, you know, a few feet into the setback, it seems like this change wouldn't really do much. But to know kind of the frequency of— or I guess the average encroachment, and then kind of make a decision. Based off that, because it seems like the intent is to kind of streamline the code a little bit. So that'd be good information to know.

I guess I'll just say— jump in and say noted. I will— I think that's a good idea that I can look into to bring back at a future meeting or incorporate into— I suppose maybe since this committee as a whole, interject and say You, you could also wait to— and Lori, please jump in if I'm, if I'm wrong— but you, you could also wait to make a formal— like, you could, you could make us come back with an updated draft basically as well, that, that you would adopt a resolution recommending. And I don't have a timing for when this would go to a public hearing yet, so I don't, I don't have a specific date in mind. I I think it would go at some point in fall, but I wasn't given a timeline for this.

I'd like to second the call for, uh, for some data. I think that's a good idea to get us some more information about how, how big the discrepancy is, how much, uh, how many of these minor modifications does the department grant, and then how many of those cases come to us.

And I don't know you would have any actual data points on how many people just abandon it at the, at the thought of having to come to us, because again, that's an additional expense. What actually, if I can ask you, what is— is there an expense for minor modification versus, uh, coming to the board? Uh, there is a fee. I'm trying to recall. I know it's a very low fee.

Um, if you're a single-family owner, it's $710 to come for a public hearing here, and And then it jumps up as you have more units. We did recently lower the fee if you're 4 units or below. For a while, if I'm remembering correctly with the update of the fee schedule, I think we were not charging anyone actually for the miner mod. And we recently added a fee that's, I wanna say like $130 or something like that. I can double check that really quick while you're talking actually.

Thank you. Yeah, that's a concern of mine is where do we draw that line and where is it really hurting people's wallets? Also, just to let you know, this is informal. You do not have to request to speak through this. You just speak up, Chris.

Thank you. Sorry, I'm using the— I just am impressed I know how to use the software. And look, there you are.

Thank you, Elizabeth. I actually had— sorry to distract you from your research. I actually had a question, more broad question, about 2103.120 minor mods. So Section 1 says that as part of the review process, basically the director, PCC, or UDC can approve minor mods. Nowhere later in that chapter does it address appeals, and so I was just curious, what is the appeal process?

So let's say Jonathan Lang takes a minor mod to Director Babb. Director Babb says, "I disagree with you." Where does he go from there? I believe it would be appealed to ZIBA because most administrative decisions are appealed—. ZIBA. Oh yeah, are appealed with you, sorry, yeah.

Yeah, okay, that, that was— I wanted to make sure that was, um, that was correct. And, and so thank you for that. Um, and then lastly, I, I will third the, um, plea for data. Data is always good to know. I, I know that, um, in looking back at agendas for the past several months, which I have a lot of spare time, I guess, um, I have done, and there's actually been a number of them that would have— if you applied the, for example, a 20% threshold instead of the 5% that existed at the time, we wouldn't— this group would not have seen many of those cases.

So it— I think it does have a material impact, which is exciting. For staff, one of the things that I'm interested in understanding better is if a— the minor mod language that is proposed, whether it's 10% or 20%, doesn't matter, but if the minor mod language proposed in here does go forward, there are a number of zoning requirements in, for example, Chapter 7 that already have baked into them additional flexibility and ways around some of the black and white written code. So I don't know if this creates an added wrinkle for some of the sections that have a built-in alternative compliance requirement or ability. But that would be something for us to ponder is if the threshold is increased, is— do those alternative compliance standards really apply at all? In other words, if we're creating increased flexibility on the front end, broadly that applies to multiple sections of a particular chapter, do those individual subchapter flexibilities need to be there anymore?

So it's just something to ponder, to think about as we consider this idea of opening up some of the broader macro-level limitations.

Thank you. And I'll note one other— Uh, or I'll just remind the board that the R-6 setbacks were changed recently because, because those used to have a 50-foot, uh, front and rear setback, and so those are reduced to 25. And we, uh, so that actually might take care of some of the, the 10-20% encroachments as well.

