Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:04]

GOOD AFTERNOON.

[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.

THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT.

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.

UM, DR.

CAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, SENIOR PLANNER, UH, GIANNA BRIDGES SENIOR PLANNER.

AND DIANA BARONE WAS HERE.

SHE BACK MOMENTARILY.

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.

UH, THAT KEEPS IT ORDERLY.

AND ALSO FOR RECORD.

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.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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.

IN THAT ORDER.

[00:05:01]

QUESTIONS SEEMING NO.

FIRST.

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.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. DAVIS.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.

SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 16TH.

HEARING NO QUESTIONS.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED NEEDY MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

FIVE TO ZERO.

THANK YOU.

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.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

HOW ARE YOU? OH, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT LIGHT'S ON.

HOW'S THAT? THERE YOU GO.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

I DO.

PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

AUDRA BUCKLEY.

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.

THANK YOU, MS. BUCKLEY.

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.

MR. MOORE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

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.

THANK YOU, MR. MOORE.

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.

THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN BDA 2 0 1 0 91 TO GRANT, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.

MR. SAUK SECOND.

THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

MS. DAVIS? NO DISCUSSION.

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.

THANK YOU.

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.

MR. FINNEY? AYE.

MR. HI.

AYE.

MS. DAVIS? AYE.

MR. CHAIR? YES.

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.

HAVE AT IT.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL SEE YOU SHORTLY.

OKAY.

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.

I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING.

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.

RIGHT.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

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.

IT'S A A PASS TAKE IT.

TAKE IT RUN.

OKAY.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT BEING IGNORED, SIR.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

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.

THANK YOU MR. HOLCOMB.

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.

MR. FINNEY? AYE.

MR. SA A MS. DAVIS? AYE.

MR. CHAIR? YES.

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.

THANK YOU SIR.

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.

THAT'S RIGHT.

ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, YOU THERE'S DOUBLE BECAUSE CUZ OF THE TRANSLATION.

OKAY.

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.

THANK DANIEL.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? PLEASE SAY I DO.

YES, I DO.

UH, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

ALMA GUTIERREZ, 41 48 GENTRY DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75 20 12.

WHICH IS, UH, MM-HMM.

.

I SAID THEN VERY THANKS.

YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

WE'LL SEE IF, WE'LL SEE IF MS. WILLIAMS PASSES MY SPANISH .

GOOD AFTERNOON.

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.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S IT.

UM, , I SAID THANK YOU PERMIT THE INDIVIDUALS HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

YES.

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.

EVERYTHING IS THE SAME.

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.

YES, SIR.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

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.

GRACIAS.

UH, OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. HOLCOMB? AND, UH, OR DID MS. DAVIS, DID YOU FINISH FOR RIGHT NOW? OKAY, GO AHEAD, MR. HALL.

OKAY.

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.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO.

UM, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY

[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.

OKAY.

SO YOU BUILT THE FENCE AFTER YOU MOVED THERE C THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS, ANY GUYS, ANYTHING ELSE? AND THEN I'LL GO BACK TO MS. DAVIS.

OKAY, 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.

SEE? YES.

ABOUT HOW MANY? I'VE SEEN ABOUT THREE OR FOUR.

THANK YOU.

UH, SO CURVE BALL QUESTION.

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.

RIGHT THERE.

THERE YOU GO.

I'M ASKING THE STAFF SOME QUESTIONS.

ONE MOMENT.

OKAY.

SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

SO THIS IS GOOD.

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.

TO TO STREET.

OH, FROM THERE.

OKAY.

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.

IT'S SCALED.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ON A SCALE.

AND MS. DUNN, MR. FINN? UH, YES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

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.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

YES.

SO IT HAS TO BE 20 FEET INTO THE PROPERTY FROM THE CURB, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

YES.

CORRECT.

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.

SO THE FENCE COULD, IT

[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.

I MISSPOKE.

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.

OKAY.

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.

NOT, THERE WAS NO A PERMIT.

OH, A PERMIT.

A PERMIT EXPIRED.

THEY CAME IN EARLIER.

I HAD SAID THAT THEY CAME IN FOR A CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.

PLEASE, EARLIER, PLEASE.

I HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY CAME IN, THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN A PERMIT FOR THAT FENCE.

YES.

UM, IN THE FRONT.

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.

THAT'S FRONT.

THEY ONLY CAME IN FOR THE INTERIOR SIDE AND THAT REAR, UM, PORTION.

OKAY.

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 .

RIGHT.

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.

RIGHT.

GOT IT.

OKAY.

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.

NEVER PERMITTED.

OKAY.

HMM.

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.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SAYS ONE SECOND.

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.

RIGHT.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

MR. SEG, WELL THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE WAS ABOVE SIX.

