[00:00:01]
ALSO CALL 9 1 1[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on February 20, 2024.]
CAMBRIA JORDAN, SENIOR PLANNER, DIANA COMB, BARCO, DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST PROJECT COORDINATOR.NORA CASTA, SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
HE'S NOT IN THE ROOM NOW, BUT HE'LL BE BACK.
JASON POOLE, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ON THE FAR OTHERS.
OPPOSITE SIDE IS PHIL IRWIN, THE ARBORIST AND DAVID NEVAREZ FROM ENGINEERING.
AND LAST, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, ARE VALUED AND APPRECIATED.
BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS. FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO SAY AGAIN, ANYONE HERE AT CITY HALL THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TODAY FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR TESTIMONY ON A SPECIFIC CASE, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SLIP SHEET OF PAPER AND GIVE THAT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
NOW ALLOW ME TO, UH, READ SOME PREPARED, UH, REMARKS INTO THE RECORD.
UM, I'D, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY WE WILL THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE A APPOINTED BY THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
THEY PROVIDE YOU AS TAXPAYERS PROVIDE REFRESHMENTS AND A LUNCH FOR US.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND IS ALL, AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING POSTED ON OUR CITY WEBSITE.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE HEAR 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 AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS VOTING TODAY.
ALL THEIR MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE AND THAT IS BY STATE STATUTE, STATE STATUTE, CITY CODE, AND OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
IT'S A HIGH BAR FOUR FOR A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL.
LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PERMANENT RECORD.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC
WHEN A CASE IS CALLED, YOU'RE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES AS CHAIRMAN, I HAVE THE DISCRETION TO, UH, LENGTHEN OR SHORTEN THAT, BUT EVERYONE WILL, EVERYONE WILL GIVE BE GIVEN AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME.
THE BOARD WANTS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND WE WILL GIVE AMPLE TIME IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT HIS OR HER CASE.
AND LIKEWISE, ANYONE HERE FOR OR AGAINST ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND THE RULES THERE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE REGISTERED BY, IS IT MARY FIVE O'CLOCK THE DAY BEFORE OR IS IT 24 HOURS, FIVE, FIVE O'CLOCK THE DAY BEFORE? NO TELECONFERENCE ROOM WILL BE ALLOWED.
ALL COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MYSELF AS CHAIRMAN.
UH, BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE RECOGNIZED.
ANYONE THAT SPEAKS HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
ALL COMMENTS WERE MADE TO MYSELF WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
UH, ALLOW ME NOW FOR THE BOARD TO PREVIEW OUR AGENDA.
IN A MOMENT WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IF THERE'S ANY, THEN WE WILL REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 16TH.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE, WE HAVE TWO CASES STILL ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
AND THEN WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 CASES THAT GOT MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
ONE HOLDOVER AND TWO ORIGINAL INDIVIDUAL CASES.
SO IN TOTAL WE HAVE 10 ACTION ITEMS TODAY, NINE CASES AND, UH, ONE MEETING MINUTES.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD PANEL REGARDING OUR AGENDA FOR THIS AFTERNOON.
WE WILL BE IN SESSION UNTIL WE FINISH AND WE WILL BE MOVE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY, EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, UM, BUT ALSO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION.
TODAY IS OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 16TH.
THE CHAIRMAN WOULD REQUEST THAT WE, UM, UM, I I'M GONNA MOVE SINCE I MADE SUGGESTIONS THIS MORNING IN THE, UH, BRIEFING.
I'M GONNA MOVE THAT THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 16TH, 2024 BE APPROVED AS WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ON PAGE 15 OF THE MEETING MINUTES, THAT WE RECORD A FOUR TO ZERO APPROVAL OF THE SUSPENSION OF RULES ONE NUMBER TWO ON PAGE 19, THAT WE NOTATE THAT THE BOTTOM SECTION THAT IS DOESN'T HAVE A MOTION NUMBER, THAT IT'S MOTION NUMBER TWO
[00:05:01]
AND THEN TWO OTHER ITEMS ON THE LAST PAGE.PAGE 35 THAT, UH, FOR THE MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT BY MR. NERI WAS APPROVED FOUR TO ZERO.
AND THEN THIS REQUIRED SIGNATURE ON APPROVAL TODAY WOULD BE DAVID A. NEWMAN AS CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
IS THERE A SECOND? MS. HAYDEN? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION PLEASE ALL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED IS APPROVED.
NEXT ITEM FOR OUR AGENDA IS OUR, UH, UNCONTESTED DOCKET, AS IS THE PRACTICE OF THE, AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE DURING THE BRIEFING PROCESS IN THE MORNING ON A HEARING DAY, UH, THE BOARD MAY ELECT TO, UH, CONSOLIDATE UNCONTESTED CASES, UH, AND IF IT DOES SO IT DOES NOT REQUIRE, UM, A PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT OF OUR NINE CASES TODAY, THERE WERE TWO THAT WERE SELECTED AS UNCONTESTED.
UM, AND SO THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. HOB GRITZ, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET 'CAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATIONS SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO IT CASE.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH OH NINE APPLICATION OF JANELLE SMITH FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIGN REGULATION STANDARDS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
CASE PDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 21 APPLICATION OF JENNIFER MOTO FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
THANK YOU, MR. HAKO HAITZ, UH, THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO APPROVE 2 3 4 0 1 9 AND 2 3 4 0 2 1 AS PART OF THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
IS THERE A SECOND MS. HAYDEN? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION.
UM, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FLOOR IS TO APPROVE 2 3 4 0 1 9 AND 2 3 4 0 2 1 AS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
PLEASE CALL FOR THE VOTE MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS.
