Sep 06, 2023 Board of Zoning Adjustment

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:06]

>> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL CALL TO ORDER THE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH, BOARD OF ZONINGS

ADJUSTMENT MEETING. WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL. >> CHAIR GOODNER, YES, FROST ROL

IRNS, YES, WILL FAULKNER, HERE. >> AT APPROVAL OF MINUTES OUR LAST MEETING APPEARS TO BE THE

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

JANUARY 11TH MINUTES. IF ANYONE CAN REMEMBER THAT. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIR GOODNER, YES, ROLLINS, YES, HEFFREN, YES, FAULKNER,

[CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS]

YES. >> AFTER SUCH DECISION APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO 908.02 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA.

THE BOARD CONSISTS OF FIVE REGULAR MEMBERS AND THE FROM NOOUMARY.

TO ASSURE FOUR VOTING MEMBERS, TO HAVE A BOARD CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, A CONCURRING VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS IS REQUIRED TO PROOF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.

[1. Variance to Section 502.01, Table 5-2: Lot Area, Setback, Bulk Regulations and Parking Requirements: Neighborhood Conservation District of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance]

>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. I WARRANT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF. MY NAME IS CONNOR, I'M A NEW PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF AUBURN. NICE TO MEET YOUAL. HAPPY TO BE HERE.

>> WELCOME. >> ITEM NUMBER 1 IT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST OF 2.25 FEET TO THE REQUIRED EIGHT FOOT MINIMUM SET BACK FOR A SIDE YARD. THIS WOULD ALLOW A MINIMUM SIDE SET BACK OF 5.75 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 419 PINEDALE DRIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN C-12. THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 502, TABLE 52 FOR THE LOT AREA SET BACK BOTH REGULATIONS AROUND PARKING REQUIREMENTS TABLE FOR THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. IT IS AN NC 12 SO FOR MOST PROPERTIES, THE SIDE SET BACK IS 12 FEET. HOWEVER IN NOVEMBER 2002, A VARIANCE REQUEST CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST FOR A FOUR-FOOT VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SET BACK. THAT WAS APPROVED. THUS, THE CURRENT SET BACK FOR THIS PROPERTY IS EIGHT FEET. SO IT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST OF 2.5 FEET TO THE EIGHT TOOT MINIMUM. -- FOOT MINIMUM. A CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THERE IS RESIDENTIAL RENOVATIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THERE ARE PLANS TO EXTEND AN EXTERIOR WALL PAST THE MINIMUM SET BACK THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE SET BACK BY 2.25 FEET WHICH IS WHY THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. A MESSAGE FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN SENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND IT JUST EXPRESSES OPPOSITION AND JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW OF THAT. PLANNING DEPARTMENT BELIEVES THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THIS VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PROPER USE OF THE LAND AND WE DON'T SEE ANY HARDSHIP.

I BELIEVE AN APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

FOR DEPARTMENT, JUST LET ME KNOW. >> THANK YOU CONNOR.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CONNOR? >> DID YOU SAY IT WAS THE

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WHO CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY AGAINST OR SUPPORT OF THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION YOU CAN COME UP AND SIGN IN. IF YOU'LL SIGN IN RIGHT THERE.

>> WE ALREADY SIGNED IN. >> OKAY PERFECT. COME OFTEN UP.

>> GOOD EVENING BOARD I'M WES PITMAN. HE WANTS TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH A FEW OF MYSELF. >> MY NAME IS GREG PETTIT, WE

[00:05:03]

A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE PREVIOUS EVERYONE OF THE PROPERTY APPROACHED US TO REQUEST A VARIANCE THAT WOULD BUILD AN ADDITION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. WE RELUCTANTLY AGREED. THEY BUILT A BIG ADDITION, MUCH BIGGER THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED BUT IT WAS WORKABLE BECAUSE THEY HAD A COUPLE OF HIGH WINDOWS AND LOW FLOOR. AND EVEN THOUGH THAT SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE FACES OUR BATHROOM ARAND OUR BEDROOM WE COULDN'T SE THEM AND THEY COULDN'T SEE US. THIS NEW ADDITION THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND A LOT OF NEW WINDOWS HAVE BEEN ADDED WHICH NOW WE CAN SEE FROM OUR SHOWER WHERE WE HAVE A WINDOW AND FROM OUR TOILET WHERE WE HAVE A WINDOW. AND THE NEW ADDITION THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY WOULD BE A FURTHER ENCROACHMENT, AND IT'S JUST -- WE JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S ALREADY SO CLOSE BACK THERE. THERE IS -- THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE HOUSE THERE WEST FACING, AND OUR EAST SECTION IS FACING -- APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET APART. THEY COULD BE 21 AND A HALF FEET APART IN CERTAIN PLACES. I GUESS THE SURVEYOR COULD SPEAK TO THAT.

