September 3, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Welcome to the September 3rd City of Clayton Board of Adjustment meeting. The time is now seven minutes after five o'clock. Apologies for the late start. My name is Rick Bliss. Today I will be presiding as chair of the meeting. I would like to start with introductions of the board members, staff and council.

Bryce Woollen.

Bryce Woolen.

Lee Hanson is on online.

Lee Hanson.

Hoby.

Hoby

Kropp with the city.

Brian Helly with the city.

Kevin O'Keefe, city attorney. Board members and alternates are appointed by the mayor, approved by the board of aldermen. excuse me, the city council now. 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. We have a unique situation tonight. Four votes in favor of granting a variance are required in favor of the applicant. Since we only have four people in attendance tonight, the applicants will have to basically run the table and get 100% concurrence on the application. If anyone is not comfortable with those odds, then their application can be delayed until next month. Is that fair? Okay. Ryan, if you would call the roll.

Leah Hansen. Present. Liza Streett.

Leah Hansen. Present. Liza Street.

Here.

Bryce

Woolen.

Here.

Rick Bliss. Here. This is a duly advertised meeting and the proceedings are on the record. First item on the agenda for tonight's meeting is the approval of the minutes for the last meeting, which was held on August the 6th. Are there any questions, comments, or corrections? There was an extra and in the minor stuff. Is there a motion to approve? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, tonight we have two applications on the agenda. The first is an appeal from Kevin Powers, who's the applicant and owner for property located at 8140 University Drive. Mr. Powers, are you ready to go? Hold on just a second. Before we go further, anyone wishing to speak on this issue either in favor or in opposition to the application needs to be sworn in. If you would please stand. The court reporter here will swear everybody in who wants to make any comments. Yes. No, if he doesn't get sworn in, he doesn't make any comments. Thank you. Mr. City Attorney. Does the city have any exhibits to be offered for consideration?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. The city would offer the following exhibits to be incorporated in the record and considered by the board. Exhibit A would be the city code and charter of the city of Clayton. Exhibit B would be provisions of the city code relating to the authority and procedures of the Board of Adjustment. Exhibit C would be the zoning regulations of the city in Title IV, that's Roman numeral IV. of the city code, and in particular Exhibit D, Article 13, Roman numeral, pertaining to residential districts, the R2 residential district, and Exhibit E is Section 405.1900 concerning regulations specific to the R2 zoning district. Exhibit F would consist of the Files and records of the Department of Planning and Development Services pertaining to this application and the application for permitting and appeal filed by the applicant in this matter. And that would include the report from the city staff to the Board of Adjustment.

I'll ask the applicant any objection to the city's offered exhibits. Okay. Mr. Powers, were you signed in? Did you get sworn in? I

didn't know I had to. I'll swear it if I had to.

Sue, if you would, please. Okay. We'll ask if you have any exhibits to present to the board tonight.

I don't have any exhibits. I just would like to say a few words.

Not necessary to have any exhibits, but come forward. You would state your name and your address and tell us what we need to hear.

