Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - October 9, 2025 - 2025-10-09 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals, um, October 9th, 2025 meeting. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Dave Hale.

Here. Andrew Romerdahl. Here. Brian Bennett. Here.

Craig Bennett. Here. Jason Norris. Here. Jonathan Lang.

Here. You have a quorum. Thank you. Next item of business is minutes. Okay, we have minutes for Thursday, September 11th, 2025.

Are there any— I would entertain a positive motion for approval of the minutes.

Susan Norris moves and Jonathan Lang seconds. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Is there any opposition to approval of the minutes?

Seeing and hearing none, the minutes are approved and we will move on to special order of business, disclosures. We have disclosures this evening. May I hear from Dave Hale, please?

Yeah, hi, can you guys hear me all right? Yeah.

I'd like to recuse myself from case 2025-0113, I believe it is, the new case tonight, and my firm, R&M Consultants, is representing the the, the person tonight, and, and I work closely with Dave Whitfield, who's going to be presenting to you guys. So I feel like there's definitely an appearance of a conflict, and I'm not comfortable participating in that case, so I'd like to recuse myself. Okay, can I have a positive motion that would direct Dave Hale to participate, please?

Moved by Jonathan Lang, seconded by Brian Bennett.

Jonathan, would you state the motion, please? Uh, yes, I move that, uh, Vice Chair Hale, uh, be directed to participate in case 2025-0113.

Would you speak to your motion? Yes, I believe that Member Hale has valid concerns with his interest, and I will not be supporting the motion. Is there any other— I don't see— Mr. Bennett, would you care to speak? I only encourage everybody to participate, so I would say that he should be allowed to vote and participate in the motions. Okay.

Anybody else? Mr. Norris? Thank you. I agree with Mr. Lang. Mr. Hill has valid concerns here.

Anybody else?

If not, then we will somewhere— if we are ready for the question, the question is on whether to direct Vice Chair Hale to participate.

A yes vote will direct him to participate, and a no vote will allow him to recuse himself. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote? No.

Mr. Bennett, how do you vote? No.

Thank you.

So we have, uh, 1 vote in the affirmative and 6 votes in the negative and 1 abstention. So, um, you are excused, Mr. Hale.

All right, continuing on with the disclosures, we have another one. Mr. Lang. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, disclosure, I watched the video of— in the entirety of the September 11th, 2025 meeting. Uh, therefore, I believe it was appropriate for me to, uh, vote on approval of the minutes, and it will be appropriate, or may be appropriate, for me to participate in case 2025-0104.

Thank you.

Do you have any other disclosures? Yes, I do. Uh, in case 2025-0104, while the outcome of the appeal will apply to all large domestic animal facilities, uh, the petitioner is a client of mine. I prepared site plans and as-builts for the properties, and I am very familiar with the neighborhood and the surrounding conditions. And I would ask for an opinion on whether or not I should be recused from participating in 2025-0104.

Thank you. Can I have a positive motion that would direct Mr. Lang to participate in case 2025-0104?

Moved by Mr. Norris.

Is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Bennett, Brian Bennett.

Mr. Norris, would you speak to your motion? Yes, I move to direct board member Lang to participate in case 2025-0104. Feel that, uh, having viewed the testimony and the arms-length transaction that is in the past, there is not a conflict of interest. Thank you.

And Mr. Brian Bennett. I have no problems with people with background knowledge participating in it, in the system, so I would agree with his participation.

Is there any other testimony, any other discussion?

If not, and we're ready for the question. The question is on whether to direct board member Lang to participate in case 2025-0104.

The yes vote will direct him to participate, a no vote will recuse him. Please vote.

Mr. Romer, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Bennett, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Hale, how do you vote?

Yes. Thank you.

So there are 5 votes in the affirmative, 1 no vote, and 1 abstention. So Mr. Lang, you are directed to participate in Case 2025-0104.

Thank you. Any other—.

Yes, in, uh, the matter of Case 2025-0113, the petitioner is also a client of mine. My as-built and plot plan are provided in the application, and I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to participate in the hearing.

Thank you.

Can I have a positive motion to direct Mr. Lang to, um, participate in case 2025-0113?

Moved by Mr. Norris.

Seconded by Brian Bennett. Mr. Norris, would you please speak to your motion? Mr. Chair, I move to direct board member Lang to participate in case 2025-0113. Uh, communication from the member suggested there may be a final survey yet to be accomplished, which means a future potential for financial interest, and therefore I will not be supporting.

Thank you. Mr. Bennett.

I'm, I'm still interested in participation by the board members as they see expertise. He's expressed his conflict of interest, and we can think as a professional, I think we can look over, overlook that kind of approach. Okay, anyone else? Any further discussion?

If not, we're ready for the question. Yes vote will direct board member Lang to participate in case 2025-0113. A no vote will recuse him. Please vote.