THE UNCONTESTED, UH, DOCKET OF 2 3 4 0 1 9 AND 2 3 4 0 2 1 IS APPROVED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 2 3 4 0 1 3 2 3 4 0 1 3.
THIS IS AT 1717 JEFFREY STREET.
THIS ITEM WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET AND WAS PULLED TO THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. UM, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR 2 3 4 0 1 3? YES, SIR.
UM, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GIVE US YOUR WAIT HOLD ON.
OUR BOARD SECRETARY NEEDS TO SWEAR YOU IN FIRST, AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU'LL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU NEED TO, TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
AND THEN WE WILL ASK QUESTIONS.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE V IN DALLAS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ROB BALDWIN HERE REPRESENTING AUSTIN STREET CENTER IN THE REQUEST.
UH, FOR TECHNICALLY IT'S, UH, RELIEF FROM THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
UH, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT JUST A SECOND.
SO THIS IS, UH, THERE, THE NEW ASHA STREET SHELTER.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHERE THE ORIGINAL ONE IS ON CHESTNUT AND HICKORY.
THIS ONE IS ON JEFFERIES IN HICKORY.
IT IS, UH, A HOMELESS SHELTER AND RESOURCE CENTER.
UH, IT HELPS, UH, DALLAS'S MOST VULNERABLE POPULATION WITH, UH, BASIC NEEDS SUCH AS, UH, HYGIENE, SANITATION, JOB TRAINING, UM, PLACES TO SLEEP, FOOD, MEDICAL ATTENTION.
SO IT, IT, IT SERVES THE HOMELESS POPULATIONS, ONE OF THE LARGEST, UM, AND, AND OLDEST IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
[00:10:01]
IS A AERIAL OF THE SITE.YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE BIG, UH, MARSHALING YARD FOR DARK JUST TO OUR SOUTH, UH, I 30 TO THE NORTH, UH, 45 TO THE WEST.
UH, IT'S A VERY INDUSTRIAL DIS INDUSTRIAL TYPE DISTRICT.
AND, UH, THIS IS A NEW FACILITY THAT WAS RECENTLY BUILT.
ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT A PART OF THE REZONING FOR THIS SITE, UH, WHEN IT WAS REZONED, UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION APPROVED A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
AND THIS IS THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN.
IT SHOWED WHERE THE TREES NEEDED TO BE TO MEET COMPLIANCE IN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL'S EYES AS TO WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING ON THE SITE.
UH, KIND OF HARD TO SEE, BUT IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN.
SO WHY ARE WE HERE? UH, WHAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED DURING THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL WAS TREE MITIGATION.
THE SITE HAD SOME TREES ON IT.
THEY WERE PRETTY MUCH ALL REMOVED TO BUILD A FACILITY.
AND WHEN WE PUT BACK THE TREES THAT WE HAD, THERE WAS A DEFICIT OF A LOT OF INCHES OF APPROXIMATELY $42,000 WORTH OF, OF TREE MITIGATION.
SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO WAIVE THE REMAINING TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE REASON IS, UH, THIS IS A HOMELESS SHELTER.
THEY'RE IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
THE $42,000 THAT WOULD BE SPENT ON TREES THAT WILL NOT FIT ON THE SITE, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN JUST A SECOND, IS NOT BENEFITING THE AREA.
IT, WE THINK THAT THE MONEY THAT WE WOULD BE PITCHING INTO THE DALLAS RE REFORESTATION FUND WOULD BE BETTER SPENT HELPING THE CLIENTS IN NEED TODAY.
SO THE BOARD MAY GRANT A SPECIAL RECEPTION IF STRICT COMPLIANCE WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE PROPERTY.
I'LL ARGUE THAT IT WOULD, UH, JUST GIVEN THAT THEY DON'T HAVE HUGE BUDGETS.
AND $42,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY WHEN IT COMES TO SERVING THE HOMELESS POPULATION.
SECOND, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONAL, NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
UM, WE DO HAVE THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO PUT IN.
UM, AND, UH, THE AUSTIN TREE SHELTER ALSO OWNS OTHER PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS, SO WE WE'RE NOT BURDENING OURSELVES.
THE THIRD ONE IS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN OR TREE MITIGATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE CPC OR CITY COUNCIL.
WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, UH, APPROVED BY CPC AND CITY COUNCIL.
WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR, UH, RELIEF IN THE MITIGATION.
SO SECONDLY, IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, IT IS A FLAT SITE THAT DOES HAVE ENCUMBRANCES AND THE ABILITY TO PLANT REPLACEMENT TREES SAFELY ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY.
IF YOU NOTICE IN THE YELLOW THAT THOSE HAVE OVERHEAD POWER LINES, THE GREEN IS UNDERGROUND DETENTION WHERE WE CANNOT PLANT TREES.
WE ARE PLANTING TREES WHERE WE CAN AND WHERE WE WERE, UH, AGREED TO BE ALLOWED TO PLANT TREES.
SO I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN COMPLY WITH ALL DUE TO STANDARDS THAT NEED TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR YOU TO ACT FAVORABLY.
UPON THIS, WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
WE DO GOOD WORK AND WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO WORK.
AND WITH YOUR HELP, WE CAN TAKE THE MONEY THAT WOULD BE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND FOCUS IT TO WHERE IT'S NEEDED TO BE.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A FEW, BUT I WANNA DEFER TO THE PANEL, THE BOARD FIRST.
UM, DESCRIBE WHAT WOULD YOU PLEASE, SIR, WHAT THIS, WE SAW SOME VIDEO IN DRIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM OUR STAFF THIS MORNING.
