[00:00:04]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on June 20, 2023.]
GOOD AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN, AND I SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL A OF THE BOARD.
IT IS TUESDAY, THE 20TH OF JUNE AT 1:00 PM AND WE ARE HEREBY CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
UH, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, THIS MORNING WE MET FROM 10 30, UH, TO ABOUT 1215 FOR A, A BRIEFING FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF.
THIS PUBLIC HEARING THIS AFTERNOON NEEDS TO GET FEEDBACK, UH, PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND THEN FEEDBACK ON INDIVIDUAL CASES AS POSTED ON OUR AGENDA SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE, UH, MEETING.
UH, BEFORE I BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENCE FOR THAT TIME.
WE'RE GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED COFFEE IN THE MORNING AND JASON'S DELI FOR LUNCH, BUT, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE THAT'S A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE ILLEGAL USE.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED DOCKET AGAIN, THAT WE GET SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
AND ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEBSITE, PART OF OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE IS THE FULL DOCKET IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ALL HEARINGS.
ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, MS. MARY WILLIAMS. MARY, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? THANK YOU.
UM, WHEN YOUR, AND 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 THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY, UH, WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT SHORTLY AFTER THE HEARING BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, AND WE BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
LASTLY, ALL PEOPLE REGISTER TO SPEAK ON THE CASES TODAY, WHETHER ONLINE OR IN PERSON WILL BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER FOR THE CA THE STAFF AND ALSO, UH, BE SWORN, UH, BEFORE ADDRESSING THE BOARD.
UH, EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL HAVE, UM, THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL ADVISE MYSELF AS THE CHAIRMAN AS TO THOSE TIME INVOLVEMENTS.
UM, ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKER MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX.
ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE OUR PANEL AGAIN.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER FOR PANEL A.
TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS MEMBER KATHLEEN DAVIS AND THEN PHIL SAUK, AND THEN ANDREW FINNEY.
AND THEN LAWRENCE COMB, TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY EMERITUS, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL MOORE.
TO HIS RIGHT IS NIKKI DUNN, CHIEF PLANNER AND BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
CAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, SENIOR PLANNER, UH, GIANNA BRIDGES SENIOR PLANNER.
SHE'S OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THAT INTAKE PROCESS.
AND THE NORA COSTA, UH, WHO ALSO IS A DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST.
UM, THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE INTRODUCTIONS FOR TODAY.
UM, IF YOU ARE WANTING TO SPEAK TODAY, EITHER THROUGH PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOMENTARILY OR SPEAKING DURING ANY ONE OF THE CASES, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SLIP OF PEPPER.
UH, MS. MARY, WOULD YOU THROW UP IN THE AIR OF THAT BLUE SHEET OF PAPER SO THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILL THAT BLUE SHEET OF PAPER OUT AND GIVE IT TO MARY? SO IF YOU HAVEN'T YET, PLEASE DO SO.
SO OUR FIRST ITEM FOR THE THE BOARD IS PUBLIC HEARING.
MS. MARY, DO, UH, MS. WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
ARE THERE ANY PEOPLE REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTER.
THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMS. UM, HEARING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WE GO TO OUR AGENDA BOARD MEMBERS.
LET ME PREVIEW, LET ME PREVIEW THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
UH, WE'RE GONNA REVIEW OUR MEETING MINUTES, THEN I REQUEST FOR TWO, UH, YEAR LA LIMITATION WAIVER.
WE HAVE ONE CASE THAT THIS MORNING THE, THE BOARD DECIDED TO KEEP ON THE CONSENT DOCKET.
THAT'S, UH, 2 23 0 4 8 AND MC ON MCCALLUM.
WE WILL HEAR THAT FOR, WE WON'T HEAR THAT.
THAT'LL BE CONSIDERED IN AS A CONSENT ITEM.
AND THEN, UM, 56, 50, 54, 61, AND 52 WILL ALL BE PART OF THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL CASE DOCKET IN THAT ORDER.
SO WE WILL START OFF IN A MOMENT WITH OUR MEETING MINUTES, THEN THE ISSUE OF THE WAIVER REQUEST.
THEN WE WILL GO TO THE CONSENT DOCKET OF 48, WHICH IS ON MCCALLUM.
THEN WE WILL GO TO GENTRY, FRANKFURT, LOVERS MACROOM, AND THE ROUND ROCK.
[00:05:01]
QUESTIONS SEEMING NO.NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 16TH.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 16TH BE APPROVED.
SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 16TH.
THOSE OPPOSED NEEDY MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A MISCELLANEOUS ITEM REQUEST.
UM, THIS IS A REQUEST BDA 2 0 1 0 9 BDA 2 0 1 9 OH AT 86 27 LAKEMONT DRIVE, 86 27.
LAKE MONT DRIVE IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
HOW ARE YOU? OH, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT LIGHT'S ON.
SO OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN, UM, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN, UH, WE'LL GET SWORN IN FIRST AND THEN NAME AND ADDRESS.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE SAY I DO.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
1414 BELLEVUE STREET, SUITE ONE 50, DALLAS, TEXAS 75,215 HERE REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAD THIS APPROVED BY THE PANEL BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2019.
AND THAT APPROVAL, PART OF THE APPROVAL WAS WE HAD TO OBTAIN A PERMIT WITHIN 180 DAYS.
AND WE ALSO HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS THAT WE HAD SHOWN PANEL A AT THAT TIME.
THE 180 DAYS THINGS HAPPENED, UH, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT, BUT WITH THE SITE PLAN THERE HAD BEEN SOME CHANGES WITH THAT AS WELL.
ON THE ORIGINAL, WE SHOWED A CIRCULAR DRIVE AND THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED.
WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO APPROVE THE NEW SITE PLAN.
SO THERE ARE CHANGES SINCE THE PANEL APPROVED IT ORIGINALLY TO THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.
SO I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT CHANGES WITH THE LAND BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
UH, BEFORE WE, UH, ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL REGARDING THE REQUEST, I'M ASKED OUR BOARD ATTORNEY TO REREAD THE CRITERIA THAT WE WILL DETERMINE THIS REQUEST.
CHAIRMAN, ONCE THE DEFI, UH, FINAL DECISION HAS REACHED, BEEN REACHED BY THE BOARD, NO FURTHER REQUESTS ON THE SAME OR SIMILARLY RELATED ISSUES MAY BE CONSIDERED, BUT THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE TWO YEAR TIME LIMITATION.
IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A NEW HEARING, THIS CAN BE DONE BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
SO IT'S A, UH, SO WHEN AND IF WE VOTE, IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
SO OF THE FIVE OF US HERE, IT'S MAJORITY QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL TO THE APPLICANT.
HEARING NO QUESTIONS, THE CHAIR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER B D A 2 0 1 0 91 ON APPLICATION OF AUDRA BUCKLEY.
GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO WAIVE THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION ON THE FINAL DECISION REACHED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2021 BECAUSE THERE ARE CHANGE CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TOMORROW IN NEW HEARING.
IT'S BEEN MOVED IN BDA 2 0 1 0 91 TO GRANT, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
IT'S, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES AND I I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T GRANT THIS REQUEST.
MR. SAUK, ANY QUESTION OR ANY DISCUSSION? UH, NO.
AND SAME CRITERIA THAT, UH, THERE ARE CHANGES AND, UH, IT WILL COME BACK BEFORE AND BE HEARD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? UH, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE A RECORDED VOTE IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 0 1 0 9 1.
THE THE MOTION IS TO GRANT, UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY MR. HOLCOMB AYE.
IT'S MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 0 1 0 9 1.
IT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR YOU TO REAPPLY, SO THANK YOU.
WE'RE MOVING TO, UH, THE CONSENT DOCKET.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, THERE'S ONLY ONE CASE THAT WAS LEFT ON THE CONSENT DOCKET.
UH, THIS IS BDA 2 23 0 48 AT 68 21 MCCALLUM 68 21 MCCALLUM.
UH, AS IS OUR PROCEDURE, UH, IT IS THE DISCRETION OF ANY MEMBER TO
[00:10:01]
PULL THE ITEM FROM THE CONSENT DOCKET.UM, IS THERE ANY DESIRE FOR, FOR ANYONE TO DO SO AT THIS TIME? OTHERWISE, WE'LL PROCEED AT, UH, AS THAT ITEM IN THE CONSENT DOCKET.
SO THEREFORE THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. HALCOMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE, THAT THE APPLICATIONS SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WT BDA 2 23 DASH 0 4 8 APPLICATION OF ALAN TOMAS, FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE SITE.
REQUIREMENTS IN THE DOWS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN ELEVATION IS REQUIRED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
WE, UH, SO, UH, I'VE BEEN ADVISED BY OUR BOARD OF ATTORNEY THAT THE, THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ALTERNATE LAND LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE MOTION.
SO IF YOU WOULD, UH, JUST SAY THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION TO DELETE THAT LAST, UH, AS THERE WAS AN ERROR HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED ALTERNATE LIGHT LANDSCAPE PLAN AS REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HALCOMB IN BDA 22 348 TO GRANT SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN ELEVATION.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? I, ANDREW, MR. MR. FINNEY SECONDED THE MOTION, UH, BEFORE WE HAVE A DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, JUST FOR THE, IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY, MR. THOMAS? OKAY.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE PROCEDURE, WHEN A CASE IS LEFT ON THE CONSENT DOCKET, THERE'S NO NEED FOR, UH, A CONVERSATION AND THAT SORT OF THING.
UH, IT'S A CONSENSUS THAT THERE'S NO ISSUE AND IT GETS TYPICALLY APPROVED IN NA NOT ALWAYS, BUT, SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE NOT BEING CALLED TO THE MICROPHONE, THAT SORT OF THING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.
YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT BEING IGNORED, SIR.
UH, WHO MADE THE MOTION? MR. HOW COME? UH, YEAH.
UH, AS, AS WE REVIEWED IN THE BRIEFING EARLIER, IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, THAT THIS MEETS ALL THE STANDARDS AND IS, UH, UM, A REASONABLE REQUEST AND THEREFORE, UH, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS IN LINE AND WE SHOULD PASS IT.
MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION? UM, I, I JUST, I AGREE.
UH, PER OUR DISCUSSIONS EARLIER, IT SEEMS THAT, UM, THAT, UH, EVERYTH THE REQUEST IS REASONABLE, SO THANK YOU.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE WILL GO TO A VOTE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MR. HAWKIN? AYE.
MOTION PASSES BY ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 22 3 0 48.
THE APPLICATION'S BEEN GRANTED.
YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR STAFF SHORTLY.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 2 3 0 56 BDA 22 3 0 56.
THIS IS AT FOUR 14 A GENTRY DRIVE.
UM, I'VE BEEN ADVISED BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A TRANSLATOR.
IS THAT CORRECT, MS. WILLIAMS? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO I'LL LET YOU FACILITATE AND NOW ATTEMPT MY MINIMAL SPANISH WHEN NECESSARY.
HOW MANY MINUTES MR. FIVE MINUTES? IS THE FIVE MINUTES? OH, YOU GET DOUBLE.
ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, YOU THERE'S DOUBLE BECAUSE CUZ OF THE TRANSLATION.
SO IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN, FIRST OF ALL, WELCOME.
AND, UH, THE PERSON NEEDS TO BE SWORN IN AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN CONSOLIDATE.
A TIME IS 10 MINUTES, BUT WE'LL SWEAR AT FIRST.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE SAY I DO.
UH, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
ALMA GUTIERREZ, 41 48 GENTRY DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75 20 12.
WE'LL SEE IF, WE'LL SEE IF MS. WILLIAMS PASSES MY SPANISH
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY CASE
[00:15:05]
MUTUAL.WE ARE A FAMILY OF FIVE AND WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED A PERMISSION TO HAVE OUR FENCE.
THE FENCE HAS A GATE THAT OPENS AND CLOSES SO THAT WE CAN LEAVE AND COME INTO OUR HOME.
WE'VE HAD THAT FOR A LONG TIME.
WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC OR ANYTHING ELSE.
UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH OUR GATE THAT OPENS AND CLOSES AND CONTINUE TO HAVE IT FUNCTION THE WAY IT DOES.
UM,
IS THAT, WAS THAT CLOSE ENOUGH, MARY? OKAY.
UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS, WHEN WAS THE FENCE BUILT? 2014.
SO WHEN THE FENCE WAS BUILT, WAS IT COMPLIANT? YES.
HOW COULD IT, HOW COULD THAT BE IF IT, HAS IT CHANGED? HAS THE FENCE CHANGED BETWEEN WHEN IT WAS BUILT AND WHAT IT IS NOW? IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE ENTRANCE, THE GATE THAT OPENS AND CLOSES.
UH, HOW THE THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE TODAY? I MEAN, WE WE'RE CONFUSED BECAUSE IT'S NOT COMPLIANT.
SO HOW IS THIS BUILT, UM, WITH, WITH THESE TRIANGLES NOT BEING COMPLIANT WITH THE STANDARD? GO GO A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, MADAM TRANSLATOR, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU TRANSLATE BACK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR, THIS IS ALL RECORDED AND WE WANNA HEAR EVERY WORD.
UH, THE PERMISSION THAT WE HAD ACTUALLY EXPIRED IN 2016.
I, BECAUSE OF MY LANGUAGE BARRIER WAS NOT UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I HAD TO CALL AND INSPECTOR OUT TO COME APPROVE OF IT.
AND NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN A TRIANGLE OF VISIBILITY THAT, UH, WE'RE, WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, BUT WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES OF THAT KIND.
UH, OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. HOLCOMB? AND, UH, OR DID MS. DAVIS, DID YOU FINISH FOR RIGHT NOW? OKAY, GO AHEAD, MR. HALL.
I, I, I THINK I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM.
SO THE GATE WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2014, AND IT'S ONLY, UM, LATER WHEN IT WAS FOUND OUT, IT WAS LACKING AN INSPECTION THAT IT WAS DISCOVERED IT WAS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
[00:20:01]
TRAFFIC IN INCIDENTS, ACCIDENTS ALONG THAT PARALLEL STREET CANADA DRIVE? NEVER OR ON THE INTERSECTION GENTRY DRIVE? NO, NEVER.HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE? UH, ALMOST NINE YEARS.
SO YOU BUILT THE FENCE AFTER YOU MOVED THERE C THAT'S CORRECT.
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS, ANY GUYS, ANYTHING ELSE? AND THEN I'LL GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO CONFIRM.
SO YOU, YOU BUILT THE FENCE KNOWING THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE COMPLIANT WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES? NO, NO, I WAS NOT AWARE, I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THE NEEDS WITH THE TRIANGLE, UH, VISIBILITY.
UH, THE GENTLEMAN THAT WE HAD TO BUILD EVERYTHING, UH, HE BUILT IT ACCORDING TO WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE CODE WAS.
AND SEVERAL OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE THE EXACT SAME FENCE AS WELL.
MR. HOLCOMB, DO ANY OF THOSE NEIGHBORS ALSO HAVE A GATE AS A PORTION OF THE FENCE? UM, BECAUSE THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT SO MUCH THE FENCE, IT'S THE GATE AND THEREFORE THE AXIS AND THEREFORE THE EFFECT ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
ABOUT HOW MANY? I'VE SEEN ABOUT THREE OR FOUR.
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE STAFF THAT CAN GIVE ME A, AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TRIANGLE? THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF, MS. NIKKI, MS. DUNN, I CAN GIVE YOU VERBIAGE FOR, UH, A 20 BY 20 VISIBILITY.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS HEADED TOWARDS.
