Everyone who would like to make an appearance today, let's start there. Let's start with the applicant. Will you come to the mic and say your name, please? And then I'll have you sit back down. I'm the applicant. I'm J. Michael Burrows. I reside at 1191 East 13200 South. Welcome. Thank you. and representatives from the city. Jennifer Dostromski, Community Development Director. Spencer Duchesne, Assistant City Attorney, Draper City. And Todd Draper, Planning Manager for the city. Okay, welcome. First item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the January 5th, 2023 meeting. I have reviewed those minutes and I approve those. So next is the application from Mr. Burroughs. I have read all the materials that you've submitted and that the city submitted. So I'll let you start first. Again, I've read everything. If there's some areas you want to focus on, do that. If you want to focus on, have you had a chance to read the city's response? Not much? Okay. So they raised some arguments in there, and I'll have some questions about that. So if you could address those to the extent possible. Otherwise, tell me what you think I need to know. I'm just going to start off by reading a small statement. Sure. My first experience with Draper City was in 1988 when I became a volunteer firefighter for Draper. Although I lived on the southern border of Sandy, I knew Draper was where I wanted to be. In 1995, I was finally able to purchase my first property in Draper and have lived in the city ever since. I purchased the property that I'm currently living in at 1191 East 132 Under South in 2005 and within a year started to build an expansion of an existing detached two-car garage. At that time, the setbacks from the property were two feet. Over 30 years, I was finally able to finish the original expansion. After using space for my family get-togethers, I soon realized that we needed a storage room for tables and chairs and extra party supplies. The room would be approximately 10 foot by 10 foot and be built on the existing roof area and extend to one foot short of the existing roof line. With the new setback of 10 feet, which was determined to be in that area, I would be unable to get the storage that was so desperately needed, especially now that I am disabled and unable to do stairs easily. I'm currently trying to build, I have my property there at 132 on our south that's on the map there. It's approximately just a little over a half acre or right around a half acre. I originally moved in, it was .66, and then with the road expansion, it was sized down just slightly. Mike, if you want to show your pictures, you'll click on the next item over there, applicant brief. No, go to the, go, right there. And then that'll take you to your brief. Right there? Mm-hmm. Click on that. There you go, and then your pictures are there. And I believe you probably already read the brief. Yes. Is that correct? So we all know we need to read through that. But what I have here... is this is the road, off the road facing view of the front of the structure. You can see the landscaping's not quite there yet. I'm still working on that, but I plan on working on that this year. But you can see that the addition is not even visible from the roadside at all. It would be on the backside of that structure. Same view, but just a little farther back. So you're actually seeing it from the road area. This is from the west looking east on the east view from the aerial view. We're up high because I had a friend of mine had a drone, so I had him take these pictures for me. But down low, you're not really able to see that addition, but you can see that where the white paper, vapor paper is on that extension. The plan is to have the stucco exactly the same, and you can see the roof color is exactly the same, so it will be, the visual look will look exactly like the same structure. This is from the north looking south. You can just see that they're almost 10 foot by 10 foot. If you look kind of where the existing windows are, where the stucco, the color of that green stucco will be exactly the same also. So as it's done, it will look the same, appearance is the same structure. You can't really see it too good through the trees there, so I apologize for that view, but that is the east view looking west. And then on an aerial view you can see that from the aerial type of view that the roof has already been completed and done and you can see that that is the same structure that when it is completed you will see this visually that it has no bearing whatsoever on the looks of the structure. It would look like it would be part of the original structure. little bit taller up so you can see the whole property. I think that's it. In doing some history work and looking at some work I know that you, a couple of months ago, was looking at a similar structure that was of the same expansion that you guys approved It was a non-conforming structure, but they were right on the property line where I'm a ways away from the property line. And I think that's all I have. Okay. I have some questions for you. Okay. Okay. So you mentioned this in your brief, but one of the things that you need to show is that the expansion is compatible with