[ROLL CALL]
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
          [CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS]
          [1. Variance to Table 4-2: Performance Standards for Residential Uses by District: of the City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance]
          [00:01:24]
          APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO SECTION 908.02 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA." NEW BUSINESS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES BY DISTRICT: OUR ITEM IS A VARIANCE TO THE 3-ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN THE RURAL ZONING GENERAL LOCATION: 250 AND 254 LEE ROAD 18 . THE TEXT FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND OUR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES BY DISTRICT TABLE. AND STATING THE DENSITY . IS ONE DWELLING FOR EVERY THREE ACRES. AND IF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 252 54 LEE ROAD 18. AND IT IS IN THE SOUTHERNMOST PART OF THE CITY. SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF UNINCORPORATED LAND IN LEE COUNTY. SOUTH COLLEGE IS RIGHT HERE WHERE IT IS AT U.S. 29. THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY. AND THERE ARE TWO NONCONFORMING ISSUES ON THE LOT PROPERTY. ONE IS THAT IT IS ALREADY UNDER THE THREE ACRE MINIMUM FOR THE ZONE. ANNEXED IN 2016. AND THIS RECEIVED A RURAL DESIGNATION. SO AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. THERE IS ALSO A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE . BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DETACHED DWELLING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. MAKING IT TECHNICALLY A MULTIUNIT LOT. 
          THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY TO TWO SEPARATE LOTS OF RECORD FOR EACH BUILDING. IN OUR STAFF REPORT WE CITED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN OUR CITY WITH LEGAL NONCONFORMITIES. HOWEVER, THE GOAL IS TO GRADUALLY REDUCE NONCONFORMITIES WITH OUR ORDINANCE. THIS WOULD BE AN INCREASE TO THE NONCONFORMITY. 
          AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OTHER THAN THAT, 
          THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> DO WE KNOW HER REASON FOR 
          WANTING TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT? >> YES. IT IS A FAMILY PROPERTY. AND SHE RESIDES IN ONE OF THE HOUSES AND WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE IF SHE INTENDS TO SELL. 
          >> THERE WAS AN INCH OF THIS INITIAL INTENTIONS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. BUT THE NEED TO FINANCE IT AND TAKE OUT A LOAN. 
          WITH TWO LOTS AND TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT. THEY WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE SO THE BANK COULD FINANCE IT. 
          >> YOU SAID THE GOAL WAS TO REDUCE NONCONFORMITIES. BUT I 
          [00:05:06]
JUST WANTED TO ASK IF I'M GETTING THIS RIGHT. IF WE DID APPROVE IT AND YOU DIVIDED THE LOT. THERE WOULD BE ONE HOUSE 
          ON EACH LOT. >> AND NOW THERE ARE TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS. AND TWO NONCONFORMING . 
          >> IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, YES. ONE LOT WITH TWO NONCONFORMITIES. IT WOULD BE THE RECORD AND THE USE. NOW 
          THERE BE TWO . >> BASED ON THE SIDES. 
          >> ARE THEY BOTH INHABITABLE DWELLINGS? 
          >> THEY ARE BOTH OCCUPIED. >> THERE ONLY DIVIDING IT SO THEY CAN ONLY GET A LOAN FROM THE BANK. 
          >> YES. THAT WAS -- WHEN I SPOKE TO THE SURVEYOR. THAT WAS THE STORY. THEY ARE JUST WORKING TO SUBDIVIDE. SO THEY 
          CAN GET A LOAN FROM THE BANK. >> I AM NOT FOLLOWING. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE MORE TIME? 
          >> THIS IS A TWO PART PROCESS. THIS IS PART ONE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THEY STILL NEED TO GET APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE EVEN SEE IF THEY CAN LEGALLY SUBDIVIDE. 
          EVEN IF THEY GET THIS VARIANCE. JUSTICE HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? 