SO IF I LOOK ON THIS TRIANGLE HERE, HOW FAR INTO THE STREET DOES THAT, I'M WONDERING HOW FAR FEET THAT'S 20 FEET FROM ONE END OF THE TRIANGLE TO THE OTHER? NO, FROM THE, UH, THE CURB.
FROM THE CURB AT THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I'M ASKING THE STAFF SOME QUESTIONS.
SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS FROM THE 20 FEET, MS. DUNN THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THAT THE LONG OF THE TRIANGLE OR THE, THE SLOPE OF THE TRIANGLE OR THE 90 DEGREE OF THE TRIANGLE? NO, IT'S DONE THE LONGER.
OKAY, SO RIGHT THERE, RIGHT FROM RIGHT THERE, YES.
SO HOW FAR IN THE STREET IS THAT TRIANGLE? AND WHAT I'M WONDERING IS HOW MUCH OF A, IS, IS THE STANDARD ALL OR NOTHING? OR IS IT AN INTERPRETATION THEREOF? NO, IT'S, IT'S CODIFIED CODE AND SO THERE'S NO INTERPRETATION.
AND SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I WOULD HAVE TO SCALE IT TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH IS IN THE STREET.
BUT THE STANDARD IS 20 FEET NOW.
EXACTLY HOW MUCH IS HERE? WE'RE GONNA PRESUME THAT IT'S 20 FEET.
AND, AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT IT IS BECAUSE STAFF SCALED IT, THE SCALE WHEN IT CAME IN AND, UH, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WERE NOT ON THERE WHEN IT CAME IN, THOSE WERE ACTUALLY, UH, ADDED TO IT.
AND MS. DUNN, MR. FINN? UH, YES.
UM, MS. DUNN, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU SAY IT'S 20 FEET FROM THE STREET, DO YOU MEAN 20 FEET FROM FRONT OF CURB OR 20 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO IT HAS TO BE 20 FEET INTO THE PROPERTY FROM THE CURB, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
BUT WE'RE NOT HERE FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
WE ARE HERE FOR THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF, WHICH IS THE FENCE THAT IS SITTING INSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
[00:25:01]
CAN SIT ANYWHERE ONE FOOT INTO IT, 18 FOOT INTO IT, 19 FOOT INTO IT.IT CANNOT SIT WITHIN THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ANYWHERE, NO MATTER WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS.
AND IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS, THE FENCE WAS APPROVED, DID THIS COME HERE AND WAS APPROVED, UH, BUT IT WAS BUILT IN THE TRIANGLE? OR IS THAT NOT THE CASE? LET ME CLARIFY WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
UM, THEY ACTUALLY, THEY CAME IN FOR A FENCE PERMIT, BUT IT WAS FOR THE SIDE AND THE REAR.
UM, SO THE, THAT FRONT ON GENTRY OR CANADA, THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE PERMIT, BUT THAT, AND THAT PERMIT EXPIRED.
THEY NEVER, THEY'RE NOW IN, THEY NOW HAVE COME IN FOR A PERMIT FOR THE FRONT, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR ANYTHING.
SO I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED, MS. DIANA? YEAH.
SO THE, THE APP, SINCE WHEN DOES A VARIANCE THAT WE APPROVE EXPIRE? SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT EXPIRED.
NO, THE PERMIT THAT THEY CAME IN FOR EXPIRED.
I HAD SAID THAT THEY CAME IN FOR A CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
I HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY CAME IN, THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN A PERMIT FOR THAT FENCE.
BUT THAT'S, THAT WAS INCORRECT.
THEY CAME IN FOR A FENCE, BUT IT WAS ONLY FOR THE SIDE AND THE REAR.
BUT THERE'S STILL, THERE'S STILL NO PERMIT FOR THIS, UM, PROPERTY.
THERE'S NO PERMIT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE, AND SO THE SIDE IS ALONG GENTRY AND THEN NO, THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
THEY ONLY CAME IN FOR THE INTERIOR SIDE AND THAT REAR, UM, PORTION.
SO THE INTERIOR SIDE, THAT WOULD BE THE ADJOINING LOT? YES.
AND THEN THE ALLEY SIDE OR THE GENTRY SCREEN SIDE? UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY THERE, BUT ON, UM, FROM THE LOT BEHIND THEM, THE LOT 13, THAT'S WHERE THE OTHER PORTION GOT IT.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY TWO SIDES, BUT I DON'T WANNA MIX YOU UP WITH THAT
BUT, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA CALL IT A REAR.
BUT CANADA WAS, THE CANADA FRONTAGE WAS NEVER APPROVED? NO, SIR.
THAT NEVER CANADA, IT WAS PART THE PERMIT.
HOLD ON ONE SECOND, MR. FINNEY.
UM, SO WHAT, WHAT YOU, WHAT MR. S JUST ASKED WAS THE FENCE THAT IS EXISTING ALONG CANADA WAS NEVER, WAS NEVER PERMITTED.
UH, MR. FINNEY THEN MR. HOLCOMB, MR. FINNEY, UM, MS. BARUM, UH, WHAT IN WHAT INSTANCES IS A FENCE PERMIT REQUIRED AND IS A, IS A PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THIS SECTION OF THE FENCE? THIS IS A SIDE, SO ANYTHING ABOVE SIX FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FOR A PERMIT.
MRS. MR. HOW COME THEN? MRS. MR. HOW COME? UH, AND, AND SO IT NOTES ON HERE THAT THE EXISTING IS EIGHT FOOT.
SO EVEN THOUGH A FENCE COULD BE THERE BY RIGHT, IT'S STILL TOO TALL? NO, UM, IT, IT, THE MAXIMUM FOOT COULD BE UP TO NINE FEET.
BUT TO GET A PERMIT, IT HAD SIX FEET AND ABOVE.
BUT NO PERMIT WAS SECURED FOR THAT, RIGHT? NO.
SO BY RIGHT, WHAT COULD THE FENCE BE BUILT ALONG HAND UP TO NINE FEET BY, RIGHT ON THAT SIDE.
BUT YOU SAID IT HAD TO HAVE A PERMIT.
WERE CONCEIVED AT SIX FEET, YOU HAVE TO COME IN FOR A PERMIT.
SO IF IT'S, UH, IF IT'S FIVE FEET ON A SIDE, THEY WOULD NOT NEED A PERMIT AT SIX FEET.
YOU DON'T HAVE AT SIX FEET, BUT FEET, ANYTHING OVER SIX FEET, ANYTHING SIX AND ABOVE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME IN FOR.
SO IS THE EXPIRED PERMIT THEN WAS PROVIDED FOR THAT ABOVE SIX FEET PART? DIDN'T DISCUSS A GATE, AND NOW WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THE GATE? WELL, THE PERMIT THAT HAD COME IN THAT EXPIRED WAS NOT EVEN FOR THE CANADA OR GENTRY, THAT IT WAS ONLY.
OKAY, SO IT WAS TOTALLY PERMANENT WAS FENCED THEN? EXACTLY, YES.
MR. SEG, WELL THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE WAS ABOVE SIX.
WE'RE HAVING A GOOD DISCUSSION.
MR. FINNEY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
MS. GUTIERREZ, UM, UH, WHEN THIS SECTION OF THE FENCE WAS BEING BUILT, WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERSON YOU HIRED TO BUILD IT WAS HANDLING THE PERMIT PROCESS? I'M THE ONE THAT HANDLED THE PERMIT, UH, TO GET THE PERMIT FOR THE FENCE.
I AM APPROVED TO BUILD THE FENCE.
SO I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED CUZ UH, MS.
IS THAT CORRECT? I HAVE THE PAPER IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
[00:30:01]
WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT.THE, UM, I, I BELIEVE I HAVE A COPY OF THE APPROVED SO THAT I COULD GO OVER THAT WITH YOU.
UH, IF YOU WOULD PASS THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
WE WILL GIVE IT BACK TO YOU OR A COPY OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, I GOT, I GOTTA HAVE THIS ON THE RECORD.
I GOTTA MAKE SURE THIS IS ON THE RECORD.
SO, MS. BARUM HAS BROUGHT OVER A, UM, SCHEMATIC THAT SHOWS WHAT MR. FINNEY, UH, THE SCHEMATIC SHOWS, UH, THAT THE PERMIT IS FOR.
UM, THE SCHEMATIC SHOWS THAT THE PERMIT, UH, EXCLUDES THE SECTION OF FENCE ALONG CANADA DRIVE, WHICH IS THE, THE SECTION OF FENCE THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
SO THAT'S WHAT MS. BARCO SHOWED YOU.
NOW THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE DOCUMENT THAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT OVER VIA THE BOARD SECRETARY? THAT'S WHAT SHE THINKS WAS APPROVED, RIGHT? IS THAT THE NEXT QUESTION? OKAY, MS. DAVIS, IT WAS A PERMIT.
IT SAID APPROVED AND IT BASICALLY SAID FENCE.
MR. NOW, NOW, UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE PERMIT THAT I, I WAS HANDED OVER HERE AND DOES THIS NORMALLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKS WITH, UH, STAFF.
DOES THIS NORMALLY COME WITH ELEVATION? IS THAT THE ELEVATION THAT THIS SCHEMATIC THAT WAS PASSED AROUND.
SO IN THEORY, THIS PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED WITH A SITE PLAN LIKE THAT.
SHE'S GONNA GO BACK TO HER MICROPHONE, RIGHT.
SO THAT SHE CAN GIVE US ON THE RECORD.
MS. BARKER, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? SURE.
SO FOR WHEN THIS PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED, PRESUMABLY IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH AN ATTACHED SITE PLAN.
IS THAT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE? OKAY, SO THAT, THAT SITE PLAN, SORRY.
UH, THE SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED DURING REVIEW AND THEN WE JUST UPLOAD THE DOCUMENTS AND THEN THE APPLICANT ONLY GETS THAT, UM, THEY, THEY, THEY GET THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY POST ON THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT, BUT IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PERMIT APPLICATION, WOULD WE SEE THAT SCHEMATIC THAT YOU PASSED AROUND OR WOULD WE SEE SOMETHING ELSE IS SO, SO THE WHAT IF WE WERE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHEN THIS PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED AND, AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS WHEN THAT DIAGRAM WAS ATTACHED, IS THAT DIAGRAM THE SAME DIAGRAM AS THE DIAGRAM YOU PASSED TO US? YES.
SO, SO THEN WE'RE PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER THAT IN THEORY THIS PERMIT WAS SIMPLY TO PERMIT THE NON CANADA SECTIONS, UH, THE OPPOSITE SIDE AND, AND THE ONE SIDE, AND THAT'S IT.
DID I INTERPRET THAT CORRECT? SORRY.
OKAY, SO, SO I'M I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT, THAT THE DIAGRAM THAT YOU PASSED OUT IS THE ASSOCIATED DIAGRAM FOR THIS PERMIT.
AND SO THEREFORE THE SECTION OF THE FENCE IN QUESTION WAS NOT PERMITTED, WHICH IS THE CONCLUSION WE CAME TO BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FOLLOWING THE SAME CONCLUSION.
A ANOTHER STAFF QUESTION, AND I, I DON'T WANNA LIKE BELABOR, BUT I JUST WANNA CONFIRM.
SO THE APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT DID NOT INCLUDE THIS PART OF THE FENCE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW THAT INCLUDES THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? I'M SORRY.
THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED DID NOT INCLUDE THE PART OF THE FENCE THAT WE ARE NOW DISCUSSING THAT INCLUDES THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
I'M JUST CONFIRMING THAT'S THE CASE.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO VIEW THEIR APPLICATION THAT WAS UPLOADED TO SEE IF ANYWHERE IN THERE IT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE FRONT.
AND I, WE'RE PASSING ALONG THE PERMIT AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND WE'RE GONNA,
[00:35:02]
MAY I ADD SOMETHING? YES, MA'AM.I DID HAVE A SPECIALIST COME OUT TO LOOK AT, AT THE FENCE AS IT IS AND AT THE ENTRANCE GATE.
AND HE SAID THAT AFTER LOOKING AT IT, HE HAS NOT SEEN, CAN'T SEE A WAY TO MOVE THE GATE BACK.
IT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE HOUSE, AND THAT HE HAS NOT SEEN GATES MOVED BACK TOWARD THE HOME IN THAT MANNER THAT ALL THE OTHER GATES ON THE STREET ARE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME WAY.
SO THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN US THIS SYMBOL DOC SI SINGLE DOCUMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2014 THAT JUST SAYS INSTALL FENCE.
IT DOESN'T GIVE ANYTHING ELSE.
I, I'M JUST REFRE SUMMARIZING WHAT THE INFORMATION.
WE HAVE THE DOCUMENT THAT MS. BARUM GAVE US, LOOKS LIKE A SURVEY.
AND ON HERE IT HAS ZONING APPROVED SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONS NOTED.
AND IT HAS ANOTHER STAMPED ITEM ON HERE.
IT SAYS KEEP 20 BY 20 VISIBILITY TRIANGLES CLEAR.
I'M JUST READING WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS.
RIGHT? NO, AND I SEE THAT, UM, ON THE APPLICATION IT SAYS INSTALL EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON SIDES AND REAR.
SO INTERPRETATION, I MEAN, THAT'S A FRONT YARD, BUT IT COULD BE TREATED AS SIDE.
SO I DON'T KNOW, THEY DON'T GIVE US ENOUGH NOTES ON, YOU KNOW, BACK IN 2014 ON WHAT THEY APPROVED, THE FENCE ISN'T SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO HERE, SO THEY ARE SHOWING THAT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, SO WELL, IT'S SAYING KEEP IT CLEAR, BUT EITHER WAY, THIS FENCE, I MEAN IT EXPIRED SO THERE REALLY ISN'T A PERMIT.
BUT IT COULD BE THAT THEY, THAT SHE, THAT'S WHY THE, THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS THAT SHE'S THINKING THAT'S FOR, UM, THE SIDE ON NOT GENTRY, UM, CANADA.
COULD, COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.
MAYBE THAT'S WHY SHE'S THINKING THAT.
UM, BUT EITHER WAY, THE PERMIT WAS EXPIRED.
YOU SAID BEFORE, UH, THEY CAN BUILD UP TO SIX FEET.
BUT THEY STILL, IF THERE'S A GATE, STILL HAVE TO HONOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
INCLUDING WHAT WAS STAMPED ON THIS? CORRECT.
UM, BY RIGHT SIX IT'S BILLED AS EIGHT UHHUH
BUT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS ONLY THE ISSUE OF THE VISIBILITY, NOT THE HEIGHT.
SO MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, SHOULD WE BE TOUCHING THIS GIVEN THAT IT HAS MULTIPLE ISSUES? I MEAN, OR SHOULD WE STICK JUST TO THE VISIBILITY? BECAUSE HOW COULD WE APPROVE SOMETHING ON A VISIBILITY IF WE NOW SEE THAT THE FENCE IS NOT LEGAL OR TELL US WHAT OUR BOUNDARIES ARE? SO THE ONLY THING THAT IS BEFORE THIS BODY, AND THE ONLY THING THAT WAS NOTICED IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND THE STANDARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD CONFORM, CONFORM, CONFORM OUR DISCUSSION TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS FENCE WAS BUILT ILLEGALLY, THEN THAT WOULD BE A, A SEPARATE ACTION.
