[00:00:03]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on April 18, 2023.]
AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN, AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL A.
IT IS 1:00 PM ON THE 18TH OF APRIL, 2023, AND THE PANEL, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IS HEREBY CALLED TO ORDER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, A QUORUM IS PRESENT AND SO WE CAN PROCEED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.
I'M GONNA READ A FEW PREPARED REMARKS AND THEN WE'LL, UH, MOVE FORWARD.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE MATTER IN WHICH THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDE UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE ILLEGAL.
GO AHEAD AND TURN ON YOUR VIDEO, UH, ON YOUR, ON YOUR FEEDS.
UH, WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF AT OUR MORNING BRIEFING PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, AND IT ALL THROUGH.
ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED DOCKET WHICH EXPLAINS THE POINTS OF EACH CASE, ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES.
WE HAVE THREE CASES TODAY THAT WE WILL, UH, HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD.
SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS. MARY, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? PLEASE MAKE SURE IF, UH, YOU, UH, YOU PROVIDE HER WITH THAT INFORMATION WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
LETTERS OF BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
LASTLY, ALL PEOPLE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON ANY CASES.
TODAY, WERE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH STAFF BEFORE ADDRESSING A BOARD.
UH, HAS ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK EITHER FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR FOR A CASE FILLED OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER? HAS EVERYONE DONE THAT? YOU'VE TURNED IN YOUR BLUE SHEET OF PAPER, BUT YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET FOR EITHER FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT I WILL TAKE MOMENTARILY OR FOR A, A, UM, SPEAKING ON A SPECIFIC CASE AND YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS TO OUR BOARD.
JUST AS A REMINDER, UH, ANY ACTION GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE THAT WE MAY CONSIDER TODAY REQUIRES 75% AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
WE HAVE FIVE PANEL MEMBERS THAT REQUIRES FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS IN ORDER TO PASS ANY AFFIRMATIVE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, THE BOARD'S, UM, THAT'S FOR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
UM, ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCE ROOM WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.
WE'VE UPDATED OUR RULES RECENTLY AND FOR PARTICULAR CASES THAT ARE HEARD BEFORE, THE SPEAKER IN FAVOR.
EACH SPEAKER IN FAVOR AND IN OPPOSITION IS ALLOWED UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
THEN THE APPLICANTS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL.
THOSE ARE NEW RULES THAT WE PUT IN PLACE EFFECTIVE LAST WEDNESDAY.
ALLOW ME TO, UH, INTRODUCE THOSE THAT ARE WITH US.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN, AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANK.
TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS MEMBER RACHEL HAYDEN.
PHIL, UH, SAUK, JAY NEK, EXCUSE ME.
UM, TO MY RIGHT, UH, PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF IS DANIEL MOORE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, WHAT I CALL EMERITUS BECAUSE HE'S MOVING TO THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.
OUR NEW BOARD OF ATTORNEY, MATT SAPP, UH, BOARD, UH, TRAINING CONSULTANT STEVE LONG, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, NIKKI DUNN, UH, BRAND NEW TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TEAM, UH, KAMIKA MILLER.
HOSTINGS CLOSE, BUT NOT QUITE SORRY.
UH, GIANNA BRIDGES ANOTHER SENIOR PLANNER, UH, DIANA BURHAM AND NORA CASTANEDA.
FIRST TIME, OOH, ON OUR OTHER END OF THE, OF THE DIAS IS, UH, TRINA LAW, WHO IS ASSISTING WITH TRAINING OUR NEW BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS, AND THEN LLOYD DENMAN, WHO'S, UM, A CONSULTANT ENGINEERING FOR THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UH, TODAY IS, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR TESTIMONY BOARD SECRETARY.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT HAS REGISTERED ONLINE OR IN PERSON TOPE AS PART OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO SPEAKERS, SIR.
LET ME PREVIEW THE AGENDA FOR TODAY IS WE HAVE THREE, UH, WE HAVE THE MEETING MINUTES, THE MEETING MINUTES TO REVIEW AND APPROVE, AND THEN THREE CASES FOR PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES AND THREE CASES FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:05:01]
IN THE AGENDA WILL BE OUR MEETING MINUTES.UM, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THIS IN ADVANCE.
UH, QUESTIONS ON THE MARCH 21ST, 2023 MEETING MINUTES, MS. HAYDEN ON PAGE SIX OF THE MEETING MINUTES, UM, THE MOTION FOR BDA 2 23 DASH 0 22.
THE MAKER OF THAT MOTION WAS MYSELF, RACHEL HAYDEN, AND THE SECOND WAS KATHLEEN DAVIS.
SO WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION SUBJECT TO THAT AMENDMENT? YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE MEETING MINUTES BE REVISED TO SHOW THAT THE MAKER OF THE MOTION FOR BDA 2 23 DASH 0 2 2 WAS MYSELF, RACHEL HAYDEN, AND THAT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED WOULD BE APPROVED AND THAT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED WOULD BE APPROVED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
MR. SYK HAS SECONDED THE MOTION ON THE TABLES TO, UH, AMEND THE MEETING MINUTES AS PREPARED FOR PAGE 6 2 23 0 2 2.
THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IS RACHEL HAYDEN.
UM, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
ALL ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDED MOTION.
UM, NEXT ITEM IS OUR, IS THE FIRST CASE THAT WE'RE GONNA HEAR TODAY, AND THAT IS AT, THAT IS BDA 2 23 0 29 BDA 2 23 29 AT 89 15 DOUGLAS AVENUE.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE, COULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
UH, AND THEN YOU, YOU NEED TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND AN ADDRESS, AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND YOU WELCOME TO SIT.
THEY GOT RID OF THAT PODIUM THING.
MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, MY NAME IS JENNIFER HIRA MOTO.
MY ADDRESS IS 1 0 22 3 1 0 2 33 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, UH, DALLAS, 75 2 38.
UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS AT, UM, 89 0 1 AND 89 15 DOUGLASS AVENUE.
UM, THESE, UM, OWNERS HAVE PLOTTED THEIR PROPERTY TOGETHER, AND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT LOUDER.
I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF, UH, 89 0 1 AND 89 15 DOUGLAS.
THEY'VE RECENTLY PROP, PLATTED THEIR PROPERTY TOGETHER, UH, TO CREATE ONE LOT.
UM, IF WE CAN GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED, UM, AND THE STAFF CORRECTLY TOLD US THAT THE REQUEST IS LIMITED TO THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROP PROPERTY, THE 89 15 DOUGLAS AVENUE.
UM, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, KIND OF ZOOM IN A BIT.
UM, I'VE ADDED SOME COLORING, UM, TO SHOW.
WHERE DO YOU WANNA GO BACK? I DON'T KNOW.
WHO'S DRIVING THE BUS? MARY, ARE YOU DOING THE CLICKING? OR SOMEONE WHO'S DOING THE CLICKING? OH, THANK YOU.
WHO'S, WHO'S DOING THE CLICKING? OH, OKAY.
MS. BRIDGES, UM, THE RED LINE IS THE PROPOSED FENCING.
UM, THIS IS A SIX FOOT, UM, OPEN RODAR STYLE FENCING WITH, UH, MASONRY COLUMNS.
THE PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN AREA OF THE 8 89 15 IS THE COLOR AND PURPLE.
THIS IS THE SOLID WING WALL THAT IS WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF, UH, KIND OF ESTIMATED THAT WITH THE FIRST DASH BLUE LINE, AND THEN THE SECOND DASH BLUE LINE, UM, TO THE WEST IS THE 40 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
UH, IF WE CAN GO FORWARD, PLEASE.
UM, SO THIS IS JUST A CLOSE UP OF THAT SOLID WALL, AND ONLY A PORTION OF IT IS WITHIN THAT FIRST FIVE FEET, UM, THAT NEEDS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS COLUMN HAS THE SIX FOOT THREE INCH NOTATION, AND IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THE FENCE PANELS ARE GENERALLY SIX FEET IN, IN HEIGHT.
UM, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, THIS MAP IS YOUR NOTIFICATION MAP, AND I KIND OF PUT, UM, LITTLE BOXES WITH AN F OF WHERE IT IS OBSERVED TO HAVE FENCING THAT APPEARS TO BE HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, AND PUT A BOX WITH AN S UM, ON THE TOP, UM, RIGHT AT THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT IT'S ONLY VERY DENSE, UM, LANDSCAPING, UH, A FENCE IS NOT VISIBLE, BUT IT SERVES THE SAME EFFECT OF SCREENING THE PROPERTY.
UM, IF WE CAN GO THROUGH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES, AND I'LL START KIND OF TO THE WEST AND GO
[00:10:01]
COUNTERCLOCKWISE THROUGH SOME GOOGLE STREET VIEW PICTURES.UM, SO THIS IS LOOKING AT THE TERMINUS OF DELOCHE AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, KIND OF CIRCLING BACK TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION OF DELOCHE AND DOUGLAS.
