I'm going to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for September. Our procedures tonight will be that the staff will come forward and present the case, and then the applicant will have 10 minutes to present their case. If there is any opposition in our law Jordy, and they also will have 10 minutes to come forward and present any opposition. In the event that the applicant does not use this full 10 minutes to come forward and present any opposition. In the event that the applicant does not use his full 10 minutes, he can use the remainder of his time for a bottle of any opposition. Before us, we have our agenda and on minutes from the last meeting. If everybody has read them, there are any comments or changes to the minutes or do I have a motion on the minutes? I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Steiner's made a motion to approve the minutes of all the estimated as submitted. Do I have a second? Aye. Second. Mr. Green has seconded. All in favor of accepting the minutes. Please say aye. Aye. All opposed. The minutes are accepted. Allen, the view up or okay? Thank you, Chairman. Today I'll be presenting the Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing for September 17, 2024. My name is Alan Gera. I'm the planner two for the Community Development Department. The case number is V-240007. Located at 8950 Medlock Bridge Road. Some existing conditions for the site. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel in the Chattahoochee River corridor. It's bounded by AG1 zone parcels with single family detached homes to the east and west. To the north is the Thornhill subdivision, and then across Medlock Bridge to the south is the River Club subdivision. The parcel is 2.381 acres. Some applicable code requirements. City of Johns Creek code of ordinances, Appendix A, zoning Article 5, Agricultural Districts, Section 5.1, AG1 Agricultural District. These are the development standards from Section 5.1.3. Minimum, accessory structure requirements, accessory structures may be located in rear or side yards, but she'll not be located within a minimum yard. The variance request is as follows, to construct an accessory structure in the front yard. As you can see, I don't know if this is gonna work. As you can see right here, it's the yellow. That would be the accessory structure. The proposed accessory structure is a two-story detached garage with an in-law suite on the second floor and the building has a footprint of about 1200 square feet. On the screen you can see different perspectives or renderings of the proposed development. There's the accessory structure and then there's the principal structure of the home. So some of the variance review criteria that we take into consideration for granting a variance is a relief if granted would be in harmony with or could be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance or be the application of the particular provision of the zoning ordinance to a particular piece of property due to extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to that property because of its size, shape, or topography, would create an unnecessary hardship for the owner while causing no detriment to the public. And staff analysis, the subject property is currently undeveloped and provides the property owner with an opportunity to meet the requirements of the city zoning ordinance by placing the accessory structure in the rear or side yard. The applicant has the option to locate the principal residence towards the front, closer towards the road, while still maintaining more than sufficient setback from Medlock Bridge Road, to place the detached garage or accessory structure in the rear yard behind the principal structure. There's ample room for accessory structure to be placed in the rear yard without encroaching into the minimum building setbacks or the 75-foot stream buffer. The detachment garage in the front yard can also be designed to be part of the principal structure by direct connection to function essentially as a single building. Staff thinks that there's no extraordinary and exceptional conditions on the subject property related to its size, shape or topography that justifies a hardship under this provision of the zoning ordinance. Continuing on with the staff analysis, the minimum accessory structure requirements as established for all residential, commercial zoning districts are intended to regulate the placement of accessory structures in rear side yards. Minimize any negative visual impact and provide a uniform appearance from the street similar to adjacent or neighboring properties. The applicant's financial hardship as stated in the letter of intent is a subjective justification and does not qualify as a hardship related to zoning and land use. The proposal occasion of the accessory structure in the front yard, if granted would not be in harmony with the purpose or intent of the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings as Brent presented here, there is no justification for staff to support the requested variance. Now, staff recommendations, staff recommends denial of V-24-007. However, should the Board of Zoning Appeals feel compelled to approve the variance request, staff would recommend the following conditions. One, the