Yep. Thanks, everybody, for letting me come up here and state my claim. I'm Kevin Powers. I live at 8140 University Drive in Clayton Gardens. Um, so just to kind of summarize the situation, um, I bought the house. I don't know. My daughter is a junior at Clayton Highlands. Uh, she wasn't even in kindergarten yet. Uh, we used to live off or off gay Avenue and colonial park, which everyone thinks is a Clayton neighborhood, but it's actually the do, uh, kind of outgrew the house. And I found this house. It's a beautiful house. I'm very, I'm a very proud Claytonite. Uh, I think you guys do a great job of managing the city. Um, Really love the area where we live. But when I bought the house, it was probably an addition was done 20 years ago maybe. And there's a deck there right now. That deck has gotten old. I've repaired it. I've painted it. I've done a pretty good job of keeping it going. But it just, you know, they just kind of wear out over that length of time. So I had... Probably about four years ago, I had drawings to actually redo the entire back of the house. Big, big project. Just never really got around to it. And so finally I'm doing some improvements to the home. The main improvement was I had to redo that deck. It did get, I did get some damage on the tornado May last year. So I got a new roof and I had appraisals done and assessments of the roof. There was mentioned that there was damage to that deck back then, but I really wasn't concentrated on that. I was concentrated on getting the roof. But safe to say that deck needed to be replaced. On top of that, the house just to the east of me 8136 University was a teardown and rebuilt. When that happened, I lost, we, the neighborhood, lost two, I don't know, 60-foot pin oaks maybe that provided a lot of shade. That part of the backyard gets sun that, I mean, you start getting it about 11 o'clock and it goes straight over the back of the yard and it just kind of hits the back of the So on top of wanting a new deck, the submission was from Midtown, which is the construction company that's going to build it, to put a roof over it because I kind of lost that midday shade. So I was surprised when they submitted to Clayton and I found out that the existing deck along my foundation line And I don't, I'm assuming that deck was built 20 years ago is no long. You need a variance in order to put it all along the same line. I'm just trying to replace the deck. I'm not trying to expand it anywhere. So I'm just trying replace the deck. So that was somewhat of a surprise. So I bought the house, I utilized it the way I wanted it. You know, and the way that my The way that that back room is set up, it's got a beautiful sliding glass door and it's got two glass panels that almost take up the entire side of the house. The design, I don't know if the design for the... It was submitted before. I don't know if we have that here from, from midtown.

Not relevant.

So, so there's a little privacy wall that I'm doing just to, cause I, you know, there's nothing in between me and my new neighbor. There's a little privacy while if that privacy wall is staying there and you move it two and a half feet in, it butts up right next to the last glass panel. And it's, it's going to affect my sight lines. It's going to affect kind of the utilization of the deck and you know, the end result is probably going to make it look a little piece together. And I'm afraid it's going to ruin my property value if I kind of sidestep that in. So, you know, I'm just trying to replace a deck along the exact same setback line. Does anyone know what, obviously they changed the rules. Does anyone here know what year they changed the setback line from five feet to 10% of the property line? Does anyone know what year that happened?

I'm not sure if there at any point was a zoning change related. Based on my experience looking at properties in this area, my guess, I'm taking my best guess, is that this property was probably originally developed and then had sort of that piece to the west added. Most lots in this neighborhood are about 50 feet wide. This one's 75 foot wide. And it looks like based on the pattern of development that there was a lot that was split between you and your neighbor to the west.

Well, was that more than 20 years ago? It was probably the, so in Clayton Gardens, if you live on that part, I would argue there's two Clayton Gardens, right? There's the Clayton Gardens that is Lafon to Westmoreland to, you know, Forsyth to Brownwood, right? They're a little bit older. There's a lot of 50-foot lot lines in there. If you go further west, they start to get a little bit bigger lots, a little more modern houses. It's been developed over time. In that part of Clayton Gardens, I think there's a little over 150 lots. There's only about 10 75-foot lots in there. So 7% of the lots have my existing 75 foot lot line. All the other ones are 50 foot. So that five foot setback is kind of standard operating procedure for the neighborhood, for that part of the neighborhood. So to have a seven and a half foot lot line is just because I have a 75 foot lot. In fact, if you go down, there's a beautiful house that was just sold about five houses down to the east. He's got a 75-foot lot line, and he's got a beautiful pool back there with a concrete patio. And he's got five-foot brick surroundings all around it. And it's five foot back. I went over and looked at it. He's a friend of mine. So I think that house was built in 2006. So I'm wondering if somewhere... after 2006 or around 2000 and it's a big house. And I think he was a developer or maybe he caused it, right? Cause he built a big house. I'm thinking somewhere around 2006, they changed the rules. I mean, we got the city attorney here, so I don't know, but anyway, the end result is I'm just trying to replace my deck, utilize it and you know, have an operating deck that doesn't affect the value of my house.

