[00:00:05]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on November 15, 2023.]
WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.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.
TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023.
THE TIME IS 1:08 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT PANEL B TO ORDER FOR OUR, UM, TO ORDER, UM, BOTH IN PERSON AND ON HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR OF FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING.
WE DO HAVE ONE OTHER BOARD MEMBER, UM, ONLINE TODAY.
UM, TODAY WE HAVE MYSELF, SARAH LAMB, MICHAEL KOWSKI, BILL AK, DEREK AL, AND, AND DEREK AL'S ONLINE.
UM, OUR STAFF PRESENT IS MATTHEW SAP, UM, DR.
KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, DIANA BARUM, WHO IS OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST COORDINATOR.
UM, JASON POOLE, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR, PHIL IRWIN, OUR ARBORIST, AND BRIAN BRYANT THOMPSON, OUR SENIOR PLANNER.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE 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 THE WEBSITE, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE THAT'S PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE 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 PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, AND WE'VE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED DOCKET WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE.
IT WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANY OF THE CASES TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE FOR PUBLIC RECORD.
APPROVALS OF VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REQUIRES A 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRED TO SAY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT OF OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING, IT'LL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
IF YOU DESIRE TO SPEAK TODAY, YOU MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES, OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED, UM, FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
THERE'S NO TELECONFERENCING ALLOWED.
ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AN ORDER.
AND WE WILL START WITH, UM, THE APPROVAL OF OUR SPECIAL CALL MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 31ST, 2023.
OR DO WE, OR I GUESS DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
UM, SO WE, UH, IF WE HAVE A, IF I CAN HAVE THE APPROVAL FOR OUR SPECIAL CALL MEETINGS, UM, OF OCTOBER 31ST, 2023.
DO I HAVE A MS. LAM? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 31ST, 2023.
UM, AND LYN, IF WE CAN APPROVE OUR PANEL B OCTOBER 18TH, 2023 MEMBER MINUTES.
DO I HAVE A, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR, UH, BOARD OCTOBER TH 18TH 2023.
MOTION PASSED AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE DOCKET.
UM, IF, UH, WE WILL START WITH OUR UNCONTESTED CASES, WHICH ARE BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 3 OF 4,200 DUNCANVILLE ROAD AND BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 9 AT 42 11 IRVING BOULEVARD.
UM, IF I CAN GET A MOTION ON THESE TWO UNCONTESTED CASES, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFY ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WITT BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 3 APPLICATION OF JENNIFER.
HI MOTO, FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE FOR THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 9 APPLICATION OF RYAN SMIGEL FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE FOR THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
[00:05:01]
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE CASES? CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE MR. SAUTE? AYE.AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR CASES AND WE WILL START WITH BDA 2 23 DASH 9 2 28 51 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, APPLICATION OF MAURICE WILSON REPRESENTED BY CHRISTINA PAGE IF THE APPLICANT WILL PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UM, WE WILL, UH, IF YOU WILL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH TO YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THE, MY NAME IS CHRISTINA PAGE AND THE ADDRESS IS 28 51 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD.
UM, THE SURVEY FOR THAT PROPERTY STATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS FROM THE CENTER OF THE CREEK BACK.
SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAD A ACTUAL LAND SURVEY DONE FOR PLATTING, THE PROPERTY CHANGED FROM 17,000 SQUARE FEET TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS THE CREEK HAS MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS THE FLOOD ZONE HAS MOVED.
SO THE ORIGINAL SITE PLANS THAT YOU ARE, THE ORIGINAL PLANS THAT YOU'RE SEEING IS WHAT THE HOMEOWNER WAS WISHING AND HOPING FOR.
BUT THE PLANS THAT I, UM, SUBMITTED TO YOU THAT SHOWS THE 15 FOOT SETBACK IS THE PLANS THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT WILL BE ABLE TO BE BUILT AT THAT LOCATION BASED OFF THE FLOOD ZONE MOVING.
WHEN THE FLOOD ZONE MOVED, THERE WAS A RETAINING WALL THAT NEEDED, THAT NEEDS TO BE PLACED BEHIND THE HOME.
AND THAT'S FOR STABILITY PURPOSES.
BASED OFF THE, THE DROP OF THE SLOPE, IT'S NOT JUST LIKE A REGULAR DROP, IT, IT'S PRETTY STEEP.
SO ENGINEERS, UM, TWO ENGINEERS HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT SOME TYPE OF WALL HOLD THE HOUSE FORWARD TOWARD JEFFERSON AND THAT WOULD BE A RETAINING WALL.
BUT WHEN THE FLOOD ZONE MOVED FROM, UM, THE 15,000 TO THE 17,000 SQUARE FEET, THE FLOOD ZONE MOVED INWARD INTO THE LAND, WHICH MEAN THE RETAINING WALL THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED WAS INSIDE THE FLOOD ZONE.
SO AT PLAQUE THEY ASKED US TO MOVE THE RETAINING WALL.
IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE RETAINING WALL, THE HOUSE HAS TO COME UP THE 10 FEET BECAUSE THE RETAINING WALL CANNOT HOLD UP THE WHOLE HOUSE.
HE CAN HOLD THE STABILITY OF THE LAND.
SO IF THE HOUSE IS SITTING UP AGAINST THE RETAINING WALL, IF WE MAKE THE 25 FOOT REGULAR SETBACK, THAT MEAN THE HOUSE IS SITTING UP AGAINST THE RETAINING WALL, WHICH MEANS THAT THE, THE RETAINING WALL OVER TIME WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HOLD THE HOUSE AND THE WEIGHT OF THE HOUSE.
SO IT NEEDS TO BE SOME TYPE OF GAP, WHICH THEY'RE RECOMMENDING 10 FEET OF GAP IN BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE RETAINING WALL AND MOVING THE HOUSE UP 10 FEET MEANS THE RETAINING WALL IS RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE FLOOD ZONE.
IT'S NOT IN THE FLOOD ZONE, IT'S IN ZONE, I THINK IT'S BELIEVE X.
SO THE PROPERTY HAS TWO ZONES.
ZONE X IS IN THE FRONT ZONE, AE IS IN THE BACK.
UM, SO IF WE PUT THE RETAINING WALL IN ZONE X, IT HOLDS THE STABILITY OF THE HOUSE FORWARD AND THE FLOOD ZONE WILL BE BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL.
DOES THE CITY BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, THAT THE CREEK WILL CONTINUE TO ENCROACH ON THE PROPERTY OR IS THE RETAINING WALL GOING TO MAKE, KEEP THE CREEK OUT? THAT'S THE RETAINING WALL IS FOR THE HOME.
THE MOVEMENT OF THE, THE LAND IS THIS, I THINK THE LAST SURVEY WAS 1950, SO BETWEEN 1950 AND NOW WE HAVE LOST LIKE 1600 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND THAT'S ONE REASON I, I DEAL WITH UNBUILDABLE LOCK.
THAT'S ONE REASON I RECOMMENDED BEFORE I EVEN KNEW A RETAINER WALL WAS NEEDED, THAT THE HOUSE BE MOVED UP BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WITH WATER WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY
[00:10:01]
BY THAT PROPERTY BEING ON THE BEND OF A CREEK.AND SO THAT MEANS IT'S ERODING MAYBE A LITTLE FASTER THAN IT WOULD BE IF THE WATER WAS JUST PASSING THROUGH IT.
UM, I SEE THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICANT? I WORK WITH UNBIDDABLE LOTS, SO, UM, THEY BROUGHT ME IN BECAUSE THEY WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE PLOTTING AND PLACEMENT OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DIDN'T FALL IN THE CREEK 10 YEARS FROM NOW.
SO, UM, I'M JUST, I GO, I GO, I LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY AND I GIVE MY BEST RECOMMENDATIONS AND THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION I GAVE HIM LAST DECEMBER.
BUT WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GOT THE LAND SURVEY, MY RECOMMENDATION WAS VALIDATE.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S TWO REQUESTS HERE, UM, WITH THE APPLICATION, ONE OF WHICH IS THE VARIANCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS, WHICH I BELIEVE, IN MY OPINION YOU ADDRESSED, UM, WITH THE EROSION OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE, THE FLOOD PLAIN.
THE SECOND REQUEST IS FOR VARIANCE ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
UM, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF, UM, THREE FEET.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, UH, THREE FEET, SIX INCHES? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE WHY YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE, THE, UH, VARIANCE OF THREE FEET, SIX INCHES ON THE HEIGHT? OKAY.
SO WITH THE LAND AND NOT ACTUALLY KNOWING, 'CAUSE THIS LAND IS HEAVILY, UM, IT HAS A LOT OF BAMBOO AND TREES IN THERE RIGHT NOW.
SO ALL, EVERYTHING THAT, ALL THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE KIND OF JUST UNTIL WE GET IN THERE, WE'RE REALLY NOT, NOT GONNA KNOW WHERE OUR GRADE REALLY IS.
AND FROM WHAT I CAN SEE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WATER IS RUNNING BACK TOWARD THE CREEK AND NOT TOWARD JEFFERSON OR THE OTHER PROPERTIES, THAT ELEVATION IN THE FRONT WILL HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ELEVATED, WHICH MEANS THAT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A FLAT ROOF AND HE HAS THE PITCH ROOF, THAT GOING FROM THE PITCH DOWN TO THE ACTUAL GRAY AND THAT BRINGS US THREE FEET ABOVE.
ARE YOU BUILDING UP A, A, A LARGER FOUNDATION? IS THAT WHAT'S GETTING US IS IT JUST A PITCH OF THE ROOF? IT'S THE, IT'S THE GRADE.
I THINK THEY GO FROM, THE WAY THEY MEASURE IT, UM, IS FROM THE PITCH OF THE ROOF TO THE GRADE OF THE, THE HOME.
SO THE GRADE IN THE FRONT IN ORDER TO SLOPE IT BACK WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE THAN IT WOULD NORMALLY PROBABLY BE.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING THE, UM, I THINK IT WAS 33 POINT SOMETHING FEET.
BUT CAN CITY STAFF CONFIRM HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHT, UM, ON A SITE PLAN? SO HEIDI IS MEASURED FROM AVERAGE GRADE TO, IN THIS TYPE OF A ROOF PITCH, UH, TO THE HIGHEST POINT.
SO DEPENDING ON THE ROOF PITCH IS WHAT WE MEASURE TO, IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE THE HIGHEST POINT BECAUSE IT, THE HOUSE CEILINGS ARE ONLY 29, SO IT'S THE PITCH OF THAT ROOF THAT'S CHANGING.
AND I MEAN REALLY
SO IT'S POTENTIAL, IT POTENTIALLY THOUGH, IF WE APPROVE THIS BASED ON ONCE YOU CLEAR THE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION, YOU MAY NOT ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THAT 33.6 FEET IN HEIGHT.
