[00:00:01]
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL B IS HEREBY
[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on October 18, 2023. ]
CALLED TO ORDER AT 11:00 AM ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER, OR 11:02 AM AT WEDNESDAY, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, 2023.I'M SHERRY GABO AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF PANEL B.
WE'LL CONDUCT OUR STAFF BRIEFING THIS MORNING, A PUBLIC HEARING THIS AFTERNOON AT ONE O'CLOCK.
A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING.
UM, OUR BOARD AND PANEL MEMBERS THAT ARE VOTING THIS MONTH INCLUDE MYSELF, SARAH LAMB, MICHAEL KOWSKI, DEREK NEAL, AND ERIC ANDREW FINNEY.
OUR STAFF PRESENT TODAY IS UM, MATTHEW SAP, UM, OUR BOARD BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY NIKKI DUNN, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, DIANA BARUM, OUR DEVELOPMENT COACH, SPECIALIST COORDINATOR, NORA CASTA, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, JASON POOLE, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR, MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY OF THESE OTHER FOLKS HERE TODAY.
UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, SO ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO THIS BOARD IS LIMITED TO THE ITEMS YOU GAVE STAFF AND ARE IN THE DOCKET AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS AFTERNOON.
THERE CAN BE NO COMMUNICATION ON A PENDING APPEAL CASE BETWEEN THE BOARD OR PANEL MEMBERS AND THE APPLICANT NOR THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS AFTERNOON AT 1:00 PM THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING IS FOR THE BOARD AND PANEL MEMBERS TO RECEIVE AND ASK QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF TO, UM, AND LOOK AT THEIR COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR WRITTEN CASE REPORT PUBLISHED ON OUR WEBSITE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THIS HEARING.
THE CITY STAFF WILL PRESENT A POWERPOINT WITH PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING 200 FEET OF NOTIFICATION AREA.
THE STAFF WILL BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE ELEMENTS OF EACH CASE, THE STANDARDS OF THE APPLICABLE CITY CODE, AND PRESENT THE BOARD WITH LETTERS BOTH IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION, UM, OF THE CASE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ONLY STAFF AND BOARD MAY SPEAK DURING STAFF BRIEFING.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS ALLOWED AT THE ONE O'CLOCK PUBLIC HEARING.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL MAKE NO DECISION UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:00 PM AFTER ALL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GIVEN.
UM, SO I THINK OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY IS GOOD AND I THINK WE WILL KEEP IT IN THE ORDER THAT IT IS IN FOR, UM, TO HEAR AND PROBABLY DO FOR THE HEARING.
UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, ARE, WERE THERE ANY CHANGES FOR THE MEETING MINUTES? I MEAN THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE OKAY.
UM, ALRIGHT, WELL THEN LET'S, UH, REVIEW THE, UH, CASE, UM, B D A 2 2 3 DASH 0 7 4.
UM, SEND OR CHAIRMAN, GOOD MORNING, VICE CHAIR AMBO AND MEMBERS OF PANEL B.
SHE'S GONNA, UH, BRIEF US ON CHATHAM HILL, B D 8 2 2 3 0 7 4 AT 5 5 0 5 CHATHAM HILL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PRIMARY, PRIMARY METRIC OF 75 DAYS.
THIS SITE IS NORTH OF WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WEST OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY, EAST OF HOLLOWAY ROAD AND SOUTH OF DELOCHE AVENUE.
THIS SHOWS THE AREA MAP AND THE DONNING MAP.
THERE ARE 15 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED.
UM, WE RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION PRESENTATION OVERVIEW.
WELL, I, LET ME CORRECT MYSELF.
ONE HOMEOWNER WITH MULTIPLE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM WHAT? YES.
SO THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER FROM AUGUST PRESENTATION, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM HER AND YOU RECEIVED ANOTHER LETTER FOR THIS MEETING AS WELL, WHICH IS WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE PRINTED OUT IN FRONT OF YOU.
THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.
UM, THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS,
[00:05:04]
THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A NINE FOOT FENCE AND A REQUIRED FRONT YARD, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A FIVE FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS BACKGROUND, UM, B D A HISTORY.UM, THERE WAS A B D A CASE IN 2020 FOR MULTIPLE ELECTRIC METERS THAT WERE APPROVED AND A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD AND ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AND AS WELL AS WELL AS FENCE STANDARDS.
UM, THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED IN 2018.
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL BE PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF, UM, HOLLOWAY AND CHATHAM HILL.
YOU SEE, UM, THE PROPOSED FENCE, EXISTING FENCE AND THE FENCE IS COVERED WITH LIKE SOME SORT OF BLACK TARP ALL THE WAY AROUND.
SO WE HAVE WIRE MESH FENCING ALONG CHATHAM HILL.
SO I THINK IT IS WHAT YOU SAW LAST TIME.
THE PICTURES ARE JUST A LITTLE BRIGHTER AND I MEAN, WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS AND THEN LOOKING AT THE PLANS THAT THEY HAVE, I DON'T, AND BASED ON THE LETTER, THIS IS NOT WHAT IS IN THEIR, THIS ISN'T THEIR SITE PLAN, WHAT THEY HAVE HERE OR IT'S PART OF ITS SITE PLAN AND PART OF IT.
NOW, I WAS VERY CONFUSED WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH ALL OF THAT.
UM, LIKE SOME, LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE SOME WAS MESH, BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE SITE PLAN, IT CALLED FOR DIFFERENT MATERIALS IN DIFFERENT PLACES AND DIFFERENT HEIGHTS.
AND SO IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE MATCH MATCHES.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
THERE IS SOME DIFFERENTIATE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION, WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE AND ACTUALLY WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE IN THE PICTURES.
AND SO, AND THEN I THINK YOU MENTIONED BEFORE WE STARTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A NEW SET OF PLANS THAT HAVE COME IN.
SO THE APPLICANT DID EMAIL, UM, A SET OF NEW PLANS, UM, THIS MORNING MAYBE ABOUT 45 MINUTES AGO.
AND HE SAID THAT HE WILL BRING THEM TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WHAT WE'RE HEARING NEXT, JUST ON THE HEIGHT REGULATION ON MATERIAL, CORRECT.
SO IT'S ON THE HEIGHT, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2018.
UM, THEY'RE REALLY HERE BECAUSE THEY'RE WHAT THEY PROPOSED, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY WHAT THEY PUT OUT THERE.
BUT THE MATERIAL DOES NOT MATCH THE SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR 2018.
SO I'M
THAT'S REGULATION
SO WHAT, SO THEIR APPROVAL WAS BASED UPON, UM, THE CONDITIONS THAT IT HAD TO MATCH THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION.
SO THEN THERE'S THE, SO WE HAVE, THERE MUST BE AT SOME PLACE ON THE FENCE THAT THEY'RE GOING OVER THE HEIGHT, WHICH I'M NOT SURE.
BUT THEN THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS IS, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT FOR US TO DECIDE TODAY, IS THAT THEY HAVE MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY SAID IN THEIR SITE PLAN, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T ADDRESS BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY HERE FOR HEIGHT THAT IT MATCHES THE SITE PLAN.
SO THE MATCHES MR. MR. KOWSKI HAS HIT THE ISSUE ON THE HEAD.
ALRIGHT, ALLOW ME TO, ALLOW ME TO, UM, TRY TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT A LITTLE BIT.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, DR.
MILLER HOMANS, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF THIS IS INCORRECT.
WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY APPLIED IN 2018, THEY HAD A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT FOR A NINE FOOT FENCE THAT WAS GOING TO GO WITH A CHAIN LINK FENCE.
CHAIN LINK IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CITY CODE.
THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE A MESH FENCE.
UM, MESH IS ALSO NOT PROHIBITED BY THEIR, BY THE CODE.
HOWEVER, THEIR 2018 SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FENCE HEIGHT WAS TIED TO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE.
SO THEY'RE HERE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
THE MATERIAL IS IMMATERIAL BECAUSE THEY ARE SWITCHING FROM A NON PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL TO ANOTHER NON PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL.
[00:10:04]
IF YOUR APPROVAL IS WITH CONDITIONS THAT IT MATCHES THE APPROVED SITE PLAN ELEVATION.AND THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN PRESENTLY IS THE MOTION IS TIED TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.
SO THAT INCLUDES ELEVATION AND THEN THE MATERIALS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THOSE PLANS.
IT HAD TO BE TIED TO WHATEVER'S IN THE SITE PLAN.
AND THE SITE PLAN WAS TIED TO A CHAIN LINK FENCE.
THEY'RE DESIRING TO CHAIN THAT CHAIN LINK TO A MESH FENCE.
SO THEY'RE WE'RE, I, I REALIZE THIS IS CONFUSING.
THEY'RE STILL ASKING, THEY'RE STILL ASKING FOR NINE FEET.
THEY JUST WANT THE NINE FEET TO BE KEY TO THE NEW MATERIAL, WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE MATERIAL, BUT IT'S JUST FOR A SPECIAL ACCEPTANCE FOR THE HEIGHT.
BUT THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT THE NEIGHBOR SENT, WE HAVE A FENCE THAT IS, UM, MORE OF AN OPAQUE FENCE AND SOLID SHEET METAL.
AND HOW DOES, AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE FENCE.
SO HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO ALL OF THIS? THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR PROHIBITED MATERIAL FOR THAT METAL.
SO, SO HOW DO, I MEAN WHEN I AM, I MEAN WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT MAKING A MOTION AND I SEE THIS PICTURE AND I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT TIED TO THE SITE PLAN, HOW DOES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HANDLE THAT? BECAUSE THIS, I MEAN, IF I GRANT THE NINE FOOT VARIANCE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS FENCE? YOU COULD, YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, YOU MAKE THAT CALL, BUT I MEAN, IF IT'S TIED TO THE SITE, LIKE I'M, I'M, I'M CONFUSED THAT THAT FENCE, THAT MATERIAL THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IT IS NOT ON, IS NOT PART OF THIS PLAN.
SO YOU'RE ONLY GOING OFF OF THE PLANS THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED.
SO WHEN THE INSPECTOR GOES OUT THERE AND SEES SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT'S WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.
UM, THEY WOULD, BUT THIS IS ON THE SITE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT DOWN AND COMPLY WITH WHATEVER YOU'VE APPROVED.
SO IF WE APPROVE THE NINE FEET AND WE TIE IT TO THE SITE PLAN, BUT SINCE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE NEW SITE PLAN BECAUSE IT ONLY CAME 45 MINUTES AGO, IF THIS IS ON THERE, THEN THEY REALLY NEED TO BE ASKING, THEN WE CAN'T APPROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HERE TO ASK FOR MATERIAL AND WE CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL THEY RESUBMIT.
IS THAT CORRECT? SORRY, THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK IS A SIMPLE FENCE CASE IS NOT, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO RESUBMIT ON THE GROUNDS THAT IF WHENEVER THEY GET HERE, IF IT IS AN UN PROHIBITED MATERIAL, WHICH MEANS IT IS A MATERIAL THAT IT'S ALLOWED, WE CAN PROCEED.
BUT THIS IS AN, THIS IS A PROHIBITED MATERIAL.
AND THE APPLICANT'S BEEN INFORMED THAT IF THEY WANTED TO KEEP THAT MATERIAL THAT'S OUT THERE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, INCLUDE THOSE TWO OTHER REQUESTS AND THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
SO TODAY, TODAY YOU ARE JUST ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
SO THEORETICALLY, OR THE MESH, THE REQUEST THAT THEY'RE BRINGING BEFORE THE BOARD IS A NON PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL.
AND IF YOU GUYS APPROVE A NINE FOOT FENCE, IT'LL BE KEYED AND TIED TO THAT NON PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL, WHATEVER THOSE PICTURES ARE.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT PICTURE IS A FENCE THAT IS A CONSTRUCTION BARRIER FENCE OR IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE USING AS THEIR TEMPORARY FENCE.
THAT LOOKS LIKE A REAL FENCE TO ME,
UM, BUT AT ANY, AT ANY RATE, UM, YOU, THE BOARD'S DECISION WILL BE TIED TO THE MOST RECENT PLAN, WHICH IS THE ONE THEY SAID THERE.
SO NOW, BUT IF THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN THAT CALLS THIS OUT, UM, THEN WE REALLY CAN'T APPROVE THAT SITE PLAN BECAUSE IT'S NOT PROHIBITIVE AND WE, OR PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL AND WE CANNOT APPROVE THE SITE PLAN.
SO DEPENDING ON WHAT THEIR STUFF SAYS THIS, WE MAY HAVE TO HOLD THIS CASE OVER ABLY.
UM, I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE WE'RE AT NINE FOOT, NOT BECAUSE THE, OF THE APPROVED OR APPROVED CHAIN LINK, I THINK THAT WAS AT SEVEN AT THE HIGHEST.
BUT, UM, THERE WAS THAT CONCRETE WALL THAT WAS ALSO THERE.
SO WE HAD TO KEEP THE SAME REQUEST FOR THE HEIGHT, WHICH IS THE TALLEST, THE, THE CONCRETE WALL, WHICH IS ALREADY APPROVED.
UM, AND I ALSO HAVE IT HIGHLIGHTED, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PLAN BACK THERE IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO SEE WHERE THE CHAIN LENGTH IS, UM, AND THE SLIGHT CHANGES THAT THEY MADE FOR THAT AND THEY CHANGED TO THE MESH.
SO THEN WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS A PLAN THAT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUBMITTED ANOTHER PLAN THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN YET.
SO WHAT DETERMINATION ON THE, MAYBE, I MEAN LIKE I I GET LIKE THE NON VARIANCE, BUT LIKE WE ARE APPROVING SOMETHING TIED TO A PLAN THAT'S NO LONGER BROKE.
IS THAT NOT THE CASE TO 'EM? WELL, I THINK THEY WANT US TO APPROVE THE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED 45 MINUTES AGO, BUT I MEAN, I CAN STAY HERE WITH YOU GUYS.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE, UM, APPROVING A PLAN THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN AND THAT THE CITY STAFF IS NOT
[00:15:01]
LOOKED AT.SO I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THEM COME FORWARD AND HEAR THE CASE AND I, THERE'S NO DETERMINATION MADE UNTIL WE HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY TO BE CLEAR.
BUT, UM, WITHOUT, WITH ONLY 45 MINUTES OF NOTICE ON A PLAN THAT WE'VE NEVER SEEN AND THIS MUCH DISCREPANCY ANYWAYS, UM, I TO ECHO THAT, I MEAN I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE A STANDARD WITH THE BOARD IN TERMS OF MATERIALS THAT THE PRESENTED, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH A TIMEFRAME AHEAD OF, OF BRIEFING AND, AND THE HEARING.
UM, IT'S NOT FAIR TO CITY STAFF.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THIS PANEL AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY PUBLIC IS NOT GETTING TO VIEW WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING ASKED OF.
SO I MAY ENCOURAGE THAT MAYBE CHAIRMAN, UM, MAYBE LOOK AT PARAMETERS IN WHICH ESPECIALLY SITE PLANS HAVE BE SUBMITTED AHEAD OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL DISCUSS, UM, ON ANOTHER DATE.
BUT, UM, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT POSED TO ALL APPLICANTS AS AN EXPECTATION OF PUBLIC'S, UM, DISCOURSE ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND ALSO GIVING THE STAFF AND THIS BOARD AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW PER THE APPLICANT'S EMAIL TOO.
THESE ARE THE, HE, UH, REVISED THE PLANS TO SHOW THE APPROVED PLANS FROM 2018.
THE ONLY THING THAT HE CHANGED WAS THE LANGUAGE TO OF THE CHAIN LINK FENCE TO MESH.
BUT AGAIN, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW 'EM.
SO, SO, BUT AGAIN, WE'VE GOT THIS PROHIBITIVE MATERIAL THAT I, I GUESS THIS IS WHY THEY'RE GONNA COME FORWARD.
AND I TOTALLY HIJACKED YOUR PRESENTATION, SO KEEP GOING.
I'M SORRY, BUT I KNEW I JUST FROM READING WHAT WE HAD AND THEN READING THAT LETTER THIS MORNING, I WAS LIKE, WHOA, OKAY, NO PROBLEM.
SO THIS SHOWS JUST THE FENCE TRANSITION FROM WIRE MESH INTO THE PERFORATED METAL.
AND SO IT ALSO TRANSITIONED FROM THE PERFORATED METAL BACK TO THE WIRE MESH AND THEN INTO THE SOLID CONCRETE WALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THIS IS, UM, DO YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THAT LAST PICTURE PLEASE? YES.
WHEN I SAW THIS LAST HEARING, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A CONSTRUCTION SITE, BUT THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT'S ASKING US TO APPROVE.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, THIS CONCRETE WALL THAT YOU SEE WAS PREVIOUS, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN 2018, BUT THIS BLACK KIND OF COVERING MESH OF, OF THE FENCE, BRANDON, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT MATERIALS.
BUT THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR US TO APPROVE, CORRECT? NO, NO.
SO THEY HAVE THIS BLACK TARP COVERING THE ENTIRE FENCE, SO YOU REALLY CAN'T EVEN SEE.
UNLESS YOU LIKE UP CLOSE ON IT.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE A BARRIER.
OKAY, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THIS.
UH, METAL SHEET, METAL FENCE WITH THE PREPARATION THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED OPAQUE.
UM, OR OR DO THE PREPARATIONS MAKE IT SEE THROUGH, LIKE HOW, WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR SOMETHING TO BE OPAQUE? YEAH, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE A REQUEST THAT THEY'D HAVE TO GO, THAT WOULD
SO IT'S GOT TWO THINGS, OPACITY AND MATERIAL AND MATERIAL ON THAT PART OF THE FENCE.
WHICH AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE NOT HERE FOR TODAY MM-HMM.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET, UM, ON CHATHAM HILL PROPERTIES AT THE INTERSECTION OF CHATHAM HILL AND HATHAWAY, UM, THE CORNER OF HOLLOWAY ROAD IN CHATHAM HILL.
AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A 360 VIDEO AT THE CORNER OF CHATHAM HILL AND HATHAWAY 360 VIDEO AT CHATHAM HILL AND HOLLOWAY.
I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU THE, UM, TWO OH FOOT RADIUS VIDEO AND IT'S
[00:20:01]
GOING TO START, UM, AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTHWEST HIGHWAY AND UM, HATHAWAY.AND WE'RE GONNA GO DOWN AND MAKE A LIFT ON CHATHAM HILL.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE RIGHT.
AND WE'RE GONNA TURN OUR LIGHT ONTO HOLLOWAY ROAD.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ENTIRE FENCE IS COVERED WITH THE UM, BLACK TART.
AND WE'RE GONNA MAKE OUR WAY BACK UP TO HATHAWAY, UH, THE LIGHTS TURN HERE.
I'M GONNA MAKE A RIGHT TURN HERE ON HATHAWAY AND GO BACK UP TO THE SUBJECT SITE
[00:25:48]
A COPY.WHICH ONE? I HAVE A LARGE COPY OF THE APPROVED.
UM, THAT'S THE NEW ONE, BUT THAT'S WHERE I MADE, I, I MADE NOTE OF THE CHAMBER OF THE DIFFERENCES ON.
SO THESE ARE, UM, THE PRO PROPOSED ELEVATION SHOWING THE NON-COMPLIANT VERSUS COMPLIANT.
SO THE ACTUAL FENCE IS UP TO SEVEN FEET NOW, UM, WHICH IS NON-COMPLIANT AND GREEN INDICATES FOUR FEET WILL BE, UM, COMPLIANT.
AND THE SAME HERE IT SHOWS THE NINE FOOT, UM, CONCRETE WALL STANDARDS FOR DECISION MAKING STAFF RECOMMENDATION, NO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS MADE ON THIS OR ANY REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE DEFENSE REGULATION.
SINCE THE BASIS FOR THIS TYPE OF APPEAL IS WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THIS IS JUST THE, UM, COMMENT SHEET FROM OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FROM THE AUGUST HEARING.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR B B A 2 2 3 0 7 4 AT 55 0 5 SHADOW FUEL.
WILL WE GET A COPY OF THEIR NEW PLANS JUST BEFORE THE MEETING JUST SO WE HAVE 'EM OR, UM, UM, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE COPIES OF THAT.
BUT THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING UP IN HIS EMAIL SAID THAT HE WOULD BRING COPIES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH, UM, PANEL MEMBER.
AND I, I MEAN, I WILL JUST SAY FOR THE
[00:30:01]
UM, APPLICANT THAT IS COMING IN, UM, I WOULD DEFINITELY WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE OPAQUE FENCE AND THE UM, UH, THE MATERIAL THAT IS INCORRECT.SO, AND I, OUR NEXT CASE IS A, UM, AN AO APPEAL E D A 2 2 3 DASH ZERO ONE.
I DON'T, DO Y'ALL BRIEF US ON THAT CASE AT ALL? YES.
MILLER HOSKINS, SHE HAS A VERY SHORT PRESENTATION BRIEF YOU ALL JUST WITH VISUALS.
UM, I KNOW THAT THERE, WITH THESE APPEALS CASES, THERE'S A CERTAIN WINDOW IN WHICH, UM, THE APPLICANT THAT'S APPEALING NEEDS TO BE HEARD, BUT, UH, I NOTICED THAT THE, UH, WITH THE TIMELINE, THEY WERE SERVED A DENIAL, DENIAL LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 7TH AND THEN RECEIVED FROM CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AUGUST, DECEMBER 10TH.
IS THAT WITHIN THE WINDOW? IS THAT CONSIDERED ENOUGH TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO REVIEW MATERIAL AND BE NOTICED? YES, IT ABSOLUTELY IS.
WHAT CAN YOU, UM, GIVE CLARITY ON THE TIMELINE ON THESE TYPES OF CASES OF WHEN THE, UH, UM, THE DENIAL LETTER COMES AND WHAT AND THAT PROCESS WHEN THEY RECEIVE A DENIAL LETTER FROM THE DENYING ENTITY? I BELIEVE THEY HAVE 15 DAYS TO GET THAT OVER TO US BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I MEAN, IT'S 2020 DAYS TO GET THAT OVER TO US FROM THE DATE THAT'S ON THE DENIAL LETTER.
ONCE IT GETS TO US, WE HAVE 60 DAYS FROM THE TIME THAT THEY TURN IT IN TO US TO GET IT HERE TO YOU GUYS TO HAVE A HEARING.
SO, UM, THEY'VE THEN ARE WELL WITHIN THAT SIX DAYS AND HAVE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO COMPARE THEIR CASE? YES.
B 8 2, 2 3, 1 0 1 AT 3 5 2 8 COLONIAL AVENUE.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF METROPOLITAN, WEST OF SSM WHITE FREEWAY EAST OF 45 AND SOUTH OF LYNNWAY STREET.
THE REQUEST IS TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF A, OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL FOR DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THERE WAS NO D D HISTORY FOUND WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS FOR THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THAT, UM, THE NOTICE SIGN WAS PROPERLY POSTED.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE 30 60 VIDEO.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR BBA 2 2 3 1 0 1 A 35 28 COLONIAL AVENUE.
HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN A NON-CONFORMING USE? WHEN WAS THIS, WHEN WAS THE ZONING CHANGE THAT MADE THIS NON-CONFORMING? THERE? ACTUALLY, UM, WITH THE RESEARCH, I BELIEVE THERE WAS, IT WAS NEVER BEEN A NON-CONFORMING USE.
THERE WAS NEVER A CO FOR THIS USE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S THE ARGUMENT TODAY.
SO THEY, THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT IT WAS A NON-CONFORMING USE, BUT UH, DURING PERMITTING THERE WAS NO RECORDS FOUND THAT IT WAS EVER THAT USE FOR IT TO BE CALLED THE NON-CONFORMING.
SO THEY'RE COMING IN AND ASKING, SO IT'S, IS THIS BETTER THAN OF THE WRONG WINDOW? I MEAN, DO THEY NEED TO BE GOING TO P AND Z TO REZONE THE PROPERTY? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEN IF THEY WERE, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS A CONFORMING USE AT ONE TIME AND NOW IT'S NON-CONFORMING AND WE'RE DENYING CO THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE TO YOU THAT IT HAD, THAT IT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TO TODAY.
AND THE APPLICANT NEVER HAD A CO RIGHT? YOU WERE DENYING FINAL CO.
I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CO UM, AND I, I GUESS I'LL PASS THIS OVER TO MS. LESTER TO, UM, LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE RESEARCH ON THAT.
WE'VE NEVER RECOGNIZED THE USE AS CONFORMING OR NON-CONFORMING.
WE HAVE NO RECORDS OF A, UH, ROOMING OR A LODGING HOUSE EVER BEING AT THAT LOCATION.
AND THE, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW IT,
[00:35:01]
IT ALLOWS A LODGING OR BOARDING HOME, BUT IT DOES NOT NOT ALLOW 18 ROOMS FOR THAT USE ONLY SINCE I SEE.SO THIS PROPERTY'S NEVER HAD A CO FOR THAT USE? CORRECT.
SO THEN, WHAT WAS IT BEFORE? WE NEVER RECOGNIZED IT AS A USE THERE.
SO FOR WANTING TO APPEAL THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION THAT THIS WAS EVER A NON-CONFORMING USE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF IT EVER BEING A USE AS A LODGING OR BOARDING HOME.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE HERE.
UM, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE JUST REZONED IF THEY WANNA ALLOW.
AND CITY ATTORNEY PRESENTING THE CASE.
AND THE PROPERTY'S NOT BEING, THERE'S NOBODY LIVING ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? ARE THERE TENANTS ON THE PROPERTY? WHEN I WENT OUT AND DID THE SITE VISIT, I DID SEE SOMEONE COMING IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY.
NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THEY LIVE THERE, I'M NOT 1% SURE, BUT I DID SEE.
I, IT'S BEEN, I THINK WE'VE DONE ONE OF THESE SINCE I'VE BEEN ON HERE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GONNA EXPLAIN THE STANDARDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ASSUMED TO, TO UNDERSTAND AT BEFORE THE STONES? FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE NOT DONE THIS REPORT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM A REGULAR, UM, HEARING AND IT, IT'S SET UP MORE LIKE A, UH, MORE LIKE A TRIAL.