THIS IS THE INTERSECTION, SO THIS IS DIAGONAL TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE REQUEST SITE.
UH, THE NEXT SLIDE IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN, DELOCHE.
UM, THAT'LL TAKE US BACK TO DOUGLAS, AND YOU'LL SEE FENCING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY TALLER THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, I BELIEVE THE LAST SLIDE WILL BE THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST THAT HAS THE, UH, DENSE LANDSCAPING.
SO I, UH, REQUEST THE BOARD, UH, CONSIDER APPROVING OUR REQUEST.
I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FENCING THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT IS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
WE DID REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA, AND ONLY THE ONE LETTER WAS RECEIVED.
NO PHONE CALLS, NO OTHER CORRESPONDENCE.
THANK YOU, MS. HER HERTO, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, PLEASE, MR. NE? UM, YEAH, MY PRIMARY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE OPACITY OF THE PROPOSED FENCING.
UM, IN THE APPLICATION IT SAYS HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE, BUT YOU AND, AND ELSEWHERE, I'VE READ THAT IT'S PRIMARILY AN OPEN WROUGHT IRON TYPE FENCING.
COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT, PLEASE? UH, YES, SIR.
UM, ON THAT THIRD SLIDE, UM, I, THE AREA THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN PURPLE IS WHERE THE MASONRY FENCE, UM, STARTS, AND THAT'S A SOLID MASONRY WALL, AND IT'S SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING 89 0 1 SOLID WING WALLS THAT EXIST.
UM, THAT'LL, UM, JUST, SO, JUST THAT PURPLE PORTION IS THE PORTION THAT IS, UM, SOLID WITHIN THAT FIRST FIVE FEET.
THE REMAINDER OF THE FENCING ALONG DOUGLAS, UM, WILL BE OPEN PANELS.
UM, AND THEN, UH, THAT SOUTHERN PORTION THAT'S TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE PURPLE AREA, THAT'LL ALSO BE SOLID MASONRY.
REPEAT WHAT YOU, I GET THE CURVE PURPLE.
WHAT WAS THE SECOND HALF OF WHAT YOU SAID? WHEN IT, WHEN IT CONTINUES TO THE WEST, THAT WILL ALSO BE SOLID, SOLID DOWN THE CORNER.
NOW THIS IS NOT PERFECT, BUT I'M EXPLAINING IT YES, AS WE GO.
THE, THE ELEVATIONS ALSO SHOW THIS, THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
SO THE, SO THE PART OF THE PROPOSED FENCING THAT IS PARALLEL TO DOUGLAS WILL BE PRIMARILY OPEN UNTIL IT HITS THAT CURVE? YES, SIR.
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT IS, UH, THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE, UM, THE REQUEST? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. HALCOMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 29 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HIRA MOTO GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT THREE INCH HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION IS REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HOLCOMB IN BDA 2 23 DASH 29 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE HEIGHT, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NE DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION FIRST TO MR. HOLCOMB.
UM, YEAH, I I THINK IT'S IN CHARACTER WITH THE OTHER FENCES, UH, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK IT MEETS, UM, THE STANDARDS AS, AS PROPOSED.
SO I'M, I'M PRETTY SATISFIED THAT THIS, THIS MEETS THE NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
I DO THINK THAT, UH, THIS COMPORTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA, UM, AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS TO GRANT BDA 2 23 0 29,
[00:15:02]
UH, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
MOTION PASSES IN THE MATTER OF TWO TWO, UH, B D A 2 23 0 29.
THE BOARD APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY THE REQUEST TO, UH, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO THE SIX FOOT THREE INCH, UH, REQUEST.
MR. HOLCOMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 29 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HIRA MOTO GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN FENCE PANELS WITH A SURFACE AREA LESS THAN 50% OPEN, LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINES AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SURFACE AREA OPENNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT AFFECT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION IS REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HOLCOMB IN BDA 2 23 0 29 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, FOR A SURFACE AREA LESS THAN 50% OPEN AREA.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MR. SAIK SE SECONDED THE MOTION DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MR. HEK? UM, YEAH, I, I THINK, UH, THAT, UH, DESPITE THE, THE SECTIONS THAT ARE NOT AS OPEN AS CODE WOULD, UH, UH, REQUIRE, UM, I THINK THAT, THAT THAT'S VERY LIMITED AND THAT, THAT IT MEETS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE.
UM, AND SO THE, UH, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, AS IT'S A MODEST REQUEST.
UM, I THINK IT BEATS THE, THE STANDARD AS WELL AS, UM, THE DEFENSE, UH, AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORTED IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO, TO GRANT THE REQUEST IN BDA 2 2 3 0 29.
THE APPLICATION FOR A SURFACE AREA LESS THAN FI 50% OPEN DISCUSSION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MOTION PASSE IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 23 0 29.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR SURFACE AREA SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LESS THAN 50%, 50% OPEN, UM, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUB SUBMITTED SITE PLAN.
YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
NEXT CASE BEFORE THE BOARD IS BDA 2 23 DASH 35 BDA 2 23 DASH 0 35.
THIS IS AT 1 0 20 MCBROOM STREET, 1 0 20 MCBROOM STREET.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, SAM MALLICK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, BRENT JACKSON.
UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MY NAME IS SAM MALLEK, I'M AN ATTORNEY AT HANSEN BOONE.
OUR OFFICES ARE LOCATED AT 2323 VICTORY AVENUE, SUITE 700, DALLAS, TEXAS 75,219.
AND WHAT IS YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN, PLEASE? MALLEK, M A L L I C K.
MR. MALLEK, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
UM, AND AS I, AS I UNDERSTAND, UM, THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE, THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
UM, THERE WAS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER, UH, THIS WOULD BE HELD OVER, UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME IF IT WERE HELD OVER TO, UM, WE WOULD SUGGEST A DATE CERTAIN IN JUNE.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE MADE THE, UM, THE REQUEST TO THE STAFF THAT THIS CASE BE HELD OVER, IT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE GETTING SOME KIND OF NOTICE FROM ENCORE AS TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE BRIEFING.
UM, TO DATE, OUR CLIENT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM ENCORE.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE IS A LETTER THAT'S, UH, BEEN SUBMITTED AS AN
[00:20:01]
EXHIBIT.WE DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THAT.
UM, UH, ADDITIONALLY, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE, THAT THE STAFF WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL IN, IN LIGHT OF THE ENCORE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED.
UM, THE, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF IS TO GRANT THE, THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE HOUSE BEING BUILT AS, AS THE SITE PLAN WAS LAID OUT.
UM, AND, AND SO WITH, WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, WE, WE WOULD ASK, UM, THE BOARD TO GRANT THE VARIANCE TODAY.
UM, AS TO THE ENCORE ISSUE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UM, I, I, I BELIEVE A GREEN TAG WOULD, WOULD NOT BE GRANTED IF THERE WERE AN ISSUE, UM, OF, OF SAFETY AS TO THE, THE LINE ABOVE THE PROPERTY.
SO EITHER WE CAN TAKE UP UP THE VARIANCE ISSUE TODAY AND DEAL WITH THE ENCORE ISSUE, OR WE CAN POSTPONE THE VARIANCE ISSUE, DEAL WITH THE ENCORE ISSUE, AND THEN TAKE UP THE VARIANCE.
UM, AT THAT POINT, A VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THE HOUSE HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT AS YOUR HONOR IS AWARE.
UM, HAVING, HAVING PRESIDED OVER THE HEARING, DEALING WITH PRIOR HOUSES IN THAT AREA, UM, IT WOULD COST MILLIONS TO KNOCK THIS HOUSE DOWN AND TO, TO REBUILD IT FROM SCRATCH.
A A PIECE OF THE HOUSE COULD NOT SIMPLY BE, BE SHAVED OFF AND BUILT ONTO THE OTHER SIDE.
THE ENTIRE THING WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN.
THAT WOULD BE UNDULY EXPENSIVE.
FURTHERMORE, UH, ANY, UM, ANY NEED FOR A VARIANCE WAS NOT A, A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP BECAUSE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, A VARIANCE COULD HAVE BEEN SOUGHT, UM, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE, THE LOT IS MUCH SMALLER THAN OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA.
UM, GIVEN, UH, UH, OTHER LOTS WHICH ARE ALSO ZONED AS R FIVE A.
SO A VARIANCE COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.
UM, IT, IT WAS NOT DUE TO, UH, A, A, A MISTAKE, AN HONEST MISTAKE.
THIS IS NOT A, AN AN INSTANCE OF BETTER TO ASK FOR FORGI FORGIVENESS THAN TO ASK FOR PERMISSION.
THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THEY WERE SIGNED OFF ON.