IT MAY ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN THAT.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE 33 JUST TO BE SAFE 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA COME BACK.
UM, WE MIGHT BE AT, WE MIGHT BE AT 30, WE MIGHT BE AT 31, BUT IT'S, IT'S A POTENTIAL THAT WE WON'T, UH, ACHIEVE THE 33.
AND THEN WHEN, WHEN YOU GO IN FOR A SURVEY, IS IT, IF, IF THERE'S A LOT OF, OF SHRUBS AND STUFF ON THE PROPERTY, UM, ARE ARE, ARE YOU GETTING A FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THE TRUE SLOPE AND GRADING LOOKS LIKE? UM, WE DO NOT DO SURVEYS.
I KNOW, BUT LIKE I, I'M JUST LIKE, WHEN, WHEN A SURVEY'S PROVIDED, LIKE TOPOGRAPHY AND ALL THAT, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THEY'RE BASING IT OFF.
THEY HAD A SURVEY DONE ON THE PROPERTY.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A SURVEY WILL TELL.
TELL US WHAT IT, WE, WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE, UH, SITE PLAN THAT'S PROVIDED AND IF THEY PROVIDE ELEVATION GRADES, WE USE THOSE ELEVATION GRADES AND MEASURE UP TO THE MAX HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED FOR THAT ZONING INDUSTRY.
UM, BUT WILL A SURVEY TELL YOU THE GRADING ON A PROPERTY IF THEY PAY FOR IT? UH, THERE'S VARIOUS TYPES OF SURVEYS THAT YOU CAN ORDER.
UH, SOME VER SURVEYS WILL JUST SHOW YOU THE MEETS AND BOUNDS OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN GET A SURVEY THAT WILL SHOW YOU THE GRADE ELEVATIONS AS WELL, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE APPLICANT PAYS FOR WHAT'S PROVIDED TO THE CITY AT TIMES.
CAN I JUST ASK A, I ASKED A QUESTION DURING THE BRIEFING, BUT WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RENTABLE AREA LEGEND AND A BUILDING AREA? LEGEND.
[00:15:01]
THE ARCHITECT'S END, 'CAUSE ARCHITECTS USE PLANS OVER AND OVER.THIS IS THE HOMEOWNER'S PERSONAL HOMESTEAD HOME.
UM, HE HAS A 17 YEAR OLD CHILD.
SO BESIDES THE 17 YEAR OLD BEING, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
IS THAT ON THE FIRST FLOOR? I, YEAH, I JUST, I'D NEVER SEEN THAT LANGUAGE BEFORE.
YEAH, I, I DON'T, HONESTLY, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHERE HIS 17 YEAR OLD IS GONNA BE ON THEIR FIRST FLOOR.
SO, UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THINGS ARE LABELED BECAUSE I THINK IT SAYS GUEST ROOM, GUEST AREA ON THERE TOO.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS SO, NOPE, THAT WAS JUST A QUESTION.
IT, IT'S PROBABLY A MISTAKE ON THE ARCHITECT'S END.
I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO CATCH EVERYTHING AS FAR AS DEALING WITH THIS SITE, SO IT'S PROBABLY JUST SOMETHING EVERYBODY OVERLOOKED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UM, MAY I HAVE A MOTION OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THE SPEAKERS, UM, FOR OR AGAINST.
MAY I HAVE MOTION MS. LIAM? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 2 ON APPLICATION OF MAURICE WILLIS WILSON.
SORRY, GRANT, THE 10 PUT VARIANCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.
THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
I, I, I I'LL SECOND WE HAVE TWO SECONDS.
UM, THE REASON WHY I GRANTED THIS FIRST, UH, ONE OF TWO MOTIONS IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT AND APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, UM, VERY THOROUGH SITE PLANS AND THEIR ARTICULATION OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE PROPERTY, WITH THE FLOODPLAIN AND UM, AND GRADING IS ONE THAT THEY CAN'T NORMALLY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, UM, SIMILAR TO OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO DEVELOP THIS PROPER PROPERTY WOULD BE TO GRANT THIS MOTION ONE OF TWO, WHICH WAS FOR THE, UH, VARIANCE FOR THE 10 FOOT, UH, FRONT YARD SETBACK.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE MR. SAHU? YAY, MS. LAMB.
MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO AND THIS HAS A SECOND MOTION.
DO I HAVE SOME NOTES? MS. LAMB? I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 2 ON APPLICATION OF MAURICE WILSON.
GRANT THE THREE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF HIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANT TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I MOVED, UH, TO GRANT THIS, UM, SECOND APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES, AGAIN WITH THE PROPERTY AND THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE MADE, UH, IN TERMS OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE GRADING AND NOT FULLY APPRECIATING BECAUSE OF WHAT THE, UH, CURRENCY OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CHALLENGES WITH THE, UM, FLOODPLAIN, UM, WHAT THE TRUE GRADING IS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHT AND MADE THEIR CASE TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE OF A THREE FOOT SIX INCH HEIGHT VARIANCE.
UH, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. NATAL? AYE.
MS. LAMB AYE MS. BY CHAIR? AYE.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE BDA 2 23 DASH 0 9 4 55 40 NORTH 40 PLACE IS THE APPLICATION OF EDMAR DAVID, UM, TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL METER IF THE APPLICANT WILL PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES OR ARE THEY ONLINE? WERE THEY, DID ANYBODY LET THEM KNOW THAT WE WERE NOT HOLDING OR HOW DOES, HAS ANYBODY CALLED THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AWARE THAT WE'RE HEARING THEIR CASE OR DO WE NOT DO THAT? NO, WE DON'T.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ON AN UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
SO WAS THE, AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION, WAS THE APPLICANT AWARE THAT IF IT WAS PUT ON THE UNCONTESTED, THAT IF IT WAS MOVED, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, THAT THINGS DON'T NECESSARILY
[00:20:01]
STAY ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET? THE APPLICANTS, UM, ARE INFORMED OF THEIR MEETING DATE AND TIME.SO WE WILL PUT THIS CASE ASIDE, UM, AND HOPEFULLY THEY SHOW UP.
UM, AND WE'LL LET THAT ONE GO AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO BDA 2 2 3 100, WHICH IS 1 0 5 7 KESSLER PARKWAY APPLICATION OF JAMES THROWER REPRESENTED BY PETER KAVANAUGH FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD REGULATION SETBACKS.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT WILL STEP FORWARD, IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN.
MY ADDRESS IS 1620 HANDILY DRIVE IN DALLAS.
I'LL LET MARY SIR SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COM OF THE BOARD.
MY ADDRESS IS 1620 HANLEY DRIVE IN DALLAS.
I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A FEW SLIDES POPPING UP.
UM, HOW DO I ADVANCE IT? IS IT ON THIS THING RIGHT HERE?
[00:27:06]
THE TIME IS UP ALL I CAN THAT UP THERE TO ANSWER QUESTION BASED ON THE OKAY.DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU? UH, JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU SAID THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY ABOUT 30 FEET FROM THE, UH, THE CONCRETE OF THE STREET.
SO THEN WE'VE GOT WITH THIS, YOU'RE AT ABOUT 48 FEET OR SO OF FROM THE CON FROM THE STREET, STREET TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE ABOUT, OKAY, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR YOU? OKAY.
AND ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO.
DO WE HAVE, WE'LL MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH 100 ON APPLICATION OF JAMES THROWER GRANT, THE NINE FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS AS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.
THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMIT SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE SITE PLAN AND THE CASE THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE MADE, UM, PROVE THAT IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS PARCEL OF LAND IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING TO DEVELOP BASED ON THE GRADING AND THE SLOPE.
UM, AND I BELIEVE IT'S NOT TO RELIEVE ANY SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS I APPROVED THIS MOTION OR THIS APPLICATION.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MS. LA A AYE.
UH, WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO, UM, OUR HOLDOVER CASE, EDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 7 4 55 0 5.
CHATHAM HILL ROAD IS THE APPLICATION,
[00:30:01]
UM, OF MASTER PLAN REPRESENTED BY TRENTON ROBERTSON FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF OUR DOCKET.IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE PROCEED.
[00:35:08]
UM, CAN WE AS A BOARD EVEN APPROVE SOMETHING WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL SITE PLAN IF WE'RE TYING SOMETHING TO A SITE PLAN? THE PROBLEM IS, IS THE APPLICATION HERE IS SUBJECT TO THE MOTION APPLICATION, IS IT RUNS TO THE LAND.
AND IF WE ARE TO APPROVE THIS TO DATE, IT'S BASED ON THE SITE PLAN AND IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER 3RD.
AND THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SUBMITTED IS NOT CORRECT.
UM, COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING THAT, UH, THOSE ARE TYPOS AND THAT THOSE MODIFICATIONS WILL BE MADE TO THE SUB TO SITE PLAN IN QUESTION SO WE CAN MAKE MODIFICATIONS FOR THE MOTION.
SO MY, MY CASE, SO ZONE THREE IS MAXED OUT AT EIGHT FOOT AND ZONE NINE.
MAXED OUT AT NINE FOOT SEEMS TO BE THE REQUISITE, UM, INSTANCES, BUT MY CONCERN IS THE LAST SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND PUT IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD LAST HEARING HAD HAD VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUES THAT WE DIDN'T DISCOVER UNTIL AFTER WE HELD YOU OVER.
UM, AND AT THE, AT THE FIRST GLANCE CITY STAFF, UM, WAS BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAD 30 MINUTES TO REVIEW, IT WAS NOT ABLE TO TO PICK UP ON THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY STUDIED IT FURTHER.
SO IF WE APPROVE YET ANOTHER SITE PLAN, THAT ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT WE'LL RUN WITH THE LAND.
I, I HAVE ISSUES, I HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THAT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE, WE'VE PROBABLY SEEN 10 MODIFICATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN SINCE Y'ALL HAVE COME IN FROM, FROM, FROM THIS PANEL.
SO I, BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE SITE PLAN Y'ALL SUBMITTED TO THE LAST HEARING Y'ALL TESTIFIED WAS THE SITE PLAN YOU WANTED TO GO WITH BOARD WITH, AND IT HAD MULTIPLE LOCATIONS WITHIN YOUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT VIOLATED THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU WANTING TO, TO MAKE THERE WAS ERRORS ON THE SITE PLAN AND YOU NEED TO CHANGE SOME NUMBERS, BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST ERROR YOU'VE HAD ON THE SITE PLAN.