SO THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A 20 MINUTE PRESENTATION AND THEY CAN CALL WITNESSES AND THEN THERE'S A FIVE MINUTE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
UM, THERE'S FIVE MINUTES ALLOWED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE AO OR THE, UM, CITY ATTORNEY.
AND THEN THERE'S UM, YOU CAN HAVE FIVE MINUTES OF REDIRECT, THEN THERE'S 20 MINUTES FOR THE, UM, CITY TO PRESENT THEIR SIDE.
THEY CALL WITNESSES THE SAME FIVE MINUTES.
THEN THERE'S A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT BY EACH PARTY.
EACH ONE GETS THREE MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION.
WE'LL ACCEPT THE MOTION, WE'LL DISCUSS THE MOTION AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE MOTION.
UM, AND THEN WILL THE, UM, BOARD ATTORNEY GIVE LIGHT TO WHAT THAT THIS THE DECISION IS IN TERMS OF CLARITY? 'CAUSE THEY'RE, WE'RE BASICALLY MAKING A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER WE, UM, BASICALLY SIDE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND DENIAL CO OR WE GRANT RELIEF ON THE APPLICANT.
SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHEN WE MAKE A DECISION WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE? UM, IF WHEN DECIDING WHETHER WE'RE, UM, AGREE WITH THE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL THAT, THAT WE'RE JUST IN, IN DENYING FINAL CO OR WHAT GRANTING RELIEF, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT LOOKS LIKE? YEAH, I MEAN BASICALLY YOU'LL LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THEN, UM, FROM THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
AND THEN YOU'LL MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON THEIR PRESENTATION THEN THE EVIDENCE THEY SAYING.
AND THEN IF WE, FOR EXAMPLE, GRANT RELIEF THAN WE ARE, 'CAUSE THE APPLICATION IS BEING BROUGHT BY, BY THE APPLICANT WHO'S GRANTING, REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE BOARD AND US BASICALLY GRANTING FINAL CO.
SO IF YOU GRANT RELIEF, YOU'LL BE REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, WHICH WAS TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
AND IF YOU AFFIRM THE DECISION, I GET THAT BACKWARDS, YOU'RE AFFIRMING THE DECISION, WHICH WILL BE TO DENY THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
IT'LL BE REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
I JUST WANT CLARITY FOR THOSE THAT, 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THE MOTION AT THE END ON HOW YOU'RE GRANTING RELIEF.
AND THERE'S ALSO, UM, IT, IT REQUIRES A FOUR VOTE FOR A YAY OR NAY.
UM, NORMALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FREE VOTE TO HOLD OVER, DENY A CASE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUR, FOUR PEOPLE TO AGREE ON EITHER ONE, UM, FOR YAY OR NAY.
AND SO IT WOULD BE OUR SPLIT, I BELIEVE IS THIS.
[00:40:01]
THE, UM, BUILDING OFFICIAL RIGHT REASON I WAS TRYINGANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WAIT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS THE ADMINISTRATOR, THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE SYNONYMOUS, THOSE ARE THE SAME, YEAH.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANNA ADD? OKAY.
UM, WELL THEN, UM, SO ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS AFTERNOON NEEDS TO REGISTER WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS IN ADVANCE.
ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THE CASE WILL BE CONTACTED AS THE CASE HAS COME UP ON THE AGENDA OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO JOIN THE MEETING ON, UM, THE INTERNET.
CAN WE CITY ATTORNEY CONFIRM THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS? OH YES.
FOUR VOTES FOR YES, FOUR VOTES FOR NO.
AND IF WE ARE SPLIT THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S DECISION REMAINS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THAT'S RIGHT OUTTA 51 A, WHICH IS 4.703 D TWO.
UM, ALRIGHT, WELL PANEL B WILL, UM, UH, TAKE A RECESS AT 1143 ON OCTOBER 18TH AND WE'LL RECONVENE AT 1:00 PM FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, PLEASE MUTE YOUR MICS AND TURN OFF YOUR VIDEO FEED AND PLAN TO RETURN AT ONE.
[00:50:30]
[00:51:18]
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
WE HAVE FOUR OF OUR FIVE PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE CAN BEGIN THIS MEETING.
UM, OUR BOARD MEMBERS, UH, PRESENT,
[00:55:01]
INCLUDING MYSELF, SHERRY GABO, SARAH LAMB, I'M ANDREW FINNEY, AND MICHAEL KOWSKI WHO WILL BE HERE IN JUST A SECOND.AND WE ALSO HAVE ONLINE DEREK AL.
UM, STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INCLUDE MATT SAP, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY NIKKI DUNN, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, DR.
CAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR SENIOR PLANNER DIANE BARKUM, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST COORDINATOR, NORA NDA, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, JASON POOLE, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR.
UH, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY ITS CITY COUNCIL, WILL GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE THAT PRECEDENT EACH USE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF THIS MORNING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD BREACH.
USE APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? OKAY, NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
UM, ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED BY A WEBEX.
ALL COMMENTS WILL BE DIRECTED WITH THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
AND WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO, UM, UH, OUR CHIEF PLANNER, NIKKI DUNN, WHO WILL START US OFF WITH OUR, OH, ACTUALLY WE NEED YOU APPROVE OUR MINUTES, DON'T WE? OKAY.
UM, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? MS. LAND? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST HEARING.
THAT MOTION? THANK YOU MR. NATAL.
ALL OTHER VOTES WILL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE, UM, BY MARY WILLIAMS. ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR CASES AND OUR FIRST CASE IS, UM, BDA 2 2 3 0 7 4.
UH, I GUESS WE'RE ASKING FOR A PERSON TO COME FORWARD.
SORRY, I WAS BEING DISTRACTED.
YOU'LL PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN.
MY NAME IS TURNER ROBERTSON, 22 1 SOUTH, UH, MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? UM, YES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
2201 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 1280, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2.
WE DID SUBMIT WE PER THE LAST MEETING, AM I OKAY TO MOVE FORWARD? I APOLOGIZE.
UM, THE LAST MEETING, UM, TWO MONTHS AGO BEFORE WE GOT HELD OVER, UM, DURING THAT TIME WE DID REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AROUND US.
UH, WE REACHED OUT, UM, TO LET 'EM KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO.
WE RECEIVED NO OBJECTIONS FROM THEM.
UM, THE ONE NEIGHBOR WHO WAS IN OPPOSITION, UM, WE DON'T HAVE THEIR SUPPORT STILL, UM, THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO THEM OR ON CHATTER HILL NEXT TO 'EM.
UM, FROM DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE THAT CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS THEY'VE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS, ALSO HAD NO OBJECTION FROM THEM AS WELL.
UM, DURING THE TIME THAT WE HAD IN A HOLD BAR AS WELL, WE WENT BACK AND CLEANED UP OUR PLANS QUITE A BIT.
UM, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT, UH, WHAT WAS IN SITE PLAN IN 2018 VERSUS
[01:00:02]
WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.WE DID NOTICE THAT THERE WERE SOME CHANGES, SO WE WENT BACK AND CHANGED IT.
SO IT REFLECT THE 2018 CHANGES FOR THE WIRE ME, UH, FOR THE WIRE METAL MESH FENCE.
UM, ADDITIONALLY WE WENT BACK, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT HAS ANY THE FENCE BEEN DONE? UM, I HAD STATED NO AND I STILL FEEL THAT WAS CORRECT AS I, I WAS UNAWARE.
SO WHAT HAPPENED? I WENT BACK AND AFTER THAT MEETING I WENT, I'M LIKE, WE WENT THE, UH, THE PROJECT TEAM, LIKE LET'S LOOK AT THE PROPERTY.
IS THERE ANY FENCE THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED? LET'S GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS THAT REVIEW.
WE NEED, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT, SO I CAN TELL THE BOARD WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
SO WHAT WE FOUND OUT WAS JUST TO THE NORTH OF US, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS THAT'S PART OF THIS, NOT PART OF THIS CASE, BUT A SEPARATE PROPERTY.
UH, BACK IN 2021, A SIMILAR BOARD CASE THAT WE BROUGHT FORWARD WAS APPROVED FOR A METAL MESH FENCE.
SO WHEN THE FENCE, UH, THE PER THE PERSON DOING THE FENCE PERMIT, UH, WENT AND APPLIED FOR THAT FENCE PERMIT, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THE NORTH PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE REST OF THIS TRACK, WHICH WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
UM, ALSO THAT METAL, THERE'S A METAL PERFORATED PORTION ON THE WALL, UM, THAT IS GONNA, IF THIS IS APPROVED TODAY, THAT WILL BE REMOVED, UM, AND REPLACED WITH METAL MESH FENCE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE ELEVATIONS.
UH, ONE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT REMOVING ANY OF IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND WE REMOVED OUT ALONG CHATHAM HILL ROAD.
RIGHT NOW THERE'S A 10 FOOT DROP.
AND SO THEN WE RUN INTO LIABILITY ISSUES.
IF A CAR RUNS OFF CHATHAM HILL, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING THERE STOPPING, THERE'S THE FENCE.
IF WE REMOVE THAT FENCE, THERE'S A 10 FOOT DROP, HOW THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LANDING IS RIGHT THERE.
UM, SO THAT'S ONE ISSUE WE HAVE OF TRYING TO MANAGE LIABILITY ISSUES.
UM, BUT ONCE AGAIN, IF THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED, WE WILL DO THE METAL MESH AS APPROVED PER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS THAT WE DID PROVIDE.
UM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2018 AND 2000 AND TODAY'S PLANS ARE SIMPLY THE, WE'RE WE'RE CHANGING IT TO A METAL MESH, UM, THAT AROUND THE PROPERTY THEY COME IN PANELS, PREFABRICATED PANELS PANEL, UM, THEY STARTED TOGETHER.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THEY RUN ANYWHERE FROM SEVEN AND A HALF TO EIGHT FEET, UH, DEPENDING ON THE PANEL ITSELF.
AND SO, UM, YOU CAN, SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE.
UM, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
UM, SO I APPRECIATE YOU REACHING OUT TO COMMUNITY AND RUNNER SUPPORT.
MY QUESTION IS, HAS THE COMMUNITY THAT REACHED OUT TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, HAVE THEY SEEN THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SUBMITTED TODAY? UH, THE ONES THAT WE REACHED OUT TO, YES.
THEY'VE SEEN EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE, I MEAN, THEY DIDN'T SEE THE CLEAN VERSION OF THE, OF THE FRONT SITE PLAN.
THEY KNOW WE'RE DOING THE EIGHT FOOT METAL MESH FENCE, UM, NOT TO EXCEED THE NINTH VIEW.
THEY KNOW WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO.
WE'VE SHOWN 'EM PLANS, WE'VE SHOWN 'EM ELEVATIONS, WE'VE SHOWN 'EM IMAGERY.
WE'VE TALKED TO 'EM ABOUT IN QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL.
WE ACTUALLY HAD ONE OF THEM ASKING FOR OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN, OUR PLAN TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO APPROVE TODAY, IT'S WOULD BE APPROVAL WITH COMPLIANCE FOR THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.
THE QUESTION I HAVE ONCE AGAIN IS HAVE THE NEIGHBORS THAT REACHED OUT TO SEEING THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE SUBMITTING TODAY, THAT POTENTIALLY THIS APPLICATION WILL BE COMMITTED TO THE EXACT SAME ONE THAT WE SUBMITTED TODAY? NO, WE HAVEN'T SENT THAT OUT.
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD SEE ALL THE METAL MESH GOING IN.
THEY KNOW IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE METAL PANELING.
THEY KNOW IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE
THEY KNOW IT'S GONNA BE THE CONCRETE FENCE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE OKAY.
SO THIS CASE, THIS CASE HAS BEEN HELD OVER FOR TWO MONTHS.
UM, WHY IS IT THAT WE JUST RECEIVED THESE PLANS NOT EVEN BEFORE BRIEFING? WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR A BIT, UM, TRYING TO MAKE THEM CLEAN.
WE WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE THING ON OUR SITE PLAN, EVERY LITTLE DETAIL TO MAKE SURE IT MATCHED UP PERFECTLY WITH THE 2018.
WHY, WHY DON'T WE HAVE YOU, UM, IF IT'S OKAY, CAN WE HAVE HIM TALK US THROUGH THE SITE PLAN, WHAT CHANGES WE MADE? AND I ALSO HAVE OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO HELPED WITH THE SITE PLAN, DOES SHE NEED TO BE SWORN IN? OKAY.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN.
I'M LESLIE CARTER, I'M THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND MY ADDRESS IS 1156 ANGELINA STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
LESLIE CARTER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
ADDRESS IS 1156 ANGELINA STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
[01:05:01]
UH, SO THE QUESTION IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, SO THE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS FROM THE 2018 PLAN TO THE CURRENT PLAN.SO WE ACTUALLY SAW DIFFERENT PLANS TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN THIS CASE CAME FROM US THE FIRST, FIRST TIME.
SO I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS, WHAT THE CHANGES ARE FROM, FROM TWO MONTHS AGO.
UM, AND IF YOU COULD JUST TALK THE PLANS WITH US.
SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE IT DURING BRIEFING.
SO TWO MONTHS AGO WE WERE SHOWING THE PERFORATED PANEL FENCE AFTER THE DISCUSSION OF TWO MONTHS AGO, WE HAVE REMOVED THAT SECTION OF THE FENCE.
WE'VE TURNED THAT TO THE, THE MESH FENCE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF, OF THE PERIMETER AROUND THE SITE.
DO WE HAVE AN IMAGE OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE OF THE MESH PANEL? YEAH.
IT THE MEH IT SHOULD BE IN THE THE PLAN FROM THE LAST PAGE.
YES, IT'S A PRODUCT, IT'S A WIRE MESH PRODUCT.
UH, IT COMES IN THESE EIGHT FOOT PANELS, EIGHT BY SIX FEET WIDE PANELS.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE SAME PRODUCT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE NORTH PROPERTY, UH, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT'S ALSO OWNED BY THE SAME LANDOWNER.
IS THIS WHAT WE WERE BRIEFED ON AT 11? THE MATERIALS? NO, THE MATERIALS I BELIEVE, UM, THAT, UH, THE METAL, IT WAS NEVER BEEN, IT'S NEVER BEEN, UM, TURNED INTO US LIKE WE, NOTHING WITH THE METAL WAS EVER SUBMITTED.
ONLY THE, UM, WHEN THE SENIOR PLANNER WENT OUT FOR THE SITE VISIT, THAT'S WHEN SHE SAW THE METAL.
UM, YEAH, THE PERFORATED METAL.
SO WE'RE SAYING THERE'S A CHANGE OF MATERIAL FROM TWO MONTHS AGO.
THE METAL WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL, YOU KNOW, SHOW THE METAL MATCH.
NO, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE METAL MESS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PERFORATED METAL.
YEAH, THAT WAS REVIEWED
WE WENT BACK NOTICING THAT THE PERFORATED METAL AND WE WENT AHEAD AND CHANGED IT BACK TO METAL MASS FOR REFLECT THE 2018 INSTEAD OF CHAIN LINK NOW SAYS METAL MES.
THE ONE WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IS THE
THEN WE CHANGED IT TO, UH, METAL MES FOR 2018.
NEED TAKE AND HAVE AND HAVE YOU REMOVED, HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE CHAIN FROM THE CHAIN LINK TO THIS METAL MESH WITH THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET? 'CAUSE THAT WAS WHAT I BELIEVE, BASED ON HER LETTER, THE OWNER AGREED TO IT.
THEY WERE GONNA LEAVE THE CHAIN LINK FENCE IN PLACE WITH THE LANDSCAPING.
SO THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY WITH THE ONE THAT WROTE THE LETTER AND THIS PROPERTY NUMBER, THEY DO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER.
WELL, YEAH, THEY WILL NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER AT ALL.
UM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE TO, THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK MORE ON THAT.
UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THE OTHER NEIGHBOR ON CHATHAM HILL ABOUT IT.
AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THE METAL MESH GOING FROM CHANGING THE METAL MESH AND THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN TALK ABOUT THAT OR CONVERSATION AS WELL.
DID, DID YOU WANNA CONTINUE? UH, WELL THAT'S THE MAIN CHANGE FROM TWO MONTHS AGO.
UH, IT'S, IT'S REALLY JUST REMOVING THAT PERFORATED PANEL AND MAKING THE CONSISTENCY OF, OF THE, THE CHAIN LINK, OH, SORRY,
SO THERE'S ONE MATERIAL THROUGHOUT, UM, WE ALSO, UM, WE LOOKED AT THE 2018 PLANS VERSUS THE CURRENT PLANS AND OTHERWISE THERE'S ALL OF THE SITE WALLS.
THE HEIGHT OF THOSE, THERE'S ONE AREA WHERE THAT'S, UM, WE ACTUALLY REMOVED THE SOLID WALL AND INSTEAD IT'S THE, THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE OF THE POROUS MESH FENCE ALONG HALFWAY STREET.
SO THERE'S BEEN SOME SUBTLE REVISIONS THERE.
AND, UH, IT'S ACTUALLY, IT SS SWANG TO THE MORE POROUS.
UM, SO THE ONE DIFFERENCE FROM TWO MONTHS AGO IS REMOVING THAT PERFORATED PANEL, THAT MORE SOLID APPEARING FENCE.
UH, MR. PARKER, I JUST, I JUST WANNA CLEAR UP.
I THINK WHERE THE MIX OF THIS IS THAT THE ONES WITH THE PERFORATED METAL WAS NEVER ACCEPTED BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO ADD THE TWO OTHER REQUESTS.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.
SO YOU, YOU NEVER SAW THOSE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ACCEPT THOSE? WELL, THE ONLY ONES THAT WE'VE ACCEPTED ARE THE METAL MESH AND THE, UM, THE PREVIOUS CHAINING FENCE.
SO THE METAL MESH IS ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS OPACITY.
METAL MESH IS IMPROVED MATERIAL.
AND YOU SAID IT'S, UM, IT LOOKS, IS IT SEVEN FEET? UM, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE PLAN? OR ARE YOU SAYING EIGHT FEET? 'CAUSE THAT WAS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I'VE READ.
[01:10:01]
ORIGINALLY THE 2018 PLAN WAS SEVEN FEET.THIS IS A PRODUCT THAT COMES IN PREFABRICATED EIGHT FOOT TALL PANELS.
UH, SO THAT'S, WE'RE USING THE EIGHT FOOT TALL PANELS.
HOWEVER, AS THE SLOPE VARIES ACROSS THE SITE, THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THEY GET CUT DOWN.
SO THE HEIGHT ACTUALLY RANGES SEVEN FEET WHERE THE GRADE IS TALLER AND EIGHT FEET WHERE THE GRADE DROPS LOWER.
UH, WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE BETWEEN PANEL AND GROUND.
SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S SOME VARIATION THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, ON THE SITE PLAN, IT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, NINE FEET WHERE THE CONCRETE WALL IS AND IN OTHER PLACES IT SHOWS THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, SEVEN FEET.
UM, WHEN YOU ADHERE TO A SITE PLAN, UM, IF WE'VE APPROVED FOR A NINE FEET, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY, EVEN IF IT'S NOT TIED TO THE SITE PLAN TO MAKE THE FENCE HIGHER OR LOWER IN CERTAIN AREAS? OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE TIED DIRECTLY TO THE SITE PLAN? I BELIEVE THAT WHEN, SAY THE METAL MESH ON THE ELEVATIONS IS SHOWING A SEVEN FOOT, THEY CANNOT INCREASE THAT TO THE ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT.
BUT THE, THE, UM, THE WALL THAT IS, THAT WAS APPROVED AT NINE FEET, I BELIEVE, UM, THAT ONE'S OKAY TO BE AT NINE FOOT OR LOWER, BUT THEY HAVE TO STICK TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF EACH MATERIAL THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED.
AND I SUPPOSE IF WE WANTED TO CORRECT, IF WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T IN CERTAIN AREAS GO HIGHER THAN, 'CAUSE I GUESS TECHNICALLY HERE IT'S A NINE FOOT, IF WE GRANT THIS HIGH FENCE, THEY COULD PROBABLY PUT THAT ALONG THE WHOLE PROPERTY CORRECT.
AS, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TYING IT TO ELEVATION.
BUT IF WE, IF WE APPROVE THIS AND TIE TO ELEVATION, THEN THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO STICK TO THE SITE PLAN AND THEN THEY'D BE LIMITED TO SEVEN FEET IN CERTAIN AREAS AND NINE FEET WHERE THE WALL IS, LET ME INTERPOSE THE, THE WAY THE MOTION IS DRAFTED IT, UH, MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS, WHICH IS INCLUDING THE ELEVATIONS.
SO ELEVATIONS ARE RELEVANT TO THAT STATEMENT, BUT WE, BUT TO REALLY TIGHTEN IT UP, WE COULD APPROVE BASED ON SITE SUBMITTED SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS TO KEEP THEM TO THAT, THAT SEVEN FEET, EXCEPT FOR THE EXCEPTION OF THE NINE FOOT WITH THE WALL.
SO THE LANGUAGE IN THE MOTION IS ADEQUATE IF YOU, IF IF A BOARD MEMBER WANTS TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE, THEY, I MEAN, IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DO SO.
BUT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE IS ADEQUATE TO INCLUDE ELEVATIONS.
SO I GUESS YOU COULD SAY IS STAFF.
WITH A SITE PLAN THAT WAS JUST SUBMITTED, HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW IT? YES, SHE DID HER PRECURSOR REVIEW AND WE WERE OKAY WITH, WITH WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY, UH, THE APPELLATE, UH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UM, THE CORNER, UH, ON CHATHAM HILL THAT MEETS WITH HOLLOWAY.
THERE WERE SOME CONCESSIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AND THEY CAN LATER BE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS FAR AS, UH, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT IS CONCERNED AND, UH, THE CONDITIONS.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, THERE WAS A PRECURSORY REVIEW DONE AND IT WAS SATISFACTORY TO US.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. ROBERTSON.
UM, BACK TO THE PERFORATED MAN PANELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY, UH, OUT THERE ON SITE AND THAT YOU'VE BOTH STATED WERE HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DRAWINGS.
IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE DRAWINGS.
UM, SO YOU EXPLAINED THAT THE REASON THAT THE WAY THAT THEY ENDED UP THERE IS THAT THERE WAS A CONFUSION BETWEEN THE, THIS WAS APPARENTLY TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES AT ONE POINT.
IS THAT CORRECT? COULD YOU RE-EXPLAIN THAT? YEAH, UM, WEBEX WOULD, I MEAN, UM, SO WE HAVE OUR PROPERTY THAT'S WE'RE WE'RE ADDRESSING TODAY, RIGHT? UH, ON CHATHAM HILL 55, OH CHATHAM HILL, UM, JUST TO THE NORTH OF US IS AN ADDITIONAL LOT THAT ABUTS OUR PROPERTY, UM, THAT ABUTS OUR PROPERTY.
AT THAT TIME, WE WERE APPROVED FOR A METAL MESH, NINE FOOT MAC, UH, CONCRETE WALL, UM, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY.
AND SO WHEN THE PERSON PULLED THE FENCE PERMIT FOR THAT PROPERTY, THAT WAS PROVEN 2021 AS A SEPARATE VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THAT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE REST OF THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY, BUT EACH OTHER, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER JUST WANTED ADDITIONAL LAND FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND SO THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THE ENTIRE THING AND WE DIDN'T REALIZE THEY WERE DOING LAND.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I CAME IN HERE TO CORRECT THAT WHEN THEY, SO RIGHT NOW THEY WOULD HAVE TO RE-POLL THE PERMIT FOR CHATHAM HILL.
THEY, THERE WAS CONFUSION ON THEIR PART.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, JUST NOT THAT NORTH PROPERTY.
SO THEY BASICALLY, THEY PUT, THEY INSTALLED THE WRONG
[01:15:01]
PRODUCT.SO, UM, MR. ROBINSON, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE, UM, SITE PLAN ON LIKE L 6.14, IT'S SHOWING AN EIGHT FOOT PANEL.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE 2018 PLAN SHOWED A SEVEN FOOT PANEL.
SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE MORE CHANGES FROM THE 28.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THESE PLANS REFLECT, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE SAYING IT'S GONNA BE SEVEN FEET, IT SHOULD REFLECT SEVEN FEET.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT WAS WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF ALL OF THIS WAS FOR THE, THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO SAY WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2018, BEING UP TO NINE FEET, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE APPROVED FOR UP TO NINE FEET BECAUSE WE KNEW BACK IN 2018, THE FENCE RANGED IN HEIGHTS FROM SEVEN UP TO NINE FEET BECAUSE THAT CONCRETE WALL, AND IT VARIED IN PLACES.
THESE CONCRETE PANEL, THE, NOT THE METAL MESH PANELS, I APOLOGIZE, UM, COME IN SECTIONS OF EIGHT FEET TALL.
SO THERE ARE SECTIONS WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO, BECAUSE THE TOPOGRAPHY WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO GET THEM SEVEN FEET, BUT DUE TO OTHER REASONS FOR THE TOPOGRAPHY, THERE ARE OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY ARE UP TO EIGHT FEET.
AND THAT WAS A CHAIN LINK FENCE AS WELL.
THERE WAS OTHER PORTIONS ON THE PROPERTY IN 2018 WHERE IT BURIED THROUGH TOPOGRAPHY AND WE TRIED TO MATCH IT AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THOSE PANELS.
AND THAT'S WHAT, UM, WE WERE MENTIONING BEFORE THE
UM, CAN Y'ALL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, ONCE AGAIN, YOU SAID THERE WAS A, A PIECE AT THE CORNER OF THE CHATHAM HILL THAT, THAT Y'ALL WERE STILL KIND OF NEGOTIATING WITH, UM, WITH THE APPLICANT ON IN TERMS OF FINAL DESIGN.
IS THERE, IS THERE AN ISSUE HERE WITH, UM, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? WHAT, WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE? NO, WE WERE NOT NEGOTIATING WITH, WITH THE APPELLANT ON THAT.