BUT BASICALLY, IT IS AN ISSUE OF PRIVACY FOR US. IT'S BEEN A PRETTY ARDUOUS PROCESS SO FAR. THERE IS A GOOD BIT MORE TO GO. AND SO MY WIFE AND I DISCUSSED THIS THOROUGHLY AND JUST FEEL LIKE WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

YOU KNOW? WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING BUT IT'S JUST TOO DARN CLOSE.

AND WE JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEEDED TO COME AND MAKE OUR WISHES KNOWN TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS IF I COULD.

FIRST OF ALL I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN. SO THE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, AND THEN HERE WE ARE AFTERWARDS, AFTER IT WAS APPROVED, TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, ENCROACH EVEN FURTHER ON THE VARIANCE. IF I'M READING THIS RIGHTLY, IRT SAYS THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICANT MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.

AND I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT A FEW OF THEM. YOU KNOW, IT SAYS THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE SHALL BE IN HARMONY OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE REGULATIONS. WELL, THE ORIGINAL PLANS ARE ALREADY IN HARMONY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THERE'S NO REASON TO REALLY CHANGE THAT. YOU KNOW, IT KEEPS POINTING OUT THAT THE CURRENT SIDE SET BACK IS EIGHT FEET BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE MR. PETTIT SAID, 21 YEARS AGO HE AGREED TO GIVE UP FOUR FEET. IT'S JUST CUTTING FURTHER INTO HIS PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS HERE IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOT TO BE PROOF OF SOME UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.

AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS, YOU KNOW, MOST PEOPLE THAT WERE IN MR. PETTIT'S SITUATION I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD WANT MORE, YOU KNOW, HOUSE BUILT OVER, CLOSER TO HIS HOUSE THAN IT ALREADY IS WHICH IS VERY CLOSE.

IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT IT. BUT THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY

AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING

ELSE? >> NO. >> OKAY, ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS VARIANCE? COME ON UP.

>> I'LL SIGN IN IN A MINUTE. MY NAME IS MIKE LARA I WORK FOR PRECISION SURVEYING.

I WORK FOR MR. MCCARTY WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER. I SEE MR. PETTIT'S CONCERN, I SEE COMPACTLY WHY HE'S COMING FROM. THESE WERE BRITTLE PRIOR TO THE EXISTING NC 12, NOT THERE WHEN THE ORIGINAL LOT LINES WERE PLACED OR THE BUILDINGS WERE PUT IN PLACE. I WOULD SAY THAT DOES REPRESENT A HARDSHIP IN THE FORM THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PUT ON TOP OF THE LOT BECAUSE OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED AFTER THE FACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION. BUT ONCE AGAIN I RECOGNIZE WHAT PLANNING HAS SAID AND WHAT MR. PETTIT HAS SAID AS WELL. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT ONE POINT.

IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I'M HERE TO ANSWER THOSE. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WARRANT -- WARRANT TO SPEAK? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION AND OR MOTION.

I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S EXTREMELY CLOSE. AND ALREADY MOVED TO EIGHT FEET.

[00:10:03]

SO -- >> CAN SOMEONE FROM PLANNING EXPLAIN WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE

FACING IN THESE PHOTOS? >> SO LOOKING INTO THE BACKYARD, IN THE PHOTO, TO THE RIGHT IS MR. PETTIT'S PROPERTY. AND TO THE LEFT IS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

AND SO THIS IS THE EASTERN SIDE, EASTERN PROPERTY LINE WE'RE LOOKING AT.

>> SO IT'S ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION? BECAUSE THE BUILDING -- THERE IS

A BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED. >> YES. >> BUT THEN --

>> SO WHAT IS THIS LITTLE BUMPOUT? WHAT CONSTITUTES THE 2.25 FEET

THAT THEY ARE WANTING THE VARIANCE FOR? >> YES, MA'AM, THERE IS A CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT FOR JUST A CONSTRUCTION RENOVATION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

IT IS NOT -- IT IS IN RELATION TO THIS VARIANCE BUT IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THIS VARIANCE.

THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL PLANS FOR EXTENDING THE PORTION OF THE EXTERIOR WALL BY 6.25 FEET. THAT WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE CURRENT SET BACK BY 2.25 FEET SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE FROM THE ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

BACK IN 2002. >> I GUESS THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS NOT APPROVED, YOU KNOW HOW WE DO THEM CONTINGENT ON THE PLANS AS PRESENTED. SO THAT'S WHAT WAS ALLOWED SO WE

HAVE A BLANKET APPROVAL TO GO TO EIGHT FEET. >> SO WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE PHOTO

IS THAT THE SIX FOOT BUMP OUT OR IS THAT -- >> THAT IS ACTUALLY, LOGAN IF

YOU CAN ACTUALLY ZOOM INTO -- >> WHAT'S BEING BUILT THE WHAT IS GOING TO BE APPROVED RIGHT?

>> YES. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. >> SO THAT IS APPROVED BUT WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE PHOTO WHERE IT SHOWS SOMETHING BUMPING OUT DOES THAT CORRELATE DIRECTLY

WHAT IS ON THIS PLAN SHOWN ON THIS PLAN OR IS THAT -- >> THAT JUST SHOWS THE EXISTING RENOVATIONS AND THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. THAT DOES MEET THE SET BACK

REQUIREMENTS. >> OKAY. >> THE ENCROACHING EXTENSION

HASN'T, YOU KNOW, BEEN COMPLETED YET. >> OH IT'S FURTHER BACK IN THE BACKYARD. I SEE I SEE. GOTCHA.

>> THE FRONT IT LOOKS CLOSE BECAUSE IT IS. BUT IT'S APPROVED FROM WHEN JOHN

HUFF LIVED THERE. >> AND IF I MAY ADD, IN 2002, I'M NOT SURE THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPROVAL. WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF MEMO. BUT THE FOUR FEET COVERED THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. SO IT WAS WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS CREATED, IT WAS A LEGALLILY NONCONFORMING PROPERTY, HOWEVER WITH THAT VARIANCE IT CREATED THE

LEGALLILY NONCONFORMING PROPLEGALLYNONCONFORMING PROPER. >> WE DON'T HAVE PLANS IN OUR

PACKET WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT ADDITIONAL FEET RIGHT? >> THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE

BUMP OUT. >> AND THEY GOT THE PERMIT BUIL- >> THEY HAVEN'T BUILT IT YET, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A BIT MUCH I THINK. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY BZ

20232007. >> SECOND. >> DREW GOODNER, YES, EMMY

[2. Variance to Table 4-3: Performance Standards for Nonresidential Uses by District, of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance]

DWHRE. >> WE ARE MOVING ON. >> I WILL INTRODUCE MYSELF, I'M JOHN WHITLOW, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE MAY. GLAD TO MEET YOU ALL.

>> WELCOME. >> THIS REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES SPECIFICALLY A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIRED FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND IN THE CRDW DISTRICT THE QUARTER REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WEST. THIS WOULD ALLOW A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 60 FEET TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PROX MAP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED

[00:15:06]

WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED THE AREA ZONED CRDW NOW WAS ZONED DDH WHICH CALLED FOR AN EMPHASIS ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA LARGELY MADE UP TO THE VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED LAND. THEY WANTED TO SEE SOMETHING PUT ON THERE. BUT OVER THE YEARS SINCE WE'VE SEEN MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE BECOME A PRIMARY GATEWAY INTO THE CITY, IT -- WE SEE A LACK OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND A LOT OF VACANT BUSINESSES GOING YOU UP IN THE AREA. SO FOR THIS REASON, THE CITY REZONED THE PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2018 TO THE CRDW DISTRICT AS PART OF THE NORTHWEST AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TO ALLOW FOR MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AT THIS PROPERTY. SO THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY AS CAN YOU CAN SEE IT S THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE PARKING SCREENING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ADDITIONALLY THE APPLICANTS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE A PORTION OF THE LAND FROM BOTH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND THE WEST TO ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE 75 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT BUT THEY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING ANY ADDITIONAL LAND. THOUGH THE STAFF DOES NOT SEE ANY UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, WE DO BELIEVE THE CHANGES IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION WITH THE PREVIOUS ESTABLISHED WIDTH HAS CREATED UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE LAND. I WANTED TO SHOW A PICTURE FROM MLK DRIVE LOOKING NORTH AT THE PROPERTY AND AS YOU CAN SEE I'VE ROUGHLY OUTLINED THE TWO -- THE WESTERN AND EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE 60 FEET THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CURRENTLY DEALING WITH. WE ARE PRESENTING THIS REQUEST SO WE MAY GET A DETERMINATION FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AS TO IF THE REQUEST MEETS REQUIREMENTS A THROUGH G

OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> SO IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LOT IS 75?