THIS PROJECT, UM, DOES, HAS STAFF, IS THIS THE FIRST
[00:40:01]
Y'ALL ARE HEARING ABOUT THIS? WAS IT, WAS IT MENTIONED DURING, UM, RECESS OR IS THIS THE FIRST TIME? HAVE YOU HAD A, A, A MOMENT? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING THAT THERE, THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH HA HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN SINCE HIS TESTIMONY AND SEE WHAT THE ERRORS ARE? NO, WE'RE JUST HEARING ABOUT THE ISSUES.YOU SAID THAT IS THE ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED AT THE CORRECT HEIGHT SHOWN AND IT'S JUST THE SITE FORM THAT, THAT HAS THE TYPO
I I'M NOT, I'M NOTABLE WITH THE STAFF HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW, IN MY OPINION, THE REASON THAT THE ELEVATIONS, UM, OR THE SITE PLAN WAS CHANGED TO SHOW THE DIMENSIONS THAT ARE ON THESE SITE PLANS IS BECAUSE THE ELEVATIONS, UM, IN COMMUNICATION WITH TRENT, I TOLD HIM THAT THE ELEVATION SHOW IN THE CERTAIN ZONES, THE HEIGHT THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE CERTAIN ZONE IS WHAT I SENT TO HIM.
AND THAT'S WHY THE SITE PLAN WAS REVISED.
SO WE WOULD NEED A NEW SITE PLAN WITH THE CORRECT ZONE AND THE CORRECT HEIGHT AS WELL AS ELEVATIONS WITH THE CORRECT ZONE AND HEIGHT, WHICH FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW, THE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWING THE INCORRECT HEIGHT.
I SUPPLIED TO TRENT WHAT THE ELEVATION SHOWED I, BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, I THINK IT'S ON THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SITE PLANS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING FORTH TO THE CITY ARE WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY SEEKING ARE ACCURATE.
EVEN IF IT WAS AN ERROR, THEY HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW A REVISED SITE PLAN.
[00:45:03]
WELL, I I THINK STAFF IS NOW SAYING THAT THERE'S CHANGES TO ZONING AREAS, UM, AND ELEVATIONS AS WELL THAT MAY BE NEEDED ON THE SITE PLAN.NO, WHAT, WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE REASON THOSE ELEVATIONS OR THOSE NUMBERS WERE PROVIDED TO TRENT WAS SPECIFIC WAS JUST OFF OF HIS ELEVATIONS THAT HE SUBMITTED.
SO, SO THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SUBMITTED THERE IS SHOWING THE ELEVATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN, I MEAN, OF THE ELEVATE OF THE SITE PLAN FROM THE ELEVATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED AT THAT TIME.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE TALLER, THAT IT'S TALLER THAN WHAT IS PROVIDED ON THIS SITE PLAN? CORRECT.
THE ELEVATIONS SHOW THAT, BUT IT'S NOT LESS THAN THE EIGHT.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU MR. SAPP.
SO I MEAN, WE ARE, IF WE'RE GIVING THEM A NINE FOOT FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHY, WHY IS IT LABELED THEN? WHY ARE WE BEING SO SPECIFIC ON THE SITE PLAN? AND, AND I, AND I, AND I SAY THAT WITH, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES ACROSS THE STREET AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE, THAT THE NEIGHBORS DON'T GET ALONG.
BUT I MEAN, I CAN READ THE AGREEMENTS THAT THE REEVES WROTE TO THE, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY WERE GONNA LEAVE IT AT SEVEN FEET AND LEAVE THE PLANTINGS AND LEAVE IT AS A, UM, OR THE OTHER FENCE IS, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS, THAT WAS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND GRANTED IT WASN'T PART OF THE CITY, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT THE NEIGHBORS, I'M TRYING, SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT PART OF THE FENCE BE AT SEVEN FEET, WHICH IS WHAT THEY AGREED TO.
BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE MAKING THIS VERY COMPLICATED AND YOU SHOULD BE AT NINE FEET, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE WHETHER YOU LIKE YOUR NEIGHBORS OR NOT, YOU NEED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
AND THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THAT NEIGHBOR HAS NOT BEEN UPHELD, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.
SO,
AS OPPOSED TO WE'VE GOT EIGHT FEET HERE, SEVEN FEET HERE.
[00:50:01]
I UNDERS I UNDERSTAND YOUR CON YOUR QUESTION ON THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THE REASON THAT IT'S DONE THIS WAY IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS.SO WHEN THEY SEE THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THEY'RE PROPOSING A SEVEN FOOT MESH FENCE, NOT A NINE FOOT MESH FENCE.
SO MAYBE THEY WOULD HAVE AN, THEY WOULD OPPOSE THE NINE FOOT FENCE AND NOT THE SEVEN FOOT.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ELEVATION.
SO IN THE SITE PLAN, THE MOTION ISN'T COMPLIANT WITH IT'S ONLY COMMITTED, UH, COMPLIANT WITH LIKE SOME COMPLIANT WITH ALL PLANS SUBMITTED.
AND I GUESS WOULD THAT THEN ULTIMATELY INCLUDE SITE, UH, ELEVATIONS? ANY PLAN THAT THEY WOULD SUBMIT YES, THAT WE WOULD STAMP FOR APPROVAL THAT WOULD, UH, QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY.
UM, RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN THAT WE WERE GETTING READY TO APPROVE HAS A SIX, AN EIGHT AND A NINE FOOT WAIT.
AND, AND OF ALL FAIRNESS, WE WERE, WE HAVE MADE NO DECISION ON, ON THIS APPLICATION.
I'M SPEAKING, I I'M ASKING MY QUESTION.
YES, BUT YOU SAY GETTING READY TO APPROVE.
SO WE, WE MADE NO DECISION ON THIS.
THE PLAN THAT WE ARE GETTING READY TO APPROVE IF WE APPROVE THIS IS SIX, EIGHT, AND NINE.
CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE, OKAY.
SO IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED PLAN THAT SHOWS, UH, NINE, NINE AND NINE OR EIGHT, NINE AND NINE, CORRECT.
IT WOULD BE, AND SO IF WE, SO IF WE, WE COULD MAKE A MOTION WHERE ZONES THREE AND ZONES NINE, RIGHT? I'M SORRY? IT WAS THREE AND THREE AND TWO.
WE'LL, WE'LL STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, BUT WHATEVER, IT WILL BE TIED TO PLANS THAT THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO WITH THOSE PROPER ELEVATION.
AND IF THEY DON'T COME BACK WITH THE CORRECTED PLAN, THEN THEY'RE MARRIED AT ONE POINT TO A SIX FOOT HIGH ELEVATION FENCE HIGH.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
WE'RE SAYING WE'RE APPROVING THIS WITH THESE CHANGES, UH, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR QUESTION MR. SE IN A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.
SO RIGHT, SO THEY WOULD BE, THEY WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CITY IF THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT THE PLAN THAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO SUBMIT.
THEY WOULD'VE A PROBLEM WITH YES.
WELL, BECAUSE YES, THE PLAN THAT IS IN FRONT OF US IS THE SIXTH, AND IF WE DO APPROVE THIS, IT'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, SAYING THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A PLAN.
YEAH, I, I WOULD ASK, I THINK WE, WE HAVE QUESTION AT THIS POINT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? UM, NO.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION TODAY? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER.
CAN I, CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO HIS? I BELIEVE THE SIX INCH THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS JUST THE STEP ON THE FENCE.
YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT THIS? IT, IT'S NOT OKAY.
IT'S NOT THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, IT'S JUST FROM THE, THE LEVEL OF THE FENCE FOR THAT ONE.
MAY I MAKE A MOTION ON THE SITE? YEAH.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY SIX FEET, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE ZONE ON THE SITE PLAN, THE ELEVATION.
HI, THAT'S, I HAVE A QUESTION.
THE APPLICANT, SO THE FIRST TIME Y'ALL APPEARED IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD WAS PROBABLY FIVE MONTHS AGO, AND WE'VE HAD PROBABLY SIX OR SEVEN CHANGES.
UH, THE LAST HEARING WAS LITERALLY 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING, AND NOW WE'RE HEARING OF ANOTHER CHANGE TO SITE PLAN.
IF THESE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES, CAN YOU, WOULD YOU, ARE YOU WILLING TO TESTIFY THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER ERRORS TO SITE PLAN OTHER THAN THOSE TWO? ARE YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT CONFIDENT THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGES OR ERRORS TO YOUR SITE PLAN? YOU ARE NOW.
[00:55:08]
SO WHY, WHY IS IT THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD HEARING LAST MONTH, WHAT HAPPENED WHERE WHOEVER CONSTRUCTED THOSE SITE PLANS MISSED SIGNIFICANT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES? I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ISSUE WITH Y'ALL'S APPLICATION.I HAVE ISSUES WITH Y'ALL CONTINUING, CONTINUALLY CHANGING THE SITE PLAN AND US NOT HAVING ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW IT.
THE LAST, IF WE WOULD'VE APPROVED YOUR APPLICATION LAST MONTH, YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO COME BACK HERE BECAUSE YOU WOULD'VE VIOLATED VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AND HAD TO HAVE A SEPARATE APPLICATION IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IN THOSE AREAS.
AND SO THE CITY STAFF HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR CHANGES THAT YOU'RE ASKING FROM THE SITE PERMIT THAT'S PROPOSED TODAY.
AND I JUST HAVE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE ACCURACY OF THE SITE PLAN, HEARING YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YET AGAIN, THERE'S ERRORS TO A SITE PLAN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOW CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND ITS INTENT IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL PLANS SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023 WITH THE REVISIONS THAT ZONE THREE IS CHANGED TO EIGHT FEET AND ZONE NINE, IT'S CHANGED TO NINE FEET
SORRY, CAN YOU RESTATE THE, SO COMPLIANCE OF THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL PLANS SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023 WITH, WITH THE REVISION THAT ZONE THREE EQUALS IS EIGHT FEET TALL AND ZONE TWO IS NINE TWO TALL.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND MOTION.
UH, Y'ALL, WE CAN'T EVEN GET THIS RIGHT ON A MOTION IN TERMS OF HEIGHTS, WHICH MEANS THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE APPROVING THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT IS ACCURATE.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY A RESPONSIBLE OF THIS BOARD TO GRANT THIS.
I THINK THE MOST RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO IS HOLD THIS OVER UNTIL WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT IS ACCURATE.
AND I THINK IT'S VERY RESPONSIBLE, THIS BOARD TO BE APPROVING THIS.
AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE MAKING A MOTION CAN'T EVEN GET THE HEIGHTS RIGHT ON THE ZONES WHEN WE'RE MAKING THE MOTION PROVES THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THIS MOTION.
WE SHOULD BE MOVING THIS TO HOLD IT OVER WHILE THEY REVISE THE SITE PLAN.