UM, IT WAS, IT WAS IN QUESTION ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND SO THEY WERE JUST WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE FLEXIBILITY WAS TO LESSEN THAT HEIGHT AT NINE FEET IF THE NEIGHBORS WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE HEIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THERE'S SPEAKER REGISTER, THERE'S OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED.
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE? WE, WE DO HAVE OTHER SPEAKER.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, RYAN GLASCO, 1415 HOLLYWOOD AVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8.
I'M THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON THE JOB.
UM, SO KIND OF JUST REITERATING WHAT TRENT SAID, UM, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, UH, PULLED THE PERMIT FOR THE NORTH PROPERTY, THE PROJECTS BEING BUILT TOGETHER.
SO THE, THE NORTHERN LOT WAS PURCHASED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN PROPERTY.
SO EVERYBODY OUT THERE, ALL THE SUBS THAT WERE ALWAYS ON THE MAIN PROJECT ALSO DID THE SCOPE OF WORDS ON THE NORTH PROPERTY.
SO WHEN THEY PULLED THAT FENCE PERMANENT, THAT'S WHY THEY THOUGHT IT WAS ALL TOGETHER.
UM, UH, SO THEY, THEY DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH INSTALLING THE WRONG FENCE ALONG CHATHAM HILL.
SO THAT PERFORATED SECTION IS 200 LINEAR, 240 LINEAR FEET, BUT THERE'S STILL 1400 LINEAR FEET OF THE WELDED WIRE FENCE ON THE PROJECT.
SO THAT, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD.
THE WHOLE PERIMETER IS NOT THE PERFORATED PANEL.
IT'S, IT'S A, A PORTION OF, OF EACH MATERIAL THROUGHOUT AND THEN NOW IT'S REVISED TO THE ALL WELDED WIRE.
SO AS A GENERAL MANAGER, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU'LL TAKE DOWN THE, UM, PERFORATED METAL FENCE? SO WE WILL HAVE TO PURCHASE, UH, 250 LINEAR FEET OF THE WELDED WIRE, UH, FENCE.
IT'S A PRODUCT OMEGA FENCING, IT'S OUTTA CANADA.
IT TAKES ABOUT FIVE MONTHS TO GET.
UM, SO ONCE WE HAVE THAT MATERIAL ON HAND, WE WOULD REMOVE A SECTION AT A TIME AND INSTALL IN A SECTION.
SO IT'S, THE PROPERTIES ARE ALWAYS SECURE, UM, FROM A SAFETY AND LIABILITY STANDPOINT.
WE JUST DON'T WANNA HAVE IT OPEN, UH, FOR OVERNIGHT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN, UM, SUPPORT OF THIS, UH, CASE? GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE QUESTION, I'M HAPPY, PLEASE ANSWER.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN
[01:20:01]
YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? YES.PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND UH, AND ADDRESS YOU
MY NAME NAME IS CATHERINE REEVES.
CURRENT HOME I'M LIVING IN IS 4 2 2 6 BARKY AVENUE,
DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT ANYTHING? WELL, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OUR GOAL, OF COURSE, IS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AND DO EVERYTHING PROPERLY.
WE'VE HIRED A GREAT TEAM IN SEBASTIAN, SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION, REED HILDEBRAND AS OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND MASTER PLAN TO HELP US THROUGH THESE PROCESSES.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGE IN THE LEADERSHIP AT THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT'S, SOME OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN LOST IN THE TRANSITION.
WE AIM TO RECTIFY THAT AND UM, BUT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT WE'VE GOT A GREAT TEAM WHO, YOU KNOW, WANNA DO EVERYTHING HONORABLY, AS DO WE.
OUR MAIN GOAL IS PRIVACY AND WITH LANDSCAPE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY, WHATEVER FENCE THERE IS, I DO FEEL LIKE THAT STRETCH IN QUESTION WITH THE HEAVY METAL, UM, IS BECAUSE OF THE DROP WHICH GOES INTO WATER.
UM, IT DOES SEEM THE MOST PRECARIOUS.
I WOULD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR ANOTHER DAY.
UM, BUT I'M SURE YOU KNOW, MESH AND LANDSCAPING WOULD, UM, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT THERE.
HAVE YOU PERSONALLY REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE FENCE AND WHAT'S HAPPENING? WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH THEM.
UM, IT STARTED OFF AMICABLY ENOUGH.
THEY HAD HOPED WE WOULD JOIN THEM IN CLOSING DOWN OUR STREET, SO IT WAS A DEAD END.
UM, THEY'VE ALSO OFFERED TO, THEY TRIED, THEY ASKED US TO BUY THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH WE ALSO DECLINED.
AND AFTER THAT, THINGS SWIFTLY WENT SOUTH.
OUR CONTRACTORS GET HARASSED EVERY DAY, FILMED.
THEY, UM, CONSTANTLY, THEY HAVE CAMERAS TRAINED ON OUR HOME.
THEY CALL THE HAMMER CALLED THE CITY CONSTANTLY.
AND I'M SURE THERE'S A RECORD OF THAT.
UM, WE HAVE GREAT RELATIONS WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS.
UM, THE CHAN CALL, HER FAMILY LISTED IN THIS LETTER, UM, FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST US ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND THE JUDGE THREW IT OUT THIS SUMMER BECAUSE, AND YET THAT'S I'M SURE A PUBLIC RECORD, YOU CAN LOOK THAT UP AS WELL.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE DON'T SPEAK.
WE ONLY SPEAK TO YOUR LAWYERS.
AND THERE'S BEEN A, AND FAILED TO MENTION THEY'VE FLOWN DRONES OVER OUR HOME AND FILMED AS WELL.
SO WE'VE HAD TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THAT.
SO OUR MAIN GOAL IS PRIVACY AND LIVE CIVILLY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.
DO WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM YOUR OTHER NEIGHBORS? I BELIEVE
AND DO WE, DO WE HAVE ANY RECORD OF THEM SAYING WE DON'T OBJECT? NO, MY HUSBAND HAS ALL THE EMAILS.
I THOUGHT HE ORDERED THOSE TO YOU.
BUT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT, WE CAN PROVIDE ALL THE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THEIR SUPPORT.
I THINK FOR ME, I MEAN IT'S THE, MY, MY BIGGEST PIECE HERE IS JUST THIS PROCESS, YOU KNOW, HAVING A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF ME THAT JUST CAME AND NOW WE'RE HEARING ABOUT LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS, BUT I'M NOT SEEING, ALL I'M SEEING IS LETTERS OF OBJECTION.
IF I COULD INTERJECT, UM, ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION TO REPORT IN REGARDS TO THE, UH, VERACITY OF STATEMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT.
UM, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE LETTERS, WE DO HAVE THEIR SWORN TESTIMONY.
UM, SO YOU CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
SO I'LL, I'LL TOTAL, HOW MANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR VERBAL SUPPORT DO YOU HAVE ON THIS PROJECT FROM NEIGHBORS? MY HUSBAND MANAGED THIS PROCESS.
HE WAS UNABLE TO JOIN US TODAY.
UM, I COULD GUESS THAT, I THINK WE'D SAY
AND YOU, UH, REACHED OUT TO THEM BETWEEN, UM, OUR LAST HEARING AND THIS HEARING YES.
AND REAFFIRMED THAT SUPPORT? YES.
[01:25:01]
BE MORE FOR STAFF.HAS MR. AL BEEN ABLE TO VIEW THE, THE PLANS THAT WE RECEIVED? UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY EMAILED THOSE PLANS.
SO, SO THEY WERE PROVIDED MR.
I I JUST WANNA ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN OF CITY STAFF.
UM, WE'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT COMFORTABLE WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, OR WOULD, ARE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO REVIEW IT? I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, 45 MINUTES AHEAD OF THE HEARING IS, IS NOT A LOT OF TIME, BUT I WANNA UNDERSTAND YOUR COMFORT LEVEL WITH THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU'VE HAD, UM, AND IF MORE TIME IS WARRANTED ON YOUR END TO FULLY REVIEW THESE PLANS.
SO IN REVIEWING THE PLANS, IT DOES SHOW I COULD, I COULD MAKE OUT WHERE THE FENCE IS AND THE WALL IS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
UM, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NO, THERE'S NOTHING, UM, IDENTIFYING WHERE IT'S AT, SO IT'S JUST ME LOOKING AT IT AND BEING ABLE TO SEE A LITTLE DOT WHERE THAT WOULD BE THE FENCE.
UM, I, I CAN'T VERIFY IF IT'S TO SCALE, SINCE I DON'T HAVE MY SCALES HERE.
I WASN'T PREPARED FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW.
SO, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, IT, IT SHOWS THE, THE PLANS THERE AND IT DOES REFLECT THE PREVIOUS PLAN.
IT'S JUST, THERE'S NO LABELING ON THERE.
SO, UM, I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD ACCEPT THAT, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR IS THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, UM, FROM THE APPLICANT? NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY? OKAY.
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION REGISTER, DO I? NO.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION, MS. I, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH ZERO SEVEN FOR HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL UNTIL NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023.
UH, MICHAEL KOSKI, I'LL, I'LL SECOND.
SO THE REASON WHY I MADE THIS MOTION IS BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE STAFF REALLY HAS NOT HAD AN AMPLE TIME OR NOR THE BOARD TO FULLY REVIEW THESE PLANS.
I ASK THAT YOU WORK WITH STAFF AND GET THEM THE UPDATED PLANS FOR THE EXACT LAYOUT, UM, OF WHERE, WHERE THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE.
AND I THINK THAT ONCE WE, THE, THE STAFF HAS THE AMPLE TIME TO APPROVE IT, I WILL, I WILL SUPPORT IT.
CONS, UH, CONSIDERING THAT NO OTHER OPPOSITION COMES FORWARD, BUT WE REALLY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO RE REVIEW THESE PLANS.
AND IF WE'RE GONNA BE MARRYING THESE PLANS AND THIS APPLICATION TO A SITE PLAN AND ULTIMATELY ELEVATIONS, WE HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
AND AT THAT POINT, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH.
AND I HOPE THAT BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER 15TH, Y'ALL CAN GET WITH CITY STAFF, I GET PLANS THAT ARE, UM, SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO TIE THIS APPLICATION TO A SITE PLAN.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS IS OVER.
WE'RE ACTUALLY, UM, NOW DECIDING ON, ON THE MOTION.
I, I THINK I, I AGREE WITH MS. LAMB.
I, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT I CAN'T NECESSARILY SUPPORT, BUT I ALSO DON'T LIKE NOT BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ME EVEN KIND OF THE RUSHED NATURE OF, OF THIS.
BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE I STAND.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING TO ME THAT WAS OBJECTIONABLE OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD AMPLE TIME TO ACTUALLY DO THE PROBLEMS. YEAH.
AND I ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD AND I, I JUST THINK IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO ALLOW LAST MINUTE SUBMISSIONS.
UM, 'CAUSE UM, WHILE YOU GUYS MAY NOT HAVE NEFARIOUS MOTIVES, UM, SPEAKING THINGS IN AT THE LAST MINUTE, INEVITABLY SOMEONE WILL.
UH, MR. AL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I CONCUR.
UM, LIKE I SAID, AFTER REVIEWING, YOU KNOW, THE, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
I MEAN, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT ME FROM SUPPORTING, UM, THE APPLICANT'S, UM, REQUEST.
BUT LIKE I SAID, NOT HAVING, UH, ENOUGH TIME TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THAT SITE PLAN THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY, UH, TROUBLESOME.
[01:30:01]
SO AGAIN, I, I DO CONCUR.DO WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE MS. LAMB? AYE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO AND ONCE, ONCE AGAIN, I MEAN THIS, IT'S NOT A, A NO ON THIS CASE, ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO OTHER OPPOSITION, IT'S LET'S GET THE EXACT SITE PLAN THAT WE MAY TIE THIS APPLICATION TO SO WE CAN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE APPROVED HERE.
AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER.
JUST PLEASE WORK WITH STAFF AND PLEASE GIVE THEM AT LEAST A WEEK, UM, TO REVIEW THE PLANS BEFORE THE NEXT HEARING.
WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO, UM, APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH 1 0 1 ON THE APPLICATION OF CASSANDRA CRAWFORD.
AND, UM, THIS IS A ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, APPEAL FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
AND SO I JUST WANNA GO OVER THE RULES 'CAUSE THIS WILL BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE, UH, CASE WE JUST HEARD.
SO THE APPLICANT'S CASE WILL LAST FOR 20 MINUTES.
THE APPLICANT MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, CALL WITNESSES, AND OFFER EVIDENCE.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT CALLS A WITNESS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES, AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES, AND THAT DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE, UM, 20 MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD'S SECRETARY SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES SET FORTH AND THE BOARD, UM, THE BOARD'S RULES AND PROCEDURES, THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.
THE BOARD MEMBER'S QUESTIONS WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS A 20 MINUTE TIME LIMITATION.
THE AO CASE WILL LAST ALSO FOR 20 MINUTES.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, CALL WITNESSES AND OFFER EVIDENCE.
HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICER CALLS A WITNESS.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, UM, CAN REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OFFICIAL MAY ALSO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES.
AGAIN, THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND THE, UM, APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO MAKE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
A MOTION IS REQUIRED TO EITHER AFFIRM OR REVERSE THE DECISION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
AND, UM, FOLLOWING THAT MOTION IS A TIME FOR OPEN DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS.
AND, UM, AS A REMINDER, UM, ANY DECISION FOR OR AGAINST ON THIS CASE MUST HAVE AN AGREEMENT OF FOUR VOTES, UM, FROM THIS BOARD PANEL.
AND, UM, FAILING THAT WE GET FOUR VOTES, THEN THE ADMINISTRATOR OFFICIALS, UM, RULING IS UPHELD.
SO, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UM, I GUESS WE ARE CALLING FORWARD THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE.
I'M AN DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
I REPRESENT CASSANDRA CRAWFORD AND ISAIAH PAYNE IN THE MATTER OF 35 28 COLONIAL.
THEY ARE ALSO HERE, AND I'LL CALL THEM UP SHORTLY, UH, TO TESTIFY ABOUT SPECIFIC MATTERS.
AND THEY'RE, THEY WILL ALSO SWEAR, UH, WHEN CALLED UP.
ARE WE READY? DO WE HAVE THE POWERPOINT? OKAY, THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY AT 35 28 COLONIAL AVENUE.
THE LOCATION IS JUST NORTH OF M L K AND JUST BARELY EAST OF INTERSTATE 45 RIGHT BEFORE YOU HIT THE MIX MASTER.
IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 107 YEARS.
UH, RELEVANT TO WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR TODAY IS THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A BOARDING HOUSE.
NOW IN 19 64 65, THE ZONING IN THE AREA CHANGED TO MF TWO UNDER THEN CHAPTER 51 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE FOR ZONING, WHICH ALLOWED A A BOARDING HOUSE BY RIGHT WITHOUT A RESTRICTION
[01:35:01]
AS TO THE NUMBER OF ROOMS AVAILABLE AT THAT LOCATION.SO IF SOMEONE CAME IN, REQUESTED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A BOARDING HOUSE, JUST LIKE THESE, UH, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IN 1967 DID, THEY WOULD HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT UPON MEETING ALL CODE PROVISIONS TO BE GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR ANY OTHER DISCRETIONARY PERMITS.
YOU'VE COMPLIED WITH THE CODE, HERE'S YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BOTH BY US AND BY THE CITY.
VARIOUS DOCUMENTS HELD BY DALLAS BUILDING INSPECTION.
AND WHAT THEY LOOKED AT WHEN WE REQUESTED RE-REQUEST THAT, I'LL SAY A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR FOR BOARDING HOUSE UNDER CHAPTER 51, STATING THAT WE WERE A NON-CONFORMING USE SINCE AT LEAST 1967.
IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM BUILDING INSPECTION, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
AND AGAIN, AT THIS TIME, A BOARDING HOUSE, NO RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE NUMBER OF ROOMS BEING RENTED OUT IS ALLOWED BY, RIGHT.
SO AS LONG AS THEY CITY BUILDING INSPECTION CAME OUT, INSPECTED IT, APPROVED IT, THEY WERE GONNA GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
NOW, IN THE REVIEW OF THE BUILDING RECORDS, THE BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR OR THE ASSISTANT BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWED ALL THE RECORDS, BUT I BELIEVE THIS RECORD THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S KIND OF A SQUISHED OR A SMALLER ONE.
BUT THIS RECORD IS A PHOTOGRAPHIC COPY OF THE OUTER JACKET FOR BUILDING INSPECTION.
AND WHAT IT HAS ON THERE, AND THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT, IS THE BUILDING INSPECTION, THE PERMIT FOR 2 6 67.
SORRY, CAN YOU HOLD ON FOR JUST A SECOND WHILE WE FIND IT? CAN YOU PAUSE THE CLOCK FOR WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND? PAGE 60? IS THIS YEAH, AS IT RELATES, AND I'M, AND I APOLOGIZE IF IT'S LIKE SUPER SMALL, THIS IS A BIGGER COPY AND I CAN HAND Y'ALL THIS.
UM, BUT WHAT IT IS, I'LL STOP.
CAN YOU CIRCULATE THAT ONCE YOU'RE DONE? YES, MA'AM.
BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS A SUPER IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
WE WERE NOT ORIGINALLY GIVEN THIS FROM BUILDING INSPECTION WHEN THEY WERE SHOWING US WHAT RECORDS THEY HAD.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAD THIS IN THEIR RECORDS, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A CITY OF DALLAS RECORD.
ONE, WHEN THEY'RE ORIGINALLY MAKING THEIR DECISION, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF THEM.
AND NUMBER TWO, IT POINTS OUT THE LACK OF COMPLETENESS OF CITY OF DALLAS BUILDING INSPECTION RECORDS FROM OVER A HALF CENTURY AGO.
WE'RE NOT YELLING AND SCREAMING ABOUT IT, IT'S JUST THE REALITY.
AND I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW THIS BUILDING INSPECTION RECORDS ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLETE.
WE HAD THIS RECORD, WE GAVE THIS TO THE CITY.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THIS AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE RECORDS.
AND WHAT THIS SHOWS IS A SIGN OFF, A FINAL SIGN OFF ON THE BUILDING INSPECTION IN FEBRUARY 6TH AND A FINAL SIGN OFF UNDER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MARCH 7TH, 1967.
NOW, AT THAT TIME, WHEN YOU GET A FINAL SIGN OFF FROM BUILDING INSPECTION UNDER YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THERE'S NO OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS OTHER THAN THAT THE CO GETS ISSUED.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE RECORDS, AND THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT FOR YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION HERE, TO EITHER AFFIRM OR REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, I DON'T, YOUR RECORDS SHOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE TO GET A CATE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT THE TIME.
THERE'S NO LETTER IN THE RECORDS THAT SAYS THIS WAS DENIED.
THERE'S NOTHING ON HERE THAT SAYS PERMIT DENIED OR APPLICATION DENIED OR CO DENIED, OR YOU DIDN'T MAKE ALL THE REPAIRS.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORDS TO SAY THAT.
NOW, I WILL ADMIT THAT THERE ALSO ISN'T A COPY OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
TOTALLY ADMIT THAT, EXCEPT THEY ALSO DIDN'T HAVE THIS.
AND THEY HAVE NO A ABILITY TO TELL YOU WHY THERE WASN'T A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED OTHER THAN TO LOOK FORWARD TO OTHER RECORDS IN THE FUTURE, AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS LATER AND SAY, SEE, THEY WERE APPLYING FOR OTHER THINGS, THAT MEANS THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CO, WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
SO WE GO FORWARD TO 1974 WHEN THE CITY OF DALLAS SAYS, HEY, ABOUT YOUR BOARDING HOUSE, YOU NEED
[01:40:01]
TO FIX THESE CERTAIN THINGS.NOW, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE CITY OF DALLAS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS A BOARDING HOUSE AND TELLS US THAT WE NEED TO FIX CERTAIN THINGS.
I WAS LIKE NINE YEARS OLD, SO IT WASN'T ME.
BUT THE POINT BEING IS, IS THAT THEY SENT THE OWNERS A LETTER SAYING, HEY, YOU'RE BOARDING IN HOUSE.
AND WE HAVE NO RECORD AS TO WHETHER THAT WAS APPROVED OR DENIED.
THEN WE GO FORWARD TO 1999 WHERE MS. CRAWFORD'S DAD, MAXWELL BRYANT APPLIES FOR A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR THE HOME.
NOW, THE CITY WILL TELL YOU, SEE, HE WRITES DOWN SINGLE FAMILY, HE PUTS DOWN THAT IT WASN'T RENTED FOR MS. UH, CRAWFORD WILL EXPLAIN WHY MR. BRYANT MAY HAVE DONE THAT.
BUT AT THAT TIME, NUMBER ONE, STATE LAW ALLOWED YOU TO APPLY FOR A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION EVEN IF YOU WERE OPERATING A BOARDING HOUSE AS LONG AS YOU WERE RESIDING THERE AND MR. BRYANT WAS RESIDING THERE.
AND NUMBER TWO, THERE'LL BE TESTIMONY FROM MS. CRAWFORD THAT IT WAS BEING USED AS A BOARDING HOUSE AT THAT TIME.
WE GO FORWARD TO 2014, MR. BRYANT DIES.
MS. CRAWFORD INHERITS THE HOUSE AND THEN JOINS IN OWNERSHIP WITH MR. PAYNE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN, UM, UM, APPLICATIONS THAT DON'T SAY BOARDING HOUSE UNTIL 2020 AND ISAIAH PAYNE FILLS IT OUT.
BUT HE'LL BE HERE TO TESTIFY AS TO WHY HE PUT SINGLE FAMILY, AND THEN HE CROSSES OUT AND HE PUTS DUPLEX.
THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL ALSO SAY, HEY, UM, THE DEC AD RECORDS SAY MULTIFAMILY DUPLEX.
DOESN'T THAT MEAN THAT YOU WEREN'T A BOARDING HOUSE? EXCEPT THAT THAT'S EXACTLY THE CATEGORY THAT D C AD WOULD TAX YOU AT IF YOU WERE A BOARDING HOUSE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE CATEGORY FOR BOARDING HOUSE.
SO FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 40 YEARS, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAXED AS MULTI-FAMILY DUPLEX.
YOU WILL HAVE HER TESTIMONY FROM THIS.
BUT, SO WHY ARE WE HERE? AND, UH, I I BELIEVE MS. LAMB, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, WHY DON'T WE JUST GO IN FOR A ZONING CHANGE? WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHY ARE WE AT THIS POINT? NUMBER ONE IS YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE BEEN OPERATING THIS AS A BOARDING HOUSE NONSTOP, CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE LAST 56 YEARS.
NUMBER TWO, THE RECORD SHOW THAT WE APPLIED FOR AND SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A CO.
AND I JUST BELIEVE THE CITY RECORDS ARE INCOMPLETE.
THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY INCOMPLETE BECAUSE WE HAD THIS AND THEY DIDN'T.
NUMBER THREE, AND VERY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF THIS IS, IS THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS FILED A PETITION.
NOW, FIRST OF ALL, WE APPLIED FOR A CO BECAUSE THEY ASKED US TO AGAIN FOR BOARDING HOUSE IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE OTHER THAN GIVE US MORE RECORDS.
AND YOU'VE GOT THAT IN YOUR FILE, THE, THE CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN ANNE HAMILTON AND CASSANDRA CRAWFORD.
BUT IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, JUNE 21ST, ANNE HAMILTON SAID, I'M NOT FINDING ANY RECORDS OF YOU BEING NON-CONFORMING.
AND I'M NOT ARGUING THAT SHE'S MAKING A DECISION BASED UPON HER RECORDS.
I'M ASKING YOU TO GO BEYOND THAT AND LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE USE, THE HISTORY, AND WHAT'S NOT THERE IN THE RECORDS TO ESTABLISH THE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS THAT I KNOW THAT WE HAVE.
YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? TWO DAYS LATER, THE CITY OF DALLAS FILED A LAWSUIT REQUESTING THAT THIS HOME, THIS BOARDING HOUSE BE BULLDOZED TO THE GROUND BECAUSE IT WAS BEING OPERATED ILLEGALLY.
NO ALLEGATION OR PROOF THAT IT'S STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND, BUT IT DOES HAVE MANY, I'LL SAY NOT MANY, BUT SEVERAL CODE VIOLATIONS.
AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT THE FIRE INSPECTOR TO SAY THAT.
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT AND WHY AM I SAYING THIS AND WHY ARE WE HERE? WELL, WE'RE IN COURT.
AND I WAS LIKE, WE TRIED TO APPEAL TO YOU GUYS IN JUNE AND BUILDING INSPECTION, SAID YOU DON'T HAVE A FINAL DECISION FROM, UH, THE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
AND I'M LIKE, WELL, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? THEN THEY FILED A LAWSUIT AND WE WERE IN A LAWSUIT.
TWO MONTHS GOES BY AND I SAY, THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
WE SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BRING TO YOU THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
THEN AFTER HAVING A, UH, MOTION TO ABATE WITH THE JUDGE, THE CITY THEN AGREED TO ISSUE A LETTER THAT THEY FELT WE COULD APPEAL.
AND WE IMMEDIATELY APPEALED THAT TO YOU GUYS.
THE JUDGE ALSO REQUESTED WE DO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES, CERTAIN REPAIRS, AND THE STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE HE SAID, IF I'M ABATING THIS, I DON'T WANT TO GET ON THE HOOK IN CASE SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS AT THE PROPERTY.
SO TWO DAYS LATER WE WENT DOWN TO BUILDING INSPECTION AND APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT
[01:45:01]
TO DO THOSE REPAIRS.DO YOU KNOW WHAT BUILDING INSPECTION DID? THEY DENIED GIVING US A PERMIT BECAUSE THEY SAID, AND CAN YOU GUESS WHAT? WE DIDN'T HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THEY MADE MS. CRAWFORD WAIT FOUR HOURS AND HAMILTON REFUSED TO COME TALK TO HER AND SHE HAD TO BE SENT ON HER WAY.
NOW LET ME ASK YOU, IF I CAN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT TO FIX THE THINGS THAT THEY WANT IN ORDER TO GET A CO, HOW CAN I EVER GET A CO TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT TO FIX THOSE THINGS? I AM CAUGHT IN A NIGHTMARE.