UM, TH THIS IS, THIS IS JUST A CASE OF SIMPLE, HONEST HUMAN ERROR.
AND THE QUESTION IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME LEMONS, ARE WE GONNA MAKE LEMONADE OR NOT? AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I'VE GOT MR. HOW COME THEN, MS. HAYDEN? MR. HOW COME? OKAY, SO I HAVE A, A, A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THEN A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO, QUESTION TO STAFF REFERENCING WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID.
I BELIEVE THAT THE DOCKET DID SAY, CAUSE I NOTICED IT AT THE TIME, DID SAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL, BUT THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION SAID DENIAL.
AND I TOOK THAT AS, BECAUSE THE ENCORE EMAIL CAME AFTER THE ONE O'CLOCK CUTOFF.
AM I TRACKING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THERE CORRECTLY? YES, BUT I'LL MAKE A CORRECTION.
THE ENCORE LETTER CAME POST S R T MEETING.
SO DURING THE S R T MEETING IS WHEN THIS DATE WAS THAT MS. DUNN, UM, S RT MEETING STAFF REVIEW TEAM? THE STAFF REVIEW TEAM MEETING? IT WAS ON OR ABOUT THE, THE 29TH OR SOMETHING? UH, UH, IF MY STAFF CAN RESEARCH THAT, WE'LL GIVE YOU 30TH.
IT SAYS ON THE DOCTOR MARCH 30TH, MARCH, MARCH 30TH? YES.
THE UNCO LETTER CAME POST S R T MEETING, BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE RECOMMENDATION DURING THE S R T MEETING, AND IF WE FOUND ANYTHING MATERIAL POST-HEARING, THEN WE'RE ALSO RESPONSIBLE IN SUPPORTING, UH, IN, IN REPORTING THAT, AND THEN SUPPORTING A DECISION REVERSAL FROM THE S R T MEETING.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE TODAY.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF WAS DENIAL.
NOW HOLD ON ONE SECOND FOR CLARITY.
SO I'M GONNA REPEAT BACK WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME SO I UNDERSTAND PROCESS.
SO IT'S ASSIGNED TO PLANNER, IT WAS YOUR CASE IN THIS CASE, RIGHT? IT WAS MY CASE.
SO YOU, YOU WERE THE PLANNER IN THE CASE, YOU DID THE RESEARCH, DID THE SITE VISIT, DID ALL THAT SORT OF DEAL, THEN, UM, IT FUNNELED TO THE STAFF, STAFF REVIEW, REVIEW TEAM.
YOU AS A PLANNER, YOU'RE THE, THE CHIEF, BUT YOU AS A PLANNER MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE GROUP.
THE GROUP COLE, UM, COMES UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S WHAT COMES TO US, AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR DUTY BOUND TO, TO HONOR FROM THAT, UNLESS THERE IS A MATERIAL, WHAT YOU SAID IS THERE IS A MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION.
SO I JUST, I'M JUST WANTING, UH, HEAR ABOUT THE PROCESS.
AND THEN, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU, YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT IT WOULD, UH, TAKE MILLIONS TO, TO SCRAPE AND REBUILD THIS.
HOW MUCH WAS THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION? I MEAN, THE HOUSE DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
UM, I, I'M NOT SURE THE, THE EXACT COST OF CONSTRUCTION, BUT, UM, TO, TO TEAR DOWN, TO REMOVE MATERIALS, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T BE REUSABLE.
WELL, AND, AND THE REASON, LET'S SAY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.
AND, AND THE REASON I'M GETTING AT THIS IS BECAUSE THERE'S THIS, UH, STATE BILL, 1475 THAT ALLOWS US TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, ALL ALTERNATE, UH, OR I GUESS HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO REBUILD.
AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR, FOR A NUMBER, A FIRM NUMBER OF, UM, WHAT THAT WOULD COST.
[00:25:01]
YOU QUESTIONS, MS. HAYDEN.SO I GUESS, AT WHAT POINT IN THE BUILDING PROCESS W WAS THIS DISCOVERED? WAS IT AFTER THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED, AND HOW, HOW WAS IT DISCOVERED THAT THIS WAS OUT OF THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETELY DESTRU, UH, COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
UM, IT, IT WAS A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE WERE, UM, WE WERE WAITING, UM, UH, UTILITIES TO BE TURNED ON THAT, UM, THIS STARTED CIRCULATING.
AND ACTUALLY, UM, I BELIEVE THERE, THERE'S AN EMAIL THREAD WHICH WE SUBMITTED TO, TO THE STAFF.
UM, I HAVE COPIES IF, IF THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE IT.
UM, BUT LOOKS LIKE THAT WAS AUGUST, 2022 SEP, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, THEREABOUTS.
AND HOW WAS IT DISCOVERED? LET ME HOLD THE EMAIL THREAD HERE.
IT WAS, IT WAS, UM, EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH, WITH CITY STAFF.
UM, THERE, THERE WAS A UTILITIES HOLD PLACED.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? UH, I, I WILL GIVE YOU, I WILL PUT THIS IN THE, IN THE PHRASE I'M GONNA EDITORIALIZE, BUT BECAUSE MY ATTORNEY'S SITTING NEXT TO ME, I'M GONNA PUT IT IN A QUESTION.
THIS IS A STRETCH FOR ME TO CONSIDER.
IT'S A STRETCH BECAUSE OF, UM, AS WE LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 200 FEET, IT SHOWS HISTORY.
NOW EVERY CASE IS, IS, IS DEALT WITH INDEPENDENT OF OTHER CASES, NOPE, NO, UH, CASES SETS A PRECEDENT.
BUT, UH, THE BUILDING, UH, ACROSS THE, UH, SETBACK AND THE, NOW THE ISSUE OF THE UTILITY OVER A MIDDLE ROOF PRESENTS CHALLENGES, UM, COSTING MILLIONS IS WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO.
AND NO DATA TO ACTUALLY WHAT NO PROOF UP.
ALL THESE CUMULATIVELY TELLS ME THAT THE BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT'S PART HAS NOT BEEN MET.
UH, WE DO NOT WANNA SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT, AT LEAST THIS ONE MEMBER'S JUDGMENT, BUT TO RESPOND TO THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED OR THE LACK OF FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED.
SO I'M JUST, SO THAT'S MY QUANDARY.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS? THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF THE, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO, UM, IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 23, 0 35, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF BRENT JACKSON.
DENY THE VARIANCE, THE SIDE YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY THE CHAIRMAN TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. SAUK, AS IS MY CUSTOM.
I ALWAYS GO TO THE FIRST IN MAKING THE MOTION.
AS I JUST STATED EARLIER, I DO NOT FEEL THAT YOU, AS THE APPLICANT HAVE MET YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.
I CHOSE TO MAKE THE MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THAT ALLOWS YOU TO REFILE AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
UM, BUT I, I'M, I'M BOTHERED BY THE ELECTRICAL ISSUES.
THERE'S WAYS TO RE, RE UH, REMEDIATE THAT POTENTIALLY, BUT THAT'S NOT MY PLACE TO, UH, I'M BOTHERED BY, UM, THE COMMENTS THAT I SAW THIS MORNING, THE FENCE IN THE SIDE YARD, UH, ON THAT.
UH, AND I'M JUST BOTHERED BY THE LACK OF THE APPLICANT'S EFFORT TO MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF.
MR. SAY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION.
UM, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS, UH, SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, AND THERE ARE QUITE A FEW TROUBLING THE ELECTRICAL LINE.
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION FOR THAT, ET CETERA.
SO, UM, I AGREE, UH, WITH THE DENIAL, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THAT THIS CAN, CAN BE RECIRCULATED, UM, AND REAPPLIED OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THE MOTION, MR. HALCOMB? UM, I'LL, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
UM, NOT BECAUSE I'M SAYING NO, BUT BECAUSE I'M NOT ABLE TO SAY YES TO THIS.
AND SO THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALLOWING YOU TO REFILE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, I FEEL LIKE THERE IS POTENTIALLY A PATH FORWARD GIVEN THE RIGHT BURDEN OF PROOF IS MET.
SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
[00:30:01]
THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN B D 2 2 3 0 3 5 BY THE CHAIRMAN, SECONDED BY MR. SAO, WAS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE ROLE, UH, ONE MORE TIME.THE MOTION IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SO, OKAY.
MR. CHAIR? YES, THE VOTE IS FIVE.
MR. MALACH, UH, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY IN B D A 2 23 5, UH, VOTED TO DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
YOU'LL BE RECEIVING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN SHORT ORDER, UH, EVIDENCING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD.
NEXT CASE ON OUR DOCKET TODAY IS BDA 2 23 0 37 BDA 2 23 0 3 7.
DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? JAYS SARANAC.