          >> WHAT IS FRONT OF YOU IS THE SURVEY. AND WE CALLED IN THE CONVERSATION AND TALKED ABOUT A FEW THINGS. THE ORIGIN IS THAT IT WAS INITIALLY WANT TO DO A SUBDIVISION THAT THEY WANTED TO CONDUIT THIS OUT. THOSE ITEMS WILL NOT WORK. BUT THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET FINANCING FOR ONE OF THE HOUSES. THIS IS STRICTLY FOR FINANCING. ON THE SUBDIVISION INSIDE THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF CONFLICTS WITH SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. WE COULD GET TO THAT AFTER . WE CAN SPEAK MORE 
          ABOUT THAT. >> AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR. IF THERE IS ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THIS OR AGAINST OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM. 
          >> SAYING THERE ARE NO COMMENTS. AND I WILL OPEN UP THE BOARD FOR MORE DISCUSSION. 
          >> I GUESS I WANT TO STRESS. I KNOW YESTERDAY THERE WAS A BIT OF CONFUSION. SO THAT JUST STEMS FROM THE APPLICANT . I HAD A CONVERSATION AND WE TALKED ABOUT HOW SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT GO ALONG WITH THE PURVIEW OF THE BZA AND THEY SHOULD GO WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD WANT TO TABLE IT. BUT THE EMAIL WAS MORE ALONG THE LINES THAT THEY WANTED CLARIFICATION. SO THEY WANTED TO TABLE IT SO THEY COULD HAVE THE LAST STITCH EFFORT IF NEEDED TO TABLE IT. 
          BUT I WAS THINKING IN MY MIND, MY OPINION IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. IF YOU WANTED TO TABLE IT? THAT WAS WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON IS CHANGING THE SUBJECT. ALL WAIVERS GOING FORWARD , YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING 
          COMMISSION. >> THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. 
          >> THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT. AND THE CONVERSATION WE HAD. SO HIS REQUEST TO TABLE IT SO THEY COULD MAINTAIN A LAST STITCH 
          EFFORT. >> I READ IN THE REPORTS THAT HER DESIRE IS TO HAVE CLEAR TITLE. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. HAVE THEY NOT EXPLORE A DEEDED EASEMENT OR ANYTHING 
          LIKE THAT? >> NO. HE DID NOT GET INTO THAT. BUT PART OF THIS AND HOW THIS IS HAPPENED. THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THE CITY. AND THIS IS A RESULT OF THAT. SO NOW WITH CURRENT ANNEXATIONS. YOU HAVE TO DECIDE SOMETHING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND IT. IF HE ANNEXED IT TO THE CITY WITH A LOT AND LESS THAN THREE ACRES. SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I FOUND ATTACHED TO THE REPORT. BUT IT COULD 
          [00:10:02]
HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED. THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT . THERE WERE PLENTY OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN DOWN. DO WE COMMUNICATE TO PEOPLE THEY COULD COME BACK IN AND ASKED. 
          FOR PEOPLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IN WRITING. SO THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT THEY EXPLORED WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE SURVEYOR. 
          >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. THEY ARE AWARE THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED. SO THE PREMISE IS THAT THEY WANT TO GET PERMISSION TO DO THAT. JUST IN 
          CASE. >> YES. 
          >> THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 
          SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. >> AND ALSO ON THAT WITH THIS . 
          THERE COULD BE AN EXISTING SYSTEM THAT SERVES BOTH HOUSES. 
          WITH THAT CURRENTLY WOULD NOT BE APPROVED. FROM THIS EXISTING SET UP. THAT IS JUST WHERE WE ARE AT. WHEN THEY DID REQUEST THAT TO BE TABLED I MADE IT VERY CLEAR. THAT BZA CAN APPROVE OR DENY OR ACT OR TABLE IT. BUT I THINK THEY OPTED TO HAVE THE MEETING SO IT COULD BE TABLED. BUT THEY DID REQUEST 
          THAT. >> FOR CLARIFICATION. THE FAMILY REQUESTED THAT IT BE TABLED. WHAT WAY ARE HERE TO SAY IS TO NOT TABLE IT BUT TO MAKE A DECISION. OR WHETHER WHAT IS OUR ROLE TO TABLE IT. I AM CONFUSED. 