AND THERE'S ONLY ONE REAL WAY TO RESOLVE THIS, AND THAT IS, AND WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION.
GRANT US A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SO THAT I CAN GET THESE PERMITS.
THIS IS A BOARDING HOUSE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THIS IS A BOARDING HOUSE OF LAST RESORT.
BUT I DO NOT WANT YOU TO EVER FEEL LIKE I'M SAYING IGNORE ANY CODE VIOLATIONS.
EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE IN THAT BOARDING HOUSE NEEDS TO HAVE A SAFE AND 100% CODE COMPLIANT LOCATION TO LIVE IN.
WE CAN'T PROVIDE THAT TO THEM BECAUSE THEY WON'T GIVE US A PERMIT TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE.
ALL THEY WANNA DO IS TEAR IT DOWN, NOT CARRYING WHAT THE 17 PEOPLE WHO WON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLACE TO LIVE WILL GO.
IF I'M ABLE TO GET A TEMPORARY CO I PLEDGE TO YOU, AND YOU CAN HAVE THIS IN YOUR MOTION.
YOU GOT 60 DAYS TO MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS TO EITHER GET A FINAL CO OR NOT, PERIOD, THE END.
I'M GOOD WITH THAT AS A MOTION THAT YOU REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION.
GRANTED TEMPORARY CO SO I CAN GET EVERY NECESSARY PERMIT SO THAT I CAN THEN GET A FINAL CO SO WE CAN FINALLY 100% RESTORE THIS, UH, BOARDING HOUSE TO WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TO BE 100% CODE COMPLIANT SO THAT THE RESIDENTS INSIDE AND THEY'VE BEEN, THERE'VE BEEN RESIDENTS THERE FOR 56 YEARS NONSTOP CAN LIVE AND BE ENTITLED TO LIVE IN A 100% SAFE AND SECURE LOCATION LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY.
I PROBABLY MISSED A FEW THINGS.
YOU PROBABLY HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT LET ME GET MS. CRAWFORD AND MR. PAYNE UP SO THEY CAN TESTIFY.
MR. CRAWFORD, SIR, IN THE, IN THE MEANTIME, CAN YOU CIRCULATE THAT PIECE OF PAPER? ABSOLUTELY.
MARY, TO CLARIFY THE UM, MR. MIKLOS WITNESS MS. CRAWFORD, THAT IS A PART OF HIS 20 MINUTE PRESENTATION.
THE CLOCK HAS BEEN STOPPED, MR. MIKLOS, UH, BUT WHEN THE, UH, DISCUSSION BEGINS, THAT'LL BE A PART OF THE 20 MINUTES.
AND THEN ANY SUBSEQUENT CROSS-EXAMINATION BY, UH, THE CITY OR THE SUBSEQUENT REDIRECT BY MR. MIKLOS WILL BE A SEPARATE FIVE MINUTE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
CASSANDRA CRAWFORD, 35 28 COLONIAL AVENUE, DALLAS, CASSANDRA CRAWFORD, 35 28 COLONIAL AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 5.
SO MS. CRAWFORD, ARE YOU AN OWNER OF 35 28 COLONIAL YES.
FOR YOUR LIFE, AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU YOUR EXACT AGE, BUT HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD EXPERIENCE WITNESSED, UM, THE OCCUPATION AND THE USE OF 35 28? COLONIAL.
HOW LONG IS THAT THERE FOR? AS LONG
[01:50:01]
AS I CAN REMEMBER.AND WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD, WHAT DO YOU RECALL WAS THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY? I KNEW THAT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO GO UPSTAIRS.
AND WHY WAS THAT? BECAUSE THERE WAS OTHER PEOPLE THAT WAS UP THERE.
AND OTHER PEOPLE AS IN RENTING A BOARDING HOUSE, WHAT WAS IT BEING NEEDED FOR THEN? IT'S WINTERS.
AND AGAIN, NOT ASKING THE EXACT DATE, BUT WHAT DECADE WAS THAT WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD?
TELLING MY AGE, I WAS BORN IN 1963, SO, UM, AS FAR AS, LIKE I SAID, I CAN REMEMBER WE WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO GO UPSTAIRS.
SO AROUND THE TIME THAT THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATION MM-HMM.
AND THEN THE UPDATED REVISED, UH, UH, REQUEST FROM BUILDING INSPECTION TO DO SOME REPAIR? YES.
THAT'S WHEN YOU WERE A KID, RIGHT? YES.
AND YOU RECALL THIS BEING USED AS A BOARDING HOUSE? YES.
AND THEN HAVE YOU HAD CONTACT WITH EXPERIENCE WITH 35 28 COLONIAL EVER SINCE THAT TIME? I HAVE.
WHY? BECAUSE MY, YOU KNOW, AS I GREW UP AND LIFE TOOK OVER AND I HAD CHILDREN AND ALL OF THAT, MY FATHER
AND BEFORE THEN MY UNCLES LIVED IN THE HOUSE.
SO IT'S BEEN IN OUR FAMILY FOR QUITE A WHILE.
AND SO, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WAS THIS EVER NOT BEING USED AS A BOARDING HOUSE? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
AND DID YOU INHERIT THE PROPERTY IN 2014 FROM YOUR DAD? YES.
AND DID YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE IT AS A BOARDING HOUSE FROM THEN UNTIL THIS DAY? YES.
AND WHEN I WAS UP HERE AND I TESTIFIED AND DISCUSSED THE RECORDS AND THE APPLICATION AND YOU WAITING AND BUILDING INSPECTION FOR FOUR HOURS AND GETTING SENT ON YOUR WAY WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT, IS THAT ALL CORRECT AS FAR AS YOUR EXPERIENCE? YES.
AND JUST LAST THING, WAS YOUR BELIEF THAT THIS WAS ALWAYS ALLOWED TO BE A BOARDING HOUSE, AND DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THE CITY WOULDN'T GO AHEAD AND GRANT YOU THOSE PERMITS? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULDN'T PERMIT IT, BUT I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN IT TO BE A BOARDING HOUSE AND DIDN'T, BECAUSE OF MY FATHER'S LEGACY, DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE THAT.
I, I THINK THAT YOU COULD ASK HER QUESTION BEFORE WE WENT TO ANOTHER WITNESS.
IS THAT RIGHT? UM, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
DOES THE AO WANNA CROSS-EXAMINE? YES.
SO, UM, SO HE'LL, MR. MLO, YOU'LL STILL HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT OF YOUR 20 MINUTE PRESENTATION AND SHE HAS, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE.
THIS ONE EMILY ROLAND WITH AL CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENT ME, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL JASON POOL AND, UH, TETTE TODAY.
UM, MS. CRAWFORD, HOWEVER THE, I DO, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
EMILY
1500 MARILLA STREET, UM, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
UM, IS HE CORRECT THAT YOU, UH, TOLD OUR CODE INSPECTOR THAT YOUR FATHER WAS LIVING AT THE HOME BY HIMSELF AND THE UPSTAIRS PORTION OF THE HOME WAS BASICALLY UNUSABLE BECAUSE IT HAD JUST, YOU KNOW, HE HAD STORED STUFF THERE AND IT JUST WASN'T BEING USED? NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT TO ANYONE.
MY FATHER DID NOT SIT THERE ALONE.
THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE THERE.
IN THIS HISTORY OF THE HOUSE, DO YOU HAVE ANY LEDGER BOOKS OR TAX STATEMENTS OR OLS OR OTHER TYPES OF REGISTRATION WITH THE CITY THAT YOU CAN SHOW TO HELP US THAT THIS PROPERTY WORTH THE BOARDING COME BACK TO, AS YOU SAY, THE 1960? I DO NOT KNOW.
AND UM, THIS IS PART OF BEING YOUNG AND NOT REALLY KNOWING THE BUSINESS TYPE OF THINGS OF ANY RECORDS.
AND CERTAINLY WHEN MY FATHER PASSED AWAY, THE HOUSE WAS, UH, RENTS BACKED AND ALL OF THOSE PAPERS WERE OFF.
BUT YOU KEEP PAPERWORK LIKE THAT NOW AS OPERATOR NOW? I DO, YES.
I HAVE RECORDS OF IT BEEN OPERATING.
AND I'M, I'M A BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW YOU WERE RELATED TO MIRIAM MITCHELL, WHO WAS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO APPLIED FOR DEC CO APPLICATIONS AND SUBSEQUENTLY
[01:55:01]
DENIED IN 1960 AND 1970, UM, BECAUSE OF MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARD VIOLATIONS.CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOU WERE RELATED FROM HIM? THAT IS MY FATHER'S GREAT UNCLE.
AND, AND YOUR FATHER ALWAYS LIVED IN THE HOUSE WITH MR. MITCHELL WHILE MR. MITCHELL OPERATED YOURSELF PART OF THE TIME HE DID LIVE THERE AND THEN THE OTHER PART, HE WAS ACROSS THE STREET.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S OTHER LEGAL AVENUES FOR YOU TO STILL MAINTAIN LIVING IN THE HOME AND ALSO RECEIVE A STREAM OF INCOME FROM THE HOME LEGALLY WITH THE CO? UM, WITH THE CO.
I, ALL I KNOW IS BOARDING HOUSE.
THAT'S HOW I ALWAYS HAVE REMEMBERED IT.
SO THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY AVENUE.
AND LASTLY, YOU APPLIED THOUGH FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, WHICH WOULD AGAIN ALLOW YOU TO LIVE IN THE HOME AND RECEIVE A LEGAL STREAM OF INCOME.
UM, HOW MANY ROOMS ARE IN THE HOME AT THIS, AT THIS GARDEN DAY? UM, THERE ARE 17.
AND HOW MANY ARE OCCUPIED? UM, ON AN AVERAGE, I'M GOING TO SAY AROUND ABOUT THE, THE 17 AT THIS POINT THERE, THERE'S ACTUALLY 19, BUT I HAVE PORTION OF THE HOUSE FOR MYSELF.
AND, UM, MS. CRAWFORD, ARE YOU IN THE PAST ASSOCIATED WITH 36 26 AND 36 20 EIGHTH SPRING AVENUE? NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS PROPERTY? NO, I AM NOT.
YOU DID NOT OPERATE THAT AS AN ILLEGAL BOARDING FIRM WITH MR. PAYNE? I DID NOT.
I AM MR. PAYNE'S BUSINESS PARTNER AND I HAVE NO TIES TO THOSE TWO.
AND WHEN WERE THE AIR CONDITIONINGS AT INDIVIDUAL AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ADDED TO EACH ONE OF THE ROOMS? UM, AT THE PROPERTY AT AT 35 28? THEY WERE ADDED, UM, PRIOR TO THE AT TENANTS MOVING IN? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YES.
SO IF THEY WERE ADDED BEFORE THE TENANTS MOVED IN, THEN THERE WERE AS A TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO TENANTS, UM, NO, THERE WAS NOT A TIME WHEN THERE, AS THEY MOVED IN, WE PROVIDED THE AIR CONDITIONING, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, AS, AS THEY MOVED IN, THAT'S WHEN IT, IT WASN'T NO ROOM THE EMPTY AND WE ARE GONNA PUT THE AIR CONDITIONERS IN THERE JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY COME IN.
ONCE THEY MOVED IN, THEY HAD AN AIR CONDITIONER.
SO IF WE WERE TO GO TO THE GOOGLE IMAGE OF THIS PROPERTY AND LOOK BACK AT, SAY 2016 AND THEN PROJECT FORWARD 2017, 18, 19 20, WE WOULD'VE NOT SEEN THE AIR CONDITIONING SINCE 2016, BUT SEEN THEM IN 2017.
UM, IN 2014, DID YOU APPLY, UM, FOR A GAS FIGURE TEST, UM, FOR YOUR, ON BEHALF OF YOUR FATHER AND BOTH THE PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL IN 2014? I DON'T REMEMBER DOING THAT PER, PER ME.
MY FATHER DID HAVE, UH, SOMEONE HELPING HIM AT THE TIME.
THIS IS AT PAGE TWO OF MY EVIDENTIARY BINDER.
IS THIS YOUR HANDWRITING APPLYING FOR A, UM, SERVICE RELEASE AND ENCODING THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL? GET MY BLADDER? CERTAINLY.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS FILLED OUT BEFORE.
[02:00:01]
I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.I'M GONNA HAVE ISAIAH PAYNE COME UP NOW AND I KNOW THAT HE NEEDS TO BE SWORN.
I'LL LET HER KNOW BEFORE WE, CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION FROM CITY STAFF? UM, WELL, WHAT IS THE, UM, DEFINITION OF BOARDING HOUSE UNDER OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE? JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND, WE ALL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR USE.
YOU STILL IT? YOU HAVE IT? OKAY.
DEFINITION OF FACILITY CONTAINING AT LEAST ONE, BUT FEWER THAN SIX GUEST ROOMS THAT ARE SEPARATE.
IT'S, UH, FACILITY CONTAINING AT LEAST ONE, BUT FEWER THAN, THAN SIX GUEST ROOMS THAT ARE SEPARATELY RENTED BY OCU TWO OCCUPANTS.
OKAY, SO, UM, FOR YOUR, FOR MR. PAYNE, WE HAVE THREE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM.
AND THEN I'LL, I'LL SUPPLEMENT THAT ANSWER TOO.
I KNOW YOU NEED TO GET AN ANSWER FROM THEM ON THE NON-CONFORMING, THE DEFINITION PART, BUT I'LL HELP WITH THAT.
MR. PAYNE, DO YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
ADDRESS, 1402 HIGHLAND STREET, MESQUITE, TEXAS 7 5 1 4 9.
SHE'S GONNA SAY WE BOTH LIVE IN MESQUITE.
UM, MR. PAYNE, ARE YOU A PART OWNER OF, UH, 35 28 COLONIAL? YES, SIR.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A PART OWNER OF COLONIAL? 2017.
THAT'S WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE INTEREST IN THE HOME, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.
AND HAVE YOU HELPED IN FILLING OUT, EXCUSE ME,
AND WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF I TOLD YOU THAT SOME OF THOSE APPLICATIONS HAD SF AND THEN SCRATCHED OUT AND DUPLEX OR RESIDENTIAL, THINGS LIKE THAT? UH, NO.
SO TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, EVER SINCE YOU PURCHASED, OR EVEN BEFORE WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING TO PURCHASE IT, HAS 35 28 COLONIAL BEEN USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN A BOARDING HOUSE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? UH, NOT THAT I'M AWARE.
SO WHY WOULD, ON APPLICATIONS WOULD YOU PUT SSF AND THEN SCRATCH OUT DUPLEX OR RESIDENTIAL? I MEAN, WHY WOULD THAT HAPPEN? WELL, IF YOU, IF YOU EVER LOOK AT THE, THE MICRO FISH THAT THEY HAVE THERE, UM, 'CAUSE I, BEFORE I PURCHASED IT, I JUST WAS RESEARCHING WHAT WAS DOWNSTAIRS IN JEFFERSON.
I MEAN, HAD SINGLE FAMILY HAD DUPLEX, IT'S A TRIPLEX, IT SAID BOARDINGHOUSE.
SO IT JUST KIND OF ALL OVER THE MAP.
AND WHEN YOU FILL OUT A PERMIT, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC BOX THAT SAYS BOARDINGHOUSE AT ALL.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY OR LIKE COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE A, YOU KNOW, CAR WASHES.
SO IT WASN'T, I MEAN, IT'S HOUSE, SO I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, SO IF YOU HAD CALLED ME BEFORE FILLING OUT THAT FORM AND SAID, SHOULD I PUT SINGLE FAMILY OR BOARDING HOUSE ON THAT? AND, AND I HAD SAID BOARDING HOUSE, WOULD YOU HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEM FILLING OUT BOARDING HOUSE? NO.
AND DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE JEOPARDIZING AND THAT THE FACT THAT THAT HOUSE MAY BE TORN DOWN TO THE GROUND BECAUSE YOU WERE PUTTING SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX OR SCRATCHING IT OUT, DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE IN JEOPARDY OF THAT BY FILLING OUT THE FORM THAT WAY? UH, NO.
AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A BOARDING HOUSE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? ABSOLUTELY.
WELL, THERE ARE RECORDS THAT SHOWED THE WORD BOARDING HOUSE, UH, SEVERAL TIMES IN THE, IN THE FILE.
SO, AND YOU CHECKED THOSE RECORDS BEFORE PURCHASING THE HOUSE? OH YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
I MEAN, EVEN WHEN I WAS GETTING THE PERMITS, YOU, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY ASK YOU QUESTIONS, YOU KIND OF GO DOWN THERE AND, UH, SO YEAH, IT'S JUST THAT WORD IS IN THE RECORDS.
I'M GONNA STOP, I'M SURE THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OF MR. PAYNE.
UH, AND THEN I'VE GOT THE ONE FOLLOW UP ON THE NON-CONFORMITY OF THE DEFINITION.
[02:05:03]
EMILYHI, MR. P, HOW ARE YOU TODAY? HELLO, MR. MS. WARLAND, IF YOU COULD HOLD ON FOR ONE MOMENT.
MR. MIKLOS, DID YOU WANNA REDIRECT, UH, MS. CRAWFORD OR WOULD YOU RATHER LET MS. WARLAND, UM, YOU'RE THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THEN YOU CAN REDIRECT BOTH WITNESSES? UM, I DON'T NEED TO, UH, REDIRECT MS. CRAWFORD ANYMORE, SO I'M GOOD.
UM, AND SO MS. WARLAND CAN CROSS-EXAMINE MR. PAYNE, AND THEN IF I HAVE ANY, IF I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO CLARIFY ANYTHING, I WILL CERTAINLY.
UH, PLEASE, PLEASE PROCEED MS. WELL, THANK YOU.
UM, YOU AND I KNOW EACH OTHER FROM YOUR PROPERTIES AT 36, 26 AND 38, 20 EIGHTH SPRING, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES.
AND HOW ARE YOU USING THOSE PROPERTIES? UH, WELL, AT THE MOMENT I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THEM.
AND WHY NOT? WELL, BASED ON, UH, UH, GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH A LAWSUIT FROM THE CITY SIMILAR TO LIKE YOU'RE DOING ON, ON COLONIAL, UH, JUST, UM, GETTING CLARITY OF THE COMMUNITY, COMMERCIAL NATURE OF IT.
SO IT HAS TO BE, UH, THE USE THAT, UH, I HAD UNDER WORK LIFE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH SETTLEMENT WITH YOU ALL DECIDED THAT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, JUST DON'T DO THAT AND REAPPLY FOR, UH, A COMPANY.
SO AT ONE TIME THOSE TWO PROPERTIES HAD A TOTAL OF MAYBE CLOSE TO 30 INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN THE TWO PROPERTIES.
IT WAS, UH, IT'S TWO PROPERTIES, SO NO, IT'S PROBABLY BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS YOU ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO OPERATE, AS YOU JUST SAID, IS 'CAUSE YOU CANNOT GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THAT TYPE OF USE? UH, WELL, YEAH, NO, NOT TO USE THAT, THAT I HAVE.
AND, UM, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT OUR, YOUR, THE, THE, UM, PAPERWORK THAT MR. MCG YOU REFERENCING WITH YOU, I'VE DONE IT IN MY BINDER AT, UH, PAGE 85 AND TAB SEVEN, THIS IS YOUR HANDWRITING, FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION FOR 35, 28.
AND YOU CROSSED OUT SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR THE INITIALS FOR THAT AND WROTE DUPLEX, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YEAH, I SEE THAT, MM-HMM.
AND THEN IF WE TURN TO PAGE 89, SIMILARLY, YOUR, THIS IS YOUR HANDWRITING AND YOU CODED THE PROPERTY AT 35 28 AS A MULTIFAMILY SLASH DUPLEX, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
AND THEN ON PAGE 94 HERE, NOW THIS IS YOUR HANDWRITING FOR 35 28 AND YOU'RE NOW CALLING IT A BOARDING HOUSE.
IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT YEAR IS THAT? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S IN 2018.
UH, WELL, IS THIS YOUR, THAT, THAT'S NOT MY WRITING.
I CAN'T WRITE THAT, THAT WELL, YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S COMPARE THAT TO MY OTHER HANDWRITING.
SO IT IS CORRECT THAT YOU CALLED IT A DUPLEX, BUT IT'S INCORRECT THAT YOU CALLED IT A BOARDING HOUSE.
IS THAT RIGHT THEN? WELL, THE BOARDING HOUSE, THE NAME ITSELF.
SEE THAT, SEE, THIS IS NOT OKAY.
REDOING THE APPLICATION, I GUESS, IS IT ACCURATE THEN THAT IN 2017 WHEN YOU CALLED A REFLEX IN A MULTIFAMILY SLASH DUPLEX MM-HMM.
CAN I CLARIFY THAT? I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS.
UM, CAN YOU LET US KNOW, SORRY, WHICH, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE MATCH UP ON YOUR TAB.
SO WHEN YOU WERE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A REFERENCE POINT TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT SIGNATURES IN MY EVIDENTIARY MATTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
UM, AS PART OF LIKE THE BOARD'S MATERIALS FOR THIS BRIEFING, I'VE GOT, UM, MAYBE ABOUT A HUNDRED PAGES OF DOCUMENTS.
AND SO I WAS REFERENCING IT SPECIFICALLY, UM, IN THAT INSTANCE.
CAN YOU HOLD UP WHAT YOU WERE ASKING HIM ABOUT? YEAH.
SO WE CAN TRY TO FIND IT IN OUR PACKET.
JUST SO WE HAVE SWITCH, WHICH TAB IS IT BEHIND THE NUMBER? WE, I, IT'S UNDER TAB SEVEN.
I DO HAVE HIM SERIALLY NUMBERED, BUT IT'S, YEAH, YOU'RE TAB NUMBERS, THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE, THOSE, THE NUMBERS UNDER TAB SEVEN ARE LIKE 153 AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, UH, ALIGN WITH YOUR QUESTIONING RIGHT.
FOR THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.
I I, HOPEFULLY THE NUMBERS THAT I HAD BEEN THAT MISSED WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO YOU ALL, BUT, UM, LET ME, LEMME GET THOSE TO CLARIFY.
UM, MS. UM, I, MS. LAMB, I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THE NUMBERS ON THE, UH, IN THE PA THE PAGE NUMBERS IS BECAUSE IT'S A FULL DOCKET? SURE.
UM, 'CAUSE THAT ALSO INCLUDES EVIDENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE, CORRECT? YES.
SO JUST, BUT UM, SO UNDER TAB SEVEN IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING
[02:10:01]
AT, UM, IF YOU WOULD JUST MIND HOLDING UP.AND SO TAB SEVEN IS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
SO IF YOU GO FORWARD TO 2017, THERE'S A, THE FIRST ONE I WAS REFERENCING WITH MR. PAYNE IS A PERMIT APPLICATION.
AND THEN IN THE TOP, UM, RIGHT CORNER, THAT'S WHERE HE HAD CODED A DUPLEX.
AND FOR OUR REFERENCE, IT'S PAGE 1 74 FOR OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, OKAY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 4 18 17, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED, SORRY, I DON'T WANT THIS TO COUNT TOWARDS YOUR TIME, WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING.
UM, THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED OF HIM REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT WAS NUMBER ONE HAD, WAS IT HIS HANDWRITING IN THAT HE CODED IT AS A DUPLEX? AND THEN A FOLLOW ON QUESTION WAS, HAD HE DONE THAT BECAUSE IT WAS LEGALLY A DUPLEX AND HE WAS FOLLOWING HIS SAME PATTERN OF TAKING THESE HOUSES IN THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA AND CHOPPING THEM UP INTO THESE BOARDING HOMES AND CHARGING EXORBITANT RENT IN UNSANITARY CONDITIONS, ESSENTIALLY.
I'M TRYING TO FIND, TRYING TO FIND HERE WHERE IT SAYS DUPLEX, IT'S IT, IF WE'RE LOOKING AGAIN AT THE OH, I SEE.
AND THEN, UM, VERY SIMILARLY, IF YOU JUMP FORWARD JUST A LITTLE BIT TO 11 9 17, HE AGAIN QUOTED IT, IT'S THE SAME THING, A PERMIT APPLICATION.
AND THEN A LITTLE BIT FORWARD, HE IS, UM, IN 2018, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT'S A BIT SMALLER, THAT ONE IS UNDATED, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S, OH, IT'S DATED AT THE BOTTOM.
IT'S MAY OF 5 25 18 AND THAT'S, IT'S THE COURTING HOUSE.
SO THESE ARE THE DOCUMENTS WE REFERENCED? THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MS. ALL I APPRECIATE IT.
I THINK WE'RE UP TO SPEED NOW.
NO, THAT'S NOT, IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.
JUST, UM, WE JUST HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS.
I HAVE CHAIR, JUST MAKE SURE, UH, DEREK HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, JU-JUST IN THAT BRIEF EXCHANGE, UH, IT WAS JUST MENTIONED THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, OWNED PROPERTY THAT HE WAS CHARGING EXORBITANT PRICES FOR AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTIES WERE UNSANITARY OR SAFE.
IS THERE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THAT? BECAUSE TO SAY THAT IN AT THIS JUNCTURE WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND, ET CETERA, IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE KIND OBTAINING, YOU KNOW, THE WELL A LITTLE BIT.
SO DO YOU KNOW, DOES THE CITY HAVE SOMETHING THEY CAN PROVIDE US OR IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE, ANY OF THE EXHIBITS? OH, THE CITY CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE IT, BUT, UM, AS MR. UH, PAYNE AND I DISCUSSED THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR EXCHANGE, WE WERE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A VERY SIMILAR LAWSUIT RELATED TWO OF HIS PROPERTIES THAT HE OWNS ON SPRING AVENUE THAT HAD THE SAME ISSUE WHERE HE, HE, AS HE SAID, TWO PROPERTIES ABOUT 20 TO 25 ROOMS, I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU SAID.
AND HE WAS CHARGING LARGE, UH, RENTS FOR THAT.