THEY COULD COME, THEORETICALLY COME BACK AT A LATER DATE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
BUT RIGHT NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WILL CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SO THEY CAN GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THIS.
SO I'M GONNA REPEAT THAT REINTERPRET WHAT OUR BOARD ATTORNEY JUST SAID TO US, TO THE APPLICANT.
AND THEN I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS.
WHAT OUR BOARD ATTORNEY REMINDED US THAT THE CASE IN FRONT OF US IS STRICTLY HAVING TO DO WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE ON CANADA DRIVE AT THE GATE, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A QUESTION PENDING ABOUT WHETHER THE FENCE IS LEGAL OR NOT BECAUSE OF HEIGHT, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY.
SO WE NEED AS A BOARD TO NOT DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
SO NOW I'M GOING BACK TO THE PANEL.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? I'VE GOT MS. DAVIS AND THEN MR. FINNEY, MS. DAVIS.
[00:40:01]
SO I, I THINK THIS IS FOR THE ATTORNEY.SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THE CRITERIA IS WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THIS IS A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
BUT THE REALITY IS THIS WAS BUILT AND SPECIFICALLY THE APPLICANT WAS TOLD TO KEEP THEM CLEAR AND THEY DID NOT KEEP THEM CLEAR.
SO I'M NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE ENTIRE FENCE AND THE, AND YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS LEGAL.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND THE FACT THAT THIS WAS BUILT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD NOT TO BLOCK IT, IF THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD NOT TO BLOCK IT, THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE CODE VIOLATION.
IT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL EX, A SEPARATE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE ONLY SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT IS REQUESTED.
AND THAT IS BEFORE THIS BODY IS THE ONE RELATED TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS.
COULDN'T ONE ARGUE THAT ANY TIME THAT A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS OBSTRUCTED, THAT THAT WOULD CAUSE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, WHICH IS WHY VISIBILITY TRIANGLES EXIST.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING IN FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
WELL PUT MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, MR. FINNEY.
UM, SO ON THE SAME THREAD, UH, MY QUESTION, YOU KNOW, ONE, ONE OF THE FACTORS IS WHETHER OR NOT COMPLIANCE WILL PROVIDE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AM I, AM I CORRECT? NO, SIR, YOU ARE NOT.
THE, THE, IT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
YOU'RE CONFUSING THAT WITH THE VARIANT STANDARD.
SO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS, GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO FLIP TO THE RIGHT PAGE.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHALL GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, THE ITEM WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD THAT IS THE STANDARD AND THE STANDARD OF ADVERSE AFFECT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S STRICTLY THE, THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC HAZARD THAT IS TRAFFIC HAZARD.
SO GUYS, GALS, OUR FOCUS WITH THE APPLICANT IS STRICTLY ON THE ISSUE OF DO WE BELIEVE IN OUR OPINION, THIS REQUEST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OR DOES CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC ACT CORRECT MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? THAT IS CORRECT.
YEAH, YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT AND BUILD YOUR OWN DECISION TREE.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WE REPHRASED.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANTS? DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US? NO.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. HOLCOMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 5 6 ON APPLICATION OF ALMA GUTIERREZ GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OF OBSTRUCTION REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DAOS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
IN THE ITEM IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 23 0 56, MR. HALCOMB HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGARDING THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? LACKING A SECOND.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 56 ON APPLICATION OF ALMA GUTIERREZ DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH, UH, SHOOT, WHICH ONE IS TWO YEARS WITHOUT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT, WITHOUT THEM TO COME BACK WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTED THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD IN THE MATTER OF BDA 22 3056, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I, ANDREW FINNEY SECOND THE MOTION.
THAT'S WHY WE KEEP HIM AROUND FOR A DAY OR TWO.
UH, IT'S BEEN SECOND TO BY MR. FINNEY, AS IS MY CUSTOM.
THEN THE SECOND FOR DISCUSSION, MS. DAVIS, IT'S A TALL, SOLID FENCE AND IT'S IN A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SO I ABSOLUTELY DO BELIEVE THIS IS A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
[00:45:01]
MR. FINNEY? YES, I MEAN THESE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE STANDARDS EXIST FOR A REASON AND, UH, IT IS OUR DUTY TO ENFORCE THEM FOR THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.MR. HOW COME? YEAH, UM, NOT SPEAKING TO ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES AROUND THIS CASE, JUST SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE MATTER IN QUESTION, WHICH, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR EMERITUS ATTORNEY ADVISED US TO STAY FOCUSED ON.
SO, SO FOR THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS CONSISTS OF TRAFFIC HAZARD, UM, THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY THAT THERE HADN'T BEEN ANY ACCIDENTS OUT THERE, THE FACT THAT FROM MY EVALUATION, THE DRAWING, THAT THEY COULD PULL FORWARD AND LOOK BOTH WAYS WITHOUT PULLING INTO THE STREET.
THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT DIDN'T CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
BUT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE RESERVATIONS OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS.
MR. SA DISCUSSION? YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES EXIST FOR A REASON.
UH, AND THAT, UH, IN MY OPINION, THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD TO ALLOW THIS TO REMAIN.
UH, IT IS THE CHAIRMAN'S, UM, OPINION AND I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, I THINK THAT THIS APPLICATION IS COMPLICATED BY THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TODAY, AND THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN FRAME THEIR REAPPROACH.
UH, CUZ IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY WE ARE GOING TO DENY THIS.
I'M NOT SAYING WE WILL OR WILL NOT, BUT IT LOOKS THAT, AND IF AND WHEN THE APPLICANT APPLIES, THEY NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP.
WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION? AS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY SAID IS STRICTLY THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC HAZARDS.
UM, I'M IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH WE HAVE A TRAFFIC, WE HAVE A STANDARD OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
I'M NOT AS ALL OR NOTHING ON THE STANDARD.
THERE'S OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT NOT HERE TODAY WHO'S VERY MUCH A STRONG-WILLED ABOUT THAT.
BUT, UH, I'M, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MOTION AND IN THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT CAME UP.
SO, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THIS BOARD SECRETARY, WOULD YOU CALL FOR A VOTE, PLEASE? MR. HOLCOMB? NAY.
MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO IN THE CASE OF BDA 22 3056 BY A MO VOTE FOUR TO ONE.
THE BOARD DENIES THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
UM, THE, THE EFFECT OF DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MEANS THAT YOU CAN REAPPLY, UM, AT ANY TIME THAT YOU WOULD LIKE.
UM, THAT'S THE, THE GIST OF WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF WILL GIVE YOU ANY OTHER FEEDBACK AS IT RELATES TO OTHER OPTIONS.
I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE AWARE OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP TODAY.
UM, SO CAUSE THAT MAKES IT RELEVANT TO THE BROADER ISSUE.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UM, ONE SECOND.
NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 23 0 52 2 3 0 50.
THIS IS AT 45 23 FRANKFURT ROAD BOULEVARD.
45 23 FRANKFURT BOULEVARD IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
MS. MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? OUCH.
OKAY, SO I'M GONNA BE PERFUNCTORY.
UM, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WAS THIS CASE ADVERTISED? YES.
THIS CASE FOLLOWED ALL OF THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT'S REQUIRED.
ALL THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES WERE, WERE NOTIFIED AND THERE IS NO APPLICANT TO ADVOCATE FOR HIS OR HER CASE.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, OUCH.
IN THE MATTER OF BDA 20 23 0 5 2 3 50.
AND HAS THE STAFF, HAS ANYONE NOTIFIED THE STAFF OF ANY ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO INABILITY TO ATTEND OR PRESENT TODAY? NO, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS OR ANYTHING OR PHONE CALLS.
NO, I'M MOVING ON IN THE MANNER OF, UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 22 3050
[00:50:01]
ON APPLICATION OF CHICK-FIL-A REPRESENTED BY AMANDA BISHOP.DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE CUZ OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY THAT SHOWS THE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE OCCURRENCE OF ARTICLE 10 WILL NOT UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, OR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF AFFECT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
IS THERE SECONDS? I'LL SECOND THAT.
UM, UH, IF THERE'S NOT AN APPLICANT, WE DON'T HAVE A CASE, SO I DON'T FEEL ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO DENY, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
MR. SAUK DISCUSSION? YEAH, I AGREE WITH, UM, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THAT THEY CAN REAPPLY, BUT, UH, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY SOMEONE.
WELL, SO, BUT WHERE ARE THEY? RIGHT, EXACTLY.
SO, MR. HALCOMB, UM, I'LL MAKE SOME, SOME JUST COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD.
I DID NOT FEEL LIKE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN MET THE STANDARD.
I, UH, AT LEAST ABSENT ANY INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT WOULD'VE VOTED TO DENY, UH, AS IT STOOD FROM MY INFORMATION FROM THE BRIEFING.
UM, SO JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
MS. DAVIS? UM, I, I AGREE WITH MR. HOLCOMB.
UH, MY, MY, UM, AGREEMENT WITH THIS MOTION IS NOT BASED ON THE APPLICANT NOT BEING HERE.
I DON'T THINK THEIR SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS ADEQUATE, AND I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THIS SURROUNDING BUSINESSES.
I'M BEING ADVISED BY STAFF THAT THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE.
IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING NOW? UNDER CASSANDRA? IT LOOKS LIKE.
OKAY, MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU'D LET US KNOW.
SO LET'S TAKE A MOMENT AND SEE IF WE, IF THIS PERSON IS, HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR US? IT'S ONLINE.
SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO SPEAK EARLIER.
NANCY, WILL YOU MUTE YOURS? IT'S ON MY COMPUTER.
MS. PAYNE, WE CANNOT SEE OR HEAR YOU IN ORDER FOR YOU TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE BOARD, WE WILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BOTH, BOTH INTER PLAN AND CHICK-FIL-A'S BEHALF.
SO I NEED TO MAKE A MO I NEED TO RE REMOVE MY MO WITHDRAW MY MOTION IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
UH, I REQUEST PRIVILEGE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND.
WITHDRAW MY SECOND NOT ALLOWED TO.
SO I CAN, UM, THE ATTENDEE SPEAK ON THE PRESENTATION RIGHT NOW.
UH, MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU COULD, UM, MOVE ME.
SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
SO WE WILL, UH, SO DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? YES, THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE.
AND YOUR AND YOUR NAME MA'AM? NANCY CARRERE.
WE CANNOT HEAR YOU MS. MS. ROBINSON.
CAN YOU ALLOW ME TO SPEAK? IT'S UNMUTED.
WE CAN'T BARELY WE CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.
IS IT YOUR LAPTOP? I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE ON THIS ONE I CAN WORK NOW.
CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW? I'M NOT GONNA CONTINUE.
IF, IF WE, IF AN APPLICANT CHOOSES TO ATTEND ONLINE, THAT'S GOOD.
ALL WELL, BUT IT'S THEIR BURDEN TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO BE VI VIDEO AND AUDIO AVAILABLE.
IT'S, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
YOU, YOU ARE, YOU ARE A PANELIST.
MS. MS. BISHOP, YOU'VE BEEN, YOU ARE A PANELIST, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
I'VE, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
UM, IT SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AND YOU SHOULD HEAR ME.
YEAH, IT'S UNMUTED AND IT'S ON THE OH, THAT'S
[00:55:02]
OKAY.SO WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU ANOTHER MINUTE AND THEN WE'LL, MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU, YOU'RE TRYING TO PUSH A BUTTON.
AND MAYOR, MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'RE ADDING PHIL TO, TO THE ATTENDEES.
CAN YOU HEAR US NOW? IT SHOULD WORK WORKING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, GUYS.
IS THAT YOU, MS. BISHOP? CORRECT? YES.
ARE YOU, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? WE NEED YOUR VIDEO ON, UH, YES MA'AM.
OH, I'M SO GLAD YOU CAN HEAR ME.
UM, YOU NEED, NEED TO BE SWORN IN ONE MOMENT.
ARE YOU REPRESENTING BDA? 22 3 0, 50 45 23 FRANKFURT ROAD? THAT IS CORRECT.
OUR BOARD SECRETARY IS GONNA, UM, SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN I NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, PLEASE SAY I DO.
AND MY NAME IS, PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
PEREZ TWO 20 EAST CENTRAL PARKWAY.
AND THAT'S IN ALTAMONT SPRINGS, FLORIDA.
SO WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN? YES.
OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE ALLOW FOR YOU TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD.
YOUR APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND, UH, WE HAD A BRIEFING ON IT THIS MORNING.
SO IF YOU'RE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PROCEED.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS.
SO I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH, UM, CHICK-FIL-A IS PROPOSING A DUAL DRIVE-THROUGH ENTRANCE.
UH, THIS WILL BE AN EXPANSION AT THE REAR OF THE SITE ALONG THE PRIVATE DRIVE.
THIS WILL BE TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THROUGH ENTRANCE LANE TO WRAP AROUND THE BUILDING.
SO, UH, THE CLIENTS AND TEAM MEMBERS CAN EFFECTIVELY WORK ALSO A BYPASS LANE OR PARKING, UH, LANE TO, UH, ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING.
WITH THIS, UH, NEW DUAL DRIVE THROUGH, WE WILL REQUEST A SPECIAL EXPE, UH, EXCEPTION TO OUR ARTICLE X, UM, ORDINANCE FOR LANDSCAPING.
DUE TO THE ENCROACHMENT ALONG GIBBONS DRIVE.
[01:00:01]
UM, WE, WE HAVE SUBMITTED, UM, LANDSCAPE PLANS, UH, TO ENHANCE WHAT WE ARE, UH, PROPOSING.ALSO, THEY WILL BE A, UM, NEW CROSSWALK CONNECTION FROM THE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO THE BUILDING.
AND THIS IS JUST FOR SAFETY, UH, TEAM MEMBER AND CLIENTS, UM, SERVICING THE SITE.
UM, I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, ENHANCEMENTS TO THIS OTHER THAN THE TREES THAT WE'RE ADDING ALONG FRANKFURT AND GIBBONS DRIVE, UM, FOR THIS ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
IS THAT IT, MA'AM? YES, THAT IS IT.
UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MS. CARRERA? MR. HALCOMB? SO, UM, I, IF YOU WERE LISTENING TO OUR COMMENTS EARLIER, UM, THIS, UH, LANDSCAPE PLAN GIVES ME PAUSE.
SO WHAT, WHAT'S THE SCENARIO NOW PR PRESUME THAT WE DENY, UM, THIS, THIS REQUEST, WHAT ARE THE STEPS THEN THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO TAKE TO, TO, I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ADDRESS ON THE PROPERTY? WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE GOAL HERE AND, AND WHAT, WHAT WILL THIS PREVENT YOU FROM DOING? UH, SO THE GOAL IS TO EXPAND THE DRIVE-THROUGH ENTRANCE AT THE REAR OF THE SITE TO ALLOW TWO LANES VERSUS ONE.
THE EXISTING IS ONLY A ONE LANE ENTRANCE, WHICH WOULD BE THE DRIVE-THROUGH ENTRANCE APPROACH.
THIS WILL ALLOW TWO VEHICLES TO ENTER THE SITE, ONE TO, UH, ENTER THE DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUE.
THE OTHER TWO EITHER, UH, GO AROUND THE SITE OR LOOK FOR PARKING, EITHER OR IS TO ACCOMMODATE, UM, THE TRAFFIC ON SITE.
AND, AND, AND ONE OF THE STANDARDS HERE THAT WE'RE BASED OFF OF IS THAT, UH, STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT STANDARD? SO, WITHOUT ALLOWING US THE DUAL ENTRANCE, THE TRAFFIC IS CURRENTLY BACKING OFF OF J UH, GIBBONS DRIVE ONTO FRANKFURT.