the neighborhood. not detrimental to the community as determined by the effect of the expansion on traffic, the value of adjacent nearby properties, and the availability of adequate public facilities and services. So can you talk about that for a little bit, compatible with the neighborhood? I know you've mentioned a little bit of that, but what about value of nearby properties? Will this have any effect on the value? Well, the value of the nearby property is actually one of mine and also my neighbor to the west is probably one of the smallest properties in the area. So by increasing the square footage, it actually adds to the value of the area. It doesn't bring the area and neighbors around. They're all a little bit larger homes. They've all done several remodels to them to make them more expensive, I would say. So the square footage adds to the value of the home. Also, being finished in the way it's going to be finished will add to the value of the property. Are there similar structures like this? Because what it seems like to me is you have your main home, then you have this other structure, which is a garage. Is that also a living area in this new structure? Well, it's actually a – I call it a casita. It's just a gathering room. I mostly built that because we have some large families, and they live not in this area in smaller homes. So we have family get-togethers. I built that and so once I got it built and started having the family get togethers and since I've retired from the fire department I found that I also had another use for it. So for the last six years I've been providing breakfast for the firefighters on Christmas morning and I have about 30 or 40 firefighters that come and have breakfast at that room and so it's just a big room for get togethers is all it is. I have been normally storing tables, chairs, boxes, and supplies in the lower level in the garage, but because where I'm at and my abilities, I wanted to have that addition. Prior to that, I just was going to have it for the supplies, but now it's even more important because when I started this, I was not injured. But then I became injured, and for two years, it's kind of just been sitting the way it has been. And I think the city's given me a little bit of latitude until I probably healed and was able to get a little bit better. Firefighters come just one time a year on Christmas. Otherwise, maybe once every couple of months I have family get-togethers, or maybe once a month on average, where we have maybe 20 or 30 people there. And let's see if I can zoom out to that bigger picture. You can see that none of them park on the street at all. I have all this ample parking on the property right here. This is from this line right about there. This is all grass. This is going to be gravel or asphalt in the future where I can just have parking on there. Okay. Next, talk to me about what your neighbors think about this addition. I know I saw one complaint in the record in the brief that the city's submitted from a neighbor. Wasn't that entirely sure exactly where that neighbor owned property? That neighbor bought this property to the rear of me and the original A complaint that I knew about was the original owner that bought that property. He didn't like that addition because it also became closer to his property line, and that was his complaint that I believe that he said. Since then, he's sold the property off to his brother, and I haven't heard any complaints from his brother, his brother that I've talked to. In fact, we came and helped supported his brother on making a zone change on the property just directly to the east of me. And then I do have, I actually do have a positive letter from my neighbor directly to the west of me that's been in Draper City ever. I think there's probably even Draper City was a city that I'd like to submit. Okay. Any objections? No. Okay. Who do I give that to? Can you give it to Jen and then she can hand it to me? Okay. I'll receive that. Mr. Burrows, is there anything else? Thanks. No, I'm just, the statement I'd like to make is just exactly like I said. I understand the city's ordinances and rules. I went through this before I got injured that we, the city had made a statement or a clarification on exactly what the setbacks were, and I appealed that because I didn't think that was correct, and the appeals at that time decided that going on the appeal that the setback was interpreted correctly. So that's why I'm going for the variance now on the non-conforming structure and I just was like I was just saying is like I can see that it's just not a flat no for everybody that reading some minutes from a previous meeting that you had one similar to this a non-conforming structure where they were actually like said building right on the property line and I'm going to be Where that setback is now is it'll be about 2 1⁄2 feet, 3 feet away from the property line, the structure itself, the top portion. Understood. I'll have some questions for the city's representative, and then if you want a chance, I can ask you those same questions. So just sit tight, and we'll keep moving. All right, thank you, Mr. Burroughs. Thank you. Would you like to present? Sure, thank you. So back in 