February 2, 2023

Machine-generated transcript — may contain errors.

Welcome to a regular meeting of the City of Clayton Board of Adjustment. It's approximately 5.05 p.m. I apologize for us beginning late. We're scheduled to start at 5 p.m.

as advertised. My name is Gary Sewell and I'll be presiding over this meeting. I'm gonna ask the other board members and staff to introduce themselves at this time. Ms.

Holstein, would you start? I'm Abby Holstein. Liza Streett. Rick Pettis.

Brian Helley. Obie Kropp. Anna Crane. Kevin O'Keefe, City Attorney.

Board members and alternates are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Board of Alderpersons. 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. These are on the record. This time ask, please.

Rick Bliss. Here. Liza Streett. Here.

Bryce Wolin. Here. Gary Sewell. Here.

Next, we are going to consider the minutes from our meeting of November 3, 2022 for... Members have any questions, comments regarding the approval of these minutes? My only observation is on the minutes at the very top on the header, it references October 6th. And if in fact it's the November 3rd meeting, Yes, I had that same question.

So... I think they were from our last meeting. Was that November 3rd or October 6th? I'd have to double check to correct that one.

Is that now or not? It would seem that on the agenda, on the minutes, they reference approving the October 6th minutes. Correct. So it would seem that the top should be November 3rd.

I believe that that's correct. I've confirmed it's November 3rd. We'll get that corrected. Very good.

Anything else, Mr. Bliss, in terms of these minutes for the meeting of November 3rd? There aren't any other questions or comments regarding these minutes. I would entertain a motion to approve these minutes as corrected.

So moved. Is there a second? All in favor of approving the minutes of the November 3, 2020 as corrected indicate by saying aye. Aye.

Any opposed? These minutes are approved as correct. Thank you. So we have two items on our agenda tonight.

One for the property at 21 Dartford Avenue. Is the applicant or their representative present and ready to proceed? Very good. And then we have a second appeal on behalf of Angela and Stephen Strump, the owners of the property at 8177 Stratford Drive.

Are the Strumps here and ready to proceed? Very good. We'll take these matters in the order that they appear on the agenda. That would be 21 Dartford Avenue.

We're going to start with. Anybody who's here who intends to speak either for or against the appeal, for the 21 Dartford Avenue, I'm going to ask to stand up and be sworn. So that's going to be you, sir. Ryan, you want to actually testify or just off?

Very good. Okay. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding this matter? Very good.

Thank you all very much. Next, I'm going to ask the attorney if the city has any exhibits it would like to present. made part of the record in this matter. Mr.

O'Keefe? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the city offers the following exhibits.

Exhibit A is the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clayton in Toto. Exhibit B is Chapter 405 of the City Code relating to zoning regulations. Exhibit C is Article 6 of Chapter 405 regarding the authority and procedures of the Board of Adjustment. Exhibit D is Article 13, Chapter 405 regarding the R2 single-family zoning district regulations.

Exhibit E is Section 405.1900 of the Code of Ordinances regarding setback requirements in the R2 single family zoning district. Exhibit F is section 405.1900A2 regarding rear yard setbacks in the R2 single family zoning district. Exhibit G is the files and records of the city regarding the property and the applicant's plans for the subject property, including all applications, drawings, and communications contained in the city's files. Exhibit H is the appeal in this matter, filed by the applicant to the Board of Adjustment.

And exhibit I is the staff report prepared by Mr. Ryan Helley, dated January 23, 2023. Thank you, Mr. O'Keefe.

Does the applicant have any objection to any of the city's exhibits being made part of the record? Very good. Then without objection, all of the city's exhibit in this matter will be made part of this record. Sir, I'm going to ask you to step forward to the podium if you would and ask you to end by stating your name and business address for the record.

Please hit the button so that the green light appears on the microphone. It should be right on the top, on the top of the microphone right there. Yep. Good afternoon, my name is Ken Shuffler.

I am a senior project manager for the Clayton Engineering Company 2268 Welsh Industrial Court 63146. I'm here tonight representing Robert Slavin in a request for this variance. Very good. Mr.

Shuffler, then please begin with your presentation. The property at 21 Dartford is a little bit of a mess to say the least. The property originally started out as lot eight and lot nine of the Hillcrest subdivision. At one point there was 30 feet taken off of, separated out from lot eight, which is the Northern lot, 20 feet of lot eight then became tied to lot nine, the southern portion.

From the staff report, which we hadn't found out, Font Bonne University had owned that 30-foot strip for access through a brick wall at the rear of the property. We had observed the original survey by THD in which they called out the 10-foot wide alley at the rear of the property as being vacated. We were unable to find any information regarding this vacation. Going through some of the other deeds, we had found out that in June of 1996, All streets, sidewalks, sewers, and alleys were dedicated to the city of Clayton.

That includes this 10-foot wide alley that runs at the rear of the properties along Dartford, as well as some other alleys within the subdivision of Hillcrest. Given that, the site plan that was presented to the Architectural Review Board was incorrect in as much as it showed a property that was 100 feet wide and 160 feet in depth. With 160 feet in depth, according to the city zoning regulations, the rear yard setback needs to be 25% of the depth, which is 40 feet. However, the alley never have been vacated.

That created a lot that was only 150 foot deep and at this point still in two parcels. Parcel A is lot nine plus the southern 20 feet of lot eight, parcel B being the northern 30 feet of lot eight. I immediately made contact with Ms. Crane at the city to find out exactly how to proceed with this because, frankly, it's a gummed up mess.

The house that they would like to build would traverse that property line that's in between the two parcels, 21 and 21A, as I think they were referred to. That's just going to cloud future title and everything else. The alleyway, looking at some of the aerials, the alleyway, it seems in a number of occurrences in the subdivision, setback lines have been encroached upon, regulations for accessory structures have been encroached upon because for however long that alley has kind of been accepted as property of the owners. When in fact it's not.

I had asked Ms. Crane if she could look into this and she did. She was going to make connection with the city attorney to look into it. And as it turns out, the alley was never vacated that anybody can find.

So I made a petition to have it vacated. In doing that, I had to make a request from the city public works department. So that's where we're at in this whole thing. The whole purpose of the variance that we're asking for excuse me, is for a 30 foot rear yard setback from the actual property line, which is the eastern line of the alley.

In order to meet the requirements of the ordinance, 25% of the 150 foot depth is 37.5 feet. This is going to add an additional or remove an additional seven and a half feet of buildable space from the lot that was originally platted, designed house layout, submitted to the architectural review board. We waited until this time, and I believe the city is going to pursue vacating the alley. What our proposal was with the 30 request for the 30 foot setback in lieu of the 37 and a half foot was once the vacation takes place and that 10 foot, the Western most or Western 10 foot area of the property is dedicated back to the property owners.

It now becomes 160 foot lot, 25% would be 40 foot setback, which will be in the exact same spot as the 30 foot that we are requesting. I had also suggested to Ms. Crane that we would prepare a consolidation plat of the two properties that currently exist to remove any future clouds and make it, for lack of a better term, a legal lot in which to build across the entire lot. And I think that pretty much sums it up.