WE'RE LOOKING TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC BACKING UP ON SITE.
AND ALSO BY PROVIDING THESE DUAL DRIVE-THROUGH, WE'RE ALLOWING, UM, MORE TRAFFIC IZATION, BETTER TEAM MEMBER SAFETY, ALSO ALLOWING OUR CLIENT TO HAVE A GREAT EXPERIENCE AT CHICK-FIL-A BY NOT BEING BOGGED DOWN WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC.
MR. HOLCOMB, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DOES THE PANEL HAVE REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR LANDSCAPING EXCEPTION TO CHAPTER 10? UH, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
MR. VINNY, UM, MS. CARRERE, UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, WHAT WOULD THE FINANCIAL BURDEN BE IF, UH, THIS REQUESTS WERE DENIED? UM, IT WOULD JUST LIMIT THE ONE, ONE SECOND.
UM, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH THE CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND SO THAT WE CAN APPLY THAT? YES.
CHAIRMAN, THE BOARD MAY GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IF, UH, THIS, IF UPON A FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT STRICTLY COMPLIES WITH REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 10 WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE PROPERTY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT COMPO, NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION, OR CITY COUNCIL.
NOT UNREASONABLY BURDEN, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND ARE NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR QUESTIONS ARE GEARED AGAINST THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE TO EVALUATE THIS REQUEST.
AND BOARD, HE'S GOING TO THE BIG BLUE BOOK.
SHOULD I BE SCARED ALL THESE ATTORNEYS CARRY THESE BIG BLUE BOOKS IN? IN A SEC, WE'RE GONNA GO TO MR. SO THE BOARD MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
IF THE SH IF THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE
[01:05:01]
PROPERTY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE-SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY C P C OR CITY COUNCIL.MR. FINNEY, THEN MR. HOLCOMB, THEN MR. MS. DAVIS, MR. FINNEY, AND THEN MRS. SO MR. FINNEY FIRST? UM, I THINK I'M GOOD FOR NOW.
UH, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT.
UHB 1475 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS STANDARD, CORRECT? BECAUSE THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
HP HB REPORT THE, THAT, THAT HOU THE RECENTLY ENACTED HOUSE BILL WOULD NOT APPLY.
THANK YOU MR. MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. SITE.
MS. DAVIS, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I, I, I WANNA GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MY CONCERN.
I DON'T FEEL THAT THE SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND I, I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THIS WAS APPROVED, THAT IT WOULD AFFECT NEIGHBORING VALUE.
SO I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF GRASS IN FRONT.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S IN THAT AREA.
AND, UM, BASED ON THIS PROPOSED PLAN THAT GOES AWAY.
THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
SO, MS, IS THAT OUR ADDRESS? YES.
SO OUR ENHANCED SLAB GATE PLAN WILL ADD AN ADDITION OF EIGHT TREES ALONG FRANKFORD FIVE ADDITIONAL, UH, TREES.
AND THESE ARE ALL LARGE ALONG GIBBONS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED TRUING, UM, AND INVESTING, INCORPORATE THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ON SITE.
SO IT, IT WILL BE BEEFED UP, BUT WHAT IS MISSING IS THE GRASS AND THAT GREENERY.
SO IT'S GONNA LOOK VERY, VERY CONCRETE THERE.
SO THAT IS MY CONCERN, NOT SO MUCH THE TREES.
I LOVE LOTS OF TREES, OBVIOUSLY, BUT YOU'RE TAKING ALL OF THAT GRASS AWAY EXCEPT FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT.
SO THAT, THAT IS MY BIG CONCERN.
WE WILL ADD GRASS ON ANYTHING THAT'S MISSING AND REPLACE AND ENHANCE ANYTHING THAT'S NEEDED IS ALL OF THAT ON THE SITE PLAN, BECAUSE WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, I'M SEEING LITTLE TINY TRIANGLES NOT ROLLING GRASS THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, AND THAT I SEE AT THE OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
WE CAN ADD A NOTE TO ADD THE GRASS ON THERE.
I DON'T THINK THE SITE PLANS ARE DEPICT AT THE GRASS, BUT THAT IS OUR INTENTION.
UH, MY QUESTIONS ARE ALONG, UH, WHAT MS. UH, DAVIS WAS QUESTIONING AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN.
I FOUND THE PLAN VERY LACKING.
I WAS HOPING THAT YOU WOULD COME WITH, UH, A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE SITE PLAN AND WALK US THROUGH THAT.
UH, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOU TO ADDRESS THE THREE POINTS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO USE IN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST.
UH, THE STRICT COMPLIANCE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, NOT, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT, UH, IMPOSED BY A SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN.
UH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOU ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THOSE THREE, UH, AS PART OF YOUR APPLICATION AND WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS.
MS. RO, DID YOU WANNA RESPOND TO MR. SAUK? UH, YES.
UH, SO THE INTENT GOAL OF THIS TO ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPING IS TO HAVE EVERYONE, UH, HAVE THE TRAFFIC ON SITE.
AND THIS IS MAINLY FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, UM, TO KEEP, UH, OFF THE TRAFFIC OFF OF GIBBONS AND FRANKFURT.
AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WAS DUE TO THE NARROWNESS OF THE SITE IN THE EXISTING CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
UM, SO I FEEL THAT JUST DOES NOT ALLOW US THE PROPER, UM, TRAFFIC IZATION ON SITE WITHOUT EXPANDING THIS TO A DUAL DRIVE-THROUGH ENTRANCE TO ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC.
AND THIS IS MAINLY FOR SAFETY PURPOSE, TO KEEP ALL THE TRAFFIC ON SITE AND NOT HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, AN ACCIDENT OFF OF FRANKFURT OR SOMETHING OFF OF GIBBONS.
MR. SEK, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, DIDN'T EVEN UP CLOSE.
OH, MA'AM, DID YOU WANNA FOLLOW UP? I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT YES, AND I'M INDIVIDUAL PANEL MEMBERS ARE ASKING WHERE I HAD THE, UM, THE, THE UNREASONABLE BURDEN OF THE USE WILL HAVE, UH, UH, NOT GRANTING THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL AFFECT OUR SITE.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE ULTIMATE GOAL HERE.
[01:10:01]
UH, HAVING THE ACCESS OF A DRIVE-THROUGH, UH, LANE, ALSO A PARKING LANE OR A PEDESTRIAN, UM, ACCESS CROSSWALK CONNECTION TO THE CHICK-FIL-A.SO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. IRWIN, AND THIS IS A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.
WHEN ARTICLE 10 WAS PUT IN PLACE AND HAS BEEN HOTLY DEBATED ALL THESE YEARS, GOOD, BAD, OTHERWISE, THE, THE SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 10 WAS WHAT WELL PROVIDE, UH, CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
BECAUSE I, I WANNA HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
WELL, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PROVIDE, UH, GREEN SPACE IS IN, UH, PUBLIC CONTACT AREAS SUCH AS STREET BUFFERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR BUFFERING FOR RESIDENTIAL AND TO PROVIDE TREE COVER OVER PARKING AREAS.
SO GENERALLY IT'S, IT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA THAT'S, UH, APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
YOU, DID YOU SAY GREENERY OR IS THAT MY BRAIN THINKING GREEN? WELL, I DIDN'T MS. DAVIS TALKING GREEN
RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS, AND ALSO FOR, UH, UH, GREEN CANOPY OVER PARKING, GREEN CANOPY OVER PARKING.
HEY, I'M NOT WANTING TO GO DOWN INTO THE DEEP OF ARTICLE 10.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET FROM YOU THAT SPIRIT.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL? I'VE GOT MR. FINNEY, THEN MR. SAUK, I, I KEEP THIS ROTATING.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON, UM, I GUESS THE NEED FOR THIS.
UM, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, WHAT HAS CHANGED, UM, THAT, THAT NOW REQUIRES, UH, THE ACCOMMODATION OF THIS HIGH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC HAS, HAS CHICK-FIL-A'S UH, BUSINESS MODEL CHANGED TO MORE OF A AIR DRIVE-THROUGH MODEL, UH, AT THIS MOMENT, OR HAS IT'S MORE OF A 50 50.
UM, THEIR BUSINESS MODEL HAS EXCEEDED THEIR, UH, THEIR EXPECTATIONS, WHICH IS A GREAT THING TO HAVE.
AND SO THEY'RE ALWAYS CONSTANTLY BEING ACTIVE AND THINKING PROACTIVELY ON HOW TO KEEP TEAM MEMBERS, KEEP THEIR CLIENTS SAFE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE, UH, WITHIN OUR SITE CONSTRAINTS, WHAT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE, WHICH IS A DUAL DRIVE-THROUGH AT THE BRI OF THE SITE TO ALLOW ONE LANE TO EXIT, UH, UH, ENTER THE DRI UH, THE DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUE, AND ALLOW ANOTHER TWO, JUST DO A PEDESTRIAN PARKING OR WALK, UH, WALK UP TO THE RESTAURANT.
AND SO I, I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS, IT SEEMS LIKE A TALL ORDER TO ASK, UH, A COMMUNITY TO COMPROMISE STANDARDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE LONG-TERM PROPERTY VALUES AND THE HEALTH AND WELLNESS OF THAT COMMUNITY, UM, JUST BECAUSE TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR BUSINESS.
AND SO I'M WONDERING WHY, WHY IS CHICK-FIL-A IF THEIR EXPECTATIONS HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED AND THE BUSINESS MODEL IS SHIFTING? YOU KNOW, MOST BUSINESSES WHEN THAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, THE, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, UM, LIKE RELOCATING.
UM, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY YOU WOULD ASK THIS COMMUNITY TO COMPROMISE THE, THE, THE NATURAL GREEN SPACE, UM, AND THE, THE, WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE PROPERTY, ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES, JUST TO ACCOMMODATE CHICK-FIL-A.
IT'S, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE A, TO ACCOMMODATE CHICK-FIL-A, IT'S TO ACCOMMODATE DALLAS AND THEIR, THEIR CLIENT BASE.
THERE ARE MANY EMPLOYEES THAT WORK THERE.
THEY LOVE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THAT'S WHY THEY WANNA REMAIN THERE.
THERE'S ALSO NO OTHER PROPERTY READILY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
THEY HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN READILY AVAIL, UH, IS AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
AND THE MAIN POINT IS FOR SAFETY.
IT'S TO KEEP THE TRAFFIC ON SITE AND NOT HAVE ANY, ANY ACCIDENTS OR ANY ISSUES ALONG GIBBONS OR FRANKFORD.
AND SO HAVE THEY, HAVE THEY LOOKED INTO OTHER STRATEGIES, UM, ASIDE FROM THIS ONE, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE, THE SAFETY ISSUES OF THE TRAFFIC THEY HAVE? I'M SURE THEY HAVE.
UM, THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S LEAST IMPACTFUL AND, UH, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TEAM MEMBER SAFETY DRIVEN.
AND, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. IRWIN.
UM, MR. IRWIN, UM, MR. NEWMAN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE SPIRIT OF TITLE 10, UM, ARTICLE 10, FORGIVE ME.
UM, TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
[01:15:01]
UM, WHAT YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GREEN SPACES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.UM, COULD YOU EXPLAIN LIKE, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT MAKES, WELL, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE? UM, AND, AND WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS, I I DON'T THINK YOU WERE SPECIFIC ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT THAT GREEN SPACE IS DOING FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT? UH, THE, THE DESIGN ARTICLE 10 ORIGINALLY PROVIDED FOR WHEN THERE WOULD BE STREET BUFFER ZONES, A WIDTH DIMENSION THAT COUNCIL APPROVED HAS BASICALLY SAY THIS IS THE AREA THAT SHOULD BE.
SO IN THIS SITE WAS BUILT IN 99.
THEY BUILT, ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD, UH, TODAY UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE, WE HAD, WE, UH, ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO LOOK AT SCALE BASED ON ALLOWING FOR SOME ADJUSTMENT TO THAT BUFFER SO THAT WE CAN DO SOME AVERAGING.
SO IN INSTANCE, ON FRANKFURT, IF YOU HAD A FIVE FOOT MINIMUM, YOU COULD ALSO, YOU NEED TO CREATE A 10 FOOT AVERAGE SO THEY CAN, UH, CREATE THEIR BUFFER, DIFFERENT WIDTHS BASED ON AREA, BUT YOU STILL MAINTAIN A LANDSCAPE COMPONENT ALONG THE STREET FRONT, UH, AND BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN EITHER SCREENING AS AN OPTION.
BUT MAIN MAINLY IS PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE TREES THAT ARE NEEDED BASED ON THE SCALE OF WHAT THEY HAD CONSTRUCTED.
NOW, IF THE NEEDS OF THE SITE HAVE NOW CHANGED, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEY'RE ARGUING, ARGUING, IS THAT THEIR VEHICULAR NEEDS ARE NEEDED BASED ON SAFETY FACTORS, BASED ON BEING ABLE TO MANEUVER VEHICLES THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
THE QUESTION THEN IS, DOES THE LANDSCAPING NEED TO BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY? OKAY.
SO I FEEL LIKE PART OF WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT SINCE THIS CHICK-FIL-A WAS BUILT, UM, UH, THAT THIS CHICK-FIL-A PRECEDES ARTICLE 10, AM I NO, NO.
IT, IT WAS UNDER ARTICLE 10, UNDER THE ORDINANCE FIRST PASSED IN 94 UNDER THE STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR ABOVE BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
UM, BUT THEN, UH, IT WAS AMENDED IN 2018.
AND SO, AND, AND SO WHAT CHANGED IN THAT AMENDMENT? UH, WE MODIFIED THE, THE STREET BUFFER TO ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY ON NOT JUST HAVING A CONTINUOUS 10 FOOT BUFFER.
WE COULD ACTUALLY MODIFY IT TO BE FIVE FEET IN SOME AREAS, 10 FEET IN OTHER, 15 FEET IN ANOTHER, JUST TO BE ABLE TO CREATE AN AVERAGE, UH, WIDTH FOR THAT AREA TO ACCOMMODATE, HELP ACCOMMODATE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'M FAILING TO UNDERSTAND, AND PERHAPS FORGIVE ME IF I'M ASKING YOU TO REPEAT YOURSELVES, BUT WHAT, WHAT, HOW EXACTLY IS, IS THE CURRENT PLAN BEING PROPOSED? UH, WHAT, WHAT, HOW IS IT NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE TWO? THE STREET BUFFER ZONE IS BEING, UH, PRETTY MUCH FORCED ON, ON, ON, UH, GIVEN, UM, ONTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, PROVIDING ALL THE SCREENING, WHICH IS A LANDSCAPE DESIGN OPTION INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, THE, UH, THEY ARE PROVIDING SITE TREES, UH, THAT ARE REQUIRED.
UH, SO LANDSCAPE DESIGN OPTIONS, OTHER, ANOTHER I ITEM THAT WE COULD NOT NARROW DOWN AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THOSE LANDSCAPE DESIGN OPTIONS WERE.
UH, THEY WERE REQUIRED, UH, THINK 20 POINTS.
SO THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE 20 POINTS.
UH, THEY ARE NO, THEY HAVE SOME, UH, DESIGN COMPONENTS TO IT.
IT'S JUST THAT MOST OF IT'S BEING FORCED INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I HAVE MR. SA AND MR. HOLCOMB.