AND HE'S NO LONGER ABLE TO USE THEM AS LODGING BOARDING, ROOMING HOUSES BECAUSE, UM, OF, OF THE CITY'S LAWSUIT AND A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN US.
BUT HE CANNOT GET A CO FOR THEM.
I MEAN, I COULD ASK WHAT THE CHARGE RENT IS FOR SURE THAT.
SO DOES THAT SETTLEMENT THAT YOU ENTERED INTO, OR THAT THE CITY ENTERED INTO, DOES THE APPLICANT AGREE THAT HE WAS CHARGING EXORBITANT PRICES AND THAT THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES WERE UNSANITARY? UH, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I MEAN, NO, THAT, THAT, THAT CHARACTERIZATION, YOU KNOW, UH, IS FALSE.
IN FACT, UH, IT CAN BE, UH, LIVABLE WITH PEOPLE AS A COMMENT THAT'S WITHIN THAT ZONING IS DIFFERENT THAN THIS PROPERTY.
SO SHE'S TRYING TO COMBINE TWO KIND OF UNRELATED THINGS.
UH, BUT UH, IN ORDER TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UH, MY FUTURE USE OF IT WILL BE A CONVENT, WHICH IS BY RIGHT, UH, IN THAT, UH, AREA.
SO IT'S COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL THERE.
AND I THINK WHAT'S, UH, THAT CITY'S NOT MENTIONING IS THAT THAT'S MF TWO FOR THE 35 28, WHICH IS THE BOARDING HOUSE, UM, ZONING.
SO IT'S, IT'S ALLOWED THERE AND TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, UH, BEFORE YOU CAN GET A PERMIT, YOU VISIT WITH THE FOLKS IN THE BACK AND THE ZONING PEOPLE.
AND SO I WOULD JUST KIND OF GO ON BASED ON, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER I SAW ON THE FILE AND IF THEY, EVEN THE ONE THAT SAYS BOARDING HOUSE, THAT'S NOT MY WRITING.
SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHEN THEY LOOKED UP THE ZONING FOR THAT.
AND THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
SO A HOUSE THAT'S A HUNDRED PLUS YEARS OLD, I MEAN THE, THE CODING IS, I MEAN, I CAN'T CHANGE WHAT THE ZONING IS.
THE ZONING IS MF TWO FOR 35 28, WHICH IS BY RIGHT OF BOARDING HOUSE AS FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE OF A MF TWO, WHAT THAT MEANS.
BUT, SO OUR QUESTION AT HAND IS WHETHER THIS PROPERTY EVER HAD A CO OF A, AS A BOARDING HOUSE AND WHETHER IT'S CONTINUED TO OPERATE AS A BOARDING HOUSE, IT'S NOT A QUESTION ABOUT HOW THEY ARE AS OPERATORS AND WHAT THE STATE OF THE FACILITY IS.
ALTHOUGH ACTUALLY THE APPEAL IS OF THE DENIAL OF THE CO.
THERE'S KIND OF IN, IN ESSENCE A BOOTSTRAPPING ON OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE.
THAT, THAT IS A QUESTION THAT CAN COME BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT THEY HAVE NOT PRESENTED.
[02:15:01]
A QUESTION WE'LL RESERVE TO ONCE THE, UM, CITY OF ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GIVES THEIR CASE, WE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LAYERS HERE.UH, I GUESS TO FOLLOW ON TO MR. NADAL'S QUESTION, MR. KING, UM, IS IT CORRECT AT THE SPRING PROPERTY FOR ROOMS THAT WERE SAY SEVEN BY 11 FEET, THERE WERE BETWEEN RENT OF EIGHT TO $1,100 A MONTH? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AND THIS IS A LOW INCOME AREA TOWN, IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO THAT AREA, YES.
THERE'S NO ONE WHO CAN AFFORD THAT AMOUNT OF RENT.
SO ON TYPICAL, UH, AT ANY OF THE ROOMS THAT WE RENT, IT'S 500 TO 400.
WE WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE HOMELESS.
SO I CAN'T, THAT CHARACTERIZATION IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
SO IT'S INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVED THERE HAD TOLD US THAT, THAT THEY WERE LYING.
NO ONE, I MEAN, WOULD YOU PAY A THOUSAND DOLLARS
OH, DO, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UM, NO.
I THINK HE, HE GOT OUT HIS EXPLANATION AS TO HOW HE'S FILLING OUT THE PERMITS AND WHY HE WAS FILLING OUT THE PERMITS IN A CERTAIN WAY.
AND ALSO I THINK HE RESPONDED VERY DIRECTLY TO ALL QUESTIONS ASKED BY THIS, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I DON'T NEED TO, UH, SPEND MORE TIME ON THAT.
UM, AND SO, WELL, SO YOUR 20 MINUTES IS, UM, IS GONE.
UM, I THINK WE'VE COMPLETED THE 20 MINUTES.
YOU DID, BUT I KNOW YOU HAD A, UM, YOU WERE GONNA ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION FROM ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT A DEFINITION OF A BOARDING HOUSE.
UM, SO THE NON-CONFORMITY, UM, HAPPENS BECAUSE CURRENTLY BOARDING HOUSE AND MF TWO A IS CAPPED AT SIX.
ALSO, IF THERE'S NO RECOGNITION OF NON-CONFORMITY, THERE'S 57 YEARS OF CERTAIN CODE PROVISIONS THAT WE ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVE TO GETTING COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH A STRUCTURE THAT'S 106 YEARS OLD.
UH, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET OUT OF ANYTHING.
WE WANT EVERY, UH, RESIDENT TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT SAFE AND ALL CODES THAT ARE APPLICABLE, HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, UH, TO BE MET.
I CAN'T EVEN, AND, AND I'M TRYING TO WRAP UP AND I WILL WRAP UP.
I CAN'T EVEN DO THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THEY WON'T ISSUE A PERMIT TO ME TO FIX THIS HOUSE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A CO IF THIS BOARD REVERSES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND STATE LAW AND CASE DECISIONS SAY THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU'RE AT THE END TO WRAP UP YOUR CASE.
I, I'M TRYING TO WRAP UP THEN ASKED WE TIME AT THE VERY END TO COME BACK AND DO A REBUTTAL.
SO LET'S HAVE OUR NEXT 20 MINUTES FROM YOU MAY ASK A QUESTION.
UM, SO JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND BECAUSE, UM, THIS, THIS BUILDING IS, UM, WAS BUILT IN 1916, UM, AND IT HAS 19 INDIVIDUAL SPACES, UH, I GUESS A APART APARTMENTS IF YOU WILL.
IT HAS 17 APARTMENTS, SO DO EACH, AND THEN IT HAS A RESIDENCE APARTMENT FOR MS. CRAWFORD.
SO DO EACH OF THOSE APARTMENTS HAVE THEIR OWN KITCHENS AND BATHROOMS? NO, THERE'S ONLY ONE KITCHEN.
THERE'S A BATHROOM UPSTAIRS AND A BATHROOM DOWNSTAIRS.
IT'S REALLY KIND OF LIKE A DORMITORY IF YOU, IF YOU, IF YOU WANT AN APPROXIMATE.
AND HOW LONG HAVE THESE INDIVIDUAL, UH, I GUESS SUITES, UM, OR ROOMS BEEN CONSTRUCTED? LIKE HOW LONG HAVE THERE BEEN 19 SPACES? UH, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY I HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG IT'S BEEN IN THAT SETUP.
PROBABLY, UM, AT LEAST 70 YEARS I WOULD GUESS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
'CAUSE IF YOU GO TO, LIKE EAST DALLAS FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE SOME HISTORIC HOMES THAT ARE, ARE SIX OR EIGHT, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE UNITS IF YOU WILL.
AND IT'S, IT'S BEEN LIKE CONSTRUCTED LIKE THAT FOR, FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW LONG THESE 17 SPACES HAVE HAVE BEEN EXISTING IN THAT, THAT TYPE OF FUNCTION.
I HAVE A, I HAVE A PERMIT FROM 1959 FOR BOARDING HOUSE, WHICH IS WHY I'M THINKING IT'S PROBABLY AROUND 70 YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN IN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION.
PRIOR TO THAT, I, I MEAN, I WOULD BE GUESSING THERE'S A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS A DUPLEX IN 1954.
UH, BUT AT THAT TIME THE ZONING DIDN'T ALLOW BOARDING HOUSE, SO IT WOULD BE TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE FOR IT TO NOT, YOU KNOW, USE BE LISTED AS DUPLEX.
AND I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE INTERIOR CONFIGURATION WAS IN THE FIFTIES.
UM, BUT I'M GUESSING BASED UPON WHAT I'VE SEEN AND WHAT I'VE LOOKED AT IN THERE, THAT IT'S PROBABLY BEEN IN THAT CURRENT CONFIGURATION, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME MINOR CHANGES FOR PROBABLY 70 YEARS.
AND HOW BIG IS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF? DO YOU KNOW?
[02:20:01]
OKAY.I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MM-HMM.
TOTALLY LONG IT'S BEEN LIKE THAT.
I'LL, I'LL WAIT FOR MY REBUTTAL TO WRAP UP.
UM, IF WE CAN HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY COME UP AND PRESENT HER CASE FOR 20 MINUTES.
SO GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, HONORABLE VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M EMILY WORLAND, AS I SAID, REPRESENTING THE, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS HERE, WHICH IS JASON POOLE AND, UH, TANISHA LESTER.
UM, AND HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S DECISION.
THE BOARD IS TASKED WITH DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN APPLYING THE CITY'S CODE TO THE APPLICATION WHEN IT MADE ITS DETERMINATION.
UM, THAT SPECIFICALLY COMES FROM THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT AN APPEAL THAT ALLEGES AN ERROR IN THE DECISION HERE.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION WAS NON-DISCRETIONARY.
IT WAS A VERY EASY BLACK AND WHITE YES OR NO.
THERE'S NO ROOM FOR, MAYBE THERE'S NO ROOM FOR GRAY.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MUST, CAN YOU ON JUST ONE SECOND? YES, CERTAINLY.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A NOTE THAT THE OPPOSING COUNSEL HAS WALKED OUT OF THE ROOM.
ARE WE OKAY TO PROCEED? SINCE HE HAS LEFT THE ROOM? MR. DARLING IS HERE IN HIS SEAT, I IMAGINE.
I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.
UM, SO HERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MUST ADHERE TO THE CODE IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE THAT SAYS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT ONE.
THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REQUESTED DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CODE.
MS. CRAWFORD'S JANUARY 4TH, 2023 APPLICATION PROPOSED AN 18 ROOM BOARDING HOME, LODGING HOME.
UM, THIS IS IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 95, SPECIFICALLY THE MULTIFAMILY TWO A SUBDISTRICT, WHICH REFERENCES THEN OUR CITY CODE IN 51 A FOR MULTIFAMILY MF TWO A, WHICH ONLY ALLOWS FOR LESS, MORE THAN ONE, BUT LESS THAN SIX, UH, ROOMS. SO 18 ROOMS ON ITS FACE IS A VIOLATION OF THAT CODE.
AND THUS IT WAS CORRECTLY APPLIED.
THE CODE TO THE APPLICATION WOULD VIOLATE, UH, OUR CODES.
AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD NO DISCRETION BUT TO DENY IT'S A SHELL, NOT A MAY.
UM, HOWEVER, AS YOU ALL KNOW, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS VERY CUSTOMER FRIENDLY AND CUSTOMER ORIENTED.
SO THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT BY, BY BUILDING SERVICES, UH, TO GO BEHIND THE APPLICATION AS MS. CRAWFORD HAD CONTENDED THAT THERE, THERE WAS A NON-CONFORMING.
THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THERE WERE MANY ATTEMPTS OVER TIME TO TRY TO MAKE A LODGING OR BOARDING HOUSE, BUT THEY WERE ALWAYS STYMIED BY VIOLATIONS OF MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS.
SO SOMEONE WOULD APPLY FOR IN, IN THE 19, IN THE 1960S, WE HAD MARIAN MITCHELL APPLYING FOR, UM, FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT WAS TOLD YOU CAN'T HAVE IT UNTIL YOU COMPLY WITH THESE MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS.
WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT A CO BEING ISSUED.
THE SAME INDIVIDUAL COMES IN 19 IN THE 1970S AND DOES THE SAME THING.
YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT FIRST YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS.
THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THAT EVER OCCURRED.
HE DID IT BOTH IN, UH, I BELIEVE FEBRUARY AND THEN DECEMBER OF THAT YEAR.
FAST FORWARD TO THE NINETIES, UH, AND THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS WHEN MS. CRAWFORD'S FATHER MAXWELL BRYANT WAS LIVING THERE.
AND THERE IS REALLY GOOD INDICATION TO SAY THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS SOMEHOW TO BE THIS, YOU KNOW, MAGIC MISSING THREE MINUTES OF THE WATERGATE TAPES AND THERE IS THE CO SOMEWHERE, UM, THE USE WAS LOST BECAUSE IT WAS USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE PERMIT IN THE CITY'S RECORDS AND MS. CRAWFORD WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW EITHER HOW WE WENT FROM A DUPLEX TO A TRIPLEX, WHICH WE SEE IN THE 1950S IN A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE TO NOW BEING 18 ROOMS. NOT A PERMIT EXISTS ON FILE FOR ANY OF THAT CHOPPING UP OF THE HOUSE WHATSOEVER.
SO BECAUSE THEY WENT INTO THOSE RECORDS AND COULD NOT FIND THAT NON-CONFORMANCE, THE SECOND STEP WAS, OKAY, THERE'S LOTS OF LEGAL ROUTES FOR YOU TO GO FORWARD.
WHAT ELSE CAN WE FIND A USE FOR YOU THAT ALLOWS YOU, MS. CRAWFORD TO LIVE IN THE HOME AND TO HAVE A SOURCE OF INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY? AND SO THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS MADE ABOUT A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.
SHE COULD GO BACK TO A DUPLEX.
THERE'S A MYRIAD OF THINGS, INCLUDING AS MR. MLO SAID, A DO A, A DORMITORY.
SO, UH, AS OF LAST THURSDAY, MS. CRAWFORD HAS TAKEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL UP ON THAT SUGGESTION AND HAS APPLIED FOR RESIDENTIAL, UH, HOTEL OCCUPANCY, UM, RECORD AT, AT THE PROPERTY, WHICH BUILDING OFFICIALS WILL WORK WITH HER ON THAT.
UM, I HAVE MS. TANISHA LESTER AS, UM, A WITNESS HERE TO JUST BRIEFLY DISCUSS AND KIND OF WALK THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE PERMITTING DOCUMENTS.
[02:25:01]
UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY IT AGAIN.UH, IS THAT OKAY IF SHE'S FROM THERE? MM-HMM.
CAN YOU STAND AT THE MICROPHONE? I, I CERTAINLY CAN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
TANISHA LESTER, THREE 20 EAST JEFFERSON, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 3, UH, OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER.
AND OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE KNOWN TO THIS BOARD, BUT WILL YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE AS CHIEF PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? AGAIN, I'M TANISHA LESTER, THE CHIEF PLANNER OF ZONING IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF DALLAS.
WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, MAKING, UH, ZONING DETERMINATIONS, LAND USE INTERPRETATIONS, I MANAGE THE COMMERCIAL ZONING TEAM AND I AM THE DETERMINING FACTOR OF ALL LAND USES WITHIN THE ENTIRE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND WILL YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE, UM, JUST GENERALLY WHAT'S THE PROCESS AN APPLICATION WOULD GO THROUGH FROM KIND OF COMING INTO INTAKE TO GETTING TO YOUR GROUP AND ZONING THE, UH, APPLICATION INTAKE PROCESS? CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCIES FOR NEW USES AND SAM UCOS COME THROUGH OUR ZONING CONSULTATION TEAM.
ONCE WE TAKE THAT APPLICATION IN, IT IS ROUTED IF IT'S A CHANGE OF USE, IF IT'S A SAME USE, IT'S PROCESSED OVER THE COUNTER.
SO WITH THIS APPLICATION, IT WAS ROUTED FOR A LODGING HOUSE, WHICH IS A NEW USE 'CAUSE THERE'S NEVER BEEN A LODGING HOUSE.
YOU AT THE LOCATION, IT'S ROUTED TO BUILDING CODE AND ZONING.
SO ZONING IS THE FIRST, UH, DEPARTMENT THAT GETS THE, THE APPLICATION AND THEN IT'S ROUTED TO BUILDING CODE.
ONCE ZONING HAS APPROVED IT, IT'S, IT'S ROUTED ON A BUILDING CODE, BUT IT, IN, IN THIS CASE, IT WAS STOPPED IN ZONING BECAUSE THIS PROCESS COULD NOT GO ANY FURTHER BECAUSE THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A LARGER HOUSE AND IT DOES NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A LARGER HOUSE PER CHAPTER 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO FIRST, UM, JUST TO KIND OF DIVE INTO THIS ZONING ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE AT YOUR LEVEL AND NOW AT, AT THE, UH, THE FIRST LAYER OF THIS WAS NOT YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IT WAS ANN HAMILTON, ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES.
SO, UH, IS AN 18 ROOM LODGING HOUSE USED AS MS. CRAWFORD PROPOSED ALLOWED WITHIN THIS ZONING? NO.
WHY NOT? BECAUSE A LODGING HOUSE HAS TO HAVE SIX OR FEW LESS THAN SIX ROOMS, ONE TO FIVE ROOMS, ANYTHING OVER FIVE ROOMS IS TOO MANY.
FOUR LODGING HOUSE A CHAPTER 51 A AND, UM, ON MS. CRAWFORD'S APPLICATION, WHICH IS IN MY BINDER AT TAB TWO AND OBVIOUSLY PART OF THEIR DOCUMENTS AS WELL, MS. CRAWFORD, UM, INDICATED THAT SHE WANTED AN OWNER NAME CHANGE FOR A CO.
WOULD AN OWNER NAME CHANGE CO BE POSSIBLE AT, UH, THE DESK AT INTAKE DESK? I SHOULD CLARIFY, AN OWNER NAME CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SO NO, THAT WOULD NOT BE, UM, PERMISSIBLE AT THE DESK.
CAN ANYONE, IS THERE ANY SCENARIO WHEREBY AT THE DESK I COULD GET A NAME CHANGE CO, YOU CAN GET A D B A NAME CHANGE.
SO IF YOU'RE THE SAME OWNER OF THEIR BUSINESS AND YOU DECIDED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF YOUR BUSINESS, BUT IT'S THE EXACT SAME BUSINESS, YES YOU CAN APPLY FOR A D B A NAME CHANGE, WHICH IS A $30 RECORD FEE.
UM, DO YOU KNOW IF AT INTAKE, WERE THEY ABLE TO FIND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY? NO.
UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AS, AS YOU'VE HEARD OF NON-CONFORMING USES.
DID YOU ALL TRY TO SEE IF A NON-CONFORMING USE HAD EXISTED AT THE PROPERTY? SO WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO ME BY MS. HAMILTON, SHE STATED THAT THE, UM, OWNER STATED THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A, UM, A LODGING HOUSE.
AND SO SHE DID THE RESEARCH, SHE COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING.
SO I WENT AND SPENT HOURS DOING RESEARCH JUST TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE WITH THE INFORMATION THAT SHE WAS GIVEN, SAYING THAT IT WAS BACK TO THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE HAD CROSSED ALL AVENUES TO, TO ASSURE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THERE SINCE MS. HAMILTON COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING.
SO NO, WE COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, ON THE NON-CONFORMING USES AS YOU UNDERSTAND THEM.
UM, WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE TO MAINTAIN A NON-CONFORMING USE? SO A NON-CONFORMING USE WOULD NOT HAVE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO OPERATE AND CANNOT CEASE OPERATION FOR A TOTAL OF SIX MONTHS.
ANYTIME THAT YOU'VE GONE OVER SIX MONTHS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO EITHER GO TO THE BOARD TO REINSTATE THOSE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS OR CEASE OPERATION OF THAT NON-CONFORMING USE.
IS THERE ANY WAY ELSE TO LOSE A NON-CONFORMING RIGHT, BUT BESIDES CESSATION OF OPERATION? SAY THAT AGAIN.
IS THERE ANOTHER WAY THAT YOU COULD LOSE YOUR NON-CONFORMING? RIGHT.
AS A, EVEN IF YOU WERE CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING IT, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY
[02:30:01]
TO LOSE YOUR NON-CONFORMING? RIGHT.AS YOU UNDERSTAND BY AMORTIZATION AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
DO YOU, IS IT POSSIBLE TO LOSE YOUR NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS IF YOU MODIFY THE STRUCTURE? IF YOU, YOU CANNOT OR MODIFY THE USE? YES.
IF YOU ENLARGE OR EXPAND, YOU MAY LOSE YOUR NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
SO LET'S JUST WALK BRIEFLY, UM, THROUGH TAB SEVEN, WHICH IS THE ARCHIVAL RESEARCH THAT YOU DID.
UH, AND LET'S JUST KIND OF LOOK THROUGH THAT.
SO I BELIEVE THE FIRST DOCUMENT, AGAIN, THIS IS AT TAB SEVEN, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A, A PAGE NUMBER PROBLEM.
UM, THAT FIRST DOCUMENT IN THE 1950S, UM, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT THOUGH IN THOSE FIRST TWO PAGES? PAGE 59.
IN OUR BINDER, OH, THIS IS THE BOARD CASE.
AND ACTUALLY I FOUND THIS INFORMATION, THE BOARD CASE IN WHICH THEY WERE TRYING TO, UM, BUILD A STRUCTURE, GET A VARIANCE TO A, A, UM, TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW FOR THE, UH, ADDITION OF A THIRD DWELLING UNIT.
AND THIS WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
WHY WAS IT DENIED? BECAUSE, UM, WHAT WAS, IT WAS DENIED BASED ON, OH, BECAUSE THE, THE LOT SIZE WAS NOT, UM, ADEQUATE TO, TO, UM, UPHOLD A THIRD DWELLING UNIT.
AND THEN THE NEXT RECORDS THAT WE HAVE, UM, THE NEXT TIME RELATED TO 1960S, WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE 1960S, ACCORDING TO THESE RECORDS IN 1967, YES, THEY CAME IN TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A ROOM HOUSE.
AND IT WAS DENIED BASED ON A LETTER BEING ISSUED ON JANUARY 17TH FOR THE, UH, MINIMUM HOUSING, UH, PROPERTY, PROPERTY HOUSING STANDARDS.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS IN ORDER TO BE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THAT USE.
AND THEY CAME IN TO GET PERMITS FOR THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? TO MAKE, TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES? THEY CAME IN TO GET PERMITS, BUT THE PERMITS, AGAIN, WERE DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT, BECAUSE, I MEAN, THEY DID NOT, THEY CAME IN TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THAT WAS DENIED.
BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY CAME IN TO GET A PERMIT.
NO, I, I DIDN'T, UH, THE PAGE, THE DOCUMENTS THAT, UM, MS. CRAWFORD ADDED TO HER, UM, APPLICATION ARE LIKE ABOUT THE FIRST TWO AFTER THAT LETTER.
YOU REFERENCED THE LETTER, WHICH IS AT R PAGE 63 AND 64, BUT THEN THE NEXT PAGES ARE PERMIT CARDS.
SO THERE'S THERE, IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE'S SOME RECORD OF ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THOSE MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS? UH, THIS PERMIT CARD? I MEAN THIS PERMIT CARD ON 2 6 67? YES.
AND THEN WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE PROPERTY IN THE 1970S? THEY CAME IN TO GET ANOTHER CO FOR THE SAME USE.
AND AGAIN, IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT WAS DATED IN ANOTHER LETTER ISSUED IN, UM, I THINK IT HOLD ON MARCH.
IT WAS DENIED, AGAIN, BASED ON THEM NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS.
CAN, CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? YES.
UM, MR. OWS INDICATED THAT, UM, THEY COULD NOT GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT GET A PERMIT TO COMPLETE THEIR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
WOULD THAT BE THE CASE BACK IN THE SIXTIES WHERE THEY'RE BEING DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? THEY, THEY COULD NOT GET A PERMIT TO MAKE THE CORRECT CHANGES.
SO IS IS THAT, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS IN THE CITY? IF YOU DON'T GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU CAN'T FIX ANYTHING 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MS. LESTER CAN PROBABLY SPEAK BETTER TO IT.
IT'S LIKE A, IT'S AN UMBRELLA PROJECT.
SO YOUR ACTUAL APPLICATION IS THE CO AND IT'S ALL THE PERMITS THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO BE COMPLIANT TO THEN ACHIEVE THAT CO.
SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT MR. MITCHELL WAS DOING IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES.
HE WAS GETTING PERMIT WHAT MR. MLO? RIGHT.
WHAT MR. MLO IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO IS THE JUDGE'S ORDER.
UM, IN OUR DISTRICT COURT CASE THAT TOLD HIM THAT WITHIN LIKE 72 HOURS OVER THE COURSE OF THE LABOR DAY WEEKEND, MS. CRAWFORD NEEDED TO MAKE ALL OF THE ROOMS IN THE HOUSE HAVE A SECONDARY EGRESS, MEANING THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS COULD PUSH OUT AND INDIVIDUALS 'CAUSE EXIT IMMEDIATELY TO THE STREET DUE TO SAFETY HAZARDS, WHICH THE FIRE INSPECTOR WILL TALK ABOUT.
THEY, SO ALL THAT REQUIRED IS, YOU KNOW, UNSCREWING THEM MAKING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ACS PUSHABLE INSTEAD, WHAT THEY WENT TO DO IS GO TO PULL PERMITS TO PUT AIR CONDITIONINGS INTO THE WALLS, BUT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE PERMITS FOR THE WALLS.
SO THAT, THAT WAS THE HOLD UP.
SO THERE'S JUST LIKE A LITTLE BIT, WE'RE KIND OF CROSSING PATHS JUST A LITTLE BIT IN THAT, THAT, THAT NARRATIVE.
AND CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION? SO LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING WAS UP TO CODE AND EVERYTHING WAS GREAT.
IF THEY WERE JUST SIX ROOMS, WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN, OR JUST FIVE ROOMS, WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF THEY HADN'T BEEN 18 ROOMS? IF EVERYTHING WAS UP TO CODE MS. LESTER, DO YOU KNOW IF THEY MET ALL OTHER APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS? OKAY.