If anybody has any questions, I'd be more than Mr. Won, can you hit your microphone please? The alley is that, and I drove by the property today, I just want to make sure that I'm clear, is the area defined behind the wall between the drive that is Fonbon's property and that back brick fence? No, sir.

It is on the Eastern side of the common line between the Hillcrest subdivision and the font bond property. So there was in the packet, there was an aerial or was that something else that the applicants submitted? That was part of the aerial view was part of the staff report. I did prepare a variance exhibit, which shows the 10 foot wide alley on the Eastern side, not in any way connected to it's adjacent to the font bond property.

It's on the Western side of 21 though, right? Yes. It's between lot 21 and the font bond property or 21. Yes.

But it's not the grass area behind the fence. Yes, it is. It appears that this entire 10 foot wide alley has never been improved with pavement to be used as an alley. And it also appears that all of the homeowners that adjoin that alley have been basically maintaining them, you know, cutting the grass and things of that nature.

But as I stated in 1996, When the subdivision was created, the streets and alleys were private for the use and benefit of the lot owners of the subdivision. In 1996, they rededicated the streets and alleyes to the city of Clayton. So that 10-foot strip is property of the city of Claydon right away. No, sir.

And the issue with that then become because the alley is a separate property owned by separate entities, that property line there is where these setbacks and every other regulation has to be taken to. Question for Mr. If the for the city to vacate its ownership of this alley. If that's granted, would that mean that each of the individual property owners along that portion of Dartford own that 10-foot portion of land that's within the boundary of Dartford?

I cannot say definitively. I think that is probably the case. So in part, the reason I said I would like to be sworn is I think some background on public ownership of rights of way and the vacation process would be helpful context for the board. And I'll offer that at any point when you would like me to do that.

OK, good. Perhaps now would that be a good time? Sit back and relax. When a political subdivision acquires right of way by dedication, it acquires a fee in trust.

Some of you may have heard the term fee simple. A fee simple title to real estate is the ownership of all aspects of ownership anybody could have in real estate. courts sometimes refer to it as a bundle of rights. And a fee simple is total ownership of all rights with respect to property.

When the city acquires by dedication, it acquires a fee title, but it is a fee in trust allowing the city only to use the property for the purposes for which it was dedicated. So we have all title to it, but we cannot convey it to someone else for some other use We cannot put it to some other use. If it's dedicated to us for purposes of a roadway or passageway, it has to be restricted to that use and it can't be used for any other purpose or we would violate the trust with which it's constrained and given to us. The question of whether the political subdivision wishes to vacate property.

Vacating is how a political subdivision gets rid of dedicated property. Again, remember, we can't convey it to anybody else. We can't sell it. We can't say, here's good title to this property because we don't have fee simple title.

All we have is the fee and trust for use as a roadway. So we can't convey to anyone else. And what we do is we say, we no longer wish to own this. It's not ours anymore.

And we record that vacation with the recorder of deeds And it is a legislative act up to the total legislative discretion of the Board of Aldermen, whether at a given point in time it decides that the city will never require use of this real estate again and is prepared to vacate its interest. What the Board of Alderman may do with the gentleman's application or even staff recommendation, I cannot tell you. The board has expressed no point of view and taken no action. I have learned I never assume a legislative body We'll do what they're told.

So I never assumed that it would be vacated. But when the property is vacated, it then reverts to the successor entitled to the property from which it came. Ordinarily, for instance, the street in front of your house is vacated. It will go half to each side.

But if a piece of property is dedicated on the edge of a parcel of real estate, then it will revert to the successor in title from the lot from which it was taken and all 10 feet would go to one side. So in response to your question, and I have done no research or done any title work to confirm what Mr. Scheffler believes to be the circumstances. But if it was, in fact, taken from the side or edge of a lot, then the 10 feet ought to revert to the successor and title all those lots along it, as opposed to being divided in half.

The problem is that the city does not convey it. And the recorder of deeds has to sort out with the county assessor who they believe owns it. Or property owners go to court and get a declaration, that's mine. but the city has no ability to say it's yours.

So there are a couple of problems with the assumption that this lot will become 10 feet larger. Number one, the legislative body of the city has not even considered let alone agreed that it is in the best interest of the public to vacate the city's interest in that property. Number two, when it does, we don't determine where it goes. And it is up to the property owners to assert and establish their ownership subsequent to vacation.

None of that has occurred. So I am not in a position to suggest to you or to render an opinion that Mr. Schaeffler's client will own that 10 feet at any given point in time in the future. Is that help at all in terms of vacation 101?

It certainly helps me. So theoretically, just theoretically, Bonbon could go and say, no, that's our property. Yes, upon vacation, if they have some claim to it by reason of having made use of it, by reason of having purchased an interest or whatever else, or that more title research reveals some role that they had? I have no idea.

Everybody that has $125 can go to courthouse and claim that they're entitled to release. You said, if I understood you right, that the reversion would go to the original transferor, which was the trustee of the subdivision. That's what I believe would be the case. If I am the property owner, Mr.

Slavin or the leakers or whomever, I would want to enter, I would like to have an agreement with the trustee that they would in turn upon receiving the reversion, if that's the proper term, would then be deeded back over to me for my lot. My neighbor would want to do the same, the neighbor next to that. They would all like to have an agreement with the trustee that the trustee is committed to dedicate the abandoned 10 feet To each respective property owner. Right.

My contextual material doesn't even take into account claims by the trustees to the property, but you are correct that that adds yet another layer of complexity to sorting out who's on first when NOLA does so. Fine, if I understand, Mr. Chairman. government of parcel property, and if trustees of the subdivision provided each of those property owners, Hartford, the kind of, but that in and of itself doesn't establish a fee simple ownership in that additional 10 feet of property, it doesn't.

No, sir. First of all, until the city vacates the property, there's nothing for the trustees to do. There's no agreement. So the answer to the question how to do it, I think Mr.

mentioned that, and that's acquiring the property file a suit in circuit court in St. Louis County that seeks a sentence. It's a declaratory judgment to determine who is in fact the title owner of that additional entity. But eliminate evidence to be presented in the lawsuit such an agreement is used.

That would just be another layer in the process. And is there any timetable for the Board of Alderpersons here acting on the action debate? In one respect, this deal is premature. The applicant's assumption that they are shortly to own 10 more feet of that lot is premature at best.

And so does this board have the legal authority the requested variance at this time? Well, it depends on whether, respectfully, whether the applicant can make a case for a present hardship not based on the assumption that the lot will get bigger, but based on their need that there is a hardship not of their own making with regard to applying the setback to the current lot line. Could they're having to go back to ARB, have to go back to the architects and the engineers and everybody else who's put the plans together to this point? That whole process restarting and having to go through that whole gauntlet of activities, could that not be construed as a hardship?