SO IT'S ACCURATE THAT WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS TIED TO AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN AND THEY CAN COME BACK.
I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR FINITES REGULATIONS.
I WOULD HATE TO ASK A APPLICANT TO COME BACK FOR TWO TYPOS THAT I THINK ARE LEGALLY READ INTO THE RECORD AND CHANGE.
[01:00:01]
RESPECT ON THE NEIGHBORS AND DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF ALLOWING ONE NEIGHBOR TO DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS WITH AGAINST THE ISSUES OF SEVEN OTHER NEIGHBORS.UM, AND, UH, I THINK IT'S BEEN SATISFIED.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE REVISIONS.
I'M ALSO COMFORTABLE THAT IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT THE REVISED PLAN, THEN UH, THEY'RE STUCK WITH SIX FEET.
SO, UH, AT ONE POINT, SO I FAILED TO SEE WHAT, WHAT HARM OR DAMAGE COULD COME FROM IT, UH, AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, UM, TWO MONTHS FROM NOW SLAM, I WILL REMIND THE BOARD THAT IT WAS AT THE BRIEFING TODAY.
WE FOUND OUT THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THIS BOARD LAST HEARING, WHICH WE HELD OVER, HAD ERRORS THAT WERE SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF VIOLATIONS OF VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
AND YET WE ARE NOW SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE WORD THAT THIS IS AN ACCURATE, UH, SITE PLAN THAT WE ARE BASICALLY MAKING APPROVAL ON.
I THINK IT DOES MORE HARM TO APPROVE THIS WITH CHANGES TO A SITE PLAN THAN TO HOLD IT OVER.
MIND YOU, THESE CHANGES THE SITE PLAN ARE IN ARE SELF-INFLICTED ON THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BURDEN OF PROOF AND PROVIDING AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN, AND HE HAS NOT DONE THAT FOR US TODAY.
AND THERE'S BEEN BIG CHANGES SINCE THE LAST SITE THING WE HEARD, WE SAW FOR THE LAST HEARING.
SO I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HOLD THIS OVER AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN THAT STAFF HAS ADEQUATE ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT'S TIED TO THE SITE PLAN IS CORRECT.
AND OUR STAFF HAS NOT HAD ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, UH, PER THE TESTIMONY.
UM, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR, UM, STAFF.
NUMBER ONE, DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE SITE PLAN WITH THESE TWO REVISIONS? I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE IF THE APPLICANT HADN'T COULD, UM, CORRECT THE, OR REVISE THE APPLICATION TO SHOW THE CORRECT HEIGHT AND INITIAL IT AND WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCEPT IT.
UM, AND NUMBER TWO ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FENCE IS ALREADY BUILT.
SO I THINK THAT THE ERROR ON THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT ACTUALLY AN ERROR.
IT WAS JUST AN ERROR IN DRAWING AND THAT, BUT OR AM I, I MEAN, I ASSUME THAT THE FENCE IT'S BUILT IS NOT IN THE, I MEAN IT'S NOT IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
I I BELIEVE THE FENCE IS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, SO THEY'RE GONNA FIX IT FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, BUT THEY ARE GONNA FIX IT.
SO IF THIS WAS TO BE APPROVED, THEY WOULD HAVE 180 DAYS TO, TO SUBMIT.
WELL, TO GET AN AGENDA, I THINK THAT TO SUBMIT A, A PERMIT FOR REVIEW OR TO DO AN ADDENDUM TO DO IT SYSTEM IN, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT STAGE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW.
SO A QUESTION FOR YOU MR. SAPP.
CAN WE, UM, DURING THIS DISCUSSION TIME, CAN WE CALL UP THE, UH, THE APPLICANT TO INITIAL AND SIGN THAT DOCUMENT? OR DO WE NEED TO ADD, HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? I MEAN, THE MOTION'S ON THE FLOOR, SO WHAT'S, DO WE NEED TO RESEND THE MOTION AND HAVE THEM SIGN IT AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION? YEP.
BUT ALSO THE, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WE'RE THAT WE, HE'S MADE A MOTION ON IS IT BASED ON THE SITE PLAN FROM, FROM THE THIR 3RD OF NOVEMBER AND SOME CHANGES.
BUT WE HA WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT THOSE CHANGES YET.
SO IF HE'S GONNA MODIFYING THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE MOTION THE FLOOR IS BASED ON HIS ARTICULATION.
IT, IT'S WHAT CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN EVEN WITH INITIALS IS NOT BASED ON WHAT THE MOTION WAS JUST MADE.
IT'S BASED ON A SPECULATION OF WHAT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO, WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AND, UM, TALK TO THE LAWYERS.
THIS IS, I'VE NEVER HAD A FENCE CASE LIKE THIS.
WE'LL RE WE'RE RECESSING AT TWO 12.
[01:11:43]
[01:14:20]
ALL RIGHT.WE'LL RECONVENE OUR MEETING AT 2:22 PM WE ARE STILL DISCUSSING EDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 7 4 55 0 5 CHATHAM HILL ROAD.
UM, OUR LAWYER, MR. MATT SAPP, IS GOING TO GIVE US OUR UPDATES ON WHAT OUR CHOICES ARE NOW THAT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
SO CURRENTLY MR. KOWSKI HAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, UM, TO GRANT THE SPECIAL ACCEPTING FOR FENCE HEIGHT WITH SOME CERTAIN, UM, YEAH, WITH SOME CERTAIN EXTRAS.
UH, THE CONCERN WAS TO HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE APPLICANT SIGN OFF ON THE APPLICATION.
[01:15:01]
HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION, UH, THE DRAWING SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT IT CAN ONLY BE SOMEBODY FROM THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM.SO IT WOULDN'T BE ADEQUATE TO HAVE IT FROM COUNSEL.
THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM THAT COULD SIGN OFF ON THAT.
WE CAN HAVE THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM MAKE THE CORRECTIONS OR SIGN OFF ON IT AND SEND THAT TO US.
THEY'RE BASED IN LOS ANGELES, BUT THEY CAN ELECTRONICALLY GET THAT TO US.
I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT, UM, IT, IT'S THE BOARD'S INTEREST IN DOING SO THAT YOU GIVE US UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING TO BRING THEM BACK AND TAKE THIS MATTER BACK UP WITH THE CORRECTED DRAWINGS, IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S PERRO.
AND SO IN THAT REGARD, AS COUNSEL NOTED, IT'S THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY.
YOU CAN VOTE ON THE MOTION AS IS.
YOU CAN WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION AND WE CAN REQUEST THAT A NEW, UH, DRAWINGS BE SENT.
UM, AND IT'S FOR THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE YOUR DECISION TO HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, SO WE'RE STILL IN THE DISCUSSION MODE OF OUR MOTION AND, UM, I I, I THINK IT IS VERY IMPERATIVE UPON OUR APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION.
UM, I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR I FOURTH TIME TO PREPARE THIS CASE.
AND EVERY TIME SOMETHING HAS CHANGED, UM, I, I AM STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT TO TAKE THESE CHANGES EVERY TIME A CHANGE HAS COME IN, EVEN WHEN IT WAS JUST FOR SOMETHING SMALL, THERE HAS BEEN SOMETHING ELSE MAJOR THAT WAS FOUND.
AND UM, SO IT IS CONCERNING TO ME TO APPROVE THESE 'CAUSE WHEN THE ARCHITECT MAILS 'EM OVER AND IF WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO REVIEW 'EM, THERE MAY BE A CHANGE IN THERE THAT WE DIDN'T GET.
UM, SO I DO HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT APPROVING THIS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION.
SO MY ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN WITH THE APPLICATION, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WITH THE SITE PLAN AND THE DELAYS AND, AND THE GENEROSITY OF THIS BOARD AND PANEL TO HOLD OVER THIS MATTER SEVERAL TIMES HAS BEEN TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO GET A CORRECTED SITE PLAN.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO DELAY CASES, BUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN GENEROUS TO HOLD OVER THESE CASES TO ALLOW Y'ALL TO GET US A CORRECT SITE PLAN.
AND I WOULD, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO DO THE SAME TODAY THAT WILL ALLOW Y'ALL TO GET A FINAL SITE PLAN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT AND HAVE ALL PARTIES LOOK AT IT AND SIGN OFF ON INCLUDING A CITY.
UM, THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE HERE, BECAUSE I AM NOT COMFORTABLE EVEN WITH SIGNATURES AND THIS THIS SIGN OFF ON THE CHANGING OF HEIGHTS WITH CERTAIN ZONES I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH APPROVING THIS APPLICATION WITH, WITH SUCH A SHORT NOTICE OF MODIFIED SITE PLANS.
MR. KAKI, IF YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE MOTION.
UM, I THINK IT COVERS EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE COVERED.
IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE MOTION WITH THE MODIFICATION, IF THEY'RE, IF WHAT THEY BILL DOES NOT MEET THE SITE PLAN WITH THE MOD, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS MENTIONED IN THE MOTION, THEN IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OF THE, UM, OF OUR, OF THE MOTION.
AND SO THAT BEEN, BUT WHEN WE, BUT WHEN WE GET THE NEW SITE PLAN, WE HAVE HELD, WE HAVE, WE HAVE VOTED TO BE ON THAT SITE PLAN.
AND IF THEY'VE MADE CHANGES INADVERTENTLY THAT WE CANNOT SEE OR THAT WE ARE NOT SEEING, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THAT, THAT SITE PLAN.
WE'RE VOTING ON THIS SITE PLAN FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH, WITH THE, WITH THESE TWO CHANGES.
SO ANYTHING ELSE WASN'T, DON'T THINK ARE REQUIRED.
IF THEY SNEAK A CHANGE IN TO IT, IT CAN'T BE, UH, AND IT'S, AND YOU COMPARE IT TO THIS ONE, THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ONE, THEN TOO BAD I WOULD THEN WANT TO SEE THEM.
I DO NOT WANT TO VOTE ON A, AN UPDATED SITE CLAIM BECAUSE RIGHT.
SO YOU WANNA VOTE ON THIS ONE WITH THESE TWO? THAT, THAT'S, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, BUT IF, IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO ARE COMFORTABLE TO, TO PASS THE MOTION MM-HMM,
I ACTUALLY UP HER WITH MR. KOWSKI AND, AND THOUGH I I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR, UH, FELLOW BOARD MEMBER LAMBS, I, YOU KNOW, HER CONCERNS AND I, I REALLY DO.
BUT IN THIS SITUATION HERE, UM, JUST BASED ON HOW THINGS ARE, I I, I DO, I CONCUR WITH, YOU KNOW, MR. KOWSKI AND I, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT IS LISTED AS A CONDITION.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
BUT AGAIN, I DEFER TO, YOU KNOW, THE WILL OF THE BOARD AND I MEAN IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PLAN THAT
[01:20:01]
YOU KNOW ISN'T IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE.YOU KNOW, STAFF'S HAD WHAT, 10 DAYS TO REVIEW THIS PLAN.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO FIND ANYTHING ELSE ON HERE.
