Aug 15, 2023 Board of Adjustments: Panel A

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

UH, LET'S SEE HERE.

ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S IT.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, TO INTRODUCE OUR BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS, WHO'S A BOARD COORDINATOR, BOARD SECRETARY, AND, UM, THE LEAD EXECUTIVE FOR BUILT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHO RECENTLY GOT ASSIGNED AND, AND WE'RE VERY GLAD THAT WE'RE PART OF HIS DOMAIN IS JASON POOLE AS OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR.

THOSE ARE THE INTRODUCTIONS FOR TODAY.

OKAY, LET ME ORGANIZE MY PAPER.

MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS, SIR.

NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS WE GO DOWN ON THE AGENDA IS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IS THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR JULY 18TH, UH, MEETING MINUTES THIS MORNING.

AT THE BRIEFING I MENTIONED THAT WE HAD JUST ONE, UH, AMENDMENT TO IT, AND THAT IS JUST TO ADD ON THE ADJOURNMENT THAT THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THAT WAS PUT INTO THE RECORD, OR, UH, I'LL BE READY TO MAKE THAT MOTION IF THE

[00:05:01]

BOARD WILL ALLOW.

I MOVE.

WE APPROVE THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL.

A MEETING MINUTES DATED JULY 18TH AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE WORDS MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON THE ADJOURNMENT PAGE.

DISCUSSION, HEARING, NO DISCUSSION.

SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDED MEETING MINUTES WAS MADE BY THE CHAIRMAN, SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

FIVE ZERO.

2 2 3 0 7 2 AND 2 2 3 0 7 5.

NEXT ITEM FOR THE AGENDA IS OUR CONSENT DOCKET.

UH, WE'LL DO A QUICK PREVIEW FOR EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL AS THE BOARD.

AS I DID THIS MORNING.

WE HAVE EIGHT CASES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD THAT ARE ON THE, UH, ADVERTISED AGENDA AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING.

THE BOARD, UM, REVIEWED UH, SEVEN OF THE EIGHT CASES, THE EIGHTH CASE.

WE WILL DO THE BRIEFING RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING, UM, OF THE CASES BRIEFED THIS MORNING, TWO CASES THE THE BOARD, UH, DECIDED TO ACCEPT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

AND WHAT THAT SIMPLY MEANS IS THAT, UH, WE'RE AGREEING WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT AND WE DON'T NEED TO CALL PUBLIC.

WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE TESTIMONY IN ADDITION TO JUST HEARING THE CASES.

SO THAT'S LIKE A SUMMARY APPROVAL.

SO THE FIRST ITEM UP IS THE, UM, CONSENT AGENDA, AND THAT IS B D A 2 2 3 0 7 2 AT 6 9 0 0 WALFORD ROAD AND B D A 2 2 3 0 7 5 AT 8 3 3 4 PLAINVIEW DRIVE.

THE CHAIRMAN WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MS. DAVIS, 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 AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATIONS SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT.

BDA 2 2 3 0 72 APPLICATION OF CHRISTINA LAREDO FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.

COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.

B D A 2 2 3 0 75 APPLICATION OF MECADO BNO FOR VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.

COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.

B D 2 2 3 0 7 5 APPLICATION OF METO RENO FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.

COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY BY MS. DAVIS TO GRANT 2 2 3 0 7 2 2 2 3 0 7 5.

UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NARY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ONLY DISCUSSION IS THAT IT SEEMED LIKE THEY MET, MET THE CRITERIA FOR US TO ALLOW THOSE VARIANCES.

SO THAT'S WHY I SUPPORTED THE MOTION.

THANK YOU MS. DAVIS.

MR. NERING.

I CONCUR HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

WILL NOW VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MS. BOARD SECRETARY MR. HOLCOMB AYE.

VOTE IS FIVE ZERO UNANIMOUSLY.

THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH 2 2 3 0 7 2 AND 2 2 3 0 7 5 HAS BEEN APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

FIVE TO ZERO BY THE BOARD.

UH, FOR BOTH OF THOSE APPLICANTS, YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, UH, WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.

WE NOW GO TO UNCON.

WE NOW GO TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA IS BDA 2 2 3 0 3 2 2 2 3 0 3 2.

THIS IS AT 5 1 0 NEWELL 5 1 0.

NEWELL IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

PLEASE STEP FORWARD.

UH, UH, YOU'RE GONNA BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND THEN YOU'LL NEED TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO, UH, ADDRESS AS IT RELATES TO YOUR APPLICATION.

MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

JASON, YOU WANNA POINT THAT MICROPHONE RIGHT UP TO YOU NOW GO AHEAD AND TRY, TRY AGAIN.

CAN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THERE.

JASON MEYER, FIVE 10 NEWELL, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 3.

ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN.

MR. MEYER.

PROCEED.

BOARD STAFF.

UH, MY NAME'S JASON MEYER.

I LIVE AT THE PROPERTY FIVE 10 NEWELL, ALONG WITH MY WIFE AND THREE KIDS.

UH, JUST GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND THEN I'LL JUST DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST.

UH, WE MOVED HERE IN 2017 AND WHEN WE MOVED INTO THE

[00:10:01]

HOUSE, IT WAS A 1400 SQUARE FOOT CHARMER.

UH, AND IT WAS BUILT IN 1930S.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WAS JUST ME AND MY WIFE AT THE TIME.

UH, THREE KIDS LATER WE STARTED, UH, ENGAGING SOME INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS TO TELL, HELP US MAYBE DEVELOP THE HOUSE FURTHER, ADD SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE.

UH, AND AT THAT POINT WE REALIZED THAT THE SLOPE ON OUR LOT WOULD BE, UH, RESTRICTIVE TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE HOUSE, HOW WE'D IMAGINED IT.

UH, AND SO ONE AFTER ONE, UH, RECOMMENDED THAT IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO ADD SIGNIFICANT SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER MOVING.

UH, MY WIFE AND I HOWARD, WERE VERY COMMITTED TO MAKING THIS HOUSE WORK.

UM, IT'S THE LONGEST I'VE LIVED IN ANY ONE HOUSE.

UM, MY DAD WAS IN THE AIR FORCE GROWING UP, SO WE MOVED EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.

UM, I MYSELF JOINED THE NAVY AND MOVED CONSTANTLY UNTIL WE MOVED TO TEXAS OR DALLAS IN 2016, MOSTLY TO CREATE KIND OF A STABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR, OUR GROWING FAMILY.

AND THAT, THAT BRINGS ME TO THIS, THIS REQUEST.

UM, WE, UM, WHEN WE MOVED IN IN 2017, UH, THERE WAS A PREEXISTING SHED ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT, UH, SHED PREDATED THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

WHAT OUR REQUEST IS, IS WE WANNA EXTEND THAT SHED SO THAT EXISTING SHED HAS A THREE FOOT SETBACK.

WE WANNA EXTEND THAT SHED FOUR FEET, UM, AND THEN CONVERT IT TO A MASTER CLOSET, UH, JUST TO ADD SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE AND, UH, FOR OUR, OUR FAMILY AND TO PROVIDE SOME, UH, YEAH, STORAGE AND, AND A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA SPACE.

SO REALLY, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE EXTRA FOUR FEET.

THAT FOUR FEET WOULD HAVE A TWO FOOT SETBACK? NO, NO.

PART OF THE OTHER HOUSE IS WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK.

UM, BUT WE WOULD ASK YOUR HELP WITH THAT.

AND I BELIEVE WE MEET THE STANDARDS.

UH, IN SUPPORT OF OUR APPLICATION, WE SUBMITTED A NUMBER OF, UH, LETTERS FROM ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS, ALL IN SUPPORT OF OUR REQUESTS.

UM, A NUMBER OF, UH, AFFIDAVITS, UH, FROM THOSE INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS I REFERENCED EARLIER, EXPLAINING WHY OUR HOUSE IS MORE DIFFICULT THAN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN OUR ZONING TO DEVELOP.

UM, AND LASTLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE MAKE THOSE REQUESTS NOT FOR ANY SORT OF UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IN IN EXPANDING OUR PROPERTY.

UH, AGAIN, I MENTIONED IT'S JUST THAT FOUR FOOT.

UM, I THINK IT BRINGS OUR, OUR HOUSE INTO THE KIND OF 700 SQUARE FOOT, 1700 SQUARE FOOT RANGE, UM, TO TRY TO MAKE THIS HOUSE WORK FOR OUR, OUR GROWING FAMILY.

UM, SO, UH, WE JUST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU'D, YOU'D GRANT OUR VARIANCE REQUESTS AND SAME BY ANY, FOR ANY QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU MR. MEYER.

QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. HALCOMB? HI.

UM, CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH, UH, YOUR DECISION MAKING WHEN IT COMES TO, TO RENOVATING THAT SHED AND TURNING IT INTO A CLOSET AS OPPOSED TO, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ROOM IN THE LOT FURTHER BEHIND THE MASTER BEDROOM.

JUST WALK ME THROUGH YOUR DECISION MAKING AND WHY YOU DECIDED TO DO IT THIS WAY AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER SOLUTION THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE YOU TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.

SO WE DIDN'T GO IN THROUGH LIKE A, I DON'T KNOW, A TON OF DIFFERENT COURSES OF ACTIONS FOR WHAT WE COULD DEVELOP.

UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PROFESSIONALS WERE BASICALLY THAT OUR EXISTING ADDITION, WHICH IS WHERE THE SHED IS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, UM, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FURTHER, WOULD ALL NEED TO BE DESTROYED.

IT COULDN'T BE EXPANDED UPON OR ADDED ON TO LIKE ANOTHER, ANOTHER STORY, WHICH IS PRETTY COMMON IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, SO AS I MENTIONED, WHEN WE FIRST MOVED IN, IT WAS A 1400 SQUARE FOOT.

WE DID CONVERT THE GARAGE TO LIVING, UH, PROPERTY SO THAT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, ADD, ADD A COUPLE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT TO OUR HOUSE.

AND THEN, UM, OUR CONTRACTOR'S RECOMMENDATION WAS WE REALLY, WE JUST NEEDED STORAGE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT A LONG TIME AGO, UM, AND IT SEEMED LIKE THE SHED CONVERTING THE SHED WAS COST EFFECTIVE, GOOD USE OF RESOURCES, AND ALSO IT COSMETICALLY FITS THE HOUSE BECAUSE REALLY IT'LL JUST, THE EXTENSION WILL JUST BECOME FLUSH WITH THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE AND WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEVELOP FURTHER INTO LIKE, KIND OF OUR SMALL BACKYARD ALREADY.

AND JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

THE, DOES THE SLOPE GO DOWN AS YOU GO TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY? IS THAT THE CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH.

I SUBMITTED FOUR PICTURES AT A KI YOU KIND OF SEE THE SLOPE, UH, BUT REALLY IT STARTS THE, THE KIND OF SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE SLOPE HA STARTS ABOUT HALFWAY ON OUR PROPERTY GOING BACKWARDS.

SO THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY IS THE MOST DOWN AND PROBABLY ACTUALLY RIGHT WHERE THE, THAT BACK, THE MASTER BEDROOM AND THE SHED BEGINS.

THAT'S WHERE THE SLOPE REALLY KIND OF BECOMES MORE SEVERE.

THANK YOU MR. HALCOMB.

OTHER QUESTIONS? MS. DAVIS? I, IS THE CLOSET ALREADY BUILT? YES.

SO EXPLAIN.

I MEAN, SO YOU'RE BASICALLY ASKING, UM, OUR FORGIVENESS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY BUILT THIS WITHOUT A PERMIT.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT WAS, IS NOT A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR THE BOARD.

THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T SAY THAT WE NEED TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT I CREATED MYSELF.

UM, SO I DID NOT BRING THAT TO THE BOARD PURPOSEFULLY.

UM, I BELIEVE WE MEET THE OBJECT, THE, THE STANDARDS OBJECTIVELY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CLOSET'S ALREADY BUILT OR NOT.

UM, BUT YES, I, I I SUPPOSE I, IF IF YOU'RE ASKING IT, IT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR MY FAMILY TO NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THAT PART OF THE CLOSET.

UM, BUT I, I ASSERT THAT I THINK WE MEET THE STANDARDS REGARDLESS.

O OKAY.

I I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR.

SO YOU'VE ALREADY

[00:15:01]

EXPANDED THE CLOSET.

YOU'VE ALREADY BUILT THE CLOSET.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO NOW YOU'RE ASKING, YOU'RE COMING IN FRONT OF THE BOARD NOW TO, TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY DO THAT, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE IT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO EXPLAIN AGAIN WHY YOU BUILT IT WITHOUT GETTING THE PERMIT FIRST.

SO THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME EXPANDING A PROPERTY, DOING ANY SORT OF CONSTRUCTION ON OUR PROPERTY.

UM, WE WEREN'T EXACTLY SURE WITH WHAT THE PROCESS WAS FOR KIND OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

UM, I MEAN, TO BE HONEST, THERE'S SOME, UH, DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND OUR CONTRACT AT THE TIME.

UM, WE THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GONNA BE CONVERTING THE, THE SHED AND NOT ADDING THE ADDITIONAL FOREFOOT.

UM, AND THAT WAS A GIFT FROM OUR CONTRACTOR.

UM, WE WERE ABOUT TO HAVE OUR THIRD CHILD, WE WERE LIVING OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE AND HE THOUGHT THAT IT MADE MORE SENSE TO EXPAND AT FOUR FEET THAN TO JUST CONVERT THE EXISTING SHED.

UM, THE EXISTING, IF, AS YOU SEE IN THE DRAWINGS, THE, THE CLOSET NOW HAS TWO DOORS.

UM, BASICALLY HIS AND HERS CLOSET.

UM, THE, THE INITIAL PLANS ONLY HAD ONE DOOR AND IT WAS JUST GONNA BE ONE MASTER CLOSET THAT WAS GONNA TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NINE FOOT SHED.

UM, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT IS NOW 13 FEET AND IT ALLOWS FOR TWO DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE CLOSET.

UM, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU THE FULL, THERE'S IT, IT WASN'T PLANNED.

UM, BUT, AND THAT'S KINDA WHY WE'RE AT, ARE WHERE WE ARE.

I, I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT.

AND THIS IS, THIS IS THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER.

UM, I, I DON'T APPRECIATE WHEN SOMEBODY GOES AHEAD AND BILLS SOMETHING WITHOUT DOING THE RESEARCH.

IT'S UP TO EVERY HOMEOWNER TO UNDERSTAND THE RESTRICTIONS WHEREVER, REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU'RE LIVING.

SO AT THIS POINT, YOU'RE COMING TO US AC ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS ON THIS, WHEN THE PRO YOU SHOULD HAVE COME, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THE PROPER CHANNELS, YOU SHOULD HAVE COME TO US BEFORE THIS WAS EVEN BUILT.

SO THIS HAS GIVEN ME GREAT PAUSE TO SUPPORT THIS EVEN THOUGH I WANNA SUPPORT THIS.

BUT, UM, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF PEOPLE COMING TO US AFTER THE FACT.

I THINK IT SETS A REALLY BAD, I DON'T WANNA SAY THE WORD PRECEDENT, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT A GOOD HABIT FOR PEOPLE TO GET INTO, TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THEIR OWN CHANGES TO THEIR, UM, TO THEIR STRUCTURE WITHOUT DOING THE RESEARCH AND WITHOUT GETTING THE REQUIRED PERMITS FIRST.

IT DOESN'T, THAT DOES NOT SIT WELL WITH ME.

I UNDERSTAND.

THERE'S A REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND PART OF THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK MAY BE FIRE CODE, IT MAY BE JUST RESPECTING SPACE BETWEEN HOMES.

OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I'LL MAKE A COMMENT.

UM, I WOULD AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS.

THE REASON, THE CITY, THE REASON THE STATE LEGISLATURE GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO MUNICIPALITIES TO CREATE ZONING STANDARDS IN AND DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, SETBACKS, SIDE YARD, FRONT YARD, BUILDING HEIGHTS, FLOOR DENSITY, THOSE SORT OF THINGS.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED BASED ON THE, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED BASED ON RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND COMMERCIAL AREAS AND THAT SORT OF THING, UM, IS TO SET SOME LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY OF STANDARDS WITHIN EACH ZONING DISTRICT.

UM, I TOO WANT TO SUPPORT YOU.

IT'S TELLING TO ME THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES ARE SUPPORTING YOU.

BUT YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE BORDERING ON BEING FLIPPANT ABOUT, WELL, I JUST DID IT AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, I BLEW IT AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT AND I'M HERE TO, TO MAKE IT RIGHT.

BECAUSE ALL TOO OFTEN WE HEAR TOO MANY PEOPLE BEING FLIPPANT ABOUT IT, AND IT ALMOST SETS A PATTERN THAT IF PE IF THE CITY BECOMES FLIPPANT, THEN THERE ARE NO ZONING REGULATIONS AND THEN IT'S, EVERYONE BUILDS WHERE EVERYONE WANTS TO.

I'M NOT TRYING TO LECTURE YOU, SIR.

I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY, UM, YOU ARE MAKING IT HARDER FOR ME TO GRANT SUCH A REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE APPROACH THAT YOU'VE CHOSEN TO TAKE.

THAT IS YOUR, YOUR CHOICE.

LIKEWISE, IT REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FOR US TO GRANT, IF I MAY.

CHAIRMAN, AND YES, PLEASE.

AND I'M, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE YOU GRIEF, I'M JUST GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT OF ECHO BACK.

UM, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I I RECEIVED THOSE AND YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M EMBARRASSED TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

UM, AS, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I DID SOME RESEARCH LEADING UP TO THIS, AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WHETHER IT WAS BUILT OR NOT SHOULD WASN'T A RELEVANT THING.

SO I I PURPOSELY DID NOT COME IN HERE KIND OF RINGING MY HANDS, EXPLAINING MY EMBARRASSMENT.

UM, YOU KNOW, MY WIFE AND I ARE, ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

WE TRY, TRY TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO DO THE EXISTING RENOVATIONS WE'VE DONE TO THE HOUSE.

UH, YOU KNOW, BUT LAW ABIDING MEANS YOU FOLLOW THE PROCESS.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

AND THE PROCESS IS YOU GO AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF SAYS, OOPS, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE

[00:20:01]

YOU KNOW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL MAKES OUR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS, YOU MEET THE CRITERIA IN ORDER TO GRANT THAT VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SO, BUT THERE'S RATIONALE AND REASON WHY THE CITY HAS ADOPTED THESE, THESE RULES.

SO, AND YOU, YOU SAID IT LAW ABIDING.

NOW NONE OF US ARE PERFECT, BUT YOU SAID IT LAW ABIDING.

AND I, I GUESS I SAY THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF, I, I AM EMBARRASSED TO BE TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

IT IS EMBARRASSING TO HAVE A SIGN IN OUR FRONT YARD FOR ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS TO SEE THAT WE HAVE THIS PENDING CASE BEFORE THE BOARD.

UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T LIKE TO MAKE EXCUSES LIKE, AS, AS I MENTIONED, LIKE WE'RE A MILITARY FAMILY, ONE, EVEN LIKE, SHOWING EMOTION IS A CH A CHALLENGE OF MY FAMILY.

UH, IT'S, THIS IS, IT'S AN EMBARRASSING MOMENT.

UM, AND I TRIED TO CO I, I SUPPOSE NO ONE WANT THE SIGN SHOULD MAKE YOU EMBARRASSED.

IT'S PART OF THE RULES.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT REQUEST AND WE WELCOME YOU HERE AND WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE.

UH, AND ON THE FACE OF IT, QUITE HONESTLY, MR. MEYER, I'M SUPPORTIVE.

THIS ONE MEMBER, I'M SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE THIS, BECAUSE, AND IT IS BECAUSE YOU NEIGHBORS ARE SUPPORTIVE THAT I'M, I THIS ONE MEMBER IS GONNA LOOK BEYOND THE FACT YOU BUILT BEFORE GETTING THE PERMIT.

THAT'S HOW I CAN LOOK BEYOND.

IF THERE WAS ANY HESITANCY IN YOUR NEIGHBORS, I PROBABLY VOTE NO AND THEN YOU'D BE SUNK.

NOW I'M JUST ONE VOTE.

BUT OUR RULES PER THE STATE STATUTE, SAY 75% HAVE TO APPROVE AND, AND A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THE BOX YOU'RE IN.

I, IF I CAN JUST MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT, PLEASE, I'LL LET YOU VOTE.

UM, SO YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT YOU, YOU PERCEIVED ME TO BE FLIPPANT.

I, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I, I WAS AIMING FOR PROFESSIONAL NOT COMING IN HERE, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, RINGING MY HANDS.

I, I THOUGHT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE MET THE STANDARD AND I, I WAS AIMING FOR PROFESSIONAL, NOT FLIPPANT.

UM, I AM ASKING FOR YOUR HELP HERE.

UH, I DO THINK WE MEET THE STANDARDS.

IT, IT IS NECESSARY FOR OUR HOUSE AND OUR, OUR EXPANDING FAMILY TO HAVE SOME STORAGE.

UM, I WISH WE WOULD'VE ASKED FOR THAT APPROVAL BEFORE, BEFOREHAND.

UM, SO THAT'S ALL, ALL I HAVE TO OFFER.

I APPRECIATE YOUR HONESTY AND, UM, OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.

IT, IT'S IMPORTANT, NOT THAT JUST YOU SIR, BUT THE PUBLIC AND THOSE LISTENING, THOSE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, FUTURE CASES UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS WE'RE CONSTITUTED, UH, BECAUSE A CITY SETS THE RULES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL SET THE RULES AND WE'RE EMPOWERED TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES TO THOSE RULES.

AND THAT'S THE PROCESS.

BUT THE PROCESS STARTS WITH GOING TO THE CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ASKING FOR A PERMIT, AND THEN THEY SAY YES OR NO BASED ON THE RULES.

AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME COMMON DENOMINATOR RULES.

AND WE COUNT ON OUR STAFF TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT.

AND LIKEWISE, WE COUNT ON HOMEOWNERS TO BE CONSISTENT IN FOLLOWING THOSE.

SO NOT ALL OF US FOLLOW ALL THE RULES.

I GET IT.

THAT SORT OF THING.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU GET A FULL PICTURE.

DISCUSSION ON THE, ON THE, FOR THE APPLICANT, OR EXCUSE ME, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ANY OPPOSITION, UH, AS WELL.

MR. HALCOMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 3 2 ON APPLICATION OF JASON MEYER GRANT THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.

BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WAS SUBMITTED.

SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED IN BDA 2 2 3 0 3 2.

MR. HOLCOMB MO MOVED TO GRANT.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, MR. UH, NARY SECONDED THE MOTION DISCUSSION, MR. COMB? YEAH, THE, THE KEY COMPONENT FOR ME IS THE SLOPE OF THE LOT.

UM, IT WOULD BE QUITE DIFFICULT TO PUT THIS SHED ANYWHERE ELSE.

AND, UM, OR CORRECTION CLOSET.

THE, UH, THE CLOSET FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHED.

UM, UH, ANYWAYS, UH, I I BELIEVE THAT THE SLOPE, UH, PROVIDES, UH, THE REQUISITE STANDARD MEETS THE REQUISITE STANDARDS IN ORDER TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST.

THANK YOU, MR. HOLCOMB.

MR. NERING.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I, I WOULD AGREE.

I I BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARDS, UH, HAVE BEEN MET IN THIS CASE.

I TOO WISH THAT YOU HAD SOUGHT OUT THE PERMITS BEFOREHAND, BUT I BELIEVE OVERALL THAT YOU WERE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

IT'S NOT OUTTA LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH,

[00:25:01]

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT SOME SUPPORT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS, SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR.

MS. DAVIS, THIS IS A HARD ONE FOR ME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR DAD'S SERVICE.

MY DAD WAS IN THE AIR FORCE.

I AM, I HAVE UTMOST RESPECT FOR ANYBODY WHO SERVES.

MY ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS JUST, UH, WE CAN'T KEEP APPROVING THESE INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE ARE BUILDING AND NOT GETTING PRIOR PERMISSION.

IT'S, IT'S A REALLY BAD PATTERN TO SET.

AND TO ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE, YOU NEED TO, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE REGULATIONS ON YOUR PROPERTY.

YOU NEED TO COME TO THE CITY AND GET THOSE PERMITS BEFORE ANY BUILDING TAKES PLACE.

SO I, I'M JUST REALLY STUCK ON THAT.

I, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE FOLLOW THESE PROCESSES.

UM, SO UNFORTUNATELY I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

OTHER COMMENTS, MS. HAYDEN? UM, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR, AND I THINK THE GRAY AREA FOR ME WAS THE, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.

UM, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AND THE FACT THAT YOU DO HAVE A LOT THAT HAS A, A, A SLOPE IN THE BACK THAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR AN ADDITION, UM, YOU KNOW, SWAYS ME IN THE, IN THE, UH, DIRECTION OF A APPROVING.

THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN.

UM, I'LL SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST.

UM, I'M NOT GONNA SEE ANY, I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE, MAKE ANY MORE COMMENTS ABOUT PROCESS.

YOU'VE HEARD OUR FEEDBACK.

UM, YOU SHOULDN'T BE AT ALL EMBARRASSED ABOUT A SIGN IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE.

THIS IS THE PROCESS.

IT'S LEGAL TO COME AND ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE.

WE'VE GOT EIGHT OF THEM TODAY, , AND THERE'S SEVEN TOMORROW.

SO, UH, THIS IS THE PROCESS.

UH, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE PEOPLE, EVERYONE'S TREATED FAIR, TREATED CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

CONSISTENTLY AND FAIRLY.

I'M GONNA SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST AND SUPPORT MR. HOLCOMB'S MOTION, UM, BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ALREADY AS IT RELATES TO THE MERITS.

AND, UH, I'M GONNA LOOK BEYOND THE LACK OF PROCESS.

UM, BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS THAT IT'S WEARING US DOWN, THAT PEOPLE DON'T RESPECT THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEN IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE OTHER 90 PLUS PERCENT THAT DO SO.

UM, SO I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION, UH, AND I SHOULD MENTION THIS FOR THE PUBLIC TODAY.

UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS RULES AND THE STATE STATUTE, ANY APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE REQUIRES 70% AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF A FIVE PERSON BOARD.

THAT MEANS FOUR VOTES.

SO A THREE TO TWO VOTE DOESN'T CARRY IT REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.

OKAY? I SHOULD MENTION THAT ORIGINALLY.

ALRIGHT, UH, THAT BEING SAID, ANYTHING OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IN 2 2 3 0 3 2.

UH, THIS IS AT 5 1 0 NEWELL.

THE MOTION IS TO GRANT MS. BOARD SECRETARY, CALL FOR THE VOTE PLEASE.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE ITEM OF, IN THE MATTER OF 2 2 3 0 3 2.

THE BOARD ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE APPROVES YOUR REQUEST AND GRANTS YOUR VARIANCE.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYONE.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS B D A 2 2 3 0 7 0 BDA 2 2 3 0 7 0.

THIS IS AT 5 0 2 7 ALCOTT STREET, 5 0 2 7 ALCOTT STREET.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

PLEASE COME FORWARD.

YOU FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET.

I HOPE I DID.

OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU'LL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT, PLUS OR MINUS.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.

PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

MY NAME IS HANNAH ROGERS AND I LIVE AT 5 0 2 7 ALCOTT STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 6.

PROCEED.

WELCOME.

MY FIANCE AND OUR TWO DOGS.

UM, SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TODAY AND NICE TO MEET YOU ALL.

UM, JUST WANTED TO TAKE YOU THROUGH A QUICK, I SAY SLIDESHOW.

MY SLIDESHOW DIDN'T WORK.

SO IT'S A P D F VERSION.

UM, SO JUST A BIT OF A HISTORY OF BEHIND OUR PROPERTY.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE FAMILY THAT LIVES THERE, MYSELF AND

[00:30:01]

UM, WE MOVED HERE, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BACK IN 2021, OBVIOUSLY NOT ORIGINALLY FROM HERE.

VERY SOUTHERN TEXAN ACCENT THAT I HAVE.

UM, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SCROLLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

UM, SO THIS IS THE LOT IN QUESTION THAT I PURCHASED BACK IN 2021.

UM, AND I WILL GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL IN WHAT I'M ASKING AND HOPING FOR TODAY.

UM, IF YOU CAN, THANK YOU.

UM, SO I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, UM, THE FRONT PORCH, UM, AND ALSO THE GARAGE IS IN, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.

I AM REQUESTING A EIGHT YARD SETBACK FOR THE FRONT PORCH AND A THREE YARD SET, THREE YARD SIDE SETBACK ON THE FRONT PORCH AS WELL.

AND YOU MEAN FEET? YES.

WHAT I SAY.

OKAY, YOU SAID YARD, SORRY, FEET.

THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

FEET .

OKAY, GOOD.

AND EIGHT FOOT AND A THREE FOOT AND THEN A ZERO FOOT, UM, SETBACK ON THE, UM, GARAGE AS WELL.

AND WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I BOUGHT IT AS IS.

UM, THE PREVIOUS OWNER DID THIS IS, THIS WAS HOW I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.

I HAVE NOT MADE CHANGES TO THIS PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE.

UM, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SCROLLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

UM, SO THIS IS JUST A QUICK OUTLINE AND VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AS IT STANDS TODAY.

UM, JUST SO THAT YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE I'M TALKING, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND HOW WE CAN JUST LIKE DIVE INTO THINGS A LITTLE BIT.

UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I'M JUST GONNA DIVE INTO THE GARAGE SIDE.

UM, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SCROLLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

UM, SO TO MAKE THE GARAGE THE CODE, UM, I WOULD HAVE, THE GARAGE WOULDN'T BE VIABLE.

I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIT A CAR INSIDE.

UM, AND THERE IS ALSO NOWHERE ELSE TO HAVE A GARAGE AS I CAN'T PARK IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THE ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT OF MY SCREEN, UM, THERE IS THE BACK ALLEY.

YOU CAN'T, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO.

IT IS CURRENTLY USED FOR UTILITIES AND NONE OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT.

UM, THE WATER DRAINAGE ON THE GARAGE HAS, IS, DOES NOT AFFECT MY NEIGHBOR.

AND SHE SAID IT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY INF AFFECT HER EITHER.

UM, AND IT, SHE HAS NO ISSUE AS IT IS AND IT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY AFFECT HER PROPERTY.

UM, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE HAS NO WINDOWS.

UM, I DO HAVE THE PERMITS READY TO GO THROUGH A TEAM AS IF, IF ASSUMING IF THE VARIANCES GET ACCEPTED.

UM, AND I DO HAVE SIGNATURES FROM MY NEIGHBORS TO SUPPORT, UM, BOTH PORTIONS OF THE HOME AS WELL.

UM, THE COST TO REBUILD, UH, THE GARAGE TO CODE WOULD BE AROUND 20 TIMES THE PRICE THAT IT WOULD COST TO HAVE BUILT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.

UM, WHICH WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT, UM, ME, UM, FINANCIALLY.

UM, BUT PER THE VARIANCE CO PER, PER THE VARIANCE CODE OF I I, IT WOULD CAUSE THAT, UM, SIGNIFICANT ISSUE OF, UH, FINANCIAL DISTRESS IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SLIDING DOWN.

ON THE AFFIDAVIT THERE, THE, THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER MENTIONED, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT HE DID ILLEGALLY.

UM, SO GOING BACK TO THIS PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT PORCH, UM, WHERE THE FRONT DOOR IS.

UM, THERE IS A GAP FROM THE GROUND TO THE FRONT DOOR, UM, SO THAT THE, THE STEPS WOULD NEED TO, UM, THEY'RE ALREADY CURRENTLY ENCROACHING ON THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

UM, AND SINCE THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOME IS NOT, UH, ON THE GROUND ITSELF, UM, THE HOME WAS BUILT IN THE 1920S, SO IT IS AN OLDER HOME.

UM, AND IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT ON AN ODD SHAPED LOT AND IT'S BUILT ON AN ANGLE THAT IS NOT COHERENT WITH SAID SHAPE OF LOT.

UM, I ORIGINALLY, WHEN I MOVED IN, I HAD A MEMBER OF CODE COMPLIANCE COME TO THE HOME AND TELL ME THAT I HAD PIECES OF MY HOME THAT WASN'T LEGAL AND I STOOD THERE AND I WAS JUST LIKE, EXCUSE ME, , WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT LEGAL? UM, SO WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH FOR A WHILE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT WAS WRONG.

UM, AND OBVIOUSLY THE PORCH AND THE GARAGE IS WHAT THE ISSUE WAS.

UM, I HAD TO DO A LOT OF RESEARCH TO FI RESEARCH TO FIGURE OUT WHY.

UM, AND I HAVE HAD MEMBERS LIKE ENGINEERS TO HELP ME FIGURE OUT IF THE PORCH IS TO CODE, IS IT SAFE FOR HUMAN TO STEP ON IT AND HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE UP THERE, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND THEY'VE SAID NO.

SO I HAVE GOT A TEAM READY TO ESSENTIALLY TEAR DOWN THE STRUCTURE, UH, PUT IT TO CODE AND TO MAKE IT SAFE AND VIABLE.

UM, SO IT HAS COST ME A LOT OF MONEY ALREADY WITH ENGINEERS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

UM, BUT AS I MENTIONED, I I AM, IT HAS COST ME MONEY ALREADY.

UM, I WILL BE REQUESTING A FEE WAIVER WAIVER FOR THE PERMITTING PRO, NOT THE PERMITTING PROCESS, BUT GETTING THE INITIAL SIGNAGE AND SO ON.

UM, BUT AS I MENTIONED WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE

[00:35:01]

SO I WILL BE DOING, UM, LEGAL ACTION ON THIS AS WELL.

UM, SO THERE'S A, A NICE LITTLE TAIL FROM ALL THAT AS WELL.

SO, UM, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SCROLLING DOWN ONE LAST TIME.

SO AS WE WOULD SAY, OUR AND OUR GOODES BOYS SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, FOR HEARING ME OUT TODAY.

UH, YOUR POWERPOINT WAS POWERFUL, .

UM, I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE BRIEFING TODAY ABOUT THE POWERPOINT ABOUT TELLING, ASKING THE STAFF NOT TO READ THE POWERPOINT, LET THE POWERPOINT BE VISUAL.

, YOUR POWERPOINT WAS VISUAL.

UM, I I'M GONNA ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS OF FOR CLARITY.

, UH, AND THEN I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FOR THE, FROM THE BOARD.

UH, YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE WHEN? JULY, 2021.

JULY OF 2021.

, YOU'VE, YOU'VE DONE WHAT, WHAT CONSTRUCTION HAVE YOU DONE ON THE HOUSE? NOTHING.

NO CONSTRUCTION.

SO YOU BASICALLY BOUGHT IT AS IS AS WE SEE IT NOW OR AS WE WERE BRIEFED ABOUT IT? CORRECT.

UM, THESE ARE JUST QUESTIONS.

NO, YOU'RE UM, WE WERE MADE AWARE THAT YOU'RE VIOLATING THE SIDE YARD AND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

AND WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE IN WAS IN AN N SS O NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION, UH, ORDINANCE.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THE N S O AT THE TIME AND THE, THE ORDINANCE AND THE SETBACKS AT THE TIME YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE? MM-HMM.

YOU'RE CORRECT.

IT'S, THOSE ISSUES ARE SOMETHING YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE UP WITH YOUR PREVIOUS, WITH THE SELLER.

WE ARE STAYING OUT OF THAT.

I JUST WANT CLARITY ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE AWARE OF AT THE TIME YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, WHAT YOU'VE DONE SINCE THE PROPERTY.

YOU HEARD THE LAST CASE AS IT RELATES TO PERMITTING AND THE PROCESS.

SO WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, IF I'M DEDUCING CORRECTLY, IS EIGHT FEET VARIANCE IN THE FRONT YARD.

IS THAT EIGHT FEET OF ADDITIONAL BUILDING OR AT THE, AT THE PLACE WHERE YOUR FRONT YARD FRONT HOME IS, IS WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO MAINTAIN, YOU'RE WANTING TO MAINTAIN THE, WHERE YOU'RE AT OR ARE YOU WANTING TO BUILD ANY FAR FORWARD? MAINTAINING THE HOME AS IT IS NO CHANGE.

WHAT ABOUT AS IT RELATES TO THE SIDE YARD VARIANCE? SAME MAINTAINING AS IT IS NO CHANGE.

I'M SORRY, SAY IT AGAIN? MAINTAINING THE HOME AS IT IS NO CHANGE.

'CAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT RIPPING OFF THE PORCH JUST TO MAKE IT, AND SO THAT THREW ME.

SORRY, JUST TO MAKE IT THAT IT'S STABLE FOR HUMANS TO UTILIZE 'CAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY OKAY.

THAT'S, THAT'S BEYOND OUR SCOPE.

YEAH, THAT'S BEYOND OUR SCOPE.

I I JUST DID KNOW IF YOU WERE CHANGING ANY OF THE, OF THE, ANYTHING ELSE THAT ENCROACHES IN ANY OF THE SETBACK SIDE OR FRONT YOU'RE NOT.

