I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you the Everybody's mic is on. It is six o'clock. I will call the December 15th, meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. Mr. Secretary, could have the roll call. Yes, you may, Mr. Chair. Mr. Green. I'm here. Mr. Hancock, I am here. Mr. Bush. Absent. Mr. Nighholm. Here. Mr. Stanfield. Here. And Mr. Grandye Holm here Mr. Standfield here and Mr. Gronquist. I am present Mr. Chair we have a quorum. Thank you very much I would remind everybody if you could please silence your cell phones or turn them to vibrates We don't have any interruptions in here. If I could ask you to rise And Mr. Gronquist will lead us in the pledge of allegiance To the flag of the United States of like to see that reflected in that. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Gentlemen. I would ask for a motion to approve the agenda, but we did discuss changing the order. And I would like to see that reflected in that motion. Mr. Chair, I would move that we approve the agenda with the addition, with the change of moving case. VSP 2022-0032 to the first case and moving Vsp 2022-0015 to the second case. I think you mean case 2-3. Oh, yes, sorry. I have a motion. Second. Motion to the second. Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chair. Yes. Mr. Hancock is yes. Mr. Nighholm. Yes. Mr. Stanfield. Yes. Mr. Grandquist. Yes. Thank you very much now for an x-motion. I would like to have motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. So move Second I have a proper motion to second. Mr. Secretary Mr. Green. Hi, Mr. Hancock is yes, Mr. Nighholm. Yes, Mr. Stanfield. Yes, Mr. Grandquist. Hi Thank you very much. Can I have the attorneys verification of jurisdiction? Good evening playing commission the county attorney's office has reviewed portions of the case files on today's agenda It finds that all nurse requirements have been satisfied and jurisdiction is properly before the sport. Thank you very much, Ms. Gleason. Are you ready? Would you please present the first case? Good evening, Board of Adjustment. My name is Elie Gleason. I'm a planner with the community and economic development department and the case before you tonight is VSP 2022-23 regarding Ivan Ho variance. The request is located at 16750 Ivan Ho street. And this request is for a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located 57 feet from a side corner setback where a minimum side corner setback of 108 feet is required in the residential estate zone district. Here is an aerial view of the site. The property is located within the Eagle Shadow subdivision. It's approximately an acre in size. As you can see, the street network is kind of weird. It begins as an IV street and then becomes Ivan-Hose Street as it rounds the corner near the site. Here's a close review of the site. As you can see, it's currently developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The current zoning of the property is residential estate. The purpose of this zone district is to serve exclusively as a single family detached residential district for larger lots and larger homes and a spacious environment. And as you can see, the rest of the neighborhood also shares the zoning designation. The future land use designation is residential low, which is most appropriate for suburban and ex-urban areas in Adams County as it primarily consists of single-family housing. The rest of the neighborhood shares this designation as well. So when evaluating a variance, there are eight criteria for approval. The first that there is a physical hardship specific to the lot that the applicant is being deprived of rights enjoyed by others, that the request would not be granting a special privilege. The lot cannot be developed in conformity with our standards. The circumstances were not created by the applicant. The request is harmonious with the purpose of our regulations. It would not create a Dutch rent to the public good. And lastly, it would not be extending a nonconforming use. So here is the site plan that was provided by the applicant. As you can see, they're proposing to construct a detached garage on the western part of the property. In the residential estate zone district, the side corner setback requires that the structure be in line with the face of the home. In this case, that would be 108 feet from that property line. The applicant is proposing to situate that 57 feet from the property line. And the structure is outlined and read as you can see. So in staff was evaluating this request. We did find that there are several setbacks that greatly diminish the building envelope on this property. There is a on-site water treatment system on the property, so there is a leach field here to the east. Tricowne Health Department does require a 10 foot setback from any leach field. And then within the residential estate zone district, an accessory structure must be at least in line with both the front setback and the side corner setback. So because this lot has two frontages, it must be in line with both of those faces of the home. So using GIS staff found that only about 4,100 square feet or about 9% of the total lot is available to be developed with an accessory structure. It's also important to note that a very similar variance was approved on the lot directly to the East, VSP 2017-35 was approved in 2017 to allow a 24-foot setback, so much closer to the road from the side corner property line for an accessory structure. So here's a photo of the site that's standing on Ivan Hostry. This is looking directly where the garage would be constructed on the western part of the property. As you can see there is a great deal of maturally escaping on the site as well. This is looking north up Ivan-Hose Street towards the front of the property, and this is looking south down Ivan-Hose Street, and this is looking west across the street. All property owners and occupants within 750 feet were notified, 34 notifications per cent. One comment was received in support of this request. All applicable referral agencies were also notified and none responded with concern. So considering the substantial hardship on the lot of the decreased building envelope and the hardship that the applicant did not create and the similar variants that was approved directly to the east, staff is recommending approval of the subject request, VSP 2022-23 with eight findings of fact, and three notes to the applicant. Here are the findings of fact. And three notes that the approval of the variance would expire one year from the sport of adjustment hearing. If a building permit is not obtained within the one year, a new variance shall be required. Secondly, prior to construction of the accessory structure, the owners shall apply for a building permit and follow all requirements of the county for such a permit. And lastly, all applicable building, fire, zoning, engineering and health codes shall be adhered to with this request. And this concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much. This is Mr. Hancock's favorite type of request. The applicants, I apologize. Would you please join us up in the front there in case you wanted to speak? Right now gentlemen, do you have any questions for Ms. Gleason? Go ahead. Ms. Gleason, you noted a variance had already been approved in that image you shared though there was not a second structure on that lot so it was not constructed. I don't know how accurate that area was. Yeah, it appears that that structure was not constructed. How were the variance was approved? Would the variance likely have the same clause of if not constructed within a year, the variance is is moot? Yes, it likely would have expired after a year. Okay. Thank you. I turned it over to you now. Is there anything you've heard the presentation from our attorney? Is there anything you'd like to add? Nothing technical. But again, thank you for the time this evening to the committee. And I also want to publicly thank Ms. Gleason, who we haven't met in person, but we've paid many emails. Her detail and intention to this has been outstanding. And I'd like to say as a resident of the county, it's nice. I'm not a general contractor I'm not a developer it's nice to know that we have those resources that advocate for us and clearly the detail has been there tonight so thank you very much. Great thank you very much at this time is there any member of the public that would like to speak either for or against this case. Seeing none gentlemen the case has been before I'm not sure if you have any questions. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I if you had contacted any of your fellow other neighbors and what their feedback was or if you had answered that. Yeah, great question. And in fact, as part, I also have HOA approval prior to the permit submission that I'm going through as well. And as part of that, the HOA required two or three yeses thumbs up from my neighbors as well. So not only did the one neighbor who responded to this a firm but also affirmed in the HOA as well as the other two that were asked as part of the HOA process. So I had no questions issues or negative comments through the HOA process either. Fantastic. That's great. That's great. Mr. Handgun. You know me or something. I ask a lot of questions. Sir, the sighting, Ms. Gleason, can you put that last image up? I think kind of the plot plan. The angle of that, can you, I'm just curious, because it feels like if it was turned 90 degrees from your house it could actually be further back with a lesser variance. How did that location come up? So I've worked with an architect and engineer and also I'll go back to the HWA approval who I went through various iterations and I believe there's a 10 or 15 foot setback from the edge of the property and so we're encroaching that way as you go south. And then just quite frankly, from an aesthetic perspective, again working with an architect with that 45 degree angle, looking to round off the house and point the garage structure in that fashion. So those were some of the factors that led to the orientation and the position of the garage as well. In addition, there's a small patio and overhang off the rear that we were trying to keep adjacent to the house for some privacy there as well. Okay. I was just curious. Thank you. Mr. Stanfield Stamford. Excuse me, can we see the view where we had the house directly behind it? Yes. No, no, the overhead view. You're past it. What I want to see is there was one approved Similarly and I wanted to compare the two. The discussion was that it was true but it wasn't. Right there. There you go. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, again, would look for a motion. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of VSP-2022-0023 with eight findings of facts and three notes. I have a proper motion. Do I have a second? Second. Proper motion discussion. Is there any discussion with you guys would like to have in this? Mr. Secretary, please call. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Hancock, yes. Mr. Nighholm. Yes. Mr. Stanfield. Yes. Mr. Grandquist. Mr. Chair, motion passes 5-0. Congratulations. You can move forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, it is happening. You're going to have a place to put your bike. Mr. Barnes, are you prepared to present the next case? Yes, thank you for your patience. If I could have the applicants, if you would like to, you're welcome to. You guys can go. Thank you for your patience. If I could have the applicants, if you would like to, you're welcome to. You guys can go. Thank you. Push the button, the green light will know. All right, so the next case is VSP 2022, 0, 0, 0, 15. It's at 90, 90 Judson Street. And this request was filed for a variance to allow a side setback on a principal structure to be one foot, it's for carport, where in the R1C zone district five feet is the minimum side setback. First for a contact so the site is located here it is east of Lowell, west of federal, south of 92nd, and north of 88th. A closer view to show you what the site looks like. It's developed with a single family home and the request for a car port would be in this portion of the lot. The zoning on this site and in the surrounding areas residential 1C. That zone district is essentially a single family residential zone district that you find in urbanized areas. And the county's comprehensive plan from 2012 designated the future land use on this property of urban residential. That future land use designation is consistent with the current zoning and the way that the property is developed. So as Ms. Gleason mentioned, there is specific criteria that is evaluated for a variance request. This criteria includes a physical hardship specific to the lot. It writes that the property owner would be deprived of that other people in the same zone district have. That the request would not grant a special privilege to this applicant, that other property owners in the same zone district don't have, that the property cannot be developed in conformance with the regulations. That circumstances were not created by the applicant, that the request is harmonious and compatible with the purpose of the development standards, but the request does not create a detriment to public good or safety, and that the request does not extend and already non-conforming use. This was a site plan that was submitted with this application. You can see this blue rectangle is where the footprint of the house is, and then this area would be the proposed carport. The proposed carport is roughly about 12 feet by 29 feet and it's located in this area here. The carport was already constructed. The carport you can see in this picture is shown here and the applicant received a building complaint because the structure was built without a permit and so this variance application is to remedy the current complaint. The variance is needed to have the structure within that required five foot setback. If this variance is approved, the next step would be to apply for the building permit to retroactively seek the approval. To show you what the site looks like, so this is looking north, this is Judson Street, the subject property is here. Looking to the east, this is the front view of the subject property in the house. There is the carport to the south. This is Judson Street looking south from the property. And then this is across the street, give you context of what the neighborhood looks like on the other side. So when reviewing this application staff reviewed the criteria of approval. The first two items that we looked at was, is there a physical hardship specific to this lot that creates a difficulty for meeting that side setback. The lot is shown here outlined in yellow as you can see from the other lots in the area. There's nothing unusual about this lot that creates a difficult situation where a side setback could not be met. In addition, if you look at the house rooftops in the area, this is at a 1,000 foot scale. And as you can see, there is a separation of about five feet from many of the structures in the property. So this indicated to staff that it did not seem that the request had a physical hardship specific to the lot, nor was there any other situations where an incident like this could be demonstrated within the immediate area. Other criteria for approval includes whether or not this request deprives the property owner of rights others have. So this property owner could install a carport that does comply with the standards. A carport could be installed here. This red box shows the building envelope that the existing principle structure could be expanded within. And so there is plenty of areas for a carport to be expanded. So in the review staff did not believe that the applicant had circumstances that made it difficult to inform to the regulations as well as rights that were being deprived of them. In addition, the construction of the carport already without a carport, we believe does not meet the criteria for approval for circumstances not being created by the applicant. We also research whether there were previous variances in the area to see if there was some sort of precedent for this sort of thing. So this is a half mile zoomed out. I found two variances. These green dots are variances that have been approved since 2000. Both of these lots, you can see are corner lots and both of these variances were related to the hardship of it being a corner lot and the setbacks being reduced. This particular lot in 2001 had a variance for a side setback, but they have a significantly greater setback because they are quarter lot on two sides. So I did not find any variances similar to this within a half mile of the property. During the referral period, we notified all property owners and residents within 750 feet. We sent 265 notices and we received three comments. All three comments were in support of the request and wished that the Board of Adjustment would approve the request. I did map out where these respondents were and they are within proximity of the existing house, the house is here. We did not hear from this property owner who's probably the one most largely affected by this variance request. So this property owner did not respond to the referral. So in summary, in our analysis of this case, we don't believe that there's a physical hardship specific to the slot that the request, we believe the request is granting a special privilege that the property owner we believe the request, is granting a special privilege that the property owner does have the ability to develop within the conformance of our regulations and with the lack of variances approved in the immediate area. We believe it's not harmonious to the surrounding area. So staff is recommending denial of this request with seven findings of fact. I do have those findings of fact listed on a slide and I am available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Barnes. Gentlemen do we have some questions? Mr. Grandquests? Mr. Barnes, could you go back over the complaint? Was that from a neighbor or was found on an inspection by the county or? So I believe that the applicant might have a presentation that could a little bit more about that but the only information I can factually provide you is that we received a building department complaint our building safety team at Adams County, investigated that complaint, informed the applicant that they needed a permit for this structure. And during that process and those discussions, it was identified zoning approval was needed too, which included the variance. And then just one more. I noticed that the one of the three that responded was down on that corner lot. Was that the same corner lot that got the variance? It was. I don't know if it was the same owner at that time, but it was the same property. Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen of the annual more questions for Mr. Barnes. Go ahead. Barnes from the picture of the house. You have the fence that goes down. Does that is that the property line then? So it's difficult for us to say because the county's not really. We don't provide the service of letting people know where their property line are is located. But it's likely that that is where it is located we haven't had the property surveyed to identify that. So if that's a case it looks like the property line goes through the garage or on the side of the garage the fence I don't believe that that's the case but maybe the applicant can speak further to that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. As the applicants now would be your opportunity to present your findings case or what you believe. You've heard Mr. Barnes presentation. You can just basically speak from there. Make sure the microphone is on. And they'll get your PowerPoint presentation up and just carry on. You want me to do that? There you go. Thank you. I also have some reference materials for the board just so that you can have it or the county attorney if you'd like. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the board, county attorney and managers, I want to thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of my case. Had I known how long, painful and time consuming this process would ultimately be, I would certainly have torn the carport down instead of taking up your precious time this evening. In retrospect, tearing it down immediately would have been much, much easier on our family. Instead, after 12 difficult and confusing months, hundreds and hundreds of research hours and correspondence later, tens of thousands of dollars lost, and plenty of big tears, I find myself here. I am grateful for your attention and I am asking for your help. As you know from my initial application, I was the victim of a fraudulent, unlicensed contractor. He was also a person I had called a friend and neighbor. It has this down for me on Judson Street. I take full responsibility for our situation, and I hope to demonstrate to you today that I have been doing my best over the last 12 months to correct our course. I hope to convince you that there are indeed practical difficulties and a necessary hardships associated with the application of the five foot side-set back-dimensional requirements using the eight criteria for variance approval. I hope to show that by approving my variance the spirit of these standards and regulations shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done. I will also show you that I'm asking for a two-foot variance into the five-foot setback with fire-rated materials based on international building code, and I am not in fact requesting a one-foot side-setback as Leah Campbell previously stated. I also hope to demonstrate that there are systemic issues, both within community and economic development department of Adams County and the state of Colorado that make people like me particularly vulnerable to these kinds of situations. I am humbly asking for your leniency and compassion in light of these circumstances and your patience as I describe them. The backstory. In November 2021, I signed a contract with Tony Gentry to convert our garage to a living space and build a car port so that my elderly mother could move in with us. Since we moved to the neighborhood in 2018, Tony had presented himself to be a competent, licensed, bonded, and insured general contractor. We paid and hired him for many small projects before this one, and he kept up this ruse for years. Frequently regaling us with tales of his large construction projects. Throughout the demolition of our garage and construction of the Carport frame, Tony assured us that he was following all building code and zoning laws. I and I newly trusted that Tony was following the rules simply because that's what he told me. After going back and forth on the issue, Tony pressured and manipulated me into letting him build without first procuring the proper permits. He told me he was substantially undercharging us and he simply didn't want to do the extra labor. After giving him more deposit money, he said I should do it myself, or he'd have to charge me a thousand more. He said he could skip it and pointed to the numerous properties with non-permitted work, including his own garage conversion, which he said he was completing concurrently. I told him I couldn't fill out the permit application as I didn't have any sight plans for the carport and I didn't know what was involved. At this point, Tony did fill out theout on car ports and porches provided by Adams County and informed me that he was going to lay his posts three feet from the North property line and fireproof the car port as delineated by that handout. I told Tony I would hire an architect in order to complete my permit application. After that he started to get more pushy and said if we didn't start building he'd have to drop our project and move on to more lucrative ones. He demanded more money upfront in order to keep his, quote, guys on the job, and ridiculously, I gave it to him. By then, Tony had already dismantled much of the garage and bought all of the materials for the cardboard frame. Again, he said I could complete the permit