NOT JUST YOUR SIX ROOMS PARKING, UM,
[02:35:01]
WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU COMPLY WITH ALL THE ZONING REGULATIONS.MY QUESTION IS, UM, THE, UM, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE MADE, UM, A COMMENT ABOUT, UM, IN 19 64, 65, THIS WAS MF TWO UNDER CHAPTER 51 DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THAT BOARDING HOUSES WERE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT.
IS, WAS THERE EVER THAT CASE WHERE THIS PROPERTY, THAT THAT USE WAS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT BEFORE THE CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE, IN THE MID SIXTIES WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT THEY WERE NEVER ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
TODAY, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO, TO HAVE THE USE, BUT THAT USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
TODAY, BUT IT HAS TO BE UNDER SIX.
MAY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? I GUESS, WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN A 17 ROOM BOARDING HOUSE WAS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHERE.
I MEAN, IF IT WAS, I I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO DIS I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY TO DISPUTE WHAT MR. BELO SAID THAT THERE WASN'T A CAP ON ROOMS. SO I, AND WE, WE CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
OBVIOUSLY R 51 A NOW DOES HAVE THAT CAP.
SO THIS IS KIND OF GOING DOWN A RABBIT HOLE.
BUT WITH THE, THESE BOARDING HOUSES, IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT SOME POINT, BOARDING HOUSES WERE PRETTY PROLIFIC IN DALLAS AND THAT THERE WAS A STOP PUT ONBOARDING HOUSES, WHICH IS WHY IN OUR CODE IT SAYS THAT IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AREAS, YOU HAVE TO, YOU CAN ONLY RENT A HOUSE FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE.
THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE LIKE SHORT TERM KIND OF RENTALS.
THAT, AND THE BOARDING HOUSES WERE ESSENTIALLY OUTLAWED.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE KIND OF COME BACK OR WAS THAT A MISUNDERSTANDING OF ME READING? SO THERE'S THERE TWO BOARDING TYPES HAVE, WE HAVE TWO TYPES OF BOARDING HOMES.
SO THE ONE THAT OPERATES UNDER CHAPTER 51 8, IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UM, OPERATES UNDER OUR PURVIEW.
WE HAVE A, UH, CHAPTER EIGHT A, WHICH IS BOARDING HOMES, UM, REGULATIONS FOR ANO OUTSIDE CODE ENFORCEMENT.
AND THEY OPERATE THAT PROGRAM.
SO IF THEY WERE A BOARDING HOUSE, THEY WOULD OPERATE UNDER THAT PURVIEW.
IF THEY DON'T OPERATE UNDER OUR PURVIEW, WHICH, WHICH IS, UM, HAVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OUT OF CHAPTER 51 A AND YOU HAVE TO REGISTER WITH THE, WITH, UM, CODE IN THOSE BOARDING HOMES.
SO, AND THEY DO YEARLY INSPECTIONS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER EITHER ONE OF THOSE.
AND SO, I MEAN, A BOARDING HOUSE, THERE WASN'T A PERIOD OF TIME IN DALLAS WHERE BOARDING HOUSES WERE OUTLAWED.
THERE WAS, THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED.
BUT YEAH, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT POINT, THAT, THAT MS. LESTER'S MAKING THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN, LIKE, IT, IT'S ALMOST SEMANTICS BECAUSE IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN USED LODGING BOARDING, ROOMING HOUSE.
THAT'S KINDA MORE OF THE AVENUE WHERE IN HERE, WHERE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER THERE IS LIKE A BOARDING HOUSE WHERE THAT HAS TO REGISTER AND THERE'S LOTS OF REGULATIONS TO AVOID EXPLOITATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE PERHAPS COMING OFF OF OUTTA REHAB, OUT OF, YOU KNOW, AH, YES.
SO WE'RE PROTECTING THEM IN THAT SPACE.
SO WE ARE TALKING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AVENUE, BUT AS MR. PAYNE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS OF LAST RESORT WHO, WHO, YOU KNOW, PERMIT, UH, WE, WE HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS.
SO COULD THE APPLICANT HAVE GONE THE OTHER ROUTE WITH THE OTHER AVENUE, UH, WITH LICENSING, WITH, WITH CODE, OR CERTAINLY ASSUMING THEN THAT MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS WERE MET ON 51 A, CORRECT? YES.
AND SORRY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL IS? I'VE NOT EVER HEARD THAT TERM BEFORE.
SO THE DEFINITION, AND THIS COMES FROM 51 A DASH 4.209 B 5.1, A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES MORE THAN 50% OF ITS RENTAL INCOME FROM OCCUPANCIES OF 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE, AND CONTAINS SIX OR MORE GUEST ROOMS WITH LIVING AND SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS.
AND IT KIND OF GOES ON IN THERE.
BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE NEGOTIATING RENTS AT LESS THAN 30, UM, LESS THAN 30 DAYS AT A TIME.
AND THOSE, AND THOSE ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AND MULTIFAMILY AREAS IN THE MF TWO A.
PRESUMING IT THEN CAN PASS BUILDING, INSPECTION, EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND SO YOU MENTIONED THAT MS. CRAWFORD HAS APPLIED FOR MS. CRAWFORD HAS APPLIED FOR THAT AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO BRING US LIKE, I MEAN, IF SHE'S GONNA GO THAT ROUTE, DO WE NEED, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WELL, I, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT I AGREE TOO.
LIKE WE'VE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO COME TO A LEGAL ROUTE YEP.
THAT ALLOWS THEM TO OPERATE LEGALLY, GET THAT CO HAVE ALL OF THE BACKSTOPS THAT ENSURE IT IS A SAFE AND HEALTHY PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE, I BELIEVE.
AND I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH OR SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THEY WANT THAT NON-CONFORMING.
BECAUSE YOU GET THE 18 ROOMS WITHOUT,
[02:40:01]
YOU KNOW, SOME FOLLOW UP.NOT WHOLE, NOT WHOLE GRANDFATHERING, BUT THEY'LL, THERE WILL BE LESS, BUT YEAH.
BUT THERE'S NO PROOF THAT IT WAS EVER 18 ROOMS. AND SO REALLY ASKING FOR THAT NON-CONFORMING RIGHT.
WITHOUT PROOF OF IT BEING 18 ROOMS IS KINDA HARD TO GRANT MY I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU, YES.
DERAILED YOU, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE, WHEN YOU ASK WHY ARE WE HERE, I THINK IT'S APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS.
WHAT ISSUES, IT'S THEIR BURDEN.
IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO HEAR THE CASE AND THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO HAVE OTHER AVENUES IN THE CASE IN THE EVENT THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT GRANT THEIR RELIEF.
UM, I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE A POINT THAT THIS ISN ISN'T FORECLOSED MS. CRAWFORD, SHE DOES HAVE OTHER MEANS TO, YOU KNOW, LIVE IN THE HOME AND, AND HAVE A STREAM OF INCOME.
THAT WAS HELPFUL, RIGHT? MR.
MS. ORLAND, IS THAT RIGHT? ORLAND? YES.
UM, FORGIVE ME FOR MAKING YOU REPEAT YOURSELF, BUT WHEN YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE DEFINITION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, UH, I BELIEVE YOU SAID 30 DAYS OR MORE? UM, YEAH.
SO A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES MORE THAN 50% OF ITS RENTAL INCOME FROM OCCUPANCIES OF 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE.
AND, AND SORRY, DO WE KNOW HOW OFTEN THE RESIDENTS HERE RESIGNED FOR IN TERMS OF PERIODS OF TIME? UM, MS. CRAWFORD AND, AND MR. PAYNE WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT MORE DIRECTLY, BUT I DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF MR. PAYNE HAVING EVICTED SOMEBODY IN 2017 WHEREBY HE SAYS, UM, IT WAS WEEKLY NEGOTIATIONS.
SO I GUESS WE'LL THEN LOSS OF THE APPLICANT, CORRECT.
AS SOON AS YOU'RE DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, AND, AND THEN JUST TO JUMP FORWARD A LITTLE BIT, MS. LESTER.
MORELAND, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THE PREVIOUS 10 MINUTES OR SO OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE FROM THE BOARD DIDN'T GO AGAINST YOUR TIME.
YOU HAVE ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES LEFT AND THE NEAR 20 MINUTES WILL BE COMPLETE.
UM, JUST TO REALLY QUICK, UH, MS. LESTER, WHAT DO WE SHOW IN THE PERMITTING RECORDS FROM THE NINETIES AND THE TWO THOUSANDS? OKAY, SO IN 1999, MAXELL BRYANTS APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR A GAS METER TEST AND A RELEASE.
AND, UM, THAT WAS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELL.
AND THEN WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE DUPLEX AND THE BOARDING HOME PIECE, CORRECT? YES.
WERE THEY GRANTED THAT METER FOR A SINGLE FAMILY? IT SEEMS AS SUCH.
DID THEY EVER, EVER PUT IT IN PLACE? THE HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY GAS AND IT'S NOW ELECTRIC, SO WE'RE UNCERTAIN IF THAT WAS, WHEN THAT WAS DONE OR IF THAT WAS A, AN ADDITIONAL METER.
UM, BUT IF THEY HAD AN ADDITIONAL METER WHEN THEY HAVE HAD TO GO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT'S, IT'S TWICE ADDRESSED.
IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS NOT DISPUTING AT ALL THAT, THAT THIS HAS OPERATED AS, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE PURVIEW OF WHAT IT NEEDED TO BE.
IT'S JUST NEVER, WE, IT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT LEGALITY COMPONENT TO IT.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING, I MEAN, LEGALLY A DUPLEX AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THESE OTHER OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF THAT 1990S TO EARLY TWO THOUSANDS PEOPLE, FAMILY.
SO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTED A PIECE OF PAPER DURING FACT FINDING THAT THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT WAS FROM 1967.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AS TO WHY THEY HAD A DOCUMENT THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS DIDN'T, AND IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE'S OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT MAYBE THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE, UM, THAT REFERENCES MAYBE PRIOR PRIOR CO OR SOME SORT OF OCCUPANCY OF A, UM, BOARDING HOME? RIGHT.
I THINK THE DOCUMENT THAT HE HAS CIRCULATED TO YOU, I UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT GET TO SEE IT.
WHY DON'T WE PASS IT TO, IT IS IN OUR FILES, WE BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THIS DOCUMENT IS IN OUR FILE.
SEVEN, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT HAVING THE RIGHT PAGES IN.
YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY, AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THAT NUMBERING PROBLEM, BUT, UM,
WE HAVE THAT DOCUMENT FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS.
IT'S PAGE 1 55 OF OUR, OUR, OUR DOC, OUR PACKET MATERIALS.
BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, YES, IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE MISSING.
RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU SAW, THERE'S CURSIVE HANDWRITING ON THINGS.
UM, IT USED TO BE THAT YOU COULD COME INTO THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, AND FIND FILES AND STUFF AND, AND SO IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING? PROBABLY SO, BUT YOU KNOW, MS. CRAWFORD DOESN'T HAVE ONE.
WE'VE ASKED AND ASKED, WHERE'S SOME OTHER STUFF? WHERE ARE THE LEDGER BOOKS? WHERE'S SOMETHING TO SAY THAT
[02:45:01]
THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS, AND THE FACT TOO THAT YOU HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, MARIAN MITCHELL COMING INTO THE SIXTIES AND THE SEVENTIES APPLYING FOR THE SAME THING AND STILL BEING TOLD NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT 'CAUSE A MEN IN PROPERTY STANDARDS AND THAT IT JUST FALLS OFF FOR 20 PLUS YEARS.I MEAN, I THINK THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THERE WAS LEGAL, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES WHEN THEY WENT IN TO APPLY FOR A CO AND NOTHING HAPPENED, WHY IS IT JUST NOW 50 YEARS LATER THAT WE ARE, ARE HERE WITH A BUILDING OFFICIAL AND NOW WE'RE REVOKING FINAL CO OR WE'RE DENYING FINAL CO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS THAT THEY'VE APPLIED AND COME AND HAVE BEEN OPERATING AND WE, AND, AND THIS IS OPERATED WITH NO ISSUE AND THEN NOW, NOW WE'RE HERE.
UM, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY HAD 40 OR 50 YEARS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THAT, HEY, THIS IS OPERATING AS A BOARDING HOUSE.
WHAT IS A MISSTEP HERE? I MEAN, I THINK UNFORTUNATELY IT'S A SYSTEMIC ISSUE OF THE PART OF TOWN WE'RE IN AND, YOU KNOW, THE BEING OVERCAST, IT'S ONLY BEEN ABOUT 20 YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD A COMMUNITY PROSECUTION SECTION THAT IS DOING THESE TYPES OF THINGS, THAT WE'VE HAD A MUCH MORE ROBUST 3 1 1 SERVICE TO DO THESE THINGS.
I MEAN, YEAH, WE SHOULD HAVE, WE SHOULD HAVE CUT THIS OFF AT THE KNEE A LONG TIME AGO.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, AS MANY THINGS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS UNFORTUNATELY OCCUR, IT, IT FELL UNDER THE RADAR.
THE REASON THAT THEY, THEY APPLIED IN 2023, UM, IS BECAUSE WE STARTED INSPECTING THEM IN IN 2020.
UM, BUT THE REASON MR. PAYNE APPLIED FOR THAT CO IN 2018 IS BECAUSE HE HAD APPLIED FOR A PERMIT AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CAME OUT AND SAID, YOU'RE EXCEEDING THIS PERMIT AND YOU ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE LIVING HERE.
SO THAT'S WHY HE COMES IN AND SAYS, BUT IF WE, WE KNOW IT'S NO LONGER A DUPLEX, IT'S A BOARDING HOME, BUT IF WE CAME IN 2020 AND INSPECTED IT, BUT HERE IT'S ALMOST 2024, BUT THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEARS.
UM, AFTER THE INSPECTION, UH, I IT MIGHT BESPOKE THE INSPECTION WAS IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
UM, I GUESS, I GUESS MY QUESTION, I MEAN, AND I DON'T HEAR ANY, ANY ISSUES ABOUT THEM AS, AS LANDLORDS OR ANY ISSUES AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF, OF THEIR TENANTS AND, AND BEING, UH, AN ISSUE TO, TO THE COMMUNITY.
I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN WE WOULD, THEY WOULD CITY WOULD'VE SHUT THEM DOWN YEARS AGO OR DECADES AGO.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT FROM THEIR, THEIR ACCOUNTS.
THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING SINCE THE FIFTIES OR SIXTIES OF THIS USE AND NOW, NOW WE'RE HERE.
YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK IT TO, I, I DON'T WANNA USE THE TERM VICTIM BLAME, BUT YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE IN THE SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE RELEGATED TO RENTING A ROOM THAT IS LITERALLY LIKE SIX BY 11 FEET AND HAS NO INDIVIDUAL BATHROOM OR INDIVIDUAL KITCHEN.
YOU KNOW, YOU ALL, ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON IN ONE'S LIFE THAT THAT IS THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU'RE IN.
AND SO MAYBE THEY WEREN'T DOING OUTCRY.
UM, WE DID JUST LAST WEEK RECEIVE A RE RETALIATION CLAIM, UM, AND MR. MR. PAYNE WAS REALLY HELPFUL WITH US AND WE TALKED THROUGH IT, THAT WITH HIM AT A PROPERTY, HE HAS A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS ONE.
WE DO HAVE THE LAWSUIT AGAINST MR. PAYNE IN THE EXACT SAME TYPE OF SCENARIO, UM, FROM SPRING.
SO IT, THIS IS A, A REPEAT, YOU KNOW, BEHAVIOR.
AND I, I GUESS ONE THING I MAY INFER TO FROM MS. CRAWFORD, I MEAN, SHE RESIDES ON THE PROPERTY, SO I, I FOR ONE, WOULD NOT RESIDE ON A PROPERTY IF IT WAS INHABITABLE.
UM, I, I KNOW THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR PURVIEW, BUT I I THINK ALL OF THESE ARE FACTORS HERE.
AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY REALLY CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN OPERATING AS SUCH FOR MS. CRAWFORD'S TESTIMONY FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, AND NOW WE'RE JUST GETTING INVOLVED.
AND I WISH I HAD A BETTER ANSWER FOR YOU.
ARE YOU ABLE TO BOTTOM LINE, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, MR. NOT I, OKAY.
ARE YOU ABLE TO BOTTOM LINE EXACTLY, UM, WHAT THE IMPACTS WILL BE IF THIS, LIKE, IF APPELLANT DOES NOT WIN THIS APPEAL TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE LIVING IN THAT STRUCTURE NOW? UM, YES.
SO WE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALWAYS LEARNING.
WE'RE ALWAYS WORKING TO IMPROVE.
AND, AND NOW COMMUNITY PROSECUTION, WE HAVE SOMEONE ON OUR STAFF, UM, THE COUNCIL GAVE US IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR BUDGETING, UM, WHO WAS A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST.
AND HER JOB IS TO FIND NEW LOCATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS.
IN FACT, I BELIEVE ON THE SPRING PROPERTIES, AND I, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK, BUT I, I BELIEVE SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO LIVE AT THE SPRING PROPERTIES OF MR. PAYNE WERE THEN PUT INTO, UH, UH, WE HELPED THEM GET INTO NEW HOUSING.
SO I, I CAN'T TELL YOU THE COST OF THAT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, WE WILL PUT OUR BEST EFFORT FORWARD TO FIND ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR THESE PEOPLE THAT IS SAFE AND DIG.
AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ANOTHER AVENUE OUT THERE THAT THEY'RE SEEKING, UM, IN ORDER TO, UM, LAWFULLY, UM, AND NOT BE A NON-CONFORMING USE ANY LONGER OPERATE WHERE THERE'S REVENUE COMING IN, STILL SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY AND OFFER HOUSING.
UM, WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM GETTING GRANTING THAT AND WHAT DOES THAT TIMEFRAME LOOK LIKE?
[02:50:01]
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I, DEPENDING ON WHERE MY TIME SITS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HEAR FROM MY FIRE INSPECTOR, UM, THERE, I MEAN, GOING BACK TO THE 1950S, IT HAS BEEN IN BAD SHAPE.I MEAN, THE 1950S BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THEY SAY IT'S ROTTING AND DETERIORATING.
IN THE SIXTIES, WE HAD ISSUES WITH MINIMUM HOUSING CENTERS IN THE SEVENTIES, WE HAD ISSUES WITH MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS.
AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY HAS SUED TODAY IS BECAUSE, UM, IT, IT'S STRUCTURAL.
WE DON'T KNOW THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF IT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPER FIRE, UM, SAFETY PRECAUTIONS.
THERE ARE AN, YOU KNOW, UNPERMITTED WALLS, UN UNKNOWN BUILDING MATERIALS.
UM, SO THERE, THERE, IT'S NOT A 100% FORECLOSURE.
UM, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME INVESTMENT THAT MS. CRAWFORD AND MR. PAYNE WILL NEED TO DO IN THE PROPERTY.
AND, AND MR. PAYNE OWNS QUITE A FEW PROPERTIES, UM, WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT AN END.
SO HOW, WHAT'S THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE FOR THEM IF THEY WERE TO, TO, UM, SEEK THAT AVENUE AND HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE? SO THEY'VE ALREADY APPLIED FOR THEIR CO APPLICATION.
THEY'LL NEED TO GET THE, PER THE REQUISITE PERMITTING THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT.
AS MS. LESTER SAID, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING, UM, SHE'LL HAVE TO GO TO A BUILDING INSPECTION TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF FIRE SAFETY MECHANISMS WILL BE NEEDED.
WHAT DO
SO I WANNA BE CLEAR ON THAT BEFORE WE LEAVE OUTTA HERE, BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DOING AN INJUSTICE IF THEY COME IN AND IT'S ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOTEL WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THIS LOCATION, IT WOULD NOT NO LONGER BE ALLOWED BY.
SO WE NEED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
YEAH, THEY JUST APPLIED LAST THURSDAY, SO THEY'RE STILL WITHIN LIKE A 14 DAY REVIEW WINDOW FOR IT TO GO TO ZONING.
SO THAT WE HAVEN'T CHECKED OR, OR HAVEN'T HAD A, A MOMENT TO CHECK THE SPACING.
I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST THINKING IF THERE WAS, UM, IF THE BOARD WAS TO GRANT A TEMPORARY CO, UM, AND WHILE THEY WORK THROUGH IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 60 DAY OR SOMETHING HERE WHERE THEY CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS BOARDING HOUSE WHILE THEY WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE BOARD CAN'T GRANT A TEMPORARY SEAL.
SO IT'S, WE EITHER GRANT, UH, WE EITHER GRANT RELIEF OR WE, OR DENY.
THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN, NO, YOU CAN'T GRANT A TEMPORARY SEAL.
GO AHEAD AND ALSO WANNA STATE THAT THIS WAS A DUPLEX USE, SO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WOULD'VE NEVER BEEN REQUIRED.
SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD NOT KNOW THAT THEY WERE OPERATING A BOARDING HOME OUT THERE FOR THE LAST 20, 30 OR 40 YEARS.
MS. LESTER UNDERWOOD, I WOULD LIKE KIND OF YOUR OPINION ON THE, UM, DOCUMENT THAT MR. NICHOLAS, UH, SUBMITTED THE OKAY, UH, APPROVAL OR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPROVAL.
UM, HERE, UH, I'M NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS, IS, THAT'S NOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPROVAL.
THAT'S JUST LIKE AN INSPECTION CARD BASICALLY GAVE YOU A PRE A PREDATE AND A, A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION DATE.
THOSE, WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THOSE DATES ARE.
AND SO THEY WOULD'VE GONE BACK OUT ON THREE TWO TO DO A FINAL INSPECTION.
SO YOU SEE WHERE THE PREDATE SAYS 2 2 6 2 6, YES.
SO THOSE WERE NOT, THAT IS NOT A CO AT ALL.
AND WE WOULD HAVE A CO PLACARD IF WE HAD ISSUED A CO FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UM, IF YOU JUMP FORWARD, MR. FINING JUST A LITTLE BIT IN, IN MY DOCUMENTS WHERE THAT ONE COMES AFTERWARD, YOU CAN SEE, UM, TOPIC'S CALLED ROOMING HOUSE AND CALLED PERMIT.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY ISSUED THE PERMIT TO MR. UM, MITCHELL.
AND THEN THEY SCHEDULED THE FINAL INSPECTION FOR, UH, SOMETIME IN MARCH, BUT IT'S DATED IN FEBRUARY.
SO THIS IS JUST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOU'VE GOT YOUR PERMIT TO, UM, TO DO, TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS.
WE'RE GONNA COME BACK OUT IN MARCH TO SEE IT, AND IT, IT, IT, THERE, IT, IT LOOKS AS IF AN INSPECTION OCCURRED, BUT NO CO WAS ISSUED.
UM, SO YOUR 20 MINUTES HAVE EXPIRED.
UM, UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A QUESTION FOR HER, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.
ACTUALLY, YOU HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. FIN.
UM, SO AGAIN, FORGIVE ME IF YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS, BUT, UM, EITHER MS. OLAND OR MS. LESTER, WHOEVER'S MO MORE QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THIS, WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM BUILDING STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? UM, SO I'VE GOT ON HAND MY FIRE INSPECTOR TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRE INSPECTION.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE MINIMUM PROPERTY HOUSING STANDARDS UNDER CHAPTER 27 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.
UM, I, I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE ON ME LIKE OUR PETITION THAT HAS THEM ENUMERATED.
UM, BUT CAN I, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM HER FOR JUST A, A FEW MOMENTS? YES.
HELLO, UH, MR. MLO, DO YOU OBJECT TO, UM, HAVING THE FIRE INSPECTOR SPEAK? UM, THIS IS OUTSIDE THE 20 MINUTES.
YOU WOULD GET YOUR AMPLE TIME TO YEAH, YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE YOUR TIME TO REDIRECT ON MS. LESTER AND, UM, ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT IF YOU OBJECT TO HER SPEAKING, SHE CANNOT SPEAK.
[02:55:01]
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO KNOW, KNOW ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE Y'ALL MAKE A DECISION.CAN WE JUST ASK IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT I'M NOT SURE OF OR THAT I DISAGREE WITH, CAN I ASK HER A QUESTION AFTER? PLEASE, NOT, NOT YOU'LL HAVE TIME TO READ.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO, OR FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE MS. LESTER AND THE FIRE CHIEF.
I'M NOT GONNA CROSS-EXAMINE MS. LASTER.
THANKS MS. LESTER, YOU CAN SIT HERE, CLARIFY YOU, I MEAN, I, I'M OUT OF TIME, SO I CAN'T OBVIOUSLY ASK HER QUESTIONS.
BUT DO YOU ALL HAVE QUESTIONS MS.
IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS OF HER, BUT CAN WE, UM, HAVE YOU, UH, BE SWORN IN PLEASE? THANK YOU.
UM, I'M OFFICER LAUREN CAMPOS.
I'M LOCATED AT 1551 BAYLOR STREET, SUITE 400, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 6.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE.
I'M AT 1551 BAYLOR STREET, SUITE 400, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 6.
SO AS PER THE HAZARDS FOUND ON THE PROPERTY BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2022, MY ASSESSMENT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY APPEARED TO BE OPERATING AS A BOARDING, LODGING OR MULTI-FAMILY CAPACITY WITH NO VALID CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
UM, THE MINIMUM LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET AT THE TIME AND ARE STILL NOT MET AT THIS TIME.
THERE IS NO FIRE SUPPRESSION EQUIPMENT.
THEY DID ADD FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, BUT WE, THEY'RE STILL MISSING SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEEDING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH BOARDING OR LODGING.
THERE IS ALSO, UM, FORCE SLOPING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING, WHICH IS USUALLY SOMETHING OF A CONCERN 'CAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THE LIVE OR DEAD LOADS MEET WHAT THE, WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THE LIVE DEAD LOADS, IF THE BUILDING CAN SUPPORT IT, BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL WALLS THAT WERE ADDED THAT WERE NOT PERMITTED BASED ON THE RECORDS I COULD LOOK FOR OR THE RECORDS THAT WE COULD FOUND ON SITE.