Mr. Romer, how do you vote? No. I'm sorry? No. Thank you.

Mr. Bennett? No. Mr. Hale? No. Thank you.

One vote in the affirmative, 5 votes in the negative, 1 abstention. Uh, Mr. Lang, you will be recused from case 2025-0113.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, any other disclosures, something I didn't know about?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll move on. I have, I, I have one. Okay, go. This is Andrew Remerda. Uh, yeah, in regards to case 2025-0104, uh, due to technical difficulties during the September 11th, 2025 meeting which I was participating in virtually, the call was dropped, and as a result, I was unable to hear the public testimony in its entirety.

Um, as a result of that, I was unable to render a vote as of that date, and the case was postponed to today's meeting. Since that time, I have listened to the audio of the public testimony in its entirety and now feel, uh, capable of participating in Case 2025-0104.

Okay, thank you for the information, but, um, we're not going to require a vote, a motion and a vote. You're— but you are directed to participate. Now we'll move on. Consent agenda. On the consent agenda, we have two resolutions for approval.

Resolution 2025-010 and Resolution 2025-011.

May I have a positive motion for approval of the consent agenda?

Mr. Norris.

Seconded by Brian Bennett.

Does anyone wish to remove any of the items for further discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, is there any opposition to approval of the consent agenda?

Seeing and hearing none, the consent agenda is approved by unanimous consent.

All right, no appearance requests, and we're on to unfinished business. The unfinished business is case 2025-0104. It, uh, as Mr. Romedal explained, he dropped out, and so, um, we then voted to postpone it to tonight. The public hearing is closed, and we were mid-discussion, so I would like to ask staff, is there an update? Thank you, Madam Chair.

In case 2025-0104, the MOA and the appellant are requesting the board to put forth a motion to stay the vote and decision until a future board meeting. I can answer any questions the board may have, and the appellant's representative is here if the board has questions for him also.

Thank you.

I guess I'll wait. Are there any questions?

Mr. Norris. Yes, thank you, through the Chair. What is the stated reason for the request, to whatever degree you can discuss it? Through the chair, uh, Board Member Norris, as far as I understand it, the MOA and the appellant are trying to resolve this matter currently, and whether or not it will be resolved by the next meeting, I'm not positive, but they've asked for this stay of the vote to give it more time. Sorry.

Any other questions? If appropriate, I'd like to hear from the petitioner, Mr. Kubitz, on the same question.

State your name for the record, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Alex Kubitz with Landy Bennett Blumstein for the appellants in this matter. Through the chair, Mr. Lang, that, that's my understanding as well. The certain MOA officials and my client have been in discussions regarding alternative resolutions that would have the potential of mooting the matter on appeal.

Thank you.

Anything else from the board?

Any of those of you who are virtual?

Hearing none. This is Bennett. No, Madam Chair. Uh-huh.

No questions. Okay, thank you.

Then I would entertain a motion to stay the decision, and that can either be— I guess I should ask this question first. To the next regular meeting or to a date uncertain? Madam Chair, to a date uncertain at this point. Okay. And since there's no more public hearing, it's, it's not a matter of being anybody being notified, additional notification or any, any conflict with that, in case, in case any of the board members were wondering.

So it's just because it's the vote, there's no public hearing, there's no need to notify anyone, so A date uncertain is just fine. Okay, then I would entertain a motion to, um, stay the decision until a date uncertain. Moved by Mr. Lang.

Would you read your motion, please, or would you state your motion, please? Uh, Madam Chair, I move in case 2025-0104 to approve the request to stay the vote and decision to a date uncertain. Thank you. Is there a second? There is.

Mr. Brian Bennett. I really have nothing to add. I think that we should stay this vote and put it off if they're— particularly if they're in discussions. And Mr. Lang? Uh, yes, that's, that's my opinion too, is both sides seem to be working on a resolution that we don't need to be involved in, and I believe it's appropriate to stay the decision until they come back to us with more information.

Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?

If not, we're ready for the question. The question is whether to approve a request to stay the vote and decision to a date uncertain.

A yes vote will grant the stay, a no vote will not. So please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote?

Yes.

Mr. Hale? Yes. Mr. Bennett? Yes. Thank you.

7 Yes votes, no votes in the negative, and so, um, the request is approved.

And we move on.

Nothing on the regular agenda, and we— we— which brings us to public hearings.

So the first case, or the only case in public hearings, is Case 2025-0113. Petitioner is Michael Martin.

And the petitioner and their representative are here.

So will the staff please describe the notice given in this case?

On September 15, 2025, the Planning Department mailed a total, a total of 96 public hearing notice In accordance with the procedure of AMC—. Wait, hang on. Sorry. I missed a part. Okay.

So the recusals are leaving. Oh. For the rest of the meeting, Mr. Lang and Mr. Hale. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You are excused.