accessory structure shall not be used as habitable space or in-law suite and be limited for use as a garage only. 2, the accessory structure shall be allowed to be located in the front yard as shown on the site plan received by the community development department and date stamped on August 5th, 2024. Three, the applicant is required to obtain a building permit and have all required inspections approved showing compliance with the conditions of this variance prior to issuance of a certificate of completion. And four, the applicant shall plan to row of evergreen trees around the perimeter of the accessory structure to provide sufficient screening from Medlock Bridge road. Subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The Evergreen species shall be a minimum of five feet tall at the time of planting, and shall be selected from Appendix J of the city's Tree Preservation Administrative Guidelines. And that concludes our presentation. Thank you. Thank you. As our procedures from last meeting were changed, we are going to wait till after the presentation and opposition to ask questions of staff and the applicant. So the applicant, please come forward and present your case. Not used to speaking in a microphone here, so bear with me a little bit, but thank you all for having me. I had some information. We all able to send that to Allen. I had a couple things I was going to pull up, but I'll go ahead and get going. But my name's Doug Dillard. This is my wife Morgan Dillard and my mother, Harriet Dillard. So thank y'all for having us. Morgan and I are excited about hopefully being able to build our forever home on this lot. We were able to find a lot about a year ago, something like that. We were looking for an acre of land in the area. So we were able to find this 2.3 acre lot and we bought it from a man named Don. Knocked on his door and was able to structure a deal with them. So we were excited to be able to find that. We've taken a lot of care in the design that we've proposed. We have some renderings I would like to show you. But a couple of the things we've done is the front of the garage matches the construction of the house. So visually if you're standing in front of the house, the design of the garage is exactly the same as the design of the house itself. In all the way, Richie can help me pull that up here. Thank you very much. Can I just scroll? There we go. So as you can see here, the front of the garage actually mimics the front of the house exactly. It's almost like we've taken the garage structure and moved it forward and just detached it. You can see from the back perspective, which is on the bottom. We have located the garage door on the back of the garage. So that way the garage door is not even visible from the road at all. It would also like to talk about how far back we're placing the home. This site's pretty large. The lot is actually 665 feet long. So the garage will be located 250 feet from Medlock Bridge. There's approximately 200 trees between Medlock Bridge and the detached structure that are existing, that we're going to leave in place. So I actually took some pictures from the road. Well, you can actually see them here as well, but all these green, sorry, this thing is not functioning the way I would like it to. All these green circles you see here indicate trees on the property. So we do intend on leaving all those trees in front of the house. So the garage will actually not be visible from the road at all. I don't know if you all have had the opportunity to drive by the lot, but our neighboring property will actually be setting further behind from where their house is. So reasons for us putting the primary structure as far back on the lot as we can is one, Medlock Bridge is an extremely busy foreland named highway. So we want to try to get as far back away from that as we can for safety of our friends, family, pets, and all that to try to keep them out of that major road. The other reason is road noise. Medlock Bridge produces a bunch of road noise. So we purchase this lot with the anticipation and the plan to try to get the house as far back off of the main road as we possibly can. I spoke briefly on the lot size, but I just want to emphasize again how far back this really is and how I don't feel like it impacts the public in any way. I feel like nobody will even see this. I did also want to point out the way the zoning is written and I will flip here to the zoning snippet I have. So this property is zoneed Ag1. It was zone Ag1 probably before I was born. You know, you all could look that up, I'm sure. But agriculture 1 is anything over an acre. And there's a couple things that identify that. If you read the code on Ag 1, it states that accessory structures may be located in the rear or side yards, but should not be located in a minimum yard. If you read the single family dwelling residential codes that most of John's Creek is bound by, it has the word only in there. Accessory structures may be located in the rear or side yards only. So I will state again that agricultural district does not limit me to only being in the rear or side yards per the code. It just states that it can be located in the rear or side yards. that may be the only thing that I want to point out. I do feel that