Okay. Okay. FISA, any comments or questions?

And the reason why is because of the I lost my shade from the neighbor when they developed that house.

All right. I'll check with Lee Hanson.

I have no questions. Thank you.

Okay. I just want to confirm that there's no impact with the current deck. You're not going to get any closer to your neighbor?

No, it's on the exact same line.

Same footprint.

Which is the same footprint exactly, and it's just in line with the foundation of the house.

And if it was offset, it would be incongruent and it wouldn't quite have the symmetry that is currently there now. Correct. Okay. Let me ask if anyone online, is there anybody online listening who wants to weigh in?

If anyone online would like to weigh in, please raise your hand.

Like Nick Pedrotti.

Yeah, how you doing? Can you hear me? OK, good. Yeah, no, I just I mean, I figured I would say something since I'm in here. So

Nick, Nick, Nick, hold on one second. When they ask the court reporter here to swear you in. OK.

Nick? Yep. Say I do. I do. I'm sorry. I can't. I'm sorry, yeah, I do.

Yeah,

I can't hear her.

You what?

Go ahead. I couldn't hear you a second ago, that's why.

Do you promise for the testimony you're about to give us a truth, a whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God?

I do.

One person at a time, please.

The floor is yours, Nick.

So yeah, I was just gonna say, I agree with Mr. Powers and I just wanted to verify with him that yeah, we're staying in the exact same footprint of the old deck. So I just wanted to say yes, it's exactly the same as what it was already. And I agree with Mr Powers too, if you look at the back of his house, if you were to inset that, it would look very silly. So I just want to give my opinion on that as well. Nick, could

you tell us your address and your relationship to the property please?

So I am with Midtown Improvements. I'm the general manager. I'm the one that would be building the deck. Thank you. And like I said, it's going to be a really nice project. It'll only increase the value of the property.

Thank you. Anybody else? Toby? All right. Let me ask Ryan. If this application would be approved, is it staff's opinion that the variance would not constitute a change in the district map?

Correct.

Would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties?

Correct.

Would it not increase congestion on the public streets? Correct. Would that not increase the danger of fire or materially diminish or impair property values? Correct. Thank you. Does anyone else have any more comments or questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve.

Move to approve a 2.5 foot variance from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet. Section 405.1900.A.3 of Article 13, R2, Single-Family Dwelling District.

Thank you. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. No one's opposed. You run the table. Congratulations. Your application is approved.

Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it.

Moving on to the second application, an appeal from Michael Evrew, applicant, on behalf of Richard Mahoney, who is the owner of the property located at 167 North Central Avenue. Are you ready to go? All right, hold on one second, please. Let's have you sworn in.

I'll

ask first, Mr. City Attorney, do you have any exhibits to

present? Yes, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the city, the city offers the following exhibits, which we ask that the board take in to make a part of the record and take administrative notice. Exhibit A is the city code and charter of the city of Clayton. Exhibit B are provisions of the City Code relating to the authority and procedures for the Board of Adjustment. Exhibit C is zoning regulations in Title IV of the City Code of Ordinances. Exhibit D are the provisions of Article 13. Excuse me, that would be Article 14 relating to the R3 zoning district. And Exhibit E is Section 405.2040 concerning open space regulations for the R3 zoning. Exhibit F would be the applications for permit filed on behalf of the applicant and the department files and records of the Department of Planning and Development Services, including the staff report filed with the board.