First of all, the assessment as to whether or not there's a hardship for the board, not me. But I would say that it's certainly, first of all, the choice to redesign the property in order to accelerate the development process is one made by the applicant for their own purposes. And secondly, if they do choose to redesign, then that is again a hardship of their own making as to when do we wish to begin construction because we're not allowed to under the current circumstance. So I would respectfully suggest that under the requirements for granting a variance, an applicant can't create their own hardship and suffer from it.

The person that shot their parents can't claim mercy for being an orphan. And I believe that one of the conditions for granting a variance in this case, is not only proving practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the strict application of the zoning regulations due to the exceptional or unique circumstances or conditions such that strict application by the owner of the property. not just practical difficulties, hardships. Those two terms are further defined by the remaining language.

Is that accurate, Mr. Opie? Yes, sir. Section report.

Yes, sir. I have a question for Mr. Schaffer. Mr.

Schaefer was? Schaefer? Schaefer. Anything's fine.

It's been changed and butchered so many times, so. My apologies. Was the original design work done under the assumption that that 10-foot back line was the actual setback line? Or was the design work done knowing that that was not the setback line?

The... I got into this, I have done no design work on this project at this point. There was a survey prepared by THD. The survey by THD showed the existing residents, it showed a number of parcels, but it also, they certified to the survey that the alley had been vacated.

Somewhere along the line, one of the owners built a new garage. The new garage is three inches off of the alley. So if there was, I don't know, I'm assuming there was a building permit. A building permit was granted to put a garage building on a property line, essentially three inches.

It's my understanding that accessory buildings are allowed to be built in the rear yard setbacks, but they still have to maintain a minimum from a property line and none of that was done. So there was a lot of confusion with this from the get-go until it came to my desk. And then I started asking questions. They're hoping to keep the same house plan that they had originally done, which needs the, in this case, the 30 foot setback or we redo the house.

The vacation process is always one because it's a piece of land that theoretically nobody in the subdivision has to maintain to some degree other than they don't want their backyard looking bad. It's, there's no evidence in aerials. They go back 20, 30, 40, 50 years that are available on St. Louis County that it was ever used as an alley.

So again, I can tell you that the original subdivision, which has City of Clayton on one side and the City of St. Louis on the other, all of these streets and alleyways came from the original parcel of land. So it has nothing to do with, no part of it ever came from the Font Bonne property. Mr.

Schiffler, and I don't want to interrupt you unduly or deprive you of the information you're seeking, but I do think it's necessary, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to point out that this is hearsay evidence upon hearsay evidence, and there are documents which resolve these issues. It's the applicant's burden to make their case, and in the absence of documentary evidence, while I appreciate the narrative and certainly want you to have any information you think relevant or useful to you, The value of this with respect to carrying the applicant's burden of proof is zero. But I did, excuse me, I did submit a copy of the record plat for Hillcrest to the city.

I did provide a copy of the rededication from 1996 to the city while all of this, I mean, this has been going on for two months so that the information was provided. You know, I can resend it, I can reprovide it. The whole process between Ms. Crane going to public works based on a staff report, they had done some looking into it that verified, at least in portion, that there was no available information prior to this that the alley still exists.

It has not been vacated. So that's where the whole process started. And if I may, we take as a given the applicant's assertion that the property is dedicated to the city and currently owned by the city. We accept that.

That's the premise upon which it's filed here, the application. We accept that to be true. The issue is, what will the future hold? And I would point out in response to something I think Mr.

Rowland's question raises is, upon vacation, in this case, I assume it would be 1,000 square feet of property would be added to this lot, correct? Yes, sir. And the other lots, which are 50, will get 500 square feet, all of which is taxable. And when the lot increases in sizes, all these lots are going to have increased taxes.

Not everybody who lives along this alley may be excited about the prospect of the property being vacated. I don't know what will happen. I do think Mr. Schaeffler is correct.

Staff has looked at the situation you brought to staff's attention. It is staff's intention to continue to explore what the facts are. And if we establish that they are, as Mr. Scheffler said, I think it is the staff's intention to bring that information to the board and seek their advice on what they want to do and give them the option to make it.

But that is not a choice that anyone in this room can make. And to go back to the question from earlier, it is the city attorney's if I understand you correctly, that for purposes of appeal that's before us tonight, still have the legal authority to act and grant the requested variance if we determine their burden of proof for having such a variance granted under the current ordinances and regulations of the city. Yes, sir. If you believe that the property cannot be put to a beneficial use with 37 and a half foot setback for that size property and that it arises not out of the timing or desires of the property owner but out of the circumstances attendant to the property.

If you were to find that there is evidence to support that conclusion and reach that conclusion, then it would come within the province of the board to grant an error. Okay. Sure. So I'm looking at the site plan here and correct me if I'm wrong.

It looks like what you're requesting the setback for is a covered porch and patio, correct? It's not. That's the next matter. That's not this matter.

It's not? Am I looking at it differently? No, this is. Oh, there is?

It is. I'm sorry. Yeah, I was like, I'm pretty sure it was. Is that correct?

It's not the actual home. It's a covered enclosed porch, like a four-season room or something. Don't build it. Well, change the building plan.

Change the building plans. Okay. That's, you know, and that's just the rear yard setback. You know, again, I could, this may have gone through, but with the property being listed in two parcels, that's still a problem because, you know, that consolidation plat, in my world anyway, needs to be taken care of to clear up any other possible problems.

And we're not here tonight to deal with that. Correct. But that's just another, but I can't, I don't want to, I can move ahead on the consolidation plat and then end up with 100 foot by 150 foot lot. You know, but again, I...

We'd like to not change the house plans at this point. I mean, if it's something to do, if this whole situation in itself isn't the hardship for building on a lot that was sold, surveyed, certified incorrectly by others, you know, that's what got me here today. Okay. Those are the facts, if you will.

My understanding that when your company didn't have anything to do with preparing the plans for this home that's part of your submission with this application, is that correct? The house plans that were submitted were provided to us from the previous owner. This is how they want to move forward, and everything about the property was designed for this house on this property. So going back to Ms.

Woolsey's point, useful part of this. Would you agree, sir, that this property certainly make reasonable use of the property by building a house other than the one that's contained in these plans that's that would allow the owner reasonable use of the property and stay within the limitations of the existing building codes of the city. Yes, they could. They could also build a house on two 50 foot lots.

The properties, nobody's been able to find evidence that right now there's two parcels. One parcel is completely and totally illegal in the city only being 30 feet wide. The other one is 70 feet wide. And I don't, this is where, you know, the side yards are based on the width of the lot.

The rear front setbacks are based on the depth of the lot. We've already lost some footage in the front of the house because of the, what's it called block facing where we have to take the average of all the houses up and down the street. Well, the, I made a request that we could go back to the original setback as plotted on the record plat, but every time somebody builds a new house, it gets further back and further back and further because when the people down here that their house is 37 feet off the right-of-way average in all the other properties, they're not going to be required to have a 46-foot front setback. And we can only deal with the facts as they exist today, not how they might be in some time in the future, correct?

Correct. And the reason for my variance request is I've been doing this normally with vacation processes. I've rarely seen a vacation. Well, I don't know that I've ever seen a vacation process where if a right away was vacated, as Mr.