Point of order, Madam Chair, will you explain why there is not a short board so the applicant understands that. I was going to get there. Sorry, I didn't know if you were going to do it prior to her giving notification. I keep jumping the gun. Sorry.

Okay, do you want me to do it now?

That is up to you, Madam Chair. Okay, now the parliamentarian wants me to do it. Okay.

So a concurring vote of the majority of the fully constituted membership of the board minus those excused by conflicts of interest shall be required to grant a variance. The fully constituted board is 9 members, even though there are only 7 of us, that there are 2 vacancies. But so generally it requires 5 votes to pass anything. Majority of the fully constituted board, 9 members, majority, 5 votes. But 2 people have recused themselves.

If 1 person had recused themselves, that would have been 8, and it would still require 5 positive votes. But 2 people have recused themselves. So that just leaves—. Whatever that leaves—. 7, And the majority is 4 votes.

So that's why it's not a short board. Okay, are we good? All right, now I'm sorry I interrupted you. No problem. And if you could please tell us about the Notice given.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On September 15, 2025, the Planning Department mailed a total of 96 public hearing notice in accordance with the procedure of AMC 2103-020H notice. As of this writing, the Planning Department received one comment in opposition to both variance requests. The Hillside Community Council did not provide comments on this case.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice?

Seeing and hearing none, we'll move on. Will the staff please present the case? Madam Chair, I would like to make a correction to the record. Regarding today's meeting agenda, the meeting agenda incorrectly identifies the request as a 25-foot encroachment into the 25-foot riparian setback. The riparian setback does not exist as described.

Instead, there is only a 50-foot stream setback. However, while the agenda's description is incorrect, The staff report correctly details the existing condition. This is a request of two— for two variants. Variance number one, it's a request for variance to the Anchorage Municipal Code 21-06-020, Table 21-06-1.

Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts to allow a proposed garage to encroach 11.5 feet into the required 25-foot south side setback. The variance number 2—. Oh wait, um, we're going to take them separately because they're two different things, so just continue on with variance 1. Oh, okay. So Uh, never mind, keep going.

I'm wrong. Okay, okay. The variance number 2 is a request for variance to the AMC 2107-020-B9, Table 2107. -1 Minimum stream setback width per side to allow a gravel driveway to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot stream setback within the R-6 district, low-density residential. According to municipal records, construction of the original structure at 11461 Hill Drive was in 1973.

The current owners purchased the property in 2000. In 2006, they began a remodel and addition under Permit 06-0431 that never came to completion. Completion—. The existing structure was not within the stream easement at the time. The requirement in municipal code changed in 2015.

To prohibit any disturbance within the 50-foot stream protection setback. In 2022, permit R22-1619 approved of a completed 1,368-square-foot addition to the principal structure on the main level for 2 garages and storage. It approved also the additional living space above the garages. The design of this addition, which includes a garage entrance on the northeast side of the building, created the need for variance number 2 to permit the existing driveway to access, to access the existing garage. The variance seeks to encroach 25 feet into the 50-foot Craig Creek stream setback.

The current plot plans— plan shows a broader encroachment, but the applicant's representative stated that the owner's intent is to naturally, naturally restore the portion of the existing driveway that extends beyond the 25-foot variance limit. For variance number 1, the applicant proposed to construct a 2,400-square-foot 2,400-square-foot detached garage storage building intended to store trailers, recreational vehicles, and seasonal equipment. This structure, roughly the size of the existing two-level house, will need to encroach into the side setback or the stream setback. Because of the existing location of the house, septic system, creek, topography, and stream setback on the property, this is the only logical placement of the garage. It is unknown if the garage, it will include a second floor.

In order for the zoning board of examiners and appeals to approve the variance under the AMC 2103-240G approval criteria, the application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts of circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following standards. Standard A, Variance Number 1 and Number 2 are met. The subject property on the Anchorage Hillside presents unique physical challenges that necessitate the requested variance. The property moderate 11% slope and a 50-foot stream setback required for the adjacent Craig Creek significantly limits the buildable area on this eastern half of the property. Standard B, variance number 1, is partially met.

The applicant proposed the detached garage is the only practical area on the property. All the properties of the same size would normally be able to contain a garage of this size. The garage could be made smaller to not violate this code. Variance 2 is partially met. The encroachment of the 50-foot stream setback is the only viable location to provide access to the northeast existing garage and connect to the proposed garage storage.

However, the existing driveway appears to function adequately for the owners without requiring an increase in size or further encroachment into the 50-foot stream setback. Standard C, Variance 1, is not met. It is self-imposed because the property owner can reduce the size of the building and comply with the established requirements. Variance number 2 is partially met. While the owner needs a degree of encroachment for driveway access to the existing garage, the requested 25-foot encroachment into the stream setback is excessive.

A reduced encroachment would still permit the garage access consistent with the surrounding neighbors. Ultimately, this variance is necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. Standard D, Variance Number 1, is partially met. Granted, the request variance may impact the use of the adjacent Property. The proposed detached garage will be situated approximately 8 feet— 80 feet from the neighboring principal residence.