MRS. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. IRWIN.
WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT WAS TRYING TO AVOID IN ITS SPIRIT? UH, IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE CERTAIN FEATURES.
SO FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS BUILDING HAD A 15 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, WE COULD DO AN URBAN STREET SCAPE.
SO SIMILAR TO WHAT AND WHITE FIND A PD 1 93 TYPE DESIGN.
IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, IT'S INTENDED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A 10 FOOT AVERAGE BUFFER ALONG FRANKFORT SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT AVERAGE LONG GIBBONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S, AND IT WAS INTENDED TO CREATE SOME GREEN SPACE ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.
THE RIGHT OF WAY MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IF IT'S USABLE.
IN THIS SITUATION, WE HAD SAW NO RESTRICTIONS TO GIBBONS, BUT, BUT IT DOES NOT MEET, THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT MEET THE SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT AVERAGE MR. HOLCOMB QUESTIONS FOR, UH, YEAH, UH, AGAIN, TO MR. IRWIN, UM, IT, IS IT TYPICAL FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN ELEMENTS TO GET PUSHED INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY? AND DOES THAT PRESENT AN ISSUE TO USING THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE THAT IT WAS LEFT OR RIGHT OF WAY? UH, IT'S NOT TYPICAL THAT WE SEE AN EXISTING SITE UNDER IT HAS, UH, COMPLIANT CONDITIONS THROUGH, UH, ABRUPTLY CHANGED
[01:20:01]
TO A NON-COMPLIANT, UH, SITUATION FORCING ALL REQUIRED BUFFER ZONE ISSUES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.UH, WE DON'T SEE THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
AND, AND, AND THE SECOND PART, DOES THAT PRESENT ISSUES TO THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AT ALL, OR IS IT NOT REALLY A FACTOR? UH, WE HAVE NOT FOUND IT TO BE BE A FACTOR UNLESS THE SIDEWALK GETS CHANGED LATER IN THE, IN SOME DESIGN ISSUES.
SO FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT NOW, THE SIDEWALK IS BACK A CURB.
IF IT'S ALLOWED TO REMAIN THAT WAY, THEN WE'RE FINE.
BUT IF, IF THE SUM REASON THE CITY DETERMINES THE RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS TO BE USED FOR, OR IF THE, UH, SAGE IS GROWING INTO THE SIDEWALK, THE SIDEWALK WOULD'VE TO BE CUT BACK, KEEP IT OUT OF THAT SIDEWALK.
SO IT'S QUESTION ABOUT HOW ARE THE PLANTS GOING TO GROW? UH, WILL THE CITY NEED TO COME IN, PUT A UTILITY IN THERE, THAT SORT OF THING.
IT, IT'S, IT'S AN UNKNOWN FOR THE FUTURE.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU, AS THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? MS. MS. UH, CARRAS? YES, I DID.
OVER HERE, UH, THE BUFFER ALONG FRANKFURT IS EIGHT AND A HALF FEET, UM, BASED ON, UM, I'M SORRY, 8.1 FEET BASED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THAT ON YOUR BEHALF.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CORRECT THAT MEANING THE PLAN SUBMITTED OR INCORRECT? YEAH, NO, SO WE, NO, IT WAS CORRECT, HOWEVER, YOU STATED THAT WE'RE NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED FRONT BUFFER AND WE'RE PROVIDING AN 8.1 FEET, MR. UH, IRWIN.
THE, UM, UM, THERE ARE PORTIONS OF, UH, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AT THE END OF THE PARKING ROAD THAT WILL PROJECT INTO THE PROPERTY.
UM, A PORTION IS OF THE, AGAIN, I'M TALKING ABOUT FRANKFURT.
THEN IT GOES INTO RIGHT OF WAY, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS ALSO ENCUMBERED WITH THE SIDEWALK AND ALSO, UH, UTILITY BOXES.
SO WE WERE, THEY WERE PLANTING AROUND THOSE.
SO IT, THAT, AND THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT COULD GO ALONG THAT PERIMETER.
SO ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE SOME, UH, UTILITY AND RIGHT AND SIDEWALK, UH, RESTRICTIONS TO THE USE OF THAT FRA THE FRANKFURT RIGHT OF WAY.
ANYTHING ELSE? MS. UH, SIR, ANYTHING ELSE, MS. CARRE? UH, OTHER THAN THE ATTEMPT TO, UH, ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO HAVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED FOR THIS, THANK YOU.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? I APOLOGIZE.
THANK YOU, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY.
THANK YOU, MS. BOARD SECRETARY.
GOTTA KEEP ALL THESE PEOPLE, KEEP ME OUT OF TROUBLE.
UH, THE BOARD, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 22 350 ON APPLICATION OF CHICK-FIL-A REPRESENTED BY AMANDA BISHOP, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OUR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE X WILL NOT UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL ADV WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 50.
UM, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MS. DAVIS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR LANDSCAPE, UH, RELATING TO ARTICLE 10.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I SECOND MR. SAUK? SECOND.
MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION? UH, I'M NOT SUP.
WELL, I AM SUPPORTING THIS MOTION FOR, FOR FOUR REASONS.
NUMBER ONE, IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA.
NUMBER TWO, THIS PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
NUMBER THREE, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ADD SOME MORE GRASS INTO THE, UM, SITE PLAN, BUT IT'S NOT IF, IF IT, IF YOU WERE WILLING TO DO THAT, IT'S NOT IN THAT CURRENT SITE PLAN.
SO I WOULD, WE WOULD NEED TO SEE THAT.
AND NUMBER FOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU BASICALLY SAID THAT THIS PLAN WAS LEAST IMPACTFUL, BUT IT'S LEAST IMPACTFUL ON THE BUSINESS.
NOT NECESSARILY THE COMMUNITY.
COMMUNITY WOULD BE LOSING THIS GREEN SPACE AND LOSING SOME VISUAL PURE APPEAL FROM THIS VERY CONCRETE LOOKING AREA.
SO BECAUSE OF THOSE FOUR REASONS, I, I AM, UM, MOVING TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
[01:25:01]
THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS, MR. SAUK.UH, AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING MS. DAVIS SAID.
UH, AND I WOULD ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, THE CASE JUST WAS NOT PROVEN, UH, AND ENOUGH INFORMATION WAS NOT BROUGHT FO FORWARD TO PROVE, UH, THE THREE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT WE WERE JUDGING THIS CASE ON.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, UH, I'M SUPPORTING IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
OTHER DISCUSSION, MR. HOLCOMB? UH, I AGREE WITH ALL THE, THE POINTS FROM MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, BUT, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT IT GIVES ME GREAT PAUSE, UM, TO, TO, I GUESS, ABDICATE LANDSCAPE RESPONSIBILITY INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RIGHT OF WAY'S FOR, UH, A LITTLE BIT'S, OKAY.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBSTITUTING FOR THE GREEN SPACE THAT ARTICLE 10 IS INTENDING, AND THAT, THAT GIVES ME GREAT PAUSE.
SO OBVIOUSLY I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, UM, BUT I, I, I WOULD SAY MY BIGGEST, UM, ISSUE WITH THIS REQUEST IS JUST THE, JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE MAKING A BIG ASK, UM, FOR THIS COMMUNITY, UM, AND SURRENDERING GREEN SPACE.
UM, AND THERE REALLY WASN'T ADEQUATE EFFORT PUT INTO MAKING A CASE FOR IT.
UM, AND SO I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE, IF YOU BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT YOU HAVE A, A SOLID ARGUMENT, UH, FOR THIS, THIS VARIANCE, THEN I WOULD SAY PUT MORE EFFORT INTO MAKING A CASE FOR YOURSELF.
UH, I'LL MAKE A CLOSING COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL GO TO A VOTE.
UM, I'VE NOT ALWAYS BEEN AN OUTSPOKEN ADVOCATE OF ARTICLE 10.
UM, I, I THINK, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN DALLAS.
UH, WE'RE AN AGING CITY, AND AS AN AGING CITY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
UH, WE ABSOLUTELY WANT A BUSINESS LIKE A CHICK-FIL-A OR ANYONE ELSE.
SIMILARLY, THAT ADDS VALUE IN EMPLOYMENT AND TAX DOLLARS TO THE CITY.
SO, HOWEVER THIS GOES, I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE HEARING FROM ONE, IF NOT SEVERAL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WE ARE, UH, WANTING TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO INVEST, REINVEST AND EMPLOY.
BUT I THINK THE CONTOURS OF A PROPERTY THAT'S ON A BUSY STREET IN AN INTERSECTION, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM A FIRE STATION.
AND IF YOU NOTICE A FIRE STATION, YOU KNOW, UH, HAS SOME LANDSCAPING.
AND THIS OTHER ISSUE, AS MR. FINNEY POINTED OUT, OR EXCUSE ME, MR. HALCOMB POINTED OUT LANDSCAPING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY JUST KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION OF, I MEAN, UH, UH, ARE ARE GOING BACK TO THE SPIRIT.
AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED MR. IRWIN THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S THE SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 10? UM, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, I'M, I'M GLAD IT'S WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT GIVES YOU, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY TO COME BACK.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPEAR IN PERSON, BUT THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, LISTEN TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS THAT WERE AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, AS WELL AS IN THIS HEARING NOW, SO THAT YOU CAN PUT THE BEST FOOT FORWARD FOR YOUR CLIENT.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING TODAY IS CONTOURS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE YES, THAT YOU PROVIDE FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES AND FOR PARKING AND FOR THE, THE SPACE AND THE SAFETY OF, OF YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE EFFICIENCY OF YOUR GROWTH OF YOUR BUSINESS, BUT ALSO THAT, THAT IT MEETS THE SPIRIT AND THE CONTOURS WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, CALL FOR THE BOAT, PLEASE.
MR. FINNEY A MS. HAY, MR. SA AYE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 22 3 50.
UH, THE BOARD VOTED FIVE TO ZERO TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST TO, UH, HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE ARTICLE 10 REQUIREMENTS.
UH, YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER, UM, IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATING THAT.
I HOPE THAT, UH, YOU'VE HEARD THE FEEDBACK FROM THIS BOARD.
NEXT CASE IS, UM, WELL HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, UH, FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
WE WILL COME BACK AT IT'S 2:29 PM ON THE 20TH OF JUNE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A WILL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
[01:35:48]
OKAY.[01:35:50]
OKAY.WE'RE GONNA COME BACK INTO SESSION HERE IN A SECOND.
MR. BOARDER TURNING, I DON'T IF THEY CAN HEAR ME.
IT IS 2:35 PM ON THE 20TH OF JUNE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL.
A, UH, AS RESUMING OUR MEETING, WE HAVE THREE CASES REMAINING TODAY, UH, OH 5 4 0 6 1 AND OH FIVE TWO.
THE NEXT ITEM FOR THE BOARD IS 2 23 0 5 4.
MAKE SURE YOU GUYS TURN ON YOUR VIDEOS PLEASE.
THIS IS AT 6 4 46 EAST LOVER'S LANE.
6 4 46 EAST LOVER'S LANE IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
UH, SIR, IF YOU WOULD, UM, BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY, AND I ASSUME OUR AUDIO VISUAL IS WORKING.
MS. WILLIAMS, RIGHT? I'M SORRY.
UH, IF YOU, YOU'LL BE SWORN IN BY MS. WILLIAMS AND THEN, UH, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
AND YOU NEED TO BE LOT CLOSER TO THAT MICROPHONE NOW.
WE WANNA HEAR EVERY WORD, MR. REMINGTON.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT.
OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND OFFICE STAFF, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
UM, I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD A TWO CAR DETACHED REAR ENTRY GARAGE AT MY PROPERTY.
AND, UM, THERE IS A, UM, A SETBACK RULE FOR 20 FEET TO BUILD THAT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY THE, UM, HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT BACK IN THE FIFTIES, UM, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT EXTRA SPACE TO BUILD THIS.
UM, SO WE DO NOT HAVE THE ROOM TO SET THE, UM, GARAGE BACK AS FAR AS THE CITY WOULD LIKE US TO.
SO, UM, WE HAVE APPLIED TO BUILD IT WITH ONLY A 7.4 FOOT SETBACK ON ONE SIDE.
IT'S LARGER ON THE OTHER SIDE, ABOUT 10 OR 11 FEET.
BUT WE WENT FOR THE SHORTER DISTANCE, JUST SO YOU'D BE AWARE OF HOW CLOSE IT WOULD BE.
UM, THE OTHER, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ADJOIN THIS BLOCK IN THIS ALLEY, UM, THERE ARE 28 OF THEM AND ONLY TWO OTHERS HAVE REAR ENTRY GARAGES.
ALL OF THE OTHERS, THEY ENTER FROM THEIR STREETS.
AND SO, UM, THERE'S NOT HEAVY TRAFFIC BACK THERE.
AND THIS WON'T COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME, DON'T WORRY.
SO YOU SAID THERE'RE 28 PROPERTIES YES.
THAT USE THAT ALLEY, THAT H THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY.
AND ONLY TWO OF THE 28 HAVE REAR ENTRY GARAGES.
SO THEY USE THE ACTUAL ALLEY, OKAY.
ALL OF THE OTHER 26 PROPERTIES HAVE ACCESS FROM THE STREET, FROM THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTIES.
SO THEY DO NOT USE THE ALLEY FOR ACCESS FOR THEIR VEHICLES.
UM, THE ONLY OTHER PEOPLE THAT REALLY TRAVERSE THAT ARE, UM, THE, UM, TRASH AND RECYCLING PICKUP VEHICLES THAT GO DOWN THERE.
SO, UM, IN THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT DO HAVE THE REAR ENTRY GARAGES ARE AT THE END OF THE BLOCK, THE OPPOSITE END OF THIS BLOCK, AND WOULD TYPICALLY ENTER THEIR PROPERTY FROM ABRAMS ROAD, WHEREAS I WOULD BE ENTERING FROM LOVER'S LANDING.
ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS, YOU MENTIONED THE, UH, THIS OTHER HOME THAT HAS A DRIVEWAY OFF THE ALLEY.
I BELIEVE THEIR HOUSE IS SMALLER AND SO, UM, THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY OR THE HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, UM, ALLOWS THEM TO BUILD THAT STRUCTURE FURTHER BACK, UM, FROM THE ALLEYWAY.
[01:40:01]
LARGER HOME.UM, AND SO RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE FOR TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING.
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO, YOU KNOW, COME UP TO THE STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALMOST EVERY PROPERTY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I'D GUESSTIMATE SEVEN 95% REALLY PROBABLY HAVE TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGES.
AGAIN, THEY ALL TYPICALLY ENTER FROM THE STREET, NOT FROM THE ALLEY.
SO YES, THAT OTHER ONE DOES HAVE MORE ROOM, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED BACK IN THE FIFTIES.
AND, AND MY SECOND COMMENT, UM, I'M, I'M REALLY JUST NERVOUS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR SUCH A, A HUGE DIFFERENCE HERE.
SO CAN YOU ADDRESS, I MEAN, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 20 FEET, YOU WANNA DO SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT JUST SAFETY VISIBILITY.
HAVE YOU EXPLORED OTHER DESIGNS THAT WOULD AT LEAST GET THAT SETBACK A LITTLE BIT HIGHER? CUZ THAT'S A HUGE ASK TO GO FROM 20 TO SEVEN FEET, FOUR INCHES.