>> HAS TO BE. IT IS ONLY 60 -- >> 60 FEET SO THEY ARE LOOKING

FOR 15 FOOT VARIANCE. >> OKAY. >> WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF OR AGAINST THIS VARIANCE. SIGN IN RIGHT THERE IF YOU DON'T MIND AND THEN COME STATE YOUR

NAME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS OLIVIA COOK AND I SERVE AS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR PROFUNDITY DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE LOOKING TO DO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DEVELOP THE CORRIDOR FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW AND WE THINK THAT HAVING A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE INCREDIBLE IN THE AREA, WHERE WE HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM AND RESIDENTIAL SPACES ON THE TOP. SO WE ARE WANTING TO ALLY PARALLEL WITH THE CITY'S VISION AND MAKING MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVER THE PRIMARY GATEWAY INTO AUBURN AND BEAUTIFY THIS SPACE.

WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE STREET SPACE AND WE WANT TO ADD TO THE BEAUTIFYING OF THE AREA AND WANT TO CREATE SOME JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FOLKS IN NORTHWEST AUBURN.

>> SO IT WILL HAVE COMMERCIAL DOWNSTAIRS AND RESIDENTIAL UPSTAIRS?

>> YES. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL THAT WILL BE RELEASED

RIGHT NOW? >> KIND OF TRYING TO THINK IT THROUGH, BAKERY, COFFEE SHOP,

SOMETHING SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN THE SPACE. >> SURE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK FOR

THIS VARIANCE? >> HAVE WE HAD ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS?

[00:20:04]

>> NO OPPOSITION. >> PERFECT. >> WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND AND OPEN IT UPPER FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION. I LIKE IT.

I DON'T -- I GUESS THE TERMS CONFUSE ME A LITTLE BIT, YOOUK CIRCUMSTANCES AND HARDSHIP.

TO ME IT SEEMS TO HAVE BOTH. YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE LOT SIZE. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE IT LARGER AND CONFORMING IS TO BUY SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM TO DO IT.

THAT SEEMS UNIQUE AND A HARDSHIP TO ME. >> AND IT WAS NOT SEX-CREATED.

>> YES, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY SOLD OFF SOME OF IT. THIS IS JUST, THIS IS WHAT LOT SIZES USED TO BE AND WHAT WE SEE IN A LOT OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN AUBURN, THE LOTS WERE

SMALLER AND THEY CAME THROUGH WHERE THE 75 FOOT. >> AND I THINK TO ME IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DID WITH MLK AND THE CORRIDOR AND STREETSCAPE, UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES BUT IN THIS CASE THIS IS DOING EXACTLY

WHAT THE CITY HAS ENVISIONED FOR THAT AREA. >> I AGREE AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL SPUR SOME REDEVELOPMENT WITH THAT CORRIDOR, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ROAD WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE AND WITH THIS BECOMING MORE AND MORE OF A MAJOR GAIT WAY IN ON GAME DAY AND OTHERWISE WITH ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT USE OF A VARIANCE FOR

SURE. >> THAT'S GOOD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE B

DISMPT 2023-228 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

[OTHER BUSINESS]

>> ALL RIGHTY. PASS. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS?

>> NO, I GUESS I SHOULD PROBABLY TAKE THE TURN TO INTRODUCE MYSELF TOO.

SORRY TO BE A STRANGER THE WHOLE MEETING. MY NAME IS KEVIN HOWARD.

MY DAY JOB I GUESS YOU COULD SAY IS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HERE AT THE CITY OF AUBURN. OBVIOUSLY SINCE YOUR LAST MEETING AND SINCE THE PASSING OF STEVE FOOTE I'VE BEEN SERVING IN THE ROLE OF INTERIM PLANNING DIRECTOR.

I'M CONTINUING TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE FOR NOW AS THE SEARCH CONTINUES AND AS WE KIND OF WRAP THINGS UP WITH THAT. SO I MAY OR MAY NOT SEE YOU AGAIN IN THIS ROLE BUT I'M SURE

I'LL PROBABLY BE HERE FOR A PROJECT OR SEE YOU OTHERWISE. >> THANK YOU KEVIN.

>> WELCOME. ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK WHAT THE STATUS OF THE SEARCH IS?

>> ONGOING. >> OKAY. >> HOPEFULLY, SOME MORE INFORMATION HERE IN THE COMING WEEKS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SHARE WITH PUBLIC AND ALSO WITH OUR

STAFF. >> EXCELLENT. >> THANK YOU.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION AT THIS TIME. SO WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.