AND WE'RE ONLY, UM, THROUGH MR. KOWALSKI'S, UH, COMMENTS WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED ON THESE TWO AND, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS DIFFERED IS NOT APPROVED.
I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN.
IT'S NOT ENCUMBERED, UH, IT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CITY STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICANT IS COMPLIANT.
IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR APPLICATION, THEIR APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, THEY'VE MADE THE CASE AND THE SITE PLAN IS ACCURATE.
AND ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S BEING TIED TO THEIR MOTION AND APPLICATION, IT'S NOT ON CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ERRORS.
MR. KOWSKI, I MEAN, I AGREE AND THAT'S WHY I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS MOTION BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE NEED ANOTHER REVIEW OF THE POINTS.
IT IS A, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO CON TO CERTIFY THAT OR TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY SUBMIT IS ACCURATE.
THEY CLAIM THAT WITH THESE OTHER THAN THESE TWO TYPO GRAPHICAL ERRORS, THEY ARE, WE'RE MAKING THE MOTIONS TO CHANGE THOSE TWO TYPO GRAPHICAL ERRORS AND THEN, UH, WE CAN, WE CAN UH, VOTE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IF THAT ADDITIONAL STAFF REVIEW IF NECESSARY AT THIS POINT, SAME.
UH, I GUESS, I GUESS MY POINT IS, UM, HOLDING OVER IT IS MORE REASONABLE HERE.
THE REASON WHY WE'VE HELD OVER SO MANY TIMES IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS FILED SITE PLANS, SUBMIT SITE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN AN ERROR.
UM, AND SO I AM NOT READY AND COMFORTABLE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND THE APPLICANT, UM, WITH WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED BECAUSE WE HAVE HELD THEM OVER BECAUSE OF INACCURACY IN THEIR SITE PLAN.
SO I'M AT A POINT WHERE I'M COMFORTABLE THAT WHAT THEY'RE SUBMITTING, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS LAST MINUTE ERROR, IS ACTUALLY ACCURATE.
SO A HOLDOVER OF AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD WILL GET US ALL COMFORTABLE WHERE, WHERE WE NEED TO BE, I DUNNO WHY WE NEED TO RUSH INTO THIS.
WITH SO MANY ERRORS IN SITE PLANS, WE'VE HELD OVER FOUR TIMES BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED AN ACCURATE SITE PLAN.
AND I GUESS MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE THE APPLICANT HAS DEEMED THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE CORRECT SITE PLAN WITH, EXCEPT FOR THESE TWO TYPES OF FUL ERROR.
WE FIXED THAT IF THEY'RE WRONG, THEY ARE HELD TO THIS SITE PLAN AND THEN AT THAT POINT THEY CAN DETERMINE IF IT'S WORTH IT TO THEM TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGAIN.
BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT WE'RE APPROVING.
THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD TO.
IF IT'S INCORRECT AND IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT WHAT THEY MEANT TO BUILD, THAT'S TOO BAD.
AND IF THEY FIND THAT THAT'S A BIG ENOUGH OF A ISSUE THAT THEY NEED TO CHANGE IT IN THE FUTURE, THEN THAT'S, THEY CAN COME BACK IN THE FUTURE.
WE'RE VOTING ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR.
MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ZERO, I MEAN FOUR TO ONE.
I'M SORRY, I, WE DISCUSS AND SIGNING OFF.
SO NOW WE THE MOTION THOUGH, WAS THE BOARD AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON? YES.
THEY, THEY, BECAUSE I, WE HAVE, WE HAVE VOTED THAT THEY'RE GONNA MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND THEY'RE, BUT WE'RE NOT, THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THEY CAN MAKE.
BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THEM SIGN OFF ON IT AND HAVE US INITIAL, HAVE THEM INITIAL IT BEFORE WE APPROVE A SITE PLAN.
I, AND, AND THE REASON THAT WE DIDN'T DO THAT IS BECAUSE THEY CAN NOW THEY WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO THOSE CHANGES 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN HELD TO.
AND IF THEY MADE ANY CHANGES, IF THEY TOOK A SIGNED VERSION FROM THEIR ARCHITECTS, THEY COULD MAKE CHANGES AND WE WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WERE.
SARAH, IF YOU WERE CONFUSED ON WHAT WE WERE VOTING AT, WE CAN REVOTE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE BOARD KNOWS.
'CAUSE I THERE WAS FEW OPTIONS.
AND I DUNNO IF THEY KNEW WHAT OTHER OPTIONS THERE WERE BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON HAVING, AND THEY'VE EVEN TALKED ABOUT IT GIVING LIKE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE ARCHITECT SIGN OFF ON THE CHANGES.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION.
UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, UH, I I FEEL THE OTHER PANELISTS UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY VOTED FOR
[01:25:01]
UNLESS THEY WOULD LIKE TO RE-ASK FOR A REVO.DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FROM 41 0 4 SARANAC DRIVE, BDA 2 2 3 DASH 9 8 4 1 4 SARA DRIVE, APPLICATION OF LAGUNA HOMES FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION DEFENSE TYPE REGULATIONS AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SPENCE STANDARD REGULATIONS.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN.
CAN YOU LEAN INTO THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE MORE PLEASE? AND MAKE SURE THAT THE LIGHT IS ON.
JASON MALLICK, 66 24 CANYON OAK CIRCLE, ORLANDO, TEXAS.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
NOW THIS PROPERTY IS KIND OF A UNIQUE PROPERTY.
IT HAS TWO, TWO FRONTS TO IT AND I BELIEVE IT WAS PLOTTED WITH TWO FRONTS NOT TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM HAVING AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE.
IT'S TO KEEP FROM HAVING, BUILDING A STRUCTURE TO THE, IF IT I'M USING MYSELF, UH, FROM BUILDING A, BUILDING A STRUCTURE OVER TO FIVE FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IF YOU WERE DOING THAT, YOU'D HAVE A 30 FOOT STRUCTURE COVERING UP THE HOUSE BEHIND IT.
IF YOU USED THE FRONT THE OTHER WAY AND YOU BUILT TO A PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE A FOOT 30 FOOT STRUCTURE COVERING UP THE HOUSE BEHIND THAT.
SO I THOUGHT THE FULL INTENT WAS REALLY TO NOT COVER UP A HOUSE BEHIND IT.
SO WE BUILT A HOUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE GUIDELINES OF THE, UH, 30 FOOT SETBACK AND NOW WE HAVE A, A FENCE ON THE, WELL, WE'RE HOPING TO PUT A FENCE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, UM, BY PUTTING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
WE KNOW WE NEED TO HAVE THE, THE VISION TRIANGLE COMING OFF THE ALLEY IN THE BACK AND KNOW WE NEED TO HAVE THE VISION TRIANGLE IN THE, IN THE FRONT.
AND, AND THAT WAS IN, IN THE DRAWING, UH,
AND WHEN YOU PULL UP TO YOU, IF YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE STREET, PULL UP THE MIDWAY.
I MEASURED THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STREET AND A FENCE AND IT WAS SEVEN FEET.
AND EVERY TIME I GO UP THERE, I STRUGGLE TO LOOK AROUND AND I SAY TO MYSELF, I WISH I HAD MORE ROOM.
WELL, THE MEASUREMENT BETWEEN OUR STREET AND WHERE OUR PROPOSED FENCE WILL BE IS GONNA BE 12 FEET.
SO IT GIVES YOU A LOT MORE ROOM TO LOOK DOWN THE STREET.
SO WE'RE HOPING TO BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE OVER ON THE, THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
UM, SO BY RIGHT, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD A FOREFOOT FENCE.
AND SO WHY ARE WE NOT BUILDING A FOREFOOT FENCE? UM, MAINLY BECAUSE OF, UH, PRIVACY SECURITY.
UH, AS PEOPLE WALK BY, THEY'RE, IT'S, THE HOUSE IS DESIGNED THAT THE, THE SIDE YARD IS THE, ESSENTIALLY THE BACKYARD.
UH, SO ALL THE, ALL THE, UH, SO AS PEOPLE WALK DOWN THE STREET, THEY DON'T WANT 'EM LOOKING INTO THEIR, UH, INTO THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE THEY HAVE ALL THE PROPERTY, UH, UH, PRIVATE FENCE.
YOU HAVE A FOUR FOOT STRUCTURE, SOMEONE COULD EASILY
[01:30:02]
LEAP OVER IT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T FEEL SECURE.UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S REALLY MORE ABOUT THE, THE HEIGHT AND FEELING COMFORTABLE, UM, IN THAT LOCATION.
YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T TURN IN PIC.
I HAVE PICTURES WITH ME, BUT I DIDN'T TURN IN, UH, ANY EARLIER.
SO THE, UM, THE STANDARD FOR OFFENSE IS NOT PRO NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC OPINION.
AND WE HAVE PROBABLY SEVEN LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT DO NOT WANT THAT FENCE.
HAVE YOU DONE ANY WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS? UM, THE, THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY, THEIR OPINION IS THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE A FENCE THERE OR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM IN ANY WAY.
AND WE, WE TOLD 'EM WE'RE PUTTING A, UH, AN EIGHT FOOT BOARD ON BOARD PRESTAIN FENCE.
SO WE'RE PUTTING ONE OF THE BEST FENCES THAT WE COULD.
THE, UM, UH, THE, THE HOUSE IS UP HERE.
THE LOTS SLOPES DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IF YOU PUT A FOUR FOOT FENCE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT GRASS OVER THE FOUR FOOT FENCE.
AND THAT'S WHERE THEIR MASTER BEDROOM WINDOWS ARE.
THE FAMILY ROOM, EVERY, EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, MY CLIENTS OR PEOPLE ON BUILDING FOUR, THEY'RE JUST LIKE, WHY'D YOU WANNA LOOK IN OUR BACKYARD? YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WANT THEIR PRIVACY JUST LIKE THEY HAVE THEIR PRIVACY.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT THEY HAVE AS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH TWO FRONT SIDE.
HAVE YOU, ARE THERE, UM, I GUESS ANOTHER WAY TO FIX THAT IS VEGETATION, YOU KNOW, PUTTING UP LARGE BUSHES, IF YOU CONSIDERED THAT INSTEAD OF A FENCE, UM, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT, UH, THERE, WE STILL HAVE AN ISSUE, UM, WITH, UM, THE HEIGHT OF DEFENSE.
UM, IF THERE WERE YOU, YOU HAVE TO HIDE IF YOU'RE PUTTING A FOUR FOOT FENCE, THEY COULD S SOMEONE COULD EASILY JUST LEAP OVER THE FENCE.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE.