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS THE APPLICANT, DESCRIBE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, RUGGED CURBED, UNCURBED, SIDEWALK, TREE FLOWERS.
GIVE US, GIVE US FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WHAT YOU THINK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS.
IT'S A HISTORICALLY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
UM, THERE IS MOSTLY SMALL MANUFACTURING.
UH, THERE'S A COLUMBIA SLAUGHTERHOUSE HAS A FACILITY THERE.
THERE'S, UM, MORE AUSTIN STREET SHELTER THERE.
AND FOR SOME REASON THERE'S A STRANGE LITTLE SCARY, UH,
[00:15:01]
AQUATIC CENTER RUN BY DISD, UH, ON THE CORNER OF HICKORY.UH, I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY THERE, BUT IT'S CALLED ALAMO STREET AQUATIC CENTER.
UH, VERY STRANGE, BUT ENTER, IT REALLY IS JUST AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST NEW BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT THERE IN A LONG TIME.
UH, I THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING.
IT'S WELL LANDSCAPED, UM, AND IT SERVES A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING AND OUT.
UH, BUT THE REST OF THE AREA IS, I WOULD SAY 1940S, 1950S, UH, ERA, UH, INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, GENERALLY FLAT, UH, HARD TO GET TO.
IF YOU SAW THE, THE PHOTOS AND THE, THE VIDEO.
WE HAVE, UH, MALCOLM X THAT'S ELEVATED AT THE SITE.
WE HAVE THE, THE MARSHALING YARD FOR DART TO THE SOUTH.
IT MAKES IT IN HARD TO GET IN AND OUT OF.
UM, IT'S A, IT'S A LITTLE POCKET THAT'S HARD TO GET IN AND OUT OF, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALL INDUSTRIAL.
ANY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY? NO, SIR.
IS IT FLAT? IS IT HILLY? IS IT GENERALLY FLAT? AND IF YOU NOTICE ON MY LAST SLIDE, WE HAVE THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION.
IT'S FLAT ENOUGH WHERE WE HAVE TO BRING DETENTION ON SITE.
WE CAN'T FLOW IT INTO, UH, YOUR EXISTING SOURCE.
SO YOUR COMMENTS IN THE PRESENTATION ARE PERSUASIVE.
AND IF YOU HEARD ANOTHER ONE OF OUR CASES THIS MORNING, I MADE THE COMMENT TO THE STAFF ABOUT, OH MY GOSH, THE, THE CITY'S GONNA FORCE A PROPERTY OWNER TO PUT BUSHES IN ALONG A, A WAY THAT HAS NO CURBS.
AND IN A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS, THE DUST AND THE DIRT FROM THE ROAD JUST GONNA DESTROY THE BUSHES.
SO WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? THE SAME QUESTION KIND OF BEGS HERE TO, UH, YOU, THE REASON WE HAVE ARTICLE 10 IS TO PROVIDE GREENERY, SHRUBBERY, SOME CONTOURS TO A CITY INSTEAD OF CONCRETE.
I'M SURE MR. IRWIN WILL BE MORE ARTICULATE THAN I, BUT FROM A BUSINESSMAN'S PERSPECTIVE, FROM A PROPERTY OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE, IT PROVIDES CONTOURS AND SOFTNESS TO A CITY INSTEAD OF BEING ALL CONCRETE.
IF WE, IF WE AGREED TO THIS, YOUR REQUEST, IN ESSENCE WE'RE SAYING WE'RE NOT PUTTING MONEY BACK INTO THE CONTOURS AND THE SOFTNESS OF OUR CITY.
AND THE SAME THING WITH THE OPPOSITE.
IF YOU ENDED UP PLANTING THE TREES IN YOUR AREA, I'M A LITTLE CONFLICTED BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT WE'VE SEEN AND YOU'VE DESCRIBED, WE DON'T WANT JUST CONCRETE AREAS.
SO HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND NEIGHBOR IN THAT AREA, GIVEN THE, IN ORIGINAL INTENT OF ARTICLE 10? SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT ONE, WE HAVE AN APPROVED SITE SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE COMPLY WITH.
THAT IS WHAT THE ELECTED APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY SAID.
WHAT'S APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING FOR THIS SITE? THERE IS A LOT OF GREENERY ON THE SITE, JUST NOT A LOT OF TREES RIGHT NOW, JUST BECAUSE OF THE, UH, NOT THE ABILITY TO PLAN 'EM UNDERNEATH POWER LINES OR IN OUR DETENTION AREA.
NOW, AS MR. IRV WAS SAYING EARLIER TODAY, WE CAN EITHER PLANT ON SITE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ROOM TO DO, WE CAN, UH, PLANT WITHIN FIVE MILES OF OUR SITE IF WE FIND SOMEBODY WHO WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE THE TREES AND AGREE TO 'EM.
THOSE ARE THE TWO LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTIONS.
THE THIRD OPTION IS TO PAY INTO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND ONCE IT GOES TO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND.
I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO IT AFTER THAT.
BUT IT DOES NOT COME BACK TO THIS GEOGRAPHIC AREA OR IT'S NOT, UH, PIGEONHOLED TO BE BACK IN THIS GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. IRWIN? YOU CAN ASK ME THAT QUESTION.
I SAID, DID YOU ROUTE THINGS THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN AND THEN I'LL DECIDE WHETHER I, THE BOARD WANTS TO DO THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, THAT ONCE IT GETS INTO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND, IT CAN BE THAT MONEY CAN BE USED TO PURCHASE TREES ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
OR PLANT TREES ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO COME BACK IN THIS AREA.