SO THAT'S GONNA ANSWER.

THANK YOU.

SORRY, I MISSED.

OKAY.

WE'RE HAVING A GOOD DISCUSSION.

UM, MR. CHAIR? I HAVE, YES.

MR. FINNEY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

YES.

UM, MR. FINNEY PROCEED.

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.

AND THAT GOT APPROVED.

I AM APPROVED TO BUILD THE FENCE.

OKAY.

SO I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED CUZ UH, MS. , YOU JUST TOLD US THAT THIS PART OF THE FENCE WAS NOT, UH, INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? I HAVE THE PAPER IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

WE

[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.

IS THAT GOOD? OKAY.

YEAH, THIS IS IT.

UH, IF YOU WOULD PASS THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL GIVE IT BACK TO YOU OR A COPY OR SOMETHING.

YEAH, I GOT, I GOTTA HAVE THIS ON THE RECORD.

HO HOLD ON.

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.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S WHAT MS. BARCO SHOWED YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

IT WASN'T SPECIFIC.

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.

OKAY.

SO IN THEORY, THIS PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED WITH A SITE PLAN LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

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.

ABSOLUTELY.

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.

NO, YOU'RE FINE.

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.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

YES.

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.

CORRECT.

OKAY, THANK YOU MS. DAVIS.

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.

THANK YOU MS. STEP BUR BARK.

YES.

SO WE'LL PAUSE FOR A SECOND.

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.

I THINK THAT, OH, I'M SORRY.

CAN I, ONE SECOND.

MR. BARUM.

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.

MM-HMM.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

VERY CLEAR.

IT SAYS KEEP IT CLEAR.

IT'S NOT SAYS APPROVED.

APPROVED.

IT SAYS KEEP IT 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.

OKAY.

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.

YES.

COULD, COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.

MAYBE THAT'S WHY SHE'S THINKING THAT.

UM, BUT EITHER WAY, THE PERMIT WAS EXPIRED.

SO FOR A SIDE YARD BY RIGHT.

YOU SAID BEFORE, UH, THEY CAN BUILD UP TO SIX FEET.

YES.

OKAY.

YES.

BUT THEY STILL, IF THERE'S A GATE, STILL HAVE TO HONOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.

YES.

CORRECT.

INCLUDING WHAT WAS STAMPED ON THIS? CORRECT.

OKAY.

OKAY.

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.

YES.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

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.

DID I SAY THAT? OKAY.

OKAY.

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.

MM-HMM.

IS TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISI VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION AND IT'S THE APPLICANT'S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

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.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

THE, THE, IT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

YOU'RE CONFUSING THAT WITH THE VARIANT STANDARD.

OKAY.

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.

YES.

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.

OKAY.

WE NEED TO STAY IN THAT LANE.

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.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

THANK YOU MR. HOLCOMB.

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.

THE MOTION FAILS.

THE CHAIR ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

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.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

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.

MR. FINNEY SECOND THE MOTION.

I LIKE THE WAY HE DOES THAT.

YES, HE'S VERY GOOD.

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.

I ALWAYS GO TO THE MAKER.

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.

THANK YOU MR. FINNEY.

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.

THANK YOU MR. SAUK.

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.

MR. FINNEY? AYE.

MR. SA AYE.

MS. DAVIS? AYE.

MR. CHAIR AYE.

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.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

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.

I APOLOGIZE.

45 23 FRANKFURT BOULEVARD IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

OUCH.

MS. MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? OUCH.

UH, NOBODY REGISTERS, SIR.

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.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR.

ALL THE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES WERE, WERE NOTIFIED AND THERE IS NO APPLICANT TO ADVOCATE FOR HIS OR HER CASE.

OKAY.

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.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

WELL, I'M, WE'RE MOVING ON.

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.

MOTIONS BEEN MADE.

IS THERE SECONDS? I'LL SECOND THAT.

SECONDED BY MR. SAUK.

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.

QUESTIONS.

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.

THEY'RE NOT HERE.

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.

INTERESTING.

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.

OKAY.

SO, THANK YOU MS. DAVIS.

HOLD FOR ONE SECOND.

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.

OKAY.

SO LET'S TAKE A MOMENT AND SEE IF WE, IF THIS PERSON IS, HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR US? IT'S ONLINE.

PERFECT.

OKAY, SO WE'RE ON.

SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO SPEAK EARLIER.

NANCY, WILL YOU MUTE YOURS? IT'S ON MY COMPUTER.

OKAY, GOT IT.

PERFECT.

MY MANY APOLOGIES.

I WAS NOT.

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.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

BUT ONE SECOND.

SO, OKAY.

UH, I REQUEST PRIVILEGE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND.

I HAD AN ISSUE.

WITHDRAW.