UH, 41 78 SARANAC DRIVE IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
HAVE YOU FILLED OUT A BLUE SLIP WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY? YES, SIR.
IS THE OTHER GENTLEMAN GONNA BE TESTIFYING AS WELL? YES.
DID YOU FILL OUT A BLUE SLIP WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY? YES.
IS THAT SUFFICIENT, MS. MARION? YES.
UM, AS THE APPLICANT, YOU, UH, EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL.
SO, UM, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND THEN BOTH AND THEN SHE WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
SO MY NAME IS, USE THIS MICROPHONE OVER HERE IF YOU WOULD.
I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 41 78 SARANAC DRIVE.
AND SIR, YOU SIR, I'M THE HOUSTON BEARD, RIGHT? 41 78.
SHE WILL GO AHEAD AND SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MR. KUMAR, YOU HAVE A, AFTER YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD, THEN I WILL CALL FOR YOU.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
UH, THEN THIS OTHER GENTLEMAN MAY SPEAK, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO'S IN FAVOR SPEAKING, THEN IN OPPOSITION.
THEN OUR RULES PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICANT'S FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL.
UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR MY CASE.
I AM THE HOMEOWNER AT 41 78 SARANAC DRIVE, DRIVE.
UM, OUR HOME IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILD, UH, STARTED IN 2020.
UH, WE ARE PETITIONING TO ALLOW OUR FENCE AND GATE THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO REMAIN, UH, TO BE ALLOWED AS IS.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION PERMITS? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MY, UH, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, NICK, UH, WHO IS PRESENT.
UH, MY WIFE AND I HAVE TALKED TO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, AND WE FOUND SEVERAL OF THEM ARE OPPOSING OUR FENCE, BUT MANY MORE ARE, ARE IN FAVOR OF IT.
SO WE, WE HAVE ABOUT 10 NEIGHBORS WHO SUPPORT OUR FENCE, AND I THINK THERE'S ABOUT FOUR OF THEM THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF OUR FENCE.
UM, WHAT I'VE, JUST FROM MY OWN DRIVING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE FOUND MANY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THAT ACTUALLY HAVE, UH, FENCES AND GATES SIMILAR TO OURS, UH, AND IN SOME CASES EVEN HIGHER THAN OURS.
UM, WE OVERALL, WE FEEL THAT OUR FENCE AND GATE AESTHETICALLY IMPROVES THE LOOK OF THE STREET, UM, AND ALSO OF MIDWAY HOLLOW IN GENERAL.
UM, MIDWAY HOLLOW IS, IS DEFINITELY A, A VERY ATTRACTIVE, CLASSIC DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS WHAT BROUGHT US TO, TO THE COMMUNITY.
UM, IT HAS A MIX OF OLD AND NEW HOMES, AND WE FEEL THAT THE LOOK OF OUR HOME AND FENCE, UH, FITS THE CLASSIC CHARACTER OF THE MIDWAY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
MR. KUMAR, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN? UH, THE, THE QUESTION
[00:35:01]
CAME UP EARLIER IS THE, THE CONTRACTOR THAT CONSTRUCTED THE HOME, THE SAME CONTRACTOR THAT CONSTRUCTED THE FENCE? YES, MA'AM.AND, AND SO THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR THE HOME, BUT NOT FOR THE FENCE.
I NEED, I NEED YOU TO BE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE AND THEN GIVE US YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR, TO MS. HAYDEN'S QUESTION.
I, UM, THE PERMIT WAS, UH, SUBMITTED.
WE ALREADY HAD THE EXISTING WOOD FENCE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE ONLY THING WE ADDED WAS A SIDE SIDE FROM THE SIDE TO THE HOUSE FENCE AND, UH, THE FRONT, UH, FRONT IRON FENCE.
AND WE ADDED THREE TOTAL IRON, UH, WOODEN GATES.
I MEAN, SORRY, ONE WOODEN ONE AND TWO IRON GATES.
SO THE ONE WOODEN ONE IS IN THE BACK.
BUT YOU DID ADD THE, THE STONE COLUMNS AS WELL IN THE PAST? YEAH.
THAT WAS ADDED BY THE BRICK LAYER.
I, I, UH, WELL, UM, I GUESS IT WASN'T, I DON'T KNOW THE, WHEN I BUILT BEFORE I HAD A FENCE GUY TO DO THE COLUMNS AND SO ON.
THAT WAS LIKE 12 YEARS AGO ON THORNBURY LANE.
AND AT THAT TIME HE DID LOST THE PERMISSION, WHATEVER WAS NEEDED.
I DIDN'T KNOW WE NEEDED THE PERMIT FOR THE FINISHING OF BRANCH.
BUT YOU'RE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, RIGHT? YES.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? I WILL IN A MINUTE, BUT I'M GONNA WANT TO HEAR THE, THIS IS SECOND SPEAKER SPEAK.
SIR, DID YOU WANNA TESTIFY? DID YOU WANNA SPEAK? UH, YEAH, I, I THINK THE, THAT THE IRON FENCE AND THE IRON, UH, GATES AND THE COLUMNS HAD ATTACH THIS TO THE HOUSE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS SPEAKER? OKAY.
UM, I'M GONNA RESERVE MY QUESTIONS UNTIL I HEAR THE OTHER SIDE.
ANY OTHER ONE? ANYONE ELSE HERE WANTING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION? I DIDN'T ASK, BUT I ASSUME THAT MEANS NO ONE REGISTERED ONLINE, MS. MARY? THEY DID, BUT, UM, THEY'RE NOT ONLINE RIGHT NOW.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'S IN OPPOSITION? IF YOU WOULD, HAVE YOU FILLED OUT A BLUE PIECE OF PAPER TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY? COME ON DOWN AND, AND COME SPEAK.
JUST TAKE A, TAKE A SEAT ADJACENT AND, UM, I MAY COME BACK WITH MORE QUESTIONS.
IF YOU WOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND REMAIN STANDING AND IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
I NEED YOU TO SAY IT TO THE MICROPHONE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING AND HAVE A SEAT.
AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
PULL THAT MICROPHONE DOWN SO IT'S EASY FOR YOU.
A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
WE WANT TO HEAR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY.
MY WIFE AND I ARE THE HOMEOWNERS AT 41 86 SARANAC, TWO LOTS EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, WE OPPOSE THE APPLICATION.
UM, THE BUILDER HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED CONSTRUCTION SITE RULES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, INCLUDING FAILING TO PROVIDE A PORTA CAN UNTIL WE POINTED THAT OUT, THAT REQUIREMENT OUT FAILURE TO REMOVE TRASH IN A TIMELY MANNER, ALLOWING HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ALONG THE DEMOLISHED SIDEWALK, AND REPEATEDLY ALLOWING WORK TO BE PERFORMED AFTER 7:00 PM EVEN AS RECENTLY AS THIS PAST SATURDAY NIGHT WHEN A VERY LOUD COMPRESSOR OR PUMP WAS BEING OPERATED.
UM, I NOTED THAT THE, IN HIS PRESENTATION, NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR THE CONTRACTOR ADDRESSED THE VIOLATION OF THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE, WHICH IS THE SECOND ITEM, UH, IN THE, UH, IN THIS PAPERWORK.
[00:40:01]
IT'S ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT FAILED TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY FENCE PERMIT BEFORE BUILDING THE FENCE.HAVE THEY DONE SO ABSENT ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED AT THAT TIME BASED ON THE MULTIPLE DEVIATIONS FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY WOULD NOT NOW POSSIBLY BE FACING THE ADDED COST TO MODIFY THE PEN FENCE CONSTRUCTION TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
I CAN THINK OF NO RATIONALE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF ANY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD FOR MR. LEARY? MR. HEK? SO ARE, ARE YOU ONE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES? I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH THAT.
OR ARE YOU LIKE ACROSS, I'M WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RANGE.
WELL, I, I HAVE, I THINK HE'S PROPERTY NUMBER 13.
WELL, I HAD QUESTIONS AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, BUT SINCE YOUR TWO HOUSES DOWN, I'LL RESERVE THAT QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THE ADJACENT, ONE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS IS, IS AVAILABLE ON ZOOM, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS PERSON TESTIFYING? AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN A SECOND.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AND THEN WE WILL MAY COME BACK TO YOU WITH OTHER QUESTIONS.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? YES, SIR.
MR. FRY, WOULD YOU WAVE? THERE YOU GO.
UM, WE'RE GONNA, HA IS, IS YOUR AUDIO WORKING? I CANNOT HEAR YOU.
OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL UNMUTE YOU.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, SIR.
SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
I LIVE AT 41 82 SARANAC DRIVE.
MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, SIR.
I LIVE AT 41 82 SARANAC DRIVE, WHICH IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UM, TO THE, UH, THE PROPERTY THAT IS, UH, APPLYING FOR THE EXCEPTION.