I THINK IF YOU DROVE THIS AREA AND SAW OUR FACILITY, YOU WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE A BIG UPGRADE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AREA.
UH, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE NEW, WE'RE CLEAN, WE'RE CRISP, WE HAVE SIDEWALKS, WE HAVE GRASS, WE HAVE TREES.
UM, SO WE ARE BETTERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE NOT, WE JUST CAN'T FIT ALL THE TREES ON IT.
ONE LAST QUESTION WAS ASKED IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
IS MR. NERI, MR. HA HAKO ASKED IN THE CITY'S HISTORY, WHAT HAVE WE DONE IN THE PAST? HAVE WE DONE A FULL WAIVER OF THE MITIGATION FEE OR, UH, OR HAVE WE DONE PARTIAL? WE'VE DONE SOME AND I THINK THE ANSWER WAS GENERALLY PARTIAL, NOT A FULL WAIVER.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT.
'CAUSE YOUR REQUEST IS ALL 42,000.
[00:20:01]
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE COULD PLAN ON SITE AND WHAT'S NOT.UH, IN MY EXPERIENCE, I'VE NEVER ASKED FOR THIS BEFORE.
UH, I'VE DONE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING PLANS.
I'VE NEVER ASKED FOR, UH, UH, MITIGATION RELIEF AND A HUNDRED PERCENT MITIGATION.
REALLY, IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT, IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT OF WHAT'S REMAINING.
BUT I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE.
SO IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR US TO READ THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN.
COULD YOU, COULD YOU, UM, JUST DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS PROPOSED THERE FOR LANDSCAPING? SURE.
UH, AND I'M SORRY THAT I WELL, YOU BLOW IT UP THEN.
YOU, UH, SO IF YOU GO THAT, THAT THIS PLAN'S AN EASIER ONE TO READ IT, IT MIRRORS IT.
SO, UH, AND THIS ONE NORTH IS UP.
SO WE HAVE FIVE TREES ALONG JEFFERIES.
UH, AND AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT RIGHT, UH, BETWEEN THE CURB AND, UH, AND THE SIDEWALK LIKE NORMAL BECAUSE WE HAVE OVERHEAD POWER LINES.
AND THEN WE HAVE TWO EXISTING TREES ON PLAN LEFT HERE IN THE LACROSSE HATCH AREA.
UM, AND THEN THREE PARKING LOT TREES.
AND THEN ALONG MALCOLM X WE HAVE FOUR TREES, UH, THAT HAVE ALL BEEN PLANTED AGAIN.
UM, THOSE ARE CLOSER TO THE STREET 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ON THAT SIDE.
AND THESE ARE ALL TREES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE, THE ARBOR FOR BEING APPROPRIATE IN THEIR LOCATIONS.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HKA IS, UH, I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT WAS KIND OF AN OPEN ITEM THIS MORNING AS TO WHAT WE WERE EMPOWERED TO DO WITH REGARD.
MR. THANK YOU, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY.
UH, THE QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THIS MORNING WAS, UH, THE INTERPRETATION ON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE AS IT RELATES TO THE BOARD MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF DIVISION 51, A ONE 0.130 OTHER THAN FEE AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
DOES THAT HANDCUFF THE BOARD IN ITS DECISION MAKING ON THIS CASE? NO, I'M ASKING HIM.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THIS CHAIRMAN.
SO THE, THE FEE AND THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE STATUTE IS REFERRING TO ARE THE FEE, UH, REQUIREMENTS TO GET IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
SO THE APPLICATION FEES, WHICH ARE GENERALLY ADMINISTRATIVE AND NOT THE FEES THAT ARE BEING PAID INTO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND.
MR. HOFFER, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THIS MORNING WAS WHETHER WE HAD THE ABILITY WAS IT WAS ALL OR NOTHING.
OH, SO THAT'S THE SECOND QUESTION.
SO FIRST QUESTION IS SPECIFIC TO THE INTERPRET DEFINITION OF FEE.
THE SECOND QUESTION THAT CAME UP, UM, THIS MORNING, AND I'M GONNA ASK OUR BOARD ATTORNEY RESPOND TO, DOES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTED IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT SOME, OH, I, THE ANSWER IS WE CAN DO ALL THE ABOVE.
WE CAN DO A PORTION, 'CAUSE WE CAN MODIFY THE REQUEST.
WE CAN ACCEPT OR WE CAN REJECT, IF I REMEMBER LANGUAGE, I AGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THE APPLICABLES ASKING FOR ALL 42,000.
AND FURTHER, IF I'M, AND MR. IRMAN MAY CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT, BUT LET'S SAY MY UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION THAT IS HAPPEN PRESENTLY IS THERE ARE X NUMBER OF TREES OR INCHES, INCHES, X NUMBER OF INCHES OF TREES, UH, THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PLANT IN ORDER TO BE COMPLIANT.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTED, HEY, WE DON'T WANNA, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO ALL X.
UH, WE'D RATHER PAY THE MONEY, OR THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS, IS TO PAY THE MONEY SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO X NUMBER OF INCHES OF TREES.
AND THAT WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS A WAIVER OF THAT.
SO OF THE FULL AMOUNT, A WAIVER OF THE FULL AMOUNT, OR THEY COULD JUST PLANT THE TREES.
THEY COULD, THEY CAN MEET ANY OR ALL OF I, ESSENTIALLY THEY CAN, IF THEY CAN PLANT 219 INCHES OF TREES, THEY FULLY MITIGATE, THEY COULD ALSO DO ANY COMBINATION OF METHODS OF MITIGATION UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
SO THE ORDINANCE IS FULLY AVAILABLE TO THEM RIGHT NOW.