Thank you. Any objections to those exhibits? No, sir. Okay. I'll turn it

over to you if you give us your name and your address. My address is 8025 Maryland. I live right here in town. The address of the project is 167 North Central in Clayton also. And what it involves is you see the grayed area right there at the top of that plan is a concrete sidewalk that is being urged by the homeowner so he can spend more time outside, because as it is, that's just dirt. We built a pool there on the other side of the sidewalk. You see it right there. And a very slim sidewalk to get Mr. Mahoney from the house to the pool. However, when we did that because of new rules in the building code we had to eliminate the entire existing sidewalk that was there which was substantially more square footage than what we put back in. However, when we put it back in we wound up at 54.75, Brian, I believe, on the hard surfaces and 44.75 also on the green space. This add-on for Mr. Mahoney is actually 208 square feet. So it puts us over the existing code by only a few percent. It's not... uh you know it's very trim and neat and not intrusive it's in the back of the house but it's good for mr mahoney to get out there and he's on wheels so he's either on wheels or he's pushing wheels so um as it is he's he can go outside and go to the pool but That's pretty much his outside activity for right now. What we'd like to be able to do is put this pad in. It's just a flat pad. There's no need for a foundation or anything. It's, you know, just a five-inch pad. And so he can spend time outside, you know. He can't be on his wheels in the dirt, you know. So that would be his area. to use. And that's the gist of what we're asking for is to go 2% over the existing requirements that we stay at 55% hard surfaces and 45% green space area. And it is, I don't know if anybody here has been there or seen this. One of your inspectors was out yesterday and It's all very, very nice back there. And there's a lot of green back there. So this is not something that's all building. You don't see any green. There's green all the way around this thing back there. And all the way around both sides of the house is going to be green. And then we're going to redo the front also. So this pad is no harm, no foul. And it would serve... the homeowner well to be able to get out of the house and do something other than run to his pool. And, you know, nobody wants to be soaking wet all day sitting outside in a lawn chair. So that's the purpose of this secondary pad is that he can utilize that for, you know, kind of better his condition. So that's, we do have his physician's notes in the file. I believe we put that in there at some point. I don't know if, have you seen that, Brian?

There was language included in the application related to the reasoning, you know, why the request was being made that referenced his medical condition.

Right. Okay. So that's what I'm looking for. is a variance so we could pour this pad.

Okay. Let me jump in here before we get the comments from other members of the commission here. Can you talk about what alternatives you've considered? Well,

what we have looked at is synthetic lawn, But you can't really put wheels on synthetic lawn or any type of walker because you'll wear a groove in there in no time flat. And that's pretty much what the options are. Some type of pervious pavers we've looked at. But, you know, I don't see any problem back there with runoff now. and I can't help, but, and we didn't have any problem with runoff when we had a patio that went fence to fence. So I, this is less than that was there. So I don't think we're going to have any problem with running off. And, um, you know, the, the green life back there really does use a lot of water. These are Titan trees and, uh, object being so that they do drink up the water from the runoff when it rains. But for this pad, there's just not many choices we can make. I can't put gravel there. I could put pervious pavers there, but pervious pavers are essentially bricks with a half-inch hollow space between them. And water runs off into the ground through the hollow space. Unfortunately, what that means for Mr. Mahoney is if he's out there in a walker walking over something with a lot of grooves and spacing in it, it may cause him a problem. So that came up. And I can't think of anything else that we could use there other than just a simple concrete pad that would look nice back there and serve the purpose for, you know, for the homeowner. We're open to the size of the thing or positioning, either east, west, north, or south. If you think it's too much, say, you know, we could possibly... reduce the peninsula there if we had to. Back there, the reason that is there is so he can get back to that section. That whole fence going across the back is all green. It's very nice. He's a flower guy. I don't know if you know Mr. Mahoney or not, but he's the retired CEO of Monsanto. And he's done a lot of good for Wash U and the local business environment. And so I tend to think the guy needs something. We ought to do what we can to make it happen.

All right. Liza, have you any questions or comments? Bryce?

Nothing for me.

I do. Let me go to Lee Hanson first.

I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. How big would the pad be without the variance in square feet?

Well, we couldn't. The pad is 208 square feet. Without

the variance.

No, with the variance. Without the variance, there is simply no pad.

I'm sorry, there's no

pad? There's no pad because of the rule, the code that Clayton has, that you can only build something in your yard to the point where you're utilizing a maximum of 55% of your exterior space.