SO, UM, THE FENCE, THE WAY THAT WE WOULD BUILD IT, WE WOULD HAVE MORE VISIBILITY ON THE SIDES, UM, ESPECIALLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE WOULD HAVE VISIBILITY COMING OUT THAT DIRECTION.
UM, ALSO NOW THAT ALL CARS, YOU KNOW, ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE BACKUP CAMERAS, WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, AND MOTION SENSORS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, VEHICLE SAFETY, YOU KNOW, IT, THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF, IT'S, IT'S THE WAY THE TECHNOLOGY IS GOING, IT ALLOWS FOR US TO BE SAFE AS WE ARE, UM, EX ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THE PROPERTY.
UM, AGAIN, WE, WE WANTED TO HAVE, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE TO BE ABLE TO WALK BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE GARAGE, UM, SO THAT WAY WE CAN GET, YOU KNOW, TO OUR SIDE YARD THERE AS WELL.
AND SO THIS SEVEN FOOT FOUR ON THE WEST SIDE IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE, BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER, ABOUT 11 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS MUCH, YOU KNOW, VISIBILITY AS POSSIBLE.
AND SO WE'VE TRIED TO DO THAT AS BEST WE CAN.
A AND MY, MY LAST ONE DID, DID YOU, DID YOU LOOK AT ANY OTHER DESIGNS THAT WOULD'VE GIVEN YOU A, A BIT MORE SPACE OR IS THIS IT? WE DID.
UM, WE, WE HAVE NOT, UM, WORKED WITH ANY PLANNING, UM, ON BUILDING IT, BUT, UM, DOING A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE, UM, UM, WE KNOW THAT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE 20 FEET IS NOT NEEDED.
UM, WHEN WE ENTER THAT DIRECTION, THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO INSTALL A ROLLING GATE ALONG THE BACK ALLEY AS WELL.
AND, UM, ADDITIONAL CONCRETE TO, UM, THAT WOULD, UM, TEAR UP PART OF OUR YARD.
WE WOULD LOSE A LOT OF OUR GREEN SPACE.
AND SO, UM, JUST NOT HAVING, YOU KNOW, UM, ALL THAT CONCRETE IN OUR BACKYARD, WE'RE TRYING TO CONSERVE AS MUCH YARD SPACE AS WE CAN TO CONFORM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE, I HAVE ONE OR TWO.
I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE GRAPHIC THAT YOU PROVIDED, THE STAFF THAT, THAT WE GOT MM-HMM.
SO, UM, I SUPPOSE THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THE 20 FOOT STANDARD IS FOR CARS TO HAVE ADEQUATE ENTERING, ENTERING AND EXITING WITHOUT INTRUSION OF THE CARS.
BUT, UH, SANITATION USES THAT, THAT IS ALSO CORRECT.
UH, MR. FINNEY, UH, MR. REMINGTON, UM, ON THE SUBJECT OF EXPLORING OTHER OPTIONS, DID YOU CONSIDER, UH, PERHAPS USING THE COVER PATIO, UM, AS YOUR GARAGE, UM, IN CONVERTING THAT, UH, AS AN OPTION? WAS IT FEASIBLE? THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A COVERED PATIO.
UM, OR THE, THE SCREEN PORCH IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
UH, WE HAVE NOT EXPLORED THAT, UM, AS WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT AS PART OF THE LIVING SPACE OF THE HOUSE.
AND IT ALSO HAS A POURED SLAB THAT IS TWO FEET TALLER THAN THE GROUND, SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DRIVE ONTO THAT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR THAT ENTIRE PART OF THE HOUSE OFF THE ROOF, EVERYTHING, AND RECONSTRUCT IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE THAT TO A GARAGE, IT WOULD BE A MUCH, MUCH MORE INVASIVE PROCESS.
MR. FINNEY QUESTION AGAIN FOR YOU, MR. REMINGTON.
I'VE SPOKEN WITH A FEW NEIGHBORS, UM, AND NO ONE HAS SEEMED TO HAVE HAD AN ISSUE SO FAR.
SO, UM, AND I KNOW THAT, UM, THEY RECEIVED A LETTER, A LOT OF THEM HAD RECEIVED THAT, AND SO NO ONE HAD GIVEN ANY PUSHBACK, AGAIN, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM TYPICALLY USED THE ALLEY OTHER THAN TO TAKE THEIR TRASH OUT BECAUSE ONE OF OUR CRITERIA IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
SO THAT GOES TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE SURROUNDING AREAS DID WE GET, UH, ANY FEEDBACK FROM, FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS ON THIS CASE? WE RECEIVED NO LETTER OF SUPPORT, NO LETTER TO MY OPPOSITION.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE 15 PROPERTY OWNERS, EXCUSE ME, 22
[01:45:01]
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED CAUSE I SEE 22 ON THE MAP.23, THERE'S 23, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, CORRECT.
SO 23 WERE ALL RIGHT, SO NO, NO FEEDBACK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I NEVER KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET THAT.
DID WE, DID, DID THEY, DID THEY OPEN THE MAIL OR NOT? OR, OR IS IT IN A SILENCE? ASCENT, WHO KNOWS? MM-HMM.
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS? NO.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS STAFF QUESTION.
I SEE THAT THE ALLEY IS 15 FEET WIDE.
IS THAT THE TYPICAL ALLEY WIDTH? THANK YOU.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE? ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? SEE, I ASKED THIS TIME WITHOUT BEING PRIVATE.
NO, THE SIR, I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET BEYOND THE NOVICE STAGE AT THIS POINT.
THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 0 54 ON APPLICATION OF JACOB BREMINGTON GRANT, THE 12 FOOT EIGHT INCH VARIANCE TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS ADMITTED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
A FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED IT IN THE ITEM OF, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 22 354, MR. FINNEY HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE AUST STREET PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IS THERE A SECOND MS? IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT, UM, THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE, THE SIZE AND THE SHAPE THE LOT.
UM, AND, UM, ALSO I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT SAFETY IS A NON-ISSUE GIVEN THE FACT THAT, UM, ONLY TWO OF THE 28 HOUSES ALONG THIS ALLEY ACTUALLY USE THEIR ALLEY.
SO, UM, AND, AND OF COURSE, MR. REMINGTON'S POINTS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY ONLY REINFORCE THAT.
SO I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT, UH, ACCEPTING THIS, UH, REQUEST.
MR. SAUTE? YEAH, I, YEAH, I FEEL THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE A HAZARD, UH, WHICH IS ALWAYS THE CONCERN WITH THE SETBACKS IN THIS CASE GOING INTO THE ALLEY, UH, LOW TRAFFIC.
SO THAT LESSENS THE CONCERN ON MY PART THAT I MIGHT NORMALLY HAVE.
SO, AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER OPTIONS, UH, GIVEN THAT THAT PORCH IS PART OF THE ROUTE LINE.
UM, SO, AND THAT REASON I, UH, SUPPORTED THE MOTION.
THANK YOU, MR. SAUK, MS. DAVIS.
UM, I, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION UNFORTUNATELY, AND I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MY, MY ISSUES.
SO, NUMBER ONE, I'M JUST NERVOUS ABOUT THE SAFETYNESS.
I MEAN, IT'S A BIG ASK TO GO FROM 20 TO 7 74.
AND, UM, PROBABLY THE, THE ONE THING THAT WOULD SWAY MY OPINION IS IF YOU HAD NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT.
I KNOW YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY OPPOSE, BUT GETTING THOSE LETTERS OF, OF SUPPORT REALLY DO MEAN A LOT AND CAN BE VERY IMPACTFUL.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENT YOU CAN MAKE, BUT IT'S THAT SAFETY ISSUE THAT'S REALLY CONCERNING ME.
I'M ALL FOR IMPROVING YOUR HOME AND IMPROVING YOUR PROPERTY AND, UM, I, I JUST WISH THERE WAS SOME OTHER DESIGN THAT COULD NOT MAKE IT, MAKE THIS STRUCTURE SO CLOSE TO THAT ALLEY, BECAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE HEARD SAFETY IS A NON-ISSUE BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER, UM, HOUSE RIGHT NOW THAT OPENS TO THE, TO THE ALLEY, BUT MORE COULD, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD SEE WHAT'S GOING ON AND SAY, OKAY, I WANNA DO THAT TOO.
SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY ASPECT.
UM, I DO FEEL THAT IF WE WERE TO TURN THE GARAGE AND DO THE J SWING DRIVEWAY WHERE WE HAVE A ROLLING GATE THAT WOULD BE ADDED, I ACTUALLY FEEL THAT THE VISIBILITY WOULD BE LESSENED BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE I'D BE HAVING TO TURN THE VEHICLE EVEN FURTHER RATHER THAN COMING OUT STRAIGHT AND GOING AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE, I'D HAVE TO MAKE AN ENTIRE 180, UM, WITH MY VEHICLE.
AND SO I'D FEEL THAT THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE HARDER TO MAKE.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE GONE TO THE DEBATE STAGE PAST THE PUBLIC STAGE, SO APOLOGIES.
UM, BUT ACTUALLY BY VIRTUE THE MOMENT AND
[01:50:01]
MOTIONS MADE REALLY THE PUBLIC HEARING ENDED, BUT NO, THAT'S OKAY.UM, IT, IT'S GOOD INFORMATION.
UM, SO THAT, SO WE'VE LET THE, THE RABBIT OUT.
SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I WANNA BE FAIR TO ALL THE PANEL MEMBERS.
SO, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. HAL? UM, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
UM, I THINK IT'S, IT'S REALLY THE, THE SHAPE OF THE LOT RELATIVE TO THE BUILDING SIZE.
UM, I THINK NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE ENCROACHING ON, ON THE LINES.
AND I THINK THIS, THIS SOLUTION IS, UM, THE BEST RELIEF TO UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AND THE REQUEST, UH, ONE CUZ I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST BASED ON THE, THE PROPERTY.
UH, BUT REALLY JUST, UH, I MEAN EVEN MORE SO BECAUSE IT'S ONLY TWO OF 28 AND THAT TELLS ME THERE'S NOT MUCH TRAFFIC BACK THERE.
UM, AND UM, SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF MY TYPE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.
MS. DAVIS NELL, MR. CHAIR? YES.
MOTION PASSES FIVE 20 IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 23 0 54.
THE BOARD, BOARD ONE IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 23 0 5 4.
THE BOARD HAS GRANTED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE YOUR REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFF-STREET PARKING.
THANK, YOU'LL GET A, A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, UHHUH.
NEXT ITEM FOR THE BOARD TODAY IS BDA 2 2 3 0 61 2 2 3 0 6 1.
THIS IS AT THOUSAND 20 MCRU MCRU STREET.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UH, IF YOU WOULD, UH, GET SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND, UM, THEN SHE'LL ASK FOR YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT TO US.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND, AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
WOULD YOU TELL ME AGAIN YOUR LAST NAME? THANK YOU, SIR.
[01:57:49]
YOUR TIME IS UP.I'LL, I'LL ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE.
UH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN CONCLUDE I'M NOT CUTTING YOU OFF YET.
UM, AND YOU, YOU PRONOUNCE IT MALIK.
UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? IS THAT A YES OR A NO? I DIDN'T, I I, WELL, I DUNNO WHAT THE HAND SIGNALS WERE.
HONESTLY, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS, UH, A STICKY WICKET AS THEY SAY.
I SAW MR. SAUK OH, NO, IT WASN'T MR. SAUK.
MR. SAUK QUESTION FOR YOU ON, UH, THE SECOND
[02:00:01]
CRITERIA, THE, THE COST AND THE VALUE.UM, WHAT ARE YOU FOR THE, UM, BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE I'M SHOWING THE, UM, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE COST TO REBUILD WOULD BE VERSUS WHAT IT IS APPRAISED FOR.
IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE ME THOSE TWO NUMBERS PLEASE.
OH, YOU ARE PROJECTING THE QUESTION IS WHERE THE MICROPHONE IS PICKING IT UP.
UH, HOW ABOUT NOW? THERE YOU GO.
THANK YOU MR. SA, DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE FORM? UH, NO.
I, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU COULD DEBATE WHETHER IT'S THE LAND IS INCLUDED IN THAT OR NOT, BUT, UM, EITHER WAY IT DOESN'T MATTER.
SO HOLD ON ALL MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, ABOUT THE, THE LAND PORTION OF THIS STANDARD.
THE STANDARD SAYS THAT IT'S THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.
OKAY, THANK YOU MR. BOARD ATTORNEY.
SO, UM, DID THAT COMPLETE YOUR QUESTIONS FOR NOW? OKAY, GOOD.
MS. DAVIS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I THINK YOU DO.
WAS THIS, W W WERE YOU GIVEN A PERMIT TO BUILD THE HOUSE EXACTLY WHERE IT IS? AND WAS THAT APPROVED BY THE CITY? YES, IT WAS.
IT WAS APPROVED AT MULTIPLE STAGES AT THE, THE SITE PLAN STAGE.
AT THE FORM BOARD STAGE, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN, UH, THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOUR HONORS NOW, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, UM, UH, THAT THE EASEMENT WAS, WAS NOT NOTICED BY ANYBODY PRIOR TO THE HOUSE ACTUALLY BEING BUILT.
SO IT WAS APPROVED AND THEN TWO ISSUES CAME UP AFTERWARD, ENCORE SAID THAT THERE COULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD, AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE WAS, I GUESS THE CITY REALIZED THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED IT BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO CLOSE TO THE SIDE.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THE CITY REALIZED THE, THE SETBACK ISSUE.
UM, AND THEN ONCE THE APPEAL WAS ALREADY FILED, WE WERE ALERTED BY CITY STAFF.
THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM WITH ENCORE, UM, THAT, THAT WAS UNRESOLVED.
AT THE TIME OF THE PRIOR HEARING, TWO MONTHS AGO, UH, WE, WE SINCE GOT IN TOUCH WITH ENCORE AND THE LETTER THAT SAID EXHIBIT FOUR, UH, WAS, WAS SENT TO US BY ENCORE, SAYING THERE IS, THERE IS NO ISSUE THAT IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT WAS A FALSE ALARM.
C CAN YOU GIVE ME DATES ON, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU STARTED BUILDING, WHEN THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED, WHEN YOU HEARD FROM THE CITY THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH A SETBACK WHEN THE ENCORE THING HAPPENED, AND, AND THEN WHEN THE, WHEN WAS THE BUILDING FINALIZED? I KNOW I JUST ASKED FOR A BUNCH OF THINGS.
I'M LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF A TIMELINE, YOU KNOW, DID YOU START ON CONSTRUCTION AND THEN YOU WERE TOLD ABOUT THE SETBACK AND YOU COULD HAVE MADE THOSE CHANGES? OR WERE YOU TOLD ABOUT THE SETBACK AFTER EVERYTHING HAD ALREADY BEEN BUILT? IT WAS AFTER EVERYTHING HAD ALREADY BEEN BUILT.
UM, UH, UH, MS. VANESSA HAS, UM, REMINDED ME IT WAS, IT WAS A CITIZEN REPORT, UM, AFTER CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED.
WHAT, WHAT WAS THE CITIZEN REPORT? UH, WE DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS.
UM, AND EXHIBIT ONE REFERENCES, UM, UH, THAT THERE WAS A, A DISCUSSION AFTER, AFTER A MEETING, UH, SOMEBODY, UH, UH, HAD COME UP TO, UH, SOMEBODY WHO WORKED FOR THE CITY AND ALERTED THEM TO A POTENTIAL ISSUE.
NO, UH, IT'S IN THE AFFIDAVIT.