I'm just kind of thinking out loud here, uh, kind of to answer Mr. Schuette's question. Uh, in the design projects that I've worked on, it's rare that I asked— have asked for a minor modification. And I was going to ask Mr. Craig Bennett if— what his experience is anecdotally with that. Really rare, because usually that 5% is pretty small and Do you have a follow-up? Is how many of these minor mods, modifications, are applied for that are denied and approved?

Is there a percentage right now? And then say we went to 10 or 20 and that was approved, is there like a guess of like why would they be denied? I can answer that where I've never seen one denied. Because it's usually a pretty small encroachment.

I did some math on it just to kind of get a better idea of what it meant. And currently, for a 20-foot front setback, with the 5%, you get a foot. And with the proposed, you'd get 2 feet. And with Mr. Norris's, you'd get 4 feet as a minor mod. So it's just going to say that 20 is pretty significant.

The only minor mods that I've ever applied for were side yard. I, I assume you'd need the front and rear just as much, but the only ones I've ever applied for are side. And usually it's a 5-foot side yard, so we were looking at inches. Right. Bringing up something else from my experience is there is another mechanism that we also occasionally run into contact with here, and that's the nonconforming determination.

So my understanding is the nonconforming determination came into application after the original Title 21 was written in the 1980s, and it mostly applies to homes that were built before the '80s, that were built before there was zoning, uh, more specifically in the borough rather than in the city, because the city of Anchorage had zoning whereas the borough didn't. So, um, we see stuff that has been built since the '80s where zoning code did apply, and either there was a mistake or someone ignored it. And so the minor modifications generally apply to, to newer stuff rather than older stuff, or, or these slight variations that we've discussed that come up. But there is another revenue mechanism, and that is the nonconforming determination if the property is of a certain age. And I think specifically of neighborhoods like Nunaka Valley, which, you know, mass-produced houses, most of those are only at about 17 or 18 feet from the front setback.

So the 20% would apply there, but those homes are also of an age where they would qualify for nonconforming determination. And then—. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I have an anecdote about minor mods. I guess I'll just say, because they're pretty much never denied, I have seen where, like, some designers know that, and they'll intentionally design with the encroachment knowing that they can get approval with the minor mod if they— as long as they're below that 5%.

Yeah, I was just going to ask, and forgive my ignorance, which is easier for, say, Nenaka Valley to get? Is it a minor mod or is it non-conforming determination?

Yes, it would be kind of be which was cheaper. That's— I think that's part of it is the economics. Um, I believe non-conforming determination is around $250,000. And the problem with the new Napa Valley houses though is that rarely is it the original structure. Somebody's added on something, and therefore it may not qualify for the nonconforming determination because of the newer additions that happened after the code was put in place.

No, I appreciate that, and I'm certainly not trying to— you know, I enjoy all of your company, and I'm not trying to legislate ourselves out of a gig here, but I'm also trying to find what is, what is the threshold that really matters? Where, where is it worth the time and effort to bring it before the body? And, and the money, you know, is significant for a lot of people. And where does it— where would it really be detrimental to exceed? Because some of, some of these that come before us are fairly minor, and we all agree on that, and I I think that this board understands that things happen in the real world.

So I think that's where I'm trying to land here is, well, where's the line of it matters versus things happen?

Word. I think that first of all, that the difficulty in changing all this is that looking at the not the specific language of G and all the rest of it, but is in the purpose of the amendment where it says it's not to remove inconvenience or financial burden. And I think that all the discussions that I've heard about the cases that have been brought in the past year or so that I've been on the board, the vast majority have been about inconvenience and financial burdens. I don't— in terms of your data, I'd like to see the data presented in a way that has the difference between property lines and setbacks for what waste— for wetlands and lakes and streams. I think there's a difference between where you want the variances to be in regard to those things.

The last one was a surveying error, I think, is one of the examples, and I think that's Aren't setbacks tied to the property lines and not to other standalone institutions or developments? But I think there should be a difference in the recording of the data based on why the variance is being applied, particularly for wetlands and streams, as opposed to pure property varia— differentiations. Thank you. Um, I think the— I'll just jump in and, uh, yes, the dimensional standards are measured from the property line. So there's— those are the setbacks, and those are by zoning district.