Variance number 2 is partially met. While granting the requested driveway variance may not adversely affect the use of the adjacent property, approval is contingent upon the revegetation of the creek portion adjacent to the driveway. Part of the driveway or gravel pad is currently located approximately 8 to 10 feet from the creek. This distance is not compliant with the current code. It is a hard gravel surface that's currently being used to store materials and equipment.

Standard E, variance Number 1 is partially met. Granted, the siding encroachment allowed the new development closest to the property line. Consequently, removing the existing tree will make the structure feel even closer to the neighbor's yard. However, the placement of the garage within the setback does not constitute a new or unpermitted use. Approval of this variance will permit the property to be developed in a manner that's consistent with the intent of and purpose of the R-6 district.

Variance number 2 is partially met, allowing the driveway to encroach into the stream's side zone, enables the owner to use their property in a manner consistent with other similar R-3, R-6 properties. Overall, the variance permits the owner to develop the back of his property in a way that aligns with the surrounding area and zoning district. Standard F, Variance Number 1, is met. Granting this variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality. The detached garage will maintain a safe and suitable distance from both neighboring structure and the stream.

Variance No. 2 Is not met. The proposed variance, if granted, will allow an encroachment that could compromise the natural buffer zone. This action could negatively affect the health of the stream ecosystem and, by extension, the community. Standards G: Variance No.

1 And No. 2 Are met. These standards is not applicable to this variance request. Single-family homes are not subject to the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act. Standard H, Variance Number 1, is partially met.

The proposed structure, if granted, will add a large garage to the property. A large garage is not the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the land. Variance 2 is not met. The proposed driveway exceeded the minimum variance necessary to make possible a reasonable use of the land. Comments and agency reviews are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 24 of your package.

The department finds that variance number 1 Standards A, F, and G are met. Standards B, D, and E and H are partially met, and Standard C is not met. For variance number 2, Standards A and G are met. Standards B, C, D, and E are partially met, and and Standard F and H are not met. The AMC 2103.240(g) requires that all 8 standards be substantially met in order for a variance to be granted.

Therefore, the department recommends denial of the variance. If after public hearing, The board finds that all 8 standards are substantially met for dimensional variance. The staff record— the report recommends is that any approval should be subject to the conditions 1 and 2 for variance number 1, and conditions 1, 2, and 3 for variance number 2, presented on page 7 of this staff report. That completes a summary of this staff report. Thank you.

The property owners, Michael Martin and the petitioner representative, R&M, are in attendance tonight.

Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Norris. Yes, thank you. Through the chair, uh, It was stated fairly bluntly that this was the only place that this proposed shop could go on the property. Is that truly the case? Uh, it seems like there's some siting or maybe some adjusting of the placement of the shop that would allow it to have less area in the side setback and in the riparian edge zone.

Is there a reason why, why an alternate placement would not be possible? Yeah, by the— looking at the plot plan on page— sorry, on page 20, uh, in the front of the property at the southeast, there is like a As you can see, there is a septic system over there in the front that make like, uh, they cannot like build on top of a septic tank.

I don't know, maybe I would not— space. Is that denoted on page 20? Uh, I'm looking at the plot plan on page 20.

Maybe this is a question for the petitioner. Okay, any other questions for staff?

Madam Chair, this is Bennett. I have a question for staff. Mr. Craig Bennett, go.

Yeah, staff, I understand there could be some setback changes going to the Assembly sometime soon. And is that still the case? And if so, what would the proposed setback be for this property?

Through the Chair, Mr. Bennett, um, this is Paul Hatcher, by the way. Uh, that AO, if it goes through, would probably be near the first of the year. Planning and Zoning Commission might see it the first of the year. The Assembly might see it. In February or March.

The proposed— that we're proposing is 25-foot front setback and rear setback and 15-foot side setbacks. So this would still encroach, uh, into the side setback, and of course it still encroaches into the creek setback, but that might provide more space somewhere else on the lot if those setbacks were reduced. But I, I'll have the petitioner talk to that. All right, thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions of staff?

Seeing and hearing none.

Any questions of staff by the applicant? Will the applicant please come forward?

State your name for the record.

Good evening. My name is Dave Whitfield with R&M Consultants, representing the property owner, Mr. Mike Martin, on this request for variance tonight. My last name is spelled W-H-I-T-F-I-E-L-D.

Thank you. Please present your case. This property is zoned R-6, low-density residential district, and is located on the Anchorage Hillside east of Hillside Drive and south of Alps Avenue. As the staff mentioned, the owners purchased a property in 2000 from the bank as a foreclosure. At that time, the house was deteriorating— deteriorated significantly, and initial efforts were really focused on making the, the property clean and habitable.