THERE WERE NO RECORDS THAT PERMITTED.
THE ADDITIONAL WALLS ARE STRUCTURED FROM A DUPLEX.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT SINCE, UM, THE INCREASE IN THE DEAD LOAD IS PROBABLY CAUSING THE FLOORS TO GO DOWN IN CERTAIN DIRECTIONS, AND THIS IS FOR BOTH THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WE FOUND IS THAT THERE WAS LOCKING BLOCKING OF EXIT DOORS, WINDOWS, OR PATHWAYS.
SO IF A FIRE WERE TO OCCUR, YOU WOULD BE STUCK IN WHATEVER ROOM DOOR UNIT THAT YOU WERE IN, BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST INSPECTION, THE AC UNITS WERE SCREWED INTO THE WINDOW SILL.
SO IF YOU WERE STUCK IN YOUR ROOM, YOU WERE STUCK IN THERE UNTIL ONE OF US SAVES YOU OR POSSIBLY THE WORST OUTCOME.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT YOU CANNOT EXIT THROUGH A KITCHEN IN A TIME OF AN EMERGENCY.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO ROUTES OUT.
SO A WINDOW BEING ONE OF THEM, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL DOORS TO BE ABLE TO ESCAPE A BUILDING.
THE OTHER THING WAS, UM, SOME OF THE DOORS REQUIRED KEYS, TOOLS, OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE TO GET OUT.
SO SOME OF THE TENANTS THAT WERE REMAINING IN THE UNITS, YOU HAD TO HAVE A KEY TO UNLOCK THE KNOB, AND THEN THERE WAS NO DOORKNOB TO HOLD, SO YOU HAD TO HOLD THE KEY, TURN IT, AND THEN PULL THE DOORS TO OPEN YOUR DOOR TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT.
THE OTHER THING WAS, UM, HOLES IN WALLS.
THERE WERE SEVERAL ELECTRICAL ISSUES AND I REQUESTED FOR A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORT OF THE FACILITY, BUT I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORT.
AND THEN I'M, MY LAST INSPECTION, I DID NOTE THAT SOME OF THE TENANTS WERE COOKING IN THEIR UNITS.
SO IF YOU ARE A BOARDING OR LODGING HOUSE, YOU CANNOT COOK IN YOUR UNIT.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO USE THE, UH, MAIN ROOM OR THE MAIN KITCHEN AREA.
SO IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM FOR THAT, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL COOKING EQUIPMENT.
THE OTHER THING WE WERE FINDING IS THAT THE TENANTS WERE PUTTING INCENSES IN THE WALLS AND WE PUT INCENSES IN THE WALLS AND START SLOWLY BURNING.
SO BASED ON THE AGE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING, IT, IT COULD IGNITE A, OR POSSIBLY CAUSE A FIRE IF IT WERE TO GO INTO THE WALLS.
SO THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE WERE FINDING IS THAT WE, ONE, I COULD NOT FIND ANY PERMITS FOR THE NEW STRUCTURES OR ADDITIONS OR ANY TYPE OF DOOR FRAMES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
SO I AM NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE STRUCTURE IS PERMITTED TO BE AS WHAT IT IS NOW.
UM, AS OF THIS TIME, IT'S STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DALLAS FIRE CODE.
SO MY QUESTION, OH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO ACCESS, UH, THE PROPERTY? SO AT FIRST, IN OCTOBER OF 2022, MS. CASSANDRA CRAWFORD DID REFUSE MEET ENTRANCE INTO MAJORITY OF THE UNITS THAT WERE OCCUPIED.
I WAS ONLY ABLE TO ACCESS THE MAIN HALLWAYS ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, ANY OF THE VACANT UNITS AT THAT
[03:00:01]
TIME.AND THEN AS WE PROCEEDED, UH, SHE WAS FORMALLY NOTIFIED THAT UNDER CHAPTER ONE OF THE FIRE CODE, THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL HAS THE RIGHT OF ENTRY INTO ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
SO I WAS ABLE TO GET ACCESS OVER TIME, BUT BASED ON THE MAIN FLOORS, YOU COULD TELL THAT THEY WERE SLOPING.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO REDIRECT.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, UM, WHEN WE WENT TO DISTRICT COURT AND THE JUDGE SAID THAT HE WANTED US TO COMPLY WITH YOUR SECOND, UH, MANNER OF EGRESS, UM, BY BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE AIR CONDITIONED UNITS REMOVABLE AND OR OTHER DOORWAYS OR PATHS OUT, YOU CAME OUT THE DAY AFTER LABOR DAY, AND WHEN YOU FINISHED YOUR INSPECTION, WHEN YOU WERE DONE, WERE WE IN COMPLIANCE? SEVERAL UNITS WERE STILL NOT COMPLYING AT THAT TIME.
AND THERE IS ON THE, ON THE RECORD THAT WE WERE 100% IN COMPLIANT, THAT ALL THE AC UNITS WERE REMOVABLE, THAT THE WINDOWS WERE UP AND DOWN, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DOOR THAT DIDN'T HAVE A HANDLE, BUT WE PUT A HANDLE ON IT AND THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO BE OPEN AND CLOSED AND THAT YOU LEFT AND THAT YOU WERE SATISFIED AT THAT TIME STILL, SOME WINDOWS WERE NOT.
SO TWO OF THE WINDOWS HAD TO BE FIXED, BUT YOU STILL HAD SOME TENANT BLOCKING YOUR BEDROOM WINDOWS, AND YOU CAME BACK ON THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER.
AT MY REQUEST, I ASKED THAT YOU HAD A REINSPECTION.
DID YOU HAVE THOSE SAME ISSUES OR WERE THOSE ALL RESOLVED BY THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER? YOU STILL HAD A FEW TENANTS STILL BLOCKING BEDROOM WINDOWS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, ALL THE WINDOWS WERE FIXED, ALL THE EGRESS, THE HANDLES, EVERYTHING ELSE WAS TAKEN CARE OF.
NOT COMPLETELY TO THE 100%, SIR.
TO WHAT PERCENT? UM, PROBABLY, I'M GONNA SAY ABOUT 80%.
JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PARSE HER WORDS, I JUST WANT Y'ALL TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS.
SO WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MOST OF THE WINDOWS AND ALL OF THE DOORS WERE COMPLIANT AT THAT? THERE WERE A FEW WINDOWS THAT WERE ONLY 80% OPENABLE.
IS THAT RIGHT? AND THERE WERE SOME MATERIAL IN FRONT OF SOME OF THE DOORS BY THE TENANTS.
ARE YOU ALSO REFERENCING TO THE SIZE OF THE WINDOWS TOO? I HADN'T TALKED ABOUT THE SIZE.
I JUST TALKED ABOUT WHETHER THEY COULD OPEN OR CLOSE.
UM, QUESTION, IS THIS FOR INCLUDING THE ONE UNIT THAT YOU HAVE TO CLIMB OUT TO GET TO ANOTHER LEDGE? UH, I'M JUST ASKING IF THE WINDOW COULD OPEN OR CLOSE.
SO, UM, AS TO WINDOWS OPENING AND CLOSING? YES.
SO THAT ELEMENT, ABSENT THE CLIMBING TO THE WINDOW, WE HAD BEEN AT LEAST A HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLIANT IN ALMOST EVERYTHING EXCEPT A COUPLE OF WINDOWS WERE ONLY 80% OPENABLE.
THERE WERE SOME MATERIAL THE TENANTS HAD PLACED IN FRONT OF THE DOORS, AND THEY WERE INSTRUCTED NOT TO PLACE THE MATERIALS IN FRONT OF THE DOORS.
IS THAT CORRECT? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? I REALLY CAN'T.
IT'S, WE WERE, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE OF WINDOWS THAT WERE 80% OPENABLE, ALL THE OTHER WINDOWS WERE OPENABLE.
THERE WERE JUST A COUPLE OF MATERIAL IN FRONT OF SOME OF THE DOORS THAT THE TENANTS HAVE PLACED IN FRONT.
AS OF LAST TIME, THERE WAS STILL A VIEW.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR Y'ALL TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS AND ALSO HOW THE, UH, UH, THE OWNERS WERE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE CODES ORDERED THEIR, THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
WHEN I ASKED FOR A LIST OF ITEMS, UH, TO COMPLY WITH YOUR LIST OF, UH, THINGS THAT WERE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE CODE, ONE OF THEM WAS A FIRE SAFETY AND EVACUATION PLAN.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? THAT WAS ONE OF THE REQUESTS.
AND I SENT TO MS. WARLAND A DRAFT OF A FIRE SAFETY AND EVACUATION PLAN THAT YOU THEN REVIEWED.
AND WHEN YOU RETURNED IT TO MS. WARLAND SAYING THAT THERE WERE A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WERE NOT DONE OR DONE CORRECTLY, WASN'T THE FIRST THING ON YOUR LIST THAT YOU COULD NOT APPROVE A FIRE SAFETY AND EVACUATION PLAN UNTIL THERE WAS A CO ISSUED? CORRECT.
SO HOW DO I EVER GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF I CAN NEVER GET AN APPROVED FIRE SAFETY AND EVACUATION PLAN? THIS PLAN WAS IMPLEMENTED TO, TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE TENANTS, BUT YOUR PLAN IS STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
SO IF IT WAS 100% IN COMPLIANT, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, COULD YOU APPROVE IT? NO.
SO I CAN NEVER GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BECAUSE I CAN NEVER GET A CO WE CAN ALWAYS, I'M SORRY.
WE CAN ALWAYS APPROVE FIRE SAFETY PLANS AT THE REQUEST OF TENANTS, BUT AT THIS TIME, YOUR PLAN IS NOT IN, IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR FIRE CODE.
SO MY QUESTION IS, CITY STAFF, UM, IF, UM, FOR WHATEVER REASON WE DECIDE TO, UM,
[03:05:01]
ASSIGN WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DENY THIS REQUEST OF RELIEF, UM, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TENANT? HOW THE, THE, THE, THOSE THAT ARE, ARE LIVING THERE RIGHT NOW, UM, HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO VACATE? IS THERE SOME SORT OF AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE? WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE, MS. LAMB? THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN IN THE CODE THAT HAS LIKE A WIND DOWN PERIOD, BUT I CAN JUST REFERENCE WHAT WE DID AT SPRING.AND WE GAVE, I BELIEVE MR. PAYNE, 60 DAYS, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 60 AND 90 DAYS TO HAVE A WIND DOWN PERIOD WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T GOING TO, WE WERE GONNA ALLOW PEOPLE TO NOT BE TURNED OUT ON THE STREET.
AND AS I TOLD MR. AL TO COMMUNITY PROSECUTION WILL BE COMMITTED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, FINDING ALTERNATIVE HOUSING.
SO WHO DETERMINES THAT AMORTIZATION IS THAT WE'LL DO IT VIA AGREEMENT.
THAT WAS JUST A QUESTION I HAD IN TERMS, UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UH, UH, REDIRECT, UM, OH, MS. YES.
AND SO TO, TO BUILD ON THAT QUESTION, UH, AFTER THAT POINT, WHAT IS THE, THE, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, OPTIONS, UM, IN, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THEIR POSSESSION OF THIS PROPERTY AND HOW THEY CAN USE IT IN THE FUTURE? OH YEAH.
I MEAN, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THEY DON'T USE IT, IF, IF A CO IS, UM, FOR THE 18 ROOM BOARDING HOUSE IS NOT, NOT GRANTED TODAY, UM, THEY DO HAVE SEVERAL OTHER LEGAL AVENUES LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL THAT THEY, UM, APPLIED FOR LAST WEEK.
THERE'S A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY ALLOWANCE.
UM, THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF AVENUES.
NO, NO POSSESSORY RIGHTS WILL BE LOST.
SHE'LL CONTINUE TO LIVE, YOU KNOW, OWN THE HOME WITH MR. CAR.
THERE'S BEEN, THERE'S BEEN TALKS THOUGH ABOUT THEM, UH, BEING ASKED TO TEAR DOWN THE STRUCTURE.
WHAT, WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? UM, AND WHERE DOES THAT FALL IN THE PROCESS HERE? CHAPTER 54, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS THE, THE AUTHORITY BY WHICH WE HAVE SUED, UM, THEM FOR MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARD VIOLATIONS.
SO ESSENTIALLY VIOLATING OUR, UM, HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCES WITHIN THAT CODE OR THAT STATUTE.
THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE, UM, TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS SO SUBSTANDARD BEYOND REPAIR THAT DEMOLITION IS AN OPTION THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ROUTE THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR.
I THINK SPECIFICALLY OUR PETITION ASKED FOR, UM, AN INJUNCTION TO ORDER THEM TO REPAIR IT, RESERVING THE RIGHT FOR THE JUDGE LATER ON IF, IF THERE WERE SAY, CONTEMPT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES TO ALSO HAVE THAT REMEDY OF, OF DEMOLITION.
SO IT'S JUST US PUTTING, UM, ALL OF, UH, THE POTENTIAL A AVENUES OUT THERE.
AND SO THIS ALREADY WENT IN FRONT OF A DISTRICT JUDGE? CORRECT.
SO AS MR. MLO SAID, WE'RE ABATED AT PRESENT BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS ORDERED US TO, YOU KNOW, IT REMEDY THIS CO ISSUE FIRST.
SO THEN IF, DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME HERE, WHAT, I KNOW IT'S ON OUR PURVIEW, BUT I STILL WANNA UNDERSTAND 'CAUSE I WANNA UNDERSTAND ALL THE OUTCOMES HERE.
WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE DISTRICT COURT DEPENDING ON E EITHER ONE OF THE OUTCOMES HERE? SO, UM, MR. MLO, AND I'LL NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I BELIEVE MS. UH, JUDGE TILLERY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US BACK.
HE HAD ASKED FOR US TO COME FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE TO GIVE HIM AN UPDATE ON THIS PROCESS.
UM, THE CITY HAS, ITS, WE SUED.
SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REINSTATE OUR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HEARING AND PUT ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE, YOU KNOW, VIOLATIONS OF, OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCES.
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COME INTO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENTS WHEREBY THERE WILL BE LIKE A REPAIR SCHEDULE AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, I MEAN, THE LAWSUIT WILL GO FORWARD.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY JUST TAKING CONSIDERATION HOW THERE'S OPERATORS, IT'S JUST WHETHER THE HISTORY OF A CO AND, AND CONTINUED OPERATION UNDER, UNDER THAT USE.
UM, BUT DID I HEAR CORRECTLY THE JUDGE FELT IT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH O OTHER THAN THE WINDOW SITUATION FOR THOSE THAT RESIDE THERE TO CONTINUE RESIDING THERE? UH, UM, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY YES, BECAUSE HE, YOU KNOW, HE, I I, IT'S HARD TO STEP INTO HIS MIND AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS THINKING WHEN HE ORDERED THAT.
UM, HE, HE DID OPEN THE AVENUE AND SAY WE COULD COME BACK FOR THE T R O.
UM, BUT HI, HIS IMMEDIATE ISSUE WAS IF THERE IS TO BE A FIRE, YOU KNOW, ON MY WATCH, QUOTE UNQUOTE, I, I WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT.
AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER AVENUES THAT THE APPLICANT MAY SEEK IN THE EVENT THAT, UM, THEY ARE NOT GRANTED RELIEF TODAY, UM, AND A WIND DOWN PERIOD THAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED, WOULD THE CITY MAYBE CONSIDER WORKING WITH THEM ON A WIND DOWN PERIOD THAT MAYBE ALIGNS WITH ANOTHER USE THAT IS A, A CO ABSOLUTELY.
SO THEREFORE THERE'S MINIMAL LOFTS TO THOSE THAT RESIDE THERE AND HOUSING, CORRECT? YEAH.
I, I THINK THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S POTENTIALLY SOMETHING WE WOULD ASK OF THE JUDGE IN THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION TO SAY, YOU KNOW, UM, HYPOTHETICALLY THE, THE CO WAS NOT GRANTED, WE'RE NOW IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE, HERE'S OUR EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANDARD, UM, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES THEY'VE ALREADY PURSUED THEM.
CAN YOU ORDER THAT WE HAVE A CERTAIN TIMELINE FOR REPAIR THAT LINES UP OR, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE
[03:10:01]
LIKE A CUTOFF.'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE INDEFINITE, OBVIOUSLY, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT DONE BY X DATE, THEN THERE'S THE WIND DOWN PERIOD.
IT'S TOUGH FOR ME ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE MM-HMM.
AND THE CITY'S, YOU KNOW, CAN'T SEEM TO FIND RECORDS OF CO.
UM, APPLICANT CAN'T PROVIDE RECORDS OF THE CO, BUT YET CITY HASN'T DONE ANYTHING FOR 50 YEARS.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF AT A QUANDARY RIGHT HERE, UM, IN MY OPINION.
UM, SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST KIND OF TALKING THROUGH WHAT, WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF DIFFERENT OUTCOMES CERTAINLY.
UM, UH, MS. ORLAND, UH, YOU SAID POTENTIALLY, UM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE HYPOTHETICAL THINGS YOU COULD REQUEST.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER POTENTIAL SCENARIOS? UM, DO YOU MEAN SPECIFICALLY IN THE 54? YES.
UM, I BELIEVE, I MEAN, YES, DEMOLITION IS, IS ONE AVENUE.
THE JUDGE HAS THE RIGHT TO ORDER.
IT COULD BE A RECEIVERSHIP, UM, WHEREBY, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER PERSON IS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE ASSET AND THEY'RE CHARGED WITH BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE, UM, UH, AS SIMPLY HIM ORDERING REPAIR AT A REASONABLE RATE, UM, AND DOING CERTAIN REPAIRS TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT WITH OUR MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS.
THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE JUDGE CAN DO.
ALTHOUGH THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE A WHILE.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY HAVE A LOT OF PURVIEW TO DO A LOT OF THINGS, BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE'VE ASKED FOR OR, OR CAN LIKELY SEE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, MS. BOYLAND, YOU CAN HAVE A, UM, FIVE MINUTE REDIRECT OF THE FIRE CHIEF IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
JUST REALLY BRIEFLY, IF I MAY.
UM, OFFICER CAMPOS, I, SPEAKING OF THE SEPTEMBER INSPECTION, UH, LAST MONTH, OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW ISSUES, UM, BEING MOSTLY IGNORANT TO, WERE THERE OTHER FIRE, UH, HAZARDS STILL IN, IN, I GUESS EXISTING, THE FLOORS WERE STILL SLOPING? I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED A ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF THE BUILDING.
WE HAD CONCERNS OVER THE SMOKE ALARMS STILL NOT FUNCTIONING OR WORKING OR BEING DAMAGED OR MISSING OR BEING TAKEN DOWN BY TENANTS.
UM, THERE'S STILL NO ADEQUATE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM OR DETECTION SYSTEM FOR THE BUILDING, MEANING SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SMOKE ALARM, OR EVEN A VALID CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THE OTHER ADDITION WOULD BE HAVING NO COMMERCIAL GRADE FIRE SUPPRESSION EQUIPMENT FOR THE KITCHEN.
YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL FOLLOWED BY A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
SO YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES, THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND THREE MINUTE CLOSING.
I'M GONNA TRY AND HIT THE HIGH POINTS WITH THREE MINUTES.
NUMBER ONE, CHAPTER 51, THE DEFINITION OF BOARDING AND LODGING HOUSE, LET ME READ IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEFINITION THAT WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME, UH, THAT THEY APPLIED FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN 1967.
A STRUCTURE THAT IS RENTED OCCUPANTS FOR 30 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OR MORE AND CONTAINS MORE THAN FIVE UNITS WITH LIVING AND SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION, BUT NO KITCHEN.
SO THERE'S NO KITCHEN IN THE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS. UM, THERE'S NO CAP ON THE NUMBER OF ROOMS. THAT'S A KEY ELEMENT FOR WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN 1967.
NOW, I DID NOT KNOW THAT YOU WERE GONNA ASK ABOUT THE CONDITION OF HOW MANY ROOMS WERE IN THAT CONFIGURATION AT THE TIME THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS APPLIED FOR.
CAN I GET MS. CRAWFORD JUST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? YES.
AND YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH, RIGHT, MS. CRAWFORD? SO FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, AND I HATE TO SAY WE FOUND OUT KIND OF HOW OLD YOU ARE, HAS THAT 35, 28 COLONIAL BE IN THAT CONFIGURATION OF THE 18 ROOMS FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, AND CLO CLOSED OFF AS IN PEOPLE WERE IN THEM AND THEY WERE NOT CLOSED OFF, AS IN NO ONE COULD GET TO 'EM.
SO YOU DON'T REMEMBER ANY TIME SINCE THE SIXTIES IN WHICH THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONS TO ROOMS OR DIVISIONS OR BIG REHAB CHANGES TO THAT STRUCTURE? OKAY.
AND I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE, UH, WENT TO DISTRICT COURT, UH, WE WERE, WE HAD BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO YOU BY BUILDING INSPECTION, AND I HAD TO GO TO COURT TO GET THAT.
NOW, THE CITY AT THE END, AFTER LOSING THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARGUED THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO APPEAL TO YOU, THE JUDGE SAID, NO, YOU NEED TO GO
[03:15:01]
AHEAD AND GIVE 'EM THAT RIGHT TO APPEAL TO YOU GUYS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE.AND I'LL GET TO WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO THE APPEAL AND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
BUT THEY SAID, OKAY, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO BURN UP IN THE STRUCTURE DURING THIS ABATEMENT PERIOD.
THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAD WAS HOW SPECIFICALLY TO DO THAT.
THE JUDGE SPLIT THE BABY AND GAVE US SEVEN DAYS PLUS, UH, THE HOLIDAY.
EXCEPT EVIDENTLY, WE WEREN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT ON A COUPLE OF THE WINDOWS.
WE DID HAVE TO MAKE SURE AND INFORM THE TENANTS, DON'T PUT YOUR STUFF IN FRONT OF THE DOORS.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO ALWAYS MONITOR EVERY ROOM TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T PUT THEIR CLOTHES IN FRONT OF THE DOORS.
BUT THE POINT DEAN IS, IS THAT WE COMPLIED AND WE TRIED TO COMPLY, BUT THEN WE WENT DOWN TO BUILDING INSPECTION BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO GET AN ALTERNATIVE WAY OF DOING THE AC UNITS IN THE WALLS.
AND WHAT IT REVEALED TO US IS THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS WON'T GIVE US A BUILDING PERMIT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE STRUCTURE UNTIL WE GET A CO.
NOW THAT IS NOT ALLOWED BY YOUR CODE.
THE CITY CODE DOES NOT ALLOW A BUILDING PERMIT TO BE DENIED.
AND IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE, DOES IT? HOW COULD YOU EVER BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE IF YOU HAD TO GET A, HAVE A CO TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE? IT'S NONSENSE.
IT WAS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT AFTER FOUR HOURS THEY WOULDN'T EVEN TALK TO HER AND THEY SENT HER ON HER WAY AND THEY WOULDN'T GIVE US A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO THE ISSUES WITH HOW THE STRUCTURE IS OR WHY CERTAIN ELEMENTS ARE IN THE STRUCTURE, WELL, IF I NEVER GET A BUILDING PERMIT, HOW CAN I EVER COMPLY WITH THESE CODES TO GET A CO? AND YOU SEE THAT DOUBLE TRAP THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, UH, WITH TRYING TO COMPLY.
I HAVE TRIED TO COMPLY, TRY TO ASK FOR LISTS AND, AND LIST TO TRY AND COMPLY.
AND I CAN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS TO GET A CO.
AND I CAN'T GET A CO UNTIL I COMPLY.
SO I'M ASKING YOU, AND HERE'S MY SUMMATION.
FIRST OF ALL, UH, YOUR BOARD OF, UH, TAMIKA, I, TANISHA, TANISHA, SHE'S INCORRECT.
I WORKED FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR 10 YEARS.
I ADVISED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MYSELF.
YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND GRANT A TEMPORARY CO SO WE CAN COMPLY WITH THESE CODES.
YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, BUT ASK YOUR OWN GUY, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, IF I DON'T EVER GET A BUILDING PERMIT, HOW CAN I EVER COMPLY WITH THESE ISSUES TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? NUMBER THREE, YOU NOTICE WHEN SHE WAS TESTIFYING THAT SHE SAID, OH, THEY DENIED THE PERMITS IN JANUARY.
WELL, WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMITS IN JANUARY.
THERE'S A FINAL INSPECTION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT IN FEBRUARY OF 67 AND A FINAL INSPECTION FOR THE CO IN MARCH.
NO RECORDS OF ANY DENIAL AFTER THAT TIME.
AND THEN FOR 56 YEARS, THIS PLACE OPERATES AS A BOARDING HOUSE.
AND ONLY IN 2020 DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO'S EVIDENTLY UPSET AT ISAIAH, PAYING FOR OTHER PROPERTIES, DECIDE THAT THEY HAVE TO GO AFTER HIM FOR EVERY PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS.
AND THEY SHOW UP AT THIS PROPERTY AND THEN THEY'RE ON HIM.
THEY SAY, OH, HE'S A TERRIBLE OPERATOR.
HE'S TRYING TO TAKE MONEY AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF POOR PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT HERE.
AND YOU CAN SEE HOW DIFFICULT IT'S BEEN FOR US TO DESPERATELY COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THEY DON'T WANT US TO COMPLY WITH THESE CODES.
THEY DON'T WANT US TO FIX THIS PLACE.
THEY DON'T WANT US TO GET A CO.
THEY WANNA TEAR THE STRUCTURE DOWN JUST LIKE THEY DID IN ANOTHER ONE OF ISAIAH PAYNE'S PROPERTIES.
I'M ASKING YOU TO GIVE US A CHANCE, GIVE THESE TENANTS A CHANCE.
SIX, WE WANNA REPAIR THIS PROPERTY A HUNDRED PERCENT DE CODE.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.
UM, I'VE ASKED A QUESTION, OBVIOUSLY.
UM, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE, UM, DON'T GRANT RELIEF? MY QUESTION NOW IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO GRANT RELIEF? THEY OBVIOUSLY AREN'T IMMEDIATELY GIVEN A CO.