BUT I THINK THE, THE FURTHER QUESTION IS MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, AND IS, IS IT WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD TO SAY NO, TO SAY YES TO THE ENTIRE REQUEST OR YES.
TO A PORTION OF THE REQUEST? YES, IT IS, BUT IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN, UM, A DOLLAR PER INCH VALUE.
WELL, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S WITHIN, THE DISCRETION IS WITHIN, BECAUSE PART OF, PART OF THE BASIS OF REPEALING IS IF SOMEONE APPEALED THE DECISION IS DID WE ABUSE OUR DISCRETION? AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF A PUBLIC HEARING.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, SIR.
MS. HAYDEN, I JUST DID A, A QUICK CALCULATION AND 219 INCHES DIAMETER
[00:25:01]
INCHES OF TREES.THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT IS, PHIL, MR. IRWIN? CORRECT.
SO 219 INCHES WOULD BE 1812 INCH DIAMETER TREES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME BIG TREES THAT YOU GUYS TOOK OUT.
UM, JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. NARY? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, I'M RECEPTIVE TO YOUR ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE.
UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A CHARITY AND A HOMELESS CENTER.
UH, BUT IF YOU COULD SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARD YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR THIS SHELTER.
OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE A LIMITED FUNDS.
CAN YOU GIVE ME JUST A BALLPARK CIRCA, LIKE WHAT IS THE ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE FACILITY? SO I HAVE SOME IDEA.
UH, I WILL TELL YOU THAT, UH, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I'M DOING THIS PRO BONO TO HELP THEM, UH, YOU KNOW, NO SENSE PAYING ME TO, TO, TO HELP THEM GET SOMETHING.
IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
SO I, I VOLUNTEERED TO HELP THEM WITH THIS.
UH, SO, UM, I CAN, IF YOU WANNA HOLD IT AND SO I CAN GET THE BOARD, BUT $42,000 WILL GO, YOU KNOW, A LONG WAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT HAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? MS. BOARD SECRETARY? NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION EITHER.
MR. UM, BALDWIN, UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 3 ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ONE, STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE WILL, WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
TWO, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THREE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 3 4 0 1 3, MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. NERI, MS. HAYDEN.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT, AT SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE, WE ARE TO, UM, DISCUSS AND, AND MAKE THIS DECISION ON, UM, WILL NOT, I DON'T FEEL THAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WITH VERY LITTLE EXISTING LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA.
UM, THAT, UM, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE IS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
UM, THE FACT THAT, LET'S SEE, THE, THE, UH, PLANT REPLACEMENT PLANTING REPLACEMENT TREES COULD IMPACT OVERHEAD POWER LINES, WHICH AFFECTS THE, THE ABILITY TO PLANT TREES SAFELY ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION AREA AS WELL, WHICH FURTHER RESTRICTS THE, THE SITE FOR THIS PURPOSE.
MR. NEARING COMMENT ON THE MOTION.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD.
JUST SECOND MS. HAYDEN'S COMMENTS.
I WOULD AGREE THE, THAT MY, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION OF MS. MS. HAYDEN'S AND MR. NERS.
UM, PART OF MY PROBING QUESTION WENT TO THE CONDITION OF THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
THAT, AND GOING BACK TO OUR CRITERIA, I JUST WANT US TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT CONCRETING EVERYTHING.
AND I'M NOT A GREEN SCREEN GUY, ALL THAT SORT OF THING, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO ALWAYS LANDSCAPING APPROPRIATELY DONE THAT'S SUSTAINABLE, NOT JUST PLANT IT AND THEN THERE IT GOES.
THAT'S SUSTAINABLE IS, IS HELPS PROVIDE SOFTNESS AND CONTOURS TO OUR CONCRETE AND STEEL CITY.
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
OTHER, OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? MR. HOROWITZ? UH, JUST A, JUST A QUESTION.
UH, I KNOW THIS IS INCLUDED IN VIRTUALLY EVERY MOTION WE VOTE ON, BUT, UM, THE COMPLIANCE WITH SUBMITTED PLANS IS, IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US, US IS IT INSTALLED ALREADY? IS IT TO BE INSTALLED? IS IT MM-HMM.
UH, THEY'RE JUST WAITING FOR THEIR FINAL, IN FACT, I SPOKE TO MR. IRWIN AND THE LANDSCAPING PORTION HAS BEEN APPROVED.
THEY'RE JUST WAITING ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS BEFORE THEY GET THEIR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
[00:30:01]
ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD IN 2 3 4 0 1 3 IS TO GRANT THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 3 4 0 1 3.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTS THE REQUEST FIVE TO ZERO.
THE NEXT CASE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 4 2 3 4 DASH ZERO FOUR.
THIS IS AT 4 4 6 8 TWIN POST ROAD 4 4 6 8 TWIN POST ROAD.
I'M GONNA LOOK UP AND I'LL SAY HE'S THE APPLICANT HERE.
SOMEHOW I SAW THAT, BUT, OKAY.
UM, IF YOU, YOU, UH, YOU'RE ALREADY, I'LL CONSIDER YOU SWORN IN 'CAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
UH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B AND I'M REPRESENTING OCCURRING, UH, THIS AFTERNOON.
THEY, THEY OWN THE HOUSE AT 4 4, 6 8 GLEN POST ROAD.
IT'S KIND OF IN NORTH CENTRAL DALLAS, UM, JUST SOUTH OF 6 3 5, WEST OF THE TOLLWAY.
AND THIS IS, UH, THE, A BLOW UP OF THEIR, THEIR HOUSE IN THEIR LOT.
AND I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SLIDE, UH, FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
ONE THAT SHOWS THE, THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOME, WHICH FACES ON TWIN POST ROAD.