In 2006, a building permit was issued for a substantial remodel and addition, which included plans for a garage entrance on the north side of the building and future use of the backyard area for storage of trailers, recreational vehicles. Some civil grading work was done. At the time, primarily to provide the property for the north side of the home for future development. The full addition of that remodel was never completed, or that addition was never completed. Moving forward to 2022, the owners pursued a new building permit for another addition.

However, during that review, they were informed that the required stream setback had been expanded from 25 feet to 50 feet. So from 2000, when the property was purchased, to 2022, the property owners were under the impression that the stream setback was 25 feet. The setback did not exist at the time the owners purchased the property, as I said, in 2000, or in 2006 when the original remodel was done. And now that stream setback encumbers over 30% of the parcel. After receiving the, uh, as-built from the surveyor, the owners became aware that the existing driveway encroached into the outermost 25 feet of the stream setback.

The detached storage garage now proposed has always been part of the long-range plan for the property and would allow the owners the ability to store items such as trailers, recreational vehicles and seasonal equipment inside, undercover, uh, minimizing visual clutter and providing, uh, protection from Alaska's severe weather. While we agree with, uh, staff that Standards A, F, and G are met for Variance 1 and that Standards A and G are met for Variance 2, we disagree that the remaining standards, uh, are either not met or are only partially met. I'd like to address those standards separately. We believe that Standard B is met for both variances. The owner has proposed this detached shop in the only practical location that's outside the 50-foot stream protection setback.

Uh, indoor storage space is valued in Alaska, and accessory storage buildings are a common right that is enjoyed by property owners in rural large lot areas of the municipality. Allowing this building to be located within the side setback preserves the stream protection setback while also maintaining an appropriate and safe separation from adjacent properties, nearly 90 feet. When the owner purchased the property again in 2000, Title 21 only required a 25-foot stream setback, and as part of that 2022 home addition, the owner was made aware that they were encroaching in the outermost 25 feet of that 50-foot setback. If not for the, the stream and the 50-foot setback, the building would be permissible by right without the need for variance.

The hardship is not self-imposed, and there are special conditions that do not result from the actions of the property owner. The location of the stream and the yard setbacks required in the R-6 District severely reduced the developable envelope of this property. The owner wishes to— wishes to develop the property in a manner that is consistent with other property in the area, reduce visibility, uh, of the proposed structure from the street, and maintain, again, a safe separation from adjacent homes. We believe Standard D is met for both variances. Use of the adjacent property is not affected by the granting of this variance— of either variance.

The detached shop will be separated from the neighboring home by approximately 90 feet, well outside the R-6 required separation of 50 feet, 25 feet either side of the side lot line. The driveway providing access to the rear of the lot will be outside the most critical inner 25 feet of the stream setback. The shop's proposed location sits at a significantly lower elevation than the adjacent property, uh, to the south and will have no impact on solar or visual access. We believe Standard E is also met for both variances. The granting of the variances will not change the character of the, the rural character of the R-6 district, does not allow for a use that is otherwise not permitted in the district.

Safe separation of the structures on neighboring properties will be provided, and solar and visual access will be preserved. Allowing the driveway in the outermost 25 feet of the stream setback allows the owner the use of the property in a manner similar to other R-6 property in the area of similar size while maintaining an appropriate setback from the stream. We also believe Standard F is met for both variances. The variance does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Municipality of Anchorage. The detached garage will maintain safe and suitable distance from the neighboring structures and from Craig Creek.

The driveway as proposed will be located no less than 25 feet from Craig Creek, which ensures no downstream impacts. The owner is willing to revegetate and allow the area to return to natural that are outside of what— outside of the 25 feet that we're proposing to encroach here tonight. We also believe that Standard H is met for both variances. The size of the structure is largely dictated by the size of the items needing to be stored inside. This includes trailers, recreational vehicles, and equipment.

It is not— if not for the presence of the stream, the garage could be constructed legally by right on the property, meeting all of the R-6 dimensional standards to include setbacks, lot coverage, and height. The driveway within the outermost 25 feet of Craig Creek provides the owner with the ability to access the rear of the lot. The ability to access the rear of the lot is not unreasonable and would allow the owner the ability to use— utilize the property in a manner similar to other R-6 properties. This request is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood and the rural nature of the Anchorage Hillside. Alaska residents value, uh, indoor storage space.

Many properties on the hillside have detached garages or similar outbuildings. The proposed building would be located approximately 90 feet from the nearest neighbor with no visibility from the street. The location of Craig Creek and the 50-foot setback severely limits the owner's ability to use the rear of their lot. While setback is appropriate, 50 feet prohibits the owner from making improvements that are similar to other property in the area. This request maintains a reasonable and appropriate setback of 25 feet from Craig Creek.