ONE OF THE THINGS I MENTIONED THIS MORNING TO OUR STAFF WAS ABOUT A ZONING TERM CALLED BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY.

AND THAT IS IF YOU TAKE, IF YOU TAKE THAT STRAIGHT LINE THAT YOU SEE ON THIS SCREEN PANEL HERE AND YOU HAVE SOME SEMBLANCE DOWN YOUR STREET, IS THERE SOME CONTINUITY? SO WHAT IS THE CONTINUITY IF YOU LOOK DOWN YOUR STREET, IF YOU'RE STANDING RIGHT AT THE, THE FACE OF YOUR, OF YOUR HOME? THAT'S A QUESTION AS IN IF I'M STANDING ON MY FRONT PORCH? YES.

IS IT REASONABLY STRAIGHT OR IS IT JUDD IN? ARE YOU STICKING OUT? ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ANYTIME WE GRANT A FRONT YARD VARIANCE MM-HMM.

IS ALLOWING A HOMEOWNER, ESPECIALLY IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, YOU'RE IN AN R YOU'RE IN AN R FIVE DISTRICT WITH AN N SS O IS THE WHOLE ISSUE OF MAKING SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SOME CONTINUITY DOWN THE STREET.

YEAH, NO, UNDERSTOOD.

UM, IF YOU STOOD AT THE END OF THE CORNER, SO I I THINK IT'S BASICALLY GOING TWO HOUSES THAT WAY INSTEAD YOU'RE THE NEXT STREET.

UM, I THINK, I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S OUT OF PLACE.

UM, THE HOME TO MY GARRETT.

GARRETT.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP WE WERE GIVEN.

OH YEAH.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOME DIRECTLY, IT'S NOT OUT OF PLACE.

I MEAN THE HOME'S BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, BUT THAT OTHER HOMES ARE MORE OR LESS IN LINE WITH WHERE I AM.

I DON'T, I WOULDN'T SAY IT LOOKS WONKY.

THAT'S PART OF MY CRITERIA.

THIS ONE MEMBER IS TO MAINTAIN THAT BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY.

AND THAT GOES TO PART OF OUR STANDARD OF NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

UM, DID YOU GET ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST FROM ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS? NO, NOT A ONE.

NOT AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.

UNLESS THEY'VE BEEN TO YOU.

I I'M JUST ASKING YOU.

WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY, I'M JUST ASKING YOU AS AN APPLICANT AND JUST 'CAUSE YOU GOT OPPOSITION DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD BE OPPOSED.

I WOULD THEN SAY, WHAT DID YOU DO ABOUT IT? WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS YOUR FEEDBACK? BUT IF YOU'VE GOT NO OPPOSITION.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW.

ALSO REBUILDING THE GARAGE OR ARE YOU JUST LETTING IT STAY AS IS LEAVING IT AS IT IS? UH, SO RIGHT NOW THE GARAGE IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE IT'S ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE FENCE, THE SIDE, THERE'S NOTHING UM, THERE'S NO SAFETY REASONS OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION REASONS WHY IT'S ILLEGAL, CORRECT? NO, NOT AS FAR AS I'M, WHY I KNOW.

UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, MS. DAVIS, ARE YOU

[00:40:01]

WHAT QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MS. HAYDEN, I SAW YOU REACH FORWARD FROM THE MIC.

, YOU CAUGHT ME.

UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER B D 2 2 3 70 ON APPLICATION OF HANNAH ROGERS GRANT, THE FIVE-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, RE REGULATIONS, UM, 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 AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.

I 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 IN THE MANNER OF 2 2 3 0 7 0 FOR THE FIRST MOTION FOR SIDE SIDE YARD SETBACKS AT 5 0 2 7 ALCOTT STREET, MS. HAYDEN MOVED TO GRANT APPROVAL.

MR. HOLCOMB SECONDED THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN.

SO THE, THE THREE CRITERIA THAT WE LOOK AT ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AND YOU DID NOT RECEIVE, OR WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FOR THIS.

UM, THE OTHER CRITERIA IS, UH, NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND.

WELL, THE FACT THAT YOU BOUGHT THIS IN THIS CONDITION WITHOUT, UM, PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UH, SETBACK ISSUES, UM, AND THEN NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.

AGAIN, YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AS IS AND, UM, YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES OR ENCROACHING ANYMORE INTO THE, INTO THE SETBACKS.

AND THE ONLY CHANGES YOU ARE MAKING ARE TO IMPROVE THE, THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF, OF THE PORCH.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M, UH, IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU MS. HOL HAYDEN.

MR. HOLCOMB, UH, MS. HAYDEN HIT ALL THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT I WAS GONNA HIT.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THIS MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS TO GRANT THE FIVE YARD AND TWO FOOT VARIANCE, UH, SITE FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS BDA 2 2 3 0 7 OH.

THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF 2 2 3 0 7 OH FOR THE RE, UH, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY FIVE TO ZERO GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR FIVE FOOT AND TWO FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE MS. HAYDEN SECOND MOTION.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 7 0 ON APPLICATION OF HANNAH ROGERS GRANT THE EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 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 AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I 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 IN THE MATTER OF 2 2 3 0 7 OH AT 5 0 2 7 ALCOTT STREET.

UH, MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED, UH, TO APPROVE GRANTING AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

SECOND AMENDMENT BY MR. HOLCOMB.

MS. HAYDEN, UM, JUST FOR THE REASONS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS MR. HOLCOMB.

I CONCUR.

I'D GIVE ONE COMMENT.

I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY AND SO THAT'S WHY I PRESSED YOU TO, FOR WHAT YOUR OPINION UNDER OATH IS AS IT RELATES TO THAT.

UM, EIGHT FEET IS A LOT OF CHANGE OF A FRONT YARD, ESPECIALLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE, THE N S O NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZER STABILIZATION ORDINANCE WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT.

SO I'M PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THAT.

I APPRECIATED YOUR POWERPOINT TODAY.

THE DOGS WERE COMPELLING.

THEY WEREN'T, THEY DIDN'T TIP, TIP THE CART, BUT THEY WERE COMPELLING.

UM, THANK YOU.

UM, SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

CHASE DOWN THAT SELLER.

UM, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE, NOT OURS.

SO YES, I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF MS. HAYDEN'S.

UH, RECOMMENDATION TO

[00:45:01]

APPROVE MS. BOARD.

SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL FOR THE SECOND VOTE? MS. HAYDEN? AYE.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 2 3 0 7 0 AT 5 0 2 7 ALCOTT STREET.

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE TO ZERO.

GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.

YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.

OKAY, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 2 3 0 5 8 BDA 2 2 3 0 5 8.

THIS IS AT 7 1 2 8 HAZEL ROAD, 7 1 2 8.

HAZEL ROAD IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

AFTERNOON.

OUR, OUR, UM, BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? SIR, ARE YOU GONNA BE TESTIFYING AS WELL THEN? LET'S HAVE YOU BOTH DO AT THE SAME TIME.

GO AHEAD, START AGAIN, MS. MARY.

DO YOU BOTH SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

BEFORE, UH, YOU START, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

GUADALUPE AMAYA.

7 1 2 8 HAZEL ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 7.

AND WHAT IS YOUR LAST NAME? AMAYA.

AMAYA? MM-HMM.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA CUT YOU OFF AT FIVE, BUT TO MAKE, TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.

I UNDERSTAND.

AND I DO GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS' TIME AGAIN TODAY.

UM, BASICALLY WE'RE COMING BACK, UH, THIS TIME.

I DO HAVE, UH, THE APPRAISER WITH ME FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE LEFT OFF IN THE LAST MEETING.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR BOARD SECRETARY'S GIVING US RIGHT NOW.

WHICH IS ABSTRACTED FROM MARSHALL AND SWIFT.

BOARD MEMBERS C CAN YOU HEAR ME HO? HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

ARE YOU GUYS TANDEM? UH, ARE YOU DOING IT BOTH TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME OR ONE THAN THE OTHER? YOU TELL ME.

HE WILL BASICALLY TAKE OFF AS SOON AS YOU ARE DONE WITH QUESTIONING ME.

ARE YOU GONNA WALK US THROUGH THIS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO? YES.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT MY OPINION OF VALUE OF THE A D U UNIT.

UM, TO BEGIN, MY NAME IS ADAM SIAL.

I'M PRESIDENT OF PRESTON AMHERST VALUATION AND ADVISORY.

I'VE BEEN A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER FOR 18 YEARS NOW ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

I'M LICENSED IN CALIFORNIA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS.

MY HEADQUARTERS IS IN DALLAS.

I HAVE OFFICES IN HOUSTON AND AUSTIN AS WELL.

I SPECIALIZE IN BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL APPRAISALS AND I PROVIDE EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY ON A REGULAR BASIS FOR MULTIPLE UM, DISPUTES.

SO I'M GONNA WALK YOU, EXCUSE ME, I'M GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH BRIEFLY THROUGH THE REPORT AND FEEL FREE TO ASK ME QUESTIONS AS THEY ARISE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AN A D U UNIT ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE.

BASED ON MY MEASUREMENTS, IT CONTAINS 958 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LIVABLE AREA.

IT'S A CLASS D STRUCTURE, CHEAP TO LOW QUALITY.

AND WHEN I SAY CHEAP TO LOW QUALITY, THAT IS REFERENCING MARSHALL AND SWIFT COMMERCIAL COST GUIDE AND A RESIDENTIAL COST GUIDE TO CONSTRUCTION.

THIS IS A THIRD PARTY SOURCE THAT IS HIGHLY RECOGNIZABLE IN MY PROFESSION.

UM, IT IS THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER SOURCE IN ESTIMATING CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

MOVING FORWARD, I'M GONNA GO INTO THE APPROACHES TO VALUE AND THE EXCLUSIONS APPROACHES TO VALUE THAT WERE COMPLETED.

UM, THE VALUE CONTAINED IN THE REPORT IS FOR THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT ONLY.

IT DOES NOT CONTAIN LAND VALUE.

UH, SO THEREFORE THE COST APPROACH WAS APPLIED.

A SALES COMPARISON APPROACH IS NOT APPLICABLE.

UM, THE ONLY SALE THAT COULD EXIST OF A STRUCTURE WITH LAND NOT ATTACHED WOULD BE A MODULAR UNIT OR PRE-MANUFACTURED HOME.

AND THAT WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN THE INCOME APPROACH IS NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DEVELOP A CAPITALIZATION RATE BASED OFF SALES AND INCOME DATA, UM, FROM THE MARKETPLACE.

SO TO ESTIMATE THE CONTRIBUTORY VALUE OF THE A D U UNIT, I IMPLIED THE, I EMPLOYED THE COST APPROACH AND THE FIRST STEP IN THE COST APPROACH IS TO ESTIMATE THE LAND VALUE WHICH HAS BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE VALUE ESTIMATE CONTAINED HERE AND IN THE REPORT.

SO IN THE COST ANALYSIS, THE SECOND STEP IS TO ESTIMATE THE REPLACEMENT COST.

NEW OF THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS,

[00:50:01]

THE A D U UNIT IN MY OPINION, IS MOST CONSISTENT WITH GUEST COTTAGES.

LOW, LOW COST, CHEAP QUALITY.

AND THE, THE RANGE OF VALUE ON A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT BASIS IS 69 TO $109 PER SQUARE FOOT.

IN MY OPINION, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WARRANTS A UNIT VALUE AT THE LOWER END OF THE RANGE DUE TO THE MINIMAL INTERIOR FINISH OUT ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

THERE IS, THERE'S NO FLOOR FINISHINGS, UH, KITCHEN CABINETS ARE MINIMAL, VERY LOW QUALITY.

AND THEN THE, THE FIXTURES, UM, ARE AVERAGED OF AIR QUALITY AS WELL.

AND I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE 69 TO $109 A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IS COST NEW AS IF YOU WERE TO BUILD IT TODAY.

NEW.

I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION, DON'T WORRY, I'M NOT GONNA CUT INTO YOUR TIME.

NO, YOU'RE FINE.

GO AHEAD SIR.

UM, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FOLLOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I'M NOT FOLLOWING IT, BUT I HAVE QUESTIONS.

IT SHOWS ON HERE AN ASSESSED VALUE AND THAT'S ON PAGE NUMBER, SHOWS UP TWICE.

PAGE SIX SAYS LAND 46,000 IMPROVEMENT 1 57 TOTAL ASSESSMENT 2 0 3.

IS THAT DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT? YES.

THAT IS FOR THE AND IS THAT FOR THE BILL? IS THAT FOR THE BUILDING IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE ONE IN THE BACK OR JUST THE ONE IN THE FRONT? IT'S FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

SO THAT IS ASSESSMENT OF 157,000.

46,000 IS FOR THE LAND.

WAIT A MINUTE.

YOU KNOW PER FACT THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT GRABBED BOTH SAY FIND BOTH, YOU KNOW, PER FACT THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT GRABBED BOTH PIECES OF PROPERTY WHEN THEY DID THEIR ASSESSMENT? NO, THIS ASSESSMENT ACCOUNTS FOR THE, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN FRONT.

IN FRONT.

NOT THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.

NOT IN THE THE BACK.

SO IT'S NOT ON D AD'S RECORDS, THE ONE IN THE BACK YET.

YES, CORRECT.

SO THIS, IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT YOU HAVE TO REPORT CURRENT ASSESSMENTS AND TAX LIE.

THAT'S WHY I'M ZEROING IT.

YEAH, BUT SO ANYWAYS, THE 1 57, OR SORRY THE 2 0 3 2 40 IS FOR THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND, AND THE 23,000 SQUARE FEET OF APPROXIMATE LAND AREA.

SO MOVING FORWARD BACK INTO THE COST APPROACH TO ESTABLISH A VALUE OF THIS A D E AND ARE YOU READING FROM A CERTAIN PAGE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT COST APPROACH, WHAT PAGE ARE YOU READING FROM? UH, YOU CAN START ON PAGE 27.

27.

SEE I'M SITTING OVER HERE AT 11.

YOU YOU, YOU FLEW BY ME.

WELL, WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SO I'M TRYING TO NO, NO, I I TOLD YOU A PLUS OR MINUS.

I'M GONNA GIVE YOU PLENTY OF TIME.

I, I WANNA GIVE YOU AND EVERY APPLICANT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT YOUR CASE WITHOUT TAKING FROM OTHERS.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

GOTCHA.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

PAGE 27.

SO LET'S START ON PAGE 27 THEN.

UH, YOU'LL SEE COST ANALYSIS.

TO ESTIMATE THE COST NEW OF THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT, I USED MARSHALL AND SWIFT RESIDENTIAL COST GUIDE, WHICH IS YEP.

YOU HAVE THE ATION HERE.

AND I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST COMPARABLE COST SCENARIO BREAKDOWN TO THE A D U UNIT, WHICH IS A GUEST COTTAGE.

AND THAT, AND THAT PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT OF NEW BUILDING IS 69 TO $109 A SQUARE FOOT PER THIS PUBLISHED SOURCE.

AND I ESTIMATED AN EFFECTIVE AGE OF 12 YEARS.

CONSIDERING ALL FACTORS, IN MY OPINION, THE A D U UNIT WARRANTS A UNIT VALUE AT THE LOWER END OF THE RANGE, OR APPROXIMATELY $75 A SQUARE, SQUARE FOOT DUE TO THE LIMITED INTERIOR FINISH OUT ON THE MAIN LEVEL AND THE LOW QUALITY OF KITCHEN CABINETS THE NEXT STEP IN THE COST APPROACH.

SO, AND I WOULD, I'D LIKE YOU TO FOLLOW ON, IF YOU WERE TO REFER TO PAGE 30, I JUMPED AHEAD OF YOU, BUT I WAS THERE.

YEAH, YOU, YOU COULD, YOU CAN SEE THE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE CALCULATION, YOU'LL SEE BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE CALCULATIONS HERE.

SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE PRICE PERDUE PER SQUARE FOOT OF 75 BUCKS A FOOT, AND THAT EQUATES TO APPROXIMATELY $64,837.

THE NEXT STEP IS TO ADD SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

WELL, THE LANDS ARE NOT VALUED HERE, SO THERE ARE NO SITE IMPROVEMENTS ADDED OR CONTRIBUTORY VALUE.

THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS IS NOT ADDED TO THIS ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT'S FOR THE A D U UNIT ONLY.

THE NEXT STEP IS SOFT COSTS.

EVERY DEVELOPER OR IF YOU BUILD A STRUCTURE, YOU'RE GONNA INCUR SOFT COSTS WITH ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, PLATING, ARCHITECTURAL, THE SOFT COSTS WERE ESTIMATED AT 3090 $3.

THE NEXT STEP AFTER THAT IS TO ESTIMATE DEVELOPERS', UH, PROFIT.

NOW IN THIS CASE, TYPICALLY IN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR, UH, IF A BUILDER TAKES ON A PROPERTY, THEY LIKE TO SEE A 10 TO 30% ENTREPRENEUR PROFIT TO BE APPLIED TO THE COST APPROACH FOR TAKING ON THE ASSOCIATED RISK OF THE PROJECT.

WELL, THIS CASE IT'S AN ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE.

SO IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO ENTREPRENEUR PROFIT BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD BUILD THIS TO MAKE A PROFIT.

THE NEXT STEP IS TO ESTIMATE DEPRECIATION BASED ON CONVERSATIONS.

THE A D U UNIT WAS BUILT 15 YEARS AGO

[00:55:01]

AN EFFECTIVE AGE IS WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE STRUCTURE, HOW DOES IT FEEL? HOW OLD DOES IT FEEL WHEN YOU WALK IN? SO YOU'RE IGNORING THE APPLICANT'S SAYING 15 YEARS.

YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE ONLY GONNA AMORTIZE OVER OR DEPRECIATE AT 12.

12 IS THE EFFECTIVE AGE.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IT FEELS NEWER, A LITTLE BIT NEWER THAN ITS ACTUAL AGE.

AFTER YOU ESTIMATE THE EFFECTIVE AGE, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE THE PHYSICAL LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE STRUCTURE.

NOW, TYPICAL RESIDENCE IS TYPICALLY 30 TO 60 YEARS.

GUEST COTTAGES, IF YOU REFER TO PAGE ON THIS, ON THIS, THIS MARSHALL SWIFT GUIDE HERE, GUEST COTTAGES HAVE AN ECONOMIC LIFESPAN OF 25 TO 30 YEARS TO ESTIMATE DEPRECIATION.

I USE THE AGE LIFE METHOD WHERE YOU TAKE THE EFFECTIVE AGE DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL LIFESPAN.

SO 12 DIVIDED BY 25 IS 48% DEPRECIATION TO THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AFTER YOU DEDUCT THE, THE 48 DEPRE, 48% FROM THE COST NEW AND ALL THE SOFT COST, IT CALCULATES TO APPROXIMATELY $35,300 FOR THE IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTORY VALUE, NO LAND VALUE.

THE NEXT STEP IN THE SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS OR THE APPLICANT IS EN ENGAGING YOU TO DO THIS BECAUSE THERE IS NO DCA VALUE AND THE STATE STATUTE SAYS, UH, UH, A COMPARISON OF AGAINST APPRAISED VALUE STRUCTURE.

SO THIS IS THE APPRAISED VALUE STRUCTURE.

OKAY, YOU'RE GOOD.

SO THE DEPRECIATED COST OR THE CONTRIBUTORY VALUE OF THE A D U UNIT STANDALONE IS ESTIMATED TO BE 35,300.

THE NEXT STEP, THE NEXT STEP IN THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR MY CLIENT WAS TO ESTIMATE DEMOLITION COST.

NOW DEMOLITION COST IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST COMING IN THERE AND KNOCKING DOWN A BUILDING.

UM, THERE'S SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO HAVE REMEDIATION.

THERE COULD BE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BEHIND THE WALLS THAT I'M UNAWARE OF, ET CETERA.

IN ADDITION TO, IT'S A TWO STORY STRUCTURE.

AND TWO STORY STRUCTURES ARE TYPICALLY MORE EXPENSIVE TO D DEMOLISH.

'CAUSE YOU HAVE EXISTING PROPERTIES, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE DEBRIS FALLING, UM, EXTRA CARE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN.

I, I GUESS I COULD SAY TO ESTIMATE THE DEMOLITION COSTS.

AGAIN, I REFERRED TO MARSHALL AND SWIFT, AND YOU'LL SEE ON THIS PAGE HERE WHERE YOU CAN BREAK DOWN WHAT IT COSTS TO DEMO A PROPERTY.

UM, AND THESE, THESE DEMO COSTS, THEY, THEY RANGE GREATLY FROM ABOUT THREE TO $66 A SQUARE FOOT.

THE HIGH END REPRESENTS REMEDIATION.

SO ABOUT THREE TO $25 A FOOT, IF THERE'S NO REMEDIATION.

AND IF THERE IS REMEDIATION, THEN THAT VALUE GOES UP, THEN THE COST GOES UP DRAMATICALLY.

AND THAT'S WHEN YOU GET TO THE, TO THE $66, 50, $66 A SQUARE FOOT.

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, I ESTIMATED DEMOLITION COSTS BE $20,000 AND THAT INCLUDES DEBRIS REMOVAL AS WELL.

YOU JUST KNOCK IT DOWN AND HAUL IT AWAY FOR A CLEAN SITE, WHICH EQUATES TO APPROXIMATELY $21 A SQUARE FOOT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY VALUE OPINION AND HOW I SUPPORTED IT.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

VERY THOROUGH ONCE WE FIND OUT WHICH PAGE YOU WERE ON, BUT NO, IT'S VERY GOOD.

NO, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT.

GO AHEAD, MR. HALCOMB, YOU'RE ITCHING.

OH, WELL I HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU DIDN'T WANNA BE, FIRST I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SPECIFICALLY QUESTION FOR STAFF, MR. HALCOMB.

UH, UH, MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, IS AS IT RELATES TO, TO, UH, STATE LAW HB 1475, DOES THIS REPLACE ONE STANDARD? DOES IT REPLACE ALL THREE STANDARDS? DOES IT REPLACE A SPECIFIC STANDARD? HOW, HOW IS 1475 APPLIED? UM, I GUESS, UH, IN A, I DON'T KNOW, NOT POSITIVE FASHION, BUT IN, IN, IN A FUNCTIONAL FASHION HERE, IT ONLY REPLACES TWO OR B, THE SECOND ONE, WHEN YOU INCORPORATE HB 1475, IT ONLY DEPLETES THAT SECOND ONE.

OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO I'LL, I'LL GIVE YOU FEEDBACK.

I THINK YOU'VE DELIVERED WHAT WE ASKED BECAUSE OUR QUANDARY LAST MONTH WAS, WOW, THIS IS A STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.

AND YOU WERE IN THE AUDIENCE ON THE CASE TWO AGO.

AND YOU FELT THE, HOPEFULLY FELT THE ANGST.

[01:00:01]

AND, BUT YOU, YOU DID GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE, FORTUNATE OR UNFORTUNATELY, OF GIVING US, AND I WAS, AS HE WAS GOING THROUGH HIS NOVEL HERE, I WAS GOING THROUGH CALCULATING 35,300, WHAT 50% WAS, WHICH IS 17,650.

AND THE, AND I ALREADY WENT AHEAD AND FOUND HIS DEMO NUMBER IN THE BACK.

I WASN'T A GOOD STUDENT.

I ALWAYS WENT AHEAD, THEN WENT BEHIND AND COMPARED THE 20,000 VERSUS THE 17,650, WHICH IS MORE THAN 50%, WHICH COULD TRIGGER THIS IF WE CHOOSE TO UTILIZE IT, IT, THE LAW DOES NOT SAY SHALL, LET'S SAY MAY.

SO WE MAY CONSIDER NOT SHALL CONSIDER, WHICH MEANS IT'S UP TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, YOU, I THINK YOU DID WHAT WE ASKED.

'CAUSE THAT WAS OUR QUANDARY LAST MONTH, UH, THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER WAS CONCERNED THAT SOMETHING WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 15 YEARS.

OH MY GOSH.

BUT I, BUT IT'S COMPELLING TO ME BOARD MEMBERS THAT I DON'T SEE ONE IOTA OF OPPOSITION.

SO I'LL ASK YOU, AS THE APPLICANT, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY, AND YOU'RE UNDER OATH, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST THAT YOU'RE MAKING TODAY? NONE.

NONE.

IMPRESSIVE.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THAT IS PART OF OUR CRITERIA, NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

SO, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA.

AGAIN, AS I'VE SAID, PREVIOUS CASES, JUST 'CAUSE YOU HAD AN OPPOSITION ONE 10 OR 20, THAT DOESN'T MOVE THE METER, THAT JUST GETS OUR ATTENTION.

THEN WE HAVE TO DEDUCE WHAT THAT OPPOSITION IS AND WEIGHT THAT WITH ALL THE OTHER FACTORS WE HAVE.

SO, BUT THAT IS COMPELLING ALSO THE REPORT PLUS THAT IS COMPELLING ALSO, IT'S ALSO COMPELLING TO ME THAT THIS HAS BEEN 15 YEARS.

SO.

WHAT OTHER DISCUSSION? MS, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE OR COMMENTS MS. DAVIS, PLEASE? I'LL WAIT TILL AFTER OUR MOTION.

YOU SURE? OKAY.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THIS? HE DID A REASONABLY GOOD JOB FOR YOU.

NO, I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE YOU TOO MUCH CREDIT.

'CAUSE THEN YOU CHARGED HER MORE .

NOTHING.

ANYTHING ELSE, MA'AM? NO.

IS, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS OH, MR. HOLCOMB QUESTIONS? I WAS GONNA ASK YOU.

ANY SPEAKERS? YEAH, I, I I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE PRETTY MUCH CLEARED LAST TIME TIME.

BUT WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD THIS TIME, WHICH IS IN REGARDS TO THE A D U.

UH, THIS WILL NOT BE USED FOR RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS.

IT'LL BE DEEDED RESTRICTED TO, TO DO THAT.

AND IT, AND THAT'S ALL CLEAR, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DISCUSS THE STANDARDS ON THAT ONE REQUEST.

THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR AUTHORITY.

UH, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO OTHER SPEAKERS, SIR.

NO OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY.

AND, UM, UM, WE DEAL WITH EACH CASE SEPARATELY.

UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. HOLCOMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER B D A 2 23 DASH 0 5 8 ON APPLICATION OF BLANCA CARDANIS 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 CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.

YOU ALSO, THE APPLICANT MUST DEEDED RESTRICT, ARE YOU READING ONE OF THREE IO? UH, UH, UH, NO, I JUST MISSED THE LICENSE.

THE APPLICANT MUST DEEDED, RESTRICT THE PROPERTY OR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PREVENT THE USE OF ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AS RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR, ESPECIALLY OF YOUR LAST QUESTION.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HOLCOMB IN B D A 2 2 3 0 5 8 TO GRANT THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT, TO NOT CONSTRUCT, BUT TO MAINTAIN AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT.

UM, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

MR. COMB? UH, YEAH.

THIS ONE'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY.

IF THEY DEEDED RESTRICTED TO NOT ALLOW RENTAL ACCOMMODATIONS AND THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, THEN IT MEETS THE TWO STANDARDS.

MS. HAYDEN, UM, I AGREE.

AND I, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU CAME BACK WITH EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR LAST TIME.

SO THANK YOU FOR, UH, DELAYING THE PROCESS A MONTH.

BUT WE, WE APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

ALTHOUGH I SAID I'M, I YOU'VE DELIVERED WHAT WE, WHAT WE ASKED FOR.

UH, AND I HEAR MS. MS. HAYDEN'S COMMENT AND THANKING YOU AND MR. HOLCOMB'S COMMENT.

I'M STILL DISTRESSED THAT A, THAT A, A STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND BEYOND THE NORMS OF WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHES WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

YOU'RE IN AN R SEVEN FIVE.

AND THERE ARE RULES AS IT RELATES TO SETBACK HEIGHTS, SQUARE FOOTAGE IN AN R SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT.

[01:05:01]

NO, NO DECISION THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISHES, SETS A PRECEDENT, BUT IT'S DISCONCERTING.

SO, BUT THIS IS 15 YEARS.

SO, AND, AND YOU'RE LUCKY THAT THERE'S NO OPPOSITION BECAUSE THE OPPOSITION OPENS THE QUESTION TO.

REALLY? SHOULD WE, SO I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION, UM, BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING I JUST SAID AND BECAUSE OF WHAT I'VE SAID EARLIER TODAY.

SO, MS. DAVIS, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, I, I DON'T AGREE WITH, UH, SAYING OKAY TO SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY BILLED AND NOT PERMITTED.

THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

I KNOW EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT.

IT'S BEEN 15 YEARS AND AGAIN, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS MENTIONED, YOU'VE DONE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE.

SO THAT REALLY SPEAKS VOLUMES WHEN YOU GO, WHEN WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE INFORMATION AND THE APPLICANT GOES BACK.

I MEAN, YOU REALLY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND.

SO I DO APPRECIATE ALL OF THAT.

THIS IS GONNA BE A LAST MINUTE DECISION FOR ME.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO GRANT? THIS IS ONE OF THREE MOTIONS.

THIS IS THE, THIS IS, THIS MOTION IS TO GRANT FOR THE A D U A D U.

THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE.

THIS IS, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE A D U.

MS. HAYDEN AYE.

MS. DAVIS STATE TO YOUR GUNS? NO.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF 2 2 3 0 5 8 AT 7 1 2 8 HAZEL ROAD.

THE BOARD APPROVED YOUR REQUEST.

WE GRANTED YOUR REQUEST FOR THE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE.

THERE'S TWO MORE MOTIONS.

MR. MAHOM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 5 8 ON APPLICATION OF BLANCA CARDENAS GRANT, THE 995 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WAS SUBMITTED.

SITE PLAN AS REQUIRED.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HOLCOMB IN 2 2 3 0 5 8, UH, WHICH IS AT 7 1 2 8 HAZEL ROAD TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE 995 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE OF FLOOR A RATIO.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

MR. HOLCOMB? UH, I, IN MY OPINION ANYWAYS, I'M AVAILING MYSELF TO THE 1475, UH, TO, TO MEET THE STANDARD BASED ON, UM, THE COST IT WOULD TAKE TO DEMO, UH, AND COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND, AND THAT WAS MY ONE CONCERN IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

THANK YOU MR. HOLCOMB.

MS. HAYDEN, I AGREE WITH WHAT WAS JUST SAID.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. BOARD SECRETARY CALL FOR THE VOTE ON MOTION.

TWO OF THREE.

THIS IS TO APPROVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCE.

OKAY, THAT'S NUMBER TWO.

THIRD MOTION.

MR. HAYDEN? MR. MR. HOLCOMB.

OKAY, UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH FIVE EIGHT ON APPLICATION OF BLANCA CARDENAS GRANT THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF B D A 2 2 3 0 5 8 AT 7 1 2 8 HAZEL ROAD, MR. HALCOMB MOVES TO GRANT THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS REGULATIONS.

SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

MR. HALCOMB? UH, AGAIN, I'M AVAILING MYSELF OF 1475 TO HELP MEET THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS, UH, VARIANCE.

MS. HAYDEN? I CONCUR.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 2 3 0 5 8.

THE BOARD, THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE, GRANTED THE SIX FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REGULATIONS, UH, FOR 6 1 7 1 2 8

[01:10:01]

HAZEL ROAD.

YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER LETTERS.

YOU HAVE HAD THREE REQUESTS FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.

OKAY, WE HAVE THREE REMAINING CASES FOR TODAY.

THE NEXT CASE, UH, BEFORE THE BOARD IS B D 2 2 3 0 6 6 BDA 2 2 3 0 6 6.

THIS IS AT 5 5 1 8 WINSTON COURT.

5 5 1 8 WINSTON COURT IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES SIR.

THERE YOU GO.

UH, IF YOU WOULD KINDLY, THERE YOU GO.

DO THE, DO MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR? I'M SORRY.

DO YOU SWEAR? YEAH, HE SWEARS.

HE SWEARS.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

UH, ROB BALDWIN.

3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B DALLAS.

HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER.

I HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION.

SO HOLD YOUR HOOSIERS.

HOLD YOUR HOOSIERS.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND YOU'LL HAVE A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IS OUR STANDARD RULES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS TODAY.

SO LET ME, LET ME VERIFY THAT.

ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS TODAY, MS. WILLIAMS? THERE'S ONE ONLINE IN OPPOSITION.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE ONE IN OPPOSITION.

SO ANYTIME I GIVE YOU ON YOUR REGULAR SPEAK, UH, REGULAR PRESENTATION, I NEED TO EQUAL TO THE OPPOSITION.

THE REBUTTAL STILL IS YOURS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES.

SO, UH, FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS YOU MAY PROCEED.

UM, I WAS HERE BEFORE YOU LAST MONTH.

I HAVE A, A PRESENTATION IF YOU WANNA SEE IT.

IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE TO OKAY.

UH, MR. POOL BE SO KIND.

ASSUME, ASSUME NOTHING.

SO THIS IS CASE BDA 2 2 3 0 6 6 AT 55 18 WINSTON COURT.

IT'S UP IN, UH, PRESTON HOLLOW.

UM, WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT ONE SLIDE? I WON'T TAKE TIME AWAY FROM YOU.

GO BACK ONE CLICK PLEASE.

MR. POOL, DO YOU SEE THIS MAP? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.

THIS WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR US BECAUSE AS WE GET CASES EACH MONTH, WE TRY TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT PART OF THE CITY REMEMBER THE CASE IN SOUTHEAST DALLAS? WE WERE GOING, OKAY, IT'S NORTH OF I 20.

IT'S THIS PLACE, THAT PLACE, YOU KNOW, PLAINVIEW AND ALL THAT.

THIS SORT OF MAP GIVES US GEOGRAPHY.

I JUST WANT TO USE AN EXAMPLE TO, TO THE BOSS MAN OVER THERE.

I GUESS IT BETTER BE A GOOD EXAMPLE THAN A HORRIBLE WARNING.

SO, UH, WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

HE'LL GET THAT TOO.

UM, OKAY, GO AHEAD.

OUT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY NOW.

SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY AS, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST MONTH, UM, A YEAR AND A HALF, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, UH, THERE WAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, APPROVED FOR FENCE ON THIS PROPERTY.

UM, IT TURNED OUT THAT, UH, IT WENT AND GOT A PERMIT FOR THE FENCE AND IT'S AN ISSUE.

WE STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND, AND WERE TOLD BY INSPECTOR THAT WE HAD A PORTION OF THE FENCE, UH, IN THE, UH, CITY RIGHT AWAY.

SO WE FILED FOR A TWO YEAR WAIVER TO COME BACK AND TRY TO RESOLVE THE SITE PLAN TO TAKE THE FENCE OUT OF THE, THIS, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY.

SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO GET A, A PRIVATE LICENSE.

UM, DURING THAT TIME, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER HIRED A NEW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO'S BEHIND ME HERE, WHO CAN SPEAK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, WHO CAME UP WITH A, A NEW DESIGN FOR THE FENCE.

IT'S A MUCH MORE OPEN DESIGN.

UH, THE, AS MR. HOLCOMB BROUGHT UP EARLIER, THE ONLY PLACE WE HAVE SOLID FENCE IS RIGHT ON THE OTHER, ON THE WING WALLS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE GATES.

THE, THE NEW DESIGN ALSO REMOVES SEVERAL OF THE COLUMNS ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGES THAT, UM, WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SOLID AREA.

UM, AND WE'RE WE'RE MOVING ONE DRIVEWAY ALONG HOLLOWAY AND RELOCATING ONE ON WINSTON COURT.

SO AT THEIR LAST MEETING, WE WERE ALSO ASKING FOR INCREASE IN HEIGHT FOR THE FENCE AND THE GATES THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

WE, I HEARD AT THE, THE LAST MEETING THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA.

AND SO WE'VE BROUGHT BACK, UH, THE REQUEST TODAY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UM, TO NEXT SLIDE AGAIN PLEASE.

SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, UH, WE'VE LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AT THE GATE BY, UH, EIGHT 11 INCHES.

UH, ONE MORE SLIDE PLEASE.

SO WE'VE LOWERED THE HEIGHT FROM EIGHT AND EIGHT FEET, 11 INCHES TO EIGHT FEET TO MATCH WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

WE'VE LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE PANELS FROM SIX AND A HALF FEET TO FIVE FOOT SEVEN TO MATCH WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

UM, AND THE SITE PLAN ESSENTIALLY STAYS THE SAME FROM WHAT YOU SAW LAST, LAST WEEK.

SO, BUT IT'S

[01:15:01]

I SEE IT'S OUT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THAT'S WHAT YOU, YOU, YOU SAW LAST MONTH.

SO THAT IS OUR, OUR REQUEST.

UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, KEEP GOING.

THESE ARE THE SLIDES OF THE, THE PROPERTY.

