commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator. um and i do want to acknowledge the opponent's frustration. i mean, there's something there's clear frustration there. um i think there is frustration with the way the city is interpreting state law, and that's fine to have that frustration, um just to respond to some of the questions or some of the issues that were raised in rebuttal. um the department began. conversations with the appellant in 2021. and february of 2022. so this is more than a year ago . that's when the department first informed them that the project they were proposing, which is essentially a two story single family home being having a two story vertical edition and horizontal audition and adding an 80 you it was not eligible for sp 35. so this bill, and there's there. there was not a long process there. and that was , you know, not a big process. there's been a lot of pressure since then. to get to the second appeal here, um. you know, i had the appellant sent me an email with very specific. questions that they wa

corey teague, zoning administrator, tina tam, the deputy zoning administrator, and kate conner, housing implementation program manager. all three are with the planning

corey teague, zoning administrator, tina tam, the deputy zoning administrator, and kate conner, housing implementation program manager. all three are with the planning department.

corey teague, zoning administrator, tina tam, the deputy zoning administrator, and kate conner, housing implementation program manager. all three are with the planning department. and we also have matthew green, chief building inspector

corey teague, zoning administrator for the playing departments. good to see you all after a little bit of a hiatus. um i will just briefly go over this permit and question from purely from a planning code and planning department perspective. as you know, the address is 14 62 lake streets located in our h one zoning districts, single family home. the subject permit, um for the fence in question. the cable fencing question that was reviewed by the planning department and approved over the counter on february 23rd of this year. the location of where this fence is within the buildable area is not in a required yard is not in the required setback. so technically, it's in the buildable area. it's in a portion of the property where you could do it. an actual building edition if you wanted to, um because of the height and the nature of the fence that also was not subject to neighborhood notification, which is why it was approved over the counter. um this seems to be, you know, tantamount to like a property line window situation which you guys have had you