I understand that.

Yes.

And I also understand that you're asking for a 2% variance, and it can't be that much diminishment of the square footage of the pad you want to build.

Well, as I say, we're 54.75% now. You know, a quarter percent is just not going to get me anywhere.

The green space requirements are there for a reason.

Right.

And the reasons that I saw that you posed for him having to have a 2% variance doesn't make a lot of sense to me i've got a broken back i've got wheels i've got a patio that's brick uh and i certainly don't have 200 square foot pad to work out on

yeah

those are my comments and that's my observation

okay

okay um Let me confirm a couple things. Ryan, does this get reviewed by the Planning Commission at any time in any shape or form?

If you were to approve the variance, it would not, this is not a scope that would go before the Planning Commission for approval.

Okay. I'm thinking that there was a 2 percent that the plan commission could approve taking 45 down to 43% if this were, for instance, for the pool or something like that?

So there is a provision in the code tool that allows, I can't remember if it's plan commission or architecture review board, allows them to grant up to a 2% reduction in the green space minimum provided that there is a hardscape mitigation feature. Hardscape mitigation feature is a little bit open-ended, but it would be something like like a permeable paver or there's, that's probably like the lightest version. There's more robust things that people have done on larger scales, like doing dry wells, rain gardens that are typically a little bit more intensive on a site.

Okay. Okay. It was emphasized in the application that Mr. Mahoney is confined to the wheels as you referenced. Right. that he needs to get outside in the sunlight and to get some moving around and what have you. Yes, sir. I'm going to ask the city attorney whether that type of a hardship is appropriate or possible in a situation where we're talking about real estate. If Mr. Mahoney was healthy, would it be a different consideration by this board as opposed to if he is confined to wheels?

Yes, sir. The Missouri courts have dealt with questions of personal conditions of applicants for variance in a number of contexts. And I think it's necessary to think about what is the nature of a variance. It is relief from ordinances which have been created for the public welfare. And the courts have recognized that the hardships that which entitle an applicant to relieve, are hardships arising from the circumstances of the property, not the personal circumstances of the person who happens to occupy the property at a given point in time. And that indeed, the personal circumstances ofthe applicant are not relevant nor material to the question of whether or not a variance is warranted under the facts of the case. So with all due respect to the applicant's past service to the public and the community and his preference for ease of access. These regulations to provide for open space and green space are there to protect the public's interest in adequacy of photosynthesis, cool the entire environment in order to promote a healthy community environment. And the personal circumstances of an individual are not a basis upon which the public's interest in the regulations are to be ignored

okay thank you um i'm i guess i'm uh kind of more aligned in my thoughts with lee that you're not talking i we it's admitted it's You're right, it's not a whole lot of square footage that we're really talking about changing. It appeared to me that if you were to take the gray pad, I can show it to you here. Sure. If you were to take a gray pad here and move it only about three or four feet. Okay. By seven and a half feet there?

That's seven and a half. Overall, it's a ten and a half foot wide area right there.

It seems to me that if you were to move this over, that you're basically going to be able to qualify and not need...

A variance.

A variance. no it's not my job it's not our job the board it's not the board's job to design the project

right right right well if that's going to eliminate the problem um you know

that would be something that you would take up with the planning department

so just to clarify i A modification of the size of this patio would very likely still require going before the Planning Commission with a proposal for a hardscape mitigation feature. They're presently at, what does that say? 54.73 and they're looking at by going about 2.3%. So that slight modification that you're referencing wouldn't necessarily provide an administrative opportunity. What it would likely provide is an opportunity for them to go before the Planning Commission.

I'm sorry, Ryan, just the last.

Yes, so that modification that he just discussed, by adjusting the size of the patio a little bit, is likely not going to get it within the scope of an administrative approval, but it would be of a size that it could go before the Planning Commission so long as it was proposed in conjunction with a hardscape mitigation feature.