AND IT SHOWS THAT SHRIVER DRIVE HERE IS ABOUT 450 FEET LONG.
THE DEAD ENDS INTO WORKOVER, DEAD ENDS INTO TWIN POST ROAD.
ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE IS A CHURCH, BUT THE, THE DRIVEWAYS FOR THE CHURCH ARE NOT ONTO SCHRIVER.
THEY'RE ONTO TWIN POST AND RICKOVER AND IT DEAD ENDS INTO A SCHOOL.
SO THIS IS NOT A WELL TRAVELED STREET.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR ANYBODY TO BE ON THE STREET EXCEPT TOWARD THE ACCESS SUGAR MILL ROAD AND MAYBE TWIN POSTS, BUT THERE'S MUCH EASIER WAYS TO GET ON THERE.
SO IT'S NOT A WELL TRAVELED STREET.
SO THIS IS WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
UH, IT'S A CORNER LOT, UH, DOESN'T HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, BUT, UH, IT DOES HAVE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ONTO SCHRIER DRIVE.
THIS IS A BLOW UP OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
THAT THAT DRIVEWAY, IT ORIGINALLY DIDN'T CONNECT TO SHRIVER CONNECTED TO THE ALLEY, BUT THE, THE, THE PAD HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THAT LOCATION AND THE GARAGE IS IN THAT LOCATION.
SO THE DRIVEWAY'S CLOSE TO THE ALLEY AND IT HAS A TELEPHONE POLE NEXT TO IT.
AND THIS IS JUST A BLOW OVER THERE.
THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
THIS IS WHAT IT USED TO LOOK LIKE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY THERE WAS A MASON BIRD WALL IN THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE ALLEY.
UM, THE ALLEY IS, UH, FAIRLY WELL TRAVELED.
THE ALLEY PEOPLE DO TAKE ACCESS OFF IT.
AND SO THAT, THAT IN THE FUTURE IN THE PAST WAS, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE, BUT IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE.
HERE'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO.
WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE, THE DRIVEWAY COMING OFF THE ALLEY, TAKE ACCESS OFF OF SHRIVER AND PUT A FENCE UP THERE.
AND, UH, KINDA HARD TO SEE THIS IS, UH, THE SOUTHERN THIS, UNFORTUNATELY THE PLANS UPSIDE DOWN.
SO, UH, THIS IS PLAN NORTH IS ACTUALLY SOUTH.
WE, WE TOTALLY COMPLY WITH THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE ALLEY.
WE HAVE ANGLED FENCE ALONG THE 20 FOOT, UH, SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON THE ALLEY WHERE, WHERE THE TRUCKS COME AND GO.
THIS SHOWS HOW WE COMPLY WITH THE, WITH THE ALLEY SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
THE GREEN IS THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE.
SO THIS IS THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY.
UH, WE ARE, WE HAVE A SEVEN FOOT 10 INCH ENCROACHMENT INTO THE, UH, SIDE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FROM OUR DRIVEWAY, UH, ON THE, ON THE SOUTH.
AND THEN WE HAVE ONE ON THE NORTH, WHICH I'LL GET TO IN JUST A SECOND.
UM, BUT AS YOU'LL SEE, WE HAVE A LOT OF ROOM BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE, AND THE ACTUAL CURB LINE, THE DRIVER DRIVE.
[00:35:01]
WE'RE, WE'RE TAKING TRAFFIC OFF THE MORE HEAVILY USED ALLEY AND PUTTING ON A DRIVEWAY WHERE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WILL BE USING THE, THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE SITE.SO THIS IS THE, THE OTHER ALLEY AND, AND THAT GOES APPROXIMATELY, I'M SORRY, EIGHT FEET INTO IT.
NOW, DOES IT SHARBER DRIVE IS NOT HEAVILY TRAVELED.
UM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS, UH, MR. NAVARRO DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO IT OR SEE IT AS A PROBLEMATIC, AND I, I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.
WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY THERE.
THIS IS JUST TO SHOW THAT IF YOU CAN JUST SCROLL THROUGH THESE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE, YOU'RE FINE ON YOUR TIME.
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE THESE SITUATIONS IN, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE, UH, DONE EVERYTHING WITH PERMITS.
WE'VE NOT FILED FOR A FENCE PERMIT.
WE DID NOT PUT A FENCE UP, UH, WITHOUT A PERMIT 'CAUSE WE'RE WAITING TO, TO SEE HOW THIS COMES ALONG.
SO, UH, WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS.
WE HOPE THAT, UH, YOU, YOU CAN, UH, GIVE SOME CREDENCE TO MR. NAVARRO'S, UH, OPINION THAT THERE, THERE'S REALLY NOT A SAFETY ISSUE HERE BECAUSE I KNOW HOW HARD IT IS FOR HIM TO, TO GO THERE.
AND AS YOU KNOW, HE, HE DOESN'T DO THAT VERY OFTEN.
UM, I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TURN IT OVER TO MR. CURRY.
HE HAS A FEW WORDS TO SAY AS WELL, IF THAT'S OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO THIS, YOU ARE SAYING THERE'S A SUBSEQUENT SPEAKER REGISTERED MS. BOARD SECRETARY.
ALRIGHT, SO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME, MS. HAYDEN.
UM, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT MAP THAT SHOWS SCHRIER DRIVE? AND I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S NOT A VERY HEAVILY TRAVELED STREET, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE THE MAP AGAIN JUST TO, SO I CAN SEE THE EXTENT OF IT.