2020, I believe Mr. Burroughs came in for an appeal from the zoning administrator's decision that this bump out here, Jen, can you, do you have the mouse? Do we have a mouse down here? We don't have a mouse down here. I'm sorry, what was your name again? My name's Spencer Duchesne. That's Spencer. Assistant city attorney for the city. So really the part of the building in question here is just this part that... wasn't approved under the original building permit that was issued sometime in the 2000, was it 2015, Jen? I believe it was 2015 as the building permit was issued. This part of the structure never was included in that building permit. At the time that Mr. Burroughs received the building permit, we made a determination that he had been vested with rights to build within nine feet because at the time that he applied for a building permit, the setback was nine feet. By the time that he actually built, it was 10 feet. Back in 2020, we had an appeal of that determination from the zoning administrator that this portion increase the degree of nonconformity. The argument that we made at that time was that the setback should have been nine feet. And by going to the two foot mark, So basically flush with the lower level. That was the increase in the degree of nonconformity. Setbacks go from the ground to airspace ad infinitum. So the argument that we made was that because this bump out is, even though it's higher than the first story, the first story part that's two feet from the property line is legal nonconforming. This part that's two feet from the property line is not legal. It increases the degree of nonconformity, and the Appeals and Variants Hearing Officer accepted our argument at that time. I believe at that time Mr. Burroughs had invoked 96050C2, but we said it's not appropriate. You didn't bring that up at the start. we would have to schedule another hearing, and here we are. At this time, the city argues that this is 96050C2 doesn't apply to this portion because the setbacks are not a regulation of area, height, or yards. In 96050C2, excuse me, It allows the appeals and variance hearing officer to hear about structures that is non-conforming as to height, area, or yard regulations. And in our code, if we look into 93040, when we look at the definition of buildable area, that says the area of a lot or parcel defined by minimum setback and yard areas where a main building may be constructed. Now this is an accessory building. not a main building, so this is not a regulation that's related to the buildable area. It's not a height restriction. He's as high as we will allow. Our height restriction is 35 feet and he's not above that. And it's not a yard regulation either. Yard regulations are not related to setbacks. Setbacks are regulations that relate to BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY LINES. AND SO SINCE THIS BUILDING ENCROACHES WITHIN THE SETBACK, WHICH IS NOW 10 FEET, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THAT PART OF THE BUILDING IS NOT PERMITTED EVEN UNDER, AND MORE OVER, THE APPEALS AND VARIANCE HEARING OFFICER HEARING THIS MATTER FOR UNDER 96050-C2 IS IMPROPER BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE TYPE OF REGULATION THAT'S CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORDINANCE. Secondarily, as I was researching this, I realized that there's a bit of a procedural irregularity, I would call it, or a blind spot in our code where the appeals and variance hearing officer doesn't have a procedure by which to hear matters of 96050 . So in the interest of fairness, we want a procedure to be in place. Now there's two different types of remedies that would be available. Under our code, the appeals and variance hearing officer may establish rules by which to proceed, but those rules have to be approved by the city council first. Alternatively, we could amend our code to create some procedure, 495060C2, or 96050C2, excuse me, that would allow the appeals and variance hearing officer to have a set of procedures by which all parties could, you know, play fairly, as it were. But either of those avenues would require the city council to approve, whether it's by rule that you promulgate or whether it's by an ordinance that we amend. And then, finally, if we're looking to the merits of the argument, I don't believe that the applicant has met his burden to show under 950C0, or 9, excuse me, saying it wrong, 96050C2, that there's no detrimental effect as determined by the value of adjacent and nearby properties really is the one that we'll just focus on. Traffic, I don't think that there's a terrible difference in traffic. I don't think that there's going to be an increased need for availability of adequate public facilities and services, but as to adjacent property values, this certainly has a detrimental effect, or at the very least, I don't believe that the applicant has shown that there hasn't been a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties, and that's his burden to bear. And that's the gist of our argument. Do you have questions? Yeah. Sure. So, first, do I have the authority to reverse the prior decision of the appeals and variance officer, finding that it did increase the degree of nonconformity. No, you