AND THIS FENCE HAS BEEN PERMITTED, SO ANY CONSTRUCTION YOU SEE ON THE ON THE FENCE HAS BEEN DONE WITH A PERMIT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UH, THIS WAS A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT, UH, HAD THE ITEMS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IN THE, THE HOLLOWAY RIGHT AWAY.

AND THESE ARE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ELEVATIONS.

WERE MATCHING THE HEIGHT, BUT THE DEFENSE IS BECOMING A LITTLE LESS ORNATE.

UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THIS IS A, A DETAIL OF THE GATES LAST TIME.

NEXT, UH, WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE'VE MOVED A DRIVEWAY ALONG WINSTON TO THE WEST.

WE'VE REMOVED A DRIVEWAY ON, ON THE, UM, ON HOLLOWAY.

AND THEN, UH, BROUGHT THE FENCE OUTTA THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THESE ARE, UH, THE REVISED FENCE ELEVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED IN.

HAVE YOU, DID YOU GUYS GET A COPY OF THOSE IN, IN YOUR PACKET? SO, UM, SAME HEIGHT AS WHAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED.

WE'VE INCREASED THE OPACITY FROM 62 TO 68% OF THE FENCE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

AND, UH, WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS.

UM, LIKE I SAID, I HAVE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HERE TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT AT OUR LAST MEETING, I, I HEARD THAT, UH, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE DEFENSE GO BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL HEIGHT.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE.

I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

THANK YOU FOR, THANK YOU FOR, UM, UPDATING BASED ON SOME FEEDBACK.

UM, IT WAS NOTEWORTHY IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING THAT THE STAFF REPORTED THAT LAST MONTH THERE WAS ONE FEEDBACK FROM A NEIGHBOR.

I THINK HE'S GONNA BE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION IN A SECOND.

, BUT NOW I SEE FIVE ON OUR GEOGRAPHIC MAP.

THAT WE'RE, THAT WE, WE GET THE MAP AND I ALWAYS COLOR CODE.

SO I HAVE A VISUAL OF WHAT THE, THE, OF WHAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, AS I'VE SAID IN PREVIOUS CASES, I'LL SAY AGAIN HERE.

SO IT'S CONSISTENT AND APPLICABLE.

OPPOSITION DOESN'T FOR ME MEAN I VOTE.

NO OPPOSITION JUST RAISES ATTENTION TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, WHY AND HOW THAT OPPOSITION IS DEALT WITH BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

AND SO MY, I ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT HAVE YOU OR THE PROPERTY ARE DONE TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS OF, NOW IT'S FOUR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN OUR 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA.

I DIDN'T KNOW OF THE NEW OPPOSITION UNTIL TODAY.

AND, UH, I'LL LET, UH, HAROLD, IF HE WANTS TO COME DOWN AND TALK, HE, HE MET WITH THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS, UH, ACROSS THE STREET.

THERE WAS AN OPPOSITION, UH, AFTER THE MEETING LAST TIME.

IN FACT, HE GAVE HIM A RIDE HOME AND TALKED ABOUT THE FENCE ALL THE WAY, WAY HOME.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CHANGED ANYBODY'S MIND.

UM, BUT, UH, WE HAD TALKED TO HIM.

UH, SO, UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE CAME THROUGH WITH THE FENCE.

THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO IT.

UM, FIRST TIME BEING TWO YEARS AGO.

TWO YEARS AGO.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAYBE WEARING DOWN THE NEIGHBORS.

WELL, I THINK THE CONS, IT'S, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN A CONSTRUCTION FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND I THINK THAT'S VERY ENTIRELY THAT MAY W DOWN THE NEIGHBORS.

I'D ALMOST SPEAK FOR 'EM.

SO WHAT HAVE YOU AS THE APPLICANT DONE TO ASSUAGE OR MITIGATE THAT CONCERN ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION? ABOUT ALL THE ABOVE? WELL, WE'VE LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.

UM, WE'VE REDUCED THE DRIVEWAY AND, UH, WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE HOUSE FIXED, UH, CONSTRUCTED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END OF IT.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THOSE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS? I, I'VE, I'VE NOT SPOKEN TO HIM.

THAT IS A, AS YOU WILL VERY WELL KNOW, YOU'RE A SEMI-REGULAR HERE.

THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT WE ALWAYS ASK IS HOW ARE YOU ENGAGING WITH YOUR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION.

BECAUSE PART OF OUR CRITERIA GOES TO THE ISSUE OF, GOES TO THE ISSUE OF I WANT TO READ IT.

UM, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

SO.

SO YEAH, LIKE I SAID, WE KNEW ABOUT THE OPPOSITION FROM OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET LAST TIME.

AND, UH, MR. LEIDNER, UH, SPOKE WITH THAT GENTLEMAN.

I DIDN'T KNOW OF THE OTHER, UH, NEW OPPOSITION UNTIL THE BRIEFING SESSION THIS MORNING.

AND THEN COME AND YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN AS WELL.

I'M JUST VOICING THAT.

DID THIS GENTLEMAN WANNA SPEAK AS WELL? YES.

DID YOU FILL OUT YOUR BLUE, BLUE PAPER? YES SIR.

MAKE SURE YOU TURN IT INTO OUR BOARD SECRETARY

[01:20:01]

MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU DO THE, DO DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

IT'S HAROLD LEIDNER AND MY ADDRESS IS 16 0 1 SURVEYOR BOULEVARD, CARROLLTON, TEXAS.

UM, AND I JUST, EVERYTHING ROB SAID WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.

WE, WE DID GIVE, UH, THE GENTLEMAN ACROSS THE STREET A RIDE HOME AND WE HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION.

HE'S VERY NICE.

UM, I HADN'T ACTUALLY NEVER MET HIM.

I HAD MET HIS WIFE.

UH, BUT UM, I AGREE WE'VE, I'M OUT THERE EVERY DAY AND I'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY, I MEAN, I, I GET IT.

THEY WANNA FINISH IT.

UH, I PICKED UP THE PROJECT WAS SOMEWHAT A BIT INTERESTING.

I I DID.

Y'ALL GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR THIS SAME GENTLEMAN IN THE SAME ADDRESS BEFORE 20 YEARS AGO.

HE JUST ACQUIRED THE NEXT PROPERTY.

AND, UH, THAT'S FROM THE NEW VARIANCES.

SO HE'S HAD A, IT'S NOT LIKE BREAKING NEWS.

HE'S NOT HAD A FENCE ON THIS PROPERTY.

HE'S, I DID IT ROB, HELP ME 18, 20 YEARS AGO.

AND WE PUT A FENCE AROUND HALF THE PROPERTY BACK THEN AND THE GATE'S IN THE SAME SPOT.

SO I I I GET THIS CONSTRUCTION FATIGUE.

BUT LONG STORY SHORT, HE ACQUIRED THE NEXT PROPERTY.

HE HIMSELF TRIED TO BUILD THIS GIGANTIC PROPERTY 'CAUSE HE WAS RETIRED, UH, THREE, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS INTO IT, VERY DEEPLY INTO IT.

HE REENGAGED ME WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.

HE, HE THREW UP HIS HANDS IT'S WAY ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE .

AND SO HE ASKED ME TO FINISH IT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE AGGRESSIVELY TRYING TO DO IS FINISH IT.

UM, WE'VE HAD, I'M, LIKE I SAID, I'M THERE EVERY DAY.

I'VE HAD NOBODY BESIDES THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE, THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS HERE LAST, UH, HEARING SAY ANYTHING.

BUT WE ARE, I THINK WE, IT JUST, THERE'S A LOT TO DO, BUT WE'VE, WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT.

SO IT'S, UH, WE'RE, HE'S, HE, THE OWNER'S MOTIVATED TO FINISH AND HE'S HIRED ME TO DO THAT ON HIS BEHALF.

ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? JUST THE TWO OF YOU.

AND SIR, WHAT IS YOUR NAME AGAIN? HAROLD LEIDNER.

L I D N E R.

QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. HAYDEN? I, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ARE THERE OTHER NEIGHBORS OR DO YOU HAVE PICTURES THAT SHOW A, A SIMILAR FENCE IN THE SAME BLOCK ON THE SAME STREET THAT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT AND THE OPACITY? THERE'S, UH, TALLER FENCES ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THERE'S NOT ONE IN IMMEDIATE ON EITHER SIDE OF US ON THIS.

UM, YOU KNOW, PRESTON HOLLOW, SOME, SOME BLOCKS HAVE A LOT OF 'EM, SOME HAVE NONE.

AND SOME ARE A MIXTURE.

AND WE'RE IN, WE'RE IN THE MIXTURE PART.

OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER QUESTIONS? NO OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

THERE STILL MAY COME SOME.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

UH, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE, UH, ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? UH, YES, SIR.

MR. JAMES ELBAR, CAN YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERA AND YOUR SPEAKER? CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

I NEED, I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

UH, JAMES ELBAR, MD 55 0 7 WINSTON COURT, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 OH.

THANK YOU MR. ELBAR.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO, UM, ADDRESS THE BOARD.

I HAVE SENT A LETTER TO

[01:25:04]

SIR, YOU'RE, WE'RE LOSING YOU MR. JAMES.

WE ARE LOSING YOU.

OH, GREAT.

I UNDERSTAND YOU RETURN TO VOLUME HIM UP.

MAYBE THAT WILL HELP.

NO, WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

YEAH, I ON .

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU.

SHOULD I CALL IN OR NO? SHOULD I CALL ? WE, WE SEE.

WE SEE YOU, BUT TRY, CAN YOU TRY AGAIN? CAN YOU TRY AGAIN? WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU.

I'M TRYING BECAUSE I SEE MY, I'M I'M ON THE CAMERA THOUGH.

OVER AT THE MEETING.

YOU'RE GOOD.

IT'S ON MY LAPTOP.

WE CAN SEE YOU RIGHT NOW.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR.

OH, GREAT.

TWO LETTERS ALSO, HALLEY'S, UH, LIVE ACROSS THE WAY.

ALSO.

OBJECT.

AND THAT THEY, HE HAD A MEDICAL ISSUE THEY HAD TO GO TO TODAY WAS WHY NUMBER TO THE OF THE FENCE.

NUMBER TWO, WE OBJECT TO INCREASING THE OPACITY OF THE FENCE.

MAY LOOK LIKE A PENITENTIARY TREE.

AND WE HAVE ON HIM A WRONG TIME.

UH, WE OBJECT TO A DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND HOLLOWAY.

HE, WE LOST YOUR VIDEO AGAIN.

YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU.

I SEE YOU, BUT IT GETS CUT OFF.

CAN YOU TRY AGAIN? YES.

WHERE DO WANT ME TO START? I BELIEVE YOU WERE NUMBER TWO.

IT'S ABOUT THE, TO THE HEIGHT.

UH, .

DID YOU HEAR ME TALK? THE NEIGHBORS ALSO THAT OBJECT THAT, UH, TOLD ME THAT NOT COME TODAY.

THE LETTER.

YOU KEEP GETTING LOST.

UH, WE, WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

YOU'RE OKAY.

I'M NOT, CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? YES.

UM, NUMBER ONE, HALLEY'S, OUR NEIGHBORS ALSO NOT COME MEDICAL ISSUES.

UM, UH, TODAY THEY HAD THE STATE, BUT NUMBER TWO, HE OBJECTED I TO THE FENCE.

I'M SORRY MISS MR. JAMES.

BUT YOU KEEP GETTING YOUR, YOUR VIDEO CLIPS GETTING CUT AND WE CAN'T BARELY I KNOW WHAT I'LL DO.

WE WE CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.

LEMME MOVE TO A DIFFERENT PART.

MAYBE IT'S THE, IT'S THE, UH, VIDEO, THE WIRELESS HERE.

THAT'S NOT WORKING.

LET ME TRY THAT.

IS THIS ANY BETTER? NO, SIR.

WE CAN'T SEE YOU.

OKAY, WELL WE CAN TRY.

I, I SEE YOU NOW.

I'M THINKING MAYBE IT'S THE WIRELESS.

IT'S NOT WORKING WELL.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

[01:30:01]

NUMBER ONE, THE HALLEY'S ARE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS.

THEY, ACROSS THE WAY, THEY COULD NOT COME.

THEY OBJECT BUT COULD NOT COME, UH, COME BECAUSE HE HAD A MEDICAL ISSUE HE HAD TO ATTEND TODAY.

UM, NUMBER TWO IS WE OBJECT TO THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.

WE THINK THIS, UH, IS NOT NEEDED.

THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO HANDLE, UH, SECURITY IF THEY WANT IT, WE OBJECT TO AN OPACITY OF THE FENCE INCREASE.

WE THINK THIS WILL MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A PENITENTIARY IN THE AREA.

WE ALSO WONDER IF THIS IS BECAUSE HE'S HIDING THAT HE HAS ALL THESE APARTMENTS ON, ON THE, UH, SITE WHERE LIKE, UH, FOUR OR FIVE FULL APARTMENTS WITH BATHS, WHICH IS AGAINST CITY CODE.

UM, WE OBJECT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

HE WANTS TO MOVE A DRIVEWAY ON HOLLOWAY.

HE'S TOLD US FOR A LONG TIME THAT HE WOULD NEVER HAVE A DRIVEWAY FACING, UM, UH, FACING US THAT HIS ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY WOULD REMAIN.

YET NOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A DRIVEWAY RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.

UM, AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR, UH, FIVE PLUS YEARS.

AND THEY, THE REASON IT KEEPS GOING ON IS BECAUSE THEY KEEP CHANGING THEIR PLANS.

THEY PUT IN THINGS AND THEN CHANGE AND DROP AND DESTROY THEM AND THEN REBUILD.

I MEAN, THIS IS GOING ON OUT INFINITUM AND WITHOUT ANY LET UP.

AND THEY'RE, UH, CONTRACT OR THEIR, UH, ARCHITECT JUST TOLD YOU THAT HE WANTS TO GET THIS DONE.

WELL, THEY KEEP BUILDING THINGS OR DOING THINGS AND THEN THEY KNOCK 'EM DOWN AND RESTART OVER OTHER THINGS.

UM, CONSTANTLY ROLLING IT OVER.

NOPE, I HAVE NO SOUND.

LET'S SEE.

HELLO.

WE HEAR YOU, SIR.

WE'RE LISTENING TO YOU, SIR.

OH, OKAY.

GREAT.

ANYTHING ELSE? NO, THAT, THAT, THAT'S, I THINK THAT SUMS IT UP.

WELL, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THANK YOU.

I, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US LAST MONTH AND ALSO TAKING THANK YOU.

TAKING THE TIME TO COMING BACK.

THE, THE, UH, TESTIFYING, UH, ELECTRONICALLY IS A CHALLENGE.

THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS STRONGLY ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS AND NEIGHBORS TO COME IN PERSON IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

BUT WE DID FINALLY GET THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR CONCERNS TODAY.

SO THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, SO, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THE DOCTOR WHO JUST SPOKE? OKAY.

THANK YOU SIR.

JUST HANG TIGHT FOR A MINUTE.

UM, OKAY, MR. BALDWIN, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

OH, WELL, I CAN EITHER DO QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

YOU STILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL.

SO YOU WANT ME TO DO YOUR QUESTIONS? SO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR FIVE MINUTES? LET'S DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BY OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT HAS FIVE MINUTES.

REBUTTAL GUEST HERE.

YEAH, BECAUSE YOU MAY, MAY WANNA ANSWER IT ALSO IN THE REBUTTAL .

I'M A PAPER GUY, SO I KEEP EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE GIVE ME.

IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, LAST MONTH, AND I MADE MY NOTES HERE AND SO FORTH, AND, AND LAST MONTH YOU GAVE US THE POWERPOINT, YOU KNOW, FOR VISUAL, NOT FOR READING FOR VISUAL.

AND SO, UM, I'VE CIRCULATED AMONGST MY PANEL MEMBERS, I'M SAYING THIS ON THE RECORD, THE POWER, THE PRINTED POWERPOINT PORTION THAT YOU GAVE US LAST MONTH, JUST TO LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THESE ARE YOUR POWERPOINTS.

THIS ONE AND THIS ONE.

ANOTHER DIRECTION THAT'S AT AN INTERSECTION AND THIS ONE DOWN THIS STREET.

AND IT'S CONCERNING BECAUSE I DON'T SEE FENCES.

I SEE FOUR FEET, THREE FEET FENCES.

UH, I DON'T SEE ANY HERE.

AND I LOOK DOWN THE STRETCH.

AND YET I SEE THIS REQUEST OF YOURS, THIS GIGANTIC EIGHT FOOT FENCE CREATING A COMPOUND EFFECT AROUND THIS LARGE BLOCK.

AND SO I'M NOT CONVINCED YET.

SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU, I'M THROWING THAT AT YOU REACTING TO YOUR PICTURES.

RIGHT? AND THE PICTURES WE HAD FROM OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, AND I'M SAYING, HMM, HOW IS THIS CONSISTENT OR NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, OUR CRITERIA AGAIN IS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ZEROING IN ON.

THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

AND AT THE START OF THE HEARING TODAY, I ASKED YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT THE OPPOSITION.

IT'S NOW FOUR FOUR DOESN'T KILL OR, OR MAKE

[01:35:01]

THE DEAL.

IT'S JUST AS FOUR IS GREATER THAN ONE.

SO I'M ALL EARS.

SO KEEP IN MIND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY IS THE SAME HEIGHT, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT.

IN A PERMIT TO DO RIGHT NOW.

YOU KEEP SAYING THAT.

SO YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN.

NOW I'M GONNA SEND BACK TO YOU.

TRY IT, TRY TO GO GET THAT PERMIT BUILD ON.

IT'S ALREADY AN ISSUE.

IT'S ALREADY AN ISSUE, BUT, BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

SO WE GET, SO GOOD LUCK.

SO I, I WOULD CAUTION YOU OF THREATENING US BACK SAYING, WELL, WE'RE JUST GONNA GO AND DO WHAT YOU APPROVED.

CLEARLY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.

AND SHAME ON THE BOARD AND THE STAFF.

AND WE TAKE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

MR. POOLEY, YOU'RE LISTENING TO THAT AND, 'CAUSE I'M EMBARRASSED THAT WE APPROVED SOMETHING WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE APPROVED.

AND WE'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT, HOW THAT GOT MISSED BY STAFF AND THE BOARD.

BUT DON'T KEEP THREATENING US THAT YOU'LL BUILD ON THAT.

BECAUSE THEN, AND AS YOU HEARD THE STAFF AT THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING, I THINK SHE SAID RARELY OR IS THAT WHAT YOUR TERM WAS, MS. DUNN? SHE SAID RARELY.

SO DON'T THREATEN US BY SAYING WE HAVE THIS ALREADY, BECAUSE QUITE HONESTLY YOU DON'T.

WELL, IF YOU DO, THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? SO I'M GONNA SAY AGAIN, I'LL REPEAT AGAIN.

MY WIFE SAYS I REPEAT MYSELF ALL THE TIME.

I'LL REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN.

I'M LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M SEEING THE OPPOSITION AND I'M GOING, OKAY, HOW IS THIS, HOW IS THIS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NOW I'M ALL EARS.

DO YOU WANT TO START AGAIN? OKAY.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IF, IF WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT HAVING A PERMIT ISSUED FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS A THREAT, I APOLOGIZE.

'CAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE INTENTION SAYING, WELL WE GOT THE PERMIT, WE'RE GONNA BUILD IT.

NO, WE DO HAVE A PERMIT.

THEN GO BUILD IT.

CAN I FINISH PLEASE? IN ORDER TO BUILD IT, WE MAY HAVE TO GO GET A PRIVATE LICENSE FROM THE CITY, THEN GO DO IT.

WHAT'S THAT? THEN GO DO IT.

THE, THE PRIVATE LICENSE CITY WOULD ALLOW US TO BUILD IN THE, UH, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO, TO MEET THE CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR US TO BUILD ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED, UH, SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO.

WHAT WAS APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO IN MY OPINION IS, IS NOLAN VOID? 'CAUSE WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE APPROVED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE BUILDING IN THE CITIES RIGHT OF WAY.

WE JUST DO NOT, SO THEREFORE, SHAME ON US.

AND AS AN APPLICANT, I WOULD NOT HOLD THAT UP AS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO AS AN ALTERNATIVE.

AND IF YOU, IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO AS AN ALTERNATIVE, GO DO IT.

IN THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THE RI THE RISK YOU HAVE IS WHEN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AND YOU COME BACK HERE FOR A THIRD TIME.

I GOT IT.

AND, AND JUST A MINUTE, SIR.

YOU COME BACK HERE, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS PANEL AND WE'LL REMEMBER WHAT YOU AS THE APPLICANT ARE TELLING US.

SO BACK TO MY QUESTION.

I'M LOOKING AT PICTURES THAT YOU PROVIDED OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'M NOT SEEING FENCES NOW.

I'M NOT AGAINST FENCES, BUT I'M TRYING TO SAY WHAT, WHAT WILL NOT BE ADVERSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND.

I I CAN I ANSWER THAT PLEASE? I, THE REASON I THINK IT'S NOT ADVERSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HE'S HAD A FENCER FOR 20 YEARS.

WE DID IT.

IT'S THE SAME FA WE'RE, IT, IT'S, I SAID HIS PROPERTY AND THE PICTURES YOU HAVE I GET IS SMALL, BUT I DID THE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THE KEN JOHNSON, I DID IT FOR KEN JOHNSON.

NOW THE OSE, I DON'T KNOW WHO LIVES THERE NOW.

I DID THE ONE CADDY CORNER FROM HIM FOR, I FORGOT WHAT THEIR NAMES WERE.

I DID THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM, THE PEARLMAN'S, WHICH I THINK WAS 11 FEET TALL.

AND THOSE ARE THE ONES I CAN, THAT I PARK IN FRONT OF EVERY DAY.

UH, I CAN KEEP GOING DOWN THE STREET.

SO WE, WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT.

AND ROB IS CORRECT.

THERE'S A LOT OF MIXED THINGS, BUT MY POINT IS TO ME, DAVE WOODS HAS HAD THE OWNER, HE'S LIVED THERE FOR LIKE 20 YEARS.

UH, HE'S HAD A FENCE IN FRONT OF THIS HOUSE THE ENTIRE TIME.

AND WE HAD A BOARD OF ADJUST.

NOW THE HOUSE, HE'S, IT'S DOES THAT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S TWICE AS BIG.

HE BOUGHT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, BUT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY WHERE HE LIVED, HAD A VARIANCE, HAD A FENCE ON IT.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE, OH MY GOSH, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE NOT SEEN A FENCE IN FRONT OF THIS HOUSE.

THEY HAVE, UM, THEY JUST HAVE, IT'S, THAT'S, AND, AND I'VE GOTTEN MANY FENCES VERY CLOSE.

AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE PICTURES SHOW, BUT I CAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE A LOT CLOSER THAN MY CARS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING FROM HERE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT, THAT'S WHY.

OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT, MR. HOLCOMB.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BASED ON THAT STATEMENT.

UM, SO NUMBER ONE I'M HEARING THERE'S OTHER FENCES OF A SEMI SIMILAR CHARACTER

[01:40:01]

CORRECT? TALLER AND TALLER.

AND, AND OUT OF THAT AREA, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE HOUSES JUST ROUGHLY WOULD YOU SAY HAVE FENCES VERSUS NOT FENCES OF THIS NATURE? EVERY NEW HOUSE HAS BEEN BUILT.

I DON'T KNOW THE PERCENTAGE, BUT I CAN GO THIS MORE THAN 50%.

I, I, I'D BE LYING.

I MEAN OKAY.

BUT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF IT'S A, IF IT'S A NEW HOUSE, UH, IT'S PRETTY MUCH HAS A FENCE IN FRONT OF IT.

OF A EQUAL, IF NOT TALLER.

UH, THERE, IT JUST, IT DOES, I MEAN THE, IT'S A MIXED BAG AND IT, THE MIXES THE OLDER VERSUS THE NEW, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SORT OF, I MEAN, THEY, THE, THE L BARS HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME AND THEY DON'T HAVE A GIANT FENCE IN FRONT OF IT.

ANYTHING ELSE MR. HALCOMB? ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU HAVE YOUR FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL, MR. BALDWIN.

I THINK THIS IS A BETTER, UH, REQUEST THAN, UH, WHEN IT WAS, WHEN WE CAME IN THROUGH THE DOOR, THE, THE FIRST TIME, UH, WE'VE LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF OUR REQUEST.

WE'VE MADE, MADE IT MORE OPEN.

UM, AND WE, I THINK THAT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE FENCES IN FRONT YARDS IN THIS AREA.

AND I THINK IT'S, UH, A REASONABLE REQUEST AND HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT IT.

THANK YOU, MR. BALDWIN.

MS. DAVIS WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT, OKAY.

UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 6 6 ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, EXCUSE ME, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 6 6, UH, AT 5 5 1 8 WINSTON COURT.

A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MS. DAVIS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE, UH, FENCE HEIGHT OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NRI, MS. DAVIS.

OOPS.

UH, A COUPLE THINGS.

I I I THINK THE ASK IS JUST TOO MUCH FOR THIS FENCE.

YOU, YOU'RE BASICALLY ASKING FOR DOUBLE, UM, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOUR FEET, AND I KNOW THE COLUMNS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE EIGHT FEET, BUT I, I JUST THINK THAT'S TOO SIGNIFICANT OF AN ASK.

AND WHEN I LOOK AT PICTURES OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, I DON'T SEE THAT STYLE OF FENCE.

I SEE SHORTER FENCES.

SO I DON'T THINK IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST.

CERTAINLY, UM, THE OPPOSITION IS TELLING TO ME THAT YOU'VE GOT FOUR PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, AND THE FACT THAT THE OWNER REALLY DOESN'T SEEM LIKE HE OR SHE HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, IS REALLY DISAPPOINTING.

AND I KNOW I SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT THESE LONG CONSTRUCTION PERIODS, IT'S, HE'S NOT, HE OR SHE ISN'T DOING HIMSELF ANY FAVOR IN TERMS OF INGRATIATING HIMSELF INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING AND IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT ON OTHER HOMEOWNERS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPPOSITION TO THIS.

I'M JUST MAKING A COMMENT THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS WHEN THEY'RE DOING CONSTRUCTION TO DO IT CORRECTLY, BUT TO DO IT QUICKLY AND TO BE CONSIDERATE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN PARTICULAR, WHICH REPRESENTS HIGHER.

MR. N, UM, I, YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I CONCUR.

UM, THE ISSUES FOR ME, NUMBER ONE IS THE INCREASED OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

UM, AND IN MY OPINION, UH, AND I'M HAPPEN TO BE FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS I LIVE ADJACENT TO IT, IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, IT, THIS REQUEST DOES NOT REALLY COMPORT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, THESE, THESE MASSIVE HIGH FENCES THAT ARE LIKE WALLS.

UH, IT REALLY CHANGES THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTIRELY.

SO I I I, I'VE GOT A BIG ISSUE WITH THAT.

UM, AND, UM, SO I, I REALIZE THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE FENCES, THE, THESE FENCES ARE VERY COMMON WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALMOST UNHEARD OF TO, TO HAVE A HIGHER THAN A FOREFOOT FENCE ON FOR EXISTING PROPERTIES IN PRESTON HOLLOW.

SO, UH, FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M GONNA BE IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL.

THANK YOU, MR. NERING.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION, MR. COMB? UM, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.

UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FENCE IS, IS A MODEST REQUEST BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THAT MUCH TALLER THAN THE FOREFOOT.

IT'S JUST THE COLUMNS WHICH ALWAYS REPRESENT HIGHER.

AND THE GATE

[01:45:01]

UM, I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THE, UM, DISAGREEMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORS HAS TO DO WITH ISSUES BESIDES THIS FENCE.

AND I DO TAKE THOSE ON.

IT IS AGGRAVATING TO HAVE A BUILDING GO ON THIS LONG, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GERMANE TO WHETHER OR NOT THE FENCE IS APPROPRIATE.

UM, AND SO I, I JUST BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST IS REASONABLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE, THE DISGRUNTLEMENT OF A LONG CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

AND SO I'M NOT, NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION.

THANK YOU MR. HOLCOMB.

ANY OTHER COMMENT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN? UM, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STANDARD FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO FENCE STANDARDS REGULATIONS IS THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

AND I HAVE NOT BEEN CONVINCED BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I'VE SEEN OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, UM, AND THE TESTIMONY AND, AND THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, UM, THAT THIS WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT.

SO I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY.

THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN.

I'LL ROUND OUT OUR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

UH, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

UM, BECAUSE I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO ENGAGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS CLEAR IN OUR STANDARD THAT IT IS A CRITERIA ABOUT WHAT WOULD ADVERSELY, THAT IT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

AS I'VE SAID FOUR TIMES TODAY, AN SHEER OPPOSITION TO A CASE THAT COMES TO US DOES NOT FOR ME, FOR THIS ONE VOTE DOES NOT SWAY ME TO BE FOR OR AGAINST, BUT IT GETS MY ATTENTION.

I ASK QUESTIONS.

I AM HO I AM TOTALLY DISAPPOINTED IN THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IN TELLING US, WELL, WE COULD DO THIS, WE DO THAT.

SO YOU HAVE AN AVENUE TO DO THAT, ALTHOUGH WE'RE GONNA CORRECT THAT.

UM, I'M DISAPPOINTED.

I'LL SAY AGAIN, WITH YOUR LACK OF ENGAGEMENT WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.

UM, I COULD ALMOST GO WITH PREJUDICE ON THIS MOTION, BUT I'M TRYING TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO YOU.

ENGAGE IN YOUR NEIGHBORS.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT.

THAT DOES MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO, UM, I HOPE YOU RETHINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND I HOPE YOU DO SOME ENGAGING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT YES, YOU'RE IMPROVING YOUR PROPERTY, BUT YOU'RE NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

SO I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.

MS. WILLIAMS. MS. DAVIS? YES.

MS. HAYDEN? AYE.

MR. NARY? AYE.

MR. HOLCOMB NAY, MR. CHAIR? YES.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE CASE OF B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 6 6.

UM, AT 5 5 1 8 5 5 1 8 WINSTON COURT, THE, THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOUR TO ONE.

THAT IS WITHOUT, UM, PREJUDICE MEANS, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN REFILE TOMORROW OR MAYBE AFTER YOU HAVE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT, THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.

OR YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND, AND ACT ON WHAT YOU HAD BEEN SAYING ALL DAY AND DO WHAT WE, WE INCORRECTLY DID BEFORE.

UM, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, DO WE NEED TO ACT ON THE OPACITY QUESTION IF WE DENIED THE HEIGHT? YES, PLEASE.

MS. DAVIS, MOTION NUMBER TWO OF TWO, SORRY.

OH, SORRY.

WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THAT THIS, THIS, THE PROPOSED FENCE IS GONNA BE A HUNDRED PERCENT BLOCKED.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 0 6 6 ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. DAVIS IN 2 2 3 0 6 6 TO DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR OPACITY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NRI, MS. DAVIS? I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS MR. NRI.

UM, YEAH, UH, WELL, I PROBABLY COULD BE CONVINCED TO GO WITH THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IN LIEU OF WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND ASSUAGING THEIR VALID CONCERNS.

WHAT DOES CONCERN ME IS THE PROPOSED OPACITY, UH, OF THIS FENCE.

UH, IT SAYS THAT IT'S A ONE INCH SOLID PICKET STYLE FENCE WITH DECORATIVE LA IRON LATTICE AND A SOLID SHEET PANEL BEHIND.

[01:50:01]

YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH IT AT ALL.

AND OPACITY IS A BIG ISSUE FOR ME, ESPECIALLY IN THE INTERNAL AREAS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW, IF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WERE SITTING ON WALNUT HILL OR OR ANOTHER MAJOR HIGH TRAFFIC THOROUGHFARE, I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO CONSIDER IT.

BUT BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, I CAN'T GO WITH THE PROPOSED, UH, FENCE AS, AS OUTLINED.

THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU MR. NERING.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS TO DENY THE, THE REQUEST FOR, UH, LESS THAN 50% OPACITY.

I, I, MY ONLY COMMENT IS, MR. NER WELL SPOKEN.

I, I LIKE YOUR ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL TO A NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS ON A CORNER.

UM, I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING AND THOUGHTFUL WAY OF APPROACHING IT.

THAT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING, THAT'S JUST YOUR APPROACH.

AND I CAN SEE THERE'S VALUE IN THAT APPROACH.

SO I, I CONCUR, UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.

MR. N AYE MR. CHAIR? AYE.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 2 3 0 6 6.

THE BOARD ON A MOTION OF FOUR TO ONE DENIES THE WITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR OFFENSE, OPACITY OF LESS THAN 50%.

GENTLEMEN, YOU'LL GET A, A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.

MM-HMM , BEFORE WE GO TO OUR NEXT CASE, UH, MR. POOLE, I WOULD REQUEST MR. POOLE, I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE GET, OR AT LEAST YOU COME BACK TO ME PLEASE ON THE DETAILS OF THAT PREVIOUS CASE THAT THE STAFF PREPARED AND WE APPROVED FOR, UH, OFFENSE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

I I WAS HOPING TO GET INFORMATION ON IT TODAY.

I I WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT, OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY, BECAUSE WE NEED TO LEARN FROM THAT MISTAKE.

BOTH THE STAFF AS WELL AS THE BOARD PLEASE.

OKAY, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 3 3 4 9 CORT BOULEVARD, BDA 2 2 3 0 7 7 BDA 2 2 3 0 7 7 AT 3 3 4 9 CORNET.

UM, BEFORE WE START GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE BREAK IF YOU DON'T MIND.

SO I, I'LL, I'LL BACK UP.

I DIDN'T CALL THE CASE YET.

I WILL CALL THE CASE.

SO WHAT I AM GONNA SAY, IT IS 2:53 PM ON, UH, TUESDAY, AUGUST 15TH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A WILL RECESS UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK.

WE'LL TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE RECESS AND THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH YOUR CASE.

IT'S 3:00 PM ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15TH, 2023.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY CALLED BACK TO ORDER.

UH, GUYS TURN YOUR SCREENS ON.

2 2 3 0 7 7 2 2 3 0 7 7 IS AT 3 3 4 9 CORNET BOULEVARD.

UM, OUR, WE HAVE TWO REMAINING CASES ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES SIR.

VERY GOOD SIR.

SO, UM, MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND FIRST OF ALL TO TELL ME SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE, UH, FIRST OF ALL IN FAVOR AND THEN IN OPPOSED, SO I GET AN IDEA OF WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE LIST ONCE AND THEN I'LL THEN WE'LL GET YOU SWORN IN.

SO LET'S FIRST DO SPEAKERS.

WE HAVE THREE IN, UM, THREE FOUR.

THREE FOUR.

AND WE HAVE EIGHT IN OPPOSITION.

JUST, JUST HOLD, JUST HOLD ON A SECOND.

OKAY, SO YOU HAVE THREE, FOUR.

I'M GONNA WAIT UNTIL SHE'S FINISHED THESE WITH JASON.

ONE SECOND.

SO MS. WILLIAMS, THREE IS, ARE THEY ALL THE APPLICANT OR THERE OTHERS? JUST THE APPLICANT.

THESE THREE GUYS I ASSUME.

AND THE EIGHT AGAINST.

WE'LL START WITH THE SPEAKER FOUR.

AND HOW MANY OF THE THREE OR THE FOUR ARE ONLINE VERSUS HERE? THERE'S TWO ONLINE IN OPPOSITION.

ALRIGHT, UM, ARE RULES.

UM, ALRIGHT SO, UM,

[01:55:01]

UH, YOU'LL GET FIVE MINUTES A PIECE AND THEN AS A REBUTTAL, YOU, YOU, THE APPLICANT HOLDS FIVE, SO IT'S 5, 10, 15 IF YOU EACH WANNA SPEAK FIVE MINUTES AND THEN IF YOU'RE THE MAIN APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT GETS FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL AND YOUR REBUTTALS AFTER THE SPEAKERS ARE OPPOSING, IF I ELONGATE ANYONE'S TIME, I HAVE TO ELONGATE EVERYONE'S TIME.

I'M GONNA CHOOSE TO LET, ALLOW EVERYONE TO SPEAK REASONABLY AS MUCH AS THEY WANT, WHICH IS PROBABLY MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES, BUT I'M GONNA TRY TO KEEP IT NARROW 'CAUSE WE'VE GOT 11 SPEAKERS, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S HEARD.

UM, NOW IF WE WILL HAVE THE THREE OF YOU PLEASE, UH, BE SWORN IN.

MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

YES I DO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

LANCE TIM.

ONE FIVE.

OH RIGHT TO THE MICROPHONE.

LANCE TIMS ONE FIVE FOUR THREE CANADA DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 2.

OKAY, VERY GOOD.

SO ARE YOU STARTING OFF SPEAKING? YES SIR.

ARE YOU GONNA DO FIVE MINUTES OR IN TANDEM OR HOW ARE YOU, HOW DO YOU GUYS WANNA DO THAT SO I CAN BE RESPECTFUL TO YOUR PROCESS? YEAH, THAT GOOD MS. WILLIAMS? I'M HERE IN SUPPORT FOR THE AND IF THERE'S, I'M HERE JUST IN SUPPORT AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER.