SO SCHREIBER, IS THAT ONE THAT JUST GOES BETWEEN TWIN POST AND RICKOVER? THAT'S RIGHT.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, SO, UH, DO WE HAVE OTHERS? HOW MANY OTHERS DO WE HAVE? SPEAKING IN FAVOR, MR. LINS QUERY.
IS THAT THE PERSON YOU JUST REFERENCED? YES, SIR.
WOULD THAT GENTLEMAN PLEASE COME FORWARD? IF YOU WOULD GIVE US, UH, YOU, IF YOU GIVE US, UH, IF YOU WOULD BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND THEN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, MY FULL NAME IS DAVID LANCE CURRY.
UH, AND I LIVE AT 4 4 6 8 TWIN POST, WHICH IS THE, UM, UH, THE HOUSE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER BETWEEN SCHREIBER AND TWIN POST ON THE MAP THAT YOU SEE RIGHT THERE.
UM, AND, UH, MAY I PROCEED, MR. CHAIRMAN? I'M SORRY, MAY I PROCEED? MR. CHAIRMAN, PLEASE.
UM, ONE, JUST THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DO THIS.
I HAVE LEARNED A, A WHOLE NEW PROCESS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND.
SO, UH, I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT.
UH, WE PURCHASED THIS HOME, UH, I BELIEVE WE CLOSED IN MAY OF 2022.
WE LIVED ON HARVEST HILL, WHICH IS JUST REAL CLOSE TO HERE, UH, AND RENOVATED THIS.
UM, AND, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, UH, EXITED INTO THE ALLEY AND IT WAS A VERY SHARP AND DIFFICULT TURN.
SO WE THOUGHT WE'D MAKE IT EASIER FOR OURSELVES AND ALSO CREATE A LITTLE SET, UH, CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SIDE YARD THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BIG BACKYARD.
SO WHERE IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE PLACES, UH, BY, UH, TURNING THE DRIVEWAY AND, AND, UH, TURNING THE, EXCUSE ME, THE, UM, THE GARAGE TO THE STREET.
UH, THERE WAS A WHITE BRICK FENCE THERE, WHICH YOU'VE, UH, UM, SEEN BEFORE A WHITE BRICK WALL.
AND, UH, WE, UM, UH, LEARNED, UH, OUR ORIGINAL INTENT OF JUST PUTTING THE FENCE BACK UP WHERE THE WALL WAS.
UH, WE NOW KNOW THAT THERE'S VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
IT'S A WHOLE NEW AREA THAT I'VE LEARNED.
UM, UH, OUR INTENT IS TO COMPLY WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IN THE ALLEY.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE PLANS ARE TO DO.
UH, BUT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE ON IT.
UH, BUT WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ADJUSTMENT OR AN EXCEPTION FOR JUST THE DRIVEWAY.
UH, AND THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THAT IS SAFETY.
UH, ONE OF THE, SEVERAL OF THE PICTURES YOU SAW SAW THE BASKETBALL GOAL.
MY SON IS 11, UH, AND HE LOVES BASKETBALL AND HE PLAYS BASKETBALL ALL THE TIME.
AND WE REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO LET HIM GO AND PLAY OUT THERE WITHOUT US HAVING TO SUPERVISE AND TO BE ABLE TO, UH, WATCH HIM.
SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION, SO
[00:40:01]
THAT WHEN WE HAVE KIDS AND FRIENDS OVER, WE CAN KEEP THAT GATE CLOSED AND THEY CAN PLAY ON THE DRIVEWAY AND PLAY THE SIDE YARD.UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR AN ADJUSTMENT IS JUST SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN KEEP OUR KIDS SAFE AS WE CAN.
UH, AND THEN, UH, BEYOND THAT, I, I, THIS WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GO MEET OUR NEIGHBORS.
AND SO WE WENT AND KNOCKED ON DOORS AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO.
AND THANKFULLY NO ONE HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
I'M HOPEFUL SOME SUBMITTED SOME STATEMENTS, THEY INDICATED TO US THAT THEY WOULD, UH, AND SO WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THAT.
UM, AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO YOU, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP, WHICH IS SLIDE THREE, UH, WHAT THAT BUILDING IS, UM, UH, THAT'S ON THE, THE BIG BUILDING THERE.
UH, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE A, A USED TO HAVE A SCHOOL THERE.
IT WAS A SCHREIBER, UM, UH, PRESCHOOL.
UH, BUT NOW IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT.
SO IT ONLY REALLY HAS, UH, ANYBODY PARKING IN THAT LOT OR, OR GOING THERE ON SUNDAYS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS OR NOT, BUT WANTED YOU TO JUST SORT OF HAVE A SENSE OF THE
I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THINGS YOU NEED TO ASK ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, OR ANYTHING I COULD ANSWER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? MS. HAYDEN? I THINK I HEARD, UM, MR. BALDWIN SAY EARLIER THAT THE DRIVEWAYS TO THAT CHURCH ARE OFF OF TWIN POST AND WELCH, BUT NOT OFF OF SCHREIBER.
I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE IN THE VERY CENTER.
UM, KIND OF BETWEEN SUGAR MILL ROAD AND THE ALLEY.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE.
BUT NOT ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY? NOT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM OUR PROPERTY.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? MR. HOP? DOES, UM, SO YOU'RE, SO THE REASON WHEN YOU TOOK THE MASONRY WALL DOWN, UM, THAT WAS, THAT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO REPOSITION HOW THE GARAGE WAS ALIGNED, IS THAT WELL, TO, THERE WAS NO DRIVEWAY THERE THAT WAS JUST PART OF THE YARD.
AND SO WHEN YOU TURNED IT, YOU HAD TO MAKE A HOLE IN THE MASONRY WALL.