UM, IT, IT'S A, IT'S A SITUATION THAT THE TWO PEOPLE PURCHASING THE HOUSE ARE YOUNGER, YOUNGER WOMEN AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA FEEL COMFORTABLE.
ARE THERE, UH, MS. LIAM, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF.
ARE THERE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS HERE? THERE ARE.
UM, SO IF THIS WAS NOT ON A CORNER LOT, WHAT WOULD THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO BUILD HERE IN TERMS OF FENCE HEIGHT? BUT IT STILL BE FOUR FEET OR IT WOULD BE EIGHT.
SO IF THIS WAS A TRADITIONAL CORNER LOT, THEY COULD BUILD UP TO NINE FEET.
BUT SO THE ONLY REASON WHY THIS PROPERTY'S NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD THAT IS BECAUSE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
SO THE OTHER, IF WE WERE TO, TO GO AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'D PROBABLY SEE EIGHT TO NINE FOOT FENCES ELSEWHERE.
YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T SEE 'EM BECAUSE THEY'RE RUNNING ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
UM, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO, UH, JUST REMEMBER THE BLOCK FACE GOES FROM STREET TO STREET, UH, NOT STREET TO ALLEY.
SO IN THIS CASE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY IS THE REASON WHY YOU HAD A CONTINUITY OF BLOCK FACE.
SO, UM, THEIR, THEIR REQUEST IS EIGHT FEET, BUT BY RIGHT.
OTHER THAN THIS BEING AN ABNORMAL PROPERTY WOULD'VE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO NINE FEET BY, RIGHT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I, I WASN'T SURE IF I HAD, I DID HAVE SOME, SOME PICTURES AND SORT OF LOOK AT THE SIDE YARD.
AND HOW FOUR FOOT FENCE WOULD BE WAY DOWN HERE LOOKING INTO THE FRONT YARD.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED OTHER MATERIALS OTHER THAN WOOD, LIKE A ROT IRON FENCE? UM, WE HAVE CONSIDERED A WR IRON AND REALLY, UM, OUR PLAN B WOULD BE A WRT IRON, BUT WE WOULD ASK PERMISSION TO MAYBE DO A SIX FOOT ROD ON THAT WOULD RESOLVE SOME SECURITY ISSUE.
BUT YOU'D HAVE THE VISIBILITY OF THE ROD ON AND THEN PUT VEGETATION.
THAT'S, WE, WE WILL BE OKAY WITH THAT.
IT, BUT IT IS REALLY ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
'CAUSE I MEAN, I'LL BE, I'LL BE HONEST, IT'S DIFFICULT, UH, FOR ME, AT LEAST IN THIS INSTANCE, BECAUSE OF THE CONT CONTINUITY OF THAT BLOCK FACE TO YOU, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE YOU'RE STEALING FROM THE PUBLIC REALM TO MAKE IT PRIVATE.
I KNOW IT IS THERE A LOT, BUT THAT THOSE SETBACKS ARE THERE KIND OF FOR THAT IN PURPOSE.
AND SO TO ME, I FIND IT, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT THAT.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET TO WHAT, WHERE Y'ALL WANT TO GET, AND I WOULD, I, I WOULD JUST KIND OF HOPE THAT YOU WOULD, UH, EXPLORE THOSE.
[01:35:01]
TO THIS, THISSO WE'RE, WE'RE WANNA DO SOMETHING.
IT'S REALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS ABOUT THE PRIVACY, WHICH WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE WITH SOME VEGETATION, BUT THE SECURITY, YOU CAN GO BETWEEN BROCHURES AND THE FOREFOOT IS, DOESN'T GIVE ME MUCH RAC, UH, SECURITY.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THE PICTURES HAVE CIRCULATED.
THERE'S A, MY, MY BUILDER SIGN IS, IS THERE, THAT'S FOUR FEET.
THEY HAVE NO PRIVACY AND, AND IT IS A MASTER BEDROOM, A FAMILY ROOM, A DINING ROOM.
UM, IT IS FOR TWO, TWO YOUNGER GIRLS THAT, UH, BUYING THE HOUSE TOGETHER AND THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR, THEIR SAFETY.
MS. LIAM, SO IF WE WERE TO ONLY, UM, IF OBVIOUSLY NO DECISIONS BEEN MADE, BUT IF WE WERE TO ONLY APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE HEIGHT REGULATION, BUT WERE YOU WERE NOT TO RECEIVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE OPC STANDARDS, WOULD YOU THEN REVERT TO A, A ROT IRON OR SOMETHING THAT IT WAS OPAQUE? I MEAN, IS THE, THE PRIORITY HERE IS, IS THE HEIGHT IS CORRECT? IS EIGHT? YEAH.
IS THE SOLID EIGHT, SOLID SIX THEN ROD IRON SIX.
ROD, IRON FIVE, AND THEN FOUR WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO IF WE DO APPROVE THE HEIGHT BUT NOT THE OPACITY, HE HAS THE OPTION OF BUILDING UP TO EIGHT FEET BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO BUILD EIGHT FEET.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO LIKE IF WE APPROVE THE HEIGHT UP TO EIGHT FEET, BUT HE DECIDES TO GO WITH ROT IRON AT SIX FEET, HE COULD DO THAT WITH THE FIRST SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
UH, WHICH YOU, UH, YOU HAVE NO VISIBILITY REALLY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE ONLINE? NO OTHER SPEAKERS MA'AM? NO.
WOULD YOU HAVE A MOTION, UM, AND WE'LL MAKE A MOTION FIRST ON THE FENCE HEIGHT.
UM, I MOVE THAT, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 8 ON APPLICATION OF JASON MALLICK FOR LAGUNA HOMES INC.
GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT IN OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.
THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS BY REQUEST.
DO I HAVE, UM, A SECOND? UH, MR. NOTAL A SECONDED.
UM, I APPROVED THIS PARTICULAR MOTION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S ON A REGULAR PROPERTY WITH TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND HAD IT NOT HAD TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS, THEY'D BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A NINE FOOT BY.
AND I DO THINK THERE'S SAFETY CONCERNS.
I THINK THAT ALLOWING THEM TO CONSTRUCT, UM, AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE WILL ACTUALLY PROTECT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND ULTIMATELY THE HOMEOWNERS.
SO I THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS PANEL TO, UM, APPROVE THIS MOTION.
UM, FOR THAT RE MR OR, OR MR. AL? NO, I CONCUR.
UM, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE THAT RIGHT, UH, IF THAT LOT, UM, WAS REALLY A STANDARD LOT, UM, I JUST FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD SHOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT.
AND, AND I CONCUR WITH MS. UH, MS. LAMB'S, UM, MOTION AND REASONING BEHIND THIS.
I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR THE EIGHT FOOT FOR SECURITY PURPOSES.
UM, I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THEY DO HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, BUT I THINK THERE ARE THE WAY THE PICTURES THAT WE WERE SHOWN BY STAFF AND THE WAY, UM, THE FRONTAGE OF THAT OTHER HOUSE AND THE HOUSES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND IT'S, IT WAS MADE FOR TO KEEP BLOCK FACE.
UM, I THINK THE FENCE WILL NEED TO BE, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET THAT SECURITY
[01:40:01]
AND PRIVACY WITHOUT BUILDING A NINE FOOT TALL FENCE.SO, UM, I, I'LL NOT BE, UM, AGREEING, ALRIGHT, I'M IN CONCURRENCE WITH CHAIR GABO.
I FEEL I, LIKE I SAID, I FEEL LIKE IT'S STEALING FROM THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? LIKE THE PUBLIC REALM HERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANOTHER ATTEMPT, A A SECOND ATTEMPT AT A DIFFERENT OPTION, A DIFFERENT, UH, THAT GIVES THEM THAT PRIVACY WITHOUT, UM, THE FULL EIGHT FOOT, UH, FENCE.
OKAY, MS. LIAM? I UNDERSTAND WE WANNA BUILD BRIDGES FOR NEIGHBORS AND NOT WALLS.
UM, I APPROVE THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A, IT SOLVES A SAFETY COMPONENT.
UM, I THINK THE HEIGHT IS NOT REALLY THE ISSUE, IT'S MORE OF THE OBESITY AND I PROBABLY LEAN TOWARDS, UM, GRANTING THE HEIGHT, BUT, BUT ALLOWING STILL THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMPONENT WHERE THE MATERIALS IS, IS REALLY A, A BIG COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT.
SO WE HAVE TWO COMPONENTS TO ANSWER HERE.
FOR THE HEIGHT IS A SAFETY ISSUE, AND NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BUILDING WALLS, THAT THE MATERIALS IS ANOTHER COMPONENT.
SO REMEMBER THIS IS A TWO PART MOTION SO WE CAN APPROVE ONE AND DENY ANOTHER AND ACHIEVE BOTH SAFETY AND CONNECTIVITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I, YEAH, I, I DON'T DISAGREE.
I THINK THERE ARE OPTIONS, BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST VERSION, MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN WOULD INCLUDE THE MATERIAL IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE THAT'S NOTED ON THE PLANS.
EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE TWO MOTIONS, YOU'RE GONNA APPROVE FOR THE HEIGHT AND THEN YOU WILL APPROVE FOR THE, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THE, THIS THERE, WE HAVE A DRAWING THAT IT SAYS ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.
WE HAVE A DRAWING THAT HAS WOOD CALLED OUT AS THE MATERIAL.
AND SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT, THAT WOULD, UM, TO ME INCLUDE WOOD AS PART OF THE MOTION.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE MY HESITANCE COMES, I GUESS CAN, UM, THAT'S A FAIR HANG, HANG ON.
YEAH,
IT'S 2 52, WE'LL RECONVENE AT, OH, IT'S 2 53 NOW.
ALRIGHT, IT IS 2 59 AND WE'LL RECONVENE.
[01:45:01]
UM, MR. SAP HAS AN ANSWER ON THE QUESTION ABOUT TYING SOMETHING TO A SUBMITTED PLAN.SO IT SEEMS THAT, UH, THE BEST SITUATION TO HANDLE THIS IS THAT BECAUSE THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TIED TO A SITE PLAN, SITE PLANS INCLUDE MATERIALS THAT GETS CONFUSING.
UH, AND PERHAPS THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD BE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION IF THE MOTION MAKER SO CHOOSES AND THEN MAKE THAT MOTION AGAIN ONLY INSTEAD OF IT BEING SUBJECT TO ALL SUBMITTED PLAN, JUST SUBJECT TO ELEVATIONS, THEN THAT HEIGHT WOULD ONLY BE THE HEIGHT.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE TIED TO THE ELEVATIONS.