OUTSTANDING.

ALRIGHT, SO GIVE US ONE SECOND.

I IS THIS FOR US? YES SIR.

I'VE MADE COPIES OF THE POWERPOINT.

GREAT.

SO JUST HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

SO, UM, LET HER LET OUR BOARD SECRETARY GIVE THAT TO US.

WE WANT 'EM NOT, WE WANNA LISTEN TO YOU WHILE WE'RE READING AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE RUDE.

SO THANK YOU MARY.

YOU WANT, DO YOU WANT ME TO ASK THIS NOW OR LATER? WHATEVER.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE OKAY RIGHT NOW IS DROPPED? YES.

SO, SIR, UH, MR. MR. THAMES, IS THAT RIGHT? THAMES.

I AM NOT BRITISH THOUGH.

JUST MY LAST NAME.

OKAY, WELL GOOD.

WE HAD AN APPLICANT EARLIER TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WAS BRITISH.

AUSTRALIAN, UH, KIWI.

WHAT WAS SHE? WAS SHE I DID, NA I DID WANNA ASK IS 'CAUSE I DIDN'T WANNA, I HEARD AUSTRALIA.

I DIDN'T WANNA BE PREJUDICIAL FOR AGAIN, SO, ALRIGHT SIR, IF YOU, YOU HAVE YOUR FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS PROCEED.

AWESOME.

UM, FIRST OFF, I WANT TO THANK YOU CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, UH, BOARD FOR ALLOWING US TO PRESENT TODAY.

UM, ALSO WANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO THE CITY.

THEY'VE BEEN AWESOME THROUGH THIS INCREDIBLY STRESSFUL PROCESS.

THEY'VE DONE NOTHING BUT BEEN SUPPORTIVE AND KIND AND, UH, AND GENTLE WAS SOMETIMES NOT OF THE BEST NEWS FOR US.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

WE, WE GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

I'M VERY NERVOUS SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT , SO FORGIVE ME.

UM, TAKE A DEEP BREATH.

THERE'S NOT THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE'S NOTHING TO BE NERVOUS ABOUT HERE.

YOU ARE ASKING FOR, UM, YOU HAVE A REASONABLE ASK FOR YOUR PROPERTY AND, AND WE'RE GONNA BE CALM ABOUT IT AND WE'RE GONNA TRY TO BE AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, FIRST OFF, I'M GONNA INTRODUCE MYSELF.

MY NAME'S LANCE TIMS. THIS IS MY HUSBAND DAVID.

RICHARD, YOU MUST HAVE TALKED TO THE, THE APPLICANT EARLIER.

YOU DID.

THEY DID HE, DID HE PUT THE DOGS IN THE POWERPOINT? YEAH, SHE ACTUALLY COPIED OFF US.

I BE OH, OKAY.

WATCH IT.

ALL OF OUR CASES NOW ARE GONNA HAVE, ARE GONNA HAVE DOGS AND THEN IT'LL GO TO CATS AND THEN OTHERS.

ANYWAY, WE GOTTA HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR.

ALRIGHT, I DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF YOUR TIME ON THAT.

UH, WE MOVED AND ANYTHING I INTERRUPT YOU? DON'T WORRY, YOU, IT WON'T BE TIME AGAINST YOU.

OKAY, GREAT.

WE MOVED TO DALLAS EIGHT YEARS AGO.

UM, COUPLE YEARS AFTER WE MOVED HERE.

WE FELL IN LOVE WITH THE CITY.

UH, DECIDED WE WANTED TO RETIRE HERE.

UH, THIS IS OUR, OUR PLACE WE WANTED TO LIVE OUT THE REST OF OUR LIVES.

UH, WE DO HAVE TWO KIDDOS, ANNA AND YURI UP THERE.

THEY'RE BOTH RESCUE DOGS.

AND SOMETHING ELSE I WANNA STRESS TO THE BOARD IS WE'RE NOT A BUILDER.

WE ARE NOT BUILDING THIS HOME TO FLIP IT.

WE'RE BUILDING IT TO MOVE IN IT TO LIVE IT UNTIL WE BOTH PASS ON.

SO THIS ISN'T SOMEBODY TRYING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK.

THIS INSTANCE SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT EVEN GONNA LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, THIS IS GONNA BE OUR FOREVER HOME.

SO I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT.

UM, NEXT I WOULD WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ON THE, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE.

I THINK EVERYBODY'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT FIVE FOOT AND THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR.

'CAUSE WE WANTED TO BE SAFE.

IT'S ACTUALLY CLOSER TO A THREE FOOT VARIANCE.

I THINK IT'S TWO FOOT SEVEN INCHES ON THE N S O AND ONE FOOT, 10 INCHES ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WERE DRIVING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE FOUND A HOUSE ON ANGELINA THAT WAS THREE FLOORS THAT HAD A DECK THAT WE KIND OF FELL IN LOVE WITH.

UM, I WANTED YOU A LITTLE TIMELINE TO KIND OF SHOW YOU HOW WE GOT INTO THE SPACE.

UM, IN JUNE OF 2015, WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO LIVE IN THE TRINITY GROVES AREA.

WE FOUND A LOT AT 33 49 CORNETS IN JULY.

EVEN BEFORE PURCHASING THE LOT, WE, WHEN WE

[02:00:01]

SO WHEN WE FOUND THIS LOT, I WANTED TO BE PROACTIVE.

SO I LITERALLY EMAILED THE CITY OR CALLED THE CITY AND SAID, HEY, WHAT'S THE HIDE RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS AREA? I INCLUDED THE ACTUAL LOT AS WELL.

THE CITY RESPONDED TO THAT.

AND THAT'S ON SLIDE FOUR AND FIVE AND WE'LL GET THERE IN JUST A SECOND.

IN AUGUST, WE CLOSED ON AND LOG IN AUGUST THE LOT WENT INTO CONTRACT.

AND IN NOVEMBER WE CLOSED ON THE LOT.

IF YOU LOOK ON THE NEXT, WAS THERE, WAS THERE A HOUSE THERE? NO SIR.

AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS AN EMAIL WE GOT BACK FROM THE CITY STATING THAT THERE WAS 30 FOOT, BUT THE CITY DIDN'T, DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE N S O.

AND ON THE 30 FOOT, THE CITY OFFICER SAID WE COULD GO ABOVE THE 30 FEET WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.

WE'RE BOTH OLDER.

AGAIN, THIS IS OUR FOREVER HOME.

WE HAVE HISTORY OF FAMILY MEDICAL PROBLEMS. I'VE HAD OPEN HEART SURGERY.

WE WANTED TO PUT AN ELEVATOR IN THE HOUSE.

AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE NEXT SLIDE, ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO GO ABOVE THE 30 FOOT RULE IS AN ELEVATOR.

SO IN OUR MIND, WE WERE OKAY WITH THAT 30 FOOT RULE THERE.

SO WE WENT AHEAD, WE PURCHASED THE LOT.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE TIMELINES THAT GOES AFTER WE PURCHASED THE LOT IN SEPTEMBER.

WE SUBMITTED OUR PLANS FOR THE CITY IN NOVEMBER, THE CITY CALLED, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST NOVEMBER END OF OCTOBER, THE CITY CALLED AND ASKED ABOUT THE 30 VERSUS 32 FEET.

AND I HAVE A LETTER THAT WE'LL GO IN HERE JUST A SECOND, I'LL SHOW YOU THE RESPONSE TO THAT.

AND IN DECEMBER, THE CITY WE HAD REACHED OUT TO THE CITY AND ASKED THEM FOR CLARIFICATION ON HOW, HOW TO MEASURE THE N S O.

THEN ON 1228 WAS WHEN WE UPLOADED ALL THE N S O CORRECTIONS, AND I HAVE THESE SLIDES RIGHT AFTER THIS TIMELINE, SO I'LL GO OVER THOSE ONCE WE GET THERE.

AND ON JANUARY 11TH WAS WHEN WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOW APPROVAL FROM THE CITY.

SO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHENEVER THE CITY ASKED ABOUT THE 30 VERSUS THE 32 FEET, I LITERALLY UPLOADED THIS LETTER INTO THE CITY'S, INTO THE WEBSITE, INTO THE PORTAL WHERE YOU KIND OF COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE LETTER, IT SAYS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THIS CONFIRMS OUR DESIGN.

WE NEVER HEARD BACK FROM ANYONE.

THE NEXT COMMUNICATION WE HAD WITH THE CITY WAS WHERE THEY WERE GIVING US DIRECTION ON HOW TO MEASURE THE N S O.

AND AS YOU CAN TELL, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED, THE CITY CLARIFIED THAT IT NEEDED TO BE FROM THE CENTER OF THE ROAD.

SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WAS APPROVED AND WE'RE FROM THE 25 FOOT LINE.

SO IF YOU NOTICE, THERE'S NO ENCROACHMENTS AT ALL.

SO IF WE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP IT AT THE 20 FOOT LINE, 25 FOOT LINE, WE WOULDN'T BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE, THE ACTUAL PERMIT.

THE NEXT SLIDE TO US, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE.

THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE PLANS THAT WAS UPLOADED THROUGH THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

SO WHENEVER WE REACHED OUT TO THE CITY ABOUT THE 30 VERSE 32, WE GOT CLARIFICATION ON THE N S O, WE GOT THE PERMIT.

AND WHEN THE CITY UPLOADED THE PLANS AND BRIGHT READ LETTERS, I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE YOU STOP FOR ONE SECOND.

DON'T WORRY, YOU'LL GET ALL YOUR TIME.

AND I'M SPEAKING KIND OF FAST.

OH, NO, I, I AND YOU, AND YOU COULD JUST SLOW DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT.

THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION FOR US TO ABSORB AND WE'RE JUST GETTING THIS NOW.

THIS IS VERY GOOD CON CONCRETE INFORMATION.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SAYS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS? THE ONE THAT SAYS 51 A DASH FOUR DASH 4 0 8.

ONE MORE.

CLICK ONE MORE, CLICK ONE.

UH, THAT'S IT.

YEAH, THIS ONE.

MS. DUNN, QUESTION FOR YOU, OR I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MS. LESTER, THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS, UH, FOR STRUCTURES IN THE TOP OF THE BUILDING.

AND IT SAYS, IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH BUILDING HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO 36 FEET OR LESS, THE FOLLOWING AND SO FORTH.

SO MAXIMUM 12 FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE, HOW DOES THAT, DOES THIS REFERENCE ANY, UM, NSOS DOES THIS SUPERSEDE NSOS, WHICH, WHICH HAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY? THE, SORRY.

NO, THE, THE N SS O ITSELF REFERENCES THIS CODE SECTION.

YOU WOULD GO TO THE N SS O SECTION AND THE N S O SECTION WOULD TELL YOU TO REVERT BACK TO CHAPTER 51 A.

SO THIS, SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS SUPERSEDES THE N SS O 'CAUSE THIS HAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY.

THIS, THIS DOESN'T, IT HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE N SS O CON IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE N S O.

BECAUSE THE N S O REVERTS BACK TO CHAPTER 51 A.

IT'S, IT'S FAMILIAR AS WITH THE PROCESSES OF A PD, A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

THE, WHAT WE ARE BEING BRIEFED IS MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET.

WHEN YOU'RE READING A PD, A PD IS GONNA REVERT BACK TO A CHAPTER 51 OR 51 A.

AND SO WHEN IT DOES THAT, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THAT PARTICULAR CHAPTER TO GET PARTICULARS THAT ARE NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE PD OR THE N S O.

AND THE N S O ACCORDING TO

[02:05:01]

BUT, SO THIS IS OPERABLE BECAUSE IT SAYS LIMITED UP TO 36 FEET OR LEFT 30 OR LESS.

SO THEREFORE THE 12 FEET OF THE, THE N S O DOES NOT NEGATE THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

IT, IT, IT DOESN'T.

I'M JUST TRYING TO ABSORB WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD HERE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE N S O ALSO PLAYS INTO THIS.

SO THAT WAS HELPFUL.

ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

TWO, THREE SLIDES.

THIS IS NOT AGAINST YOUR TIME.

DON'T WORRY, DON'T WORRY.

THAT ONE RIGHT THERE TO THE ONE THAT SAYS NO, I WANT TO GO TO THE ONE THAT SAYS N S O DIRECTION RECEIVED FROM CITY.

I'M GONNA, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT YOU YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED.

IS EVERYONE WITH ME ON THIS? AND IT SAYS, I'M GONNA READ THE BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO ABSORB THIS.

HIDE PLAIN MEANS A PLANE PROJECTING UPWARD AND TOWARD THE SUBJECT LOT FROM A 0.6 FEET ABOVE THE GRADE AT THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET ADJACENT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE, THE STREET ADJACENT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF OUR PROBLEM.

IT IS.

I'M TRYING TO NARROW THIS INTO THIS.

AND THIS IS, THIS IS SOME EMAIL FROM, UH, LANITA JAGS.

IS THIS AN EMAIL FROM THE CITY? YES SIR.

IT IS.

IT WASN'T AN EMAIL.

IT'S THROUGH THE CITY PORTAL.

THAT'S HOW WE COMMUNICATE.

IT'S THROUGH THE CITY PORTAL.

SAME, SAME IN MY MIND, .

BUT THIS IS, THIS COMES FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS, RIGHT, SIR? SOMEONE FROM THE, THE CITY OF DALLAS, CORRECT, SIR? YEP.

AND MS. DUNN OR MS. LESTER, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PERSON? NITA JAGS? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL KNOW WHO THIS PERSON THAT'S SPEAKING FOR THE CITY AND IT'S ALL ON THE UP UP.

I'M JUST TRYING TO STAY WITH WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESENT.

NOW WE CAN GO AFTER THAT.

NOW I'M PAYING ATTENTION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS HERE? WE'RE GOOD ON HERE.

YOU'RE STILL GREAT ON YOUR TIME.

JUST, YOU'RE DOING FINE.

WHAT I WANNA GO TO NEXT IS A SLIDE THAT SHOWS IN A, RIGHT THERE IN A BIG RED STAMP SAYS MAXIMUM HEIGHT MAY EXCEED 30 FEET.

SO IN OUR MIND, WHEN WE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT 30 VERSUS 32, NOBODY EMAILED US BACK.

WHEN WE MEASURED THE N S O EXACTLY THE WAY THE CITY TOLD US.

THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT AND WE GOT A PERMIT.

WHERE DID THIS DOCUMENT COME FROM? FROM THE CITY.

THIS IS FROM THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

OH, SO SO THIS IS A GRAPHIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

SO WHEN WE WERE BUILDING AND WE SAW THIS, WHY WOULD WE EVER QUESTION HOLD THAT THOUGHT.

YES SIR.

IS THIS A DOCUMENT? IS THIS A GRAPHIC ON OUR WEBSITE? IT'S NOT A GRAPHIC ON THE WEBSITE, IT'S AN ACTUAL, UH, REVIEWED STAMPED SITE PLAN.

OH, FROM, SO IT'S NOT ON THE WEBSITE, IT'S FROM US, IT'S IN PROJECT DOCS.

IT'S A PROJECT DOCS.

IT, IT, YEAH.

IT'S PART OF ELECTRONIC PLAN REVIEW.

AND SO PART OF THE, WHEN HE'S, WHEN HE'S SAYING SITE, I'M PRESUMING HE'S REFERRING TO PROJECT DOCS? YES, SIR, I AM.

YES MA'AM.

I'M SORRY THAT, THAT'S WHERE I PULLED THIS FROM.

AND, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS, AS YOU INTRODUCE INFORMATION AND YOU SAY IT'S FROM THE CITY, I WANT MY CITY FOLKS TO SAY YES OR WAIT A MINUTE.

NO.

SO, SO THAT IT VERIFIES WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OR NOT.

SO IT'S PART OF THE PROJECT DOCS.

SO THIS IS NOT ADMIN.

THIS DOESN'T, THIS IS, THIS LOOKS ACCURATE.

IT IS.

AND WHAT HE'S SAYING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.

ALRIGHT, SO IN OUR MIND, WHY WOULD WE QUESTION NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR FOREVER DREAM HOME? SO LET'S GO INTO THE NEXT TIMELINE.

AND MARCH WAS WHEN WE DID THE PRE FOUNDATION WORK.

AND MARCH IS WHEN WE, WHEN THE CITY APPROVED THE PRE FOUNDATION WORK, AND MARCH WAS WHEN WE POURED THE FOUNDATION, WE STARTED FRAMING IN APRIL.

AND ON MAY 25TH WAS WHEN I HAD GOTTEN THE CALL AT THAT POINT THAT SOMEBODY HAD COMPLAINED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY COUNCIL CAME TO THE, THE, THE, THE, THE CITY.

THEY HAD TO GO IN AND REVIEW ALL THE DOCUMENTS.

AND THEN AT THAT POINT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CITY HAD MADE AN ERROR.

SO NEXT SLIDE, IF I MAY INTERRUPT BRIEFLY.

UH, ON, ON THIS SLIDE, JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED LAST SESSION, UHHUH , UH, AFTER THIS 5 23 DATE, OTHER THAN DOING THINGS TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY FROM DETERIORATION, NO WORK WAS PERFORMED AFTER THAT POINT, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

IN FACT, THE NEXT SLIDE HAS PICTURES OF WHERE WE ARE, AND I WAS GONNA STATE THAT THE PICTURES LOOK A BIT, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THERE'S SHEATHING ON THE OUTSIDE NOW, BUT WE'VE DONE NO ACTUAL BUILDING OF THE PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR TO PROTECT IT.

AND TWO SLIDES AFTER THIS ONE IS THE EMAIL FROM THE CITY THAT GAVE US PERMISSION TO PRESERVE OUR PROPERTY.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE TERM.

[02:10:01]

PERMISSION TO PRESERVE.

PRESERVE.

THAT, THAT'S, IS THAT A, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS TELL THEM? YES, SIR.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

JUST, ALRIGHT.

I'M, I'M STILL NEW TO THE CITY FIGURING OUT THE LINGO, SO IF WE'LL GO IN A COUPLE SLIDES.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

THIS IS WHAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT.

AND THAT'S THE EMAIL FROM THE CITY GIVING US PERMISSION TO PRESERVE OUR PROPERTY.

THERE'S WHAT I WANTED TO DO NEXT WAS KIND OF SHOW PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KIND OF AREAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS A HOUSE THAT'S CURRENTLY LISTED FOR ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT IS TWO STREETS OVER FROM OURS.

AND I WANTED THE BOARD TO SEE HOW THIS ONE IS THREE FLOORS.

SO THE HEIGHT'S VERY COMPARABLE TO THE ONE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD NOW.

OKAY, THE NEXT ONE, THIS IS ONE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM US.

THIS IS LIKE FOUR OR FIVE LOTS DOWN, AS YOU CAN TELL.

THIS IS WHAT, NEXT SLIDE.

THERE YOU GO.

AS YOU CAN TELL, THIS ONE IS THREE FLOORS AS WELL.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THIS ONE ACTUALLY HAS A FOURTH FLOOR STRUCTURE ON IT THAT I'M ASSUMING IS SOME KIND OF MECHANICAL ROOM.

BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THAT THERE'S ALREADY THE SIZE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THESE HEIGHT HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THIS KIND OF WHAT GOT US WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND THE BOARD'S ALREADY KIND OF, KIND OF WENT OVER THIS AND THE CITY'S DONE A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING IT.

BUT IF THE CITY WAS ABLE TO APPROVE IN JANUARY THE 25 FOOT, AND THEN IN JULY RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING ON JULY 14TH, THAT'S WHEN THE CITY DETERMINED THAT IT HAD TO BE FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE MEDIAN.

THAT'S WHERE IT CREATED THE MAJORITY OF THE ISSUES WE'RE IN NOW.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ASKING FOR A HARDSHIP, NOT DUE TO THE LOT SIZE, BUT THE IRREGULAR LOT LOCATION BECAUSE WE DON'T FEEL THE N SS O WAS EVER INTENDED FOR 150 FOOT MEDIAN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD FOR THAT TO BE THE CENTER.

AND THAT'S WHERE SHOULD BE MEASURED FROM.

AND THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT MEDIAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO MEASURE FROM THE MIDDLE OF.

AND IF YOU LOOK THAT MEDIAN IS LARGER THAN CANADA AND IT'S LARGER THAN SYLVAN AND IT'S EVEN LARGER THAN CANADA AND SYLVAN COMBINED.

SO WE HAVE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF WHERE THE LOT IS, NOT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOTS.

AND THIS IS KIND OF WHAT THE CITY HAD WENT OVER A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.

UH, IN THE MEETING WE HAD BEFORE THE, THE ONE O'CLOCK HEARING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPH ON THE LEFT, THIS IS THE WAY THE CITY APPROVED EVERYTHING.

IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OVER 35 FEET.

UH, THE MIDDLE ONE IS THE CHANGES WE'VE MADE TO MAKE IT 34 FEET.

AND THIS IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE VERY FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IF YOU'RE STANDING IN FRONT OF IT AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET ACROSS IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WE CAN GO WITH A PARAPET WALL IS 34 FEET.

SO IF YOU APPROVE IT AS IS TODAY, WE WILL BE 34 FEET.

BUT IF FOR SOME REASON YOU SAY NO, AND WE LITERALLY HAVE TO TEAR DOWN TWO FLOORS AND REBUILD IT, WE'RE STILL GONNA BE AT 34 FEET BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE A FOUR FOOT PARAPET WALL AT THAT POINT.

NOW WE'RE GONNA REDUCE THE PARAPET WALL DOWN TO TWO FEET, SIX INCHES, TWO FEET, FOUR INCHES, SOMETHING SUCH AS THAT.

NEXT I'M GONNA GO OVER THE COST TO BE COMPLIANT.

WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST MONTH, AND I APOLOGIZE, I WASN'T HERE, I WAS, I HAD TO, HAD TO DIAL IN.

WE HAD ORIGINALLY SAID THE COST TO REDO EVERYTHING WAS GONNA BE ABOUT $400,000.

THAT'S WHEN WE HAD THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD.

THAT'S WHEN WE THOUGHT IT WAS FIVE FEET.

BUT NOW SINCE WE KNOW THAT IT'S LESS THAN THREE FEET, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE THE ROOF DECK OFF, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE THE THIRD FLOOR OFF AND THE SECOND FLOOR OFF.

THEN WE WOULD TAKE A FOOT OFF EACH ONE OF THOSE FLOORS GOING FROM NINE FEET TO EIGHT FEET AND REBUILD BASED ON THAT.

SO THAT WOULD RESULT IN US HAVING TO GET UPDATED ARCHITECTURE PLANS, ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, A NEW LUMBER PACKAGE, NEW TRUSSES, NEW STEEL FABRICATION, AS WELL AS A BUNCH OF NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS BECAUSE ALL THE WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE SITTING IN THE GARAGE NOW AND THEY'RE FOR NINE SIX.

YOU SAY, YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT A BUILDER, BUT YOU SEEM TO KNOW YOUR BUILDING WELL, GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS, YES SIR.

, I'VE LEARNED A LOT IN THE PAST.

UH, TWO MONTHS, THREE MONTHS.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

THE NEXT SLIDE, WE GOT A, A BID FROM OUR BUILDER TO TEAR DOWN THE, THE, THE DECKING, THE THIRD FLOOR, THE SECOND FLOOR, AND TO REBUILD IT TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT.

AND THAT BID IS $260,800.

OUR BUILDER WAS GONNA BE HERE TODAY, BUT HIS SON HAD TO HAVE EMERGENCY SURGERY, SO THAT'S WHY HE'S NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY TO KIND OF DISCUSS ANY OF THESE IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, IT'S 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE.

NEXT I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 50% RULE OF THE HOUSE BILL.

1475.

[02:15:02]

THE PROBLEM WE RUN INTO IS BECAUSE IT WAS A VACANT LOT, WE DON'T HAVE A TRUE APPRAISED VALUE PER DALLAS COUNTY.

SO I CALLED DALLAS COUNTY AND I SAID, HEY, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT.

CAN YOU HELP US? CAN YOU GIVE US SOME KIND OF VALUE? THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO.

I THEN CALLED TWO ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT APPRAISERS AND SAID, HEY, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE, WE REALLY NEED SOME HELP.

CAN YOU PLEASE, UM, GIVE US SOME KIND OF VALUE ON IT? THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO EITHER.

THEY SAID THE RANGES WOULD BE SO WIDE THAT THERE'S NO WAY THEY WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING US ANY KIND OF A VALUE.

SO WHAT I WANTED TO DO NEXT, NEXT SLIDE IS TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF WAY TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE VALUE IS.

SO WHAT WE DID IS WE ADDED ALL THE DRAWS WE'VE GOTTEN FROM OUR BANK FOR THE COMPLETE COST WE HAVE IN THE PROJECT.

AND THAT WAS $371,450.

NOW, APPLIANCES ARE IN THERE SINCE THE APPLIANCES AREN'T THERE NOW, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ME TO KEEP THAT IN THE VALUE.

SO I TOOK OUT THE 18,000, I ADDED IN ANOTHER $15,450 THAT WE HAVE MS. SALINAS OUT OF POCKET.

THAT LEAVES OUR TOTAL PROJECT COST EVALUATION AT $368,900.

BASED ON HOUSE BILL, 1475, 50% RULE, THE PROJECT VALUATION IS $368,900.

LIKE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, 50% OF THAT IS $184,450 AMOUNT TO REMOVE THE TOP TWO FLOORS AND REBUILD IS 260,000.

SO THIS EXCEEDS THAT 50%, UH, FOR A HOUSE BILL, 1475.

THAT THIS IS OUR FOREVER AND RETIREMENT HOME.

BEFORE THE LAST BOARD HEARING, WE HAD QUITE A FEW LETTERS OF NONOBJECT.

UM, I UNDERSTAND NOW BASED ON INFORMATION.

WE WERE TOLD YESTERDAY THAT SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE FLIPPED.

UH, WE'RE NOT SURE WHY THEY FLIPPED.

WE DID MEET WITH BOTH OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT WERE RIGHT NEXT TO OVER THE WEEKEND.

THEY SAID THERE WAS A HARD PRESS OF PEOPLE COMING TO THEIR HOUSES TRYING TO GET THEM TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS AS WELL.

I DIDN'T ASK FOR DETAILS.

I, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO, HE SAID, SHE SAID, I, I I WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND BASED ON THE FIRST SET OF CONVERSATIONS THAT, UH, WHICH, UH, WHICH EVERYONE HAD.

SO, OKAY.

NEXT STANDARD FOR VARIANCES.

UM, I JUST WANNA SHOW HOW WE'VE MET ALL FOUR OF THESE.

UM, THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, VARIANCE, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW LETTERS THAT ARE NOT IN OBJECTION, EVEN WITH THE ONES THAT ARE CHANGING THEIR MIND, THE NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES OF US, THEY ARE STILL, UM, THEY'RE STILL FOR US ON THIS.

THEY, THEY ARE NOT OBJECTING TO ANYTHING.

THE NEXT ONE, THIS IS THE HARDSHIP ONE, AND WHERE WE FEEL LIKE THE N S O WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR A PROPERTY IN SUCH AN UNUSUAL LOCATION.

UM, THE THIRD ONE IS, UM, SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.

AS YOU CAN TELL BY EVERYTHING IN THE EARLIER SLIDE.

WE DIDN'T CREATE THIS HARDSHIP.

WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

AND THE LAST ONE IS, UM, THE HOUSE BILL 1475.

HOW WE'VE SHOWN THAT.

WE'VE MET THAT ONE.

OKAY, I ONLY HAVE TWO MORE SLIDES.

UM, THE NEXT ONE, I I WANT TO ADDRESS COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS LAST TIME.

UM, I WANT THE NEIGHBORS TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT THE ENEMY HERE.

WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

WE, WE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WANT TO, WE BOTH WORK FOR A LARGE LAW FIRM.

WE CAN HELP WITH THE LITIGATION FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

WE CAN HELP WITH SPEED BUMPS.

WE, WE CAN HELP CLEAN THE PARK.

WE EVEN WANTED TO JOIN THE ASSOCIATION, BUT WHEN WE WENT THERE TWO TIMES AGO, IT WAS LIKE WE WERE THE ENEMY.

SO IT WAS, IT, IT WAS, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO SAY THE LEAST.

BUT I JUST WANTED THE NEIGHBORS KNOW THAT AGAIN, WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

WE, WE DON'T WANNA BE HERE.

WE, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PIT NEIGHBOR, AGAINST NEIGHBOR OR HE SAID VERSUS SHE SAID, WE WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT AREA AND A PART OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, OTHER THING THAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT SPOKE KEPT TALKING ABOUT WAS TAXES GOING UP.

UH, THE, THE, AND I JUST WANTED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT TAXES ARE GOING UP EVERYWHERE BECAUSE THE DEPRECIATIONS ARE GOING UP.

SO EVEN IF THE BOARD DECLINES OUR REQUESTS TODAY, THE TAXES ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO GO UP BECAUSE THAT'S THE AREA OF THE CITY THAT, THAT IS GROWING.

UH, THE ENTIRE CITY IS GROWING AT THIS POINT.

SO TAXES ARE GOING UP FOR ALL OF US.

OKAY, THE LAST ONE.

THIS IS MY, MY LAST SLIDE.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA TIME.

IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENT TO BE NON-COMPLIANT.

UM, AS YOU CAN TELL, WE AGAIN WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND.

WE DID EVERYTHING WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO DO NOT TO BE HERE.

UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE HERE DUE TO A HUMAN ERROR, AN INNOCENT HUMAN ERROR.

UM, THIS IS A UNIQUE LOT LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.

WE FEEL THERE'S A HARDSHIP DUE TO THAT YET.

I WANTED TO REINFORCE

[02:20:01]

UH, WE USED A LOT OF OUR RETIREMENT FUNDS TO BUILD THIS HOME.

AND NEXT I NEED TO KIND OF LET THE BOARD KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU DO DENY IT.

WE DON'T HAVE $260,000 TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT.

WHEN WE TELL OUR BANK THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY AND THE BANK'S NOT GONNA LOAN US THAT MONEY, THE BANK'S GONNA CALL THE NOTE DUE AND PAYABLE.

SO AT THAT POINT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY $650,000 OR DO WE FILE BANKRUPTCY AT THAT POINT? AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.

AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S DUE TO AN INNOCENT HUMAN MISTAKE.

ERROR.

BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE PERSONALLY.

AND US BEING AN ELDERLY COUPLE, IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO US IF WE HAD TO FILE BANKRUPTCY AT 56 AND 63.

YOU'RE NOT ELDERLY AFTER THIS PROCESS.

I FEEL LIKE IT NO, NO, NO, NO.

YOU'RE NOT ELDERLY.

AND I JUST WANT TO CLOSE WITH PLEASE DON'T PENALIZE US FOR SOMEONE'S INNOCENT ERROR.

UM, AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL LISTENING AND THANK YOU.

OH, AND JUST TO LET EVERYONE KNOW IN THE BACK OF THE PRESENTATION, I HAVE COPIES OF ALL THE EMAILS AND BIDS AND STUFF THAT'S LARGER.

WE SEE THAT, SO IT'S EASIER TO READ.

WE SEE THAT.

DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? I'M FINE.

I DON'T HAVE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND I CAN HELP YOU.

NOPE.

WE'LL, WE'LL COME WITH QUESTIONS AFTER YOU.

YOU ALL SPEAK COUNCILMAN.

UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.

AND, UH, I'M PHILIP KINGSTON, 5 9 0 1 PALOP PINTO.

UM, YOU ALL HEARD FROM ME LAST MONTH.

UM, I'M ESSENTIALLY HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT THINGS FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ARE THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A HARDSHIP THAT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT.

AND THE HARDSHIP IS THE INCREDIBLY WIDE MEDIAN ON THE, THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

UM, BOTH THE CITY AND THE ARCHITECT MEASURED THE N SS O HEIGHT FROM THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS A, A VERY NORMAL READING OF THE, THE CODE, WHICH, UH, I THOUGHT STAFF DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHAT THE CODE MEANS LAST TIME.

UM, AND THAT IS IN FACT, UH, A REASON THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE LITERAL ZONING WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF THE ZONING.

UM, WHICH IS PART OF YOUR, AS YOU WELL KNOW, PART OF YOUR LEGAL STANDARD.

AND THEN THE SECOND, UH, THING THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT, AND THIS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE WROTE THIS WRONG, GIVING YOU THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, UH, ABILITY TO, UM, AT YOUR DISCRETION CONSIDER WHAT THE COST OF COMPLIANCE WOULD BE.

THE LEGISLATURE APPARENTLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THESE PERMITTING PROCESSES WORK BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY THAT THESE PERMITTING PROCESSES GET CAUGHT.

IF THERE IS A MISTAKE, IT'S WHEN THE PROJECT IS IN BILL IS IN FRAMING THAT SOMEBODY FINALLY SAYS, HEY, WE MADE A MISTAKE ON THE PERMIT, YOU'VE GOT TO STOP.

AT THAT POINT, ALMOST NOBODY HAS AN APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THE CITY STAFF, AND I BELIEVE THEY HAVE GIVEN YOU THIS ADVICE, IS TAKING THE APPLICANT'S, UM, ESTIMATION OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS IT STANDS THERE TODAY AS AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR A DEC AD VALUE, WHICH YOU WOULD, YOU'RE NEVER GONNA GET.

UM, SO I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

IT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED.

THEY INTENDED SPECIFICALLY TO GIVE BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT.

THE DISCRETION.

THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT MANDATORY ON Y'ALL TO, WHEN THERE IS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT SUCH AS THIS, WHEN IT'S REALLY SEVERE, IT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, CREATE THOSE VARIANCES.

WHEN IN THE PAST, YOU ALL, MANY OF YOU HAVE, HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE ON THIS BOARD TO REMEMBER NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE FOR A VARIANCE THAT CAUSED A, A FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, SO I WOULD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND IF YOUR DISCRETION, UH, IF YOU IN YOUR DISCRETION DECIDE THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, UH, WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOU CONSIDERING THAT AS A ANOTHER BASIS FOR A VARIANCE.

AND I'LL BE AROUND FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU COUNCILMAN.

UM, WHAT, WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS OPEN, UM, ASK THE BOARD TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT APPLICANTS, UH, BEFORE WE THEN WILL SWITCH TO THESE TO SPEAKERS AGAINST.

SO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HOLCOMB.

GUYS COLLECT THOSE? WE, WE MET WITH OUR NEIGHBORS ON THE RIGHT.

SO, UH, I WANTED TO ASK QUESTIONS RELATING TO, UM, THESE LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT WERE, THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROVIDED AT THE BE BEGINNING OF THE CASE, SIR.

SO, SO HOW DID YOU

[02:25:01]

WE'VE ACTUALLY BECAME PRETTY GOOD FRIENDS WITH THEM.

WE MET OUR NEIGHBORS ON THE LEFT.

HIS NAME IS DAVID BANDO.

WHEN WE WERE CHATTING WITH HIM AND TALKING WITH HIM ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND HOW WE WERE PUT IN A HORRIBLE SITUATION, WE WERE GETTING LETTERS SIGNED.

HE SAID, IF YOU WANT, I WILL VOLUNTEER TO HELP YOU GET SOME SIGNED.

HE SAID, I'VE BEEN HERE 20, 30 YEARS, I WILL GLADLY HELP.

UH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.

SO HE HELPED WITH SOME OF THOSE.

UH, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS MM-HMM.

IS THERE IS, UM, ONE OF THOSE IS NOT SO MUCH RECANTED AS THEY ALLEGED THAT IT WAS, THAT SOMEONE SIGNED FOR THEM.

UM, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU HAD ANY COMMENTS ON THIS IS, UH, HENRY V. RODRIGUEZ, UH, APPARENTLY SIGNED ONE IN SUPPORT OF MM-HMM.

, A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, THE ORIGINAL, UH, AND THEN HE WOULD RECENTLY SUBMITTED A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT, THAT HE DID NOT SUBMIT THAT.

SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT HAPPENED.

NO, OUR NEIGHBOR ON THE LEFT, DAVID BANDIDO, HE VOLUNTEERED TO HELP US GET SOME OF THOSE.

UM, SO THAT WOULD HAD TO HAVE BEEN ONE THAT HE HELPED US WITH.

AND AGAIN, HE VOLUNTEERED.

WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T ASK, WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

HE VOLUNTEERED TO HELP BECAUSE HE FELT LIKE THE CITY WAS PUTTING US IN A HORRIBLE SITUATION AND HE EVENTUALLY WANTS TO TEAR DOWN AND BUILD.

SO HE'D WANT TO BE IN THE SAME SITUATION WE WERE IN.

WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME FOR THE APPLICANT? DOES THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, HANG TIGHT.

YES SIR.

UM, OUR RULES SAY THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL AFTER BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK.

SO I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

OKAY? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SIR.

UHHUH.