the granting of this experience, I have no effect on the surrounding properties or the community. I was able to go knock on my neighbors doors and they did not have any objections, some of which are the original medlock family who lived next door to me on a divided doors and they did not have any objections, some of which are the original Medlock family who live next door to me on a divided property of 10 acres and none of them had any issues with what we're proposing. So I was not able to go to the rear Thornhill properties or the properties across Medlock bridge but they in no way even really connect to our property. I had a couple comments on the staff recommendations if it is approved. Our architect made some mistakes on our plans. We do not intend for this to be an in-laws suite upstairs. The intent is for this to be a future office or workout room. So the upstairs will not be built out at this time anyways. It won't be under the permit. We submit if you'll do allow us to build there. But future plan is office and work out room, not in in law suite. So that was number one on their staff recommendations. Number four on their staff recommendations was evergreen trees to be planted around the structure. I don't feel like that's required considering there's 200 trees between us in the road. And I have some pictures I'd like to show you that we took the other day from the Buck Bridge. So this is a Medlock Bridge headed northbound and I'm looking over the southbound lane and you can see the density of trees that's located here and then there's also a row of bushes here. And I will get you to, if you can see the white structure in the back, that's actually my neighbor's house. We'll be sitting actually further back than his house. So the ability to see that home is virtually nothing. We want as much buffer as we can between us in the road due to the conditions we stated. So our intent would be to leave the majority of those trees. I think the river cord or folks are going to make us leave quite a few of them as well. But you can see the density of trees right here. So I would appreciate not having the requirement to add additional trees if y'all do approve it. And that's all I had. So is there any Q&A here? Well, I do have to call for opposition and he wants to come forward and speak in opposition. And there being none, do we have questions of the applicant or staff or any comments on this? I'll start with staff. First of all, it sounds like there's a fundamental difference in opinion between staff and staff. Do you have any questions of staff with the applicant? I'll start with staff. First of all, it sounds like there's a fundamental difference in opinion between staff and the applicant about the allowance of an accessory structure in the front versus the side or the rear. I mean, is there a legitimate difference of opinion? I just want to understand that. The staff has been operated with this regulation from the beginning and has communicated that to the applicant that the accessory structures are only allowed in the side of the rear yard. So there is no difference in interpretation. I understand the point that the applicant is pointing out about the one only, but it's you know, there is no reason for having that without the one only why would their regulation be there if it can be located anywhere on the yarn, you know, so that's I'm only waiting there asking. Oh, okay. So it's so for us, the agricultural district, because it's been used for single-family home, it's operated the same way as other single-family homes, and the access restructures are only within the side of the real yard. Okay. So really, then what you're saying to rephrase it is that you're considering the restrictions on this property, even though it's zoned ag ag to be the same as the restrictions on school. That is correct. And then the second question I have is with regard to the conditions if the board was to approve the applicants request with the conditions of the additional trees, it does seem like it's very wooded lot right now. So what is the reason that the staff would recommend adding trees? So we have been consistent with any such accessory structures that are allowed for variances or encroachment and setbacks to kind of buffer it with the trees. It is correct that there are plenty of trees, 200, or whatever, on the lot. But with this condition, the trees and the screening will be protected. I'm not saying the applicant is going to go ahead and remove those trees, but there is no protection. If they're not specimen trees, they can be on the river corridor that protects some disturbance or clearance. But other than that, we don't have. So this condition kind of protects that. But if the board so chooses to remove that condition, that would be okay. So it's the guarantee that there are trees of a certain size, that minimum that there are trees of certain size. And then I have a question of the applicant. So it looks like you are a contractor. So I'm just curious like like, being that you, I would consider you'd be a knowledgeable purchaser. Didn't you investigate the restrictions on this property before you bought it? So I'm a metal frame and drywall commercial contractor. I am not a home builder. So I do nothing with home building. We're