And then there are also required setbacks for, uh, for streams and other water bodies, uh, that this board sometimes sees requests for encroachments on those as well, but those are totally different from property line setbacks. We see them both. I understand that, but there's setbacks in— for both of those characteristics. So if you're going to require— if we're going to develop data, I'd like to see that distinction between those two criteria. One is, uh, can be moved, property lines can be changed, etc., but Pretty hard to change the direction of streams.

But I think the main difficulty lies in the purpose, not the details of 5% and 10%. All right. If we're done flogging that, I have a couple others I'd like to jump into. The next one is in D1 and D2. Fairly minor, but it, it speaks to some concerns, uh, Vice Chair Lang has raised.

And all I'd like it to say is generally consistent and generally meets, just to give us a little flexibility. I think that would be appreciated. And then D1 and D2 are not us that are in here. Yes, those are the review criteria for minor modification. So that's— and we don't grant minor Yeah, so that's the criteria that the director uses in deciding whether or not— it does say the decision-making body, and that it— because it does say that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Urban Design Commission can approve minor modifications.

But, but usually I, I would only envision that if, if there was like a conditional use or something where it already had to go to a commission. It's otherwise— I've I've only seen these disapproved by the director. Yeah, that's my mistake. I'll drop it. Okay, is G2 us?

Yes, it looks like you had one for G2C, and that, that is you, uh, criteria for zoning board of examiners. Okay, I'm better now. The, the thing I would like to see in C, not to confuse things, is the hardship, and then strike everything and it says does not result from the actions of the applicant. Uh, the, the reason is we, when we have gotten wrapped around the axle on things here, a lot of times it was, well, what does self-imposed mean? By the purchase of the land, have they imposed it upon themselves, or Have they taken an action or an inaction?

And it, it seems like that has been nebulous enough to cause consternation. Then I'll just run through these. This last one is in 2E, and I would prefer to say the variance, if granted, skips that middle part and goes straight to is in keeping with the intent of the code. The reason for that is, and maybe this is a personal pet peeve of mine, the, the idea of neighborhood character or character of the neighborhood, uh, is so nebulous and arbitrary and often used as a cudgel against doing things that would otherwise be positive. And seen it time and again.

And so I would just prefer to not have that there. I offered those for the discussion in the group. I yield the floor. Don't look at me. Don't look at you?

Okay. Don't look at me. This is everybody. I'm looking at everybody then. Thank you.

I think I read your email and I read through G2, and I appreciate the perspective. I just wanted to highlight one thing, especially starting with 2C, the self-imposed. And I think that's an interesting proposal to strike. It creates a little bit of a language challenge given the way that the clauses are broken up in the— with the commas. And so I think that should be— we should figure that— it's wordsmithing, I'm sorry, but we should figure that out if the group wanted to make that recommendation.

But I actually— I would— I'm going to recommend against it. And the only reason I am is because I don't feel that something as arbitrary and simple as purchasing creates that self-imposed challenge. I do think that self-imposed— the language in here is designed to protect against Jonathan Lang building an illegal— sorry, John, I keep picking on you because I can see you. He knows full well what the setbacks are, and he built that addition anyway, and then comes to us and says, well, 'Geez guys, I, I really didn't know. I, I thought I had clearance to build this shed.' You have imposed that on yourself.

Um, I think there are enough relief valves in the process when it comes to what I would consider an honest mistake. So like a purchase, and we talked about one already, non-conforming letter is the easiest way to start with a property acquisition to make sure that the log cabin you buy is even though it is in the side setback, that the city says, yep, it was that way when you bought it, it's okay. So there, there are relief valves to satisfy that concern. So that would be the only— that would be the reason why I would, I would recommend against it. And if, if the group does want to strike that language, then we just need to fix the, the where the commas are and stuff.

And then secondly, the 2E comment about character. 100% Agree with the, uh, sort of fluidity of what character can mean. However, I would note that this talks about the character of the zoning district, and maybe this just illustrates your point, but when I read that, what I see is something that says make sure that a variance granted is not creating a situation where the general character of the zoning district is residential, but the variance that you've created has created a use that would technically be in conflict with that. Not necessarily the surrounding neighborhood, but, but the zoning district broadly that it's in. Um, I realize that is just as nebulous as saying neighborhood, but, but I do want to illustrate— I do want to highlight that, as you know, maybe we don't need to mess with that because that's looking at it at a more macro level and, and not a micro level.