SO IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR HEIGHT.
AND THEN THE SECOND SUBSEQUENT MOTION CAN BE MADE IN REGARDS TO, UH, OPACITY ON HOWEVER THE BOISE STATE.
HOWEVER, THAT'S IF, UH, MR. CARI CHOOSES TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
UH, IF MS. LAMB CHOOSES TO MAKE THE MOTION, I CAN CONSULT WITH MS. LAMB.
IT WOULDN'T BE MR. KOWSKI HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WELL, IF, IF THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE IS THE ELEVATION TO ME AS AN ARCHITECT, I HEAR ELEVATION, TO ME THIS DRAWING IS AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION THAT HAS THE MATERIALS LISTED ON IT.
WOULD, WOULD WE SAY THE HEIGHT, HEIGHT EL HEIGHTS REFERENCED OR, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE SYM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BECAUSE YEAH, SO THAT IS KIND OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING, UH, INTERNAL MM-HMM.
BUT HOWEVER, UM, I, I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO IS SITE PLAN VERSUS ELEVATIONS.
AND SO IN THIS SCENARIO, UM, THE HEIGHT CAN BE IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN AND IT CAN BE IDENTIFIED ON THE ELEVATIONS JUST AS THE SAME AS THE, UM, MATERIALS CAN.
I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS MORE OF THE OPACITY.
AND SO BY THE LANGUAGE SAYING BOARD ON BOARD, THAT IS GOING TO BE A SEPARATE VOTE.
AND SO IF WE WANT TO TIE THAT ONLY TO THE ELEVATION TO WHERE WE CAN MODIFY EDIT OR REMOVE ALTOGETHER, THEN I WOULD SAY YES TO THE ELEVATION.
AND IT WOULD ALSO, I GUESS BE TIED TO THE SITE PLAN AS WELL.
THAT KIND OF, TO ME, I WOULD SAY THAT IF THIS IS THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, I, WHAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WOULD BE THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN STRIKING WITH CEDAR CORRECT.
IS THAT WHAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE? BUT IT ALSO HAS IT IN THE ELEVATION, CORRECT? YEAH.
BUT IT IT HAS THE ELEVATION SHOWN.
THE, THE HEIGHT IS SHOWN IN THE ELEVATION, BUT IT ALSO SAYS BOARD ON BOARD PRE STAIN CEDARWOOD FENCE.
AND THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE.
I MEAN THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING THAT ARE, THAT, THAT I HAVE ISSUE WITH.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M HAVING A TR I'M HAVING TROUBLE.
ARE THERE ANY SITE PLANS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, SUBMITTED THAT DOES, THAT REPRESENTS THE ELEVATIONS AND HEIGHT WITHOUT REPRESENTING MATERIALS THAT WE COULD TIE THE, THE A VIA MOTION TO? I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK THEY ALL HAD BOARD ON BOARD ON THERE.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE KINDA, UM, DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS VOICE AS WELL OF, UH, GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION.
UM, AND SO I THINK SOMETIMES WE KINDA WE'RE KIND OF GETTING TIED DOWN INTO THOSE AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT INTERNALLY WE'RE GONNA WORK ON BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT WAR CASES.
I WONDER IF THERE'S LANGUAGE WE CAN ADD COMPLAINTS, MOST RECENT VERSION OF, OF ELEVATIONS, UM, NOT TO INCLUDE MATERIALS OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT.
UM, DO NOT TO INCLUDE MATERIALS BECAUSE, UM, WAIT WITH THAT, ALRIGHT.
[01:50:05]
OKAY.SO DO YOU WANNA WITHDRAW YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION? UM, YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO RESCIND MY ORIGINAL MOTION.
WE THE SECOND ON THAT OR DO WE, CAN I JUST, I THINK THAT THE DISSENTING OR THE OTHER, I THINK THE, THE SECOND HAS TO, SO YOU AGREE WITH WITHDRAW? YOU DID.
I, I, I SECOND OR WITHDRAW OR WHATEVER.
SO THAT, THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
AND NOW MS. LAMB WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 8 ON APPLICATION OF JASON, JASON MALLICK, UH, FOR LAGUNA HOMES INC.
GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT IN OR MAINTAIN A EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE SUBMITTED ELEVATIONS.
I'LL SECOND, UM, DISCUSSION MS.
UM, I I THINK THAT, UH, HEIGHT ALLOWING HEIGHTS WILL, UM, PROVIDE SECURITY AND IF HIS PROPERTY WAS NOT, UM, DID NOT HAVE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD AND HE'D BE ALLOWED TO, TO BUILD NINE FOOT.
UM, AND I, I THINK THAT, UM, EXCLUDING MATERIALS ALLOWS FOR SECURITY, BUT ALSO GIVES US THE ABILITY TO, UM, CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY.
UM, WHEN, WHEN ALLOWING, UM, A FENCE HERE, I, I STILL AM HESITANT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE THE, THE, UH, OWNER'S NEED FOR SEC FOR SECURITY.
I DON'T LIKE, I LIKE, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF BLOCKING THIS OFF.
I WOULD BE OPEN WITH A TO A MORE OPEN MATERIAL.
I DON'T THINK THE EIGHT FEET IS NECESSARILY THE ISSUE.
SO I, IN THAT INSTANCE, I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AS LONG AS THE, THE WOOD, THE BOARD ON BOARD IS NOT CONSIDERED, I, UM, I STILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, I DO NOT FEEL LIKE, I FEEL LIKE THAT OUR STANDARD IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC OPINION.
AND I THINK WE HAVE SEVEN NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AN OBJECTION.
AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM MENTIONED THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT AND NOT JUST THE, UM, OPACITY.
AND I DON'T THINK ANY WORK HAS BEEN DONE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY WORK DONE THERE.
AND SO I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
UM, AGAIN, I, I LOOKED AT THE PICTURES THAT THEY SENT US AND IF I WERE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT, WHICH HAD ALWAYS NOT HAD A FENCE AND NOT MAYBE STARING AT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UM, I WOULD, THERE THERE'S GOTTA BE A, A BETTER OPTION IN TERMS OF SOME SORT OF VEGETATION.
AND I THINK UNTIL THAT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT WITH THE NEIGHBORS, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE.
'CAUSE WE ARE GIVING THEM, BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN DO EIGHT FEET AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY'RE STUCK WITH THAT THEY HAVE NO ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION.
I DON'T THINK THEY'VE HAD ANY SAID.
UM, I, I STILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY OPINION IS THAT FENCE IS GONNA DISAPPEAR AND VISUALLY BE LESS, UH, OBNOXIOUS THAN POORLY KEPT VEGETATION, YOU KNOW? SO, UM, JUST MY OPINION, WHICH DOESN'T MATTER AND DOESN'T FACTOR INTO IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT VOTING FOR BOARD ON BOARD AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET TO THAT MOTION, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY.
BUT, UH, ANYWAY, MR. AL, YES, I'M, I WILL BE VOTING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, SECURITY AND, UM, IS OF COURSE DIFFERENT, UM, THAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY IS.
AND THOUGH I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, THIS IS DALLAS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD NOT DO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SIGNIFICANT HARM, UH, TO ALLOW A HEIGHT ALLOWANCE.
NOW I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE BOARD ON BOARD, BUT TO ALLOW A HEIGHT ALLOWANCE, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THAT PORTION.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER THING, MS. LAMB? UM, AND I JUST WANNA REMIND THE BOARD THAT WHAT'S ALLOWED HERE BY RIGHT IS ONLY FOUR FEET, WHICH WILL KEEP A DOG IN BUT WON'T KEEP ANYBODY OUT.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS ALLOWED THAT ALLOWS THEM TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT KEEPS IT SECURE.
[01:55:01]
GRIEVANCE HERE THAT I KEEP HEARING IS THE BOARD ONBOARD MATERIAL BECAUSE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY BUILDING THE WALL AT THAT POINT.BUT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MAKE THESE MOTIONS SEPARATELY AND ALLOW THEM SECURITY WITHOUT SHUTTING OFF, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND PUTTING UP BASICALLY A WALL.
SHALL WE TAKE A VOTE? MS. AYE, MR. KOWSKI? AYE.
WE HAVE A SECOND PART OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS IN REGARDS TO THE MATERIAL OF THE FENCE.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS MS. LAMB? I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 8 ON APPLICATION OF JASON MULLICK OF LAGUNA HOMES INC.
DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN OR MAINTAIN FENCE WITH A PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SURFACE AREA OPENNESS BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I'LL SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? YEP.
UM, YES, I THINK THAT THE HEIGHT IS FOR SAFETY, BUT, UH, THE BIGGEST GRIEVANCE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD, WHICH I ALSO FEEL LIKE CHANGES THE SENTIMENT OF, UH, THE AESTHETIC AND, AND, UH, VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IS THIS BOARD ON BOARD.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL CREATE MORE OF A WALL THAN A COMMUNITY.
UM, SO I THINK THERE'S PLENTY THAT YOU CAN DO TO CREATE PRIVACY WITH HAVING 50% OPACITY.
YOU CAN HAVE LANDSCAPING BEHIND IT AND THERE'S OTHER MATERIALS YOU CAN USE THAT WILL FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO WON'T CREATE, UH, ESSENTIALLY AN EIGHT FOOT BARRIER BETWEEN YOU NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO THAT'S WHY I DENY, BUT I ALSO DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE IF YOU DECIDE TO PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT HAS MATERIALS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTS, WE WELCOME YOU TO COME BACK, UM, AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND REAPPLY.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT MOTION.
MRS. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MS. LAMB SAID.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE O UH, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
OUR CODE IS FOR IT TO BE OPEN, UH, IN, IN THAT SETBACK.
AND, UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE WOOD WOULD, UM, YOU KNOW, CREATE THE WALL THAT, UH, NO ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS.
DO YOU HAVE, UM, MY, MY ONLY YEAH, MY, MY COMMENT IS I, I I DON'T SUPPORT THE 50%, UH, OR I'M SORRY.
I DON'T SUPPORT A FULLY OPAQUE FENCE.
I I REALLY DON'T HONESTLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TIED THIS TO SOMETHING LIKE A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT WAS MORE THAN 50% OPEN IF WE COULD, UM, FOR THE MATERIALS.
AND I, I DO HAVE, DID HAVE HEARTBURN ABOUT APPROVING THAT PREVIOUS, BUT I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT APPROVE ANYTHING MORE THAN 50% HERE.
OH, MR. NADAL, DID YOU HAVE NO, I'M FINE.
UH, MS. VICE CHAIR AND THIS IS TO GRANT.
THIS IS DENY WITHOUT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO YOU HAVE BEEN GRANTED, UM, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BUT YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT IS LESS THAN 50% OPAQUE.