building this home for ourselves. We've never built a house. We're going to hire a contractor to build the house for us. Had we known that, we probably would have seek counsel first before purchasing a lot and tried to figure this out prior to that. But we did not understand that that constraint would be an issue. So was it a matter of you investigated and just reached a different conclusion or you didn't investigate the restrictions, the potential restrictions? We didn't understand the restrictions and that John's Creek would have issues with us putting a detached structure in front of the home. Because that would affect our decision on purchasing home are the lot. Okay. My last question, I'll let somebody else step in. Thank you. With regard to the potential attachment of the the successory structure to the house, is it, I mean, if you put something like a port of Kachear or something that was an open, and maybe the staff has to weigh in too. Does that meet the requirements or does it have to physically walls be touching? So the requirement is that it needs to be a principal structure, one main structure. Now, how the connection established has always been something that we look at case by case basis or breeze way is not a connection. So what we've established is that it needs to be a heated space to maintain that connection between the two structures. It has to be heated space. It cannot be just a walkway or a portugal. Okay, thank you. Right. Thank you. You finished? Leave anything else? Okay, so that was my question is, if you could put a breezeway or a portico. But a couple of questions for the applicant. Number one, I think you said it was 200 feet to the garage. 250. To the garage. Yes, sir. And then the house is even further back. Yeah, so the garage is 40 feet and then there's 50 feet additional between the garage and the home. So that puts the house over 350 feet away. But I think if you just flip them, you still have a great amount of space between the house and the middle up bridge. Yeah, the concern there is pushing our primary residents with our family and our dogs and everything closer to the road and we're trying to get as far away from that road as we possibly can. And it also limits our backyard with our family. So it's a pie shaped lot. I think you can see that in the in the survey. So it really bottled next us down. Okay, well, then what about just attaching it to the front of the house? I mean, you can have an 18-cog of Roger if it's all one, and you'd still maintain that distance from the road. We could attach it to the house, that's not the design intent we're looking for. I understand, but we're trying to balance everybody's needs here. I personally don't have problems with accessory structures on two acolytes in the front, but if we can work out a compromise, I think if you want your house as far back as possible, I think attaching it, I was going to suggest a portico also with a 20 or 30 feet difference there. And if that was needed as a variance, I would suggest that. But if you were willing, well, yeah, and you and your architect could work it into the main house and you could separate any way you want, separate all, separate office which is fine just those are my thoughts and I also agree with Miss Ross about the need for extra bushes I mean you're in the woods now I don't think anything else is gonna besides. Besides no normal landscaping, I think we'll find there. Do we have any other questions or comments? All right, Warren. What is your intent for the backyard? I mean, at this point, we have no intent to put a pool or anything back there. Well, probably we could buy our get a raise trees, or are you going to have a lawn? No, I actually have a proposed site plan on here. I can show you. It would just be a lawn. And then there's a 75 foot creek buffer. It's a Fulton County buffer, I believe, in the backyard. So we can't go into that at all anyways. But the plan for now would be to saw it and put landscaping. A portion of it. Yes. Okay. But we're pretty limited with the river corridor. So it's in the river corridor. I've spent a lot of time with Ruchi and Jim Santos at the river corridor. But we can't cut very many trees on this lot. So it's going to be a small footprint under an acre that we're able to clear for the home and the driveway and the yard. Alan, can you put the cyclan up? I can't struggle with that. I can't. I think the file is pretty good. I just want to know where the 75 foot buffer is. So to define the building area. Because I can't tell on this thing. It's too small. Do the di a question. Sure. So the plan to put the structure in the front was that always the plan or the law dictated. I mean, it did because it's a great question. All right. If we could put the structure on the side of the home, we would be fine. Doug, can you speak to the mic? Sure. Because it's screaming right now. So if we could put the structure on the side of the home, we would be completely open to that. But it's zone agricultural. I didn't go into this. So it has a 25-foot setback on each side. So that chokes me down 50 more feet. And if you can see in this site plan, proposed site plan, the interior red line is my building offset. I wish I could point to it in some way. At the corner of the home, the corner of the home on the bottom of the home, if you can actually go to the gray house, right there. So you see the red dotted line in the back corner of the home that's about five feet off the edge That is actually my set back line So I have no room to put a structure beside the home I have five feet on that side and I think I have about five feet on the north of the page as well So Alan, can you just show us what the 75 foot is? It's, yes, that line. That's the 75, that truck, okay. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. So it does limit your back quite a bit. And there's actually, it's not shown on this, it's shown on my survey, but there's a drainage ditch in the front of the yard as well about 50 feet to the right on this page of the detached structure. So although it's 2.3 acres, if you can see how much the creek is taken up of that, and then trying to stay off Medlock Bridge is really, it's starting to choke us down on location. So that's how we ended up with it in front of the house. You mentioned that the original initial detail was that it was supposed to be in-law suite, but it was not. And so I guess are we still discussing an inlaw suite? And if we aren't, if it's not going to be a residence, does that change this overall? So inlaw suite is considered as a guest house. The applicant had, there was some conflicting information and staff reached out to the applicant to clarify that. In fact, clearly that whether it's just an office or it's a guest house, because that makes a difference with the additional standards of a guest house. In the applicant knowing the, just we ask like if the information is changing and it's not in in law suite that it needs to be updated in the plans, which was not provided to us. So we are going with the assumption that even though it's not scoped out right now, but the plans say in-law suite. So to answer your question, it's not an in-law suite, it's still an accessory structure. The guest house can only remain in the rear yard. An accessory structure cannot be in the side yard or the rear yard. An accessory structure cannot be in the side yard or the rear yard. So it really does not change anything. If it's not an in-laws suite, the first condition that is there, it's still just making sure that it's not a habitable space. It's not later on afterwards converted into a room or something. But it does not change anything. Still an accessory structure cannot mean the frontier sure and Also did you happen to get Receipts signatures letters from your neighbors who you attempted and try to reach out to I have not but I could I could get that Yes I have a question of staff is Our driveways subject to setbacks? They can go right up to the property line, correct? Two, five feet. Technically, they're supposed to be five feet from the property line, but they're not subject to the setbacks. And the lot, since it's tapering, you know, the applicant didn't mention that there is not enough room for the accessory structure to be on the sign, but if the house again moves forward, then there is, because it's a tapered lawn, then there will be more room for the driveway to go back and have the accessory structure at the back. So, are there any other questions? I want to go on. Sure. Just to understand, again, the need for it to be separate. Like John's question, I mean, can it be some way connected? Can we work out something that works for everybody concerned? Is there a specific need? I didn't hear any specific need for white has to be a detached structure and some exceptions have come stand something. I'm sure we could probably find a way to attach it. a detached structure and some exceptions have come stands something. I'm sure we could probably find a way to attach it. It's going to increase the condition footprint of our house by quite a bit. We actually intended to build this house at about 3,500 square feet condition. We're about 4,200 right now. By the time you've done, it's going to be about 55. I hope not. So the intent is to try to kind of separate the garage, the detached garage, and not add to condition space. And the idea of this, I don't know if you all have obviously probably drove through Milton, but the design we're going with is kind of a Milton feel. And it's kind of how we came up with the idea Did you plan is this a sloping lot? Do you can you put a day like basement in this? It's gonna be a slab Yeah, it does slope from right to from top of page to bottom of page, but we are pouring a slab. There will be no basement If you consulted with an architect about but we are pouring a slab, there will be no basement. If you consulted with an architect about redesigning the home in that same motif, but perhaps on L shape, which would incorporate the garage into the structure. So once I talked to Ruchi, and we heard about all this a couple months ago, I've already spent, I have about 35 pages of architectural drawings done that I've spent money on. Sure. We're actually ready to submit for permit, We spent, I have about 35 pages of architectural drawings done that I've spent money on. We're actually ready to submit for permit. But we've put the brakes on everything just because we don't want to continue to spend money if we're not going to be able to build