UM, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
SO WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? IF THEY ARE, IF THEY ARE GRANTED RELIEF, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? BECAUSE THEY WERE DENIED FINAL CO, BUT YET THEY HAVE ALL THESE REPAIRS TO GET UP TO CODE.
SO YET IF WE GRANT RELIEF AND THEN GIVEN A CO, BUT THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT.
SO WHAT DOES THIS PROCESS LOOK LIKE IF WE DO GRANT? I I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT COME IN AND APPLIED FOR A PERMIT.
[03:20:01]
SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS COMING FROM, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO PERMIT APPLIED FOR SINCE 2018.SO THEN WHAT ARE WE YES, THEY'VE NEVER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT.
THEY APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO, BUT, SO THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT MY QUESTION IS THEN IF WE, SO IF WE GRANT RELIEF, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
IS THAT TODAY THEY'RE NOT AUTOMATIC GRANTED A CO FOR WHAT, WHAT WOULD THEY BE, WHAT WOULD THEY BE GRANTED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR? WELL, WE WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE GRANTING THAT THEIR NON-CONFORMING RIGHT.
IS IN CASE AND THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A BOARDING HOUSE WITH 18 HOMES BASED ON THEIR 1957.
I THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD BECOME LIVE AGAIN.
RIGHT? SO THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED.
SO THE APPLICATION FOR THE CO WOULD BECOME LIVE AGAIN AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THE REQUISITE PERMITS TO BRING IT INTO THE STANDARD OF, SAY, IF YOU WERE TO ALLOW THEM THE 18 REWARD AND THEN THEY, THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY GRANTED A CO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BECOME COMPLIANT.
AND IF THEY COULDN'T COME COMPLIANT, THEN THEY DON'T, THEY WOULD BE IN THE SAME PLACE AND THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPERATE YEAH.
OUTSIDE OF HAVING ALL THE OTHER AVENUES.
AND IF THEY DO COMPLY, THEN BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A NON-CONFORMING, BUT, BUT WE ALLOW THIS USE 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN PROVEN THAT THEY'VE NON-CONFORMING, BUT IT'S BEEN NON-CONFORMING CONSISTENTLY SINCE PRIOR TO 64, SINCE THE CHANGE OF DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEN THEY COULD POTENTIALLY COME IN FOR A FINAL CO.
SO AS MS. LESTER HAD SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST STEP WAS ZONING, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS APPLICATION TRUNCATED AND IT DIDN'T GET TO MOVE ON TO BUILDING.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF THE APPLICATION WERE TO COME LIVE AGAIN, IT WOULD GO ON TO BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE, YOU KNOW, COMPLYING WITH ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.
YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL, THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, DID I AGREE WITH MS. MORELAND'S CHARACTERIZATION OF HOW THAT WOULD GO DOWN? AND YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR, UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE YOUR THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.
UM, SO AS I SAID BEFORE, THE DALLAS CITY CODE COMMANDS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL DENY A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATION.
UM, IF THE PROPO PROPOSED USE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, UM, THERE IS NOT A RECORD OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY EVER BEING ISSUED HERE.
PD 5 95 MF TWO A ONLY ALLOWS BETWEEN ONE AND SIX ROOMS, UM, FOR BOARDING HOUSES.
MS. CRAWFORD PRESENTED IN 18 ROOM.
UM, MS. CRAWFORD AND MR. PAYNE UNFORTUNATELY DO HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, A PATTERN OF OPERATING THESE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS LODGING AND BOARDING HOUSES THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA WITHOUT THE REQUISITE APPROVALS FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND WITHOUT THE PRECAUTIONARY SAFETY MECHANISMS IN PLACE THAT AS I SAID BEFORE, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THE CITY HAS A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, BUT THAT FACT CANNOT NEGATE THE HUMANITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS, UM, WHO ARE IN NEED OF THIS HOUSING AND WHO DESERVE IT, JUST LIKE ANY OF US.
AND THAT HOUSING HAS TO BE SAFE.
UM, WHILE MS. CRAWFORD HAS NO NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS, UM, TO AN 18 ROOM LODGING HOUSE, SHE DOES HAVE SEVERAL PERMISSIBLE AVENUES TO GO FORWARD.
LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL SHE APPLIED FOR LAST WEEK AND BUILDING SERVICES WILL REMAIN COMMITTED TO HELPING HER SEE FORWARD THAT USE OR ANY OTHER LEGAL USE SHE MAY HAVE THAT ALLOWS HER TO CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THAT PROPERTY, WHICH SHE'LL ALWAYS HAVE ABILITY TO DO.
SHE OWNS IT, BUT ALSO HAVE A SOURCE OF STREAM OR YOU KNOW, A SOURCE OF INCOME FROM IT.
SO, UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TODAY URGES THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM ITS RIGHTFUL DECISION IN DENYING MS. CRAWFORD'S JANUARY 4TH, 2023, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATION AS IT DID NOT AIR IN MAKING ITS DECISION IN APPLYING THE CODE TO THE APPLICATION.
THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE RESIDENCE OF DALLAS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE UM, I THINK I JUST WANT, UM, THE BOARD ATTORNEY JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT, UM, EITHER, UM, EITHER MOTION MEANS FOR THE APPLICANT, JUST THE BOARD.
'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S A FEW MEMBERS THAT HAVEN'T HEARD THESE CASES BEFORE, JUST SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE OUTCOME.
SO COULD YOU GET LEND CLARITY IF WE, WHAT THE OUTCOMES ARE, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GRANTING? WE DO GRANT RELIEF ON THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THE OUTCOME IS IF WE, IF WE DENY RELIEF.
SO PRESENTLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DENIED CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND A MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WOULD GRANT RELIEF REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT, WHICH EFFECTIVELY WE ARE NOT ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
WE WOULD EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO BE OBTAINED TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WOULD BE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND DENY RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THEN THE THIRD OPTION, UM, THAT YOU GUYS UTILIZED EARLIER WAS TO HOLD OVER UNTIL A SPECIFIC DATE.
UM, CAN YOU ALSO COMMENT ON MR. MR. OSE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, UH, THE ABILITY TO GRANT A TEMPORARY CO CLAIMING THAT IT IS POSSIBLE.
[03:25:01]
PLEASE COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING WE CAN DO? THE BOARD, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE'RE NOT GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.WE CAN DENY, EXCUSE ME, WE CAN REVERSE THE DECISION LIKE AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD REVERSE THE DECISION AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD ISSUE THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE ISSUING IT.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN ONLY ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF THEY HAVE THE PERMITS AND THEY WOULD'VE TO GO IN, IF THEY HAVE, THEY, THE BUILDING NEEDS CODE, IT ALLOWS THEM TO GET BACK IN LINE BECAUSE THE ONLY, THE PROCESS TO GET, I THINK THIS IS RIGHT.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE GRANTING IS WE ARE SAYING WE BELIEVE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING USE AND IT IS OKAY, CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT THE BOARDING HOUSE, BUT THEY CAN'T GET THEIR CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, BUT THEY DON'T MEET THE FIRE CODES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT, I MEAN, WHEN WE MAKE THIS, IF WE MADE A DECISION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE AO, WE ARE EFFECTIVELY SAYING, WELL, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE A PAPER TRAIL, WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S BEEN A NON-CONFORMING USE.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S A NON-CONFORMING USE AND THEREFORE WE ARE SAYING YOU CAN BE A BOARDING HOUSE, BUT THEY'RE ONLY GONNA GET A CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY IF THEY MEET THIS, THE BUILDING CODE STANDARD.
THEY CAN'T GET THAT, BUT THEY CAN'T DENY THE BUILDING CODE STANDARD AFTER WE'VE SAID THIS ON, IT'S NOT, IT'S 18 ROOMS AND NOT LESS THAN SIX ROOMS. THAT'S GREAT.
MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS IF WE GRANT RELIEF, UM, AND THEY START GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING PERMITS TO BECOME UP TO CODE, UM, IN TERMS OF FIRE CODE AND ALL THAT, UM, IS THERE A PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THAT, UM, IN ORDER TO, AND THEN FI FILE FOR A CO OR, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT QUESTION WOULD BE BETTER DIRECTLY TOWARDS, UH, STAFF, UM, OR 'CAUSE THEY'VE KIND OF BEEN LOST IN THIS BUBBLE FOR A WHILE.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IS, UM, IF WE WERE TO GRANT RELIEF, UM, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO START WORKING TOWARDS GETTING PERMITS TO DO THE WORK, TO GET UP TO LIKE SAFETY IN TERMS OF FIRE CODE AND COMPLIANCE WITH SAFE HOUSING CONDITIONS, HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO DO THAT BEFORE THIS, UM, THIS EXPIRES OR THE HOW LONG CAN THEY OPERATE? CAN YOU OPERATE WITHOUT GETTING A FINAL CO IF WE WERE TO GRANT RELIEF, YEAH, I BELIEVE IT'S SIX MONTHS THAT A PERMIT IS ALIVE IN THE SYSTEM.
AFTER THAT THEY COULD, OR 180 DAYS, UM, THEY COULD EXP EXPIRE.
THEY EXPIRE THAT PERMIT, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE 180 DAYS TO SUBMIT FOR A PERMIT REGARDLESS IF YOU GUYS APPROVE IT.
AND SO WITHIN THOSE 180 DAYS, IF THEY WERE NOT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF, UM, OF GETTING THIS STRUCTURE TO UH, BE UP TO THE STANDARDS FOR SAFE HOUSING CONDITIONS, THEN WOULD THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THEN REVOKE THOSE PERMITS AND WE'D BE BACK HERE? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE IF WE'RE ONLY GRANTING THIS AS LIVE FOR 180 DAYS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY'RE NOT MAKING GOOD ON, ON WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO WORK TOWARDS GETTING A CO? YEAH.
WILL YOU, I WE WILL YOU PUT IT ON THE CO APPLICATION WOULD EXPIRE PER CHAPTER 52 DALLAS CONSTRUCTION CODE.
AND THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEIR NON-CONFORMING USE STATUS? I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE NON-CONFORMING IS COMING IN, SO I'M CONFUSED.
I MEAN, SO I'M JUST SAYING LIKE IF WE, IF WE SAY THAT THIS IS LIKE, IF, IF WE GRANT RELIEF ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND THEN THIS, NOW THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AND START GETTING THE, THE PERMITS TO GET UP TO, TO CODE FOR LIVING STANDARDS TO MAKE, TO GO TOWARDS THE PROCESS OF BEGINNING A CO AND THEY HAVE 180 DAYS TO FILE THESE PURPOSES, BUT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE STANDARD IN THAT TIME LIMIT DAYS.
THAT, THAT TIME LIMIT IS SORT OF A STAY OF EXECUTION.
IT IT, IT'S A PAUSE BUTTON THAT ALLOWS THEM TO MEET THE STANDARD, ACHIEVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THEN WE MOVE FORWARD.
IF THEY DON'T MEET IT THEN, THEN THE NONCONFORMING GOES AWAY.
UM, THERE IS TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS USE BEING GOING BACK AS FAR AS THE FIFTIES.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE WERE NEVER COS OFFERED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME? OR THERE MAY NOT BE A RECORD, BUT THAT YOU WAS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
WHERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO SEEK A CO? WELL, IT, AS YOU SEE, ALL THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWS THAT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU HAVE TO BRING YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY UP TO THE MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS.
[03:30:01]
AND ALL THE LETTERS DATED YOU HAVE, WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT LETTERS.SO A CO WAS APPLIED FOR, IT WOULD'VE BEEN ISSUED IF THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS.
SO WE HAVE ALL OF THAT IN OUR EVIDENCE DOCUMENT.
AND SO THEN WHY WASN'T THIS SHUT DOWN BEFORE NOW? WE WERE UNAWARE.
WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS A, UM, LODGING HOUSE.
I ONLY BECAME AWARE OF IT WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR AN APPLICATION, SO I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT.
SO ANYBODY OTHER THAN THAT, THAT ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? WELL, I I I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MS. LESTER.
SO, UM, MR. KOSS, I GUESS, OR UH, NO, SAID THAT, I GUESS HE DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS, UH, DOCUMENT FROM 1967 THAT YOU, YOU'RE, YOU SAY THAT TYPICALLY THAT THIS IS THE DATE THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING BACK TO PERFORM THE FIND OF CO INSPECTION? YES.
THAT'S AN INSPECTION CARD? YES.
AND IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE GREEN TAG OR WHATEVER SAYING THAT YOU HAD PASSED YOUR INSPECTION.
THAT'S NOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
HE CALLED THAT A CO THAT'S NOT A CO.
BUT IS THIS SAYING THAT THEY HAVE PASSED THE FINAL INSPECTION OR IS THIS JUST STATING THE DATE OF WHEN THAT'S JUST STATES THE DATE OF WHEN THE INSPECTION IS TO OCCUR.
THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM A PASS FOR THE GREENING TAG FOR THE FINAL INSPECTION.
I NEED LIKE FIVE MINUTES TO THINK ABOUT THIS.
COULD WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND RETURN AT 3 45.
WELL, UH, RECONVENE THE, UM, HEARING AT 3:45 PM AND UM, WE ARE AT THE POINT IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A MOTION.
SO, UM, I I I JUST ASKED THIS QUESTION OF THE, UM, I'LL ASK THIS QUESTION OF THE, UM, BOARD ATTORNEY.
UM, THERE'S A FIVE PANELISTS HERE.
UM, WE NEED A SUPER MAJORITY FOR A MOTION EITHER WAY TO PASS FOUR TO ONE.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S THREE TO TWO? WHAT IS THE OUTCOME JUST SO WE JUST, THE BOARD KNOWS AHEAD OF A VOTE, UM, WHERE, UH, WHAT THE OUTCOME COULD BE? WE DO NOT GET THAT SUPER MAJORITY.
SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE 75%, WHICH IS FOUR OF YOU.
UM, IF YOU'RE ONLY ABLE TO GET THREE, THEN THAT MOTION WOULD FAIL.
AND THEN, AND TO ALSO CLARIFY, UM, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AIRED IN DENYING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
AND SO THE LANGUAGE AND THE MOTION IS ADEQUATE, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DECIDING.
DID THEY AIR? SO IF THEY AIRED, IF YOU THINK THEY AIRED, YOU'RE GONNA REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND GRANT THE RELIEF.
THE RELIEF IS THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
AND IF, OR IN THE OPPOSITION TO THAT STATEMENT WOULD BE THAT YOU AFFIRM YOU DON'T THINK THE AIR YOU AGREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, YOU'RE GONNA AFFIRM THAT DECISION AND THAT WOULD DENY THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
MADAM BACKS CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER B D A 2 2 3 DASH 1 0 1, WHEN THE APPLICATION OF CASSANDRA CRAWFORD 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 REQUEST ABOUT THIS APPLICANT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I, I THINK THE, THE, THE 50 YEARS OF, OF, OF LETTING THIS FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS OR THE CODE, UH, SO TO SPEAK, UH, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
UM, UH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, UM, THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING UP THE, THE, THE, THE BUILDING TO, UM, TENABLE, UH, CONDITIONS THAT MEET THE, UH, THE FIRE CODE AND THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, UM, UH, PROVIDING FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.
AND SO I JUST SEEN NO REASON, UH, TO NOT GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY.
UM, I SECOND THIS MOTION BECAUSE I HAVE NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE MS. CRAWFORD AND HER TESTIMONY THAT THIS, UM,
[03:35:01]
THIS, UH, PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN OPERATING, UM, AS A, UM, A BOARDING HOME FOR OVER 50 YEARS.UM, AND I DO THINK IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE AND, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID, UM, MAKE NOTE THAT IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SOME DOCUMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MISPLACED IN THE PERIOD OF 50 YEARS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT BY GRANTING THIS RELIEF, IT'LL, UM, IT'LL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UM, TO BE WHERE THEY NEED TO BE IN TERMS OF GET WHERE THEY NEED TO BE IN TERMS OF THE, UM, STANDARDS OF, OF LIVING CONDITIONS.
AND IF, IF THEY CAN'T GET THE NECESSARY PERMITS TO GET A CO, THEN UM, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS NONCONFORMING WILL BE, UM, BASICALLY RE REVOKED.
SO IT WAS 180 DAYS OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, AND I HAVE NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE THAT MS. PROFFERED, UM, AND HER TESTIMONY WAS NOT ONE THAT, UM, WAS TRUTHFUL.
SO I BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS TRUTHFUL IN HER TESTIMONY THAT THIS HAS BEEN OPERATING FOR OVER 50 YEARS AS A BOARDING.
I, UM, BELIEVE MS. CRAWFORD AND THAT IT HASN'T BEEN OFF OPERATING AS A BOARDING HOUSE FOR THIS AMOUNT OF TIME.
BUT I FIND IT, I SEE A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NOT A CO ISSUE AND I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A CO ISSUE.
I SEE THREE LETTERS ASKING THEM TO BRING IT UP TO CO TO CODE OR AT LEAST, AND THAT I NEVER SEE, YOU KNOW, I I CAN SEE MAYBE ONE RECORD BEING LOST, BUT I FIND IT DIFFICULT THAT ALL FOUR OF THESE OVER THE SPAN, UH, MULTIPLE DECADES HAVE BEEN LOST.
UM, AND SO WHILE I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE, THEIR BELIEF THAT THIS WAS A BOARDING HOUSE, I DON'T SEE THAT IT HAS HAD A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUE.
I DON'T DENY THAT IT'S BEEN OPERATING, BUT APPARENTLY IT'S BEEN OPERATING WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
I, UM, I I DON'T THINK THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED GIVEN THAT OVER THE DECADES THERE'S NOT ONE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
UM, I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT, UM, IT PROBABLY HAS BEEN OPERATING AS A BOARDING HOUSE FOR 50 YEARS.
UM, I ALSO DON'T THINK THE BOARDING THAT THE HOME IS IN COMPLIANCE AT THIS POINT.
SO I MEAN, WHETHER YOU ARE NOT ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DUE TO, UM, THE USE OR NOT ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DUE TO THE, UM, HOW THE, THE, THE BUILDING CODE AND THE FIRE INSPECTION.
UM, SO I, I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, I ALSO FEEL LIKE THE CITY, I, I THINK THE, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN SOME SORT OF FASHION, BUT I THINK GOING THE LEGAL ROUTE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL AND DOING THE FIXING OF IT AND GOING THAT ROUTE WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY SO THAT IT IS LEGAL AND IT'S BEING MONITORED AND MANAGED BY THE CITY.
UM, MADAM CHAIR, I, UM, HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE MOTION, UM, JUST IN REVIEWING IT, AND IT'S NOT TO DISMISS ANYTHING THAT MS. LESTER SAID OR THAT THE CITY'S ATTORNEY HAS SAID, BUT, UM, HAVING PERSONALLY SEEN LIKE HOW THIS OCCURS SOUTH OF 30, YES, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SEVERAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN LOST.
UM, WITHOUT A DOUBT I CAN, YOU KNOW, ATTEST TO THAT AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD GOING INTO THE WINTER MONTHS, WHETHER THIS SHOULD BE, UH, SOMETHING THAT I CONSIDER IN MAKING A DECISION OR NOT KNOWING HOW DIFFICULT IT HAS BEEN FOR THE CITY TO FIND ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED GOING INTO A WINTER SEASON.
UH, I KNOW IT MAY BE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD FOR SIX MONTHS WITH THE WHOLE THAT IN ORDER TO MEET A LIVABLE STANDARD THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD GET THIS UP TO STANDARD.
BUT IT IS A HOPE THAT I FEEL IT'S BETTER PLACED WITH THEM THAN WITH THE CITY IN DETERMINING OR FINDING ALTERNATIVE HOUSING BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THAT NOT WORK AND HAVE SEEN THAT NOT WORK TOO MANY ON MANY OCCASIONS.
UM, I DO FIND MRS. CRAWFORD'S, UH, TESTIMONY TO BE RELEVANT AND I DO BELIEVE HER TESTIMONY.
UH, SO I WILL BE SOME MORE, UH, SUPPORTING, UH, THIS MOTION.
AND I ALSO WANNA MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT.
I MEAN, UH, FROM MS. CRAWFORD'S TESTIMONY, I BELIEVE THAT SHE FELT LIKE SHE WAS LEGALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH OFFERING THE BOARDING HOUSE AS SHE AND HER FAMILY HAD BEEN OPERATING IT FOR DECADES AND DECADES.
AND SO, UM, UH, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I HAVE, UM, SECONDED
[03:40:01]
THIS MOTION BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE AND AS THEY HAD BEEN OPERATING IT FOR OVER 50 YEARS, THIS USE, UM, AND ISN'T ONLY TILL NOW THAT THEY DID NOT REALIZE, UM, THAT THIS WAS A NON-CONFORMING USE.I I THINK THAT THE SPIRIT OF, UM, INTENTION OF AND CONTINUAL, CONTINUAL OPERATION OF THIS AS A BOARDING HOUSE FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, TO ME, UM, IS ENOUGH TO, TO JUSTIFY GRANTING RELIEF HERE.
SO CLARIFY FOR ME, AND MAYBE IF, IF WE GRANT THE RELIEF, UM, AND REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE AO, I JUST, THEY WILL HAVE 180 DAYS TO GET IT IN COMPLIANCE.
AND WE ARE SAYING, I MEAN, IS THAT KIND OF THE, AND IF THEY DON'T GET IT IN COMPLIANCE IN 180 DAYS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? I I'M STILL JUST TRYING TO, 'CAUSE WHAT I, WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS PUT THEM INTO THIS CYCLE OF WE GRANT THIS NON-CONFORMING, WE MISSED THE 180 DAYS, WE'RE BACK HERE AGAIN.
I MEAN, I WANNA GO DOWN THE PATH OF KEEPING YOU OPERATING, WHETHER THAT'S WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL OR WITH THE BOARDING HOUSE.
I MEAN, MY, MY MY NOT SUPPORTING OR BEING CONFUSED ABOUT THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING PEOPLE IN A HOME AND THAT YOU'RE KEEPING YOUR HOME AND YOU'RE KEEPING YOUR INCOME.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT MAKING THIS DECISION ISN'T GONNA THROW A WRENCH INTO THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL PIECE.
AND I, AND I'M, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS.
THERE'S THE LAWSUIT, THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, AND I JUST, I'M A LITTLE, I WANNA DO THE RIGHT THING IN THIS CASE, QUITE FRANKLY.
UM, AND I DON'T WANNA PUT PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET AND I, BUT I, I DON'T THINK I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE IF WE REVERSE THIS.
UM, AND I DON'T, CAN SOMEBODY HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY, SO THEY HAVE 180 DAYS TO SUBMIT FOR A PERMIT AND FOR IT TO BE ALIVE IN OUR SYSTEM, THEY HAVE TWO YEARS TO KEEP, KEEP SHOWING THAT THERE'S PROGRESS.
OKAY? IF THERE'S NO PROGRESS IN THOSE TWO YEARS, THEN IT GETS REVOKED.
THEY'RE NOT, BUT IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THEM TO, TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE PROGRESS AND KEEP IN CONTACT WITH THE, UM, WITH BUILDING CODE AND ALL THAT.
OKAY? TO CLARIFY, THEY, THEY HAVE TO HAVE SHOWN WORK EVERY SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT FIRST INITIAL AND THEN IT EXPIRES IF THERE'S BEEN NO WORK DONE.
SO THEY'RE NOT SHOWING WORK AFTER SIX MONTHS.
SO NOW IF, IF WE REVERSE THE DECISION AND THEY DON'T SHOW, UM, WORK AFTER SIX MONTHS, UM, HAVE THEY LOST THE OPPORTUNITY? AND I, I GUESS HONESTLY, I, I'M KIND OF ANSWERING MY OWN QUESTION.
IF WE REVERSE THIS DECISION AND THEY DON'T SHOW WORK AFTER SIX MONTHS, IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE THE SAME CASE IF, AS IF THEY GO DOWN THE PATH OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL.
I MEAN, IT'S GONNA BE, THEY'RE, THEY CAN'T DO THE WORK FOR THE BOARDING HOUSE.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO FOR THE WORK, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, AND WE'RE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO END UP IN THE SAME BOAT.
I THINK I JUST, I JUST WANNA KIND OF, I MEAN, IF I MAY, I, I THINK THAT MS. CRAWFORD, UM, SEEMS TO BE HIGHLY MOTIVATED TO GET SOMETHING DONE HERE.
UM, SHE IS HIRED, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE.
SHE'S GONE IN FROM DISTRICT COURT, SHE'S APPLIED FOR OTHER OPTIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS TO CREATE INCOME AND TO, UM, SHE'S, SHE'S TESTIFIED THAT SHE'LL BRING IT UP TO COMPLIANCE.
SO I HAVE EVERY FAITH IN HER THAT SHE WILL HIT THOSE MILESTONES TO, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NON-CONFORMING USE IS UPHELD.
UM, OR ELSE SHE WOULDN'T HAVE COME HERE AND, AND SPENT HER TIME, UM, AND EFFORT.
ANYTHING ELSE TO A VOTE? MR. FINLEY? UM, FINNEY, I'M SORRY.
MR. CHAIR? AYE, AYE, VOTE FOR TO ONE MOTION PASSES? YES.
SO PLEASE GET YOUR HOUSE TOGETHER SO THOSE PEOPLE HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE.
I MEAN, I, I WILL BE SO DISAPPOINTED IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
I WILL BECAUSE I, THIS WAS A, I DO NOT FEEL VERY GOOD ABOUT GRANTING THIS RELIEF, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE I WANT THIS TO BE LEGAL.
BUT I BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAID, AND PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT HOUSE.
I MEAN, AND MAKE SURE YOU GET INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND THAT WAY PEOPLE HAVE A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE.
BE KIND 'CAUSE YOU MAKE, WE, WE'VE DONE SOMETHING KIND TODAY.
SO PLEASE, I'M HOLDING YOU RESPONSE FROM MR. MLO TO MAKE SURE SHE DOES IT.
UH, THIS, UH, HEARING IS ADJOURNED AT 3:58 PM.