don't. The appeals procedure for a decision from the appeals and variance hearing officer goes to the district court. Okay. And let's go to your... your argument about the gaps in the code. There's not a procedure for me to review this. As you read the code, 9-6-050, C1 and 2, do I have the authority to make a decision on the merits? Do I have jurisdiction to review to make a decision today? Well, I would argue that you lack jurisdiction because this isn't the type of issue that's contemplated by 96050C2. So it's not a height regulation. It's not an area regulation. It's a setback, and a setback is not a height area or a yard regulation. So I'm mostly thinking so as my authority as the appeal and variance officer, I'm looking 9-4-050, and that says that the variance and appeal officer basically has the authority to do three things. Hear and decide appeals from zoning decisions of the planning commission or zoning administrator, applying the provisions of this title. Number two, hear and decide variances from the terms of this title, and three, hearing to cite appeals from decisions made by the zoning administrator regarding Chapter 6 of this title. So other than hearing applications for variance, the appeals and variance hearing officer cannot take up an issue unless there's a prior decision from the planning commission or the zoning administrator. Do you agree with that? To an extent, yes. Those are the three that are listed under the Appeals and Variants Hearing Officer section of our code. What we have here with 96050C2 is a weird ordinance of original jurisdiction that grants the Appeals and Variants Hearing Officer original jurisdiction, and to be fair, it should be number four in subsection D of that section that you cited, because we've created WE'VE CREATED AN EXCEPTION AND WE'VE GRANTED THE AUTHORITY IN OUR, THROUGH OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO THE APPEALS AND VARIANCE HEARING OFFICER TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE WITH THOSE THREE THINGS, AN APPEAL FROM THE ZONING DECISIONS AND PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR A VARIANCE FROM THE TERMS OF THIS TITLE OR APPEALS MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING CHAPTER 6, ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE A PROCEDURE THAT'S VERY ESTABLISHED AND IT'S FOUND IN THE REMAINDER OF 94050. THERE'S A SET OF RULES THAT EVERY APPLICANT HAS TO FOLLOW AND THERE'S A SET OF RULES THAT THE APPEALS AND VARIANCE HEARING OFFICER HAS TO FOLLOW AND THERE'S A SET OF RULES THAT THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW regarding those three things. What we have with 96050C2 is kind of a free-for-all procedurally, and, well, there's no defined procedure, so I wouldn't even call it a free-for-all. I would call it a nothing. Yeah, so, yeah, this one gave me a lot of pause. I've been thinking about this. So 9-6-050 subsection one. The initial determination of whether a proposed expansion increases the degree of nonconformity shall be made by the zoning administrator. And then you get to number two, and then it just skips to something that the appeals and variance hearing officer needs to decide. That seems to conflict with the authority of that officer to just make that decision without a prior decision of the zoning administrator. Correct. So there's some inconsistency here that I'm seeing. I think that's what you're talking about. That's right. What do you think, it literally does not provide applicants with a method to seek permission to enlarge a non-conforming use. There's no method It doesn't say you have to go to the zoning administrator first. Do you think the council intended to provide applicants without an avenue to seek permission to enlarge the non-conforming use? No, I think that they did intend for that to happen. I can give you an example of where I think that this might be appropriate in 96050C2. assume that we have a corner lot and under our code corner lots have two front yards and two side yards and the two front yards of a corner lot are the yard area that's adjacent to a public road so in that situation we also have a part of our code that said pools aren't allowed in the front yard Now suppose somebody has what we would ordinarily, what an ordinary reasonable person would deem to be somebody's backyard. It's behind the fence, but because it's on the corner lot, it's adjacent to a street. That's really the front yard. The fence kind of goes through the middle of the front yard under our code. I think that the appeals and variance hearing officer could look at somebody asking to put a pool in what an ordinary person would call their backyard, but what our code defines is their front yard on the street adjacent side of that area. And that would be a yard regulation that I think that you could hear. We still have the matter of procedure, which we don't have. So I think that the legislative body intended for the appeals and variance hearing officer to be able to hear these matters but left you without an avenue to proceed with all parties involved. Okay, so we can agree, and I think from reading the code, that they did want to give applicants an avenue to do this, obviously. Right. And can we