AT THE VERY END, A CITIZEN EMAILED A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO THEN FORWARDED IT TO THE RELEVANT CITY STAFF, AND THAT'S WHAT STARTED THE BALL.
OKAY, GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING.
WHEN WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE WITH ENCORE? UH, THE ISSUE WITH ENCORE WAS AFTER THE FILING OF THE PRIOR, UH, REQUEST.
[02:05:01]
UH, EARLY THIS SPRING.UM, BUT IT, UH, IT WAS, UH, SOMETHING THAT, THAT WAS NOT KNOWN TO US.
WE, WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY DETAILS OTHER THAN THERE'S A POTENTIAL ENCORE ISSUE, UM, UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF, OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF ENCORE AFTER, UH, IT WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE LAST TIME.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS ALREADY BUILT.
SO YOU BUILT THE HOUSE THINKING THAT YOU WERE COMPLIANT BECAUSE YOU HAD A PERMIT THAT GAVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER IT WAS BUILT, SOMEBODY EMAILED SOMEONE AT COUNSEL COMPLAINED ABOUT THE SETBACK, AND THEN YOU ALSO FOUND OUT ABOUT ENCORE, BUT YOU WERE, IN YOUR MIND, YOU WERE DOING, YOU WERE COMPLYING BECAUSE YOU HAD AN APPROVED PERMIT.
MR. SA UH, I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS PROBABLY JUST CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF, MS. SPARK, HUME, I GUESS, UH, WAS, WAS THE HOME, WAS THE STRUCTURE BUILT ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS PERMITTED BY THE CITY? YES.
EVERY INCH, EVERY FOOT? UM, I BELIEVE SO, YES.
IF THAT'S THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE STEP BACK.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN AGAIN, WHY DOES IT SAY IN HERE THAT IT APPEARS THE HOME WAS NOT BUILT IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SUBMITTED SITE PLANS? I'M CONFUSED.
THAT WAS EXPLAINED THIS MORNING.
I CAN
AND SO WE RECEIVED THE VISUAL OF IT, WHICH WAS NOT SUBMITTED AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR US, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I'LL EXPLAIN THAT WE LOOK AT THE PLAT, RIGHT? SO THIS, YEAH.
REMEMBER THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
OKAY, SO THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT WE'VE GOT THIS SITUATION WHERE THE APPLICANT DID EVERYTHING THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS REQUIRED OF THEM, AND THERE WAS AN HONEST HUMAN FACTOR ERROR.
DOES CODE OR POLICY SPEAK TO WHO'S ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE? I MEAN, IS IT, IS IT, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY MISSTEPS, ARE THEY ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR, FOR MEETING THIS? OR IS, IS, DOES THAT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE BURDEN TO THEM? MR. HOW COME? IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION IS THEY DID THE, THE APPLICANT DID EVERYTHING ORDERLY AND OR WE, EVERYONE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS ORDERLY IMPROPERLY UNTIL THE VERY END THERE WAS A MISTAKE REALIZED.
AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THE HOUSE NEEDS, THAT'S THE QUESTION IF WHETHER OR NOT THE VARI STANDARD IS I GUESS, A LITTLE LOW, WE LOWER THE BAR A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY AS CLOSE AS WE'RE GONNA GET TO A DIRECT QUESTION.
THE BAR, THE VARIANCE STANDARD IS THE VARIANCE STANDARD, AND WE PRESUME THAT PEOPLE KNOW THE ORDINANCES.
YOU, YOU PRESUME, WHO KNOWS THE ORDINANCES THAT THE PUBLIC WRIT LARGE KNOWS THE DALLAS CITY ORDINANCES, JUST LIKE WE PRESUME ANYONE WOULD KNOW ANY OTHER RELEVANT LAW, BUT PRESUMABLY THEY, THEY DID FOLLOW THE ORDINANCES, BUT IT WAS THE PLAT THAT WAS WRONG.
RIGHT? SO LIKE, THEY FOLLOWED BASED, I, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S NOT A REAL ANSWER THERE, BUT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH A PLAT AS TRUE CORRECT INFORMATION AND THERE WAS AN ERROR OR A DISCREPANCY OR WHATEVER.
SO, UH, YOU BROUGHT UP THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND WHAT IT WAS SAID AND NOT SAID.
AND, AND WHEN WE HEARD BEFORE, WE GOT REV EVIDENCE FROM THE STAFF AND AN EMAIL THAT'S SAYING ENCORE DIDN'T, DID STATE THE HIGH VOLTAGE LINE OVER METAL ROOF AS A SAFETY HAZARD.
AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S PRESENTED TODAY.
AND I'M READING THE ENCORE LETTER, WHICH YOU HAVE SUBMITTED.
UH, AND IT SAYS, WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE MINIMUM CLEARANCES MET FOR OUR ENCORE STANDARDS.
ENCORE WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INJURIES CAUSED CAUSE THE ENCROACHING STRUCTURE.
SO, UH, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT GIVES ME PAUSE IS THAT'S, THAT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE EASEMENT AREA, NOT, NOT AN ISSUE OF ENCROACHMENT, UH, OF HEIGHT TO THE, TO THE WIRE.
THIS EVALUATION IN NO WAY VALUING THE SAFETY OF THE CLIENT'S STRUCTURE BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE ENCROACHING AREA OR STATEMENT.
THE INJURIES WILL NOT OCCUR IN THE EVENT OF FACILITIES COME DOWN TO THE WEATHER OR STORMS. AND ENCO WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BECAUSE OF THE ENCROACHING STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, I, I, I GET THE NEW EVIDENCE.
I'M, I'VE ABSORBED IT, I WENT RIGHT TO IT.
SO I'M THINKING, WOW, SOMETHING'S CHANGED.
WHAT CHANGED AND WHY? UM, THAT JUST GIVES, THAT STILL GIVES ME PAUSE.
UH, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ENCORE HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE'S, THERE'S NOT,
[02:10:01]
UH, NOT A CODE PROBLEM AS FAR AS, UM, CLOSENESS OF, OF THE ROOF TO THE WATER.DID THEY I THAT THE CLEARANCE IS NOT I GET THAT, BUT THEY'RE DOING, IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM IF SOMETHING HAPPENS.
RIGHT? I I I I THINK IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A DISCLAIMER.
IF THE BOARD APPROVES SOMETHING, IF, IF AND IF I HOPE A POTENTIAL BUYER, IF, IF, AND IF IS AWARE OF THAT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A, YOU KNOW, SO IF, IF, AND N OKAY.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? I, I'M, I'M WITH MR. HOLCOMB STICKING WITH, SO I, I, I, SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, MR. MOORE.
UM, SO IF ENCORE IS SAYING WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE, IF THE LINE FALLS AND CATCHES THE HOUSE ON FIRE, KILLS SOMEONE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, WALKING, YOU KNOW, ALONG THE SIDEWALK, IS THE CITY IN ANY WAY LIABLE BY GRANTING THIS, UM, EXCEPTION? YOU KNOW, IS THAT A CONCERN OR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH AS A BOARD? UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO MR. NEWMAN'S POINT, ENCORE'S TRYING TO PROTECT THEMSELF FROM LIABILITY, SO WHO DOES ALL THE LIABILITY FALL ON, GIVEN THAT PART OF OUR CRITERIA IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT OUR OFFICE LOOKED INTO, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WE LOOKED INTO, AND WE, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE, THE RESEARCH THAT WE DID, WE THINK THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT BE LIABLE IF THE BOARD CHOSE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE.
NEMAN MAY I, THIS IS DAVID NAVAREZ WITH ENGINEER.
MAY I CLARIFY ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION JUST FOR THE RECORD, SPECIFICALLY ON THE CONVERSATION OF LIABILITY AND WHAT ENCORE IS DEEMED NOT TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR? I UNDERSTAND, AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE CORRECTED IF I'M MISTAKEN, THE FENCE WAS BUILT WITHIN AN EASEMENT.
TYPICALLY, UM, NO STRUCTURES ARE ALLOWED WITHIN AN EASEMENT.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE AN EASEMENT HAS A PURPOSE.
IN THIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, A UTILITY HAS SAID NOTHING CAN BE BUILT WITHIN THIS EASEMENT.
IF FOR ANY REASON I NEED TO HAVE ACCESS, OR FOR ANY REASON I NEED TO BUILD SOMETHING WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, I HAVE FULL AUTHORITY AND I'LL GO AND KNOCK DOWN THAT FENCE, AND I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR, TO BUILD IT BACK.
I WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THAT FENCE.
THAT FENCE IS GONNA GO AWAY BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT WITHIN AN EASEMENT, UM, INCORRECTLY FOR ANY REASON.
BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THAT THE LIABILITY THAT IS MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, UH, IT GOES TO THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGES INCURRED ON THE FENCE, NOT NOT LIABILITY AS FAR AS SAFETY TO THE PUBLIC OR, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S THE, IT'S THE LIABILITY OF, OF DAMAGES TO THE FENCE ITSELF.
ANCO WILL GO DESTROY THAT FENCE AND NOT COME BACK AND MAKE ANY, I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT BEING LAWYERS.
THERE'S ONLY ONE LAWYER IN THE ROOM.
UH, WELL, AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS THE BOARD'S CONCERNED, WE HAVE ONE LAWYER IN THE ROOM, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, UH, YOU WE'RE GONNA BE RESPECTFUL TO THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE TO, AND I DON'T WANNA PARSE, UM, I, I HEAR WHAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID AS IT RELATES TO EASEMENT IN ACCESS.
UM, OUR CRITERIA GOES BACK TO NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST NECESSARY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND AND NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
THOSE ARE OUR CRITERIA RIGHT THERE, SO THAT WE SHOULD STAY WITHIN THAT FRAME.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M, I'M NOT CONVINCED YET.
SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION? MR. HOW? OKAY.
MAYBE HAVE TWO UNSUPPORTED MOTIONS.
HAVE TWO UNSUPPORTED MOTIONS THIS SESSION.
UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 6 1 ON APPLICATION OF BRENT JACKSON REPRESENTED BY AMY FUR GRANT, THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS
[02:15:01]
PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DA DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
MR. HALCOMB IN THE MATTER OF B D A 22 361 MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. SEIG.
SO STICKY WICKET AS MENTIONED, UM, I'M JUST KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE, TO THE STANDARD, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
WELL, TEARING DOWN THIS BUILDING OR LEAVING AN EYESORE OR LEAVING THIS IN A ADVANCE FOR A LONG TIME, I THINK IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
I THINK THAT IN, IN THIS SITUATION, THE BEST THING FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS TO, TO MOVE FORWARD, ALLOW ANOTHER HOUSING UNIT TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET, UH, NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND.
WELL, THIS ONE IS A BIT SHORTER AND SMALLER THAN THE OTHER ONES.
AND THEN NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERTOOK EVERY REASONABLE STEP THAT THEY COULD HAVE TO DO THIS, RIGHT? THERE WAS A HUMAN ERROR AND IT HAPPENS, BUT THAT I, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HEAR, UH, AN APPLICANT COME UP HERE AND SAY, OH NO, IT WAS MY VENDOR WHO SCREWED UP.
IT WAS SO-AND-SO, SO AND SO, NOBODY'S FAULT.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND THIS TIME THEY DID AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, EVERYTHING THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE TO, TO ACHIEVE THIS PERMIT, AND THERE WAS JUST AN ERROR.
UH, ADDITIONALLY, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSE BILL, UH, 1475 APPLIES HERE.
GIVEN THE, UH, VALUATION PROVIDED IN THE TESTIMONY WHERE IT IS MORE THAN 50% OF, OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND BALANCING ALL FACTORS, UH, I FALL SLIGHTLY IN THE SIDE OF APPROVING THIS AS BEING THE BEST IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD AGREE THAT THIS WAS, THIS WAS A TOUGH ONE.
IT WAS A TOUGH ONE TWO MONTHS AGO.
UM, AND, UH, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE THREE CRITERIA, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT MEETS THE CRITERIA ON ALL THREE POINTS, WHICH IS WHAT IT HAS TO DO.
AND THAT IS THE COST TO REMEDY THE SITUATION WOULD BE TOO GREAT.
UM, THE LOT APPEARS TO BE NARROW.
UM, YOU'VE GOT A, YOU KNOW, TANDEM, UH, CARPORT, UH, YOU KNOW, SO THAT SPEAKS TO IT.
IT'S A SMALL HOME ON A SMALL LOT.
AND THEN I THINK THAT IT, YOU KNOW, IT OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT, UH, SOMETHING THAT THE HOMEOWNER OR THE BUILDER CREATED THE HARDSHIP.
UH, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY A SERIES OF HONEST MISTAKES THAT GOT US TO THIS POINT.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I SUPPORT, UM, THE MOTION, OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
I'M NOT CONVINCED STILL, I'M JUST ONE VOTE, BUT I, I DO VERY MUCH HEAR IN LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES.
UM, I DON'T AGREE PERSONALLY THAT THE LOT IS, UM, OF A RESTRICTED SHAPE OR SLOPE.
YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, ALL THE LOTS GOING EAST TO THE SAME EXACT SIGNS, ALL THE LOTS ON THE, UH, SOUTH ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE GROOM OR WHATEVER, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
SO THESE ARE ALL THE SAME LOTS.
THE LOTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE ACROSS, ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH I THINK IS WINNETKA.
THOSE ARE DIFFERENT, BUT, UH, ON THE BLOCK FACE, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.
SO TO ME, THAT DOESN'T, THAT ONE DOESN'T CARRY NOT GRANTED TO RELEASE SELF RELATED HARDSHIP.
OH GOSH, HOW MANY, HOW MANY OF THESE DO WE DEAL WITH THAT WE, WE GET PERMITS ISSUED THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ISSUED? UH, NOT CONTRARY TO PREP INTEREST.
DID YOU HAVE UH, I'M, I'M, I'M PUBLIC CLOSED.
HOW'S THAT FOR FEEDBACK? UM, AND, AND SINCE IT'S A DISCUSSION, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
UH, COMPARED TO THE OTHER, OTHER, UH, LOTS THERE, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS THE, THE SIDE FRONTAGE STREET, CORRECT? OH, THE ONE GO OUT BEHIND IT SOUTH.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT.
AND IF YOU GO BACK, IF YOU GO WEST, YOU GO EAST ON MCBROOM, ALL THOSE HOUSES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT THEY PROVIDED US, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.
SO, UM, ANYWAY, I MEAN, I, I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA GOES AGAINST OUR STANDARD FOR THE VARIANCE IS THESE THREE THINGS, AND WE STAY FOCUSED ON THAT.
I'M JUST FRUSTRATED BY PERMITS BEING ISSUED THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ISSUED.
AND THEN LANGUAGE THAT COMES FROM PEOPLE SAYING, DON'T SUE ME.
[02:20:01]
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LIABLE.AND THEN TO HEAR OUR, OUR SEVENTH FLOOR FRIENDS SAY WE THE CITY WON'T BE LIABLE, YOU KNOW,
I JUST, I MAY PULL A KATHLEEN ON THIS, LIKE THE LAST ONE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULDN'T VOTE FOR IT, BUT YOU, YOU KNOW.
I, I'M NOT GONNA BE PERSUADE I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO PERSUADE MY BOARD MEMBERS TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I'M VERY AMBIVALENT.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BOARD SECRETARY CALL BEFORE THE VOTE, PLEASE.
MR. CHAIR
I THOUGHT I'D GET OFF THE HOOK.