UH, THE, THE OBSTRUCTION AND THE TRIANGLE CLEARANCE, UH, OF THE COLUMNS, UH, IT'S ACTUALLY IN MY TRIANGLE FOR MY DRIVEWAY.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, IF THEY HAVE AN EXCEPTION FOR THEIR DRIVEWAY, BUT THE, THE COLUMNS ARE ACTUALLY MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO BACK OUT.
WE CAN'T SEE THE SIDEWALK OR THE EASTBOUND TRAFFIC.
UM, AS WE'RE PACKING OUT, UH, MY WIFE, MY SON AND I, MY NEW TEENAGE SON WHO JUST GOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE, UH, YOU KNOW, PACKING OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY NOW BE, IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
UM, I AGREE WITH MR. LEARY ON, UH, THE BEHAVIOR OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS, UH, BY THE BUILDER.
UM, AND I JUST HEARD THAT THERE WAS NO PERMIT FOR THE FENCE AND THAT, UM, IT'S NOT SURPRISING.
UM, AND WE WERE ACTUALLY ON PROPERTY, UH, THIS IS JUST FEBRUARY 3RD, UM, WHEN A BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS WAS DRIVING BY, SAW THE FENCE BEING ERECTED, THE, THE IRON FENCE.
THE COLUMNS WERE INSTALLED IN DECEMBER AND ACTUALLY ASKED THE BILL, ASKED THE PEOPLE THAT WERE WORKING, IS THERE A PERMIT FOR THIS? THIS IS MUCH HIGHER THAN YOU'RE ALLOWED.
UM, AND THEN IT WAS FROM THAT POINT FORWARD ON THE 3RD OF FEBRUARY THAT THEN NICK SUBMITTED, FOR AN EXCEPTION ON FEBRUARY, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE, THE 16TH.
UM, AND THEN THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
SO THEY WERE JUST BUILDING IT.
UM, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION, UH, OF AROUND, YOU KNOW, EXCEPTIONS AHEAD OF TIME.
AND, UM, IT'S, UH, IT'S COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTING US.
AND IN GENERAL, IT'S NOT IN, IT'S NOT IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL.
UM, I THINK ANISH IS A GREAT GUY AND, AND THEY'RE A NICE FAMILY, BUT THE BUILDER HAS REALLY LET 'EM DOWN HERE BY, UH, BUILDING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
UM, AND THOSE, THOSE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE EXAMPLES ARE, YOU KNOW, 12 BLOCKS AWAY, UM, ALMOST ON THE MARSH SIDE.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT BUILDER ACTUALLY BUILT THOSE.
[00:45:01]
ONES THAT HE, HE'S OFFERING UP AS EXCEPTIONS.IT DOESN'T, THERE'S NO OTHER HOUSE ON THE STREET THAT HAS ANY OF THAT STUFF.
NOBODY HAS SIX AND A HALF FOOT ROLLING GATES.
HOW ABOUT THAT? THANK YOU, SIR.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR, UM, MR. FRY? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. FRY, MS. BOARD SECRETARY? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST? NO, THOSE SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK UP.
MR. KUMAR, OUR RULES SAY THAT YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR A REPLY.
UM, THERE WAS, THERE MA'AM, YOU DID NOT WANT TO, UM, TESTIFY.
JUST MAKING SURE MY BOARD ATTORNEY KEEPING ME HONEST, WANTED TO MAKE SURE, MAKE SURE YOU WERE, YOUR, YOUR RIGHTS WERE PROTECTED, SO THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, SO OUR RULES STATE THAT AS THE APPLICANT, YOU ARE ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO REPLY, PROCEED.
UM, I DON'T, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT MICROPHONE'S ON, SO GO TO THE NEXT ONE OVER.
UH, WELL, I MEAN, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT, UH, THE FENCE THAT WE'VE CONSTRUCTED IS A, AN IRON FENCE.
SO THERE, THE VISIBILITY IS NOT REALLY, THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH VISIBILITY BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE FENCE.
UM, I, I THINK THAT THE, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER FENCES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON SARANAC, UM, ARE, ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, SOLID, I GUESS.
UM, SO I, I THINK THAT COULD DEFINITELY PRESENT VISIBILITY ISSUES, UM, WHEN YOU'RE, LIKE, IF YOU'RE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY.
BUT OUR FENCE IS, UH, OTHER THAN THE COLUMNS, OUR FENCE IS AWR WROUGHT IRON FENCE.
SO IT'S, YOU, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OBSTRUCTION.
UM, THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY.
ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN? SO I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S A, IT'S A RON IRON FENCE AND THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH VISIBILITY.
IS THE, THE CON OR, OR THE, UH, THE STONE COLUMN WITHIN THE VISIBILITY CON, UH, TRIANGLE, IT APPEARS FROM THE DRAWINGS THAT THE STONE COLUMN IS WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, AND THAT IS NOT SEE THROUGH THERE, CORRECT? THERE ARE, THERE ARE STONE COLUMNS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW.
UM, YOU WERE IN THE AUDIENCE IN THE PREVIOUS CASE.
EACH CASE STANDS ON ITS OWN, DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENT, BUT OUR CRITERIA IS CONSISTENT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO USE A, A CRITERIA, AND THE FIRST CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE IS THIS BURDEN OF PROOF.
AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT.
AND, UM, WHAT WE WERE BRIEFED IN BY OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF THIS MORNING AND HEARING TESTIMONY, UH, AND QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
FIRST QUESTION GOES INTO THE PERMITTING ISSUE, AND YOU AS THE HOMEOWNER ARE THE ULTIMATE PERSON RES AND THE HOMEOWNER ULTIMATE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH LOCAL RULES, ORDINANCES, AND THAT SORT OF THING.
AND SO YOU, YOU'VE NOT ANSWERED REALLY THE QUESTION OF WHY THE FENCE WASN'T PERMITTED.
WAS THAT DELIBERATE OR JUST IT WAS DEFINITELY, IT WAS DEFINITELY NOT DELIBERATE.
I'VE, I HAVE LEFT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WITH MY BUILDER.
SO, UH, I, IT WAS MY BUILDER WHO WAS BUILDING MY HOME, OBTAINING THE PERMITS.
UM, UM, I AM NOT A BUILDER, SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS TO BUILD A HOUSE.
UM, UM, BUT I LEFT THE PERMITTING PROCESS TO MY BUILDER.
UH, THERE ARE TWO REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
ONE IS FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, WHICH ARE, I THINK IS, IS REALLY THE COLUMNS ARE THAT ARE TRIGGERING THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT, IF THE ROD IRON IS ABOVE THE FOUR FEET, BUT THE COLUMNS ARE, AND THE SECOND IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
MS. HAYDEN ASKED YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VI VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, BUT I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR, I HEARD AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR THAT IT WAS NOT A PROBLEM.
THE REASON WE HAVE, I, I'M GONNA BE, I'M GONNA BE, I'M GONNA TRY TO BLIP HERE.
THE VISIBILITY AND MS. HAYDEN COULD SPEAK BETTER TO THIS OR A PROFESSIONAL STAFF, BUT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE TO PROTECT THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THOSE ENTERING
[00:50:01]
AND EXITING.IS THAT A FAIR WAY OF SAYING IT, MS. DUNN? I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO A B LIB HERE, AND I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM YOU AS THE APPLICANT AS PART OF YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF TO NEGATE THAT THERE IS NOT A VISIBILITY PROBLEM.
WELL, I, I, I DON'T FEEL THAT THERE'S A VISIBILITY PROBLEM.
UM, I, I, I, I, I'VE DEFINITELY HEARD THE REMARKS FROM MY, MY NEIGHBOR HERE, AND HE'S DEFINITELY INDICATED THAT THERE IS A VISIBILITY ISSUE.
UM, BUT THERE IS, UH, UH, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER, I GUESS, A FENCE THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED NEXT TO MINE, WHICH IS MORE OF A SOLID WOODEN FENCE, UH, WHICH I THINK PRESENTS IN, I THINK IT HAS SLATS, IF I REMEMBER LOOKING AT IT.
BUT IT PREVE PRESENTS, UH, VISIBILITY, IN MY OPINION, IT'S SOME VISIBILITY RESTRICTION AS WELL.
UM, I, I'M, I CAN'T TECHNICALLY SPEAK TO THE, UM, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ITSELF, BUT, UH, I, I DON'T FEEL THAT THE COLUMNS ARE NECESSARILY RESTRICTION ON FROM, FROM A VIEWPOINT WHEN YOU'RE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY.
UM, WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE FENCE HEIGHT AND ARE CRITERIA OF NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST? SO THE FENCE HEIGHT, UH, I BELIEVE IS SIX FEET, UH, ADVERSARY EFFECT TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THE EXACT WORDING, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECTING, YES, THAT'S OUR CRITERIA.