what we want on this lot. Any of the drawings that the architect has done, do they incorporate a, you know, scenarios about attachment. You already have, you know, a view of what an attachment, you know, would need to, you know, what it would need to be. Not yet, because I don't know if we'll desire that and we may end up selling a lot and going somewhere else to be honest with you. So I don't know that we'll spend the money to get it designed if we decide that that's not something architecturally we want to do. And you're totally against moving the home forward on the lot. If you go stand out on Medlock Bridge. I have. You'll go you would want your house as far away from that road as possible as well. I'm trying to get the driveway opening at the front as big as I can, but I want to be as far away. We actually talk about every week about, do we really want to build on this lot? Because Medlock Bridge is so busy and people are doing 65, 75 miles an hour down that road. So if we can't get away from that road, I don't think we're going to want to build on it. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I know the one on staff. So if the use of the upstairs of the garage is for an exercise room or an office, does that then eliminate any concern that the staff has about the use of the space? In other words, that clearly not an in-law suite and space that the staff would have no concern if it was finished as a office or work out space. That is correct. Although we have, I mean, that is correct. If it's not in in Los Wheed, it should not be habitable. It's if it's just an office or studio work. Can it be used as an office? Yes. Office, yeah. It can be used. That's not habitable. Yes. What's in this section there? I'm habitable. Yes. There's just a bathroom, like putting a bathroom in there. Still living, you're basically, you have a, you know, it's, it's a fine line, you know, it's because how do you enforce it, whether it's a guest house or an office, somebody converting into, you know, you do need, it's not clearly defined in the ordinance, but if you have a bathroom there and you have an office, you can convert it into, you know, a living space and that is why the condition is they're not having anything because that's where, how do you enforce it, how do you, you know, check that it's been a living space now, which is done into guesthouse now. So I would think that the office or the work out room would have a bathroom. I can't imagine it not. And that'll be under a future permit. That upstairs is going to be considered a shell in our original permit, because we just can't afford to build it out at this time. So I guess we could probably cross that bridge later. But our original permit will stay shell space future office, Jim. Do we have any other, excuse me, comments or discussion? Well, I got a question here for the staff. Let's see if there's no second level on that, there's no exercise room, there's just a detached garage. Would that still be considered an accessory building? That is correct, it still would be an accessory building. Okay. Thank you. The first condition, just from staff's perspective, the first condition is to maintain just for the garage only, for the same reason of how do you enforce that it's not changing into habitable space. So if it's a second story, you know, and because of the information that we have received, that the potential of changing into an in-laws suite, that's why the first condition was placed there. Okay. Any other comments or questions? Well, I think you do recognize you could put that structure in the rear. It can be done. Yeah. It can be done. It can be done. It can be done. Well, I've got to say, this one I'm very torn about, given the situation of a lot and the road and the fact that it's almost three acres, even though a lot of it is unusable. After back and forth that we've done tonight, I was not in favor of it but I am leaning towards an approval of this. I don't know if anybody else has any thoughts that you'd like to share or I can take Chairman's privilege and make the motion and see what happens. Yeah, pretty much the same way. The only concern I'm still not seeing, where do we see this stuff? What is the extraordinary circumstance. If it can be put in the backyard, I mean, put the applicant at 250 yards right now. It is deep enough. It will be a delta to 150 yards. And that is an extraordinary circumstance because not many houses in Johns Creek have 250 feet from the road frontage. Yeah correct. Anybody else? Any comments or? Can I recommend that we remove number four on the staff recommendation if we approve this? Well I think if we approve it, I think that there has to be some protection in there about the tree removal, some kind of statement about that, you know, tree removal. Well, he's under the river corridor of that tree removal. He's got to get permission to do for every tree he cuts down. So the Ruchee, why was staff concerned about the lack of protection? Staff, as I said, that's consistently staff whenever the accessory structures encroach into any setbacks, we place a condition of screening. But yes, in this case, the property has a limited amount of disturbance credits. Where, you know, some of the disturbance credits will be used in construction