ALRIGHT, MS. WILLIAMS, YOU TOLD ME BEFORE WE HAVE EIGHT SPEAKERS REGISTERED AGAINST, SO LET'S DO THE SPEAKERS THAT ARE PRESENT FIRST.

YES, GO AHEAD.

DO, LET'S DO ALL THE ONES PRESENT FIRST.

MARIA, ADA GARCIA, IF YOU'RE HERE, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND UP? OKAY, STEPHANIE, CHAMPION.

TONY CARILLO, PLEASE STAND UP SIR.

SYLVIA LAGOS.

'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA BE SWORN IN, SO THAT'S WHY I WANT YOU TO STAND UP BROWN.

DO YOU ALL SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

YES, I DO.

WHEN YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

MS. WILLIAMS, MARIA GARCIA.

SO YOU'VE ALL BEEN SWORN IN.

OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL EACH PERSON, UH, DOWN YOU GO AND SIT DOWN ARE OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL EACH PERSON AND YOU'LL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

HOW ARE YOU? I'M FINE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

OKAY, GREAT.

YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

SO MY NAME IS, UH, MARIA LOSADA GARCIA, AND I LIVE AT 24 22 POST BRIDGE ROAD, GRAND PERRY, TEXAS 7 5 0 5 0.

UM, I WILL BE ALONG WITH MY SIBLINGS INHERITING MY FATHER'S HOME AT 32 28.

BATAN, WHAT, WHAT ADDRESS ON BATAN? UM, 32 28 BATAN.

32 28.

THE STATEMENT, GOSH ALMIGHTY, I HATE TO PENALIZE A PROPERTY OWNER WHO WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND HAS STOPPED WHEN THEY WERE TOLD TO STOP WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE.

OKAY, SO, GO AHEAD.

UM, WHETHER THIS BOARD ACCEPTS IT OR NOT, THIS CASE IS MUCH MORE THAN A SIMPLE HEIGHT VARIANCE.

THIS IT IS ABOUT FAIR HOUSING RIGHTS, THE CONTINUED MARGINALIZATION OF LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME COMM, UM, COMMUNITY, THE CONTINUED FAILURE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO ENFORCE THE RULES AND COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE WORKING CLASS RESIDENTS BY ALLOWING ESSENTIALLY MILLION DOLLAR HOMES TO BE BUILT IN A WORKING CLASS COMMUNITY, YOU ARE DISPLACING LOW TO MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES AND TOTALLY OBLITERATING THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE N S O.

THE COMMUNITY FELT FAVORITISM TO THE APPLICANT BY FIRST ALLOWING HIM TO SPEAK WITHOUT BEING REGISTERED OR SWORN IN IN THE LAST MEETING.

IF IT HAD NOT BEEN, UM, BROUGHT UP TO YOUR ATTENTION, IT WOULD HAVE, YOU WOULD HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO CONTINUE.

AND WE WONDER IF IT HA IF IT HAD BEEN A RESIDENT OF LA BAJA, WOULD IT YOU HAVE LET IT EASILY SLIP YOUR MIND

[02:30:03]

THIS HOUSE WITH THE ELEVATOR WILL APPRAISE WELL OVER A MILLION DOLLARS.

AS, AS HE SAID, THE OTHER COMPARABLE HOUSE WAS PRICED CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS.

AS DCA SHOWS THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE IS NOT MR. LANCE THA AGE 56 AS HE REPORTED IN THE LAST MEETING.

BUT HIS HUSBAND, RICHARD DAVID RUSSELL, WHO IS AGE 63.

SO IN TWO YEARS, MR. RUSSELL WILL QUALIFY FOR AN ADDITIONAL HOME EXEMPTION.

THE 65 AND OLDER EXEMPTION UPON ON TOP OF THE REGULAR EXEMPTION, MR. LANCE, UM, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF MCKAYLA RAYER, RAYER, AND BERG PEERS, UH, WILL CONTINUE TO EARN A VERY HIGH DOLLAR SALARY COMPARED TO OUR FIXED INCOME SENIOR RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS.

NO COMPASSION WAS EXPRESSED IN HOW IT WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN LA BAJA, AND THE DISPLACEMENT OF LOW INCOME RESIDENTS.

AS MORE OF THESE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES POP UP IN OUR SMALL WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD, RESIDENTS WILL FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OR UNWELCOME.

NO LONGER WILL THEY HAPPILY AND SLOWLY STROLL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY LOVE.

BUT HURLY WALK PAST THESE COLD AND UNWELCOMING HOMES.

SO OUT OF A PLA OUT OF PLACE IN OUR BELOVED BODY.

CURRENT RESIDENTS LIKE MR. JOHN GALLOS, WHO HAVE AND WILL BE INHERITING FAMILY HOMES WILL BE FORCED TO SELL BECAUSE THEY WILL BE TOO COSTLY TO LIVE IN.

RAPE IS ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL.

IT IS A DEEPLY PERSONAL ACT THAT STEALS THE SENSE OF SECURITY, WHICH IS OUR COMMUNITY, OUR DIGNITY, WHICH IS OUR WORKING CLASS, MODEST HOMES THAT WE BUILT FROM SCRATCH FOR A LOT OF THE, THE LEGACY RESIDENTS AND THE WHOLENESS OR QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE EXPERIENCE THERE.

THIS IS WHY IT IS SO EXTREMELY PERSONAL TO ME AND TO EVERY RESIDENT LIVING IN LAVA HALA.

BY GRANTING THIS HEIGHT VARIANCE, YOU ARE PERMITTING THE RICH AND WEALTHY TO RATE THE WORKING CLASS CITIZENS, RESIDENTS OF LAVA HADDA, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKES.

WE ARE NOT VICTIMS, WE ARE FIGHTERS.

WE HAVE FOUGHT FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS COMMUNITY.

NOW WE ASK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO UPHOLD THE HEIGHT VARIANT SET IN PLACE BY LAVA N S O AND DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

WE ALSO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE, OR I MEAN A POSTPONEMENT OF THE DECISION AS WE THE LAJA, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IS IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING LEGAL COUNSEL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

NEXT SPEAKER, MS. UH, BOARD SECRETARY STEPHANIE CHAMPION.

IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

NEW DEVELOPMENT IS EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE, AND NON-DISRUPTIVE.

MY NAME IS STEPHANIE CHAMPION.

I LIVE AT 1842 MCBROOM STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 2.

WHAT WAS THE STREET AGAIN? 1840 MCBROOM STREET.

MCBROOM.

VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.

I ALSO SERVE AS THE CHIEF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY OFFICER FOR BUILDERS OF HOPE, C D C A, WEST DALLAS BASED NONPROFIT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.

WE AIM TO CULTIVATE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE QUALITY, AFFORDABLE OP HOUSING OPTIONS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL INCOMES.

AND RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND TO BE FREE FROM DISPLACEMENT.

I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE AND ASK THAT YOU VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, DOES NOT HONOR THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AND WILL RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE TO THIS COMMUNITY.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A TOUGH CASE AND AS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING IN JULY, THIS BOARD OFTEN HAS TO DEAL WITH OOPS TYPE SITUATIONS, WHICH ARE NEVER FAIR OR EASY.

THE SITE PLAN SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPROVED AND THE PERMIT SHOULD

[02:35:01]

HAVE NEVER BEEN GRANTED.

INDEED A WRONG WAS DONE TO THIS APPLICANT.

HOWEVER, THERE IS SO MUCH MORE AT PLAY HERE, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CAREFULLY AND DILIGENTLY CONSIDER THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR GRANTING SUCH A VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE IS A MUCH GREATER WRONG BEING DONE TO THIS COMMUNITY.

I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE REASONABLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT, BUT HERE'S THE THING, EVEN IF YOU FIND THAT THERE IS HARDSHIP, YOU STILL HAVE TO CONCLUDE AS WELL THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS STILL OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.

SO LET'S CONSIDER THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.

THE N S O ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2005 AFTER FINDING THAT QUOTE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES WITHIN A CERTAIN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE CHARACTER STABILITY AND LIVABILITY OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

NSOS ARE WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE ONLY AND MOST EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND LAND USE TOOLS TO COMBAT INTRUSIVE AND HARMFUL DE DEVELOPMENT IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT.

THIS TOOL WAS PUT IN PLACE PRECISELY TO PREVENT THE TYPE OF INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT THIS APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT.

ANY REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAX HEIGHT LIMIT IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE, BUT ESPECIALLY A REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAX HEIGHT LIMIT WITHIN AN N S O.

THIS COMMUNITY FOUGHT HARD BACK IN 2012 TO PUT THESE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE.

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING TO MAINTAIN THEM AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S.

OOPS.

I URGE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING TODAY TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE LEGAL STANDARD AND TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IN FAVOR OF JUSTICE.

APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MR. TO CARILLO? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES.

OH, THANK YOU CHURCH.

WE'RE IN THE CHAMBERS LAKE CHURCH.

IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES, GENTLEMEN.

UH, MY NAME IS TONY CARILLO.

UM, I'M WAS BORN HERE IN WEST DALLAS, 6/19/61.

BEEN THERE EVER SINCE.

YOUR ADDRESS, 31 0 9 PARVE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 2.

HAVE PROPERTY RIGHT BEHIND THAT AND PROBABLY ABOUT 500 FEET FROM THAT.

THE, UH, PROPERTY IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW ON NOOMA STREET.

5 2 8 NOMA STREET THERE.

I'M A PROPRIETOR IN DISTRICT SIX.

I HAVE FOUR HOUSES HERE IN DISTRICT SIX, ONE AND DISTRICT ONE AND, UH, FORECAST ONE IN 14.

SO I KNOW WHAT IT, AND I'M, I'M A PROPRIETOR.

I NOT BUILD HOMES FROM SCRATCH UP AND I KNOW WHAT IT IS TO DEAL WITH, UH, CODE AND ALL THE HAVE, HAVING TO DEAL WITH THEM AND DO EVERYTHING PROPERLY.

BUT, UH, ANYWAY, LET ME GO BACK TO THIS.

IS THAT IT FOR RIGHT NOW? OKAY, PROCEED.

I GOT SEVERAL ISSUES HERE.

I GOT, GIVE ME ONE, OKAY.

I WANNA REQUEST ONE MINUTE AT THE END AFTER THE, AFTER YOUR JUDGMENT.

IS THAT OKAY? ONE MINUTE.

NO.

OUR PROCEDURE IS THAT WE GET RIGHT NOW TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, QUESTIONS THAT FROM THE BOARD TESTIMONY FROM ANYONE IN OPPOSITION, AND THEN WE HAVE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE HAVE OUR DELIBERATION.

SO THE MAIN REASON WE'RE HERE IS FOR OUR S O I MEAN, WHEN WE, WHEN I FIRST, I'M THE ONE THAT'S SEEN THAT, THAT, THAT FRAME BEING BUILT UP ABOVE OUR, AND IT WAS NOTHING BUT A FRAME.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS FIRST REPORTED.

AND NOW THAT, THAT PICTURE THAT WAS SHOWN UP THERE, RIGHT THERE, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IT LOOKS AT RIGHT NOW.

YOU SHOULD GO BY THERE AND SEE THERE.

NOW THERE'S WINDOWS IN THERE.

AND ON JULY 25TH, THEY WERE OUT THERE AGAIN BUILDING, WORKING IT, WORKING ON THAT HOUSE INSIDE THE HOUSE.

AND I REPORTED IT AND THERE WAS A CODE, CODE OF, I REPORTED THE CODE AND THEY, THEY REPORTED IT THERE TOO.

AND THERE WAS PICTURES TAKEN OF VEHICLES ON TOP OF THE BOULEVARD.

THERE WAS WORK BEING DONE ON THAT JULY 25TH ON MY BIRTHDAY.

THAT'S WHY I REMEMBER THAT.

AND, UH, LEMME SEE WHAT ELSE.

OKAY, UM, LET SEE WHERE I'M AT.

I DON'T WANNA TOUCH THAT YET.

YEAH, I REMEMBER THAT WAS A FRAME, JUST A FRAME.

THAT'S ALL IT WAS.

AND I TALKED TO A BUILDER, ALSO A CONSTRUCTION GUY THAT'S A COMMERCIAL AND HE'S BONDED AND ALL THAT TOO.

AND HE TOLD ME, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS, UM, THE FRAME WAS UP THERE.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CUT THE RAFTER DOWN AND IT'S A LOT OF WORK, BUT, UH, COMPARED TO WHAT IT IS NOW AND HOW MUCH MATERIAL AND, AND, UH, INPUT THE, UH, SUPPLIES THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE TO THAT HOUSE, NOW IT'S, BACK THEN IT WAS PROBABLY, WHAT, 5% MAYBE.

BUT NOW THAT, NOW THAT WHAT THEY GOT ON INVESTED IN THERE.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY I WOULD'VE STOPPED RIGHT THEN AND THERE, BUT MATERIAL LIKE THAT, YOU CAN GET YOUR MONEY BACK ON THAT.

AND AS FAR AS RE UH,

[02:40:01]

I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THAT ONE, BUT, UM, LEMME SEE, WHERE AM I HERE? OKAY.

AND THE, THE, UH, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE DID THAT, THE, I WAS, UH, THIS WAS WAY BEFORE MY TIME WHEN THAT N S O WAS IMPLEMENTED BACK THERE.

BUT I REMEMBER THE GUYS, I'VE ONLY BEEN ACTIVE, UH, IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT NINE YEARS.

I'VE BEEN RETIRED FROM A, UH, COACH.

I WAS A COACH, VOLUNTEER COACH AFTER WORKING TWO JOBS AND STUFF.

I DID THAT AND ALL THAT.

AND THEN, UH, PEOPLE WOULD COME TO ME, TO THE FIELD TOO, IN MY FIELD AND TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON AND HERE IN WEST DALLAS ABOUT THE GENTRIFICATION.

BUT I COULDN'T DO NOTHING.

I'M OUT HERE WITH THESE KIDS, YOU KNOW.

SO FINALLY, I GUESS, UH, BY, BY THE GRACE OF GOD I WAS, I GOT TOO OLD.

SO I HAD TO QUIT.

NOW I'VE BEEN ACTIVE HERE, HERE IN THE COMMUNITY, SO I'M, I'M GONNA BE DOING THAT TILL THE DAY I DIE PROBABLY.

BUT ANYWAY, UH, THAT HEIGHT VARIANCE THERE, THE N S O WAS IMPLEMENTED BE TO LOWER TO KEEP OUR TAXES STABILIZED.

'CAUSE YOU, YOU, AS WE, WE SPOKE LAST TIME, YOU GUYS ALREADY, YOU STILL HAVE ALL THE PAPERWORK WE I PRESENTED TO YOU ALL LAST TIME.

OKAY, GREAT.

OH, I DO.

AND NO, I, YOU, YOU SPOKE ON IT AND THAT'S, I SAID BINGO.

GOOD.

THEY'RE ALL RIGHT HERE.

GREAT.

YEAH, THANK YOU.

BUT ANYWAY, UH, YEAH, THAT N IT WAS IMPLEMENTED THERE TO KEEP OUR, KEEP OUR PROPERTY TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

AND THE, THE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SAY MAYBE 4%, MAY PROBABLY EVEN LESS THAN THAT, THAT, THAT ARE BUILT UP ABOVE SAY, $500,000, YOU KNOW, AROUND THERE.

BUT THE REST OF 'EM ARE, UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, I'M GUESS AVERAGING ABOUT MAYBE 1 75 OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY'RE, WE BUILT THOSE WAY BACK IN THE FIFTIES AND THE SIXTIES.

MY GRANDFATHER WAS HERE IN 1915 AGAIN.

BUT ANYWAY, UH, LEMME SEE WHAT ELSE WHERE I'M AT.

UH, THE VIDEO YOU GUYS, UH, REMEMBER WHAT THE VIDEO THAT Y'ALL SHOWED LAST TIME, ALL THAT TOO.

REMEMBER THAT THE VIDEO, REMEMBER IT SHOWED THE FRAME AND IT SHOWS THE HISPANIC GUYS WORKING ON THERE.

AND IT WAS NOTHING BUT A FRAME.

THAT'S WHEN THE FIRST CUT CODE VIOLATION WAS IMPLEMENTED RIGHT THEN AND NOW, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S SO MUCH MATERIAL ON THERE.

THAT THING IS ALMOST, I DON'T WANT, I WOULD GUESS MAYBE 85% DONE.

I MEAN, ALL YOU GOT IS SIDING NOW.

AND, UH, MAYBE SOME, IT'S GOT WINDOWS ON THERE.

THE PICTURES THAT WERE SHOWN HERE DOESN'T EVEN SHOW WINDOWS.

WINDOWS ARE ALREADY IN THERE.

THERE'S MATERIAL ALL OVER THE GLEN.

AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED WHEN THAT FRAME WAS FOUND THERE, THERE WAS SEVERAL, I MEAN, BUSTED GATE GLASSES ALL AROUND, ALL THROUGH THE SIDEWALK.

THERE WAS DIRT THERE, DUMPSTERS IN THE FRONT, SEVERAL ISSUES.

AND THEN, UH, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, BACK IN 20, UH, JULY 25TH, UH, THEY WERE BACK THERE DOING IT AGAIN.

SO THAT JUST KIND OF, IT KIND OF, KIND OF MAKE LEADS AN INDIVIDUAL TO BELIEVE THAT, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY'RE GONNA GET TO DO, DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, AND UH, I HEARD A COMPLAINT ABOUT, UH, SAYING IT'S THE COST AND THE CAUSE OF INFECTION.

I MEAN, UH, THEY, IT WAS EVEN STATED THAT THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNED ON CANADA DRIVE.

I MEAN, I'M A PROPRIETOR.

I'VE GOT PROPERTY MYSELF.

I USE ONE, I'LL, I'LL GET A LOAN FROM ONE HOUSE TO BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST NOT, I'M TOO OLD.

YOU KNOW, I JUST GOT THAT ONE PROJECT AND NO, YOU'RE NOT TOO OLD.

I LOVE WHEN PEOPLE TELL ME THAT.

I LOVE IT.

MAKES ME, FILLS ME UP.

BUT ANYWAY, OKAY.

LEMME SEE WHAT ELSE.

I GOT ONE MORE DEAL HERE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE YOU FINANCIAL ADVICE ON WHAT TO DO OR WHATEVER, BUT I WOULD DO WHAT I WOULD DO.

BUT ANYWAY, I'M, UH, MOVING FORWARD ON THAT.

AND, UH, LET'S SEE.

AND THAT BOULEVARD, THERE'S BEEN THERE BACK SINCE THE SIXTIES.

THEY USED TO, THEY USED TO DRAG ON DOWN CANADA DRIVE.

I REMEMBER A KID BEING OUT THERE, I USED, THERE WAS A TREE THERE CALLED THE HANGING TREE.

AND PEOPLE WOULD HANG, WOULD HANG OUT THERE AND THEN WATCH THE DRAG STREETS.

THAT BOULEVARD'S BEEN THERE FOREVER, SIR.

I MEAN, AND THEN, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE WAY THEY MEASURED THE STREET, LIKE THE, THE CITY WAS TALKING ABOUT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE BOULEVARD.

IT'S NOT THE MIDDLE OF BOULEVARD.

THE JANNING STREET, THAT'S RIGHT THERE IS, FROM THERE IT GOES UP TO 27 FEET.

SO, UH, LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE WE GOT HERE.

HANG ON JUST A SEC.

JUST BEAR WITH ME.

'CAUSE I DID, I DID A SCRATCH DEAL.

I WAS, I WOULD'VE BROUGHT PICTURES OF DOGS TOO.

I HAVE SEVERAL DOGS.

I GOT A, A BELGIUM, I HAD TO TOUCH IT.

'CAUSE OH, M UH, BOY, WE'VE CREATED A NEW PRECEDENT.

I KNOW, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAY EVERY MORNING FOR THE HEARING IS WE DON'T CREATE PRECEDENT.

WE'RE NOT CREATING A DOG PRECEDENT.

I KNOW.

WELL, I SHOULD'VE RUINED Y'ALL WOULD'VE FELL IN LITTLE, SO YOU NEED, YOU NEED TO START WRAPPING IT UP.

ALL RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.

UH, FOUR.

OH, UH, I JUST WANNA TAKE ONE MORE THING AND, UH, I, I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANT TO, UH, CALL ANYBODY THIS NO.

OR ANYTHING, BUT JUDGES, UH, YOU KNOW, JUDGES FOR GENERATIONS HAVE SAID THAT IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE LAW.

SO I'D JUST LIKE TO CLOSE FOR THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND ANYBODY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THEN, THEN DON'T, WE ARE DONE.

YOU'VE DONE FINE.

DON'T, DON'T GO SOUTH, OKAY? STAY NORTH.

THANK YOU GUYS.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

LAGOS, IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO, UM, SPEAK TO THE BOARD.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

JEOPARDY YOUR HAT.

OH, YES, YOUR HAT, SIR.

THANK YOU, LAWRENCE.

THANKS.

I LOVE THEM.

MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MS. CELIA LAGOS.

MS.

[02:45:01]

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS SYLVIA LAGOS.

I RESIDE AT 1 3 1 NORTH MONTCLAIR, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2.

I WANT YOU TO BE IN ZEN WITH ME ALSO, BECAUSE JUST LIKE THIS GENTLEMAN, YOU SAW MY PASSION LAST WEEK, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M TRYING TO CONTROL IT, OKAY? SO I'M GONNA SPEAK WITH YOU AS ELOQUENTLY AS I CAN BECAUSE THAT LITTLE, YOU KNOW, LITTLE, UM, EXCITEMENT INC.

EXCITEMENT WANTS TO COME OUT.

SO WHAT I FIRST WANT TO TELL YOU IS THAT I AM THE DAUGHTER OF THE GENTLEMAN AT 33 0 7 BATAN STREET, THE ONE THAT YOU GOT THE NOTARIZED LETTER FROM.

UNFORTUNATELY, WHOEVER GOT THAT SIGN SIGNATURE HIT THE WRONG HOUSE.

THAT IS MY FATHER.

AND HE JUST ADAMANTLY TOLD ME I DID NOT SIGN THAT LETTER.

AND AS YOU CAN TELL, MY FATHER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME WHEN HE BECAME, HENRY RODRIGUEZ HAS SIGNED HENRY V. RODRIGUEZ V FOR VOR.

OKAY? HE DID NOT SIGN IT.

HE DID NOT.

I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS HAPPENED AND HOW WRONG THAT IS.

MY FATHER EVEN SIGNED A LETTER STATING TO YOU, SIR AND MA'AM, THAT HE IS AGAINST IT.

TOTALLY AGAINST IT.

WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, AS I TOLD YOU LAST TIME, WHEN IT WAS DIRT, OKAY? WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE MUD, PUT WE HAVE PUSHED VEHICLES OUT OF THE MUD.

WE HAVE FOUGHT TO GET STREETS PAVED IN WEST DALLAS.

WE HAVE FOUGHT FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE.

THAT'S WHY IT'S SO HARD FOR ME TODAY TO CONTAIN THAT LITTLE THING INSIDE ME, BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD AND IT IS SO, SO DRAINING.

HOW WE FIGHT, HOW WE FIGHT, AND HOW WE FIGHT.

SOMETIMES I WANNA GIVE UP, BUT I'M NOT GIVING UP.

I AM NOT.

I'M 66 YEARS OLD IF I CAN CLIMB STAIRS, YOU'RE YOUNG.

I I AM VERY YOUNG.

I'M VERY YOUNG.

SO THAT MEANS IF SOMEONE'S 50 OR 56, THERE'S A PROBLEM IF THEY CAN'T CLIMB STAIRS, BECAUSE I PLAN ON RUNNING AND CLIMBING STAIRS, AND I DON'T NEED AN ELEVATOR UNLESS THAT'S THE ONLY THING AVAILABLE TO ME.

BUT I WILL, THERE IS WAYS.

WE DON'T NEED AN ELEVATOR TO GET TO THE TOP.

THERE'S MANY MORE WAYS TO GET TO THE TOP THAN AN ELEVATOR.

AND I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT BESIDES THE NOTARIZED LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM MY FATHER, YOU RECEIVED OTHER LETTERS AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THAT WITH YOU.

IF SOME OF YOU RECEIVED A, THE MICROPHONE'S OFF, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

PUSH THE BUTTON THERE.

THERE YOU GO.

HIS LEFT, MAYBE RIGHT TO HIS RIGHT.

SOME OF YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THIS IN YOUR PACKET.

IT WAS SENT TO THE BOARD SECRETARY THAT, IF YOU'LL FOLLOW THAT WITH ME, I WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

PROPERTY OWNERS OF 33 49, UH, CORNETT BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING LETTERS IN FAVOR OF THE FOOT, UH, FOOT TWO FOOT VARIANCE BD 2 23 DASH SEVEN SEVEN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING HELD ON JULY 18TH, 2023.

FIRST, WE'RE GONNA START WITH MS. DINA TOVAR, WHO LIVES OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT, UM, VARIANCE.

SHE LIVES AT 33 0 3.

BATAN, MRS. TOVAR.

RIA ACCORDING TO D CT, SHE HAS SAID NO.

SHE SAID, NO, MR. LUVE GUMBOS, HE'S A OWNER.

UH, NOT IN, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S, NO, I DON'T THINK HE'S IN THE 200 FEET.

NO, HE IS NOT.

HENRY RODRIGUEZ, WHICH IS MY FATHER, SAYS NO, AND IT WAS A FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE.

HE SAID, NO.

NANCY MORENO LIVES AT 33 41 CORNETT STREET.

SHE IS A RENTER NOT IN THE 200 FEET.

MARCO ALVAREZ AT 32 37 BATAN STREET THAT SIGNED LIVES IN A L L C.

THE OWNERS ARE AN L L C.

HE'S A RENTER NOT IN THE 200 FEET.

MARIA OPRAH IS A RENTER, NOT IN THE 200 FEET.

ALSO LIVES IN A PROPERTY OWNED BY AN L L C.

ANNA SANCHEZ DOES LIVE IN THE 200 FEET.

AND SHE IS AN OWNER, MARI BANDA, MR. DAVID BANDA, MR. PAULINO BANDA.

AND MR. JACOB BANDA MARIVALE IS A PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH I BELIEVE THE OWNER SAID WAS TO

[02:50:01]

OUT OF THAT HOUSEHOLD, FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED.

HOW IS THAT FAIR THAT FOUR PEOPLE FROM ONE HOUSEHOLD SIGNED, NO ONE PERSON SHOULD HAVE SIGNED, NOT FOUR SHOULD COUNT.

MR. LEY BENEATH THIS AT 33 53 CORNETT, WHICH IS, UM, TO THE, TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

I SPOKE TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MS. UA, AND SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE DID NOT GIVE PERMISSION TO MR. PHILE OR MR. UM, OR HER NEPHEW.

I FORGOT, UH, MR. BEIT, EDWIN TO SIGN FOR HER.

OKAY? SHE SAID, I GAVE NO PERMISSION TO PHILE TO SIGN FOR ME.

HE IS MY GRANDSON ALSO, UM, AT 33 33 CORNETT STREET, MR. EDWIN BENITEZ IS AN RENTER.

I HAVE NOW SECURED THE SIGNATURE OF THE HOMEOWNER AT 33 33 CORNETT BOULEVARD.

THAT IS, THAT WAS MR. PHILIP TORRES, WHO RECENTLY PASSED ON JULY THE 28TH.

THAT PROPERTY IS NOW IN AIRSHIP.

AND THE PERSON THAT'S THE HEIR SIGNED IT AND SAID NO.

NOW WE ALSO HAVE, UM, JEANETTE LOPEZ AT 33 57 CORNET.

AND WE HAVE SANTOS LOPEZ AT 33 7 57 CORNETT.

YOU GOT TWO PEOPLE THAT SIGNED, THEY'RE BOTH RENTERS IN THE 200 FEET.

TWO PEOPLE IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD SIGNED ARMENIA BENEATH THIS AT 33 61 CORNETT.

YOU NEED TO START WRAPPING UP, OKAY? BUT THEY GOT A LITTLE EXTENSION.

I KNOW YOU'RE AT SIX MINUTES.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

SO, I'M, I'M THEIR RENTERS.

WELL, BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, PER HOUSEHOLD, THEIR LAST SIGNATURES, THEY ONLY HAD OWNERS IN THE 200 FEET, THREE OWNERS RENTERS IN THE 300 FEET.

THREE OWNERS, OWNERS NOT IN THE 200 FEET.

THREE.

AND ONE WAS A FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE.

THEY ALSO HAD RENTERS NOT IN THE 300, UH, IN THE 200 FEET.

THEY HAD THREE OF THOSE MEMBERS WHO SIGN IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD WERE SIX.

SO IF YOU MINUS TWO, THEN UH, THAT'S TWO OWNERS.

SO THERE WAS ONLY FOUR OCCUPANTS OR FOUR OCCUPANTS THAT SIGNED.

THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED.

SO ACTUALLY THEY ONLY HAVE TWO OWNERS THAT REALLY SIGN IN THE 200 FEET.

WE DID SUBMIT TO YOU OTHER LETTERS, BUT I, I GUESS MY TIME IS UP.

BUT ONE, ONE MORE MINUTE.

OKAY? ONE MINUTE.

WE DID, WE DID HAVE EIGHT OWNERS THAT DID SIGN, AND YOU HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF YOU IF YOU, IF YOU GOT THEM.

EIGHT OWNERS DID SIGN AGAINST THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE.

LOOK, THIS COMMUNITY FOUGHT, HAS FOUGHT VERY, VERY HARD.

THIS IS NOT A HARDSHIP.

AND IF ANYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE, IT IS THE CITY AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS RUNNING THAT DEPARTMENT.

SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO PAY FOR IT TO BE INTO COMPLIANCE, THE CITY SHOULD PAY FOR IT.

BECAUSE THE CITY MADE THE MISTAKE, WE DID NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE.

THE COMMUNITY SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR THE SINS OF OTHERS OR FOR MISTAKES OF OTHERS.

SO PLEASE SAY NO AND LET THE CITY PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

MS. WILLIAMS, OTHER SPEAKERS, MR. BROWN? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

OOPS.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, PANEL STAFF.

AND, UH, BEFORE I BEGIN, AS I BEGIN, UM, I JUST WANNA STATE I HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR CITY STAFF.

I THINK THEY HAVE A VERY HARD JOB TO DO.

UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THOUGH I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS FIELD.

IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS.

SORRY, BRENT BROWN.

71.

AND THEN WE'LL THEN WE'LL START YOUR CLOCK.

UH, THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE N S S O COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, OCCURRED BY SHIFTING THE HOUSE, UH, BACK IN THE LOT.

UH, BRENT BROWN, 71 35 WILD GROVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 4.

VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.

UM, VOLUNTEERED IN WEST DALLAS FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

UM, AND AT THE REQUEST OF RESIDENCE, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WAS ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS CASE TO PROVIDE KIND OF A TECHNICAL REVIEW RELATED TO N S O, UH, AND, UH, R FIVE BASED ZONING.

UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT PRACTICING IN DALLAS, UH, FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME AS WELL.

UM, SO FIRST, UM, THIS BUILDING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE N SS O UH, HAS BEEN STATED.

IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH BASE R FIVE ZONING.

AND I'LL GO INTO A FEW POINTS TO THAT MATTER.

UM, ALL OF THESE, UM, CONDITIONS THAT HAVE RESULTED THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, WERE AT THE ELECTION OF THE DEVELOPER, BUILDER, OWNER, UM, CONTRACTOR, ET CETERA.

THEY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

[02:55:01]

THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE IN THE REAR YARD, UH, FOR WHATEVER DESIGN DECISION WAS MADE.

UH, THEY DID NOT DO THAT.

UH, FOOTNOTE, IT WAS ASKED, I WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE LAST TIME, BUT I WAS ABLE TO WATCH THE, THE VIDEO.

I, WHY IS THE MEDIAN SO LARGE? 'CAUSE THE CITY OF DALLAS PLANNED A CONNECTION TO OAK LAWN.

AND SO THE CITY POSITIONED RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT IT WOULD GO OVER THE LEVEE AND INTO THE RIVER.

IT NEVER HAPPENED.

IT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY.

STAFF DID A GREAT JOB IN READING THE CODE CENTER LINE OF STREET.

IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP.

MOVE THE HOUSE BACK.

BAD CHOICE.

I HATE THEY MADE THE CHOICE, BUT IT WAS JUST A POOR CHOICE, NOT A PUBLIC PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING HEIGHT, RIGHT GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING.

I APPRECIATED THE HANDOUT BY THE APPLICANTS IN THAT THEY LISTED AND THE CITY SAID TO THEM, IT MAY EXCEED MAY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER RULES CONSISTENCY.

IT MAY IT NOT MUST OR SHALL JUST MAY.

THEY PROVIDED A LIST OF WHAT CAN EXCEED 30 FEET R FIVE ZONING.

I WOULD CONTEND THAT FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHTS OF 10 FOOT SIX GOING THREE FLOORS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE 30 FEET HIGH.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

AT NO POINT CAN THE BUILDING, THE BUILDING WALL OR THE BUILDING ROOF BE ABOVE THE HEIGHT.

BUT PARAPETS, AND AS I RECALL, I THINK IT SAID SPECIFICALLY ELEVATOR, PENTHOUSE OR BULKHEADS.

THIS IS NOT A BULKHEAD OR A PENTHOUSE.

THIS IS AN ELEVATOR SHAFT WITH AN ELEVATOR CAR THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE ROOF.

THAT IS NOT ALLOWED.

THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE THERE.

THIS IS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE CITY WHERE YOU SEE PEOPLE BUILDING HOME PRODUCTS.

IN OUR FIVE ZONING, YOU CANNOT BUILD A THREE STORY, NINE FOOT CLEAR HEIGHT WITH 18 INCH, UH, STRUCTURAL FROM CEILING TO FLOOR IN 30 FOOT HEIGHT.

CAN'T DO IT.

YOU EITHER HAVE TO INVEST MORE IN STRUCTURE TO MAKE THAT HEIGHT BETWEEN THE FLOORS NARROWER OR YOU HAVE TO REDUCE THE CEILING HEIGHT.

IF THEY'D HAVE TAKEN ONE FOOT OUT OF ALL THREE, THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY DONE THIS, BUT THEY STILL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ELEVATOR AND STAIR ACCESS TO THE ROOF WHEN IT'S NOT A PENTHOUSE OR IT'S NOT A BULKHEAD.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL, THEY NOTED 108 INCH CLEARANCE FOR THE ELEVATOR.

IT'S NOT IN THIS ONE.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS ONE.

108 INCHES TELLS ME IT'S A SEVEN FOOT CAB HEIGHT, WHICH NEEDS 18 INCHES OF CLEARANCE ABOVE.

IT'S A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL ELEVATOR.

ALL THE MECHANICAL STUFF'S ON THE FIRST FLOOR, IT'S NOT UP THERE.

SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS CITY STAFF IS SEEING ELEVATOR AND IF YOU PUT MECHANICAL ROOM, THEY'RE SAYING, OH, YOU CAN DO THAT AT 12 FEET.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS IT'S NOT, IT'S BEING USED FOR ACCESS.

THEY EVEN CALL OUT SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE FOURTH FLOOR AS OCCUPIABLE, RIGHT? OCCUPIABLE SPACE IS NOT ALLOWED EXCEPT FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

THIS IS NOT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, THIS IS ROOF ACCESS.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU EVALUATED THE OTHER HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT SIMILARLY, THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED TO SIMILARLY AND IT'S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE.

THIS IS NOT JUST A WEST ALICE ISSUE, IT'S NOT AN N S O ISSUE, IT'S AN R FIVE, R 7.5 ISSUE.

IF YOU WANNA BUILD A PRODUCT LIKE THIS, YOU NEED TO BE A DUPLEX OR A TOWN HALL 'CAUSE IT GIVES YOU 36 FEET.

THIS IS R FIVE.

SO TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS ERROR OF DECISION MAKING, WHEN OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE, THIS SHOULD NOT, UH, BE GRANTED ANY VARIANCE.

SO IN CLOSING, WITH REGARD TO COST, THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU BY THE APPLICANT THAT LISTED THEIR COST TO DATE.

IF I WAS GOING TO BE GENEROUS, IF YOU TOOK THREE LINE ITEMS, STRUCTURAL, STEEL, LUMBER, AND LABOR, I THINK THOSE ADDED UP TO ME TO JUST ABOUT $125,000.

I CAN'T SEE HOW IT'S GONNA COST OVER 200 AND SOMETHING TO DO WHAT AT FIRST COST 125.

SO I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A COST HARDSHIP.

AND BY THE WAY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE TWO FLOORS.

THEY CAN JUST TAKE TWO FEET OFF THE TOP.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE SECOND ONE DOWN.

NOW, DO THEY, DO THEY WANNA DO THAT? PROBABLY NOT.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT YOUR ISSUE, IN MY OPINION.

SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ASK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, THAT YOU HAVE OF ME AND HOW I LOOKED AT THIS.