The applicant should not take from this conversation that a slight reduction in the size of the pad would entitle them to proceed. Rather, depending on what alternatives designs may be submitted, there may be either an administrative approval or there may still require greater consideration, more thorough consideration. not the staff's considerations, not thorough, but maybe of a character which would require action by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Architectural Review Board. So we don't know until they make a design.

But basically it calls for the applicant or the applicant's representative to probably front run it through the department

Well, first of all, you are being asked to rule on this application.

I understand.

And while you may recognize that it looks like changes can be made, that's a decision for the applicant once this process is concluded.

And he'll do that not with this board, but he'll do this with the planning department?

Make a new plan and submit it for review.

Okay. Thank you.

So to be sure, Brian, what you're saying is There is an opening of the 2% through permeable pavers, because I can't think of anything else that's out there. We've talked about permeable pavers before. If I may...

You know, plans are plans and discussions are discussions. And they're two different things. Staff reviews plans. I don't want to either lead you or your client to the belief that a hypothetical you describe here without all the circumstances being known and seen is going to be the solution to the problem. The code is what the code is. You can see it yourself. It's cited. It's provided in these materials, okay? And staff would be happy to discuss with you as they do with any applicant. But standing here now, I think it would be inappropriate for you to try to get a commitment about what would...

No, no, no. I'm not trying to do that at all.

Understand. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I didn't sense that he was asking for that, just in defense, if you will. Right. But I think... It recognizes there's a process to follow in terms of, you know, you don't want to be shooting in the dark. The planning department can tell you what the regulations are. They may be able to offer suggestions, but it's up to you ultimately to decide what you want to try to do and then to submit the application for that.

Well, at some... One way or another, we have to have a hard surface out here for Mr. Mahoney, whatever that surface is. It's not an infinite palette of surfaces we have to choose from. There are very few, one being permeable pavers with a chat field underneath of it that's compacted that would work But it depends on the paver, and it depends on how big of an area is between the pavers.

That's not something I'm familiar with at this point. Right.

And Ryan points out to me that the hardscape mitigation is a distinct analysis that requires, obviously, specific plans, materials, all the rest of that, and is a specific kind of review which has not been undertaken.

in the calculations there too. Got it. All right. Here is, is the pool considered impervious?

So, it is a green space ratio. It doesn't really matter what, anybody's personal idea of the permeability of the pool is the definition only speaks to the green space minimum on the site. So, the pool does not contribute to the green space of the site and therefore has to be included in the site coverage calculation.

Male Speaker 1 Okay. Thank you. All right.

Would you like to add anything more? Male Speaker 2 Well, I am at You know, I'm here with you. So like I say, we have to achieve this goal one way or another. So if that's through a different product, then we'll submit to Ryan probably next Monday or Tuesday another round of the same thing you're looking at now, only in permeable pavers. It's very ambiguous, the code is, about the reasoning of the 55%. The reality of it is that code exists to take pressure off the stormwater inlets. That's what we're talking about. And in this event, there is nothing that's going to generate more water to your stormwater inlet. You know, it's going to settle in the yard. And if I need to put a tank down underground for, you know, to bleed the water off underground, I can do that. And I think I've talked to these guys about this before. And that brings a new set of issues, which is geotesting for absorbency and what. And if you know anything about clayton dirt, it's clay dirt is what it is. But if we dig a pit underneath of the concrete, underneath of whatever we put there, and funnel runoff into that pit, it's going to absorb into the earth. And, you know, problem solved. So it would help for our purposes if we know what we're looking at other than something of, well, the rule says 55%. for hard surfaces, and the rule says 45% for green space. Understanding the reason why, which is just so people don't build out their backyard and you've all of a sudden got a torrential amount of water going through your storm sewers. Now, this is not gonna affect your storm sewer. It's not tied to your storm sewer. But what I can do in this thing is in the gravel field underneath, I can put a reservoir underground, a water reservoir, runoff, stormwater reservoir that would absorb the water and there's no problem. That problem then is negated. You know, if I wanted to do this or if I needed to do the whole backyard, you know, it would negate what the actual reason is for the code to begin with.