also agree that there's not a clear procedure set forth? Right, that's the argument I made. And so you've mentioned there's two ways to solve this. I can make rules that get approved by the council or the council can amend the code to make it clear. Right. Is there a third option where I can interpret the code this way? I say, well, gee, the council intended that there be a process for an application to enlarge the non-conforming use. I think the council intended that decision to be first made by the zoning administrator. It doesn't say that in the code, but if I read Section 1 and Section 2 together, could I come up with that interpretation of the code that, look, it looks like they made a mistake. They intended for the zoning administrator to first make the decision on the requirements of C2. And then after they make that decision, then it can come to the zoning administrator. I'm thinking, and I'm interrupting you again, because I'm thinking of the absurd results doctrine. Right. If you interpret this literally, it seems like it's an absurd result. It does yield an absurd result. And so I'm trying to figure out, well, can I interpret this a way that makes sense, that conforms with the intent of the code? Yeah, I think under the absurd results doctrine, that's a reasonable interpretation of the code that allows you to fill in the gap. It's a difficult issue. I've been thinking about it. All right. Next sort of set of questions is, I think is your argument, is basically, is a setback violation a category of nonconformity that is grounds under 9-6-050C2 to expand the nonconformity? And I think you argue that If the nonconformity is a violation of the applicable setback requirement, that category of nonconformity is not subject to expansion, whereas height, area, yard regulations are. Correct. Setback is not listed specifically. Right. So my first question is, can I reach this issue if I find that... I lack jurisdiction or authority because this has not gone to the zoning administrator first. My argument is that you lack jurisdiction, yes. So you can't hear this issue. So I agree that height is not a setback. I agree that I think I agree that a yard regulation is not a setback. I'm not sure on that one. The area requirement is giving me some pause. Is an area requirement, can a setback fit within that category, area? I don't think that it can because setbacks are relation to structures and property lines. We may have area regulations that say, so for instance in our code where we address commercial buildings, commercial regulations, we have certain area regulations that if you're over a certain size of square footage for a specific type of use, you'll need X amount of parking spaces. That's an area regulation. And a setback isn't an area regulation because it's just relative to where you put in your building versus where the property line is. I think of area in a geometrical sense that length times width is what your area is or if you have a building that's not a perfect rectangle or square or quadrilateral or whatever you figure out, whatever the geometric is to calculate the area of that building, but we do that regularly and we require parking spaces for buildings based on their area. It's your position that if an applicant is seeking to increase the degree of a setback nonconformity, as a category, that is not subject to enlargement, setbacks. 96050C1 is the only avenue for a setback if the applicant asks for an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Alternatively, a variance would be appropriate. Okay. But categorically, an application to enlarge a setback is dead on arrival. Correct. Okay. And then finally, in your brief, you pointed to the definition of as sort of support that area doesn't mean setback? Is that right? Do I have that right? Yeah, so the buildable area, I pointed that out because it uses the term area. And it also uses the term setback in the definition. We don't have a definition in our code of the term area. So buildable area is as close as I can get. But if we look at the definition, definition of buildable area, that definition relates only to main buildings. And this is an accessory structure as opposed to a main building. So whereas the main building meets all of the setback requirements, an accessory structure, which also has to meet setbacks, doesn't get included in that term buildable area. Okay. But in defining what a buildable area is, the code that by referring to setbacks. Right, but it also defines it as it relates to a main building. So setback is included in the definition of buildable area, but also main building is. So insofar as a setback is an area regulation, it only applies to a main building and not to an accessory structure. Okay, and area is not defined. Area is not defined, so I think that we have to use the ordinary definition of the term area. So other than setbacks, which your position is that's categorically excluded, are there any other examples of nonconformities which also don't fall within height, area, or yard regulations? Or is setback the only one? Sure, in our commercial code, Well, our commercial building code where we talk about where you have a building, if you have so many feet of roofline, you