O'Keefe said, half goes to this owner, half goes to the seller and then they go from property line to property line. Um, It's the only logical way to do that because this person up here shouldn't be able to get a whole 10 foot strip. And if this person up there doesn't want it, then you're actually creating more illegal lots because now you have a thousand square foot property with no access to anything. So part of this was just to try and clean up our lot.

The reason that there was an air made in that survey that the property owner and prepared, which showed the alley we've been talking about as having been vacated? Is that not to be the case? Not only was that part of it, but the current owner, Mr. Slavin, purchased the property based on 160 foot deep lot.

Which was a function of this incorrect survey. Yes, sir. It's just been a mess. And I'm just trying to clean it up.

I understand completely. To Abby's point, though, they can build the house or the foundation as long as they're willing. If they're very optimistic in the short run, they're going to sacrifice seven and a half feet of concrete porch and patio. that they may be able to get back if the city were to vacate the alley and all that goes downstream.

But otherwise, they can still build the house as it is laid out with the foundation east of the setback line, correct? Yes. They just can't complete the house per the plans as they are now until possibly sometime down the road. Got it.

but that presents new problems trying to get materials and everything to the back of a house with 10-foot side yards. Mr. Warren, so this occurred to me that not only has the existing property owner hire you and I think wisely they their bacon okay get them out of this mess earlier described sounds in part as if that property owner applicant is asking the board to partner with you I disagree. If you're referring to me coming here and approaching the city to vacate the alley to make my project work, no.

If the alley never goes away, it's going to be a situation that if this homeowner decides to put a pool and they want to fence in their yard, There's going to be a 10 foot area that has a fence and a brick wall. And it's currently dedicated to the city. And I don't know. You know, I don't know how that works.

I understand that property owners cut the grass all the way up to the curb, even though it's in city or county right away and things like that. With a situation like this, wherein it's an actual property line, you know, you can't build a fence on your right-of-way line. A fence has to be so many feet back from the right of way. So cutting an extra seven foot strip of grass isn't a problem, but we start separating that alley area by fences.

It becomes a piece of no man's land. And since it was dedicated to the city, that's why I posed the question to the city. Can we pursue vacating it? Mr.

Chairman, if I may, I think Mr. Schaeffler hit the nail on the head. The problem is that this board's jurisdiction does not extend to acting as a legislature. It acts as adjudicatory body for the purpose of determining whether an applicant establishes a hardship such that the law that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to them.

The decisions of which he's talking about, is it smart to have this 10 feet in the city? Who's going to maintain it? Maintenance issues if people build fences and walls are absolutely legitimate concerns. They are, however, essentially legislative, which is why the solution to this issue or the resolution of the interests he seeks to assert lies with the legislative body and not with the Board of Adjustments.

Excellent point. And just clarification purposes, Mr. Scheffler earlier say that even if the city of Clayton does vacate their . the ownership of that alleyway, you would still need this seven and a half foot variance that you're requesting.

I hear you correctly? No, sir. If the city vacates it and that 10 foot strip reverts back to the property owners that had joined it, that now makes the lot 160 foot, but the current property line at 150 feet, if the alley is vacated, that 40 feet comes off of the new lot line, the new property line, which is the same as the 30 foot that we're asking for. This alley that you're asking to vacate right?

That runs all the way across Dartford. So other homeowners, when they built, have they gotten, assuming, right, that it's never vacated because that's not really something that affects us, like we're making a decision based on now, assuming it's not vacated, have other homes gotten rear setbacks, like variances, sorry, variances to the rear setback? I can't I can't cast stones, but I you know, based on the aerials and things like that there's a number of accessory structures that are built on our you know inside of what the normal. minimum setbacks would be for a property line within a rear yard setback.

I think it's five foot minimum. If the ordinance, I got so many ordinances in my head, an accessory structure can only be some percentage of the rear yard area and it can't be any closer than I believe five feet. Well, in a number of cases, Because of people's misconception that that 10-foot strip was theirs, there seems to be a number of accessory structures that are built on the property line. The city is not aware of any permits issued by the city on the basis that the lot line was somewhere other than where it's shown.

And we're not aware of any variances granted as a result of that. Somebody hasn't built where they said they were going to build or if they built without a permit. I can't address any of that, but staff has not applied a lot line other than the lot line 10 feet away from the Fon Fon property. If the requested variance this evening is denied and then in the future that 10 foot is gained through legislation, Well, would the applicant be able to resubmit at that point?

Wouldn't need a variance. If assuming it's vacated and assuming that all 10 feet go to this lot and not divided with Fonfon on the other side, an answer I do not have, but it appears Mr. Scheffler certainly believes it will go to his client. And if his belief is correct, then the facility as designed appears to satisfy the 25% setback requirement for the rear lot from that 160-foot lot.

However, that's, I think, a relevant consideration. Anybody else have any questions? Kelly, let me ask you just a few questions. Is it the staff's opinion that there are not practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the strict application of the zoning regulations in this matter?

That is correct. Does the staff anticipate any significant detrimental effects on public safety and welfare associated with approving the requested? No. And is it the staff's opinion that granting the requested variance would not likely result in a change in the district map?

That's correct. Impair an adequate supply of light near to adjacent property? Correct. Increase congestion in public streets?

Correct. Increased the danger of fire? Correct. Purely diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area?

Correct. and would not in any other respect compare the public health, safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the city. Correct. Thank you.

So as I understand it, Mr. Scheffler, the only alternative that the applicant, the property owner in this case considered was the city of Clayton vacating ownership of this alleyway behind the property question. Isn't that the only alternative? No, sir.

And I've never suggested that that was the only alternative. The request for this variance is based on the current house that's been designed, the current house that has been agreed to, you know, based on bad information. Like, you know, we... bad information is?

To serve the original survey of the property and lack of due diligence to determine what the property was. There's been a number of variations. This plan and this variance is not the only option. As has been suggested, we can build a house and then come back at a later time and build the four season room on the back.

The four season room in the back because of the fact that it's enclosed and everything else, it needs a foundation. It's not like it's just a concrete slab. It presents some problems to do that in the future because you don't have access, the same type of access to it. It creates a little tougher job for them.

Or they could redesign the house with a 37 and a half foot setback. You know, so it's not the only option. It's the one that we would prefer. And that's why I'm here asking for this variance.

Mr. Scheffler, anything else for you? No, I want to thank everybody for hearing me out, listening to our argument, and hopefully we can make this happen. Thank you, Mr.

Scheffle. No, sir. If I just make an observation, this isn't about Mr. Slavin or Mr.

Scheffler. The reason for the perspective that I have offered to the board is structural. It's policy. It's the role and the distinction between legislative bodies and adjudicatory bodies under this land use regulatory scheme.

And it is important in my view and in the staff's view that the board be sensitive and applicants be sensitive to the fact that the board here is in here to second guess the zoning laws of the city. It's in here to second-guess the ordinances. It's here to afford relief when and if a strict application creates not something that isn't what they want to do, but it creates a circumstance that they can't do anything. And that is when relief is warranted.