UH, I DID FIND IT A LITTLE CONCERNING HOW THE DRAWINGS CHANGED FROM THE LAST HEARING TO THIS HEARING, UM, IN THE SENSE THAT I WAS TRYING TO GET THE, THE FLOOR TO FLOORS RIGHT AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

BUT IN MY OPINION, ICE, UH, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN 11 FOOT 10 INCH VARIANCE BECAUSE THE TOP OF ROOF SHOULD BE AT 30.

AND THE TOP OF THIS MECHANICAL ROOM, WHICH IS AN ELEVATOR SHAFT

[03:00:01]

WAY EXCEEDS 11 FEET OR 41 FEET.

40.

41 10.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU MR. BROWN.

INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS.

YOU'RE MAKING ME GO BACK THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AGAIN.

I LIKE THAT.

UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, MS. WILLIAMS? WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS ONLINE.

IF YOU WOULD WANT TO, UH, ACCESS THEM AND GET THEM JUST TO, UM, SWEAR IN AND THEN YOU CAN CALL THEM MR. GALLEGOS AND MS. JANE CISNEROS.

SO I SEE A GENTLEMAN.

SO GO AHEAD AND SWEAR THEM IN.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

I DO DO.

GO AHEAD AND CALL WHICH ONE YOU WANT FIRST.

MR. MR. GALLOS, IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND TO GIVE US, UM, YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO, UH, SPEAK TO THE BOARD.

UH, MY NAME IS JOHN GALLEGOS AND, UH, I CURRENTLY RESIDE AT MY, UH, GRANDFATHER'S ESTATE AT 5 2 4 NOMAS, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 2.

YOU SAID 5 2 4 NOMIS NOMIS? YES.

YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SIR.

EXPRESSING HOW UNFAIR, UH, IT IS TO THEM WHERE THEY ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE N S O TO BUILD THESE HOMES.

SO, UH, I BELIEVE I HAD A, A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, UH, WHICH IS NOT UP YET, BUT, UM, AGAIN, I JUST WANNA GO OVER THE LETTERS AGAIN.

UM, 'CAUSE WE DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN SPEAKING WITH NEIGHBORS AND GETTING THEIR OPINIONS.

UM, SO THIS TIME WE SENT EIGHT, UH, OPPOSITION LETTERS WITHIN THE 200 FEET RADIUS.

UM, ONE WAS MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING TODAY THAT IT WAS SENT LATE AGAIN, WHICH IT WASN'T.

UM, IT WAS AT EIGHT SOME 8:14 AM I, I BELIEVE, UNLESS WE'RE RUNNING OFF OF EASTERN TIME.

UM, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER LETTER THAT WAS NOT SUBMITTED, UM, THAT I EMAILED THE, THE, UH, THE SECRETARY ABOUT.

THERE IS A VERY CLOSE NEIGHBOR, UM, THAT DOESN'T WANT TO RELEASE HER NAME, UH, OR ADDRESS, AND WANTED TO SHARE THE LETTER ONLY WITH THE PANEL.

SO I NEVER GOT A RESPONSE FROM THAT.

AND, UM, I HAD SUBMITTED NINE OTHER OPPOSITION LETTERS ALSO.

UH, AND THESE ARE OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET, UH, RADIUS, BUT THEY'RE ALL FROM THE SAME STREET OF, UH, CORNETT.

AND, UH, THE BACKSTREET.

UM, THE 10, SO THE TOTAL LETTERS THAT WE SENT OR I SENT WERE 17.

AND, UH, BACK TO, UM, OR I WANTED TO, UH, MAKE MY ARGUMENT WAS AGAIN, UM, GOING BACK TO THE WEST DALLAS URBAN STRUCTURE, UH, GUIDELINE, UM, AREA PLAN.

AND, UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS, UM, FOR BETTER SAID, UH, TAXPAYER DOLLARS, UH, WERE INVESTED TO HIRE SPECIALISTS IN THIS FIELD TO ESTABLISH THESE GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY EMPLOYEES AND DEVELOPERS TO FOLLOW.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, I'M GOING TO READ OVER THIS.

UH, IT SAYS, ONE OF THE STRUCTURES INTENTIONAL PRIORITY SHOULD BE TO STABILIZE THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, WHICH IS LAVA HARA.

AT THE MOMENT, THE PENDING APPLICATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY TO MAINTAIN A SCALE AND CHARACTER.

SO AGAIN, THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, UH, 2012, THAT, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY, UH, THE CITY.

SO WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

UM, PROTECTING THE CHARACTER OF LA LAHARA, AND I UNDERSTAND THESE ARE ONLY GUIDES, UM, AND VISIONS, BUT THE VISION WAS HAVING ONE OR TWO STORAGE STRUCTURES TO CONSERVE, ENHANCE, AND MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HERE ARE TWO PERFECT EXAMPLES, UM, THAT FALL UNDER THE N S O.

THE BUILDER OF THESE HOMES FOLLOWED EVERY GUIDELINE UNDER THE N S O.

THIS PERSON WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE PROCESS OF THE N S O HOMES WERE BUILT TO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE, THIS PERSON WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT, UM, THEY DID SUBMIT A LETTER.

UM, I KNOW THEY WERE

[03:05:01]

AND THEY HAVE OTHER HOMES COMING UP THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE, THE GUIDELINES.

SO WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I'M GOING TO COMPARE SOME HOMES THAT ARE AGAINST THE CHARACTER OF LAHARA.

AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER, A PERFECT EXAMPLE, UH, OF A HOME ON CORNET STREET.

AND A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS NEARBY HAD THEY QUESTIONED IT TO THE BOARD.

UM, AND NOW OUR QUESTION IS, WHO INSPECTED THESE BUILDINGS? WERE THESE INSPECTED BY THE THIRD PARTY THAT DID THE MISTAKE AS WELL? IF YOU LOOK TO THE, TO THE, UH, TO THE LEFT OF THIS, UH, ROOFTOP, YOU COULD ACTUALLY LOOK DOWN AND YOU COULD SEE THE TWO STORY HOME THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE OTHER SLIDE BEHIND, UH, ON THE, THE PAST SLIDE.

THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT IS ACTUALLY A VIEW OF MY BACKYARD ON MY FUTURE HOME THAT I'M INHERITING AT THE MOMENT AT 33 18.

BRANTLEY BRANTLEY IS TWO STREETS BEHIND CORNETT, AND THIS JUST SHOWS YOU THE MASSIVE HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT, AND THEY'RE KILLING THE STRUCTURE AND THE CHARACTER OF THIS COMMUNITY.

AND NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS JUST MORE EXAMPLES.

UM, THIS IS A NEW HOME ON WAKE STREET, BEAUTIFUL HOME, TWO STORY HOME.

AND IF YOU LOOK, THEY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THIRD FLOOR.

AND IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIRD FLOOR IS A UTILITY ROOM.

UTILITY ROOM REQUIRES A OUTDOOR PATIO.

AND IF YOU SEE ON THE FIRST PICTURE HERE, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE, UH, THE UTILITY CLOSET, AND IT HAS AN OUTDOOR PATIO.

SO OUR THING IS, THE CITY IS EXEMPTING ENTIRE FLOORS WITH A UTILITY ROOM FROM THE HIGH RESTRICTION AND MEASURING THE HEIGHT AND THE WAY TO BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER.

AND MY QUESTION IS, WHY INVEST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OR TAXPAYER MONEY TO INVEST IN THESE GUIDELINES? WHY WASTE OUR TIME IN APPROVING NSOS IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THEM? MY FINAL STATEMENT IS, SHOULD THE CITY OF DALLAS TELL THE 13TH AND TWO PENDING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH NSOS THAT THEY ARE NOT PROTECTED? BECAUSE IF YOU APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, THAT IS A MESSAGE YOU'RE SENDING THEM.

I THINK THAT'S ALL FOR ME.

THANK YOU, MR. GALLEGO.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

NEXT SPEAKER, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, I AND I ALSO HAVE, UH, UM, THERE WAS ANOTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER THAT SHE JUST JOINED, JOINED ONLINE OR HERE? ONLINE THAT SHE JUST JOINED.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE TWO MORE.

SO WE HAVE TWO MORE.

SO, SO SECOND TO THE LAST SPEAKER.

THIS IS GONNA BE MRS. NEROS.

HI, MY NAME IS DANNY ROS, GIVE US YOUR NAME AGAIN.

IT'S A HUGE PCO.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN.

MY NAME IS JANIE CISNEROS AND I LIVE IN WEST DALLAS AT 28 21 BEDFORD STREET.

SAY THAT AGAIN.

28 21 BEDFORD STREET, 28 21 BEDFORD STREET, BEDFORD.

YOU GO AHEAD AND IF WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE ARE IN THIS SITUATION.

IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE IS SUCH A HIGH COST IN THIS SITUATION DUE TO A CITY ERROR.

AND I KNOW ALL ABOUT PAYING THE HIGH COSTS DUE TO CITY ERRORS.

ME AND MY NEIGHBORS ARE CURRENTLY PAYING FOR CITY ERRORS TO THIS DAY, BUT I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF LA BAJA NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR PLEA TO HONOR THE SPIRIT OF THE N S O THAT IS MEANT TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEP HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AFFORDABLE.

I ALSO WANNA SHARE THAT MANY OF US IN DALLAS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GREEN SPACE AT THE LEVY.

THOSE PATHS ALONG THE TRINITY RIVER, UNDERNEATH THE FELIX MODO GATEWAY, IT'S QUITE BEAUTIFUL TO SEE THE WIDE STRETCH OF GREEN SPACE ALONG CANADA DRIVE WHILE RUNNING ALONG THE BANKS OF THE LEVEE.

FOR THOSE MOMENTS, YOU CAN FEEL LIKE YOU'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY AND ENJOY ONLY VIEWING THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IN THAT AREA.

BUT THAT FEELING AND THAT VIEW IS NO LONGER BECAUSE YOU NOW SEE THE TOP OF 33 49 CORONET POPPING ITS HEAD

[03:10:01]

BEHIND THAT GREEN SLUMP.

SO DON'T SET A PRECEDENCE BY APPROVING THIS HEIGHT.

DON'T OPEN THE DOORS FOR MORE OF THESE FUTURE EXCEPTIONS THAT CAN RESULT IN THESE MEGA HOMES BEING BUILT IN TRADITIONAL WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS.

PRESERVE THE GREEN SPACE, VIEW THAT ALONG THE BANKS OF THE LEVEE.

UM, AND I'M ASKING YOU TODAY TO DENY THIS REQUEST.

THANK YOU, MS. ROS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. EVELYN MAYO.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

UM, I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN, PLEASE.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.

PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

EVELYN MAYO.

7 7 3 2 VILLAGE TRAIL DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 5 4.

I'VE WORKED WITH THE LAVATA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE COALITION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION, WHICH IS A GRASSROOTS NEIGHBORHOOD BASED COALITION, FIGHTING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, FAIR AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE CITY'S ZONING AND LAND USE PROCESSES.

I'M ALSO AN URBAN PLANNER BY TRAINING AND AN ADVOCATE FOR RACIAL EQUITY, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND ANTI DISPLACEMENT.

I'M OPPOSED TO THIS CASE BECAUSE A VARIANCE TO THE N SS O GOES AGAINST THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE N S O, WHICH IS TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER AND STABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS FAILED BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS LIVING IN LATA.

BECAUSE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES IN MEASURING HEIGHT, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO INCORRECTLY MOVE FORWARD.

THE CITY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE ITS CODES, ITS ZONING OVERLAYS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT REQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING LIKE THE N S O IN LAVATA.

I WORK WITH MANY NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, OTHERS IN WEST DALLAS THAT HAVE BEEN HARMED BY INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.

THIS INCLUDES HOMES INDUSTRIALLY OR INDUSTRIALLY ADJACENT ZONED.

THAT WAY THOSE DECISIONS SHORTEN LIVES AND THEY UNDERMINE ANY POTENTIAL FOR GENERATIONAL WEALTH AND JEOPARDIZE THE VIABILITY OF ENTIRE COMMUNITIES.

THE PROTECTIVE RULES SEEM TO HARDLY EVER APPLY OR GET ENFORCED IN LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES ALWAYS SEEM TO BE IN FAVOR OF HIGHER INCOME PEOPLE.

THE COMMUNITY HAS FOLLOWED THE RULES, THEY'VE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, AND YET STILL THEY HAVE TO FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO HAVE THE CODE BE ENFORCED BY THE CITY.

THIS IS ON THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR FAILING THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY.

AND IT'S CRITICAL FOR YOU AS A BOARD TO DENY THIS APPLICATION TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY FOLLOWS ITS OWN CODES.

THANK YOU MS. MAYO.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS? NO, THE REGISTERED SPEAKERS, SIR.

RENTED A DITCH DIGGER TO GET ALL THE MUD OFF THE SIDEWALK.

UM, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS THAT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION? I MAY HAVE A FEW FOR YOU, MR. BROWN IN A MINUTE.

UM, I'M CONTEMPLATING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE.

UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.

THE APPLICANT, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, MAY COME BACK UP FOR A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU AGAIN.

UM, FIRST OFF, I WANT TO DEEPLY APOLOGIZE TO THE CITY, TO THE BOARD, TO THE NEIGHBORS.

IF A FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE WAS TURNED IN, I WORKED FOR A GIGANTIC LAW FIRM, I PRIDE MYSELF ON DOING THE RIGHT THING, AND I WOULD'VE NEVER TURNED IN A SIGNATURE THAT I THOUGHT WAS FRAUDULENT.

SO, MA'AM, I APOLOGIZE WHEREVER YOU ARE TO YOUR FATHER, I I'M SORRY THAT THAT HAPPENED.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

SO I'M, I'M SO SORRY ABOUT THAT.

UM, NEXT I WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT DAVID RUSSELL RICHARD IS MY HUSBAND.

TEXAS IS A COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATE, SO THEREFORE I'M CONSIDERED PART OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP, THAT WHEN I SAID I WAS THE OWNER THAT I AM BECAUSE I MARRIED TO HIM.

UM, SECONDLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ONE OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAD SAID ABOUT WINDOWS AND STUFF BEING IN THE PROPERTY, THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL.

THE PICTURE THAT YOU HAD ALL SEEN WAS FROM ABOUT 10 DAYS AGO.

ANYBODY CAN WELCOME TO DRIVE BY IT.

YOU SHOULD DRIVE BY IT ON THE WAY HOME.

THERE IS NO WINDOWS IN THE PROPERTY.

WE'VE DONE NOTHING ELSE SINCE WE WERE TOLD TO STOP.

THERE WAS, UH, CONTRACTORS ON THE PROPERTY JULY 25TH.

THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAD A CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUE.

AND OUR CONTRACTORS WENT OUT AND PICKED UP ALL THE BROKEN GLASS.

THEY, THEY, UH, THEY

[03:15:01]

THEY EVEN PRESSURED WALK THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAD COMPLAINED THAT ELDERLY PEOPLE WEREN'T ABLE TO WALK BY.

SO THERE WERE PEOPLE THERE, BUT THEY WERE CURING THE CODE VIOLATION AND NOT DOING ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY.

NEXT, WHENEVER I UNDERSTAND THE, THE CHARACTER AND THE, AND THE SPIRIT OF THE N SS O, BUT I ALSO WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT THERE'S ANOTHER PROBABLY 12 TO 18 NEW CONSTRUCTION HOUSES THAT ARE ALL CONTEMPORARY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

PROBABLY THE LOWEST VALUE OF ASPEN PRICE OR SOLD IS 500,000 PLUS.

SO I ALSO WANNA LET THE BOARD KNOW THERE'S PROBABLY ANOTHER 20 VACANT LOTS IN THAT AREA.

SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IT, IT, IT IS CHANGING.

UM, BUT WHAT WE WANNA DO IS TO HELP IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

WE DON'T WANT TO, TO BRING ALL THE NEGATIVITY THAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT NOW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE.

IT'S NOT WHO WE WANT TO BE.

UM, ALSO, SOMEBODY HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS OCCUPIABLE FOOTAGE ON THE FOURTH, FOURTH FLOOR.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL.

THERE IS NO FOOTAGE ON THE FOURTH FLOOR.

IT'S ONLY THE ELEVATOR, UH, THAT GOES UP TO THE FOURTH FLOOR.

SO THERE'S NO OCCUPIABLE, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE THERE.

AND IN CLOSING, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT IF YOU DON'T GRANT US THE VARIANCE AND WE HAVE TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT, THE PROPERTY'S GONNA LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME AS IF YOU WOULD GRANT US THE VARIANCE.

KINDA LIKE THIS SLIDE I HAD, I HAD SHOWED YOU EARLIER AND JUST TO, TO CLOSE IS WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THIS SITUATION.

WE, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GET UP HERE AND PRESENT OUR CASE AND HAVE OUR NEIGHBORS THINK WE'RE EVIL PEOPLE AND THE ENEMY.

AND THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE.

THAT'S NOT WHO WE WANT TO BE.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF AN ERROR.

SO PLEASE DON'T PENALIZE US FOR THAT ERROR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

, ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER SPEAKERS? I ASSUME NOT.

UH, QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR ANY OPPONENTS? MS. DAVIS, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.

YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT, UM, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY LIVABLE SPACE ON THE FOURTH FLOOR.

UM, THAT YES, MA'AM.

THERE, THE ELEVATOR GOES UP TO THE FLOOR, FOURTH FLOOR.

I THINK THERE'S A, A, A LITTLE AREA THAT YOU GET OUT OF THE ELEVATOR THAT, THAT'S COVERED.

THAT'S PART OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT THERE'S NO LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE UP THERE.

SO IS THAT, IS THE FOURTH FLOOR CONSIDERED THE ROOF OR IS THERE SOMETHING OVER THE FOURTH FLOOR TO PROTECT THE HOUSE? NO, IT'S, IT'S THE, UH, IT CONSIDERED THE ROOF.

IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A ROOF.

THIS MAY BE A SILLY QUESTION, BUT WHY DOES THE ELEVATOR HAVE TO, WHY DO, DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO AN ELEVATOR TO GET OUT ON THE FOURTH FLOOR? WHY COULDN'T IT JUST GO UP TO THE THIRD FLOOR? THAT WAS THE WAY OUR ARCHITECT DESIGNED IT.

SO I'M, I I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.

WE ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TODAY OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT THAT TRIANGLE THAT IS NOT COMPLIANT? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE.

SO JAY, OKAY.

DID HE, I GOT YOU, JAY.

ONE SECOND.

MR. NARY.

DID, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS FOR NOW? OKAY, MR. NER, UM, I, I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION.

IS THERE ANY INTENT OR PLAN ON YOUR PART TO, UH, CREATE A, LIKE A ROOFTOP PATIO OR ANYTHING TO WHERE THAT FOURTH FLOOR AREA IS GONNA BE USED ON A REGULAR BASIS? IT WOULDN'T BE USED ON A REGULAR BASIS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE THE TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT THERE EVERY NOW AND THEN, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE FINAL, HOW WOULD I PUT THIS? THE INTENT IS TO UTILIZE THE CITY VIEW OF IT, BUT NOT TO HAVE ANY LIVABLE SPACE THERE.

AND I THINK THAT'S ALLOWABLE PER THE CITY.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IS YOU MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE OF CHAIRS UP THERE, SOME, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO WATCH THE FIREWORKS ON 4TH OF JULY OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

THAT CORRECT.

BUT THAT'S THE EXTENT OF IT.

ORIGINALLY, THE INTENT THAT THE CITY APPROVED, WE ACTUALLY HAD A PERGOLA UP THERE.

IT WAS GONNA BE LIKE, NOT LIVING AREA, BUT OUTDOOR AREA FOR THE CITY VIEW.

BUT THEN THE CITY CAME BACK AND SAID, BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE, CAN YOU TAKE ALL THAT OFF? SO WE'D LITERALLY TOOK ALL OF THAT OFF.

SO NOW IT'S JUST THE ROOF, THE, THE ROOFTOP AND THE ELEVATOR THAT GOES UP THERE.

MS. DAVIS, THIS IS FOR STAFF.

THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

SO I JUST, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM WHAT WE ARE, UM, VOTING TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE TODAY.

AND I'M, I'M GUESS I'M LOOKING AT THE STAFF AND I'M ALSO LOOKING AT OUR ATTORNEY BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT THAT SHAFT, THAT AN ELEVATOR SHAFT IS NOT LEGAL TO GO ABOVE.

WHAT IS IT THAT ADDITIONAL 12 FEET.

SO DO, DO, IS THAT SOMETHING

[03:20:01]

MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, UH, CHIEF DON, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT, YOU MAY AS WELL.

YEAH, I YOU'RE, WHICH ONE? OKAY.

I'LL TAKE IT, SIR.

SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN GO AHEAD AND ANSWER MS. DAVIS'S RECORD.

I KNOW YOU'RE WILLIE, BUT I WANT YOU TO SAY IT.

WILLIE FRANKLIN, I SERVE AS A THANK YOU SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COORDINATOR FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DIVISION.

PER SECTION 51, A 4.408, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, SECTION A TWO.

IT GIVE US THE, THE ALLOWABLE STRUCTURES ON TOP OF A BUILDING THAT MAY PROJECT UP TO 12 FEET ABOVE HEIGHT PER OUR BUILDING, BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATION.

THE ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE OR BULKHEAD IS ONE ITEM THAT IS ALLOWED PER BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATION THAT CAN EXCEED PER THE 12 FEET.

AND WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT WITH THAT MATTER OVER THE LAST, AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS.

THEN, THEN WHY I, THIS IS AN ELBOW TO THAT QUESTION.

THEN WHY DID YOU ASK THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE THE PERGOLA? SO THE PERGO AT THAT POINT IS NOT ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT MAY PROJECT OVER THE, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

THIS IS NOT ON PART OF THIS LIST? CORRECT.

UM, I'M NOT TRYING TO INTERRUPT YOU.

I WAS JUST SAYING WHAT'S GOING ON.

'CAUSE I AGREE THIS, UM, AND THIS GOES BACK TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS MR. BROWN MADE AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE CEILING HEIGHTS AND THREE TIMES 10 IS 30 AND IT'S MORE THAN 30.

AND THEN LOOKS LIKE THERE, IT, THERE'S A PERCEPTION OF A LIVING SPACE UP THERE, BUT, OKAY.

UM, OKAY.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FOR NOW? IT DID.

I JUST WANTED TO, SO WE ARE NOT TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THAT TRIANGLE THAT, UM, THAT, THAT TRIANGLE ON THE VERY FRONT THAT IS NOT COMPLIANT CORRECT.

THAT WE WERE SHOWN ON THAT DIAGRAM.

AND MS. DUNN, COULD YOU GET US THAT MAPPING AGAIN THAT YOU SHOWED US AT THE BRIEFING? THE LIVE, THE, THE FULL, FULL MAP, BECAUSE I WANT MAKE SURE THAT GETS CIRCULATED AND I'LL EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC WHAT WE'RE DOING SO THAT THEY SEE THE MAP.

THANK YOU DIANA.

UH, MR. HOLCOMB, UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO, UM, IN LISTENING TO YOUR TIMELINE AND, AND THE VARIOUS COMMUNICATIONS YOU HAD WITH THE CITY MM-HMM.

, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT, THAT YOUR GOAL WAS TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, A FAIRLY TALL BUILDING BUT MAKE SURE THAT IT CAME IN UNDER THE REQUIREMENT? CORRECT.

LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING IN THE AREA, THERE WAS A PROPERTY ON ANGELINA.

THERE WAS THREE FLOORS THAT DID HAVE A ROOFTOP DECK.

THAT WAS WHAT WE LIKED.

THAT'S WHAT WE TRIED TO GET PERMISSION FOR.

SO IN OUR MIND ALL ALONG, WE NEVER WANTED TO EXCEED ANY KIND OF N SS O OR HEIGHT ISSUES.

AND WE THOUGHT WE HAD EVERYTHING WE NEEDED TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

AND SO DID THAT, THAT HEIGHT COMPONENT, UM, DID THAT OCCUR BEFORE THE PLANS WERE DRAWN UP TO THAT HEIGHT? I MEAN, DID YOU GO AND FIND OUT WHAT THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WAS AND THEN YOU DRAFTED THE PLANS? OR DID IT HAPPEN THE OTHER WAY AROUND AND YOU SAID, OH NO, WE GOTTA TWEAK THIS OR THAT? WELL, WE HAD, I REACHED OUT TO THE CITY EVEN BEFORE WE BOUGHT THE LOTS, THEN THEY SAID 30 FEET WITHIN AN EXCEPTION.

SO IN OUR MIND WE WERE 30 FEET.

THE TRUSSES WERE 18 INCHES, BUT WE WERE STILL WITHIN THAT 30 FOOT WAS THE WAY WE INTERPRETED.

IT'S ALSO THE WAY OUR ARCHITECT HAD INTERPRETED IT.

SO WHENEVER WE WENT TO THE CITY AND THE CITY APPROVED ALL OF IT, THAT WAS, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T REALIZE WE WEREN'T COMPLIANT .

BUT ULTIMATELY YOUR GOAL WAS TO HAVE, UM, A, A STORY AS HIGH AS YOU COULD FOR THE VIEW AS HIGH AS IT WAS ALLOWED FOR THE VIEW, CORRECT? AS HIGH AS IT WAS ALLOWED? YES, SIR.

AND LIKE I HAD, I THINK I SAID THIS THE LAST MEETING, IF WE WOULD'VE KNOWN PRIOR TO ALL OF THIS, WE COULD HAVE TAKEN A FOOT OFF EACH ONE OF THE FLOORS SO WE COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER.

IF SOMEBODY WOULD'VE JUST SAID, HEY, YOU'RE TOO HIGH AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD'VE GLADLY MADE THOSE CHANGES.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, NOBODY CAUGHT THAT UNTIL WE ARE ALREADY THREE FLOORS UP AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU, MR. HALCOMB.

MR. N THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UH, THIS VACANT LOT THAT YOU PURCHASED, UM, DID YOU PURCHASE IT FROM THE CITY ITSELF OR WHO DID YOU PURCHASE IT FROM? NO, SIR.

IT WAS FROM A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.

OH, PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OWNED IT.

BECAUSE LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE HERE THAT YOU PRESENTED, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE CITY FOR ZONING IN LATE JULY.

THE, UH, CITY RESPONDED THE NEXT DAY ON JULY 26TH, NOT DISCLOSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY.

SO YOU WERE NEVER INFORMED OF THAT? THE SELLER DID NOT TELL US PRIOR TO, IT WASN'T AN SO NO, SIR, PRIOR TO CLOSING OF, OF THE PURCHASE.

ABOUT WHETHER, WHETHER IT'S THE SELLER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL YOU THAT, OR THAT'S VE MTOR OR BUYER BEWARE.

NO, AND I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA OPINE

[03:25:01]

YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY TOO? NO, SIR.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE AN ATTORNEY.

YOU SAID YOU AND YOU TWO WERE, WE WORKED FOR A LARGE LAW FIRM.

WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS.

YOU WORKED FOR, BUT YOU'RE NOT ATTORNEYS.

BUT STILL WE, IT'S, I OVERSEE COMPLIANCE.

I I AGREE.

BUT I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO THE DEBATE ABOUT WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY, THE SELLER, THE BUYER.

WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT EARLIER TODAY.

AND LOOKING BACK, I WISH WE WOULD'VE DONE A LOT MORE DUE DILIGENCE.

SO, OKAY.

UM, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT OR, UH, FOR ANYONE? SO I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF 'CAUSE I ASKED THE STAFF TO GIVE ME THIS, THIS DRAWING, AND I'M GONNA SHOW THE DRAWING FOR EVERYONE.

SO YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THE STAFF PROVIDED THE, THE BOARD, UH, HEIGHT PLANE DIAGRAM.

AND THIS DIAGRAM IS DATED JUNE 15TH, 2023.

AND IT HAS A BIG BLUE LINE ACROSS FROM, HAS A BLUE BLUE LINE THAT GOES STRAIGHT UP AT AN ANGLE ACROSS HERE.

THIS IS THE, THE, THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY HERE.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE SEES WHAT WE'RE SEEING.

UM, WHO FROM STAFF WANTS TO, TO VERBALIZE WHAT THIS IS TELLING US, MR. FRANKLIN? SURE.

VERY BRIEFLY.

THE N S O DIAGRAM, THIS RIGHT HERE, WHAT IS THAT BLUE? SURE.

THAT, WHAT IS THE BLUE LINE TRYING TO TELL US THERE THAN ELEVATION? THE BLUE LINE IS TELLING US THAT THE, THE HEIGHT LANE IS COMING FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET.

OH, CLARIFY THAT.

OH, SIR, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

THIS, I'M ASKING THE STAFF NOW.

SO IT'S SHOWING THAT THE HEIGHT PLANE IS COMING FROM THE, THE CENTER LINE FROM SIX FEET ABOVE GRADE AT THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET ADJACENT TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

HOLD THAT THOUGHT.

NOW HOLD THAT THOUGHT.

AND WHEN YOU SAY STREET MM-HMM.

, WE READ THAT EARLIER IN THE CODE, SAID SOMETHING ABOUT STREET, AND I READ THAT BACK TO YOU.

AND THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION IS BASICALLY WITH THE, WITH THE MEDIAN.

NOW IF FOR A STREET WE HAVE TO REFER BACK TO THE PLATT, THE PLAT PLATTED STREET.

AND THAT HAS, OF COURSE, IT LOOKS LIKE A GREEN SPACE NOW, BUT PER PLATT, THAT IS A STREET.

DOES EVERYONE GET THAT? SO THAT BLUE LINE THAT GOES DOWN, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT OR WRONG.

THIS BLUE LINE HERE IS THE CENTER POINT.

OF THE STREET.

SO WE TOOK FROM THAT POINT HERE, UP SIX FEET, WE WENT SIX FEET UP, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YES, SIR.

SIX FEET UP AND THEN DIAGONAL OFF.

AND WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE ANGLE OF THE, OF THE ANGLE? IS THAT 45 DEGREES? WHAT'S THIS ANGLE UP HERE? WHATEVER.

YEAH, WHAT, WHATEVER THE, THE HEIGHT PLANE INTERSECTS AT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO GIVE YOU A DEGREE.

AND IT GOES UP.

AND SO IN THE END FROM THIS DIAGRAM, WE'RE ZEROING IN ON THIS TRIANGLE RIGHT HERE AT THE TOP BETWEEN MY FINGERS.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE SEES WHAT, WHAT, AT LEAST I AM ZEROING INTO THAT EXCEEDS THE PIPELINE.

AND YOU'RE TELLING PROFESSIONAL STAFF IS TELLING US THAT THIS EL THIS ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ROOM, WHAT ARE YOU CALLING IT AS THIS, THE EQUIPMENT UP THERE? THE ELEVATOR.

THE ELEVATOR, YEAH, THAT'S LEGAL BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWED UP TO 12 FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PER 51, A 4.408 A TWO.

THAT EARLIER MS. DUNN SAID THAT SUPERSEDES THE, THAT IS ONE OF THE ALLOWABLE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT OVER THE MAX HEIGHT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M JUST TRYING TO STAY FACTUAL HERE.

AND I CAN ALSO GIVE YOU MORE CODE IF YOU PREFER.

NO, I DON'T WANT, OKAY.

NO, I, I THINK I'M, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THIS DRAWING THAT WE SAW AT THE BRIEFING AND ZERO IN ON THE DISCUSSION.

DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? JUST ONE SECOND.

I GOT YOU MR. HOLCOMB.

ONE SECOND.

WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED IN ON WHAT OUR QUESTION IS TODAY, MR. HOLCOMB.

SO A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO STAFF BASED ON THAT, THAT IMAGE, UH, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT IMAGE RIGHT, IF THIS HOUSE WERE BUILT EXACTLY THE SAME AT THE EXACT SAME SPOT OF THE LOT THREE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH, YES.

IT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE BY RIGHT.

AS IS POTENTIALLY BASED ON THE, THE LOCATION, THE, UM, N S O HEIGHT PLAIN IS TAKEN FROM.

'CAUSE REMEMBER, THIS AREA HAS A, THE STREET IS IS NARROW AS YOU BROKE.

THE MEDIAN'S THICK AT ONE.

LOT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE BY RIGHT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT THREE OR FOUR HOUSES TO THE SOUTH, THE STREET TURNS INTO A MORE NORMAL WIDTH STREET.

AND AT THAT, THAT SPACE, THE EXACT SAME HOUSE ON THE EXACT SAME

[03:30:01]

IT'S ONLY THE FACT THAT THE STREET IS PLATTED SO WIDE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE MISTAKE THAT MAKES IT NOT ALLOWABLE BY, RIGHT? CORRECT.

MS. HAYDEN.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY DOES THE CODE NOT SAY FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY? WHY DOES IT SAY THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET? BECAUSE THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET, IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PAVED STREET THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE, SO IT'S SO EASY TO TELL WHY THIS MISTAKE WAS MADE.

IF IT HAD SENT THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY, THEN THAT'S CLEAR.

YOU GOTTA, YOU GOTTA FIND WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS AND FIND THE CENTER LINE OF THAT STREET RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT BECAUSE IT JUST SAYS STREET, IT, IT'S VERY, UM, VAGUE.

YES, MA'AM.

AND, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

UM, I, I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND IN MOST CASES, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THIS TYPE OF PREDICAMENT.

AND FOR TRANSPARENCY, UM, IS IS ONE OF THOSE ONE-OFFS.

SO IN FOR TRANSPARENCY, IF IT WAS MEASURED FROM THE PAVED STREET, THEY WOULD'VE CLEARED THE N S O FREE.

LIKE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY, ANY ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THAT HIGH PLANE.

THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE PROPERTY, THE HIGHER UP THE HIGH PLANE WOULD PROJECT.

MS. HAYDEN, IF I COULD ALSO ADD, UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT, UH, MR. FRANKLIN IS REFERRING TO IN THE DEFINITIONS WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE, THE HEIGHT PLANE AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET, WHICH IS WHAT YOU QUESTION CENTER LINE IS DEFINED IN THE DEFINITIONS.

AND I CAN READ THAT TO YOU.

IT, IT MIGHT CLARIFY, CENTER LINE MEANS A LINE RUNNING MIDWAY BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY RIGHT OF WAY LINES OF A STREET OR ALLEY.

AND SO IT'S DEFINING THE CENTER LINE OF A STREET TO BE THE CENTER LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE STREET IS IN.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS VERY CONFUSING AND, AND IT WAS A VERY EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE.

YOUR CONGRESSMAN? I'M JOKING, NOT CONGRESSMAN.

THEY TEND TO IGNORE ME.

WELL, I IT'D BE CITY COUNCILMAN OR COUNCIL PERSON.

UM, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE AT THIS STAGE? THE QUESTIONS, THIS IS THE QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE OF YOU GUYS, SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL CHOOSE YOUR POISON.

SO THE SPACE THAT IS ON THE ROOF, WE, WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT OR EQUIPMENT, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S LEGAL.

IT'S, I'M KIND OF LOOKING FOR NODDING HEADS.

AND MR. N'S COMMENT ABOUT THE OTHER SPACE THAT'S COVERED AND IT ALL AND THAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR THE, WHICH THE PERGOLA TO BE REMOVED.

DOES THAT COVER SPACE GIVE YOU ANY OTHER ANGST? THE COVER SPACE TO EXIT THE ELEVATOR? YES.

TO ACCESS THE, YES.

UM, SO BECAUSE IT GIVES ME A LITTLE ANGST JUST BECAUSE THE ONLY THING ABOVE THAT 30 FOOT MARK IS SUPPOSED TO BE THAT LIST OF APPROVED USES.

SO I'M KIND OF DO, I'M JAY, I'M, I'M FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE SPACE ADJACENT TO THE ELEVATOR EXITS.

SO NONE OF THAT GIVES YOU ANGST.

AND THE REASON BEING, UM, I, I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THIS ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

UM, DEVELOPERS WOULD, EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU HEAR ME? DEVELOPERS WOULD COME INTO THE OFFICE AND SAY, HEY, WHEN WE EXIT THIS ELEVATOR AND IT'S RAINING, WE HAVE NOTHING TO KIND OF PROTECT US TO GET OUT OF THIS ELEVATOR.

SO AT THE TIME THAT BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE WILL ALLOW YOU A ROOF COVER, IF YOU WILL.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS BUILDING OFFICIAL.

UM, ALLOW, IF YOU HAVE A, WE'LL CALL IT A, A PORCH COVER, UH, WE WOULD ALLOW THAT PER THAT BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION.

AND THAT HAS BEEN THE REMAINING INTERPRETATION.

AND TO MR. NAR, MR. MR. HEY, MR. HOLCOMB'S QUESTION ABOUT FOURTH FLOOR ELEVATOR DOOR OPENING, CLOSING.

THAT DOESN'T CONCERN YOU, THAT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANGST.

'CAUSE THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S MORE THAN JUST EQUIPMENT.

IT DOES NOT.

REASON BEING BECAUSE PER CODE, THE ITEMS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT IT FALLS UPON OF THOSE ITEMS. HMM.

I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A HMM.

THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF MY ANSWER.