I appreciate your explanation, and I think you're right on the money, but that's really not the purview of this board and the application before us.

Well, if that's the concrete pad and you're saying, well, you're 2% over, you're 55%, I'm saying that, yes, I am. But how is that a problem? Simply to say, well, we've got a 55% rule and that's that is what I heard your attorney to say. But that's not that. If I may.

This board is empowered by law to grant variances to an applicant who demonstrates by evidence in the record at the proceeding that they suffer an undue hardship by reason of the application of the zoning regulation. They are not here to question that. whether or not the regulation should be what it is. They are not here to say, this applicant's a nice person, we ought to bend the rules. They're not here to say that staff is being unreasonable in analyzing the situation. And they're not here in order to second guess why the regulations are what they are. Unfortunately, you're in a position and in a in a place in the process where the arguments you're making and the comments you're making are not germane to the question that is pending before this body.

Well, as I said, I have to... The question before the body, of course, is if we can... if we can pour concrete here.

No, sir. The question before the body is whether or not you have demonstrated that your client will suffer an undue hardship by reason of the application of the ordinance as written. And as we have discussed personal hardships of your client that you have described are not what constitutes the hardship under the

law. I hear what you're saying.

Let me jump in here. Yeah. There are, There are rules about applications that are... You're asking us to give an up or a down on the application, just so you understand. A yes or a no. There is another option which is for you to withdraw the application. The implication or the problem with a denied application is that you are barred, I believe, is it one year from coming back?

They would be barred from coming back before this board for a request for the same variance.

They're not barred from proceeding with their application with amending the application for the building permit, only coming back for this same variance.

For

this

same variance, okay.

Well, it sounds pretty clear to me that you're against the 2% if I'm hearing you. And if you're against the 2%, then we need to obviously arrive at a different solution to the problem.

Well, what we can do is we can entertain a motion in a second and take a vote. Okay. Is there a motion? Come on forward. Come forward. You need to be sworn in. Give us your name and your address.

Names are strong. 149 North Central, Unit A, Clayton.

Thank you. The floor is yours.

Be sworn in.

Please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall be God?

I am. Okay, so my only comment is my wife and I walk by this place every night. What he's talking about is back behind the house from the street. You can't see it from the property behind it, which is all commercial property. No one's bothered by this at all. there's an element it seems to me of common sense here um mr mahoney is a pillar of the community i get it that you're not supposed to pay attention to that but in fact he is i get it that your you've got these rules but the two percent variance is de minimis and so it seems to me that there's an element here of common sense that it is be considered for approval for those reasons um this is not going to bother anyone in the community in my opinion he is excellent at garden work and so forth he really likes being outside and enjoying his garden he comes from a house in ladue but a huge guard and so um I just urge the board to take on an element of common sense here, and common courtesy, and for this approval for those reasons.

OK. Thank you. Any other comments from the board, from the audience? No one online? All right. Then let's, if there's a motion, please.

I move to approve a 2.3% variance from the required green space ratio of 45%, Section 405.2040, point capital A, of Article 14, R3, 1 and 2 Family Dwelling District.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?

No.

No. No. There you have it. Okay. The application has been denied. Right.

All right.

We'll leave it to you to proceed forward as you see fit.

I'll be back here next week, I'm sure. So not here, but down there. Okay. Very good. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Wish you good

luck. Ryan, are we looking at anything for the next month?

I've had inquiries. Usually we know something a little bit more solid by this time, so I'm not expecting anything for October at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if we had one or two more by the end of the year.

Okay, very good. The time is now 5.56 p.m. Is there a motion for adjournment? Second? Second. All those in favor to adjourn say aye. Aye. The meeting is adjourned. Thank

you, everyone.