Unless staff has—. If I can jump in with a comment on that, um, you know, we're only, we're only talking about dimensional variances. We're not talking about use variances. So your use example doesn't apply. You know, you're not going to create a toxic waste dump in the middle of a residence by a variance that we grant.

It's just not— that's not the, the way the code's written. So, so that wouldn't— that wouldn't— characterizing it as, you know, commercial use in residential zone would never would never be something that comes before this board. Good point. So given that recently we granted a variance for something that went all the way to the property line, it was zero separation between the two, um, that would think— I mean, I would think if a dimensional variance were going to alter a zoning district, that would have done it. Um, so I, I guess, does it even apply to anything we could grant if we— even if we determined we wanted to?

Could we even do it? Could we even violate the character of a zoning district with a dimensional variance?

That's all I have. I agree with The objections to the word character, and I think that, yeah, changing this to something that was more along the lines of the intent of the code versus the character makes more sense to me. Intent of the code, that's good.

And I guess from my perspective, I appreciate the points that, um, uh, the member, uh, Schuette brought. Um, some of these, I'm like, the self-imposed one, I guess I'm thinking, oh, I do need I would probably need some guidance from legal to like fully make sure. I'm almost leaning towards, Lori, if this won't— if you don't think this will screw up what we discussed before, I'm almost leaning towards wanting to just respond to the questions on the data and bring back a revised draft where I know I've gotten at least some kind of legal counsel as well so that I can more accurately depict what I think is possible for changing this or or what our advice from them is. I did look up the fees. I could see that could be useful to have written out for consideration of this.

Priya Mays will just state that the minor modification fee is $135, and then a nonconforming determination, it starts at $270, plus there's a $50 recording fee, so I'll just say it's really like $330 minimum. The fee for that can vary a little bit. And then the, the actual public hearing variances, it's $710. And then, uh, I navigated, um, my computer's asleep, but then it goes up to $1,370 up to a certain number of units, or that covers, uh, like sign variances or fence variance requests. And then it— there's all of their uses, so If it doesn't fall into the sign or, uh, the, the sign or fence height, um, which actually this commission probably doesn't see those because those are design variances.

But anyway, then it jumps up to about $4,000 basically. Um, but I think it would be useful to have those written out. I wrote some notes on, um, I can state the appeal process or other other options that are currently available in code, such as the nonconforming determinations. I can try to get some data on minor mods and I guess sort of the percentage of the encroachment and if it was in for an environmental encroachment or a setback, just to try to give more data to make the decision.

Let's see, those are my notes. I think this has been a really beneficial discussion, actually. I think I'm glad to have this, this input. So Elizabeth, would you want— would you recommend postponing it until you can come back with legal's input and what these members have discussed? Yes.

Yeah, and I think—. So would that be a month? I know I was thinking that. I don't know if— it might be too— let's see, because we're already June. I guess if it's not a public hearing, there's a possibility I could have this back in July.

I guess at the latest, the absolute latest I would want would be August. Um, if you don't—. Yeah, excuse me— if you don't get it, we just wouldn't put it on the agenda. Yeah, so you could do a date undetermined right now if you want to. Yeah, that would be my, my preference.

And then I'll try for sooner rather than later. And I, I think, um I think the director would be okay with that too, based on the, the questions and everything that we're discussing tonight, because it would be good to have that when it goes to PCC as well. So I think that will be okay, especially because I don't know when it's going to PCC. So I know that I definitely want to hear something from legal before we, before we get too, too much further on this. Going back to, I think it was either January or February in member comments.

That's kind of where this all began. And I want to reiterate, because I don't really think that this is addressed specifically, the application for dimensional variances says all of the following 8 standards are substantially met, and the word all is highlighted. The approval criteria in Item G is that The application substantially meets the following standards. So I see that as being clearly two different things. And I want specific guidance, and this is what I had asked for in that earlier meeting in member comments, on what substantially means.