have to add in interruptions. You can't have just a straight roofline through. That would be a nonconformity. So if somebody had a building that was a commercial building that was just a brick, you know, looked like a brick from everywhere, just straight through, and it was 150 feet, and it predates the code, and it's a legal non-conforming building. If they wanted to add on another 20 feet to that building and just have it continue to be straight, that would, I believe, fall under 96050C2, where the applicant could come in and say, it's not going to decrease the property values, we're adding 20 feet to the building, We don't want to have to add in these interruptions. We don't want to have to add in these architectural standards. And, you know, it's not going to be, the difference is going to be negligible. I would argue that since it's a main building, it's a buildable area issue, and then we get it under area. And then it falls within the jurisdiction of 96050C2 as an area regulation, which you could hear. So my question is a little different. Can you think of something, another regulation that would not fall under C2? Like a setback. I think your argument is, look, the council gave three examples and limited it to three of the categories of nonconformity that you could expand. Height, area, yard regulations. We're not expanding under any circumstances, such as setbacks, such as something else. What is, I'm asking you, if you can think any other, I'm putting you on the spot. Sure. Any other examples? And I should have some because I've had time to think about it, so it's fine. Within the residential realm, our driveways are required to be 20 feet now. 30 feet? 30 feet. So... That would be a regulation that relates to area but doesn't relate to a main building. Well, I don't know that the driveway would relate to area either. You just gotta have a driveway somewhere. It could go into the back, it could go into the front. So that's a regulation that doesn't fall within area even because you can have a driveway going into your backyard you can have a back-loaded alleyway driveway as long as it's 30 feet. So that would be another one that's not in height, area, or yard. It doesn't matter where you put your driveway as long as you have 30 feet of it. Oh, sure. If there's a change in the code that now new homes have to have fire suppression, is that, that wouldn't fall under either of those categories? Sure. Fire suppression is not a high area or yard regulation. And if you're up at Suncrest, you're required to have fire sprinklers, depending on your distance from a... fire hydrant. And if you're in certain areas, there are prohibitions on the use of your property. Up at Suncrest, if you wanted to start a firework store up at Suncrest, you couldn't do that. That wouldn't be good for anybody, right? Okay. Those are my questions. Anything else? No, that's all I've got. Mr. Burroughs. Do you want to have any last words? Do you want to talk about the issues we've been, mostly procedural issues of whether I can even decide this in the first place or whether this should first be decided? Whether I can even understand the 25s or the numbers you were given, because that's kind of, from what I'm hearing from this last minute that I wasn't briefed on when I came into the office and had this discussion, I was just told that I just needed to meet kind of these three standards, which is show that it was a value and we'll show this is all on this. So from what I'm understanding, if I can put it this way, back in 2005, if I would have built this structure as it sits right now with that bump out that's on there, it would have been fine with zoning, it would have been fine with everybody because the setbacks were two feet. That's the way I'm understanding it. And so all we're really talking about is that setback. It's not anything, well, they're really decreasing the value because it would have gone through zoning and planning, would have passed and everything to build this structure back in 2005 just because of the setback was two feet. Now, so what I'm reading is on January 5th of this year, you had an applicant come in with, again, I think I mentioned this earlier, almost exact same structure. And I'm reading even your minutes here. It says he has about a half acre, which is the same as me, and was granted originally in 2005 to build a permit, which is pretty close to me also. And then at that time, his setback was three and a half feet. And then he goes on to, he wanted to build and could afford then. So now he wants to know if he could add 26 feet and have it flush to the property line, which would make zero setback. And that was granted for him. and I'm wondering why, if there's setbacks and that's what we're worried about, why this code wasn't brought up back then and this one has been approved. Yeah. I have to look at that decision again. I'm not making any decisions today, but kind of what we're talking about is, and it's maybe something that wasn't raised, I don't know if it's a similar issue as that last decision you're referring to, but this time we've caught, basically a hole or a gap in the code. And this is my concern. The code gives me the authority to make decisions on