[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