Is it the bulk of the criteria is met versus what staff is saying, which is all 8 of the criteria is met. And again, the language with the ADA requirement, which is 2G, staff often says does not apply. And my question was, why can't we have a finding of does not apply? If does not apply was an option for us to find, then we wouldn't need to change any of this. Because we would be able to look at a flat lot that the surveyor screwed up, and say, "A doesn't apply." We would be able to make determinations that met the current code just by adding that finding.

Can I ask you a question? Going back to the beginning of what you were saying, the— is it the form that has that language? So really, it's just a matter of making the language of the form match the language of code to include substantially? No, no, it's the form, but also in the staff packet that comes to us. Okay.

The staff asserts that all 8 findings or all 8 standards must be met, whereas the code says all of it must be substantially met. Right. If we're sending questions over to legal, I think that's a good one.

Go. I would raise a question, particularly the ADA requirements. Yes, I don't like the fact that it says it doesn't apply, because it can apply and it should apply. And there are various levels of ADA compliance, because you can have— I believe it's called A and B, where you have the framing for support of the rails, but you don't have the rails themselves. So I think that that's a case which is not really taken into consideration here.

Involved in the design of the project. I would also wonder about the— on my document, it said the minor modifications 1 includes the downtown areas, and yet the table for setbacks says that it's not applicable. So you are going to have 5, 10, or 20% of not applicable?

It says that the downtown sections 2111060 and 2111070, but in the tables of the setback notifications it says that this N/A, not applicable. Again, it's a situation where it's not applicable. Well, it is applicable, you're just not going to try and set that. I think the language has to be changed a little bit more in terms of that intentional That's, if I may, that's something I honed in on too, except that there's more than just dimensional standards referenced in that section. Granted.

So—. That was just one that I picked out as a peculiarity. Yeah, you're right. Yeah. And we only do dimensional.

With regards to the ADA also, the ADA standards do not apply to residences unless the residence is being used for, like, rehabilitative care. But they can apply, yes. Yeah. So that's the reason I think that staff finds that it does not apply is because the majority of what we're dealing with is just single-family home where it literally does not apply. But the code says that it has to be met.

So it's the contradiction which I object to, at least philosophically.

And John, if I can go back to— I appreciate your point about what the form says and what the staff packets do say. And actually, the language that I think they— everyone is relying on is in the section before. It is not included in our packet. So if you look at Section F above, or Subsection F above, which delineates the action by the decision-making body, whatever body that is.

Section F3 is the one that says each criteria. And so this applies to decisions made by UDC, PCC, or us. It says specifically, any approval or denial of this request shall be by resolution, accompanied with written findings that the variance meets or does not meet each of the applicable criteria. So it might hinge on applicable. This might be why sometimes we see ADA stricken as an applicable criteria for us to evaluate.

But it does lead me to believe that, yep, we're expected to look at all of them. And again, you know, not to belabor the applicable debate, but it seems to me that we should be able to find something that's not applicable rather than just relying on staff's assertion that it's just not met. And I would argue that F3 gives us the authority to decide that it does not apply.

Everybody good? All good. Good. We're done? Okay, we come out of the Committee of the Whole and then maybe Postpone?

Yeah, I'll move to come out of the committee of the whole. Second. Any objection? Okay, so we're— I'm back in charge.

I seconded. Blanks seconded.

An object.

Hmm.

You— Mr. Lang, would you articulate your motion? Uh, I move to postpone case 2026-0076 to a date not determined to allow staff time to consult with the municipality's legal department on the suggestions proposed by the board and bring a revised draft ordinance to this board. Seconded by Mr. Schuette. And Mr. Lang, would you speak to your motion? Yes, as we heard in the committee of the whole, we wanted a lot more data and a lot more information and definitely a legal opinion, so I will be supporting my motion.

Mr. Schuette, uh, I agree with everything he said and that's why I seconded it. Thank you.

Any objection to the motion? Seeing none, um, Case 2026-0076 is postponed to a date uncertain.

Nothing in public hearings, no reports. Is there a meeting?

Okay. And any other board member comments for tonight?

This was fun. Thank you.

Whom?

Sorry. Entertain a motion for adjournment. Move to adjourn. Seconded by the other Bennett. The better Bennett.

The better Bennett. Alrighty then. Wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. And every time he called me out, I thought I'd have got away with it too, if not.