UM, AND I REALLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS, UM, ON THAT AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR THEM AND FOR YOUR CLIENTS.
UM, I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU THAT IF YOU CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE IT'S NOT QUITE EIGHT FEET, UM, AND THEY STILL FEEL SAFE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
I, AS I SAID I AM, I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE HONESTLY GRANTING YOU ANYTHING BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AT ALL ON THIS.
AND, UM, NEIGHBORS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY'RE GONNA LIVE THERE AND THEY WANNA LIKE THEIR NEIGHBORS.
WELL, WE HAVE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, UM, THE, THE BUYERS AND I, IT SEEMS TO BE ONE PERSON THAT WENT ON A CRUSADE TO EV HOUSE TO HOUSE, HOUSE TO HOUSE, AND KIND OF CONVINCED SOME PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ALL DIDN'T REALLY CARE ONE WAY ANOTHER.
BUT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE, UH, LIKE A RIGHT ON FENCE.
WE JUST WANTED TO BE MORE THAN FOUR FEET.
UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF.
[02:00:01]
OKAY.WE HAVE ONE MORE CASE, UM, THAT WE KIND OF HELD BACK.
AND THAT IS BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 4 55 40 NORTH 40 PLACE, UM, APPLICATION OF IMR DAVID, UM, TO PROVIDE AN ELECTRICAL METER THAT WE HEARD FROM HIM TODAY.
I REACHED OUT, UH, VIA EMAIL AND HE DID NOT RESPOND.
SO I COULD GIVE HIM A CALL IF YOU GUYS WANT, OR I DON'T KNOW.
UM, CAN WE CONFIRM THAT HE IS NOT ONLINE? HE'S NOT ALIGNED.
AND I'M GOING TO TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO MR. SAP TO EXPLAIN HOW WE WILL HANDLE A CASE WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN UP.
SO IN INSTANCES WHERE THE, WHERE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T SHOW UP, THE BOARD IS ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD OVER OR YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE.
YOU CAN MOTION TO HOLD OVER, HOLD IT OVER, OR YOU CAN DENY IT WITH OR WITHOUT, OR YOU CANNOT HEAR IT AND IT WILL BE BEING DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 4 ON APPLICATION OF LAMAR DAVID DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR THE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL METER WOULD BE USED TO CONDUCT A, NOT A USE, NOT PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE BUILDING SITE IS LOCATED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
UM, DISCUSSION I WANTED, I DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, THIS WASN'T THE CONTESTED DOCKET ORIGINALLY, BUT WE HAD QUESTIONS.
SO GOT PULLED, UH, ONTO THE CONTESTED DOCKET.
UM, THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SHOW UP SO THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS THAT ARE UNANSWERED, BUT I WANNA GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK.
UM, IF WE DOESN'T, IF WE DENY WITH PREJUDICE, HE CAN'T COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS.
SO LIFE HAPPENS, LET'S GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, SUBMIT ANOTHER APPLICATION FEE, COME BACK, UM, AND, AND COME TO THIS PROCESS.
UM, I AND ANSWER, ASK, YOU KNOW, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, MAKE HIS CASE.
I MEAN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO JUST HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT AND GIVE THEM AN OPTION TO PRESENT THEIR CASE NEXT TIME INSTEAD OF, UH, DENYING THEM.
UH, IF WE, IF A, IF MAY ASK A QUESTION TO OUR COUNSEL, IF WE, THE MOTION IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND IT FAILS, DOES THAT MEAN IT'S A DENY WITH PREJUDICE? NO.
WHAT IS THAT? IT MEANS THAT THE MOTION DIES, HOWEVER, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION.
AND IF THERE WAS NO MOTION MADE, SO IF THIS MOTION FAILS AND THEN WE, WELL BY YOUR POINT, IT WOULD END UP BEING WITH PREJUDICE, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE MOTION FAILED.
IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE MOTION FAILED AND THEN NO SUBSEQUENT MOTION WAS MADE IN A MEETING ADJOURNED.
NO ACTION ON THE PARTICULAR ITEM WOULD MEAN THAT IT WAS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT REGARD.
IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY FALL BACK TO A COMPLY WITH PREJUDICE, BUT NOT JUST HOWEVER, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT NOBODY MAKES A SUBSEQUENT MOTION.
SO THIS VOTE ONLY REQUIRES THREE FOR, FOR TO BE PASSED.
JUST TO NOTE, UM, THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE A HEARING NEXT MONTH.
WE DO DECEMBER, DECEMBER 13TH.
SO THEN HE'D BE HELD OVER TO DECEMBER.
UM, IF A QUESTION ON THE STAFF, IF, UM, IF THIS MOTION PASSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHEN IS THE EARLIEST THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO, UM, TO BE, UH, REASSIGNED ANOTHER, WOULD IT COME TO THIS PANEL? AND THEN WHEN WOULD THE EARLIEST THEIR CASE WOULD BE HEARD? ARE WE TALKING JANUARY OR FEBRUARY? JANUARY? UM, BUT THEN THEY WOULD RESUBMIT ANOTHER APPLICATION FEE.
UM, SO THAT, SO THAT, I MEAN, THE CITY'S PUT AN EFFORT HERE WITH PREPARING AND THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP.
SO I THINK THAT WHAT'S FAIR IS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD RESUBMIT AND PAY ANOTHER FEE BECAUSE Y'ALL,
[02:05:01]
WE'VE ALL SPENT TIME PREPPING FOR THIS, FOR THE, AND THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP TO PLEAD THEIR CASE.UM, SO THAT, THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION THE WAY I DID.
UM, MR. NATAL, YOU HAVE, YES, I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF, LIKE, AM I ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND OF THE MOTION? UH, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND MRS. LAMB'S, UM, UH, VIEWPOINT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HEAR MR. KOWSKI.
I THINK HOLDING IT OVER WOULD PROBABLY BE THE, THE THE BETTER OPTION, UM, FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE WAY THAT I'M VIEWING THE CASE.
BUT I, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE A VOTE AND THEN, UM, IF THE VOTE FAILS, THEN WE'LL MAKE ANOTHER, UM, OR CAN CAN SOMEBODY WITHDRAW THEIR SECOND? SO IN THAT REGARD, WELL, HE BE VOTED VICE CHAIR.
THE, THE MOST PROPER WAY WOULD BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT BECAUSE OKAY, THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
IT'S NOW, UH, WHAT THEY CALL A MEMBER OF THE BODY.
RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S ON THE FLOOR AND IT CAN'T BE THE SECOND, CAN'T BE INITIATING ENTITY THAT WITHDRAWS IT.
UM, SO THE, WAS IT MS. LAMB THAT MADE THE MOTION, MS. LAMB COULD WITHDRAW THE MOTION OR YOU COULD VOTE ON IT AND EXTINGUISH IT OR APPROVE IT THAT WAY AND THEN MAKE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION? MRS. UH, I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, UH, VOTE NAY ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR NOW.
SO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND GRANTING GRACE, BUT I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SHOW UP AND SO WE SHOULD MAKE HIM RESUBMIT AND PAY THE FEE INCOME IN AND MAKE SURE THAT HE REALLY WANTS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE HE DID NOT SHOW UP TO MAKE HIS CASE.
SO WE'RE GRANTING A WHOLE OF, FOR SOMEBODY THAT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE EFFORT TO COME.
SO, AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
AND IF THE PENALTY, THE PENALTY WILL BE A FEE AND HOLDING OVER FOR AN ADDITIONAL MONTH.
I THINK IT SHOWS A LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE BOARD AND WE'VE REACHED OUT.
SO IN OUR TIME, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TONIGHT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CAN REAPPLY AND COME BACK IN FRONT THE BOARD IN JANUARY.
NAY, MR. KOWSKI? NAY, MR. SAIK NAY.
MS. VICE CHAIR NAY MOTION FAILS FOUR TO ONE.
DO I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION OR ARE WE ADJOURNING A MEETING? I, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA OH NINE OH, SORRY.
HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE DECEMBER 13TH, UH, MEETING OF 2023.
ANY DISCUSSION? I I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ONLY MAKE ASSUMPTIONS 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SHOW UP, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET AND YOU KNOW, MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE APPLICANT SAW IT UNCONTESTED, DIDN'T THINK HE HAD TO COME MAKE A CASE.
AND I, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DENY WITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO HE COMES BACK IN AND GOES TO THE PROPER CHANNELS.
I THINK WE'RE GIVING A LOT OF GRACE HERE.
FOR SOMEBODY THAT DIDN'T SHOW UP TO P TO CI WOULD TOTALLY BE THE PERSON THAT THOUGHT THOUGH THAT I HAD BEEN APPROVED WOULDN'T SHOW UP.
AND MY, I I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET WHO CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I DIDN'T HEAR THE CASE, BUT HE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF AND I AND HE THOUGHT HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME.
AND I INFORMED HIM THAT YOU DID HAVE TO COME AND, UH, AND HE WAS LIKE, I DO.
SO IT, IT, YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND, BUT HE DIDN'T, HE DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP FOR THE BRIEFING TO EVEN HEAR.
I I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY NEIGHBOR WOULDN'T HAVE EITHER.
SO I'M GONNA THE GRANT HIM SOME EVER HAPPENED TO ME SINCE IN 20, SINCE I'VE BEEN SERVED ON THE BOARD IN 2019.
GO MR. I THINK WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH, IN PEOPLE'S LIVES AND THEY, THERE COULD BE A GOOD REASON THAT THEY'RE NOT HERE.
AND SO I, I THINK WE CAN GIVE THEM GRACE ONCE AND THEN, UH, HOLD, HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE THE NEXT TIME AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE HELD OVER CASES THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE HELD OVER AND I THINK WE'RE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP IN DECEMBER.
MS. LA NAY, MS. VICE CHAIR? AYE.
MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE AND MS. UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING? I, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, THE
[02:10:01]
RULES STATE THAT IF THE PERSON NOHOW THE SECOND TIME THAT THE DENIAL IS APPROPRIATE.TO YOUR POINT ABOUT HOLDING THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE, THE FIRE WILL BE LIT.
SO IF, IF HE HAPPENS TO BE LISTENING OR GOES BACK TO THE MINUTES, IF HE DOES NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SECOND MEETING, HE'LL BE DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? YEAH.
SO WITH PREJUDICE HE CAN'T COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS.
ARE AND IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE APPLICANT THAT YOU'LL BE COMMUNICATING THIS INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANT? CORRECT.
IS THAT SOMEBODY SO YES, SOMEBODY WILL BE RE SHARING THIS WITH HIM.
UM, THIS IS THE ADJOURNMENT OF OUR NO, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH, 2023 MEETING AT 3:25 PM THANK YOU.