of the house, clearing of the disturbance reddists will be used in construction of the house, clearing of the house, and I'll have to go back and look at the numbers, but it's just being consistent. But there is a fact that there are a lot of trees in front of the property. Anyone else? I'm going to try this. So I would make a motion that we approve V23007 with the following conditions that it will not be used as an endless suite nor any plumbing be allowed in the accessory structure for a bathroom or kitchen that of course you'd have to get the requisite building permits and community development approval and all approvals of the River Corridor and meet all the creek setbacks and other than that, that would be my motion. Anybody has a second or further comment? No. Is it public hearing portion is over? John, what about the trees? I don't believe we need any more trees. We need to strike four. Do you want to strike four? So you did want to eliminate just two conditions that I set forth. I see. Okay. Before you get a second, may I get a clarification on the conditions? Ditions would be basically number one that no in-law sweet or habitable use or any plumbing to be included in the accessory structure. So you're adding no plumbing to be included in the accessory structure. So you're adding no plumbing to be included in the accessory structure? Correct. Can I just clarify that when you talk about the initial because what the applicant is saying is that if he wants to come back, and get a variance for an indoor suite or or even the work out, right? To put a bathroom in, you would do that later. That would be a step forward. That's what I want to ask about. We would want to do under slab plumbing for a future restroom before we pour a slab. So just striking plumbing in general would. That's the most important thing. That's the most important thing. That's the most important thing. I second that motion. Well, let's talk about discussion. Do we want to not put a loud plumbing in there or for it is going to be a gym or an office? I know I would, my plan is to have a shower and my garage also. But, question. Would it meet current code to put a bathroom in that facility later? Anybody can put a bathroom in any facility. In the accessory. Right. You know, yeah, that would have nothing to do with variants. Okay. Yeah. I mean, if the, but the variance condition is there that there is no plumbing, then they cannot. Understand. Okay. The question for staff please. Is it allowable for them to put in vacant plumbing that isn't being used in the slab? Or underneath the slab? If the condition is there that no plumbing, then no. No. I see. I mean, vacant plumbing is for future uses, right? So, all the concrete would have to be cut out and removed and under walls. I mean, we have to adhere if the condition is put in with no plumbing, then there is no plumbing. That's a big deal. That makes sense to make for us to do that. I think we need to allow, you know, the future plumbing, you know, they under the concrete, whatever, whatever. Does the chairman want to amend his motion? Well, this is more like a question to Mr. Chairman here. I'm also kind of like you. I'm torn whether or not to approve this thing here. I mean, if this is my lot, I would want to design it the same way. But I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. And the need, the perceived need to have the houses far back from the street is possible, which I can also understand. I don't think it's a stretch to go against the existing code. This is not an R4 subdivision where everybody can see everything. This is not even an acre lot where you can still see everything. This is a heavily wooded and large lot where we still have to deal with creek setbacks in the rear and a number of hoops he still has to go through for the River corridor. So I don't, visually, I don't see any issue with it, and which is the main reason for the accessory structures not to be in the front, and given the lot size and the layout, I think it's a very, very good layout. What that answers that? He does have the option to put the guest house in the back. This is where I'm having dilemma on whether or not I should vote for this approval. Well, I understand that, but I think we also are trying to compromise here with the need of a property owner to live his, use his property the way he sees fit with what I see as a minor and convenience on a variance. I quite honestly don't think anybody's even been to notice because of the lot. So I mean I don't, I as a precedent, if anybody in the future came in with a 2.8 acre bot and said I want to put an accessory structure in the front, they could use this as precedence. I don't think anybody with a regular single family home could use this as president to put an accessory structure in front. Why thought our decisions didn't set precedent? I was going to mention that. They don't, but the perceived precedence is that if they approve one, they'll approve them all, but that's not the way it works. We still have to answer to everybody. The city and the public. So that's why I don't have an issue because it's mostly because of a lot of size and the lay out of the property is fine with me My only concern is the bathroom is just I think if you if you put