And that's why this release valve of a variance is established under the law. It's not personal. And staff's intention is to bring as expeditiously as possible the question of whether or not the board wishes to vacate this property to the board for consideration. But that's the other board, the big board.

Yes, I'm sorry, the Board of Aldermen. But we also want to have our due diligence done before that when that issue is presented for decision. And I'm not going to presume what that decision will be. But it is the reason for the issues that I've raised with you is to preserve the integrity of this tripartite system It is, it's about process.

Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. I welcome Mr.

Keith as he continues to do. Keep this board grounded and remind us of exactly what our lane is in which we travel and that... but to do our best to stay in our lane. So another way to look at it is my perspective is I think we're asked to call balls and strikes if we will.

We're not making any decisions to trade players or I do have one other question. If we are denied this evening and I go back and I get more information, I provide more information to the city. And I find that the vacation process can go in our favor. Is there a time period that I have to wait to come back and request the same variance?

I'm not sure why you would need. Oh, I'm sorry. If the property is not vacated or it doesn't go to you, is there a time limit on reapplying for a variance for 30 feet instead of 37 and a half? Is that what your question is?

Basically, but technically you cannot apply for the same variance within 12 months without demonstrating a change of circumstance. If you believe that the resolution of the potential vacation or vacation and not getting all 10 feet or whatever is a change of circumstance, you would have an opportunity to try and make the case to the Board of Adjustment that you are not foreclosed, not barred for 12 months because of that change of circumstance. Thank you. Yeah, it seemed to me the key there in your question was you said something about reference.

If you've got more different information or evidence with respect to this issue of vacating the alleyways. vacation took place, could you file this same variance and not have to wait any particular time from this request to the subsequent one? Correct. And the only reason I ask is Ms.

Crane said that the city will not go through and vacate John Potter, Little pieces here and there. John Potter, That if the city pursues us can pursue this chooses to pursue this it's going to be the whole alley. John Potter, And, and that is a long process and we were hoping to avoid a long process. John Potter, which.

John Potter, I believe that. John Potter, Ultimately. The alley can't go away and the alley will be reverted back to the adjoining properties. And my 30 foot request will then become a legal 40 foot setback, but it's the time factor.

You know, it'd be nice to start building in spring and live there by the end of summer. Understood. And what you asked about with respect to what the Board of Alderpersons decides to do with this issue of making something we certainly can't address here, not only tonight, but ever. Right, no, I understand.

That's... But this body can... grant a variance. And, you know, so I know that transfer of property and going through all of that can't come through here, but this body can grant a variance, you know, based on...

and the applicant has met all of the other requirements or preconditions for submitting the application. All righty. So at this point in time, I just- Chairman, there is a hand up online. Other witnesses, thank you for- Wrote it down, and I still- So there's somebody in the queue that has something.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can you guys hear me? Hang on before you start. Sir, would you state your name and your address for the record?

Yeah. Hey, everybody. This is Bill Schuette. I'm at 27 Dartford.

So I'm just two houses down from 21 Dartford. And hang on, Mr. Schuette. You haven't been sworn in yet.

So I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding your testimony in this matter? Yes. Proceed, sir.

Hey, sorry, guys. Great conversation. Mr. Shelford, you definitely did your homework there.

I'm at 27 Darfur. I'm also the president of the Homeowners Association here, and I'm really tied in with the trustees of the neighborhood. So, you know, you basically had the... the history of the neighborhood, you know, pretty much spot on there.

Um, I just want to offer up, uh, to Mr. Leffler, um, to come talk with me, um, after this or anytime after this, I think I can help you out with this a little bit and gets you give you some additional insight into that, into the dynamics of this. Uh, that would be fine. Um, I have your address.

Can I ask for a phone number here? Yeah, absolutely. 314-401-7980. 7980.

Yeah, and there's about 10 or 12 homeowners on the street, and I have a general sense of what these homeowners, what their opinions are with this 10-foot fence alley or easement whatever you want to call it you know behind our houses are so um again i think i think you know i'm not sure what the what this body is gonna recommend tonight um it sounds like it you unfortunately you might have some more stuff to do some more homework to do on your end um but but i think we can we can have the uh me and the other homeowners on dartford as well as the trustees and everybody can help you out thank you and and we're all we're all uh sick of looking at that eyesore at 21 Dartford. So we have a bit of interest to, you know, see that, you know, turn into something, you know, better than what's in there right now. Thank you, Mr. Schutte.

Anything further for this evening? No, thank you. Thank you for letting me speak. Welcome, appreciate your input.

Anybody else out there in the queue that would like to speak before we conclude this matter? Like there isn't anybody, right? Okay. And thank you.

you to all of those who are participating online this evening regarding this matter. Appreciate your interest and your patience. So at this point, I would entertain a question. Well, fair enough.

Good questions. So, Mr. Scheffler, Mr. Bliss has suggested that we ask you, based upon the discussion you've heard so far this evening, want us to proceed with an up or down vote on the requested variance, or would you prefer to draw your...

application for now and reserve the right to ask that it be rescheduled at a later date. That wouldn't require the filing of any kind of new variance. If he chose not to have us vote on this tonight, he can reschedule his same variance for a later date. We would ask that he reapplied if he were to do that.

Unless there's some specific evidence that the applicant believes will be available in the near term. I think if it's a strategic decision to avoid an adverse negative ruling so that there's no question of a bar to a subsequent application. I think was the reason for inviting you. I think the solution is to withdraw and- If I withdraw, then I can come back before 12 months.

The 12 month bar on resubmission only applies after an application has been denied. Okay. And if you withdraw, there is no denial. Okay.

And then I can just see what, talk to Mr. Shute and- Sure, but you would be resubmitting under a new request. Okay. Well, I'll do that then.

I'm sorry. We're not going to throw this out without something explicit from you saying that you wish to withdraw as opposed to do that. You know, I work in a different field than you. I understand.

That's why we all want to stay in our lanes and we all want to make sure we... based on how I believe a vote would go, I would at this time like to withdraw the application to come back at a later date. How's that? And we thank you for, we don't have to vote on your request to withdraw.

That's the applicant's choice. Thank you for your efforts on this matter. I think your client was well represented by you. Well, thank you all for listening to me and I'll be seeing you again, hopefully.

Thank you. So the second matter on our agenda for this evening, and I want to thank the Strums for their patience and perseverance. So we now have an appeal from Axton McCormack on behalf of Angela and Stephen Strum, owners of a 177 Stratford drive for a to allow for the construction of a rebuilt deck with covered roof on the northern portion of an existing deck. Mr.

Strom, are you ready to proceed? Very good. Let's do this. Anyone who expects to speak either for or against this matter, I'm going to ask to stand and swear everybody Very good.

Do we have anybody in the audience there? There is Phillips and Phillips. So people have their right hand up, is that what I see? Yes, that's correct.

Phillips and David Phillips. Very good. Yes, correct. Okay.