process while he was putting the frame up. I caved and I let Tony begin building while I tried to figure out the permit process. In fact, after laying the posts at three feet, Tony subcontracted the car port out to someone we had never met who built the car port frame over a weekend while we were gone. He paid that contractor $4,000 after we had paid him $16,000. The build was haphazard and sloppy and it was clear that he had failed to build any part of the carport up to code for our contract and repeated explicit verbal agreement and I do have documentation of all of that in the green folder. I fired him. I searched multiple county records and discovered he'd lied to me about being a licensed general contractor and had never once pulled a permit in the state of Colorado. Later, he came to my home with two other men to yell at and intimidate me and harass me for firing him. I sent him a letter asking for money back so that I could begin bringing the carport up to code also referenced. When it became clear that the carport was a total disaster, I abandoned the permit process and hired Steve Noble at West Deck Builders to help me fix the damaged Tony had done. This company was licensed and shared, had great reviews, and had done a ton of work in my neighborhood over two decades. Steve decided the best way to proceed with the fix was to pull a re-roof permit. The roof and soft-it tie-in was the very worst of of the code violation so this made a lot of sense to me. On January 26, 2022, we were issued a permit to fix the car port one month before we were issued a violation for building it. I sent Tony the letter asking for some money back so that I could bring the car port up to code. In retaliation, he reported me to Adams County for building a car port without a permit. We know this via text messages exchanged on the day of our citation also referenced. Knowing nothing about construction and being a naive first time homeowner, I had given 23 rain to manage the entirety of the car port project and I'd given another licensed contractor free rain to fix it. These choices have resulted in terrible financial and emotional consequences for my family, but as Leah Campbell, who took on my case, has repeatedly mentioned that's on me. I want to take a moment to talk about this handout. On residential carports and patios provided by Adams County, it's on two pages of the Adams County website. CEDD has one full page on the website called Residential Padiocuvers and Carport. The E-Permit site also has a full page on the website called Residential Padiocuvers and Carports. The entirety of information on both of these pages is a handout called single family residential patio covers and carports as well as a link back to the CEDD main page. The building permits the middle checklist, it's just the websites. The building permits the middle checklist provided by the E permit center of Adams County also links this handout as one of their submittal requirements for the permit application. For smaller carpets that don't require engineering, one is instructed to fill out page three of the handout and indicate whether they are using construction details AB and C for the five foot setback or whether they are using alternative details, A, B, and C in order to lay fire rated posts at a three-foot setback from the neighboring property line. One is supposed to include this filled in handout as part of their permit application. Much of this handout is devoted to the specifics of how to construct a one-hour fire rated structure at this three-foot setback. It is important to note that all residential zones in Adams County a one-hour fire rated structure at this three-foot setback. It is important to note that all residential zones in Adams County have a minimum five-foot side setback or greater. RE, five-foot side setback. R1A, five-foot side setback. R1C, R2, R3, MU. R4 and MH both have a 25-side- foot setback so they do not apply. But for the five foot setback requirements, there is either no case where this three foot setback with fire rated materials would be applicable or all cases where this three foot fire rated setback would be applicable for the residents of Adams County. As I mentioned, Tony himself filled out the relevant portions of this handout as a way of demonstrating to me that he was going to follow all code requirements and I actually believe the three-foot setback was his assumption too. Looking around my neighborhood, I saw numerous setbacks at three feet and much less so I had no concerns and believed I could complete the permit. I did attempt due diligence with Adams County before agreeing to let Tony lay his posts. I wrote to the E permit center to resolve an apparent discrepancy. On the one hand, this handout provided by Adams County CEDD says a three-foot side setback is possible with fire rating. But on the other hand, the DSR text says there is a five foot minimum side setback requirement. I would like to read you that initial email entitled Carport Zoning, 1990 Judson Street, which I sent to the E Permit Center for the instructions on the Adams County website. December 13th, 2021, this was just a couple of days before Tony began laying his posts. Hi, on the PDF from Adams County regarding carports and patio covers, it says that we can lay carport posts within three feet of our side property line as long as the materials are one hour fire rated. But it also says that the minimum side set back for an accessory building is five feet. We are wanting to know if we can build a carport off the side of our attached garage or not. If the side set back for the post is three feet with fire rating, we can do it. If it's five feet, it doesn't make sense to build it all. Thank you, best Siri K Kavanaugh also referenced. I received this reply from Leah Campbell's colleague, Cody Spade, planner one, December 14, 2021, from cedd-poD. That is correct with approval from the Building Safety Department of Fire-rated Materials, a three-foot-step back would be possible. Thanks, Cody, all referenced. I reasonably relied on this correspondence with an Adams County planner, as well as the handout, before allowing Tony to begin laying his posts. As Tony suggested, I was actively and concurrently working on the permit application. Tim Megett came to issue the violation initiated by Tony Gentry on February 15th, 2022. I explained the situation to Tim and he informed me that procuring the correct permits was in fact my responsibility alone. It wasn't Tony's nor West Tex. It didn't matter who had done the work only that the homeowner was ultimately responsible. I was surprised to hear this having lived in three other states where that was not true. He told me that even though the structure was standing there was no statute of limitations on these violations. And Steve at West Tech, who had recently hired, had told me something entirely different. That once the structure was up the county wouldn't do anything about it. Tim was friendly and respectful and spoke with me honestly. He pointed out aspects of the build we both agreed were questionable. Finally Tim told me to get a lawyer and I did. We've decided to wait until the outcome of this hearing before we continue with litigation against Tony. That no point however did Tim mention the need for a variance or any zoning issues. In fact, Tim may get returned to my house in multiple occasions to follow up on other permits for the garage conversion, and we spoke at length about how to bring my carport into compliance. We spoke about the details of one-hour fire-rated construction. I was very concerned because my eave is actually one foot longer than is allowed on that handout. He told me he didn't believe the eave would be much of an issue, but again made no mention of any zoning issues. After my violation, I continued, actually I should go back. How do I go back? Oh, can't. Okay. Any ideas? How do I go back? Oh, Kant, okay. Any ideas? Could you slide number, do you want? Yes, thank you. Okay. One above that, thank you. One above, okay. Thank you. I continued to email Adams County Planning and Development via cedd-pod at adcogov.org to reconfirm zoning and to procure advice about how best to move forward in this challenging circumstance. Those email threads were also entitled Carport Zoning, 1990 Judson Street. I was told once again, basically everything within five foot of the property line will need to be fire rated like the Eves and the Posts. Chris Bearchrand plans Examiner 1. Mr. Bearchrand also told me that my next step was to hire a design professional to show how I was going to bring my structure into compliance. Of course, I thought West Tech was that design professional, but I followed his advice and procured costly engineering plans. The Building and Safety Department was and is, of course, fine with my engineer's plans and fireproofing strategies which follow the CCICC standards set forth by Adams County and elsewhere in the country. Indeed via various communications with Adams County Planning and Development regarding the zoning requirements for my attached carport I have been told one. Yes, a three-foot setback is possible as long as materials are one-hour fire rated, Cody Spade, platter 1, December 14. 2. Basically everything within five feet of the property line will need to be fire rated like the Ease and Post, Chris Bear's Trand, plans Examiner 1, February 23, 2022. 3. Typically the side setback is a firm five feet in the R1 C zone district if the accessory structure is detached, but the building division reviews the fire rating. Libby Tart, senior long-range planner, May 17, 2022. My carport is not detached. And finally, only after getting costly engineering, five months later, Leah Campbell says, my understanding is you are proposing post closer than five feet to the property line. If this is the case, you will need a variance from us before we can issue a building permit. The eaves are not the issue, it's the post. The professionals at CEDD weren't able to give me cohesive information about zoning, but I was supposed to have known that my carport was in violation. Had I known, we would simply have torn the carport down and started from scratch in early January rather than go through this year long costly and incredibly stressful process. But these conversations are also relevant because multiple permits have in fact been issued for each of those above cases, which I've referenced. According to Lea Campbell, the three-foot setback with fire rate of materials is allowable according to building code, but it is not allowable according to zoning regulation. Therefore, zoning regulation trumps any other information put forth by Adams County, CEDD, and its employees. County, CEDD, and its employees. At this point, five full months after being defrauded, this pronouncement of a variance requirement was a departure from everything I had heard from eight other professionals I assumed new more than me, including three from the CEDD. To reiterate, my emails were entitled Zoning. My conversations with various members at CEDD were specifically about resolving the discrepancy between the five-foot-setback requirement outlined in the DRS, DSR, and this handout posted saying a three-foot-setback was possible. As a layperson, I could never have assumed I was getting incorrect information from an inspector, a planner, and appliance examiner. If zoning laws always override building code and a three foot set pack for fire rated carport is never allowed in any residential zone in Adams County, why did I have multiple conversations with employees at the CEDD on the specifics of fire rating? Disclosely and complicated fire rating is never necessary at a five-foot setback. And again, R1C has the same minimum side setback requirement as every other zone. To this day, I wonder if there is any cohesion on this issue amongst the employees at CEDD and certainly nobody has shown any interest in revising that handout, which remains posted in three places on the website to this day. In late May, when I first heard that my carport needed a variance, the entire experience had taken a tremendous emotional and financial toll. I shared every painful detail with Leah and I told her I could not go through with the Addestress of a variance application if I did not have a strong case referenced. Leah told me she couldn't guarantee an outcome for my variance, but she also told me the board was often sympathetic to these kinds of things. In a later phone conversation, Lea told me she thought I had a good shot. She told me she didn't think I should tear the carport down, and she also guided me to ask for a variance for my carport as is referenced. The application itself was initially totally outside my wheelhouse. I frequently emailed Leah in an effort to correct refine and complete my application, but there were even times when Leah herself couldn't explain the requirements. Initially, I was even unclear about my actual request. Since the DRS doesn't make any distinctions about whether the setback applies to posts, walls, or eaves, once again I wrote to CEDD to resolve the discrepancy and once again I received conflicting interpretations of the five-foot setback requirement. One, the setback is, quote, however far off the property line from the building is proposed. Two, all portions of the structure must meet the setbacks. The only exception is external staircases, Leila Bejelian, senior long-range planner. Three, since the poster at three feet, you're asking for a three foot setback, Leia Campbell. Four, in the request for comments sent out to my neighbors and the referral agencies, it says I'm asking for a three-foot setback for the post and a one-foot setback for the eaves, only because that is what I finally decided upon in my application. And today, in what was supposed to be Lea Campbell's presentation, she simply states I'm requesting a one-foot setback. I now know the setback requirements in my neighborhood do not include eaves. The property lines are established by the chain link fences that have been in place since the 1970s. This is ubiquitously true and easily and readily confirmed by looking at the original houses and their relationships to the property lines and fences, including my own. The other variance in my plat that I was aware of was also initiated by a conflict between neighbors and requested a two-foot side setback. In reality, those garage walls are one foot from the North property line and the ease are zero feet from the property line. So I would be asking for less, not more of a variance than was approved, just eight houses down. What I am actually asking for is a two-foot variance that would allow five fire-rated posts to remain at a three-foot setback from my North property line. I will comply with whatever length is requested for the eaves, although the building department has no problem with their length at this time. Changing the placement of the posts, however, will necessitate its hair down of the carport and an immediate and direct loss of $22,000 for my family, though the secondary interciary costs are much, much greater. Between the initial violation and this board hearing, I also broke my leg, lost my ACL and MCL suffered deep complex tears to both meniski and severely damaged me reason I heard of some blood vessels in my lower leg. I spent four full months bed bound non-weight bearing, either preparing for or healing from surgery. I spent a lot of that time managing the increasingly difficult emotional and financial burden of this carport, which was intensified by my inability to work. But that time also afforded me the ability to get clear on every single relevant detail that might apply to my case. In her initial recommendation to deny my request, Leah Campbell states, it is important to note that using aerial imagery, it is difficult to validate the veracity of property lines and buildings as drawn on the guests without seeing surveys of the properties in the neighborhood. In addition, it is difficult to verify if all of those structures were permitted to be in such close proximity to the side property lines. I have done that difficult work for you. I have outlined my methods and findings in reference six, which show that there are at least 110 similar or worse zoning violations out of 514 totals homes in my plat. I have also included photo evidence from the cases I have cited so that the board can get an accurate visual sense of the general character and health of the neighborhood. I hope this reference demonstrates that my mistake will not result in any significant deviations from the zoning in my plat nor its aesthetics. Maybe getting into too much detail here. But Leah used two specific conditions for determining the setback requirements in my case. Number one, she is the Gisapp Land Records function to determine my lot boundaries. I number two, she included the eaves in the five foot side setback requirement. But if we include that and apply those conditions to the entire plat, 45% of the primary structures fall out of compliance. I did a sample size of the top half of the plat above Highland and showed a small portion of that here. Everything with a dot has fallen out of compliance with those conditions are applied. In fact, according to Lea standards, one fifth of the primary structures in my neighborhood would encroach into another person's property. So these interpretations of the standards and regulations do not align with the standards as they exist in practice, and the DRS language is vague enough to demand that interpretation. The reality of zoning for over one fifth of the homes in my flat is this. Zero to four foot side setbacks are the norm for posts and walls of larger structures like home expansions, car ports and garages. Zero to three side setbacks are the norm for smaller accessory structures like sheds, park tarvis, et cetera. It is also important to note that no less than 22 permits have been issued for structures where walls and posts clearly and visibly egressed into the five foot side setback. Interestingly, most of those permitted discrepancies also occurred at three feet almost exactly. I believe this demonstrates that current or past employees at CEDD have interpreted the standards and that handout differently than they are being interpreted today. Again, referenced. I was very surprised to discover that after months of close communication where I asked for her advice every single step of the way, Leah ultimately chose to deny her recommendation in every possible regard. This is a variance I would never have pursued without her guidance and feedback. And in her last and final phone conversation, she simply said to me, I'm sorry, I thought your case was stronger than it was. But because I've done so much research, I would like to refute each of the points she used to deny her recommendation. She stated, the proposed variance to allow a carport within the side setback would be inconsistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan for this area, because the proximity of structures to adjoining property lines may negatively affect drainage patterns and restrict emergency access to other areas of the site. But during the development team review, Eden Steele from engineering rights, run up from the carport should outfall onto the subject's property and not negatively impact the neighboring property. And Heather Whitaker, also from building safety, simply states that I will need fire rating, a permit, and gutters that drain appropriately, which were all included on my original permit application. Adams County Fire Department responded to my request saying we have no comments, thank you. The Adams County Sheriff's Office also had no opposition to the request. CDOT had no objections. The community development department in Westminster, the city I live in has no questions, comments or concerns regarding this application. Excel energy had no apparent conflict, and Lumen would like me to pothole the street if any excavation were to occur. Small excavations not potholing would only occur if we were forced to remove the carport. But with things as they are, a full ten feet still exists between the eaves of that carport and the eaves of our north side neighbors home at 9100 Jets in Street. They were mentioned earlier. I haven't communicated to those neighbors because they are non-English speaking neighbors. They're wonderful. We have, you know, from balls back and forth across the backyard. We've shared vegetables from the garden, but I didn't think it was fair for them to come and try to listen to this today. Okay. Okay. Conversely, there are only six feet between my home's original eaves and the eaves of the permitted attached garage at 9080 Judson Street on the south side. So, 9080. I should go one back, actually. I would like to refute lia's findings on seven of the eight criteria for variance approval. During the original planner review, my hardship statement was refuted by saying the applicant states the front of the law is narrower than the back of the law. I did not find this to be true when I measured the width of the front and the width of the back. In fact, my law is approximately 67 feet in the front and 74 feet in the back. In that original determination, Leah used the land records function in the Gisatt program to determine my boundaries instead of the accurate fence lines. This is only relevant though, because I asked her specifically to use the fence lines in her meeting and she agreed. When I confronted her on the issue, she changed the reasons for refuting criteria one but still denied the case. You can see that she also did this for three other criteria which is referenced in her numerous emails. In fact, I did lose approximately 72 square feet at the front end of my property when my neighbors Simon built a permitted driveway and garage in the early 1990s. It's not much and I certainly don't care. But by comparison, I am requesting an egress of only 58 feet into the setback that actually exists within my own lot. An additional special circumstance is that we have an electrical drop coming in from the east side of the property. Can I go back one? Yeah. That's the more accurate. You can see the shadow of the pole right here, but the pole is about right here. We have an electrical drop coming in from the east side of the property which would prevent us from building a carport literally anywhere else on the lot. Here's where the inline is. That electrical drop regularly hangs around 10 to 8 feet high depending on the temperature and the minimum height requirement over any driveway is 12 feet and 3 feet above any roof with a 4 to 12 pitch. It's therefore unsafe to do any kind of construction under the drop line as it currently stands, so we can't really do any construction beyond this point. Building a carport in the front of the lot would also be in violation of zoning and it would be an aesthetic deviation for the neighborhood. There's only one possible place to build a carport at 99D Judson Street, Tony at least got that part right. Primarily though the special circumstance on my law is the fact that a crooked contractor already built a carport there. It has sat a full year now leaking and possibly rotting my soft foot, certainly bothering nobody but me. Nobody's bad at an eyelash at the car port, but I would very much like to bring it up to code. Criteria 2, miscamble stated that I would not be deprived of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in my district by the literal interpretation of the standards. But as I mentioned, there are at least 110 primary structures at a 514 that currently violate the five-foot-setback requirements according to the zoning standards in practice. This is approximately 20% of my entire plat. Clearly, my neighbors are enjoying these rights. I do not know how Leah could apply her unique zoning conditions to my case, conditions that put half of the neighborhood out of compliance, and simultaneously say I would not be deprived of those rights. Number three, Ms. Campbell says the allowance of a structure so close to the northern property line does in fact confer a special privilege onto