THAT'S NOT DISRESPECTFUL.

AND I, I GET IT.

IT'S JUST UNDERSTOOD.

HMM.

AND WE HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT RULING FOR AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS.

HMM.

MS. DAVIS.

SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A, A ROOF OVER THE ELEVATOR DOOR, WHICH I, I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY, THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

HOW, HOW LARGE IS THAT ALLOWED TO BE? LIKE, COULD BE, UH, YEAH, TYPICALLY IT'S NO MORE THAN FIVE FEET.

BUT CONSISTENTLY WE'VE SEEN TWO FEET, BUT NO MORE THAN THIS IS MORE THAN TWO FEET.

BUT, BUT CONSIST NO MORE THAN FIVE FEET.

BUT CONSISTENTLY WE'VE SEEN ABOUT TWO FEET.

SO THE, THE ROOF OVER THE ELEVATOR OPENING CANNOT BE MORE THAN FIVE FEET.

AND DO WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT IT IS NOW, WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO BE? OR IS THAT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? I CAN LOOK AT THE PLANS AND SEE WHAT'S NOTATED ON IT.

PROJECTING OUT

[03:35:01]

APPLICANT MAY KNOW OFF THE TOP OF HIS EDGE.

I, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT MR. CHAIR, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE ON THE ELEVATOR PROTRUSION, AND IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE THAT WE'VE REQUESTED.

THE ELEVATOR IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ALREADY.

UM, SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY NOT WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

WELL, PERHAPS MR. SAPP COULD BACK ME UP ON THIS.

I, I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

UH, I THINK ALL THESE QUESTIONS ARE RELEVANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE, UH, WHETHER THIS MEETS THE STANDARD OF US GRANTING THE TWO, OR I GUESS IT'S A THREE FOOT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE FOOT, THREE FOOT VARIANCE.

P IT, YES.

TWO AND SOMETHING.

SO I THINK THE STAFF'S SAYING THREE.

UM, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? OKAY.

MR. COMB, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 7 7 ON APPLICATION OF LANCE TIM'S GRANT, THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.

UH, I I'M GONNA ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR MOTION IN ONE SECOND.

UH, WE RECEIVED REVISED PLANS.

DO, UH, ARE THE REVISED PLANS DATED A CERTAIN DATE VERSUS THE ORIGINAL PLANS? DOES THE MOTION NEED TO REFERENCE THE REVISED PLANS? YOU CAN.

I WOULD, THEY ARE DATED SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY.

LISTEN, CAN I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THIS ONE OR NOT, MS. NU YEAH.

OUR LAST HEARING WAS JULY, SO IT WOULD'VE BEEN, WE'RE GONNA GIVE THE SPECIFIC DATE.

YEAH, IT WOULD'VE BEEN AFTER THE LAST HEARING.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO WE'LL HOLD FOR ONE SECOND BEFORE I ASK FOR A SECOND.

I WANT TO PUT A DATE ON YOUR MOTION.

THE REVISED DATE WOULD BE AUGUST 7TH, 2023 SEVENTH.

AUGUST 7TH.

SO AUGUST 7TH, 2023.

SO NOW YOU FINISH YOUR MOTION, PLEASE.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISED SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED DATED 8 7 23.

THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE IN BDA 2, 2 3 7 7 FOR 33 49 COR BOULEVARD TO GRANT THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

UM, IT'S, THE MOTION HAS BEEN MA AND REFERENCING PLANS DATED AUGUST 7TH, 2023.

THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. HALCOMB.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS.

MR. HALCOMB COMMENTS? YEAH.

UM, TO, TO ME, THE BIGGEST THING HERE IS THAT, THAT THIS BUILDING IN ANY, ALMOST ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD BE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AS IT'S DESIGNED.

IT'S ONLY THE NATURE OF THIS, THIS WEIRD LITTLE RIGHT OF WAY SECTION THAT EVEN MAKES THIS A QUESTION.

AND IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE HOW THAT MISTAKE WAS MADE.

AND I DON'T THINK IT MOVES THE NEEDLE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE SO MANY OF THESE OTHER EMPTY LOTS COULD BE THE SAME BUILDING, COULD BE BUILT BY RIGHT.

WITH NO OB, UH, OBJECTION ALLOWED.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO TO ME, THAT THAT SPECIFIES A, A HARDSHIP WITH THE PROPERTY WHICH MEETS, MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THIS VARIANCE.

AND THEREFORE, I BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THIS VARIANCE.

THANK YOU, MR. HALCOMB, MS. DAVIS.

MY DECIDING FACTOR IN LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM IS THIS, THIS LITTLE TWO AND A HALF FOOT.

AND, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE CITY STAFF, WHETHER OR NOT THEY BUILD IT TO COMPLIANCE OR NOT, IT'S STILL GONNA LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME.

IF, IF THIS WAS IN QUESTION THAT WOULD CHANGE MY DECISION, BUT IT'S NOT.

THIS IS LEGAL, THE, THE BIG ELEVATOR SHAFT, SO THAT'S IRRELEVANT.

BUT I'M BASING THIS ON THAT MINIMAL VARIANCE HERE, THAT YOU ARE REALLY NOT GOING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE WHEN THIS BUILDING IS COMPLETE.

SENSITIVE ISSUE THAT IS IN, IN THE CITY.

OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? I'M GONNA HOLD MINE FOR LAST.

MS. MS. HAYDEN? UM, I, I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR.

I MEAN, THIS IS A DIFFICULT, UM, DECISION FOR US.

IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY, UM, CUT AND DRY.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.

AND I THINK THERE'S A BIGGER ISSUE, OBVIOUSLY AT STAKE HERE.

IT'S NOT JUST THIS VARIANCE ON THIS ONE PARTICULAR HOUSE, IT'S THE ZONING OF THE ENTIRE

[03:40:01]

NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I, I GET IT.

YOU KNOW, I FEEL, I FEEL IT .

I'VE LIVED IN A TEAR DOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE, AND I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE OPPOSITION FOR SURE.

UM, BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO HERE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE, AT THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE HELD TO.

AND, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UM, I'M GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

MS. JANNER, YOU OR ME, YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK OR YOU WANT TO SPEAK? UM, I FIRST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO'S, WHO'S COME DOWN TWICE.

UH, DEMOCRACY AND ZONING ARE DIFFICULT ISSUES.

UH, IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT'S FAIR, WHAT'S FAIR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHAT'S FAIR FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

WHAT'S FAIR UNDER THE ZONING THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS ADOPTED AND EMPOWERED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES TO, UM, THIS IS DIFFICULT.

UM, I ABSOLUTELY FEEL FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE STRUGGLES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.

BUT WE HAVE TO STAY FOCUSED AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITHIN THE CRITERIA THAT'S GIVEN TO US AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING RULES AND THE CONFLUENCE OF THE N SS O, UH, AND THE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE EXCEPTIONS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO OR NOT ALLOWED TO IMPLEMENT.

SO, AS IMPORTANT AND, AND AS HEARTFELT AS THE FEELING OF US NEIGHBORS AND AS ADVOCATES FROM ACROSS THE CITY, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO PUT SOME BLINDERS ON SOME OF THAT, THOSE SORT OF POLICY ISSUES ARE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.

'CAUSE THEY MAKE THAT THE LARGER SCALE POLICY ISSUES.

WE HAVE TO CONFINE OURSELVES IN OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO THE ZONING ELEMENTS AND WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS US TO DO OR NOT DO.

UM, I WILL DOVETAIL SOME OF WHAT MS. DAVIS SAID TODAY IN THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THE BIG PRODUCTION ABOUT THE MAP.

AND TO REINTERPRET THE MAP TO BE VERY FACTUAL ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

TO CONFIRM AGAIN WHETHER THE ELEVATOR CONTAINER, UH, EQUIPMENT ROOM WAS LEGAL OR NOT.

WE GOT ADVICE FROM STAFF ON THAT TO ZERO IN ON THE INTERSECTION OF THAT LINE FROM THE CENTER OF THE STREET, AND WE LEARNING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF STREET, INCLUDING MEDIAN OR NOT.

AND THAT INTERSECTION OF THE BUILDING FRONT AND THAT TRIANGLE, THAT IS THE THREE FOOT THAT IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY.

UM, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE, THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE.

UH, IT IS MY JUDGMENT, AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE SAT THROUGH THE DAY, WE TRY TO DECIPHER THE SINCERITY AND THE, AND THE GOOD FAITH OF EACH PROPERTY OWNER THAT COMES BEFORE US TO TRY TO DEDUCE WHETHER PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING TO A STRAIGHT OR NOT.

AND YOU SAW IN ONE OR TWO INSTANCES TODAY, SOMEONE WASN'T.

AND WE ACTED ACCORDINGLY.

AND YOU SAW IN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE WE FELT THEY WERE SPEAKING STRAIGHTFORWARD TO US AND WE ACTED OTHER WAYS OBVIOUS.

I MEAN, AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA IS THAT NO CASE, NO DECISION SETS A PRECEDENT.

SO I CAN'T NAME A CASE THAT I'M COMPARING IT TO.

BUT FOR THOSE THAT LISTENED THROUGH THE DAY, YOU CAN SEE THOSE THAT WE DECLINED OR THOSE THAT WE APPROVED.

UM, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH.

UM, I'M LISTENING TO THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF AS IT RELATES TO HOW THEY INTERACTED WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS CAUGHT.

YES, I DON'T LIKE THE MISTAKES.

DRIVES ME CRAZY, BUT THIS HAPPENS.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THROUGH THE STATE OF TEXAS IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

AND THEY'RE NOT POLITICAL DECISIONS, THEY'RE NOT SOCIOLOGICAL DECISIONS, THEY'RE ZONING AND REAL ESTATE DECISIONS.

SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS.

MR. NER, YOUR LAST AND CERTAINLY NOT LEAST.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, THAT WAS WELL STATED.

I, I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE REQUIRED TO OPERATE WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS AND TO CHANGE THOSE PARAMETERS IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF.

UM, I TOO AM VERY DISHEARTENED THAT THE CITY MADE MISTAKES IN THIS CASE, BUT I DON'T FEEL THAT THE OWNERS, UH, SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THAT MISTAKE, UH, AND WHICH WILL BE EXTREMELY COSTLY.

UH, WITH THAT SAID, I TEND TO BE A PERSON AS A REALTOR.

I TEND TO BE A PERSON THAT SIDES ON, UH, THE SIDE OF, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS AND, AND THOSE WHO WANNA PRESERVE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I KNOW WHAT A INCREDIBLY, UH, IMPORTANT AND

[03:45:01]

BUT AS HAS BEEN STATED HERE TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THE VALUE OF LAND AND THE APPRAISALS ARE GOING UP ACROSS THE CITY.

IT'S NOT JUST IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, BUT ACROSS THE CITY AND ACROSS THE REGION AS A WHOLE.

SO, UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION FOR ME.

AND FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M GONNA GO ON THIS, BUT, UH, UH, I, I DID WANT TO JUST SHARE, SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

IT'S ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT, UH, THAT I'VE COME ACROSS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU, MR. NEARING.

UH, THE BOARD ATTORNEY WANTED TO CLARIFY THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.

MR. MR. MR. SAP.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.

MR. HOLCOMB, I WANTED TO CLARIFY, UM, IN MY DRAFT OF THE MOTION, I APOLOGIZE, DID NOT INCLUDE THAT THIS WAS TO BE, UM, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN, BUT AS WELL AS ELEVATIONS, UM, SINCE THE MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE.

AND SECOND, IF YOU WANTED TO CORRECT THAT, YOU'D NEED TO RESCIND THAT MOTION AND MAKE A NEW MOTION.

I DON'T THINK IT'LL AFFECT THE, UM, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE THE DISCUSSION THAT'S BEEN MADE, BUT TO, TO CLARIFY THAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT FORM OF PROCEDURE.

SO, YEAH, I'M GONNA DO THAT.

SO, MR. UH, BASED ON THE ADVICE FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, MR. COMB, WOULD YOU, UH, WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION? UH, I, I WOULD, DO I NEED TO DATE? ONE SEC? ONE SEC.

JUST WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION.

I WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

WILL YOU WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND? YES.

NOW I'LL GO BACK TO YOU.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. I, I WOULD, UH, LITTLE BIT OF ADVICE FROM OUR ATTORNEY.

DO I NEED TO DATE BOTH THE SITE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION, OR IS JUST THE, THE SITE PLAN DATED? GOOD QUESTION.

THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

LET ME CHECK WITH THE CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE.

I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 7 7 ON APPLICATION OF LANCE TIMS GRANT, THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.

MR. HOLCOMB, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION ON 2 2 3 0 7 7.

[03:50:01]

BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN.

THE REVISED HEIGHT PLAN DATED 6 15 23 AND THE REVISED ELEVATION DATED 8 7 23 IS REQUIRED.

IS THAT ACCEPTABLE, MR. ATTORNEY? ABSOLUTELY.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND.

UM, IN THE MATTER OF 2 2 3 0 7 7, WHICH IS AT 3 3 4 9 CORNET BOULEVARD, MR. HALCOMB HAS MOVED TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS.

MS. DAVIS, I SECOND THE MOTION.

WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS PLACED AND WITHDRAWN.

SO THIS MOTION IS PENDING, UM, UH, BEFORE THE BOARD.

HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 2 3 0 7 7 AT 33 49 CORNET BOULEVARD.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT GRANTS THE THREE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS REGULATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE PLANS AND SITE ELEVATIONS.

AS NOTED IN THE MOTION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL COMMUNICATE TO YOU IN THE NEXT WEEK, UH, IN WRITING.

WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE BEING HERE.

NOPE.

ONLY FOUR IS THE QUORUM.

ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 7 8 2 2 3 DASH SEVEN EIGHT.

UM, SO, OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FOUR, A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, AND THEN WE'LL CALL THAT CASE.

SO WE WILL, WE WILL, WE'RE WE'RE AT 5:00 PM AND WE WILL RECESS UNTIL 5:05 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TUESDAY, A AUGUST 15TH IS IN RECESS AT FIVE O'CLOCK.

AND WE'LL COME BACK TO ORDER AT 5 0 5.

WAIT.

IT'S TUESDAY, AUGUST 15TH.

IT IS 5:05 PM GO, GO AHEAD AND TURN ON YOUR VIDEOS.

IT IS 5:05 PM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

UM, PANEL A IS CALLED BACK TO ORDER.

UH, B D A 2 2 3 0 7 8 AT 5 5 1 1 MERRIMACK AVENUE IS THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA.

UM, THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO HAVE, UM, THE STAFF BRIEF US ON THIS, ALTHOUGH IT'S VERY MINIMAL BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT TRANSACTION FOR THE BOARD.

SO, MS. DUNN, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU, WHAT YOU WANT TO BRIEF OR WHAT YOU WANNA SAY, BUT, UM, GIVE US YOUR BRIEF.

WE ARE GOING TO BRIEF WITH A BRIEF PRESENTATION.

THERE YOU GO BY DR.

KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS BRIEF THE BRIEF AND WHO'S DOING THAT? DR.

MILLER HOSKINS.

DOCTOR B D A 2 2 3 0 7 8 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 5 1 1 MERRIMACK AVENUE.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF I 75 NORTH OF VICKERY PLACE SOUTH OF GLENCO AND WEST OF GREENVILLE AVENUE.

THIS AREA MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT, UM, SITE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, OUTLINED IN BLUE ZONING MAP.

THE PROPERTY IS ON CD NINE.

THIS REQUEST IS TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO APPEAL THE DEC THE DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND THE DENIAL OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT WORK REVIEW.

THERE WAS NO B D A HISTORY FOUND WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL BE PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND

[03:55:01]

A 360 VIDEO.

THIS SLIDE IS DOCUMENTS HERE, EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THEIR LETTER EXPRESSING WHY THEY, UM, WHY THEY'RE APPEALING THE DE THE DE THE DECISION.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR BDA 2 2 3 0 7 8 AT 5 5 1 1.

MERRIMACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, A COUP I'M GONNA SPEAK ON A COUPLE PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND THEN I'LL COME FORWARD HERE.

UM, DR.

MILLER HASKINS, UH, IN OUR, IN OUR PACKAGE THAT WE RECEIVED, WE RECEIVED A DCA LISTING AND NOTIFICATION AREA, BUT THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE, IS IT FOR THESE TYPE OF HEARINGS? I DO NOT THINK SO, BECAUSE WE DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU SEND A NOTIFICATION LETTER OUT TO ANYONE, CORRECT? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE DO THAT FOR, FOR THIS TYPE OF HEARING.

IT'S A STRAIGHT UP PRESENTATION TO THE, TO THE BOARD.

AND A PRESENTATION IS EVEN CONSIDERED A COURTESY IN THESE TYPE OF CASES? UH, NO, I GET YOU.

BUT I'M SAYING I SEE THE NOTIFICATION MAP AND I ALMOST SAID WHAT WAS THE VOTE? OH, BUT WE DON'T, YOU DON'T TAKE IT.

WE DON'T, THAT'S MY POINT.

WE DON'T, WE DON'T.

I SEE THE PROPERTY NOTES, IT'S LISTED.

THERE'S 2033 OF THEM WITHIN 200 FEET.

I GET THAT.

BUT WE DIDN'T SEND A NOTIFICATION LETTER TO THEM NOR DO WE TAKE THE, THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

UH, CORRECT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

I JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANNA VERIFY THAT.

SO THAT FOR EVERYONE'S ED EDVOCATION, UM, THERE ARE A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES FOR AN APPEAL TO DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, RULES OF PROCEDURES AMENDED PROP, UH, PROUDLY BY THIS BOARD, UH, IN APRIL 23, UH, ON PAGE 13 AS PART OF SECTION 11, SECTION 11, SUBSECTION M UH, THE FOLLOWING RULES APPLY TO APPEALS OF THE DECISION OF, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.

I'M NOT GONNA READ ALL THAT, BUT I'M GONNA HOPEFUL HOPEFULLY FOLLOW IT CORRECTLY.

IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT GETS 20, THE APPELLANT GETS 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

THEY CAN CALL WITNESSES, THEY CAN CROSS EXAMINE, UM, AND REDIRECT.

UH, AND THEN, UM, THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL GETS 20 MINUTES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

AND THEN THERE IS A CLOSING STATEMENT OF THREE MINUTES AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GETS THREE MINUTES.

SO WE'RE GONNA BE FOLLOWING THAT.

SO QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT TO THE APPELLANT OR TO THE CITY STAFF, UH, DO NOT COUNT AGAINST THEM.

UH, SO THE BOARD SECRETARY AND I WILL COORDINATE TIMING ON THAT.

UH, AS IS MY PRACTICE.

I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THEIR PIECE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

UM, ARE YOU THE APPELLANT? ARE YOU THE APPELLANT? YES.

SO YOUR NAME IS MS. CORRY? YES.

SO, UM, I'M GONNA HAVE THE BOARD SECRETARY SWEAR YOU IN, AND THEN I'M GONNA MAKE A FEW OTHER COMMENTS.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

EILEEN CORRY.

55 11 MERRIMACK AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 6.

OKAY, SO I, I, I WANT TO GET THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION OF YOUR LAST NAME, CORKERY? YES.

MS. CORKERY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

UM, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE RULES SO THAT YOU, AND WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF THE RULES BEFORE THE HEARING TODAY? YES.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.

SOMETIMES THIS IS DIFFERENT 'CAUSE THIS IS NOT FIVE MINUTES WITH NEIGHBORS AND THAT SORT OF THING.

YOU CONTROL YOUR TESTIMONY, THEN THE CITY CONTROLS THEIR TESTIMONY, WHOEVER THE CITY'S GONNA DO THAT.

AND THEN WE ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN YOU REBUTTAL AND YOU HAVE A CLOSING STATEMENT AND THEY DO AND SO FORTH.

SO THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

IT IS FIVE 12.

BE HELPFUL TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.

YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

SO AS, AS I STATED, MY NAME IS EILEEN CORRY.

UM, I THOUGHT IT'D

[04:00:01]

MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED TO DALLAS FROM VIRGINIA IN MARCH OF 2020.

UH, GIVEN OUR LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE DALLAS AREA AND THE FACT WE WEREN'T INFORMED DURING THE PURCHASE PROCESS, WE ACTUALLY DID NOT KNOW WE WERE MOVING INTO A CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

UM, THE CONCEPT OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAS, WAS FOREIGN TO US.

UM, I I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.

IT'S THE HOMEOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE RIGHTS AND REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE, OF THE DISTRICT THEY LIVE IN AND THE CITY THEY LIVE IN.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, OUR MINDSET AT THE TIME WHEN WE DECIDED TO PAINT OUR HOUSE.

NOT THAT IT IS AN EXCUSE.

UM, OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE INVESTED CONSIDERABLE TIME AND MONEY, UM, INTO IMPROVING OUR HOME.

UM, GIVEN THE AGE OF THE HOME, IT'S A 1920 TUDOR, WE'VE ADDRESSED KINDA EXTENSIVE WOOD ROD ISSUES AND MOST RECENTLY WE HAD, UM, KIND OF MACE MASSIVE PLUMBING LEAKS AND FOUNDATION DAMAGE.

SO WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN DISPLACED FROM OUR HOME FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS, AND WE STILL HAVE A FEW MORE MONTHS BEFORE KIND OF, WE CAN EVEN MOVE BACK IN.

UM, AFTER YEARS OF WALKING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, I DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY SLIDES OF MY DOGS, BUT, UM, WE WE'RE GONNA RUIN THE DAY ON THE DOGS , BUT THAT'S OKAY.

SO, UM, WE WOULD WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE TOOK INSPIRATION FROM A LOT OF THE PAINTED, BEAUTIFULLY PAINTED BRICK HOUSES IN OUR, IN OUR STREET.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN DILIGENTLY SAVING UP TO, TO PAINT OUR HOUSE OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, FIXING UP THE REPAIR.

UM, GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, OVER 50% OF THE HOUSES JUST ON OUR STREET ARE PAINTED BRICK, UM, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT OUR EFFORTS WERE IN LINE WITH KIND OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S AESTHETIC.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD EVEN LOOK AT HOUSES THAT WERE PAINTED AND I WOULD LOOK AT THEIR ZILLOW LISTING FROM PREVIOUSLY BEFORE IT WAS PAINTED TO GET AN IDEA OF EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS LOOKING AT AND THE TRANSITION AND HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH WE LOVED THAT.

UM, UNFORTUNATELY A WEEK AFTER PAINTING OUR HOUSE, UM, WE HAD AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL COME AND INQUIRED ABOUT OUR APPROVAL TO PAINT OUR HOUSE.

UM, THIS LED US TO UNCOVER THE REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL.

SO WE IMMEDIATELY TOOK ACTION TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.

UM, AND WE SUBMITTED A CASE FOR APPROVAL WHEN WE DILIGENTLY LOOKED THROUGH THE ORDINANCES THAT WE WERE GIVEN.

UM, WE DIDN'T FIND ANY EXPLICIT MENTION OF PAINTING PREVIOUSLY UNPAINTED BRICK.

SO WHEN WE APPLIED, WE ASSUME WE WERE GETTING APPROVAL ON THE SHADE OF CREAM THAT WE PAINTED OUR HOUSE.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GETTING APPROVAL TO PAINT.

UM, SO WHEN OUR CASE WAS REJECTED, UM, WE CAME AND, YOU KNOW, SUBMITTED FOR A HEARING AND WE WERE SENT MOST RECENT HEARINGS AT THE TIME BY THE BOARD.

UM, I KNOW THERE'S NO PRECEDENT, I JUST THINK IT'S HELPFUL, UM, BECAUSE ON MAY 16TH OF THIS YEAR, UM, THIS SAME BOARD KIND OVERHEARD TWO HEARINGS OF CASES, UH, B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 4 6, AND B D A 2 23 DASH 0 5 5, BOTH OF WHICH CENTERED AROUND OUR NEIGHBOR'S CHOICE TO PAINT THEIR PREVIOUSLY UNPAINTED BRICK HOUSES.

THE BOARD MADE THE DETERMINATION TO OVERTURN THE VERDICT INITIALLY PUT FORTH BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.

THE DECISION WAS ROOTED IN THE BOARD'S OBSERVATION THAT THE EXISTING ORDINANCE LACKED LANGUAGE EXPLICITLY PROHIBITING THE PAINTING OF UNPAINTED BRICK AND FURTHER HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR DISTINCT CLARIFICATION OF KEY DEFINITIONS.

UM, SOME OF THOSE DEFINITIONS WERE WHAT EXACTLY IS COLOR MATCHING BLONDE OR LIGHT COLORED COMPATIBLE BRICK? THEIR AS ASSERTION UNDERSCORED THE IMPERATIVE REQUIREMENT FOR ENHANCED CLARITY WITHIN THESE ORDINANCES, SHOULD THEY BE INTENDED FOR EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT? I ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DOCKET, UM, WHICH YOU'VE GUYS HAVE SEEN PREVIOUSLY ON THESE OTHER CASES, UM, FORM FROM FORMER COUNCILWOMAN ANGELA HUNT.

SHE WAS INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCES AND SHE CONFIRMED THAT THE INTENT WAS NEVER TO PREVENT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENCES FROM PAINTING THEIR HOUSES.

UM, IN CONCLUSION, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AIRED IN JUDGMENT, UM, BY DENYING OUR QUEST FOR PAINTING APPROVAL.

THE ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT LANGUAGE AGAINST PAINTING ON PAINTED BRICK.

UM, I, I DON'T WANNA SAY PE PRECEDENT 'CAUSE I KNOW WE, GIVEN MY TIME TODAY, I KNOW THERE'S NO PRECEDENT, BUT THE CONSISTENCY FROM PREVIOUSLY OVERTURNED CASES AND AN ENDORSEMENT FROM A KEY FIGURE IN THE ORDINANCES DRAFTING ALL SUPPORT OUR CASE.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD RECONSIDER THE DECISION AND GRANT US THE APPROVAL TO MAINTAIN THE APPEARANCE OF OUR HOME IN HARMONY WITH CHARACTER.

THAT THE BOARD HAS OF THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN, YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, BUT IS YOUR HOUSE ALREADY PAINTED? YES, IT'S FULLY PAINTED.

WOW.

THAT WASN'T 20 MINUTES .

WELL, I KNOW THAT WAS ALL, THAT WAS ALL FIVE MINUTES.

I KNOW IT'S LATE.

I DON'T WANNA KEEP PEOPLE HERE ANY LATER THAN, NOPE, YOU, YOU'RE FINE.

THAT 20 MINUTES ARE YOURS, UM, QUESTIONS

[04:05:01]

YOU CAN SEE IN THOSE PHOTOS.

IT'S OKAY.

SO WHEN YOU, SO WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT, WAS IT AFTER THE YEAH, WE HAD BEEN FINISHED PAINTING FOR ABOUT A WEEK WHEN THE OFFICIAL CAME AND TOLD US WE NEEDED APPROVAL.

SO WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT NEED TO CHANGE THE COLOR.

WE DIDN'T KNOW.

UM, THEY WERE TELLING US WE COULDN'T HAVE PAINTED IT AT ALL.

THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN.

MR. HOLCOMB, UM, BALLPARK, HOW MANY, UH, PAINTED HOUSES WOULD YOU SAY IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE THERE? AT LEAST 50%.

OH, WOW.

THAT HIGH.

YEAH, AT LEAST 50.

I, I DROVE BY MY STREET.

UM, AS I SAID, WE'RE, WE'RE OUT OF OUR HOUSE RIGHT NOW AS THE FOUNDATION'S GETTING FIXED.

AND JUST ON OUR STREET I COUNTED 18 OF 36 HOUSES ARE PAINTED.

AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THOSE WERE PAINTED RECENTLY 'CAUSE I PULLED UP THREE.

REPEAT THAT AGAIN.

ON MERRIMAC? YEAH, ON MERRIMAC.

HOW MANY OF HOW MANY? SO, EIGHT.

SO ON MERRIMAC, THE, THE TWO STREETS STARTING FROM, UM, MCMILLAN TO GREENVILLE ON MERRIMACK, THOSE TWO STREETS, 18 OF 36 ARE PAINTED BRICK.

THAT'S VERY INTERESTING.

WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME? ALRIGHT.

UH, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA PRESENT AT THIS TIME? YOU'VE GOT TIME IN A ADVANCE, SO, UH, NO, THE ONLY THING I WOULD MENTION IS THAT EVERYONE WAS MAILED A LETTER, UM, THE 200 FEET IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

'CAUSE I RECEIVED ONE AS WELL.

OH.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS KIND OF, UM, CLARIFIED.

'CAUSE THESE, THOSE LETTERS WERE MAILED TO EVERYONE.

UM, SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

WELL, OKAY.

THAT'S NEW INFORMATION.

UH, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, WE ARE BLIND TO THAT.

THE ONLY THING, AND BOARD ATTORNEY, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, WE ARE BLIND TO THAT.

THE ONLY THING WE'RE ALLOWED TO HEAR TODAY IS WHAT'S PRESENTED BY YOU AS THE APPELLANT AND THEN WHAT'S PRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHOEVER'S REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

SO, HOLD ON.

AM I CORRECT MR. MR. SAPP? THAT'S CORRECT.

BECAUSE IN THE LETTER IT SAYS YOU CAN COME AND, AND, AND SAY YOU'RE AGAINST THIS OR WHATEVER.

WOW.

AND SO I WAS VERY CONFUSED BY THAT AS WELL.

UM, AND, AND WOULD JUST LIKE CLARITY ON THAT IN THE FUTURE 'CAUSE YEAH, ALL MY NEIGHBORS WERE LIKE, WE LOVE YOUR HOUSE.

WHAT'S GOING ON? UM, SO, UM, YEAH, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

WELL CLEARLY WE NEED TO ATTEND TO THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE SENT THAT OUT BECAUSE WE, BECAUSE IF SOMEONE ELSE SHOWED UP TODAY, WE COULDN'T HEAR FROM THEM.

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

'CAUSE I WAS GONNA HAVE MY FIRST COME AND SUPPORT.

NO, WE COULD NOT HEAR FROM THEM.

THE 20 MINUTES IS YOUR TIME.

AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE'S TIME.

AND OUR RULES ARE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT.

THERE IS NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO THIS TYPE OF APPEAL THAT WE'RE HEARING.

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

YEAH, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, MR. POOLE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN, IN, UH, THE STAFF PROCEDURE GOING FORWARD.

AM I CORRECT MR. SAPP? THAT'S CORRECT.

TECHNICALLY THOUGH, THEY, UH, THERE WOULD BE ALLOWED SPEAKERS COULD COME AND SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC TYPE HEARING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY.

BUT THERE WERE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.

AT THE BEGINNING OF DAY.

THEY, THEY COULD HAVE BACK, YOU KNOW, ONE O'CLOCK.

THANK YOU FOR THAT LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION.

ALRIGHT, SO THAT WILL CONCLUDE YOUR YES SIR, MS. MR. HOLCOMB KIND OF CHASING THE RABBIT A LITTLE BIT, BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT COULD IN THEORY CALL A WITNESS AS A NEIGHBOR? YES.

OUR RULES PROVIDE THAT THEY CAN CALL A WITNESS IN WITHIN THEIR TIMEFRAME AND QUESTION THE WITNESS UP TO FIVE MINUTES.

AND THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES.

AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT THE RULES IN ADVANCE SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND YES.

'CAUSE THEY'RE UNIQUE TO THIS PROCESS.

NO, AND, AND THE RULES WERE DEFINITELY GIVEN TO ME AND GREAT.

THANK DEFINE.

ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL BE BACK WITH YOU MOMENTARILY.

UM, IS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL? HELLO? GOOD EVENING.

I'M TREVOR BROWN, THE CHIEF PLANNER FOR CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.

UM, I AM HERE TONIGHT WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

UH, BUT THEY FELT LIKE, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

ARE YOU GOING TO BE SPEAKING AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YES.

SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOMEONE IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR YOU'RE THE PERSON.

YOU'RE THE PERSON.

SO IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND, AND MARILLA ADDRESS, PLEASE FOR THE RECORD.

TREVOR BROWN, I'M THE CHIEF PLANNER FOR CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, UH, 1500 MARILLA.

[04:10:01]

UM, LET'S SEE IF I CAN DRIVE THIS AND LOOK AT THIS.

SO I WANNA START OFF WITH A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND HISTORY, UH, AS IT RELATES TO, UH, DECISIONS AND HOW THE ORDINANCE IS INTERPRETED BY OUR OFFICE.

UH, I WILL STATE THAT THIS HISTORY WILL GO BACK AT LEAST, UH, 10 YEARS TO MY PREDECESSOR'S TIME, UH, WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND THEN WHENEVER I TOOK OVER, A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, UM, THIS ALL CAME ABOUT DUE TO COMPLAINTS THAT WE WERE GETTING FROM RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD REGARDING THE CHANGE OF CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT DUE TO ALL THE, UM, PROPENSITY FOR PAINTING OF HOUSES, ESPECIALLY AS IT GAINED POPULARITY.

AND AGAIN, ANY INTERRUPTIONS OR QUESTIONS WE HAVE DOES NOT TAKEN AWAY FROM YOUR TIME, SIR.

SO, IS YOUR SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY CITYWIDE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS OR SPECIFIC TO A GEOGRAPHIC AREA? CITYWIDE.

SPEAKING IN TERMS OF CITYWIDE ENFORCEMENT AND CITYWIDE MA MANAGEMENT OF CON CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.

SO I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT OBVIOUSLY I'M HERE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT NINE.

NOW WHAT I'VE GOT ON MY SCREEN ARE SORT OF, UH, SOME OF THE, UH, MORE TYPICAL HOUSES THAT I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO, UH, REPLICATE WITH ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION.

UM, AND SO THERE WERE, UH, FREQUENTLY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE, THE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER DUE TO THE PAINTING OF HOUSES.

UH, ALSO WE WOULD GET COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS, UH, SAYING THAT WE WERE NOT ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

UH, THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF WHAT I'VE GOT ON THE SCREEN IS FROM OUR, UH, MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

AND THAT BLUE HIGHLIGHTED, UM, ITEM, THERE IS A COMPLAINT FROM 2013, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN READ IT ON YOUR SCREEN, UH, BUT THE COMPLAINT CAME IN AS PAINTING.

HOUSE BLUE DOES NOT CONFORM TO CONSERVATION.

AND THERE IS THE HOUSE IN QUESTION, UH, WHICH I THINK IS 52 20 MONTICELLO.

UH, ALL OF THIS LED TO A 2019 BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION BEING ISSUED, UH, IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR.

SINCE THAT TIME, UH, NOT ONE SINGLE PAINTED BRICK OF PREVIOUSLY UNPAINTED BRICK HAS BEEN APPROVED BY OUR OFFICE.

IN FACT, WE HAVE HAD THREE HOMES THAT HAVE REMOVED THE PAINT FROM THEIR BRICK TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

UH, JUST TO SHOW AND DEMONSTRATE THE CONSISTENCY IN WHICH OUR OFFICE HAS ENFORCED THIS INTERPRETATION SINCE IT WAS, UH, ADOPTED.

UH, SPEAKING TO THE CHAIR'S EARLIER, UH, DESIRE TO NOT READ EVERYTHING, I WON'T.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE, UH, THE, UH, INFORMATION SORT OF REITERATED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULATION, THIS IS FROM THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE.

CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULATIONS ENSURE THAT REMODELING IS DONE IN A MANNER THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES FOUND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

THERE ARE GONNA BE A COUPLE OF TERMS THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT OUT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, COMPATIBLE BEING ONE OF THOSE.

THIS IS LANGUAGE, UH, ON THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE, UNLESS IT'S IN QUOTES, IS, IS, UH, PARAPHRASED, ALTHOUGH THAT DEFINITION FOR REMODEL, WHICH I WILL READ IF I CAN GET THIS THING OUT OF MY WAY.

THE ORDINANCE DEFINES REMODEL AS IMPROVEMENTS OR REPAIRS THAT CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE OR REPLACE ORIGINAL MATERIALS OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ANOTHER MATERIAL.

UH, AND IT FURTHER GOES ON TO SAY THAT, UH, WHEN REMODELING HOUSES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS HIGH TUDOR, WHICH, UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, UH, THAT REMODELING MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE STANDARDS FOR REMODELING.

UH, AND THEN GOES ON UNDER THE SECTION FOR REMODELING AND MATERIALS, SAYING ANY REMODELING MUST MATCH THE ORIGINAL BRICK AND STONE IN SIZE, COLOR, COURSING TEXTURE, MORTARING, AND JOINT DETAILING.

OH, IT'S NOT LETTING ME DRY.

SO WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW? UH, REMEMBERING THAT IT SAID THAT ANY REMODELING MUST MATCH, UH, MUST MEET THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS REMODELING.