THE A NOT ADVERSARY ADVER A NOT ADVERSE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, YOU HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE SPEAKING THAT IT WAS ADVERSE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
SO I'M, THIS IS PART OF THE GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US THE OTHER SIDE TO THAT.
WELL, I, I MEAN, I, IN GENERAL, I FEEL THAT THE, THAT OUR FENCE AND GATE MAKES THE STREET MORE ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE BUILT A, A BRAND NEW HOME, AND I, I REALIZE THAT THERE ARE NOT AS MANY HOMES ON OUR STREET THAT LOOK LIKE OURS.
BUT I, I FEEL THAT JUST IN LOOKING AT THE, THE AESTHETICS OF THE FENCE, IT'S, UM, IT ADDS A VERY CLASSIC CHARACTER TO THE STREET.
AND IT, IT, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A MIX OF OLD AND NEW HOMES, SO THERE'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT STYLE HOMES.
THERE'S GONNA BE SOME LARGE HOMES, SMALL HOMES, UM, AND THE, THE FENCE IS JUST AN ADDED PIECE TO GIVE THAT HOME THAT ADDITIONAL CHARACTER.
UM, AND I, I REALIZE NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME OPINION AS I MAY ON STYLE.
EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT TASTES.
UM, SO THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DEFINITELY GONNA BE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE WHAT I HAVE AS FAR AS DEFENSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT OR SPEAKERS IN FAVOR, OR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, WHETHER IT BE ONLINE OR PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBERS? NO, THERE'S OTHER SPEAKERS, SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS TO ANY OF THOSE SPEAKERS? I HAVE COMMENTS, BUT THAT WILL, I'LL SAVE THOSE FOR DISCUSSION.
SO COMMENTS, UH, RELATING TO A MOTION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN? MR. NA? UH, THIS IS IN 2 2 3 0 3 7.
UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 3 7 ON APPLICATION OF ANISH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY NICK GEORGE, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH HIGH FENCE WITH PREJUDICE BASED ON OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THIS APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
IT, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. NA IN 2 2 3 0 3 7, UM, TO DENY, UH, THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT WITH PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MR. NA COMMENTS ON THE MOTION.
UM, I'M, UH, VERY FAMILIAR WITH, UH, THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, UH, MIDWAY HOLLOW, WHERE I HAVE PERSONALLY RESIDED FOR MORE THAN 33 YEARS.
UH, IN MY OPINION, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED, UH, TO, UH, TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ESTABLISHING THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UM, THE FENCE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT TO DO SO.
UH, FURTHERMORE, FRONT YARD SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND FENCES OF THIS HEIGHT ARE NOT THE NORM IN MIDWAY HOLLOW, NOR DO THEY COMPORT WITH
[00:55:01]
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.UM, AND I, UH, THERE'S ALSO, UH, IN THE, IN OUR BRIEFING, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION.
UM, MR. KUMAR SAID THAT THERE WAS, UH, QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT, BUT THERE CERTAINLY IS AS MUCH OPPOSITION, UH, TO THIS APPLICATION AS THERE IS SUPPORT.
SO THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON THAT I'M VOTING, UH, TO DENY THIS WITH PREJUDICE.
ONE SECOND, MS. HAYDEN, I'M GONNA GO TO YOU ON THE SCREEN.
I, WE HAD ASKED THE STAFF TO START PUTTING THE CRITERIA IN OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS UP, SO IT'S VERY VISIBLE IN FRONT OF US AS WE MOVE FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION TO THE MOTION PORTION, AND THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS TO MEMBERS.
I WANT, WE WANT THAT EVERY TIME.
MS. DUNN, PLEASE GOING FORWARD, GET THAT CRITERIA UP.
OKAY, MS. HAYDEN? I AGREE WITH MR. NARI.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVEN THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, SO THAT'S WHY I AM VOTING TO DENY.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? I JUST WANT TO ILLUSTRATE YES, MR. COMB.
I WANT TO ILLUSTRATE AGAIN, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE THE BASIS, UH, BACK UP THE IMPACT OF A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE MEANS THAT THE APPLICANT OR ANY APPLICANT ON A CASE THAT WE, WE, UH, VOTE IS THERE'S A TWO YEAR DELAY BEFORE THEY CAN REFILE UNLESS THEY COME BACK TO US FOR A WAIVER.
I'M NOT LOBBYING ONE OR THE OTHER.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE, UH, IMPACT OF A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
MR. HOLCOMB? UM, YEAH, I, I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS WITH PREJUDICE.
I WOULD BE, UM, IN FAVOR OF A MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UH, I THINK DENIAL IS THE RIGHT CHOICE.
HOWEVER, UM, I'M NOT WILLING TO FULLY CLOSE THE DOOR IN THIS CASE.
THANK YOU MR. HOLCOMB DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.
JUST A SECOND, MR. NA, I THINK I HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER WANTING TO SPEAK.
I LIKE TO DO ROUND ROBIN HERE, MR. SAO.
AND, UM, I'M, I'M TROUBLED WITH THE, WITH PREJUDICE, UH, SPEAK TO US.
AND, UH, I FEEL THAT THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME REMEDY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, THE, THE SIX FOOT IS PROBLEMATIC.
UH, I'M NOT REALLY CONVINCED THAT IT IS COMME COMMISERATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, OF THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO IT, IT DOESN'T REALLY, AS IT'S BUILT TODAY, REALLY MEET CRITERIA ON A LOT OF LEVELS.
BUT, UM, I WOULD SUPPORT DENIAL WITHOUT, UM, ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A REMEDY FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, AND NOT HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS.
MADE THE MOTION SECONDED YOU COMMENT.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO PREEMPT COMMENTS.
I'M A LITTLE TORN NOW, CUZ I ORIGINALLY WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MOTION TO DENY WITH WITHOUT, WITH PREJUDICE, BUT THAT'S A HARSH REMEDY.
AND THIS ONE MEMBER UTILIZES THAT REMEDY.
WHEN I, THIS, THIS IS JUST ME.
I USE, I THAT REMEDY WHEN IT'S, I THINK SOMEONE HAS, HAS WOEFULLY FAILED TO PROVIDE BURDEN AND THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT AND WE'RE TOTALLY CLOSING THE DOOR, OR I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT, I DIDN'T SAY THIS APPLICANT AND APPLICANT HAS ABUSED THE PROCESS OR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
I JUST TO HAVE IT WITH PREJUDICE IS A STIFF WALL.
SO I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR FROM MR. NE AND MS. HAYDEN ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHY, AND I TOTALLY AGREE, IT'S DENIAL.
THE QUESTION IS WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR THE TWO OF YOU, YOUR FEEDBACK, MR. NE.
IN, IN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE TESTIMONY OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE, WHO'VE SPOKEN BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY, UM, IT JUST STRUCK ME THAT, UM, THAT, THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT OR HIS CONTRACTOR REALLY DID NOT, UM, UM, GO ABOUT CONSTRUCTING THIS PROPERLY.
THERE'S BEEN VERY, UH, LITTLE REGARD FOR THE NEIGHBORS, UH, APPARENTLY THROUGHOUT THE TWO, TWO TO TWO AND A HALF YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WITH, UH, SOME INSTANCES BEING MENTIONED JUST RECENTLY.
UM, I THINK AS OF SATURDAY OR SOMETHING, UH, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE, UH, PEOPLE SAID.
SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S THAT KIND OF WILLFUL, UM, NEGLECT, I GUESS, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, DURING THIS, UH, AN EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION PROCESS THAT PUSHED ME OVER THE EDGE FROM DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
[01:00:01]
IF IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD, I WOULD BE WILLING TO AMEND MY MOTION AND, UM, UH, CONSIDER A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.UH, I'M, I HAVE A COMMENTS, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM MS. HAYDEN FIRST AND THEN OTHERS.
I MEAN, I'M, I DO DEFINITELY BELIEVE THAT THIS, THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED.
UM, IT'S JUST THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW I THINK IS WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I I FEEL LIKE, UM, THERE DEFINITELY, UM, WAS NOT SHOWN THAT THIS DIDN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY FROM SOME OF THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
UM, BUT I, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME LENIENCY AT LEAST, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF LENIENCY IS THE WORD, BUT SOME, SOME, UM, I GUESS OPINION THAT, UM, THEY CAN COME BACK, UH, NOT WAIT THE TWO YEAR PERIOD, UM, BUT STILL DENY THE, THE APPLICATION I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT AS WELL.
MY HESITANCY, NOW I'M FLIPPING THE OTHER DIRECTION.
MY HESITANCY ABOUT DOING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS THIS EXTENDS THIS AGONY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND, UH, AS I THINK WE WERE ADVISED DURING OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, WHEN A CASE IS PENDING, ALL ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS STATE.
ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAID, MR. ATTORNEY? WHEN THERE IS AN ACTIVE CASE THAT IS IN THE PROCESS OF COMING TO THIS BODY THERE, YES, THERE'S A, THERE'S A STAY ON ENFORCEMENT.
SO NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAD BLATANT DISREGARD FOR PERMITTING.
I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO THINK OTHERWISE.
NUMBER TWO, FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD, THE APPLICANT HAD BLATANT DISREGARD FOR AFTER HOURS AND OTHER ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
UM, AND I WORRY THAT, UH, WE PUT THIS, IF WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WE ARE PROLONGING THE AGONY AS OPPOSED TO REALLY FORCING RESOLUTION.
YEAH, I, I'M, I COULD BE CONVINCED EITHER WAY.
JUST REMINDER, IT TAKES FOUR VOTES TO, FOR ANYTHING TO BE A, TO, FOR US TO ISSUE AN ORDER.
MR. HOLCOMB, SO, UH, MECHANICAL QUESTION THEN.
SO WITH PREJUDICE, IF THEY FILED TOMORROW FOR A, FOR A OFFENSE THAT THEY, THEY CAN DO FOUR FOOT BY, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO IF THEY FILE FOR FOUR FOOT ONE, THEY'RE BLOCKED FROM THAT BECAUSE IT'S CONSTRUCTIVELY THE SAME ONE, OR WHAT'S LIKE AT WHAT LEVEL? LIKE HOW MANY DEGREES OF BLOCKING ARE WE DOING? BECAUSE I, YEAH, I WOULD SPECULATE THAT THE NEIGHBORS MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON A FOUR FOOT FENCE VERSUS SIX FOOT FENCE.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, MR. HOLCOMB, YOU'RE ASKING THE TWO YEAR, IF IT'S A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION WILL KICK IN.
THE QUESTION IS CAN THEY FILE, THEY CAN FILE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
HOW DIFFERENT DOES IT HAVE TO BE? YES, THAT'S THE QUESTION.
BUT HOW COULD THEY, I'M SORRY.
WELL, SO THEY CAN'T FILE, THEY CAN, THEY COULD FILE A VARIANCE, THEY COULD FILE SOMETHING ELSE.
IT'S JUST, AND I'M PULLING UP THE, THE BLUE BLUE BOOK.
THE BLUE BOOK, HE MEANS THE CODE, SO IT CAN BE NO FURTHER REQUEST ON THE SAME OR RELATED ISSUES IS THE STANDARD.
SO, SO A FENCE, FENCE OF LIKE FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THAT BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, RIGHT? I, I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S A RELATED ISSUE.
SO, SO THIS IS BASICALLY BLOCKING FENCE, HEIGHT AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
WELL, THE OTHER MOTION, MY MISTAKE, MY MISTAKE MAY JUST MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
IT IS NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT OBSTRUCTION WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ONLY 30 INCHES.
WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE, UM, FOUR FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
BUT NOTHING IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
UH, SO, UH, UH, SO THEY CANNOT PUT ANYTHING IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, CORRECT? WE, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE AS DEFINED AS, OKAY.
SO OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DEAL? MY, MY, MY CONCERN IS THE CONTINUATION OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES AND THE AGONY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, AND I RESPECTFULLY, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU AND OR YOUR GENERAL CONTRACTOR, AND I'M NOT GONNA POINT TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, I'M GONNA POINT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
[01:05:01]
IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD TO PERMIT FOR A HOME, BUT NO OFFENSE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THAT, DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT.I MADE THAT COMMENT TO THE HINTERLANDS SO THAT I'M, I'M, I GO BACK TO MR. NE'S PERSPECTIVE THAT NOTHING I'VE HEARD THUS FAR HAVE I, HAS MADE ME THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN, BECAUSE IF WE, I'LL BE QUIET IN A SECOND.
IF WE MOVE TO DENY WITH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, I GUESS THE NEXT STEP IS THE APPLICANT COULD FILE ANOTHER REQUEST WITH ANOTHER SITE PLAN.
AND THIS PROLONGS THE EXISTING ILLEGAL STRUCTURES AND THE EXISTING VISIBILITY TRIANGLE CHALLENGES WHEN WE GET TO THAT ISSUE, DEPENDING ON WHAT WE DECIDE ON THAT ISSUES.
I'M, I'M AN ANGST ABOUT THIS, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
UH, MR. WILL YOU SPOKE A SECOND HERE, MR. NE, OR MR. MS. HAYDEN? AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK.
THIS IS ALL, BY THE WAY, NORMAL PROCESS, HAVING THIS PUBLIC DEBATE.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION'S CLOSED, SO, OKAY.
MR. NE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'M WAFFLING OVER HERE.
UM, I, I THINK YOU WERE QUITE ELOQUENT.
UM, AND, AND THAT MIRRORS MY OWN CONCERNS.
AND THAT THERE, IT REALLY JUST, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE SO THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME DEFINITIVE RESOLUTION.
HERE I HAVE MR. SAIK AND MR. HOWK, UM, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THE ATTORNEY? YES, YOU CAN DO THAT.
IF WE, IF WE DENY WITH PREJUDICE WHAT PHYSICALLY IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE PLACE WITH, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.
IS THAT FOR THE ATTORNEY? FOR A BOARD ADMINISTRATOR? ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, MR. SAYO.
IF WE DENY WITH PREJUDICE WHAT IS GONNA HAP TO HAPPEN WITH THE DEFENSE? IF YOU DENY WITH PREJUDICE ANY LETTER THAT WE SEND TO THE APPLICANT REGARDING YOUR DECISION, UM, IT'S COPIED TO COCO COMPLIANCE.
SO IF YOU GRANT A REQUEST, IF YOU DENY A REQUEST, THAT DECISION LETTER SAYS RECORD YOUR ACTION, IT'S COPIED TO BUILDING, INSPECTION AND CODE, AND THEN IT'S, HEY, IF IT'S DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, ANY CASE EXCEPT FOR CODE, IF IT'S ALREADY THERE TO, TO INITIATE, UM, COMPLIANCE, WE'RE DONE WITH IT.
BUT WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, WHAT'S THAT COMPLIANCE MEAN? YEAH.
WHAT DOES THE PHYSICAL COMPLIANCE TEAR IT DOWN? I COULD ANSWER COMP.
MS. DUNN, I'LL GIVE YOU THE FIRST SHOT AT THE ANSWER.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION PLEASE? IF WE DENY WITH PREJUDICE, WHAT IS PHYSICALLY GONNA HAPPEN TO THE FENCE? UH, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT'S GONNA PHYSICALLY HAPPEN.
UH, GONNA HAPPEN TO THE FENCE.
THAT'S AN ENFORCEMENT QUESTION.
AND THAT'S COMMUNITY PROSECUTION.
THAT'S NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
ALL WE DO IS RENDER THE DECISION, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS ONCE THE BOARD DENIES A REQUEST, IT IS SUPPOSED TO COME CODE COMPLIANT WITH WHATEVER THAT CODE STATES IT IS.
AND SO WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE ON THE ENFORCEMENT END WOULD BE A MORE VIABLE QUESTION FOR THEM BECAUSE WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT.
ALL RIGHT? SO, SO I'M GONNA OPINE, I'M NOT A CITY OF, I'M NOT A CITY STAFFER.
THE EVENTUALITIES THAT HAVE TO BE TEARED DOWN CUZ CODE WOULD SAY IT'S AN ILLEGAL FENCE AND THE ENFORCEMENT EVENTUALLY WOULD BE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING, I WOULD THINK CUZ IT'S AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE AND YEAH.
ANYTHING WE DENY IT AND IT'S NOT REMEDIED, IT'S AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE.
WOULD I, IS THAT NOT TRUE? THAT IS TRUE.
OKAY, DID I FIGURE OUT, OH, DID I GO BACK TO YOU, MR. HALCOMB? I, MR. MR. SYKE, THEN I SAID, MR. COME.
I MEAN, I GUESS I JUST WAS GONNA MAKE THE COMMENT THAT, THAT I'M MORE INCLINED, UM, ON, ON THE SECOND MOTION TO, TO, TO BE DENIED WITH PREJUDICES.
IT, YOU KNOW, THE CA AND THIS IS TO CONVINCE ON THE FIRST MOTION, I'M NOT BROACHING INTO THE SECOND MOTION PER SE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE, LIKE THERE ARE REMEDIES LIKE MR. SAIK SAID.
THERE'S REMEDIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, UH, TO, TO AN EVENTUAL FENCE HEIGHT THAT MIGHT WORK.
BUT THE, THE, I I GET HIM WITHDRAWAL VISIBILITY TRIANGLES A SAFETY ISSUE AND GIVEN THE TIGHTNESS OF THE PLOTS, I DON'T SEE HOW, OKAY, SO THE CHAIR'S GONNA ASK FOR THE, THE, THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE TO ASK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THE SECOND TO WITHDRAW A MOTION.