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.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

THAT'S ONE.

SO WE WILL, UH, SO DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? YES, THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE.

ALL RIGHT.

AND YOUR AND YOUR NAME MA'AM? NANCY CARRERE.

I'M WITH YOU.

WE CANNOT HEAR YOU.

WE CANNOT HEAR YOU MS. MS. ROBINSON.

TOTALLY.

IT'S NOT MUTED.

YEAH.

CAN YOU ALLOW ME TO SPEAK? IT'S UNMUTED.

WE CAN'T BARELY WE CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.

IT'S HORRIBLE.

IS IT YOUR LAPTOP? I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY.

MAYBE ON THIS ONE I CAN WORK NOW.

I'M NOT ALLOWED TO.

I CAN'T SPEAK ON THESE.

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.

UNDERSTOOD.

UNDERSTOOD.

IT'S, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

CAN'T HEAR YOU.

YOU, YOU ARE, YOU ARE A PANELIST.

MS. MS. BISHOP, YOU'VE BEEN, YOU ARE A PANELIST, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

WE CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.

MY APOLOGIES.

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.

I'M ON SPEAKER HERE.

UH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THEY CAN'T HEAR.

YEAH, IT'S UNMUTED AND IT'S ON THE OH, THAT'S

[00:55:02]

OKAY.

ONE WORKING.

SO WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU ANOTHER MINUTE AND THEN WE'LL, MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU, YOU'RE TRYING TO PUSH A BUTTON.

, UH, MR. SEK ALSO NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE PANEL, CORRECT? PHIL, MS. BISHOP, CAN YOU LOG BACK OUT AND LOG BACK IN PLEASE? WE'LL GIVE YOU ONE MORE MINUTE.

AND MAYOR, MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'RE ADDING PHIL TO, TO THE ATTENDEES.

THANK YOU.

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW? IT SHOULD WORK WORKING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, GUYS.

CAN'T HEAR.

YEAH.

NOW WE CAN'T HEAR YOU GUYS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

IT'S LIKE THERE'S A .

IS THAT YOU, MS. BISHOP? CORRECT? YES.

ARE YOU, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? WE NEED YOUR VIDEO ON, UH, YES MA'AM.

THERE WE GO.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OH, I'M SO GLAD YOU CAN HEAR ME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

OKAY, MA'AM? YES, MA'AM.

UM, YOU NEED, NEED TO BE SWORN IN ONE MOMENT.

ARE YOU REPRESENT.

ONE SECOND.

ARE YOU REPRESENTING BDA? 22 3 0, 50 45 23 FRANKFURT ROAD? THAT IS CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT.

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.

I DO.

AND MY NAME IS, PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

YES.

PEREZ TWO 20 EAST CENTRAL PARKWAY.

AND THAT'S IN ALTAMONT SPRINGS, FLORIDA.

OH, OKAY.

SO, OOPS, SORRY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN? YES.

NANCY CARRERE.

OKAY.

YOUR NAME IS NANCY CARRERE.

C A R R E R A S.

OKAY.

NANCY CARRE.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ALL RIGHT.

YES.

THANK YOU.

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.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS.

YES.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME.

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.

OH, YES.

THANK YOU.

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.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

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.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

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.

ONE SECOND FOR A SEC, MA'AM.

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.

OKAY.

I WANT YOU TO READ THAT BACK.

NOT UNREASONABLY BURDEN, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND ARE NOT SELF-IMPOSED.

GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

OKAY, CHAIRMAN.

OKAY.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR QUESTIONS ARE GEARED AGAINST THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE TO EVALUATE THIS REQUEST.

SO BEAR WITH ME MA'AM.

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.

OKAY.

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.

IT IS NOT A VARIANCE.

HP HB REPORT THE, THAT, THAT HOU THE RECENTLY ENACTED HOUSE BILL WOULD NOT APPLY.

OKAY.

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.

SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

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.

MS. SA, MR. SAIK.

OKAY.

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.

NUMBER ONE.

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.

OR MS. DAVIS'S COMMENTS? 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.

THAT'S THE INTENT.

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.

PHIL, PLEASE.

UH, YES, THANK YOU.

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.

OKAY.

STREET BUFFER LANDSCAPING.

YOU, DID YOU SAY GREENERY OR IS THAT MY BRAIN THINKING GREEN? WELL, I DIDN'T MS. DAVIS TALKING GREEN , UH, IT'S BASICALLY REV PROVIDE STREET BUFFERS, RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS.

RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS, AND ALSO FOR, UH, UH, GREEN CANOPY OVER PARKING, GREEN CANOPY OVER PARKING.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

HEY, I'M NOT WANTING TO GO DOWN INTO THE DEEP OF ARTICLE 10.

I'M JUST