          >> YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TO TABLE IT. 
          >> AND 15 MINUTES LATER. >> SO JUST TO PROVIDE CLARITY. 
          THE EMAIL READ AS A WITHDRAWAL. TO CANCEL THE MEETING AND WHEN I CALLED AND I SAID HEY. DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW THIS OR TABLE THIS? THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY WOULD CANCEL THE MEETING. 
          BUT IF YOU CHOOSE TO TABLE AND THEY DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE IT. 
          YOU COULD ACT ON IT OR DENY IT. >> OKAY. 
          >> AND THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY FURTHER WITH THE PLANNING. SO THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT WE APPROVE THIS IS REALLY NOT 
          GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. >> THERE IS THE LOT THE MINIMUM SIZE . THERE IS ALSO THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THEY 
          ACCEPT HOW THE SYSTEM IS. >> I UNDERSTAND CLEAR TITLE. 
          BUT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK FOR OTHER WAYS TO 
          SOLVE THIS. >> IT DOES NOT MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND MY ONLY THINKING WAS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE AGAINST THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PRODUCE IT. IF YOU TECHNICALLY LOOKED AT IT AT THE SAME NUMBER. BUT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. I DROVE OUT THERE. AND I CAN SEE WHY PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT FROM A CITY AND PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. IT IS NOT HIS ANYWHERE WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. 
          YOU SAID THAT YOU COULD NOT SEE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT 
          DID NOT EXIST. >> A REQUESTED ANNEXATION IN 2016. SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR. AND I MAKE A MOTION TO 
          DENY THIS REQUEST. >> SECOND. WILL FAULKNER? 
          >> YES. >> YES. 
          [00:15:03]
          >> THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THIS ITEM BZ-2024-004 IS DENIED. ANY 
          [OTHER BUSINESS ]
OTHER ITEMS OR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS? 
          >> YOU WILL SEE AN EMAIL FOR THE ENTIRE BOARD. TRAINING FOR THE VICE CHAIR. GROWING TRAINING FOR THE ENTIRE BOARD. 
          IT WILL BE AN EMAIL WITH A MEETING . I DO NOT KNOW IF WE WANTED TO DO TWO GROUPS ARE ONE GROUP. BUT IT IS AN EMAIL FOR TOMORROW. JUNE OR JULY DEPENDING ON WHAT IS SCHEDULED. 
          >> WE HAD AN EXCELLENT MEETING. IT WAS GREAT. BRING YOUR 
          QUESTIONS. >> WHEN SHE TOLD ME IT WAS CANCELED, IT WENT OFF MY CALENDAR. MAYBE IF IT WAS NOT IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THAT WOULD BE GREAT. IF THAT IS OKAY FOR 
          EVERYBODY ELSE. >> IN THE TIMING. 
          >> 90 MINUTES. >> BUT 90 MINUTES OR TWO HOURS. 
          >> THAT HAD US FOR 4 HOURS. >> YES. THIS IS JUST STRICTLY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. WE 
          CAN PUSH IT OUT. >> AND ONE OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION. IN THE EMAIL EXCHANGE FOR JUNE AND JULY. THE CALENDAR STILL SHOW JULY 3RD. I WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION. 
          >> JULY 10. >> IF WE HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT 
          NOW. >> WE DO HAVE A NEW PLANNER. 
          LET ME INTRODUCE THEM. >> HELLO. I AM LORENZO. I AM FROM INDIA. MY FOCUS IS ON CREATING FRIENDLY 
          NEIGHBORHOODS. >> FANTASTIC. JUST CALL ME ROY. 
          'S NECK NICE TO MEET YOU AND WELCOME TO CITY OF AUBURN. 
          >> I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR SOME TIME. 
          >> WHO IS YOUR WIFE? >> BENITA. I ALSO GRADUATED FROM THAT PROGRAM. NICE TO MEET YOU. OKAY LET ME
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.