certain things. And I'm concerned that the way this is presented, I don't have authority to do it. And if I did, I'd be violating the code. And I don't want to do that. And I understand. And I understood that, too. Now, again, I'm just hearing some things brought up. And I'm totally understanding that if it's code, that they want to abide by the code and everything else. I would hope that if it wasn't, that they would be trying to help me build this structure, but they're just citing the way that they interpret the code, the same way it was for the zoning and the setback itself originally. And again, I haven't made any decisions, but one way this could go, which I imagine will frustrate you, is I say, I can't do this. You need to make a decision first, city. And if you don't like that decision, then it can come back to me, which will just delay you, and I understand that's frustrating. But, okay. The other issue is what we've been talking about is a setback violation. Is that something that can be enlarged? Is that a nonconformity that can be enlarged under that section of the code? Because there's three categories, area, height, yard regulations. Does the setback fit within any of those three categories? I'm not sure, because I'm not sure how to interpret. I couldn't say, I couldn't force one way or the other. I mean, this gentleman's an attorney, and so I'm sure he's more up on how these things are normally interpreted. But again, I just have to go back on, if that be the case, then I wouldn't be here. This gentleman before me in January would be saying, okay, let's go to the city, let's get this interpretation. But it's already been ruled and established that it has been approved at this exact same type of situation. So we have an establishment in that area that it has been done based on setback only. And that's a good one. I'll go back and look at that. And if that's what we did, that will factor into my decision, I think. Okay. And we don't know the answer either about, you know, I don't know the answer. That's why I understand it here, too. And so your opinion on whether it does or does not is helpful. Yeah, and I'm not sure based upon because I – I WOULD LIKE TO, WHEN I STARTED TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE ORIGINALLY, I KIND OF JUST BREEZED THROUGH THE CODE, AND IT SAID 200 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT, AND SO THAT'S HOW THIS WHOLE THING STARTED WAS THAT, BECAUSE I GOT A COMPLAINT FROM THE NEIGHBOR, AND I THOUGHT, OH, I'M 200 SQUARE FEET, NO WORRY, AND THEN FINDING OUT THAT, NO, ANY TYPE OF ADDITION HAS TO HAVE THE PERMIT. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT, BECAUSE I'M REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO FOLLOW THE CODE AND FOLLOW THE LAW, SO I WOULD LIKE, IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, THEN I'D LIKE TO GET A CORRECT INTERPRETATION ON IT, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS, THERE'S A LOOPHOLE IN THE CODE THAT NEVER WAS ADVISED FOR THIS, BUT AGAIN, I HAVE TO, MY POINT IS I HAVE TO BRING IT UP AND IT'S LIKE, THEN WHY DIDN'T THAT GET BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO IN THE SAME TYPE OF MEETING? SURE. THAT'S FAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU. NO, I THINK THAT'S IT. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY THAT HEARING FOR THE MINUTES, THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. IT WAS JANUARY 2023. SO JUST SO THAT'S ON THE RECORD. I DON'T REMEMBER. That specific application? No. That's fine. I just wanted it on the record. I'd have to look. It's been a couple years. go back and look at that and look there's a chance again I have no recollection or memory of that right yeah but there's a chance we got it wrong I got it wrong and if I got it wrong I don't want to get it wrong twice I know that might feel unfair to you that one person got to skate by and you met you might not but We'll see. Again, I have to look at it. I haven't made any decisions yet. Mike, can you go to the mic? Yeah. I totally understand. So I was just going to say if it fit somehow back then when it did it, well, then let's just find how it fit back then and let's make that apply now. If you got it wrong, I get it. That's like the police officer missing the speeding. Well, I know he's speeding, but I missed it. So I totally understand. And it won't be in my favor, obviously, but if there's an avenue to resolve it in my favor, I'd like to do that. And, you know, no matter what the decision is, you know, you always have the power to lobby the city council to change the code, right? Well... I guess as a citizen, I have the power, but as a citizen, I don't know if that's financially capable to do that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That closes the hearing on the borough's application. Jennifer, anything else? Any magic words I need to say to close the hearing? Okay. When, how long do you think it'll be before you have a decision? Within a week. Look at your written decision within a week. Okay. It's a complicated one. So I'm going to have to think about it more. I'll write a decision and get it out for you. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. Meeting's adjourned.