Thank you. You raise your right hand. You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with respect to testimony in this matter. Yes.

Yes. Very good. Thank you. Put your hands down.

Mr. O'Keefe, does the city have any exhibits that would like to be considered part of this appeal? Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

The city offers the following exhibits to be included in the record of the proceedings. Exhibit A is the Clayton Code of Ordinances. Exhibit B is Chapter 405 of the City Code regarding zoning regulations. Exhibit C is Article 6 of Chapter 405 regarding the Board of Adjustment and its jurisdiction and procedures.

Exhibit D is Chapter 410 of the Code of Ordinance regarding overlay and urban design districts in the City of Clayton. Exhibit E is Article 7 of Chapter 410 regarding the Clayton Gardens and Clayshire subdivision urban design zoning districts. Exhibit F is Section 410.350 of the Code of Ordinances regarding lot coverage in the Clayton Gardens urban design zoning district. Exhibit G are the files of the city regarding the property, the application, the plans and communications concerning the proposed construction, permit applications and correspondence.

And Exhibit H is the appeal filed by the applicant, which brings the matter before the Board at this point. And finally, Exhibit I is the staff report prepared by Mr. Helle and dated January 17, what I should presume is 2023, not 2022. Very good.

Thank you, Mr. O'Keefe. Does the applicant have any objection to the city being part of the record in this appeal? Very good.

Then the city's exhibits will be part of the consideration of this matter. Let's see. Mr. Strum, who's going to speak first on the applicant's behalf?

Okay, please, if you'd step forward, come up to the podium, and if you'd state your name and your business address for the record. My name is Axton McCormack, and I am a project manager with Jeff Day & Associates Architects. Can everybody hear Mr. Axton?

Yes. Please proceed. Should I start over? No, I think that was recorded.

Okay. And Jeff Day and Associates is at 14311 Manchester Road in Baldwin, Missouri at 63011. I think if you could keep your voice up, that would be helpful. Okay.

So I am here representing Stevenstrom's project, requesting this variance. The lot of 8177 Stratford is a non-conforming lot in a couple of areas. It is 7,200 square feet. Meanwhile, in the which is smaller than the zoning regulations, which is 7,500 square feet.

The other nonconformity being that the lot coverage already exceeds what the current zoning is, which is 55%. The current lot coverage is 64%. So now any chance of further enhancing the lot with any sort of renovations to the exterior are severely limited. They do have plans to tear down the deck and rebuild it with a composite decking for the preserve the deck.

They would also like to add a covered portion to the deck that would, It would prove further use for the deck throughout the year. They could use it during any kind of harsh weather if they so chose to with this cover. And I am open to any questions that you may have for me at this time. Okay.

Do the members have any questions? Question of the city. The Clayton Gardens Design District addressing flooding and water issues. Could you talk a little bit about the history of that?

Because I thought most of the flooding problems existed in the backyards of houses on the west side of Crandon, caused by the development of North Gay Avenue, and the water would just come cascading down from west to east. This part of Clayton Gardens is affected was news to me. And if you could talk about the history of the urban design district that is in play here, if you will. Sure.

So not being there at the time that their minister was adopted, I can't speak to exactly what was discussed during that time period. However, I will say that the nature of overlay districts, the intention is to address development concerns related to a specific area that might differ from other parts of the city that have the base zoning district, that it would be the same. So in this scenario, the urban design district for Clayton Gardens was really specifically designed to address a few issues, one being of newer development compared to the existing development. In relation to that, the size of coverage of lots was resulting in an increased stormwater runoff.

As you'll notice in some areas like there, you mentioned on Crandon, there's not the same sidewalk and right-of-way development that is able to capture and handle some stormwater runoff. So the issues related to runoff in that portion of the urban design district are different from the areas that are east of Forsyth, which is part of why within the urban design district, there are some regulations that differ depending on which side of Forsyth you're on within that overlay district. So this area both all areas of Clayton Gardens, there was an increase in the complaints associated with stormwater runoff issues and there continue to be. And part of what the Urban Design District does, while I can't say if it was specifically designed to that, but one item that this Urban Design District does is further restrict the coverage of lots compared to other R2 zoning districts within the city.

Thank you. And by coverage of lots... Correct. Yes, the impervious coverage the there's a few ways that it's touched on within the existing urban design district when there's areas that speak to the character of the lot.

maintaining green area green space and tree areas that's referenced within the urban design district but then the code that specifically the applicants requesting a variance from relates to the impervious coverage for this specific property whether it's the impervious coverage question They're all tied together. The impervious coverage is a contributing factor to how much water runs off of the site. So I can't speak to specifically doing an analysis of this site's runoff. All that was provided was The site plans related to the impervious coverage, there was no drainage area map or outflow analysis provided as part of the application.

However, the calculation determined runoff do incorporate the impervious coverage. Thank you. would you like to speak and add anything else to the presentation? I would, yes.

Would you come forward and just for the record state your name and your address? Sure, absolutely. I'm Steven Strum. I live at 8177 Stratford Drive.

One of the things that I had mentioned to those people that were kind enough on the board to come there is the water runoff issue is as important for me as it is for my neighbors, particularly the neighbors behind me. As you saw with the design, once you go north past the edge of my deck, the area is lower. and it's mulched and it's got gardens and a hot tub. And if it were to be a problem for the people behind me on Lafon, it would first be a problem for me.

And I don't want that problem. So one of the things that's not in, I don't believe it's in the drawings is the gutter system that would be on this gable. As I mentioned, there are two downspouts in the rear that come off the roof, one of which covers the entire west side of the roof from – north to south, and the other covers a different area. Those downspouts go down into the ground and they actually go under the deck.

At one point there was a tree which is now gone and the water would then go down to water the tree. So what we have envisioned is a gutter that would go into the downspout, into one of those downspouts, that would then send the water from the roof all the way down into the ground to never be seen again. And I think that is the best design because it not only doesn't go to the neighbor behind me to the north, but it doesn't go into the back section of my yard. So I wanted to make sure that was clear to the board.

That's helpful. Any other background information back to existing condition and your planned improvement? No, that is it. Yeah.

I just want to On what I'm seeing. So it's going to be the same footprint is what already exists. You're just adding. The deck is going to be the exact same.

Yes, same amount of impervious service for not getting anything. Well, the deck is the exact same footprint, the roof that we're talking about. is new, that is not there right now. But yes, the deck is exactly the exact same footprint.

If I may, the deck is not an impervious surface, the roof is an impervious surface. They are adding impervious surface. And the proposed roof is I understood it, not over the higher deck. It's over a portion of the deck.

Is that accurate? Yes. I would say, I don't know, less than half of the deck is the roof structure. Correct.

I have a question for the city. Do we know how this engineering feat of having the gutters that go down underground and empty and to face effect the infrastructure of the city? So there's a lot of drainage area calculations that the city does for new construction, smaller projects such as this doesn't trigger all of that analysis. However, we still have certain design standards that would have to be met.