I'd like to point out and reiterate Mr. Bennett's question with respect to the municipality's current changes to the R-6 zoning district setbacks. This is going on, of course. It's not passed by the assembly, but it is a recognition that the setbacks in the R-6 currently are excessive. I'd also like to point out that Watershed Management has, in their comments, voiced support for the variance allowing a 16-foot encroachment to access the existing building. We're okay with a 16-foot encroachment, but we would ask that that 16-foot encroachment be extended to the detached garage as well.

With that, the owner, Mr. Mike Martin, and I are here to answer any questions you, you may have, and we very much appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions? Of Mr. Whitfield.

Mr. Bryant Bennett.

I look at the grid map on page 20 of the document, which is your property site plan, and it appears that the setback is on the south side, is not indicated on this map. There's one on the south side proper, south property of that, but I look at the scales and the approach, and I wonder why the garage can't be moved closer to the house to the northwest and satisfy the setbacks on the south side. Thank you. From the chair, uh, through the chair, Mr. Bennett, I think that's a very good question. Uh, it can be moved, uh, further, uh, towards the house.

Uh, what comes with that though is that, uh, you have an accessory building that is too close to the principal building. In most situations, the fire department requires suitable separation between accessory and principal structures. And when we put together this site plan, that was part of the consideration.

Do you know what those distances are from the fire department? I don't.

As to whether— how close are we?

I believe at one— and I'm speaking from memory here, but I believe at one point in time it was 10 feet. However, I'm not well versed on fire codes, so it may have changed.

I don't have a number either myself, so that's why I'm looking for it. Are you clarity? I don't know. I think it's 10 feet too, but does the staff know? Through the chair, Mr. Bennett, yes, it's, it's 10 feet up to 30 feet in height.

Once you get over 30 feet in height, you have to increase that separation distance. The other option too is to use fireproof materials, and you can make that gap a little smaller. Um, you have to basically create a 1-hour firewall, like it, as if you between the two structures, on both structures. I believe that's the current code. There was an indication that there could be a possibility of a second floor.

Mr. Bennett—. Which would take you to 30 feet, sorry. The current proposal is a single floor, correct. Well, I should say, not correct, single floor.

Thank you. Satisfied. Thanks, Mr. Norris. Thank you. Uh, yeah, two, two questions through chair.

Two questions. The first is what I had earlier asked of staff, which was, um, the southwest corner. There was a comment opposed that, that pointed out the southwest corner. Staff, uh, brought up the septic system. I was wondering if you could speak to that, please.

Yeah, through the chair, uh, Mr. Norris, very good question. Uh, if I can direct your attention to the plot plan on page 20, uh, it actually shows that there are septic pipes in the front yard that would prevent us from placing the structure there.

Would that—. And that would be placing it there outside of any setbacks, or could it be placed and be inside setbacks and still need a variance. Um, I'm sorry, I'm asking you to speculate. If you, if you'd rather not, I understand. Well, I think what you'd be facing there is, is very likely, uh, two encroachments, one in the front yard and the other in the side yard.

When we laid this, uh, this site plan out, we played— we paid very close attention to setbacks and of course, uh, the stream setback. One of the things that we really wanted to do is remove the structure from the stream setback altogether, recognizing that a permanent structure in the stream setback is much more impactful than would be a driveway like we're proposing here tonight. So this was— this site plan was put together with a lot of thought, recognizing that we still need variances. But the fact is, is that this property can be developed— could be developed fully in conformance with the R-6 district regulations if the stream were not there. And the stream demonstrates that there is an unusual circumstance that exists on this property that warrants these variances.

And so we tried to put together a site plan that considered all of that. Thank you, I appreciate the answer. Just the last question is, you had mentioned you'd be okay with— I think you said a 19-foot encroachment, but you're— it seems you're asking for 25. Could you help me reconcile that? Absolutely.

Yeah, no, I think that that's a great question. As I mentioned before, Watershed Management did support a 16-foot encroachment into the outermost 25 feet, and we'd be okay with that. The reason why we requested 25 feet is the, uh, the widest portion of the existing driveway is essentially at the outer— or the limit of the innermost 25 feet, excluding a small portion that actually encroaches into that innermost 25 feet. So when we requested the variance, it's very difficult to say, at this point, we need, you know, a 10-foot encroachment. At this point, we need a 16-foot encroachment.

So rather than do that, we looked at it, and we said it's a 25-foot encroachment. Will request 25 feet, but we're happy with 16 feet if that's, if that's what the board finds is appropriate. Thank you. No further questions.

Mr. Craig Bennett, do you have anything?

Yes, Madam Chair, um, I have just one question.

Okay. Yeah, Mr. Whitfield, Would there be a way to hold the 15 feet that the assembly may approve in beginning of the year? I guess that's my, that's my question.

Mr. Through the chair, Mr. Bennett, not without significantly reducing the size of the structure. I don't see a way to do that. As I mentioned before, the, the need for the size of the structure is largely based on the equipment and vehicles that will be stored there. The property owner has a roughly 30-foot-long travel trailer that needs to fit in there.

If you look at the depth of the structure, it's 40 feet. Fitting a 30-foot trailer in a 40-foot building with a little bit of room to walk around is ultimately what I think the property owner is aiming to do. Uh, we could reduce the structure's width slightly, uh, but in doing so, I don't think we could still meet the step-back requirements that the assembly is proposing with a 15-foot side yard setback.

Thank you. Mr. Romer, do you have anything?

Uh, no questions.

Okay, then are there any questions of the applicant by staff?

They indicate not. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, you have 50 seconds for rebuttal.

Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2025-0113? Please come forward. State and spell your name for the record, please. Um, my name is Susan Forbes. It's S-U-S-A-N F-O-R-B-E-S.

I've lived on the hillside since '66. We lost our house in '64, and I will try to make my remarks as civil as I possibly can, but the idea of being situated next to a neighbor who has a 30-foot-long mobile home who's going to build a 40-foot-long garage— and it's not just a garage, it's a storage field, you know, it's a storage container for for the toys the person has. They already have a garage. And having that person be close to a stream— the streams need to be protected. We have weather events that are unusual now, and I'm very sorry that 30% of his property is not buildable, but at the same time, if you buy a lot right now on the ocean, it's not a very wise decision.

Having heard the conversations back and forth, I really supported what the staff had to say, and all of the things that were mentioned as areas of conflict with your current code I thought were very reasonable arguments. And then when I heard the contractor come up, who was of course supporting his own business interests and continuing developing areas like the hillside, making lots so that every square inch of it is used. That was not the intended purpose of the hillside lots originally. I do not believe the current setback is unreasonable at all. In fact, I'm surprised to hear that you're going to be reducing it.

So as a person that's lived there for a long, long time, I would be just absolutely shocked to have somebody build an incredibly huge second garage right next to my house, and the the living space of my house. I know you can hear my voice is shaking, but for me, just this idea of, like, uncontrolled development and not really considering the fact that it is in the riparian zone— this feeds into a stream that has salmon in it. What precedence does this establish for putting a roadside along our rivers? I just— I, I'm totally not in favor of this, and I hope that you reconsider this idea of shortening the setbacks for the area. Thank you.

Wait, wait, Ms. Forbes, hang on just a minute. I'm sorry, I'm not used to coming in and testify. I'm a very private person. I'm sorry. That's okay.

Are there any questions, Ms. Forbes? Questions for the people here from the— your council? Oh. Any questions?

Are there any questions of Ms. Forbes by the applicant? Nope. Thank you. Thank you for—. Thank you.

Anyone else? Got it. There's nobody else here.

Okay, does the staff have any rebuttal? No, they indicate not. Does the applicant have any rebuttal in your 50 seconds?

I'll be brief. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, obviously we appreciate your consideration of these two variances here tonight. Um, I'd like to just very quickly address, uh, the one, um, public testimony we got here tonight. Uh, the setbacks in the R-6 district, 50, 25, and 50.

Have been recognized by the municipality as being excessive in comparison to other rural districts like the R-8 and R-9, which requires significantly larger size lots but have significantly smaller setbacks. A reduction seems appropriate. All that said, this variance is appropriate. We did take the time to lay this site plan out in a way that worked, you know, both with the property owner and negated any impacts to adjacent properties or the stream. And we very much appreciate your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield.

Okay, with that, the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. So we are going to take these as two separate, um, and so first we're going to take Variance 1, which is the garage. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Brian Bennett. Would you state your motion, please? Move in case 2025—. You gotta turn your—. Oh yeah, sorry, I'm not used to— Classrooms are much different.

I move in case 2025-0113 to approve the variance from AMC 2106-020, Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards for the Residential Districts, to allow the allow a proposed detached garage to encroach 17.5 feet into the required 25-foot south side setback. Seconded by Mr. Norris. It has been moved and seconded, uh, that a variance be granted to, um, allow a proposed detached garage to encroach 17.5 feet into the required 25-foot side south side yard setback.

Mr. Bennett, will you please speak to your motion? Remembering that you need to speak to all of the, all of the standards.

As far as the standards for this property, the existing exceptional extraordinary physical circumstances, I believe there is a point to say that you, when you purchase a property, you understand what the property is encoded. I'm not sure that this is an existing standard. As far as B, strict application makes the exceptional use an undue hardship, I'm not sure that that is completely satisfied as well. We've already talked about moving the garage, we've talked about reordering the driveway. Hardship is not self-imposed, Part C. As a personal opinion, you did it, it is self-imposed because you bought the property.

If granted, the adversely affect adjacent properties We've heard from one person who thinks that it will object to them, and I'm quite happy to listen to neighborhood comments. As far as the— doesn't adversely affect the safety or welfare, I would agree that that is met with the exception of the compromising of the buffer zone by the watershed management comments. Wait, wait. You're just talking about the garage now.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, well, I still think that it encroaches into the setback and could be moved. Okay. As far as the disability access, I find it interesting that the staff says that they agree to this when it doesn't apply, but sure, I would say that it doesn't provide this harm disability access. And the minimum variance possible is not, in my opinion, met in the sense that it is an overly large garage and it could be placed in other places.

Thank you. Mr. Norris.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I do not intend to support or second it due to numbers in attendance tonight. I'm not unsympathetic to applicant's case. They did cite this very thoughtfully, uh, given, uh, some tough situations. I do agree that there's probably no place to put this, going with the assumption that the proposed shop is of the dimensions required for the equipment to be stored.

There's no place to put this on the lot where you're completely outside of the setbacks. Uh, we did hear that the municipality is working to reduce the setbacks, which I think is tacit admission that the setbacks are excessive. But I do feel that, and I know that we're only speaking to the garage now, but you can't speak about the garage without what connects it to the rest of, uh, the lot, which is the driveway.

And if you have to be inside a setback and you're going to need a variance anyhow, you could put it on the southwest corner, it would seem. And yes, you would still go into the front, maybe side setback, but then you would have completely avoid the stream setback and any downstream environmental impacts associated with encroaching into the stream. So I don't want to get too far into speaking about the stream, but I do not intend to support. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Mr. Craig Bennett, do you have anything?

Yes, Madam Chair. Um, this is Bennett. Um, I guess just speaking to the other board members, um, I don't know if just limiting it to only a 10-foot encroachment into the side yard, which I don't know if we can do that, um, and if the board members would even really support it, but that would then match potentially a future change to code setbacks, but just having 7.5 feet to the side yard is a little excessive.

Thank you.

And Mr. Romer Dell, anything?

Through the chair, I tend to agree with the sentiment of the other board members' comments. On this particular variance.

Any further discussion?

Hearing and seeing none, if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a motion to grant a variance to allow a proposed detached garage to encroach 17.5 feet into the required 25-foot South Side Yard Setback. A yes vote will grant the variance. A no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romer Dahl, how do you vote?

No. Mr. Bennett? No. Thank you.

Zero votes in the affirmative, 5 votes in the negative. Um, the variance is denied. And now we'll move on to variance number 2, which is the driveway.

I would entertain a positive motion.

From someone.

Variance number 2, moved by Jason Norris. Would you please state your motion?

Thank you, Chair. I move in case 2025-0113 to approve a variance from AMC 21.07.020B.9, table 21.07-1, Minimum stream setback width per side to allow an existing gravel driveway to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot streamside zone setback of Craig Creek.

May I have a second?

Seconded by Brian Bennett.

It's been moved and seconded to grant a variance to allow the existing gravel driveway to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot streamside zone setback of Craig Creek. Mr. Norris, will you please speak to your motion? Thank you, Chair. Um, I, I guess I would ask, uh, do I need to run through A through H if I do not intend to support?

Okay, Mr. Brian Bennett. I find many of the same problems with the first variance as in the second variance. I really don't plan on supporting it. The motion. Thank you, Chair.

I would like to elaborate a little bit, but there's just more procedural question of do I need to go through the eaches if I do not intend to support You should. Okay, thank you. Um, I do find— so there are, uh, I do find that there are exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances imposed by the creek. Um, whether it creates an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner, I do not agree because there are other ways that this could have been cited that still required a variance but did not require encroaching into the stream. I also believe that with the first variance being denied, this one may no longer be consequential.

It is somewhat self-imposed because of the sighting that was previously talked about under variance 1. I believe that D is partially met for reasons stated by staff. I believe that E is met, wouldn't change the character of the zoning district, would not— I do believe that there is a potential for health, safety, and welfare of the people of municipality. While I do sympathize that the 50-foot was, uh, 50-foot stream setback was imposed after the purchase of the property, was put in place for good reason, which is the health and safety associated with our surface waterways. I don't believe— so Variance G, I believe, is applicable.

And then again, going back to the discussion on Variance 1, this does not appear to be the minimum variance that would make for a reasonable use of the land, and so I do not intend to support. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Anybody else?

Okay, then if we are ready for the question. The question is on the adoption of the motion to grant a variance to allow an existing gravel driveway to encroach 25 feet into the required 50-foot streamside zone setback of Craig Creek. Yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote?

No. Mr. Bennett? Yes. Thank you.

One vote in the positive, four votes in the negative. Um, the variance has been denied.

Right, done with public hearings and we're on to reports. Chair has nothing. Secretary, nothing. We don't have any committees. Board member comments, anybody?

Okay, then I entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second.

We are adjourned. Thank you, Andrew and Craig.

Thank you. Thank you.

Freedom to live for me. Too scared to seek, too scared to be on my own, you see. But I know I just need some selfish time. I need my relics back. Give me truth to what I know.

Give me ruthless weight of paper.