UH, MR. HOLCOMB'S COMMENTS ARE POINT ON POINT AND I, I WILL THEN AND I'LL VOTE.
MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 22 360 1, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE GRANTS, THE REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO DECIDE OUR SETBACK.
UH, YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO TO, UH, EVIDENCE THE DECISION THE BOARD'S MADE TODAY.
NOW, SO THAT CONCLUDED THE CASE.
NOW HERE'S MY EDITORIAL COMMENT.
AS ONE MAY HAVE HEARD BEFORE THESE LOTS IN THIS AREA, THERE WERE SEVERAL ISSUES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE A PARTICULAR PANEL OR TWO.
I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE THE APP, THE DEVELOPER IN DEVELOPING THESE LOTS IS VERY MUCH AWARE TO NOT MAKE THIS MISTAKE OR BE PARTIED TO A MISTAKE OF HUMAN ERRORS AS MR. SAIK SAID.
SO I HOPE, I HOPE, I HOPE, CUZ THIS IS ONE IN MANY THAT HAS COME BEFORE US.
ARE ANY MORE PROPERTY? I'M HEARING CLOSED, SO THIS IS NOT A COMMON DAY HEARING.
MY BOARD ATTORNEYS IS GETTING NERVOUS.
I SAID THAT AFTERWARDS, DANIEL.
OKAY, LAST CASE FOR TODAY, UH, IS BDA WELL YOU THREW US FOR A LOOP THERE, MR. FINNEY
I THOUGHT I'D GET OFF, I'D GET OFF FREE ON THAT.
HEY, THIS IS TRUE QUA JUDICIAL INACTION.
LAST CASE FOR TODAY'S BDA 2 23 52 BDA 22 3 52.
THIS IS AT 79 15 ROUND ROCK ROAD, 79 15 ROUND ROCK ROAD.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR.
OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, UH, TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MY NAME IS EMMY ZUMWALT AT 79 15 ROUND ROCK ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75,248.
SO YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO US, BUT I'LL DO PLUS OR MINUS.
SO BEFORE YOU START, LET ME ASK MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS SCHEDULED FOR THIS CASE? NO OTHER SPEAKERS, SIR.
NO OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY, SO YOU HAVE ALMOST ANY TIME YOU WANT AS LONG AS WE DON'T FALL ASLEEP.
YOU GUYS ARE NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, UH, PLUS A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL, SO, OKAY.
UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HEARING MY CASE.
UH, WE ARE WANTING TO BUILD THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF MY MOM WHO NEEDS HAS, YOU KNOW, SOME HEALTH ISSUES.
AND WE HAVE MADE IT LOWER, I THINK, ROOF LINE THAN OUR ROOF LINE, SO IT'S NOT IMPACTING OTHERS.
I WENT AROUND AND ASKED ALL THE NEIGHBORS, I'VE GOT LETTERS.
SO I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITHIN REASON TO MAKE IT NOT A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WORKED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE BUILDING IT AND DESIGNING IT THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE TO FIT ON OUR LOT.
YOU GUYS PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE 10 MINUTES OF LISTENING.
WELL, I, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANNA GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY.
AND SO, MS. WILLIAMS, YOU SAID THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
ALL RIGHT? SO, UM, YOU'VE HAD THE JOY OF SITTING THROUGH THESE OTHER HEARINGS, SO YOU NOW KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AND MM-HMM.
SO WE'LL, WHAT QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANTS? I'LL START OFF WITH A QUESTION OR TWO.
THEY'LL WARM UP HERE, I PROMISE YOU.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION THIS MORNING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE.
[02:25:01]
UM, UNIT ADU IS HOW MANY SQUARE FEET? 540.
HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THE MAIN STRUCTURE? 28 0 4.
YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE NUMBERS HERE.
I'M GONNA GET MY PHONE NUMBER.
UH, FIVE 40 DIVIDED BY 28 0 4 IS WHAMMO.
SEE, I GAVE YOU SOME STALL, MR. FINNEY.
UM, SO, UH, THERE WAS A OUT OF THE FOUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, THERE WAS ONE IN THE, THE NOTIFICATION ZONE, UM, WHO APPARENTLY IS ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'VE TALKED TO THIS NEIGHBOR ABOUT WHY THEY'RE POSED? YES.
I WENT AROUND IN PER HOLD, HOLD THAT COMMENT.
WHICH, WHICH PROPERTY IS THAT ON THIS MAP? DO WE, DO WE KNOW WHICH ONE? IT'S THE CORNER OF SPRING CREEK AND ROUND ROCK, SO IT'S DIRECTLY WEST OF US.
THAT WOULD BE LOCKED ADJACENT NUMBER EIGHT OR NUMBER FIVE.
IT'S THE ADJACENT LOT WEST, SO IT'D BE EIGHT.
ALL RIGHT, NOW GO AHEAD WITH MR. FINNEY'S QUESTION.
UM, I WENT AROUND AND ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH EACH HOUSE THAT I GOT A LETTER FROM AND I DID SPEAK WITH THE TEETS WHO, UM, DECLINED TO SIGN A LETTER.
AND, UM, HER SUGGESTION WAS THAT I PUT MY MOM IN THE GARAGE, BUILD A GARAGE, CHANGE THE DRIVEWAY COMPLETELY, CUZ THERE WAS YARD THAT WAY.
AND SHE DIDN'T WANT LIGHT IN HER YARD.
AND LIKE, IT'S NOT A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, IT'S NOT A PARTY HOUSE.
LIKE, SO SHE JUST, AND ALSO SHE SAID THERE WERE, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS AND I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE AN H O A AND SHE SAID, WE DO.
THERE ARE, IT'S SOCIAL, IT'S A SOCIAL, I HELP WITH THE SOCIAL COMMITTEE
IT REALLY IS JUST GONNA BE FOR SOMEONE TO LIVE IN, BUT NOT LIKE A WHOLE OTHER FAMILY, A WHOLE OTHER BUSINESS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN PUT IN A DEED RESTRICTION SO THAT NO ONE E CUZ WE'RE PLANNING TO LIVE THERE UNTIL WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE LIVING, LIKE 25 YEARS OR SO.
BUT IN CASE WE EVER HAD TO SELL IT, THERE COULD BE A DEED RESTRICTION THAT IT COULD NOT BE RENTED OUT.
SO IT'S TOTALLY OUR INTENT TO KEEP IT IN THAT LANE.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE TALKED TO THIS NEIGHBOR, YOU'VE LISTENED TO HER CONCERNS MM-HMM.
THAT YOU COULD NOT RAMP THIS STRUCTURE? YES.
MS. DAVIS, DO, DO YOU HAVE A FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY? YES.
WE HAVE A, I THINK IT'S EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND IT HAS THAT SLIDING GATE THAT THE OTHER GUY WAS TALKING ABOUT.
IT, IT'S COMPLETELY FENCED IN.
AND SO JUST THE ROOF WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE PEEKING OUT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT WE'RE PUTTING IN LANDSCAPING AFTER, BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT COG, YOU KNOW, A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S A SOLID FENCE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, IT'S SOLID WOOD.
THIS IS A ONE STORY STRUCTURE YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
AND ALL THE HOMES AROUND US ARE ONE STORY, SO NO ONE CAN SEE IN.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS KIND OF GOING FOR.
KINDA GOING FOLLOWING IN HOUSE THING.
WE CAN'T SEE IN ANYONE ELSE'S.
SO THERE'S NOT ANY TWO STORY DWELLING ANYWHERE ADJACENT.
UH, UH, THERE WAS A QUESTION THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING ABOUT ELECTRIC EITHER MM-HMM.
IS THAT GOOD OR BAD? BECAUSE NO, I WAS, IT WAS A SETUP QUESTION.
SO I'M, I'M READING THROUGH THE, UH, OPPOSITION LETTERS MM-HMM.
SO THE ONE THING THAT REALLY STOOD OUT FOR ME IS THERE'S A COUPLE OF REALTORS WHO WROTE, OR, OR MAYBE JUST ONE, UH, REALTOR WHO WROTE THAT THIS WOULD REDUCE THE PROPERTY VALUE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE OTHER HOMES.
SO HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO ANY REALTOR OR
[02:30:01]
ANYONE LIKE THAT WHO, WHO CAN GIVE YOU AN INDICATION OF WHAT EFFECT THIS WOULD HAVE ON HAVE ON PROPERTY VALUE? NO, AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THE, UM, THE LETTERS THAT IF THERE WAS ANY IN, I ONLY KNEW ABOUT THE SUPPORT ONES THAT MY NEIGHBOR SIGNED, SO I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE ANY LETTERS OF, UH, OPPOSITION.AND AS FAR AS DECREASING THE PROPERTY VALUE, MY REALTOR SAID, OOH, THAT'LL RAISE IT, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT, IF SOMEONE ELSE IN THE FUTURE HAS TO TAKE CARE OF SOMEONE THAT BREAKS THEIR LEG OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, SO YEAH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY INCLINATION.
BUT THE LETTER GAVE TESTIMONY MM-HMM.
SO I WANTED TO SEE IF YOU'D GOTTEN ANY, UH, EXPERT ADVICE ON THE MATTER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS IN CHAPTER 51, A 4.209 B6, PARAGRAPH E, ROMANS ONE AND TWO.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT IN A, IN ANY DISTRICT WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT WILL NOT BE USED AS RENTAL ACCOMMODATION OR ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER ROMAN AT ONE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHALL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEED RESTRICT THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT DEED, RESTRICT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PREVENT THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT TO BE USED AS RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS.
SO THE ONLY CRITERIA, FORWARD CRITERIA, UH, MR. MOORE IS NOT ADVERSELY EFFECT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THEY'LL MEET ALL THE OTHERS.
THE OTHER PORTION OF THE TEST IS ADVERSE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
SO WE KNOW WE FRAME THE, THE DISCUSSION.
MR. FINNEY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES.
AND SO ON THAT THREAD OF ADVERSE EFFECTS, UM, TALK TO US ABOUT WHERE WILL YOUR MOTHER OR ANY FUTURE HOUSE GUESTS, UH, PARK? WHAT ABOUT PARKING? UH, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE EXTRA PARKING PROVIDED BECAUSE THE REASON SHE'S MOVING IN WITH US IS THAT SHE CAN NO LONGER TAKE CARE OF HERSELF.
SO THERE'S NOT ACTUALLY ANOTHER CAR COMING.
AND SO, LIKE, SAY FUTURE SCENARIO, IF IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE, ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER WHO NEEDS TO DRIVE, IS THERE AMPLE SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER VEHICLE? YES.
OUR, OUR ACTUAL DRIVEWAY THAT CAME WITH THE HOUSE WHEN WE PURCHASED IT LAST AUGUST IS ROOM FOR LIKE FOUR OR FIVE CARS TO PARK.
SO THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
MR. FINNEY, YOU'LL GET RENEWED.
UM, I ASKED MR. MOORE TO TELL US, AND HE'S READING IN THE BIG BLUE BOOK, UH, WHEN PARKING IS REQUIRED, MR. MOORE PARKING WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHICH WOULD BE ONE THAT AN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE FOR RENT.
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, THE, THE EMAIL THAT CAME FROM THE REALTOR THAT I SAW IN HERE, IT WAS A LENGTHY EMAIL.
DOES THIS PARTICULAR REALTOR LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S, I THINK SHE SAYS I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, SHE SAYS SHE DOES LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 77 0 7 FALL METAL ROAD.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OR TWO STREETS NORTH OF US.
I DON'T, IT WOULD BE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EAST OR WEST, BUT IT'S A COUPLE STREETS UP.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I THOUGHT THE REALTOR WAS A CHEF.
I THOUGHT THE, I THOUGHT THE QUESTION CAME FROM A GENTLEMAN.
BUT I THOUGHT THE REALTOR WAS A GENTLEMAN THAT I READ.
AT LEAST WHAT I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
AND, AND SHE'S NOT IN THE 200 FOOT USUAL.
JOHN, WHO IS JOHN SCHMIDT? THAT'S A REALTOR THAT SENT A LETTER.
IN FACT, TWO, THERE WERE TWO IN THE, IN THE PACKET.
DO YOU KNOW THAT NEIGHBOR SCHMIDT? MM-HMM.
DO YOU KNOW THEIR ADDRESS? I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO COPIES OF THIS LETTER IN THE, YEAH.
JOHN, JOHN, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOPE.
UH, THE BO EXCUSE ME, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 5 2 ON THE
[02:35:01]
APPLICATION OF UHMY ZUMWALT GRANT, THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT ON A SITE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER PURPOSE AND INTENT.
TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY.
THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
THE APPLICANT MUST DE RESTRICT THE SUBJECT, SUB, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PREVENT THE USE, UH, OF THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AS A RENTAL ACCOMMODATION IN THE ITEM IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 52.
MR. SUK HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I UNDER FINNEY SECOND.
THE MOTION MR. FINNEY SECONDS.
THE MOTION MR. SITE? WELL, I THINK YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S CLEAR IT'S NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING UNITS.
THE, YOU KNOW, THE PRIVACY WOULD REALLY, UH, BE IN PLACE TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS ARE ESSENTIALLY NOT GONNA REALLY KNOW THAT IT'S EVEN THERE.
SO I DON'T SEE ANY ADVERSE CONDITION.
UH, THE OTHER CRITERIA, WHICH IS FOR IT NOT TO BECOME A RENTAL UNIT, IS PART OF THE CONDITIONS, UH, THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE PART OF THE CONDITIONS.
YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, I, REGARDLESS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT EITHER OF THE BOARD OR THE APPLICANT, UH, AGREES WITH.
SO, UH, THAT'S KIND OF STANDARD BARLA PLATE WITH THESE KIND OF EXCEPTIONS.
SO, UH, THEREFORE I SUPPORT, UM, THE APPLICATION MR. FINNEY.
UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BIGGEST THING THAT STUCK OUT TO ME IS THAT YOU, YOU ABSOLUTELY MADE AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
AND WHEN YOU, UH, FOUND OUT THAT ONE OF THEM WAS OPPOSED, YOU TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT.
UM, THAT IS SO IMPORTANT IN CASES LIKE THESE.
UM, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT GOOD JOB.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS I SUPPORT THIS.
UM, AND THEN ALSO I THINK IT'S JUST VERY CLEAR IT'S NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING YOUR NEIGHBORS.
UM, I'M, I, I READ THE, SOME OF THE OPPOSITION, WHICH ALWAYS GIVES ME PAUSE, BUT OPPOSITION DOESN'T MEAN NO OPPOSITION JUST FOR ME, GIVES ME PAUSE.
I THINK, UH, THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF THE FENCE, MS. DAVIS ASKED ABOUT THIS, THIS FENCE AS WELL AS THE FACT THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ADDITIONAL CARS.
THAT SORT OF ISSUE, UH, MAKES ME THINK THAT THIS PROBABLY WILL BE OKAY.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
HEARING NONE, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MR. HOLCOMB? AYE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 22 3052.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTS YOUR REQUEST TO, UH, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.
YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
BOARD MEMBERS, THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON OF OUR, ON OUR PRINTED AGENDA.
UH, BE AWARE THAT OUR NEXT PANEL PANEL A MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, JULY 18TH, TUESDAY, JULY 18TH AT 10:30 AM TUESDAY, JULY 18TH, 10:30 AM UH, THAT ALL BEING SAID, IT IS 3:38 PM UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY TO ADJOURN.
WE ARE HEREBY ADJOURN AT 3:39 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH.