November 6, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Welcome to the November 6th City of Clayton Board of Adjustment meeting. The time is now five o'clock. My name is Rick Bliss, and today I will be presiding as the chair for the meeting. I'd like to start with introductions of the board members, staff, and council. Jason.

Jason. Liza Streett.

Jason. Liza Street.

Brian Helley, Planner with the City of Clayton.

Kyle Cronin, Council for the Board and the City.

Thank you. Board members and alternates are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Aldermen, which I guess is going to become the City Council. Members serve without any monetary compensation. This board consists of five regular members and three alternate members. All members must be residents of Clayton and hold no other office or position in city government. Four votes in favor of granting a variance are required to decide in favor of the applicant. This is a duly advertised meeting. The proceedings are on the record. We'll start with Ryan calling the roll.

Jason Lehtman, Lee Hanson, Abby Goldstein, Liza Streett.

Jason Letman, Lee Hanson, Abby Goldstein, Eliza Street.

Here.

Rick Bliss. Here.

The first item on the agenda for tonight's meeting is the approval of the minutes for the last meeting, which was held on October the 9th. Are there any questions, comments, or corrections? Liza?

I have a question. The neighbors to the west of the people that asked for the variance spoke at the meeting, but they're not noted here in the minutes. Is that supposed to be included?

We can update the minutes to know that there was public comment.

Okay. I would also note that in the first paragraph under the minutes that Bryce Woollen's name is misspelled. Any other comments or concerns? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. How about make the motion?

Okay. I would also note that in the first paragraph under the minutes that Bryce Woolen's name is misspelled. Any other comments or concerns? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve. How about make the motion?

I move to approve the minutes.

there's a second all in favor

aye

aye no opposed okay we'll move on uh tonight we have one application on the agenda which is an appeal from randy lipton who is the applicant for the property located at 224 and 228 beamiston avenue mr lipton are you ready okay now before we go further Anyone wishing to speak either in favor or in opposition to the application needs to be sworn in. If you would, please stand up. Rebecca will swear you in. If anybody wants to make any comment at any point, we'd ask that you get sworn in now.

Just stay right there.

help me God. Okay. Well, first let's start Mr. City Attorney. Does the city have any exhibits to be offered for consideration?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The city would offer the following exhibits. Exhibit A, which is the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clayton and the Clayton Master Plan. Exhibit B, the Zoning Review Application and Denial Letter from Anna Krane. Exhibit C, the appeal submitted to the Board of Adjustment. Exhibit D, the plans and survey provided by the owner. And Exhibit E, the staff report.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The city would offer the following exhibits. Exhibit A, which is the Code of Ordinances for the City of Clayton and the Clayton Master Plan. Exhibit B, the Zoning Review Application and Denial Letter from Anna Crane. Exhibit C, the appeal submitted to the Board of Adjustment. Exhibit D, the plans and survey provided by the owner. And Exhibit E, the staff report.

Okay. Have you any objection to those exhibits being entered into the evidence? Terrific. All right. At this point, we'll turn it over to you. If you would please let us know who you are and what your address is.

Sure. Hi, board. Thank you for hearing our presentation tonight. My name is Laura Hedrick. I'm from Altia Land Surveying, and I'm going to be representing and answering all your questions tonight for 224 North Beamiston Avenue. So the current... Um, Randy Lipton is currently purchasing the property. He doesn't own it yet, but, um, the proposed plan, which Brian, I'm sure you're going to put that up on the screen soon. Right. Um, so there's a current, um, house there and zoned R3 and we are wanting to tear down the house that is at 228, uh, North Bemison, so the left-hand side, maybe right-hand side where you're sitting at over there. And what he's wanting to do is put a four-car garage in there with some extra storage. The hope in regards to this that it's going to give it more green space and give a lot more space so they have parking rooms so they don't have to park on the street and alleviate some of that pressure from the neighborhood. So... Does anybody have any questions?

That's your presentation.

Well, I mean, I usually see if you guys have any questions right now because right now we're still in some pretty preliminary stages. I can tell you that we're consolidating the lot right now and our side setback. We're applying for a variance tonight. That's what we're doing right now, just only at this meeting. And our side setback variance is 10 feet. So we are applying for a variance on our side setback For the building on 224 only.

Specifically the south side of 224?

Correct. Okay. The previous setback when the house was built was correct, but because we're combining the lots, that's going to change our side setback now, which is why we're here at this meeting.

were to comply with this with the setback of the combined lots you would basically have to shave four feet of building off the existing house

the house is already built so we would have to um we would have to tear down the house and and um rebuild it so

okay

about four feet yes to answer your question

um Are there any questions of the board members?

Brian, the lots have not been consolidated. They cannot proceed with a lot consolidation without approval of a variance because consolidation of the lot would cause the nonconformity of the setback.

The lot consolidation has been submitted, and it's kind of waiting in the queue because we're waiting to get through this meeting first, and then we're going to proceed. So I will be back for the lot consolidation.

Not here.

Well, with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Okay. I'll ask a question of staff. It says in the report here, staff recommends that the board include a condition of approval that the structure on 228 North Bemiston Avenue be demolished within six months of approval of the consolidation plan by the Board of Aldermen.

Could you talk about that, please? Sure. So if they were to consolidate the lots without demolishing the structure on 228, that would create additional conformities. One, you would have multiple primary structures and primary uses for the lot. And then you would also have the same setback issues on the other side. So by demolishing that structure, they only have the one variance request. But if they do not demolish that, then they're going to have additional issues.

is six months statutory or arbitrary

or general operating procedure? It's somewhat just a decision on staff's part, just a recommendation because it kind of falls in the window of different requirements. So for example, if they get approval from the Board of Aldermen to consolidate the lots, I believe that they're going to have something like 30 or 60 days to actually record that with the county. If they submit any building permits or demolition permits, those can range for six months to a year, depending on what those approval timelines look like and the scope of work at the time of submission.

So if there are timelines in those submissions, is it necessarily important that we have addressed that issue here

tonight? We would want to make sure that there is some kind of deadline to at least apply for the demolition permit. Because once somebody has applied for a permit, we can sort of modify those on the staff and what those deadlines are. But if they were to combine the lots and record that with the county. And those lots were permanently combined and the structure was never demolished. That creates those additional nonconformities. And so if somebody wants to do anything else on the site, say that they decide not to purchase or they sell later, move on. If somebody comes along and wants to do something with the site, they have to address all of those nonconformities before they can proceed.

Got it. I'll ask, would there be an objection on your part? Either, I forgot your name already.

Laura.

Laura. or Mr. Lipkin, to a six-month, if we were to throw that in as part of the approval here?

I don't have a problem with that. It's more I'm waiting on the city's timeline. Just

like to clarify, six months from approval of the consolidation by the Board of Aldermen, that way the countdown starts at the very end of all of their approval processes for the consolidation with the city. Because at that point, they wouldn't be waiting on the city for anything else.

So we'll submit a site plan, a demolition plan that will have to be approved. So we'll submit that, waiting for that to be, you know, hard rubber stamped with approval. Then obviously Randy will proceed forward with tearing down the house. I know he's already been in contact with a few people to get some quotes to have that done. He is in the process of, you know, working with the architect already to design the new proposed garages. So we can get that on the site plan and get that submitted as soon as possible. But again, everything is a staged. We have to get the variance approved tonight first, then go to ARB, then get the lock consolidation done. And so we're going through the necessary steps right now.

I understand. Randy, go ahead. Please come up. Introduce yourself and your address.

Randy Lipton, 108 North Beamiston. So I think I heard Ryan say that we would have the six months would be the timeframe in which we needed to submit for the demolition permit. And I would be comfortable with that to commit to having the structure demolished in six months would be a little difficult. only because I don't control the timing of board approval, city approval.

What I understood Ryan to say was that it would be a six month period of time following all of the approvals that you're going to need for this project.

Including the demo permits? We usually in the past have said six months from approval of the consolidation by the Board of Aldermen. If the applicant and the board would rather reword that as they need to apply within a certain time, that is something this board has a discretion to do as well.

And as far as us applying by a certain date, I have no problem with meeting that within 30 days.

Six months would be reasonable then. If you can do it in 30 days, all the better, I would

think. Yes, six months is reasonable so long as that doesn't mean that the structure has to be gone at the end of six months.

Once you apply for the demolition permit, that permit will have its own timeline to complete the demolition, which is going to fall somewhere between six months and a year anyway. So six months to apply for the demolission permit would still be appropriate.

Okay. And that's all doable. And we certainly hope that it's going to move quicker than that. Okay.

Board members, anything else to add or question? Is there anybody online that is raising a hand or anything like that?

We don't have a hand up.

No hand up? No hand up. OK. It's staff's observation to confirm That the proposal would not result in an increased encroachment towards adjacent properties? Correct. It would maintain the minimum distance of six feet allowed by any primary structure? Correct. That it would not materially diminish or impair established property values? Correct. would not otherwise impair public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the city of Clayton? Correct. And would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties? Right. Okay, very good. Mr. City Attorney, would you care to add anything at this point?

I don't have anything to add, but I'm happy to assist on the wording of the condition if you guys need assistance on how that should be worded.

Okay.

And if there is a desire to have a condition, I should say as well. Okay.

Okay. Would you care to fashion a motion?

Take a flyer. I propose to prove a four foot variance from the required side yard setback of 10 feet section 405.2050 point capital a point three of article 14 are three one and two family dwelling district. Upon the condition. That. owner of 228 North Beamiston apply for a permit to

If the desire is that the motion be that they need to apply within six months of the final approvals obtained by the, I guess, the date of the consolidation approval by the Board of Aldermen, then I would say, well, I just stated it. So let me restate it. A condition be added to the Board's approval tonight that the applicant shall apply for a demolition permit within six months following the consolidation, approval of the consolidation at the Board of Aldermen level. If that's...

So noted.

Yes. What have

you

said? So moved, yes.

So moved. Is there a second? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. I would say the motion carries. Congratulations and thank you.

Thank

you. Mr. City Planner, is there anything on the agenda for next month?

I have not had any inquiries, but they still have about a week or so to check in with us. Okay.

Well, the time is now 5.17 p.m. I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Meeting's adjourned.