the bathroom up there you kind of open up for Habitable space even if we don't say it That's that's really my only objection. I think. I agree with the chairman. The law is large enough, there's enough trees. No one would see it. It's not a concern. I'm just concerned about just the use. But I guess that's not up to us either. Now, but I mean, again, I would put a bathroom on my garage. By the next to three car, I would put a bathroom in there, so maybe two bathrooms. I mean, yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, if you're going to allow a two-story structure, bathroom and bed are not as, it's least a four-concert. No, I understand. I won't. Well, it's not. I don't agree that it can't, like if Mr. Dull decided to sell, that the next owner couldn't start using it as an in-law suite or running out. I mean, I think we have to go already. But Megan, I'm still not able to understand why what is the difference between in-laws who is sweet. I mean, why shouldn't the in-laws suite be there? I mean, what's the hold up? What if somebody uses this in the suite? What's, I think you can handle it. Let me clarify that if I may. So the in-law suites as it would be defined as a guest house. And a guest house is not a part of a use by right in this. Zoning ordinance in the district. So section 19.3.5, hold on just a second. Has special standards, hold on. Yes. 19.3.5 has standards for our guesthouse, which is an administrative have a minimum of 650 square feet and maximum of 1500 square feet. Principle buildings that back shall apply, the location shall be limited to the rear yard. A separate kitchen facility shall be allowed, and no more than one guest house structure per lot may be used for occupancy by relatives, guests or employees that work on the property without payment for rent. So these are the five standards that are associated with the guest house. So you have an office and a workout room, part of the garage, that's an accessory structure, for the guest house, and we have a responsibility of following what the zoning code is allowing. So that is some additional standards, and that's why it separates that. So I understood then I am okay with that saying habitable space are in La Sveed. We don't even have to go for plumbing because plumbing is not the only one that converts it. That's let's lot more for it to be converted to a guesthouse. Well, I think also the in La Sveed entails kitchen, bedroom, living, actual living. Kitchen, yeah. Well, office and work at room. So before I amend my motion, do we have any other comments or thoughts? So I will withdraw my first motion, and at this point I'll make a motion to approve V23007. With the condition that the habitable space will shall never be used as an endless suite. And that all requirements of the building community development, building department, and River corridor be maintained. and the requisite building permits be obtained with the required inspections for a CO. I am removing number four from the staff recommendations. So as I've presented it as amended from the staff recommendations. So that is the motion. Could I ask for a clarification of what specific language you would change in number one, two or three? Well, I mean. So if I may add, help you, Chairman, with that. So number one, we can do, the accessory structure shall not be used as habitable space or in lawsuit. Okay. can do, the accessory structure shall not be used as habitable space or in law suite. That's it. And then just strike off the rest of the remaining portion and be limited for use as a garage only. Because that is the fact that portion just limits that. So we just strike that off. And the remaining of the structures that's required by process and regulation too. So number three takes care of your building permits because it says the applicant is required to obtain a building permit and have all required inspections approved showing compliance with the conditions of this variance prior to the assurance of a certificate of completion. So the river corridor stuff that is just required without that he can on bulls so we don't need to tie it for the variance. Okay, so again, I'll amend my motion to approval of V23007 with staff recommendations of 1, 2 and 3. Do I have a second on that motion? Second. Mr. Sinalt, a seconded approval of V23007. All in favor of approving V23007. As amended with conditions, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you very much. We will be watching. Yeah. I want to know the final square footage. The over under on this one is going to be about 5,500 I think. I'm going to follow. Okay. Do we have any new business, old business? So we have a meeting next month. No, that's the good news or bad news. However, you want to take it. We did not receive any variance cases. So we are not going to have October 15th meeting. So you can take a break for month of October. And then we are anticipating some cases for November or October. This next month. So we may have a November meeting. But we'll communicate via email. Okay. Okay. That being said, do we have a motion on tonight's meeting? Mr. Gerrard. Ms. Ross, move to adjourn. Do I have a second? Second. Multiple seconds. All in favor of adjourning? Aye. Aye. All opposed? We adjourned. Thank you, everybody.