this applicant that the neighboring property owner is not receiving. On my street alone, there are 19 primary structures, both permitted and unpermitted, that violate this five foot setback as it applies to walls and posts. Only seven houses down, there is a nearly identical but arguably worse cardboard that lies zero feet to the property line. Putting those issues aside, criteria three, as defined by 2-022307 of the DSR states, granting of this variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege denied for other land in the same zone district. The key words here I think are special privileges and denied. According to 202-2303 in the D.S.R., every other resident in my plan is free like me to at least request a setback variance. As we know, one other variance has been requested my plot. In the last 23 years, I was not aware of the one on the upper corner which must have happened recently. That variance occurred on my block and it was of course approved. The special privilege I am requesting is a two-foot variance into the five-foot setback with fire rated materials. There's no precedent or occurrence where that special privilege has been denied to others on this plot. I cannot say for certain what occurred before 1999 as the Gisatt program records don't go back that far. Still, there's no evidence on current record to show that a denial has ever been issued. Some of the zoning violations that I've shared were investigated and subsequently closed by Adams County Attorney, but those structures all remain standing. And my neighbors have certainly not been denied what I would actually call a common occurrence not a special privilege. Conversely, if my variance application is denied and I am forced to tear my carport down, I would be the first homeowner in my pot out of 110 others to actualize that consequence in 23 years. Criteria 4. No. The property can be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of the physical requirements of these standards and regulations. Leah then suggests that we put a carport or garage at the back of the property. So this determination certainly depends on what the board considers reasonable. As I mentioned before, to drive safely beyond the home and into the back of our property, we'd have to work with Excel, Energy, Comcast, and CenturyLink to somehow move and lift the overhanging electrical and cable service drops. The electrical wiring currently hangs around 10 feet at its lowest point, but regularly drops to eight and hot weather. The cable line hangs at eight feet and regularly drops to six. Any service drop needs a minimum 12 foot clearance as I already mentioned. So to try and accomplish that suggestion, we would need to work with utilities to rewire and lift our existing drop, a drop that was upgraded not long ago. This would likely involve moving the newly upgraded panel about 10 feet to the south in order to create full and unobstructed clearance for a vehicle or any construction. Unfortunately, we haven't enclosed porch 7 feet to the south covered in windows, so to address that we would probably have to rebuild the entire porch and sunroom with a new foundation, new exterior walls. Few fewer windows, a wider float, interior rated insulation, etc. Then every single section of the existing wiring in our home would somehow need to be extended into that enclosed porch. There are three massive trees that would likely need to be removed to clear a pathway for that new drop. We would likely need a right-of-way permit and to procure permission from Excel to either link the drop from a different poll or extend the wiring on the current drop. I'm not sure we would get that permission as this idea lacks feasibility in every way. To put a cardboard in the back of our property would also necessitate ripping up and replacing an existing underground watering system, as well as existing underground electrical conduit placed by the prior owners, it would necessitate the removal of $4,000 worth of our recent zero escaping efforts, the removal of a brand new $3,000 deck, and the removal of a $6,000 shed. It, again, would represent an immediate loss of $22,000 already spent on the car port, plus an additional 15,000 at minimum to lay the concrete so that we could drive towards the back of the property. Of course, then we need to add on another 20,000 for a brand new car port. Our current panel upgrade costs more than $5,000, so I can't imagine what this entire scenario would cost. I just know we do not possess the kinds of resources required to do it. Lea Campbell suggests the fact that that Leah considers this process to be reasonable development for this house at this retail value illustrates a complete lack of awareness of the socioeconomic realities of the neighborhood, including ours. Number five, Ms. Campbell states in her presentation, which you didn't get to see tonight, I responded to, she, quote, created the circumstance of not having space on the side of her house for an attached car and closing structure by converting the existing attached garage into a living space, rendering herself without an enclosed space to park her car. I wanted to modify my home so that my elderly mother could spend her final chapter with me and my family, with her two young granddaughters. My mom wanted to make sure she could park safely out of the ice and snow before moving in. I used the majority of my savings to execute this project. And I believed I was making a good investment, and a good decision for my family's financial future. I couldn't have been more wrong. I was cheated and defrauded, and any competent contractor would have simply told us not to go through with the project. Though I'm ultimately responsible for the consequences, nobody would knowingly create that hardship for themselves. I repeatedly asked for advice from the people who I believed knew how to make it right, including contractors and employees at the CEDD. Still, I never got it right. In retrospect, instead of initiating the project, we would certainly have hold this home and my mother's home at the height of the market. We would have bought a new and larger home at a 2% interest rate. Because of this, Fiasco that option is no longer a possibility. But naive and stupid mistakes in the challenging system are not the equivalent of self-imposing a hardship. I shared every vulnerable detail of this case with Ms. Campbell and the statement for those demeaning and demoralizing. Number six, she states, no, the granting of this variance will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the county's regulations and comprehensive planning. The intent of the R1C zone district standards and goals of the urban residential future land use designation is to create a healthy neighborhood where structures are constructed in a manner that reduces the spread of fire and limits the drainage impacts on adjoining properties. Sorry, that's the information about the electrical drop. Once again, this issue was addressed by the team review comments provided by CEDD. Two members of the building and engineering review stated there were no problems at all with drainage with my permit and engineering presented. Adams County Fire Sheriff, City of West Minnesota, StXL Energy, et cetera, had no objections, because truly there are no safety issues in this regard. I spoke to Ms. Campbell on the phone after her development team review, and protest to her original determinations on the criteria. I stated explicitly that I thought zoning regulations were primarily about fire prevention and water intrusion. She literally responded, that's not what zoning is about. And yet in her presentation, she said that's exactly what zoning is about. I would like to point you to some photo evidence provided which I believe is nearly perfect representation of the health of my neighborhood. Our home, since we moved in, and started renovating, has become one of the nicest homes on the pot. When we moved in, our backyard was literally filled with broken glass, scrap metal, huge strips of plastic and rubber, and of course, bindweed. The inside of our home was filled with mold. We have always worked tirelessly to improve our home and to make it more safe and more healthy, which has always been my intention. In fact, if I hadn't wanted so desperately to bring this carport up to code, I wouldn't even be here. Like 110 other neighbors, I'd simply be minding my own business, staying under the radar. But even with the carport as it is, our law is still open and spacious compared to the rest on the plot. Krisurious seven. Once again, Lea states no, the approval of the requested setback variances will impair the intent of the county's developmental standards and regulations for residential neighborhoods by increasing the risk of spreading fire and increasing the impact of drainage mitigation on the adjoining property owner. Like Leah, I can simply repeat what I've repeated twice before. But I also believe our zoning will change in the near future. Simply because zoning regulations should match the realities and the needs of the people who live in that neighborhood. And right now one-fifth of us are out of compliance in ways that are nearly impossible to remediate. Higher density in Adams County is necessary to solve the current housing crisis, and additions, expansions, and ADUs, and more affordable neighborhoods, such as mine, will be an integral solution going forward. In my neighborhood, multiple families and large extended families live in the homes, despite their single family designation. It's not uncommon to see six to eight cars parked in the driveways of these homes every evening. And just 2,000 feet south of my property, the area that is now farmland has been approved for high density mixed use urban development through the Upplands project, which will also include subsidize affordable housing. My carport is and will be a blip on the radar. For criteria eight, I got one yes. I also need to state to Greg and others members here that the comments on my criteria that I recently received are new and different than the ones I originally received and repaired for, prepared for. When she shared her original development team review findings with me over the phone, Leah assured me via email that she would be sharing those same points during her presentation to the board. I then shared multiple points of factual rebuttal via phone and email. And two days before our previously scheduled hearing, after I'd spent a month preparing, I received Leah Campbell's final report. In it, I discovered that she used my rebuttals to revise all of her justifications. Those same denials were made just with different justifications based on my evidence. This through our family into chaos as I attempted to revise my entire presentation just two days before the hearing. Ultimately that hearing was canceled due to Leah's own procedural negligence and I only received that notification to AM that morning as I was feverishly working on my new presentation based on her recent revision. All cited. Finally, I want to bring up a few key points about contractor law and consumer protections in Colorado. State law differs vastly in consumer protections for people like myself and Colorado is an extreme outlier in this complete lack of consumer protections against fraudulent contractors. It is one of the only states in the country where anyone and everyone can legally call themselves a quote, general contractor without possessing the required skills and knowledge, nor any kind of state registration or licensure. Excluding plumbers and electricians, there is no regulatory body overseeing general contractors at the state level. With no state oversight, all penalties for general contractors who operate without permits or licensure are supposed to be handled at the county level. But in Adams County, there seem to be no penalties whatsoever. No penalties for the contractor that is. Nobody in Adams County departments of community and economic development, nor community safety and well-being, nor anyone in building and planning has shown any interest in enforcing oversight, restrictions or consequences of any kind for Anthony Gentry, or others who similarly break the law. Tony is free to apply for any future license or permit in Adams County and continue his rules as a general contractor in any capacity. Despite lacking the necessary skills and possessing literally zero knowledge of building code and zoning. In California, New York and Arizona where I lived prior to moving to Colorado, it's illegal for a contractor to perform any work without the required licensure. And that licensure can only be procured by demonstrating knowledge and competency both in zoning and building code. In fact, in California, if a contractor performs work without a license, the consumer isn't titled to a full return of their money under state law. I naively had assumed most states were somewhat similar. And this entire experience has set me on a path of advocacy for more protections for consumers in the state of Colorado. I want to mention that three of our neighbors were going to come to our original hearing on November 3rd to show their support, but I didn't feel fair to me to ask them to clear their schedules again, although couple showed up anyway. I went into this project as a first-time homeowner, unable to hammer a nail into a post, absolutely sure that the law would protect me from people like Tony. A full year later, I have an extensive understanding of contractor law, applicable building code, construction technique, development standards and regulations, and the processes, procedures, standards, and precedence within my plan. I have come through this experience with the knowledge of my neighborhood and its history that can rival anyone's. I possess a newly skeptical and cautious mind, thicker skin, and a renewed commitment to making sure that every important communication happens in writing. In spite of my numerous mistakes and many unforeseen challenges, I have grown in my clarity and integrity as a human being and I am much more engaged and aware citizen of Adams County. I'm a better neighbor. After I complete nursing school and when I qualify I am eager to apply to serve on boards such as these someday. I also give more people the benefit of the doubt, more of the time, and I really understand the virtues of mining my own business. My neighborhood is a work in class neighborhood where people live and let live. Most of my neighbors do not have the time, financial resources, or even the English language skills to navigate this kind of a process. It is my sincere hope that community and economic development department will not use any portion of my included audit to penalize my neighbors. I spent almost all of my savings on this conversion project, thinking I was investing in my home and my family's future. Instead, the opposite happened, and we have been stuck in limbo for an entire year, managing two mortgages, while we anxiously await this determination. I was told repeatedly by Leah Campbell and others at the CEDD that they cannot take the hardships of the particular person into account while doing their analysis. After a year of devastating financial loss, the shame and betrayal of being defrauded and misled multiple surgeries, sickness, pain, isolation, and general bad luck. I am humbly asking you to consider my case on a human level. On a human team and level, I'm asking for you to please help my family. What this has been about always is creating a home where my mother can spend her final chapters with me, my husband, and my two young girls. Before she gives up her home in an eternally warm Arizona, she just wants to ensure that she can park her car out of the ice and snow. Please help us make that dream possible. I know this presentation has been long and detailed, and I sincerely thank you for your patience and your time. Thank you, Ms. Carina. Your submittal was reviewed by a... Oh, I'd like to show, sorry, the photo of our car port is just setback photos showing, you know, mostly the zero to one foot setbacks. I didn't include all 100 photos. And here we are. And Mr. Chair, if I may make a record of the supplemental materials that Miss Kavanaugh provided. Yes, thank you. Ms. Kavanaugh, correct me if I'm wrong on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you tonight. Yeah, it's just in reference to my presentation. Okay. The board has have had a chance to go through this and I would just ask the board if they're willing to are that these be added into the record and let me know if you need additional time if we need to take a recess for you all to review this. So everyone either say yes or no to the recess so I can just have that for the record. Gentlemen. Yes, for recess? No. Do we enter the record? No. My question is whether or not you need a recess to look at these documents. No. Mr. Rockwith? No, sir. Is it hangout? No. Mr. Stampwith? No, sir. Is it hangout? No. Mr. Stampinel? No. And I say no. We have had the opportunity to review the record, but we thank you for providing it. And also the packet for this case was provided to us ahead of time, so we've got to read all the submitted materials from both that you had submitted and that the case meant that you had submitted. At right now, I will offer, let's see if anybody from the Board of Adjustments has any questions for you. Or for Mr. Gleason. All right, I'm sorry. For Mr. Barnes. Mr. Gleason. I'm just convobulated. Your chair. Yes, go ahead. Can I request executive session? No, I can. Will you approve? I know you can. I can request anything. Do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion on whether we can or should not have a discussion? May I just make a reference to this? I believe this is an executive session pursuant to CRS 246402 for the purpose of receiving legal advice. Is that correct? Is that correct, Mr. Hancock? Yes. Okay. Is there any problem with that? Let's have a vote on whether we move on to executive session. Do a roll call. Mr. Green. Aye. Mr. Hancock, myself. Aye. Mr. Nihon? Yes. Mr. Stanfield? Yes. And Mr. Groanquist? Yes. At this point, we're going to go to executive session to just get some advice on the legality of this case. No votes will be taken while we're in executive session. And then we'll come back out and we'll have continued discussion on it. And there will be additional questions for you. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to use the same method as the other one. the I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the right I would have, you know, ruined it. We would have really bad right now. That's what I'm going to say. I mean, not yet. Yeah, yeah. That's always true. Why didn't you get up to the holiday party? Well, one, he hates us. Yeah, clearly. the more than I've gone. I think this is the fourth one I've ever been to. Back to one for sure, I think, I guess since... the of the anything about pools. I think because they're better than that. No. Okay. It's like you can be perfect. But then that last one you make it, and then you just like out scratch. And I probably still bad. I've been caught worse than I strictly said. But you lost. Yeah, it's another deal with you. You're upon it. So about four years ago. strictly another do with you you're so about four years ago about four years ago and the given a presentation and apparently on the YouTube right looking so I really have been called work that case you should get to check that's right you know what I'm saying. I'm not a messed up one now. Maybe it. I didn't even know about it until Chris Park. He screen captured it and sent it to me. I used running the Chris Park for zero. That's how long ago. Yeah. Chris Park and I. I don't know if you know what I'm saying. I don't know if you know what I'm saying. I don't know if you know what I'm saying. Yeah, Chris Park and I. Oh. Oh. Yeah, we should do tough golf again. I've been saying that for a long time and then the pandemic kind of ruined it. Yeah. You don't have to be good. No, you don't. Not with this group. Yeah, I'm the worst. I'm not. Yeah, I'm the worst. Yeah, I'm the worst. You're not going to be David and Greg last girl. Yeah, by the way, I got a, I can't, I have a dog. Willow is like, no, no, I can't do that, I can't do that. I can't do that. I'm not letting my spores that high. This is not, I let him up, yes. Yeah. The worst for me, I'll choose all of this. the I'm not going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a gun. I'm going to get a We have a report of adjustment session back in session. We have returned from an executive session. Like I said, it was merely to clarify a legal issue. No votes were taken in the case itself specifically was not discussed. Gentlemen, where we left off, are there any questions that we have for Ms. Carbana? Anyone? All right, I have one additional question for Mr. Gleason. We've heard several different, oh my God, I did it again. The name tag is in front of you and it's just driving me crazy. I've only worked here eight years. I know, I'm sorry Greg. Greg, I'm very sorry. God, kill me. Mr. Barnes, we've had several different discussions on what the set back is. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I And again, it pertains to what we're deciding here tonight. What is the setback that we are deciding here tonight? Yes, I'm glad you asked this question because I think there's a lot of confusion around this. So our development standards defines how a setback is measured in terms of zoning. And that definition is any projection of the structure with the exception of an external stairwell. And so in terms of zoning, the setback being requested, we have made the request one foot because that actually benefits the applicant. Our concern was that if we were requesting a setback of three feet and then this variance got approved, a building permit got approved and a building inspector visited the site and made the determination that it was closer than three feet. We're back here again. So that determination of requesting one foot was to be conservative to keep the applicant from having to repeat this process again and I think the applicant may have gotten upset about that, but that was a benefit to her and not a disservice. Three feet, one foot, you're still gonna need the setback. So we wanted to be conservative based on where we assume the property line is, which is difficult because the property hasn't been surveyed. So we're only relying on information that's been given and what the ground situation looks like. And in that assessment, that's why we worded the request one foot. Perfect. Thank you. That was a clarification. I was looking for Mr. Hancock. I said for the applicant, I didn't know we could ask Mr. Barnes questions. Both? I can. Okay. Mr. Barnes. I forgot my question. Okay. Okay. Mr. Barnes. I forgot my question. Okay. No. I know other municipalities have allowable encroachments like Eves and other features just to confirm Adams County standards have only the stairs as an allowable encroachment into a setback. That is correct based on chapter 11 definition of a setback. Okay. And, I'm not a... You know me. There is conflicting information between what the county has granted and or permitted in this area. I saw, I believe in your presentation, there were two variances granted, but the applicant has presented a number of other structures that I believe in, and I don't want to misquote, but I believe you said we're permitted. And so I'd like to know for, and I have to ask from the county's perspective, where are we on that? Were they permitted? Well, so I have not checked every property in the subdivision for permitted structures. I've simply checked what variances have been approved in the last 20 years and there were two in the area. Our enforcement division is actually not in community and economic development. It is in another department called Community Safety and Wellbeing, there's an enforcement team. I believe that that enforcement team because the county is large. I love to say this but the county Adams County in land area is larger than 27 countries. It takes about two and a half hours to drive from one end to the other east to west. So our six code officers, they don't have the time to go out and assess every single property and look for violations. We respond to complaints and that's typically enough to keep us more than busy or that department. So if a complaint has come in at that point, we would check to see if a permit has been issued, and they may be in this situation as well. But I do not believe that that department actively goes out in patrols, neighborhoods, and rights violations. Okay, seeing no additional questions, at this point we'd open it up for a public hearing. If there's members from the public that would like to speak, either in support or against this, you're welcome to do that now. If you would, please approach the podium, give your name and address, and you would have three minutes if you'd like to say your peace. There are particular buttons. There's a button on the microphone. It's on. It's on. It's on. You're good to go. Hi guys. So my name is Corey Bulk. I live at nineteen ninety one a one Judson. You've actually seen my house right there with the solar panels. Um, directly to the northwest, I guess. So we've been at the house for. Four four and a half years now. And we've been neighbors with Siri and Matt and they've been at the house for four or four and a half years now and we've been neighbors with Siri and Matt and they've been nothing but pleasant, they've been great neighbors and they've been a great asset to our community. We've exchanged numbers, we watch each other's houses, now we'll pick up each other's mail if we're not home, you know that type of thing. So I really appreciate that we have them in our community. I know that they would have never went about this project if they didn't believe that this was going to be with encode. And as far as we're concerned, I mean this has no effect on us. We look over at their house every day. I never look at that car port and say, god I live I live in this dump, you know like they keep up their property. They're always doing things with their property to make it better and I don't think that Having them tear that down to Build a brand new one is really a great use of their resources. I don't think it benefits the community in any way. And I hope that you guys can find it in your hearts to allow this variance and grant them an early Christmas present. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to speak, sir? Good? Anything else additionally that you would like to say? I mean I'll just say like how tired you were just hearing her talk right? You know like it was like a lot. We'll supply that time a million for what this woman's been through in the last year. And the amount of arguments we've had in our hope. Yep. the amount of arguments we've had in our home. It's just... it'd be really easy. I always look at the stuff like, what's the deal? What's the deal? What's the deal? What's the post? It's like, what's the big deal? I don't get it. I still don't totally get it. She's obviously smarter than I am. But like, just the amount of the... In that, on our family, on our kids. I mean, the amount of like dinners that they've met has been like, you know, fend for yourself for a little bit of time. Or like just the amount of stress on us is like, is ridiculous. And I'm just going to second what you said. Like I hope you guys can just find in your hearts to grant us this. We can move forward. And like she's serious. Like she's going to be really good on the board. She decides to do that. She's obviously a very serious and competent woman. The record. Can I have your name? Just sorry. I'm Matthew Kavanaugh. Okay. Thank you. Any more questions, gentlemen? I'm still a little unclear about exactly what's being asked for in this variance. I've heard different possibilities and I would like to get that with a record. What exactly is being asked for in this variance? Mr. Barnes. Certainly. I mean, I can reiterate the request a little bit. So this carport was a bill as an attachment onto the single family house. When a carport is constructed in Adams County, usually the first step in the process is that a building permit application is sought. That during that building permit process, which is where I think a lot of the confusion came in because that process didn't happen. But during that process, plans reviewers review a structure for building safety and building code. Planners review that building permit from zoning code. Engineers review that structure for impacts on traffic or drainage. There's a whole teamwork of departments and different people with different specialties that review that single permit and we root it through and get all those answers. In this particular instance, the carport was constructed prior to the permit happening and then at some point there were questions being asked that may have led to some confusion amongst our staff because the order of operations had been Not followed in its normal pattern, but Ultimately this car port was constructed the posts were constructed what were told three feet from the side property line But there is this overhang which this isn't the best view. The applicant did have a much better picture. This overhang, which is about two feet. So the request that is before you is for a one foot side setback for this attached carport, so that the entire structure will then conform to the zoning standard for the side setback. Because if the variance is approved there would be a one-foot setback required here. Okay. Does that clarify it? Yep. So the request is for a variance of one foot. That is correct. From the, and again it's unclear where the property line is but roughly from that fence back. Yes, the property hasn't been formally surveyed so we do not know exactly where that property line is but roughly from that fence back. Yes, the property hasn't been formally serviced so we do not know exactly where that property line is. The burden is on the applicant to ensure that that structure would be at least one feet from that property line. Unless we receive a complaint we won't go out and pursue that. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Warrant. Mr. Stanfield. Where is the bedroom in this thing? You said you had a bedroom there. Oh, it was in the house. It was not at the car park. Oh, the garage was converted and then you put a car park. OK. Simultaneously, Tony dismantled the garage you know destroyed the slab took the doors out put the car frame up that all happened at the same time unfortunately otherwise. Very good. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the effort that you put in this. I have one other question. There's been several discussions that it's not up to code. Is it still not up to code? So it's not up to code in any way on the level of the building. So for this whole year, it's actually, I think it's been causing problems for my original home for about an entire year. So part of the application, you be required to get a building permit and bring it up to code to at least meet those standards? So. Yeah, and we believed we had done that, you know, when West Tech pulled the reroof, we thought we could bring it up to code. That was our agreement with West Tech before I knew what I now know. Thank you. I forgot. I'm sorry, one question leads to more. Mr. Grunkles. Just one, I mean, looking at this picture, just a quick question about it looks like there's actually two posts for this roof. There's the one that was in Mr. Barnes picture. And then there's one inside the fence. Or is that something different? Sorry, maybe we should go to my, which poster are you referring to? So this post, now go back to Mr. Bargit's picture. There's five identical posts, just like that one. So it looks like there's one on the edge of that blue tarp that goes up to the roof. Is that another post on this? No, so the fence in front of the carport we haven't turned down because we paused all construction when we received our violation. That fence is a floppy fence that's been there since probably 1980 and that needs to come down. So we just jerry rigged the fence to the carport. It's not a post. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I was thinking maybe there might be enough space to pull a car in there and cut the roof at that first post To cut the roof so we can cut the eaves at any whatever level absolutely you would prefer that's easy Okay, and the handout that's why I was very concerned initially because the handout said that those eaves the one that Tony filled out was supposed to follow said that that you should go one foot beyond the post maximum right right right right. Right. Okay, so just to clarify that the second post that I can see in this picture basically is the two by four supporting the yeah right there yeah so that's not necessary for the roof that's just for the I have a reputation for a lot of questions. But you just answered that. The fences interim. You plan to use this in me. I think you mentioned this with your mother. I'm from Arizona. I understand snow and ice. My mom won't move up here either. She will park under this. This is going to be a car port and not a patio. At first I will say I thought maybe it was being used as a patio with the fence. I get it now. You mentioned something and I want to ask this question. You are willing to trim the eve back? Absolutely. Can you go to your photo? willing to trim the eve back? Absolutely. Can you go to your photo? So I would just add Mr. Hancock as Mr. Barnes stated earlier, we're saying that this is a one foot because we don't have a surveyed plot. And we want to make sure that they, if approved that they are working within kind of a theory. And I totally get that. I had mentioned to Leah Campbell that I was absolutely willing to do a survey because that chain link fence has been there since 1970. So it's very easy standard to follow. In this photo, and you just mentioned with the original contractor, the permit I believe you said was supposed to be one foot past the post there. Yes. And you're willing to do that? Yes, because the whole, the whole roof is garbage. I got you. But that, yeah, I'd rather not, but I mean, it's not, it's, it's probably $12,000 from this point forward to remediate the building code violation. So it's part of what we were expecting. Okay, thank you. Gentlemen, do I have a motion? Is there additional conditions you want to impose? What is your pleasure here on this issue? Are we closing public comment? Is that? Yeah, I couldn't. I didn't have anybody else that wanted to make any more public comment. Okay, so then I'm Tom, I'm just chair. I'm going to say this. I... I'm concerned approving it as built right now with the distance from that roof to the fence, even with a gutter. I have concerns about that. Hearing the applicant or approving it. No, we're approving your variance. You all make sure that you please talk into your mic when you're talking amongst one another. So, and hearing that the applicant is reluctantly willing to trim that back. Because if we approve this, with this variance, that is precedent now. And everybody else, we're setting that standard. One foot becomes the setback with a variance. Disagree. Again, we're just having just case by case basis. It's on a case by case basis. Sure, but if I'm an applicant coming in, saying well, he's got one and you approved it last month, well, it's going to be a hard answer to say no, you can't have it. Exactly, but as the lady just presented, she can give you a lot of which did. So we're not approving those. Have been investigated or had any. We're only talking about this case. If there's additional conditions you want to place on it, that's something that you can make in emotion. Otherwise, this is what we're having to discussion on right now. Well, you know, I'm kind of meeting in the middle. I would almost like to remediate the roof just to make the rain water. I get it's a foot and I understand that the property line, who knows where it's at, but I would almost be okay with a six inches from that post with a gutter to mediate the rainwater. That's my big concern is runoff on this. Well, Chris, that's where I'm at. Like a hundred year event that gutter or not, right, going to cross a possible property line because we don't know where it is. I think frankly six is a lot. I'd say a foot is appropriate with a gutter. How are we going to word that? Are we going to say? It would be a fourth condition, I think. We're going to have to approve a variance and let the staff tell her to move it where she went or they needed. It's, that isn't the point. We're not designing this building. That's up to staff and them to negotiate that. It'll be part of the building. Our variance would be approving the right to do that. But we usually put a foot. We usually put a foot. So Mr. Green, I think it would be we approve the variance to a one foot setback. And I think because we don't know where the property line is, we should stay with that. She's already agreed to. Survey. Let's listen to Mr. Hancock. So I think we follow Mr. Barnes's advice. We approve the variance with the one foot. I would propose we add a condition that the eve is trimmed to one foot from the edge of that post right there. And that, if that property line is closer to the house, which is unknown after the survey, then there's still a one foot buffer there. That would be my suggestion. Mr. Barnes, did you have what I have, Christine? I would like for the county attorney to weigh in whether or not we can condition how far the eve is from the post when we're not approving the structure. We're approving the setback. I don't believe that that's accurate, but I'm also not on an attorney. So let me just check with her. No, I'm not counting. This discussion here, guys. That's why we're talking about it. So the standards do allow the board of adjustment to attach any conditions necessary to ensure that the variance does not grant a special privilege or is inconsistent. However, I do think that the specific request here is a variance from the setback. So I think it would be better worded if we said, you know, two foot setback instead of one foot setback as presented. Because as presented here, as you all say, it's likely a foot that Eve is, but no one is 100% sure so reliable one foot maybe. So based on the record and the stipend that was provided by the applicant and discussed today I think we'd be safe to say a two foot set back as presented today and we can add more condition language which involves you know cutting the We'd be safe to say a two foot setback as presented today. And we can add more condition language that involves cutting the eave by one foot. I'm not sure what the rationale is of a two foot setback versus a one foot setback. If we said one foot verified, which she's willing to do a survey, then you have the property line, you know that it would be that way. It's going to be remediation that has to be done to this either way. And so I think they would like to see a shorter overhang. Okay, I like the language of one foot verified. Okay. Mr. Ruk, Grandquist, do you have any more comments? and the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the conditions that go along with that. The staff has put together. You're more than welcome to take some of the conditions or not. But I did want to let you know, and did the applicant receive the alternative findings as well? Okay, good. Just want to make sure. It does talk about the controlled method of water disposal in the alternative findings. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion, please. I'd like to make a motion we approve a variance with a verifiable one foot. Setback, verifiable. So they would have to do a survey, verify that. With eight findings of fact and three conditions. Yes, with eight findings of fact, which would be plus that we would add the one more condition. So there's three conditions. We do four conditions and three notes. What would be the fourth condition? The additional condition would be verifiable. Set back. So I think the condition would be that the applicant perform a survey to confirm that the carport. I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for you. That the applicant would perform a survey to confirm that the carport is less than or more than one foot away from the property line. Yes. Does that work? Yes. Talking about these three conditions that are on here right now, plus a survey. Plus a survey to confirm that it's one foot. Yep. Mr. Chair. Okay. Mr. Chair, can we have some discussion while you're ready? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. Mr. Chair, can we have some discussion while you're ready? Yes, Mr. Barnes. I would like to know from the county attorney if she would like me to draft that condition prior to the vote so it can be on the screen into the record. Yes, do you want to... I will meet you down there. May we have a two minute recess? Can we talk during the recess? No. The roll goes. Yes, anybody know the NFL score? Yes, we'll give you that two minute recess. Please hold on to the shitton take on. the the no one's playing anyway and All right, that's my money. Who's quarterback in the 49ers? Did the third string come in? I'm not sure they have a quarterback. Mr. Arroyo. That perty guy. Oh, perty guy. That's Saturday. He's a graphy, squirting touchdowns. I'm not sure that he will be provided. I was hoping an underdog would have done it. Yeah, all right. All right. I'm going. I'm going to kill. I'm going to kill as a touchdown McCaffrey. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm Yeah, I wish we'd have got him Okay You like it What is Christy drinking? Should I should is Christy drinking right there? Should I, Christy, go to your condition for seated. Hard additions of building permit. Right. Gotcha. All right. Okay. All right. As soon as she's just down, I will have Christie Reed, this additional condition into the record. Right. So the additional condition number four says prior to the issuance of a building permit and improvement land survey completed by a professional land surveyor. Shall be provided illustrating the side setback of the structure is a minimum of one foot. And just for everyone's knowledge, improvement land survey is basically just like a plot, but it just shows your structure. And it can be more than one foot if you're really. You're not. Can't be. A clarifying question just in terms of practicality. So if we do the survey and the survey shows that the eve is a one foot or more from the property line Then do we have to cut it or no? We don't it's one it just can't it has to be Yeah, yeah, yeah, it can't be within that last one foot I can't be within that last one. So, Kim, are we open for discussion or you have a motion, Tom? I have motion, but we can still have a little bit more discussion and then I'll call. I want to voice my concern with this is we don't know where that property line is and there's a 50% chance this could go negative for the property owner. And that property line is actually closer to the existing's eve. So what happens then? What do they cut it? But we are still as a board, granting a one foot side set back in this entire area. And I have my reservations on that. I think we should find another way to solve this. That's my sense on it. This is a gamble. That property line is a very, you've had enough variables. Pardon me, I'm going to talk to is a very you've had enough variables pardon me I'm gonna talk to you guys you've had enough variables and this is another variable We don't know until you get a surveyor so I'm That's my thought Can I share one one thought is I I imagine a survey or cutting the eve would be equally expensive So maybe there is one way to go the eve would be equally expensive. So maybe there is one way to go. Correct. And as a board, I'm still cautious on precedent, although there's disagreement for the community. So we have to be thoughtful of that. Do you have an alternate way of articulating it? The eve for that would sort of mitigate that. I tried and they shut me down, but that's why I was saying, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's set something in there to cut based on the post, which is fixed. If we pick a one foot and then you get a survey and it is against your favor, you're still trimming. That's, that's more defined in my mind. And it lets us grant a, I guess we're still granting the one foot variance. So are we? That would, that would be if we granted the two foot variance forcing the trimming, or requiring the trimming, forcing is not the right way to set that. But requiring the trimming, I feel better about a two foot setback than a one foot. That's an 80% reduction of a five foot setback. The grants you guys a wonderful setback. And that really, in my opinion, as a board applies to then the community and the immediate area. And everybody gets that. And part of your exhibit was demonstrating a lot of other ones there. They haven't been inspected or complained about or reviewed. But we would see additional cases. We could. We could. If they all decided to do this. Mr. Barnes, are you, you have any hard? I have no opinion. Okay, thank you. Do we have additional discussion? I think that that's all for an adult. Any more discussion? And there's five. We can vote and keep the conversation going. Mr. Stanford. Well, the reason that I went from one foot rather than two foot is two foot. You're definitely going to have to cut the roof. One foot we're hoping that you've had enough abuse already that you didn't have to have that additional. That was my thought. Wait, another one comes up, I'm probably going to vote for three foot. Well, it's not, they will have additional cost to do the survey. Uh, yes, Mr. Grandclist amongst ourselves. Um, actually, it is more for Mr. Barnes probably, but does the, uh, so let's say, where does the gutter play into? This is that included in the one foot or is that exceeding into the one foot because we talked about other structures being able to. So any projection of the building with the exception of external stairs does technically count within the required so we put a four four inch gutter on the neighbor's side. They could have to cut it four inches to put a gutter on. They could. We're not really sure where that property line is. Yeah, we have a measurement. We do a roll call, Mr. Chair. Let us do the roll call on this recommended alternative motion No, ask me first mr. Green. No, I said don't ask me first already rolled on that Mr. Groundquist So can I get a re so a reread? Yes, please? Okay, is can I say one thing though? I just for for clarification for everyone going forward, that setback requirement that's being defined would put my original structure out of compliance, it would put well over 50% of the neighborhood out of compliance on the original builds from 1970. So I just want to put that out there that that could be clarified for people in the future We're calling this to vote here right now at this point. Okay. Can I get a re-replace? Re-read so the motion on the table right now is approval of the variance with eight findings of fact four conditions in three notes With the addition of that fourth condition that talks about getting a land survey provided by a professional land surveyor. With a minimum of one foot. With a minimum of one foot. May I ask, was there a second on that motion? I don't believe I heard that. I believe Mr. Nihon was the second on that motion. Thank you. I say yes. Mr. Nihom. Yes. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Stamfield. Yes. Mr. Hancock. No. Motion passes. 4-1. There you go. Go forward with these conditions. And good luck to you. Thank you. And thank you for your time and effort. And a very detailed presentation. Thank you very much. At this point seeing no other business before us, I will close this meeting of the Board of Adjustment at 7.56 p.m. No more questions? never gonna hire Tony Gentry. I don't think twice about my reason. No, I don't need to fame them. I don't know. I don't know anymore. That's a citizen. Excuse me. Excuse me. You left your phone. Oh, you're just having a gun.