So there's requirements for the daylight or the discharge point of stormwater drainage areas. So those have to be 10 feet from a property line. I can't think of a design where just the pipe just ends underground and that's the only spot that would likely end up going into some sort of dry well system or underground detention system that includes a pop-up emitter for overflow, and those pop-up emitters have to be 10 feet from the property lines. The location of the dry well also would have to be shown on the plan, so we would be able to evaluate the criteria and how that relates to our standards as well as MSD regulations.

And that information has not yet been provided nor assessed. Yeah, yeah. All of that information is not a part of the matter that's before us tonight. And those issues that would be dealt with at a future, if the variance granted, would be dealt with in a future time by another branch or office of Yes, sir.

Has this solution ever been, is there a precedent for this that has been done anywhere else in Clayton? The use of those kind of BMPs as their best managed reference, that's a common feature that we see on newer construction projects and larger edition projects today. And I'm... I am careful to say that that's a solution because I can't say right now, having not been able to review anything, whether or not that would be a solution to any sort of concerns.

So the criteria for reviewing a hardship that includes addressing potential impacts to public welfare and other features, that being proposed as solution, I can't at this time state if I staff recommend that would be the case. If I may. And I think it was alluded to earlier, and I think perhaps by the chairman. One of the reasons for these regulations on an area basis is the character of the lots, the character of building on the lots, but also the infrastructure available, the way of the land with respect to water sheeting and surface water control throughout the area.

So say I'm going to daylight it at a different part of my lot. does not address the fact as to whether or not there's adequate stormwater systems in place to deal with this water once it finally gets to the curb and gets to the gutter and gets into the stormwater system. I mean, one of the reasons for these regulations is that this may be part of the dual system. It keeps going off.

So it is a question not just of what happens on my lot, but how does the lot fit in with an integrated question of surface water in the area within which the regulation is effective? Does that make any sense to you? Thank you. From Mr.

Carmack, anything further? Nothing further. From Keith, anything more? Oh, yeah, we have the Phillips.

And then David. Lynn, looks like you're up first. For the record, please, would you state your name and your address? Yes.

Sure. I'm Lynn Phillips. We are at 7928 Lafon, which is directly behind the Strums. Our house and our yard is on an angle, so downhill literally from the Strums, And first, I want to say thank you to Steve and Angela for the consideration that you gave for water control.

This is part of the reason that we're here. We think you guys are great neighbors, so we appreciate you giving that consideration. But I do want to note that we did not see the gutters that you talked about in the plans. I don't know whether they are intentionally left out or whether they're part of the plans and the restructure, but we did not see them.

So we're not able to really visualize how they work. But the other thing is that in addition to the runoff from the gutters and the roof, one of our concerns is that it looks like according to the plans, there are four large anchor piers underneath the deck that would bore into the ground. And it looks like they would bore into the round relatively close to our property line And our concern is the erosion of the land and then the subsequent lateral support of the property below it, which is ours, if the construction involves that kind of excavation or alteration of the land. So that's our concern.

Mr. McCormick, can you speak to Ms. Phillips' concerns that she just raised? Yes.

Those piers at the back of the deck. So because we are covering the deck, we have to remain within our zoning setbacks. The rear yard setback is 30 feet from that rear property line. So these piers...

We'll only be excavating 30 inches past the frost line per code. And this is roughly, actually it's more than 30 feet off that back property line. So I'm not certain that it would pose an issue of erosion on that back half of the property. I'll give it more people speak.

Okay. Which is... getting back to the question a few minutes ago, the peers and the footprint of the current deck is not going to change. So I don't know if it's just confusion of what the design is versus what is being seen, but there's not gonna be a change.

So the distance between the stabilizing of the deck and the property line has got to be 30 feet, 35 feet. But for my neighbor, Ms. Phillips, the deck's not changing. The deck is going to be the exact same deck other than the material.

But if you see the way it looks now, other than the material, it's the same deck. And that's where all of the construction is occurring. Correct. Not any closer to the Phillips property line.

That's correct. That's correct, yeah. Because all of that area, as you know, Ms. Phillips, I think, if you peek over there, is a hot tub and it's...

It's gravel and it's boulders and it's all kinds of stuff. That's not leaving. That's all staying there. So on the plans, it does look like the piers are new that they're putting brand new piers in.

Is that not correct? It is not correct. I don't know where you see that. I am looking at...

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Covered deck cross section. HAB-Marsyn Moyer- Right side elevation and I'm looking at plans that were in there and it's got these four big peers, but if you're saying that there are they're already there. HAB-Marysia Ostheimer- They're not going in new HAB-Danny Teodorucci- They didn't just not be my place. Yeah, but they'll be in the same spot is what is I think what you're gonna say.

Correct. I see. They're going to remain in the same place. They do have to be enlarged for the added weight load of the roof, but otherwise they are not moving.

They are staying in the same place, but in terms of physical location, they're, they're, and not anywhere closer to the rear property line of the strums, which backs up to the Phillips property lines. That's correct. And how much larger will they be? Our concern here just so for everybody's edification This land, when I tell you it is so fragile.

We have for years and years and years we have worked to both build up the land coming down to our house and run off and set things so that it's just perfect. So if something is going into the land behind us excavating it that is any larger and therefore displacing land my, my worry is that it's going to set the house of cards on, on its, you know, on its belly. And we're going to have a ton of water runoff, um, that we didn't have before. Well, I I'll, I'll leave that, um, to the expert, uh, about the, um, the size of the stabilizer, but I do want to point out, and I do want to make this, um, um, positive conversation which it obviously is but what you're talking about is actually not related to the roof and the impervious that that is an issue right here the deck that's being replaced i don't i don't need to address before the board of adjustment it is it is is a new deck and it's going to be the same deck um so i'm happy to have this discussion but it really is not what what this board is deciding today.

I don't know if you know the size difference or not. I do not recall the existing pier sizes, whether they were 12 inch diameters or 14 inch diameters. We did have to increase their size for the added structural load or the added potential structural load. But these footings are only displacing roughly maybe four square feet each at these corners where the larger ones are.

Yes, my concrete pier sizes are only four square feet each or less. But they won't be displacing a whole lot of earth. Okay, thank you. Anything else, Ms.

Phillips, for now? No, I appreciate everyone's time in answering our concerns and our questions. You're welcome. Thanks for your participation.

Mr. Phillips, do you plan to speak or not? Thank you. All my questions have been answered.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. A couple of questions.

Is there some way to direct the at least half of the water from the gabled, from the sloped roof, let's say the western side, the western half of that roof. Is there some way to direct the water to the front yard and not to the back? Well, I'm thinking. I think what works against this is gravity.

I don't know if that would work. You know, that is... Yeah, I can't envision... I mean, I suppose you could put a gutter system along the side of the house that goes all the way from the north to the south...

probably the only thing that I can think of. And then perhaps that would do it. It just puts the water runoff somewhere. It puts it in the front or it puts it in the street or wherever, but I mean, I guess you could do that.

Seemingly, the problem is that slope from south to north the more water you put in there, the more it's going to gain force and speed from gravity. And with volume, it'll just get worse. Well, I mean, like I said, I mean, you're talking about a roof that is a very, very, I don't know what the square footage is. What did we say the square footage of the roof?

160? No, no, 160 square foot roof. Right. And you're talking about the water from that in addition to the massive roof structure and the water that comes down and goes into the ground.

So is another 160 square feet gonna add? I mean, I gather from your question and your comment that you think it will, I just don't see how it will. You and I talked about this yesterday for the record though, One of your objectives is to use the deck more often. Right.

Have you considered like a retractable awning instead of the hard roof, which is impervious? We talked about that yesterday. And one of the things that I thought of when you left, where you would use a retractable two times when it's really sunny or when it's raining. And there's nothing that prevents somebody with a retractable from just leaving it open the entire time.

There's no gutter system. You're actually, with a retractable, you're making water issue worse because then it really does just run off and it does not go into a better system. If I put a retractable, I could leave it open 365 days a year. And that would make matters worse.

Same with umbrellas. Well, yeah, although umbrellas are... I don't think you have to go to the Board of Adjustment to use an umbrella. Let's hope that.

You'll be much busier. Okay. Maybe Mr. McCormick knows the answer to this.

Is there a possibility to use a sump pump to move the water to the front of the house? I mean, if it were directed into a downspout into a sump pump? That is personally not something that we have considered, but I suppose that is something we could look into. I just didn't know if you'd ever heard of that being done.

We had used them in cases of exterior stairwells going down into a basement on another project. So that is, I could consider that a possibility. I just have one other question. The reason for not putting the roof over the, I get my directions mixed up East rather than the North was that the gable would interfere with the upstairs window.

Is that right? That would be more in regards to the first floor window at the deck level. Any new roof structure, we would have to install beams. A new beam at that level would sit on top of that window.

We did consider pulling that eastern side of the deck in to avoid the window, but then the roof cover would be insignificant. We considered pulling it out past the window However, the problem there becomes we are now obstructing the detached garage doors. So it's a vertical beam or is it an I-beam that comes parallel to the deck? It would be a horizontal running beam from the outer corner of the deck and it would end at the house.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the vertical supports. Right. Vertical support for the roof would come down right where the bathroom window is. And if we took the vertical beam and went to the east, it would impede exit from the garage.

And if we took the vertical beam to the west, to the other side of the window, like you said, it would make the covered area much, much smaller and really not useful. I think that's what you're talking about. The other thing that I did not mention was there is the issue of if we were to put it on the side, which frankly was our first, as I said, it was our first choice. It just was, there were two major issues.

There was the one with the beam and the window. The other one is the roof. When it starts at the home and comes down, it would be a shed type roof. There's then another window, which is the kitchen window.

And it would basically come down and probably wind up then going right in front of the kitchen So it just wasn't going to work out, although it was our first choice. And in that circumstance, as I pointed out, because that portion below the deck is aggregate, it wouldn't require that. yeah i'm sorry, and this is for miss crane or Mr helly it's excuse my ignorance on this if we were to pass this does this go to someone else then to like to a design board or anything like that, to consider these stormwater concerns or like we make the decision and. it's fine.

The size of the work that they're doing would not automatically trigger site plan review, which is when we send these sorts of projects to our consultant for stormwater pollution protection plan review. So it's eligible for just going straight to a building permit. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire?

Mr. Strum, both you and Mr. McCormick had to sit through the lecture earlier for an extended period of time, and thank you for your patience. That was important.

Oh, good. Because that's what I'm going to ask you. As you pointed out, Mr. Strum you can build the deck you want to build without a buyer leave from this body or just getting building permits is all it requires, correct?

And The reason you're here is because you want to put a roof on the deck, whereas that creates environmental problems that contradict the city's regulations, correct? What is the hardship with respect to the ability to use the house, which requires that the laws for everybody else not apply to you such that you can have a roof when no one else could? Hardship? Yes, sir.

That arises from the property that is associated with the ability to use the house that's on the lot such that there is a hardship for you to get to say, for you to be able to say the law for me is I can have a roof, but nobody else can. The hardship is to have a piece of my life. Case made. No, I mean...

There is no, the house is obviously it's usable. It's a great home. I don't have a heart of stone. Thank you.

And I can fully appreciate that. Thank you. I appreciate your candor. Women in the room might say that of that proposition is equally true.

I didn't want to mention that, but yes, I see that. The women in this room are perfectly capable of speaking. They don't need me to speak. Anything else, Mr.

O'Brien? Anything else? In reading the staff report, under points A, B and C on pages three and four. Point A, staff is of the opinion that no such difficulties or unnecessary hardships are present.

Strike one. Under B, the purpose and intent of article four nonconforming uses of the land use code is to prevent the extension, expansion or increase in intensity of non-conforming structures and uses. That would seem that there is another hurdle that they haven't gotten over. And the third one, which is impairing an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and the morals of the city and stuff like that, doesn't seem that this is gonna be an impact adversely on those issues.

But I'm just curious how staff would support this based on what you said under points A and B. Can you rephrase your question as far as staff support, can you rephrase that? I'm sorry, I don't think staff expressed support for the application. It's here.

No, I mean, the application is here. The staff has evidently, obviously given the applicant reason to believe that this can get approved. No, sir. The applicants are free to file if they are not satisfied.

I'm sorry. If they're told that everyone who is denied an application and the denial letter is in the materials is told that if they want to go to the Board of Adjustment, they can't. That is their remedy for the circumstance in which they find them. That's merely informing them of the remedy, not advocating for them to do that.

Correct. Fair enough. And I think the point here is the board is a tool for this board to consider as part of its decision. Staff's role to make the decision That is the purpose and function of this board to do.

Staff report is here to assist us in any way it can in providing us with information that's useful in our decision making process . Anything else from anyone? Okay. Would you like a summation or something, Mr.

Chairman, at this point? I would just observe, and I appreciate Mr. Strum's honesty and candor, but following the strikes analogy from Mr. Bliss, I think the third strike is the applicant's admission that there is no hardship.

And I think that Mr. Strum has already spoken to any alternatives. That is correct. So, I guess a couple of things.

Before I ask for motion, is there any consideration by the applicant to withdraw the application at this point? There is not. Okay, very good. Then I consider a motion with respect to the...

Thank you. Move. coverage of 55% per section 410.350.A.1 and section 410.375.B.1.B of Article 7, Clayton Gardens and Clayshire Subdivision, R2, and Clayton Gardens are four urban design zoning districts to allow for a total lot coverage of 65% at the address known as 8177 Stratford. Thank you, Mr.

Blitz. Is there a second for the motion? Second. Thank you, Ministry.

All in favor of Mr. Blitz? All opposed to Mr. Aye.

I correct that all five votes are against the motion request for the variance, is that right? Roll call vote, you wanna roll call vote? Oh, I don't believe one's necessary. Very good.

Then the requested variance is? We haven't had any applications yet, but that window's still open. Then I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll move.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor of adjourning, indicate by saying aye. Aye.

We're adjourned at approximately 7.10 PM. Thank all of you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.