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE SECOND MOTION AND THEN COME BACK TO THE FIRST.
[01:10:01]
NE, ARE YOU, ARE YOU WILLING TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, MS. MS. HAYDEN, ARE YOU WILLING TO WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND? YES, I AM.THE CHAIR RULE CHAIR, UH, RECOGNIZES MR. NE AND MS. HAYDEN, AND WE'RE WITHDRAWING THE FIRST MOTION.
UH, WE'LL GO TO THE SECOND MOTION.
MR. NE, I'M FOLLOWING YOUR LEAD, MR. HALCOMB.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 3 7 APPLICATION OF ANISH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY NICK GEORGE, DENY THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES WITH PREJUDICE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. NE IN BDA 2 23 0 3 7 TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND, SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.
MR. NA, WE'RE SPEAKING ONLY TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE RIGHT NOW, COR, CORRECT.
UM, I, I BASICALLY SECOND, UH, THE, THE COMMENTS OF MR. HOLCOMB, UM, IN THAT, UH, WHILE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T SEE A VISIBILITY PROBLEM DUE TO THE, UM, LEVEL OF OPACITY OF THE FENCE, UM, IT'S, THE COLUMNS OF THE FENCE STILL VIOLATE, UH, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE CODE.
AND, AND MY OPINION THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE, WITH REGARD TO THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTIONS, MS. HAYDEN.
RIGHT? AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS WILL CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT TRAFFIC, IT'S NOT JUST THE CARS, IT'S PEDESTRIANS, IT'S CYCLISTS, IT'S PEOPLE PUSHING STROLLERS DOWN THE SIDEWALK.
AND IF THERE'S ANY REASON THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T BACK OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY AND BE ABLE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, LIKE I SAID, WHETHER IT BE A PEDESTRIAN OR A CYCLIST OR ANYTHING, THEN TO ME THAT CONSTITUTES A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF DENYING IT WITH PREJUDICE.
I'M GONNA MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT TO SAY, MR. HOLCOMB'S COMMENT WAS RIGHT ON IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP THAT WE'RE GIVEN, THE, IS THIS A GOOGLE MAP? IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL THIS? WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS? AN AERIAL.
THIS THING, THIS AERIAL MAP IS, IS PRETTY, IT SHOWS THE, THE, THE NARROWNESS OF THE STREET, THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOTS.
AND I, SO THEREFORE I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MOTION.
UM, SO DISCUSSIONS OF THE MOTION, MR. HOLCOMB? YEAH, I, I I CAN SEE A SCENARIO WHERE, WHERE OFFENSE MAY PLAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY SCENARIO WHERE YOU CAN BLOCK THE VISIBILITY IN THESE NARROW ONES.
IT'S JUST, I JUST DON'T SEE A FEASIBLE WAY THAT THIS CAN BE DONE SAFELY.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO DENY IT WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S A VIABLE SOLUTION HERE.
DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION MR.
UM, AND SO I WOULD AGREE WITH THE MOTION.
UH, I DON'T SEE ANY REMEDY, UH, TO A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUED THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION BY MR. NE, SECONDED BY MS. HAYTON IS TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
MOTION PASSES IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 23 0 3 7.
THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE HAS BEEN DENIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH PREJUDICE.
UM, YOU WILL GET A LETTER A ACCORDING TO THAT FROM OUR BOARD BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
UM, NOW THE OTHER MOTION, NOW YOU CAN, NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST FOR, UH, HEIGHT.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 37 ON APPLICATION OF ANISH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY NICK GEORGE, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT SIX INCH HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE MOTION BY MR. NE IN 2 23 0 3 7 WAS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE SITE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN, MR. NE? UM, YES, I MEAN, JUST BASICALLY MY CONCERNS,
[01:15:01]
UH, WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND THE APPLICANT, UH, HAVE ALREADY BEEN, UM, MENTIONED, UM, DOVETAILING WITH, UH, SOME OF THE CO COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF SOME OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, UM, I AGREED TO, UH, RECONSIDER THIS PARTICULAR, UM, MOTION AND, UH, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO RECONSIDER THIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS FENCE ALL ALONG WAS REALLY THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE.
AND SINCE WE'VE ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION, UM, I, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE AMENABLE IF THE, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WERE TO GET THE BUY-IN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SHOW AND, AND DO A BETTER JOB SHOWING THAT THE FENCE THAT'S PROPOSED DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY SECOND IN THIS.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE, BUT I'M GONNA WAIT TILL WE'RE DONE.
UM, I ANTICIPATE THAT THE BOARD WILL, I, I DON'T KNOW UNTIL THE VO BOARD VOTES, BUT I ANTICIPATE THE BOARD WILL UNANIMOUSLY, UNANIMOUSLY DENY THE REQUEST, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BUT ANY REQUEST THAT COMES FOR THIS WILL COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AND, UM, IT WOULD BE IN THE APPLICANT'S BEST INTEREST TO, TO BE AWARE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE TODAY BECAUSE THE SAME BOARD WILL BE HEARING AGAIN AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR CODE.
THAT CASES COME BACK TO THE SAME BOARD HEARING, UM, THE, THE SAME APPLICATION.
UM, WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES IN GOOD FAITH AND ALSO OUR STANDARD OF, UH, NOT BEING, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES.
UH, AND THAT IS CRITICAL TO OUR, OUR JUDGMENT.
UM, THIS WAS A CLOSE CALL OF SAYING TWO YEARS YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING AND IN THE EFFECT YOU'D HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN.
UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CAN'T HAPPEN THE NEXT TIME YOU COME.
SO, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE IN WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I APPRECIATE OUR TIME IN, IN DISPOSING WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE.
UH, I COULD BE PERSUADED TO DO THE WITH PREJUDICE, BUT I THINK THE, THAT'S A HARSH REMEDY AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT CUZ THAT'S TAKING AWAY RIGHTS AND I, I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.
SO, UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. NE? DID YOU HAVE ONE? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN? I, I WOULD JUST SECOND WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SAID, UM, THAT IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD, UH, THAT WE REALLY NEED TO SEE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT, UH, ON YOUR BEHALF, UH, THAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND ADDRESSED ANY CONCERNS AND ASSUAGE THOSE CONCERNS WHEN, WHEN COMING BACK.
HEARING NO OTHER COMMENTS? UH, THE BOARD, UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MOTION PASSES IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 23 0 3 7.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE ZERO DENIED THE REQUEST SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE DEFENSE HEIGHT.
UM, YOU WILL BE GETTING A LETTER BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY, UH, TO EVIDENCE THAT DECISION OF THE BOARD TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SPEAKING AND COMING TO IT.
THE, THE CASE IS CLOSED FOR THAT.
UM, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT OUR NEXT HEARING IS MAY 16TH.
IT'LL BE IN THE CHAMBERS HERE AT 10 30 IN THE MORNING.
UM, YOU'LL GET YOUR BRIEFING MATERIALS FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY SEVEN DAYS OUT.
I'VE ASKED HER TO PUT IT IN RED AND FLASHING LIGHTS.
TRINA SAID PUT IT IN FLASHING LIGHTS.
NO, SHE DIDN'T SAY THAT, BUT, BUT STEVE DID SAY YES.
STEVE DID SAY SHE PUT YOU PUT 'EM IN RED ONCE BEFORE MS. DUNN.
SHERMAN NEWMAN, THEY DON'T GET AN ACTION LETTER TODAY.
I SAID YOU WILL, YOU WILL, WILL BE.
I MEANT TO SAY YOU WILL BE GETTING A LETTER.
I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA SAY TODAY, BUT YOU WERE GETTING A LETTER SHORTLY.
I THINK I MEANT TO SAY SHORTLY.
I JUST WANT TO, WE WANT TO HAVE IN OUR HEARINGS, UH, FINALITY IN COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHAT IS NEXT, WHAT THE DECISION MADE IS AND WHAT THEY SHOULD EXPECT.
WHETHER IT'S A A POSITIVE LETTER OR
[01:20:01]
A NEGATIVE LETTER, THEY'RE GONNA GET ONE FROM, AND I WILL ALWAYS SAY THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, IF YOU DELEGATE THAT, THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS.BUT IT'S FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR BASED ON THE BOARD ACTION.
SO MAY 16TH, THAT'S A TUESDAY.
10:30 AM DID I SAY THAT ALREADY? OH, OKAY.
MAY 16TH, TUESDAY WITH RED TRINA LAW FLASHING LIGHTS
WELL, A BRIEFING THAT WHAT, WHAT TIME IT WAS IT, STOP IT,
HEARING NO OTHER ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD, IT'S 2:20 PM ON THE 18TH OF APRIL, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL IS HEREBY ADJOURNED.