UH, THIS IS FROM THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

UNDER THE MATERIALS, SAY STATING HOUSES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF BRICK AND OR STONE USING THE SAME COLORS, COURSE PATTERNS, MATERIAL PLACEMENT, AND MATERIAL COMBINATIONS FOUND IN ORIGINAL HOUSES GOES ON TO STATE BRICK MUST BE SCRATCH, FACE, OR TEXTURED WITH AT LEAST THREE SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN TONE, BRICK, COLORS AND TEXTURES MUST BE TYPICAL OF THE BRICK USED ON ORIGINAL HOUSES.

STONE MUST BE SIMILAR TO THE STONE USED ON ORIGINAL HOUSES.

[04:15:01]

THESE ARE WHAT WE WOULD, UH, CONSIDER TO BE, UH, BLONDE OR TAN OR BUFF COLOR BRICK.

UM, I'LL POINT OUT A FEW THINGS.

IF YOU NOTICE, UH, SEVERAL OF THESE HOUSES, THE SUBTLE, THE THREE SUBTLE TONES, UH, VARIATIONS IN TONE ARE VERY APPARENT.

YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE, UH, THE IMPORTANCE OF, UH, THE STONE ACCENTS ON THESE STRUCTURES IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE TYPICAL IN THESE, UH, IN THIS DISTRICT.

NOW, IT'LL, YOU'LL NOTICE UNDER THE MATERIAL SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE, IT DIDN'T SAY THAT IT MUST BE BLONDE OR TAN BRICK, BUT IT DID SAY THAT IT MUST BE TYPICAL OF ORIGINAL HOUSES FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT.

SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW OF, UH, TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF OTHER BRICK VARIATIONS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, HOPE YOU'RE NOTICING AGAIN THE, UH, VARIATION IN TONE IN EACH OF THESE HOMES.

UH, AGAIN, ALSO, UH, UH, THESE DON'T HAVE ANY STONE.

WE DO HAVE SOME CAST STONE THERE.

UM, BUT ALSO THE VISUAL THAT YOU GET FROM HAVING EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL BRICKS SHOWING UP AS A INDIVIDUAL UNIT WITH THE MORTAR BETWEEN THEM.

SO TO ADDRESS THE, UH, COLOR AND TEXTURE AND HOW PAINT CAN POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE WAY THAT APPEARS.

UH, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE COVER BRICK WITH PAINT, WE LOSE THE, THE, OBVIOUSLY THE BRICK CUDDLE COLOR AND ANY SUBTLE VARIATIONS, INCLUDING ANY INCLUSIONS, UH, MINERAL INCLUSIONS THAT COME FROM THE FIRING OF THAT BRICK.

ONCE IT'S PAINTED IT, IT'S NOW MONOTONE OR FLAT.

UH, IN ADDITION, THE TEXTURE IS LOST WITH THE APPLICATION OF PAINT, IT FILLS THE GAPS.

UH, IF YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE EXAMPLE PHOTO THERE, THOSE AREAS WHERE THE PAINT DID NOT ENTER BECAUSE OF THE, UH, TEXTURE OF THE BRICK, OF COURSE, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT ANY PAINTER WILL COME BACK AND GO OVER THAT AREA AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE TO FILL THAT IN AND COVER THAT AREA WITH PAINT.

UH, AND OF COURSE, WE'RE ALSO LOSING THE DETAIL OF THE MORTAR AND HOW IT CONTRASTS WITH THE COLOR OF THE BRICK.

AGAIN, CALLING OUT THOSE AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS, UH, VERSUS A MORE MONOLITHIC OR MONOTONE APPEARANCE OF A STRUCTURE THAT'S PAINTED ALL ONE COLOR.

TO SORT OF PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS 55 11 MERCEDES AVENUE.

UH, WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE HOUSES WHERE THE PAINT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BRICK, UH, IN ORDER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.

I'LL POINT OUT, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, UM, THAT BASKET WEAVE BRICKWORK ABOVE THE DOOR THAT IS VERY TYPICAL AND IN FACT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF TUDOR STYLE STRUCTURES, UH, ESPECIALLY HIGH TUDORS IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.

UH, AND THEN OF COURSE, THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT, THAT DETAIL IS, UH, ALMOST COMPLETELY LOST, THAT WONDERFUL, UH, TUDOR POINTED ARCH, UH, BECOMES LOST AND FLAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO, UH, DEPTH BECAUSE THE, THE HOUSE IS ALL PAINTED, UH, THE SAME COLOR ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

AND OF COURSE, WE LOSE THE, THE, AGAIN, THE CONTRAST IN THE MORTAR VERSUS THE, UH, THREE SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN THAT BRICK.

THIS IS ANOTHER HOUSE THAT, UH, HAS SINCE COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY REMOVAL OF THE PAINT.

THIS IS 52 19 MERCEDES AVENUE.

AGAIN, LOOKING AT, ESPECIALLY THAT CHIMNEY AND THE BRICK DETAILING THAT IS LOST WHEN COVERED WITH PAINT.

THE BASKET WEAVE UP AT THE TOP OF THE CHIMNEY.

UH, THAT, UH, NICE COLORED DETAIL IN THE, UH, CORDAL STATUE LEDGE THERE WITHIN THE CHIMNEY.

UM, AND, AND JUST TRYING TO AGAIN, ILLUSTRATE THE SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN THE BRICK THERE, AS WELL AS THE, UH, VERY OBVIOUS VISUAL IMPACT OF MORTAR.

SO I SAID THERE WERE GONNA BE TWO TERMS THAT I WANTED TO FOCUS ON.

ONE WAS COMPATIBILITY.

THE OTHER IS THE DEFINITION FOR REMODEL.

REMODEL MEANS IMPROVEMENTS OR REPAIRS THAT CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE OR REPLACE ORIGINAL MATERIALS OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ANOTHER MATERIAL.

I HOPE THAT THE TWO PICTURES ON YOUR SCREEN ILLUSTRATES WHAT PAINT CAN DO TO CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THIS BUILDING.

THIS IS IN FACT THAT STRUCTURE 55 19 RIDGEDALE.

UH, THIS IS PART OF THE, UH, CASES THAT WERE HEARD BACK IN MAY.

THIS HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 2007 AFTER THE, UH,

[04:20:01]

ADOPTION OF THE CD NINE ORDINANCE.

SO THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND BY THAT, UH, AND I LEFT THE, UH, APPLICABLE SECTIONS ON THE SCREEN THERE.

SO MATERIALS, UH, NEW HOUSES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF BRICK AND OR STONE USING THE SAME COLORS, COARSE PATTERNS, MATERIAL PLACEMENT AND MATERIAL COMBINATIONS FOUND IN ORIGINAL HOUSES.

THIS HOUSE THAT CERTAINLY DOES THAT BRICK MUST BE SCRATCHED FACED OR TEXTURED WITH AT LEAST THREE SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN TONE, BRICK COLORS AND TEXTURES MUST BE TYPICAL OF THE BRICK USED ON ORIGINAL HOUSES.

THIS HOUSE CERTAINLY MET THAT CRITERIA.

IN ADDITION, IT HAD TO MEET, UH, IT HAD TO INCORPORATE AT LEAST FOUR FEATURES, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN ORDER TO BE APPROVABLE BY OUR OFFICE.

THOSE INCLUDE THE MASSIVE CHIMNEY LOCATED ON THE FRONT FACADE, BLONDE OR LIGHT COLORED BRICK COMPATIBLE WITH ORIGINAL HOUSES.

THE STONE ACCENTS THERE AND THE ARCH DOOR THAT MATCHES THE FRONT PORCH ARCH.

THIS SAME HOUSE WAS PAINTED IN 2022 AND NO LONGER MEETS THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE ANY REMODELING, WHICH IS THE CHANGE IN THAT APPEARANCE, UH, MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO THIS HOUSE NO LONGER, UH, HAS THE BRICK COMPATIBLE WITH ORIGINAL HOUSES VISIBLE, NO LONGER HAS THE THREE SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN TONE.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, NO LONGER MEETS THE FOUR REQUIRED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT WERE, UM, APPROVED BY OUR OFFICE ORIGINALLY IN 2007.

SO THIS IS WHERE THE ORDINANCE, UH, AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION BECOMES CRITICAL BECAUSE OUR OFFICE CANNOT APPROVE ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT MEET THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

BY APPROVING PAINT ON THIS BUILDING, WE WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE STANDARD FOR THIS STRUCTURE MEETING THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION.

MS. DAVIS, DOES THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY STATE PAINTING IS NOT ALLOWED? IT DOES NOT.

IT JUST SAYS NO REMODELING AND, AND CORRECT, OR THAT REMODELING MUST COMPLY WITH ALL, ALL OF THESE STANDARDS THAT ARE FOUND IN, UH, THE ORIGINAL HOMES.

BUT IT DOES NOT SAY ANYWHERE THAT PAINTING IS NOT ALLOWED.

IT DOES NOT.

MR. HOLCOMB? UH, I I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT LAST BIT.

UH, I BELIEVE UNDER NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR TUDOR, IT DOES EXPRESSLY SAY PAINTED BRICK IS PROHIBITED.

SO BY REMODEL, REFERRING TO THAT SECTION, UM, I I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS EXPRESSED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

WELL, I BELIEVE YOU'RE REFERRING TO SUB AREA ONE.

, WHICH IS NOT, UH, THIS AREA, SUB AREA ONE IS A SPECIFIC AREA THAT IS CARVED OUT FOR A COMMERCIAL, UH, CORRIDOR THAT WAS PART OF THE AMENDED ORDINANCE.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN TWO ORDINANCES ISSUED.

THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE FOR CD NINE, WHICH IS, UH, ORDINANCE 2 5 1 1 6.

THEN THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED TO ADD SUB AREA ONE, AND THAT IS WHERE YOU'RE SEEING ORDINANCE 2, 8, 9, 4 6.

ANYTIME AN ORDINANCE IS AMENDED, IT IS AMENDED.

SPECIFICALLY, UH, THERE ARE PARAMETERS FOR WHAT IT IS BEING AMENDED FOR.

SO WHEN THAT ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED, IT WAS AMENDED SPECIFICALLY TO, UM, DEVELOP SUBAR ONE WITHIN THE, THE ORDINANCE.

SO THAT LANGUAGE, UH, CAME AFTER THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS, UH, WRITTEN THE, THE NO PAINTED BRICK.

SO, SO, SO TO CLARIFY THE PART WHERE IT EXPRESSLY SAYS THAT APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT NOT NEW CONSTRUC, NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR HIGHT, IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR SEC OR SUB AREA ONE.

5 5 1 1 MERRIMACK AVENUE.

THANK YOU MS. DAVIS.

I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, SO IS THIS SUB AREA ONE OR THAT'S ANOTHER AREA? NO.

SO, OKAY.

SO GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION, THAT DOES NOT SAY THAT PAINT'S RESTRICTED AS IT IN THIS AREA.

SO THIS IS, UH, THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.

IT IS CLASSIFIED AS HIGH TUDOR CONSTRUCTED IN 1929.

UH, OF COURSE, THIS HOUSE MEETS THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, THE ELEMENTS THAT IT IN, UH, INCORPORATES ARCHITECTURALLY, BUT ALSO OF COURSE FOR THE, UH, BRICK AND STONE ELEMENTS AS WELL.

SO HERE WE ARE ONCE AGAIN.

UH, WHERE, WHEN IT SAYS THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR REMODELING, THAT'S ANYTHING THAT CHANGES THE APPEARANCE OF THIS BUILDING, UH, MUST COMPLY

[04:25:02]

WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE STANDARDS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS SECTION.

MATERIALS UNDER THAT PARTICULAR, UH, SECTION SAYS ANY REMODELING MUST MATCH THE ORIGINAL BRICK REMODELING, CHANGING THE APPEARANCE OR REPAIRS MADE TO THE BUILDING.

REMODELING MUST MATCH THE ORIGINAL BRICK AND STONE AND SIZE, COLOR, COURSING, ET CETERA.

WHAT YOU HAVE HERE ARE CUTTING AND PASTING.

'CAUSE YOU HAVE MATERIALS.

WHAT I'M TRYING, MR. BROWN, I'M FOLLOW, TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ATTACHED SURE.

TO THE DEAL.

AND SO ON THIS PAGE HERE, THIS YOU'RE SLIDE 15 MM-HMM.

, IT SAYS IT'S GOT A MATERIALS THREE, UH, OPTIONAL ARCHITECTURE 12, AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE.

SO TELL ME WHERE IN HERE IS THE MATERIALS? THREE.

UH, MATERIALS THREE IS GONNA BE FOUND UNDER SECTION E E THAT IS CAPITAL E OR SMALL, E, LOWERCASE E.

SO THAT IS THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

WHICH ARTICLE F ONE REFERS TO SAYING THAT ANY REMODELING MUST COMPLY.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON A SECOND.

SO E DO YOU HAVE A PAGE NUMBER? IN WHICH ORDINANCE ARE YOU LOOKING AT? 2, 8, 9, 4, 6.

THAT'S WHAT'S OPERABLE.

OH, YOU'RE TALKING E MEANING PAGE 10.

PAGE 10.

I, AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR POWERPOINT WITH WHAT SURE.

THE ORDINANCE DEAR.

I READ MY PAPER.

UM, ALL RIGHT, SO THAT FIRST SECTION TALKS ABOUT MATERIALS, AND IT'S NOT ON PAGE 10.

IT'S ON PAGE 11, BUT, OKAY.

WE'LL TAKE IT.

WELL, IT'S, AND EXCEPT, OKAY, THEN IT'S GOT A, B, AND C THERE.

I GOT IT, SIR.

AND THEN THE NEXT ONE, 12 IS THAT, THAT'S FARTHER DOWN.

THAT'S IN THAT SAME SECTION.

E UH, ON PAGE 14.

NOW YOU CAN GO BACK TO YOUR DEAL.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW WHERE THIS WAS.

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE THERE'S ALL ONE SECTION? IT'S THREE SEPARATE SECTIONS AND IT, BECAUSE THE REMODELING COMES AFTER THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, IT DOESN'T, I WISH I COULD HAVE DONE IT IN A MORE LOGICAL NO, NO, NO.

I, I'M, I'M FOLLOWING YOU NOW THAT I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

SO, SO ARTICLE F IS THE STANDARDS FOR REMODELING, BUT IT STATES WITHIN THAT, THAT IT, THE, ANY REMODELING MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO I, THAT'S WHERE YEP.

YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE, UH, AND OUR EYES SEEMS VERY CLEAR, MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH INCLUDES LANGUAGE REGARDING THE COLOR OF BRICK, THE THREE SUBTLE VARIATIONS, UH, AS WELL AS THE, UH, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT MUST BE INCORPORATED.

YOU CANNOT GO BELOW THE FOUR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT ARE REQUIRED GATE IN, IN ALL OF THIS, UM, IN THE ORDINANCE IS, IS THE, UM, DEFINITION OF REMODELING SPELLED OUT? YES, MA'AM.

UH, I'LL GO BACK TO THAT FOR CLARITY REMODEL.

MEANS IMPROVEMENTS ARE REPAIRS THAT CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

AND TELL ME, TELL ME WHERE, WHAT, WHERE IN THE ORDINANCE I CAN SEE THAT.

SO THAT'S GONNA BE IN THE DEFINITIONS AT THE BEGINNING, UH, AND WILL BE FOUND ON PAGE SIX.

UH, THIS IS DD REMODEL.

UH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE 2 8, 9, 4 6 ORDINANCE EXHIBIT A? UH, YES, SIR.

I GOT IT.

NOW THIS WAS ONE THAT CAME UP IN THE, IN THE PREVIOUS CASE.

UH, MATCH IS NOT DEFINED.

AS THE BASIS FOR WHAT IT IS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

NEITHER IS COLOR.

HE'S GOTTA TELL YOU THAT, OR SHE'S GOTTA TELL YOU THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE CAN GO TO MIRIAM WEBSTER FOR THOSE.

BUT, UH, ANYTIME SOMETHING SAYS MATCH, IF I SAY, UH, MATCH THAT COLOR, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT ANOTHER COLOR FOR THAT? OR ARE WE GONNA ACCEPT THE SAME COLOR? WELL, I, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FLIPPANT, BUT THE QUESTION I ASKED IN THE LAST ONE WAS, COULD TWO DIFFERENT COLOR PIECES OF CLOTHING BE SAID TO MATCH? AND THAT WOULD BE A COMMON DEFINITION OF MATCH.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH.

THOSE ARE THE ILL DEFINITIONS THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IN THIS CASE.

FAIR ENOUGH.

I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT SURROUNDS THOSE TWO WORDS.

UH, WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, MATCHING ORIGINAL BRICK, UM, IS ORIGINAL BRICK, UH, WHITE PAINT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHEN, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY.

UM, AND THEN COLORS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE, WE ARE USING IT CONTINUOUSLY REFERENCES ORIGINAL HOUSES

[04:30:01]

THERE ARE ORIGINAL HOUSES, ORIGINAL HOUSES ARE DEFINED BY THE ORDINANCE, UH, AS HOUSES BUILT BETWEEN 19, UH, 20 AND 1940.

AND THAT IS, UH, ON PAGE FIVE ORIGINAL HOUSE, UH, CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN 1920 AND 1940 AND THE HIGH TUDOR STYLE.

SO WE ARE GOING TO USE THOSE EXAMPLES AS OUR REFERENCE FOR WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER, UH, A MATCH OR A COLOR TYPICAL OF THOSE STYLE OF HOUSES.

UH, BUT WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN INFERENCE BASED ON THE CODE? IT'S NOT LIKE EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT? WELL, LET'S SEE, RIGHT HERE UNDER MATERIALS IT SAYS, UM, THAT THE BRICK AND OR STONE U UH, NEW HOUSES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF BRICK AND OR STONE USING THE SAME COLORS, COURSE PATTERNS, MATERIAL PLACEMENT AND MATERIAL COMBINATIONS FOUND IN ORIGINAL HOUSES, WHICH ARE HOUSES BUILT BETWEEN 19 AND 20 AND 1940 IN THE HIGH TUDOR STYLE WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.

SO WE'VE GOT, THAT IS OUR REFERENCE MATERIAL ARE THE EXISTING HOUSES WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.

AND AS FAR AS HIGH TUDOR AS A, UM, ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS CONCERNED, UM, DOES IS PAINTING OF BRICK, ANYTHING THAT APPEARS ANYWHERE IN THE HIGH TUDOR STYLE? NO.

UH, PAINTING OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT HIGH TUTORS AREN'T PAINTED THEN WITHIN THIS DISTRICT? NO, HE, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.

HE DIDN'T SAY THAT, HE SAID HIGH TUTORS BECAUSE, WELL, SO HIGH TUTOR IS A DESIGNATED, UH, STYLE WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE.

ONLY THERE IS TUDOR, THERE IS TUDOR REVIVAL STYLE AS FAR AS RECOGNIZED ARCHITECTURAL STYLES.

BUT, UM, SINCE, SINCE WE'RE INFERRING A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THE LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S GERMANE WHAT THE, WHAT SCHOLASTICALLY HIGH TUTOR WOULD BE CONSIDERED.

UM, NOT, NOT WHAT THE CODE SPELLS IT OUT.

I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF WANDERING A LITTLE FROM THE BLACK AND WHITE OF CODE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, IS THAT A, UH, IF I WERE TO GO ASK SOME ARCHITECT FROM CHICAGO OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S A HIGH TUDOR HOUSE AND DOES A PAINTED BRICK APPEAR IN IT? YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND DO YOU, WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD I GET? UH, IF HE'S AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN, HE'LL TELL YOU HIGH TUDOR IS NOT A RECOGNIZED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.

SO THERE ARE TUTOR, WHICH ARE THE ORIGINAL TUTORS IN ENGLAND.

UM, AND THEN THERE ARE TUDOR REVIVAL, WHICH IS A SORT OF REVIVAL OF THAT IN THE, UH, 20TH CENTURY.

SO TO YOUR POINT THAT I THINK YOU'RE DRIVING AT, WHICH IS, ARE THERE TUDOR STRUCTURES THAT HAVE SOMETHING BESIDES UN UH, A PAINTED BRICK? THERE ARE, THERE'S GONNA BE, UH, SOME THAT ARE COVERED IN STUCCO.

THERE ARE GONNA BE SOME THAT ARE COVERED IN LIME WASH, WHICH IS A MUCH MORE, UH, TRADITIONAL MATERIAL THAT SOMEBODY WOULD PUT ON TOP OF BRICK.

THERE ARE INHERENT, UH, RISKS, UH, FOR DAMAGE TO BRICK THAT IS PAINTED WITH, UH, MODERN PAINTS.

SO, UH, MOST PEOPLE, WHENEVER THEY BUILD SOMETHING OUT OF BRICK, IT IS INTENDED TO BE THE FINISHED MATERIAL.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THAT GIVES ME SOME CLARITY.

SO I, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW PRESCRIPTIVE, YOU KNOW, CONSERVATION DISTRICT CODE SHOULD BE.

SO I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIVE IN HOAS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEY WILL TELL THEM EXACTLY THE COLORS THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, HERE IS THE COLOR PALETTE THAT YOU CAN PAINT YOUR HOUSE.

THIS IS THE ROOF COLOR THAT YOU CAN HAVE ON YOUR HOUSE, , YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY, VERY SPECIFIC.

AND I FEEL LIKE WHEN WE INTERPRETED THIS BEFORE, AND AGAIN NOW, IT, IT, IT'S NOT AS PRESCRIPTIVE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU'RE IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, YOU WOULD WANNA BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHY ISN'T THIS AS SPECIFIC AS YOU MIGHT FIND IN JUST A, A REGULAR H O A, YOU KNOW, CODE IN AREAS WHERE YOU WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE BEING OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE IS, UM, A, A DETRIMENT? UM, MOST SURE.

SO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, I'VE LIVED IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS BEFORE AND THEY WANTED TO BE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE.

I MEAN, BUT I BELIEVE WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING THAT THIS ONE IS NOT PERHAPS AS PRESCRIPTIVE AS AN H O A OR ANOTHER DISTRICT WHERE LANGUAGE MIGHT BE MORE SPECIFIC.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT WHENEVER I MAKE THAT STATEMENT.

SAYING YOU'RE GONNA RESPECT WHAT'S THERE.

UM, MS. MS. DAVIS, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T WANNA INTERRUPT.

DO YOU WANNA FIX YOUR THOUGHTS? WELL, SO, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO GUIDANCE FOR RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES, UH, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UH, THE, UH, UH, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES, THE GUIDANCE THAT EVERYBODY WHO WORKS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS USES IS 10 STANDARDS

[04:35:01]

YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO SOMETHING, YOU'RE NOT GONNA REPLACE ORIGINAL MATERIALS WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG THERE.

SO IT IS PURPOSEFULLY LEFT, NOT PRESCRIPTIVE, BECAUSE WHAT APPLIES TO ONE MAY NOT APPLY IN ANOTHER SITUATION.

LET'S, LET'S LET HIM FINISH.

LET'S SEE.

WELL, AND SO I, I CERTAINLY AM NOT GONNA READ THIS, BUT I DID WANT TO PUT UP, I DID WANT TO PUT UP THIS IS THIS, I SAID EARLIER, THIS IS THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I SAID EARLIER, WE DON'T READ POWERPOINT .

THIS, THIS IS PART WELL, BUT I THINK IT IS WORTH, UH, PUTTING UP THAT THIS IS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BRIEF, THAT IS PART OF THE PACKET THAT YOU GOT.

UM, AND THEN I WANNA SHOW YOU WHAT ORIGINAL HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN PAINTED IN THIS DISTRICT, UH, LOOK LIKE AS COMPARED TO, TO THOSE EARLIER EXAMPLES THAT, UH, I HAD ON THE SCREEN OF ORIGINAL HOUSES WITH THE THREE SUBTLE, UH, VARIATIONS IN TONE, UH, YOU KNOW, BRICK NOT BEING OBSCURED TO WHERE IT ALL LOOKS MONOLITHIC.

ONE, UH, SOLID COLOR.

AND THEN ALSO TALK ABOUT, UH, THE WORD COMPATIBLE AND HOW WHEN WE PAINT BRICK, IS IT COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES FOUND WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS SPECIFIC ABOUT IS THINGS THAT WERE FOUND WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, UH, INCLUDING THE STYLE, BUT ALSO THE COLORS AND MATERIALS.

SO LOOKING AT THE, UH, SCREEN HERE, IS THERE, YOU KNOW, ONE HOUSE THAT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH OTHER ORIGINAL HOUSES? AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE SEE THE DARK GRAY HOUSE AS NOT BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE, UH, OTHERS IN TERMS OF ITS COLORS AND MATERIALS.

SO IN CONCLUSION, UH, THE M STREET'S ORDINANCE ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO APPEAL TO THE BOARD ANY DECISION MADE BY OUR OFFICE.

AND IN DOING SO, THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS WHETHER THE DIRECTOR AIRED IN THE DECISION CONSIDERING THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE DIRECTOR.

WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE STANDARDS PRESENTED DURING THIS PRESENTATION AND WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BRIEF, ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE DECISION TO DENY IS BASED ON AN OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT-WIDE POLICY, THE RECORDED BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION THAT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY APPLIED AND ENFORCED SINCE ITS ADOPTION IN 2019, ARE GROUNDS FOR THIS BODY TO UPHOLD THE DECISION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD A DISCUSSION, UH, ON THE PREVIOUS CASE ABOUT A BUILDING OFFICIAL'S INTERPRETATION, AND WE ALL ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THAT INTERPRETATION ALLOWED THEM TO DO SOMETHING OR DIDN'T, CAN'T DO SOMETHING, UH, BASED ON THAT INTERPRETATION.

SO WE ARE APPLYING THAT SAME, UH, LOGIC TO THIS PARTICULAR, UH, CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU, MR. BROWN.

OUR RULES SAY THAT NEXT, THAT THE APPELLATE GETS A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL, AND THEN, UH, THERE IS A THREE MINUTE CLOSING ON BOTH PARTS.

SO YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.

UM, I THANK YOU.

SO I, I JUST WANTED TO, TO TRY TO REITERATE THAT, I MEAN, WE, UM, OBVIOUSLY SHOULD HAVE AND, AND NOW UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE, IN LIVING IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND OUR WHOLE GOAL, AND WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IS TO PRESERVE OUR HOME.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THE PAST THREE YEARS AND LIVING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE EVERY OTHER HOUSE IS PAINTED, WE THOUGHT WE WERE KEEPING WITH THE CONSISTENCY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, AND, AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S NO EXPLICIT MENTION OF, OF PAINTING BRICK.

AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN WHEN THEY HAD THE UPDATE, THEY EXPLICITLY MENTIONED, UH, NOT ALLOWING PAINTED BRICK IN SUB AREA ONE, BUT IT WAS NOT UPDATED ANYWHERE ELSE.

IT JUST SAYS MATCH COLOR.

UM, WHICH NONE OF THAT IS KIND OF CLARIFIED.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE JUST, THAT'S, UM, KIND OF MY REBUTTAL AND, AND THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO KEEP, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUR FEATURES OF A TUTOR.

WE HAVEN'T RE YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF REMODEL, BUT WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF OUR HOUSE.

I MEAN, WE STILL HAVE THE ARCH DOORWAYS, WE STILL HAVE THE TA TA TURN CAST STONE COLUMNS.

WE HAVE THE STUCCO, WE HAVE THE MASSIVE CHIMNEY, WE HAVE ALL OF THAT.

WE JUST PAINTED THE BRICK LIKE, UM, AND NOWHERE DID WE SEE WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE COMING OUT WITH THE ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT HERE.

OFFICIAL, GIVE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND THEN WE'LL DO THE APPLICANT THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.

UH, WE NOW GO TO CLOSING STATEMENTS.

UM, THE RULE SPECIFIED.

YEAH, I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO THE, THE NEXT STAGE IS A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT ON EACH PART.

SO THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.

THAT WAS THE REBUTTAL.

NOW WE DO THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENTS.

SO, UM, I'M GONNA LET, I'M GONNA LET THE, THE BUILD THE BUILDING

[04:40:01]

WELL, UH, YOU KNOW, TO NOT BELABOR THE POINT OF, UH, THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE WHERE IT IS SPECIFICALLY SAYS, MUST COMPLY, MUST COMPLY, MUST COMPLY, MUST MATCH, MUST HAVE THOSE COLORS, MUST HAVE THREE SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN TONE.

UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATION IN 2019 WAS TO TRY AND, UM, ENSURE THAT WE HAD A CONSISTENT REVIEW AND THAT THE, UH, OFFICE WAS REVIEWING THOSE ITEMS, UH, IN A CONSISTENT MANNER THAT ALSO ENSURED THAT THE, UH, INTEGRITY OF THAT DISTRICT WAS BEING UPHELD.

AND I DO WANT TO SORT OF, EVEN THOUGH I'M SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE, UH, A BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CODE AND TO ADAPT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, UH, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS.

GENERALLY, SUCH INTERPRETATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE.

THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF WAIVING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

SO THERE IS, UM, AGAIN, IN ORDER TO ADD CLARITY TO THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, AN INTERPRETATION WAS ISSUED THAT THIS OFFICE HAS ENFORCED AND APPLIED UNIFORMLY SINCE IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2019, BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATIONS.

UH, THIS WAS, UH, APPROVED BY AN ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL, THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

SO THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT, UH, DID NOT GET VETTED BY ALL THOSE BODIES WHO WOULD, UH, CERTAINLY BE CRITICAL OF THAT INTERPRETATION.

SO, UH, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE APPLIED THIS ACROSS ANYONE WHO'S COME TO US FOR APPROVAL FOR PREVIOUSLY UNPAINTED BRICK.

SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THIS, THE ONLY TWO THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO STAND WERE THE ONES THAT THIS, UH, BOARD APPROVED DURING THEIR MAY MEETING.

THE APPLICANT'S ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.

I'LL, I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF.

UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I I JUST WANT TO GO BACK KIND OF IN THE DISCUSSION.

YOU, YOU HAD HAD AT PREVIOUS HEARINGS ABOUT THE LACK OF, OF CONSISTENCY, UM, THE EXPLICIT DEFINITIONS IN SUCH AN IMPORTANT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO UPHOLD THE DISTRICT, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY EXPLICIT.

I, I GUESS I DIFFER ON THAT.

I THINK THAT EXPLICIT IS KEY.

UM, YOU KNOW, IN MOST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PAINT YOUR HOUSE.

IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE COLOR, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT WE HAD AIRED IN ON OUR EXACT COLORING AND THE PAINT, AND WE WERE WILLING TO CHANGE THAT.

BUT BACK TO THE INTENT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE, I MEAN, THAT IS WHY I INCLUDE FORMER COUNSEL, UM, WOMAN ANGELA HUNT'S TESTIMONY.

IT'S, THERE WAS NO INTENT TO HAVE YOU NOT BE ABLE TO PAINT YOUR HOUSE.

THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO KEEP THE DISTRICT IN HIGH TUTOR AND NOT HAVE HOUSES BEING BUILT THAT WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE TUDOR STYLE.

SO THAT'S HOW, YOU KNOW, I VIEW AND I VIEWED THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S WHAT HER INTENT WAS.

AND SO TO HAVE KIND OF THE INTENT CHANGE IN 2019 AND HAVE ALL OF YOU, YOU KNOW, STILL HAVE 50 PLUS PERCENT OF THE HOUSES PAINTED, UM, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM VERY CONSISTENT IN MY MIND.

AND SO, UM, FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I REALLY THINK THERE WAS AN AIR IN JUDGMENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT.

UH, YEAH, I, I WAS GONNA SAY, ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MS. HAYDEN? UH, I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ON, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATION WAS DEVELOPED.

QUESTION TWO, I, IT'S, IT'S FOR MR. BROWN.

THERE'S NO NOTIFICATION PROCESS.

UM, WHEN THE BILLING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATION WAS, WAS DEVELOPED, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S PROVIDED TO HOMEOWNERS IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS WELL? BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A HOMEOWNER, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY TRAINED IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

SO I, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR A HOMEOWNER TO HAVE THAT INTERPRETATION AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE CITY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT SORT OF LANGUAGE.

I, IT, IT, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP IN THIS SITUATION.

THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN.

OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? ANSWER.

OH, DID YOU WANT TO ANSWER A QUE I THOUGHT IT WAS A STATEMENT THAT THAT WAS A STATEMENT, BUT SHE WAS MAKING A REQUEST.

THAT WAS A STATEMENT, BUT I SHE WAS BEING PRO PROACTIVE.

THE QUESTION WAS, IS IT PROVIDED? OH, SO BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERPRETATIONS ARE NOT GENERALLY DISTRIBUTED.

UH, IN FACT, THEY'RE RECORDED, UH, AT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOW, WHICH WE WERE A PART OF AT THE TIME OF THIS INTERPRETATION.

UM, SO THEY'RE NOT GENERALLY DISTRIBUTED.

[04:45:01]

I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE WORLD SORT OF SHUT DOWN.

UH, SO THERE WERE, WERE NOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR, UH, ANY TYPE OF ENGAGEMENT AS IT RELATED TO THIS.

REBUTTAL CLOSING STATEMENT.

UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS JUNCTURE? CLOSING STATEMENTS? NO.

BOTH CLOSING STATEMENTS ARE IN YES.

AND THE RE HEARING.

UH, 20 MINUTES.

20 MINUTES.

CLOSING STATEMENT.

YES, WE'RE ALL SET.

MS. DAVIS.

HAVING FULLY REVIEWED, YEP.

HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 7 8 ON APPLICATION OF EILEEN CORRY, AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.

IT'S BEEN MOVED IN B D A 2 2 3 0 78 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 5 5 1 1 MERRIMACK AVENUE.

AND THE MOTION BY MS. DAVIS WAS TO REVERSE AND GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN, MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION.

I, I MADE THIS MOTION FOR TWO REASONS.

NUMBER ONE, IT DOES NOT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT PAINTING IS NOT ALLOWED.

NUMBER TWO, I UNDERSTAND THAT NEW, UM, WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES THAT YOU WERE COMMUNICATING, THE, THE SCRATCHED BRICK AND, AND ALL OF THE, THOSE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED.

AND IT SAYS THAT IF A HOME IS REMODELED, IT NEEDS TO FOLLOW THOSE NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.

I DO NOT BELIEVE REMODELING IS CONSIDERED PAINTING.

I SEE THAT AS A RENOVATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE.

SO THAT IS WHAT MY DECISION WAS BASED ON.

IT WAS NOT BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE IS ALREADY PAINTED.

UM, IF I THOUGHT THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS CLEAR AND THAT IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED, I WOULD NOT VOTE TO REVERSE IT.

THAT IS WHAT I'M BASING IT ON.

IT'S THOSE TWO AREAS THAT IT IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ENFORCE THAT, THAT I, AND THAT'S BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THE DECISION WAS MADE AN ERROR.

MS. HAYDEN.

YEAH, I, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE LANGUAGE AND THE INTERPRETATION OF IT.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S REALLY CLEAR ENOUGH FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO COMPLY.

AND, UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THE TWO BLOCK AREA AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN HALF OF THE HOMES HAVE BEEN PAINTED, YOU KNOW, IT, IT JUST GIVES ME PAUSE AND MAKES ME FEEL THAT WE NEED SOME MORE SPECIFICITY IN, IN THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, MR. HOLCOMB? YEAH, I, I MEAN, I TAKE THE VIEW, UM, THAT CODE IS, IS BASICALLY RESERVING THE RIGHTS OF THE CITY.

AND SO ANYTHING THAT CODE DOESN'T SPELL OUT IS LEFT AS A RIGHT OF THE HOMEOWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OWNER OF THE TAXPAYER.

AND, AND THEREFORE GIVEN A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT EXPRESSLY SAYS, YOU SHALL NOT PAINT FOR, UH, SUB AREA ONE.

YET IN THIS CASE, WE'RE HAVING TO FOLLOW THIS DEFINITION TO THAT DEFINITION.

TO THE OTHER DEFINITION, IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR.

AND, AND ULTIMATELY, I, I, I, UH, ANYTHING THAT'S NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED SHOULD BE PERMISSIVE UNDER THE CODE.

THANK YOU, MR. HOLCOMB.

UM, MY TAKE IS TWO THINGS.

NUMBER ONE, I DO NOT THINK IT'S CLEAR.

AND NUMBER TWO, I'M BOTHERED BY THE LACK OF UNIFORM IN UNIFORMLY ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION.

UM, THE TESTIMONY GIVEN TODAY, THE PICTURES ON THE STREET, UH, JUST TELLS ME THAT THIS, THAT THE, THE STRICT INTERPRETATION THAT YOU ARE USING AND THE BUILDING OF FISHERS USING IS NOT FAIR AS IT RELATES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

UM, AND SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO REVERSE AND GRANT THE RELIEF.

UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES IN THE MATTER OF B D A 2 2 3 DASH SEVEN EIGHT.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUSLY FOUR TO ZERO, UH, REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND GRANTS THE RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT.

YOU'LL BE GETTING A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.

THANK

[04:50:01]

YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.

THANK YOU, EV.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE.

OUR NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A MEETING IS, UH, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH.

UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. HALCOMB.

THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.

IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ADJOURNED AT 6:02 PM ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15TH.