AND ONCE WE DID THAT, IT JUST BECAME SMARTER TO US TO JUST PUT A FENCE UP THAT MATCHED, UM, THAN TO LEAVE A SORT OF CORNER THERE.
UM, AND, AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS AN ISSUE UNTIL WE TOOK IT DOWN AND THEN NOW IT'S BEEN DOWN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND, UH, PEOPLE CAN MOVE TO OUR WINDOWS, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
SHE, SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY RECONSTRUCT THE GARAGE IN A DIFFERENT ORIENTATION THAT IT'S THE SAME AS IT WAS? NO, IT WAS ORIENTED TO THE ALLEY AND IT TURNED AND OUT ORIENTED TO THE STREET, TO THE SAME PAD SITE.
BUT I THINK HE SAID BEFORE IT WAS THE SAME PAD SITE.
WELL, THE, THE, OH, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
THE ONLY WHEN YOU BUILD, SO ORIGINALLY IT WAS NOT A GARAGE, IT WAS A, UM, CARPORT, UH, THAT HAD, THAT WAS THE DRIVEWAY.
AND SO IT'S IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE DRIVEWAY, BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD, THE GARAGE IS BIGGER AND SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE, YOU KNOW, FOUNDATION AND THINGS.
THOSE ITEMS WEREN'T THERE, BUT IT'S IN THE SAME LOCATION.
SO THEN, AND THEN THE REASON YOU'RE WANTING THE FENCE TO GO FURTHER THAN WHERE THE MASONRY WALL WAS, WAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF YOUR SON.
IT'LL ACTUALLY GO LESS THAN WHERE THE MASONRY WALL WAS BECAUSE, UM, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO A DRAWING, UM, UH, THE MASONRY WALL, UM, UM, WELL IF YOU GO THAT I THINK ZOOMED IN, IT'S THE NEXT ONE THERE.
UM, SO SEE THE DOTTED LINE THAT IS SQUARED OFF, THAT'S WHERE THE MASONRY WALL WAS.
AND WE'RE GONNA INSTEAD CHOP THAT CORNER OFF TO HONOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IN THE ALLEY.
SO IT WILL ACTUALLY IMPROVE WHAT WAS THERE WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
AND TO, THERE WAS NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT WAS HONORED THERE AND NOW IT WILL BE HONORED.
I'VE GOT, UM, MS. DAVIS AND THEN MR. NER, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING MR. NER TOO? MS. DAVIS, GO AHEAD.
SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, WE'RE LOOKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
ONE IS AT THE DRIVEWAY, ONE IS IN THE ALLEY.
DID YOU MENTION THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE THE ONE IN THE ALLEY COMPLIANT? BECAUSE I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED.
SO, UM, IF YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE, UM, I BELIEVE I JUST SAW IT A DARKER SHADE.
UH, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE? I'M NOT SURE WHO HAS THE POWER TO DO THAT.
CAN YOU GO BACK? UH, CAN, THANK YOU MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION.
I UNDERSTAND
THEN THERE ARE THE TWO LIGHTER TRIANGLES, ONE OF WHICH IS PARTIALLY OBSCURED BY THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.
THOSE ARE THE TWO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES OFF OF THE DRIVEWAY.
OUR PROPOSAL IS TO HONOR THE TRIANGLE IN THE ALLEY.
AND SO WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WE ARE ASKING FOR ADJUSTMENT ARE ADJUST THE DRIVEWAY WHERE MY WIFE AND I ARE THE ONLY TWO DRIVERS THAT WILL BE TWO DRIVEWAYS, TWO TRIANGLES, ONE DRIVEWAY, ONE REQUEST.
BOTH, BOTH SIDES OF THE, OF THE DRIVEWAY.
MR. NARY, MS. DAVIS, I'M SORRY, I HAVE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP REAL QUICK.
SO WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY TO THE ALLEY? DO YOU KNOW THAT, HOW FAR AWAY IS IT FROM THE OPENING OF THE DRIVEWAY ON THE LEFT SIDE TO THE ALLEY? IF I'M FACING, FACING THE
[00:45:01]
GARAGE, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW FAR, HOW FAR IN IT IS.DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UM, SO IF, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, SO THIS IS THE TOP OF THE MAP IS THE, IS THE SOUTH, RIGHT? SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE MM-HMM.
I DON'T, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 10 FEET, BUT I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT POSITIVE.
IF I CAN ANSWER A QUESTION YOU DIDN'T ASK THAT MAYBE RELEVANT AS WELL.
UM, WHICH IS, UM, THE, THE DISTANCE FROM THE FENCE TO THE STREET I BELIEVE IS 12 FEET.
SO MOST OF A CAR WILL BE ABLE TO SEE BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY PULL.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR, UH, CLARIFYING, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE SITUATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET.
THAT WAS MY BIG CONCERN WAS TRAFFIC AND EVEN PEDESTRIAN ISSUES COMING IN AND OUT OF THE CHURCH, BUT SEEING AS THE POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE NOT EVEN ON SHRIVER, UM, THAT USSU MY CONCERN.
SO THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT.
AND I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, I DO BELIEVE THERE IS ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS ON SCHREIBER IN THE MIDDLE, BUT IT'S NOT ACROSS FROM MY DRIVEWAY.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S, I DON'T WANNA GIVE YOU THE IN IN INPRO IMPROPER IMPRESSION.
UM, ALRIGHT, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE SPEAKER? MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED ON THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA PAUSE FOR ONE SECOND.
THE BOARD OF ATTORNEYS ADVISED ME THAT HE MAY WANT TO MODIFY ATTENTION, POTENTIAL MO A MOTION LANGUAGE.
SO FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT HE WANTS TO RECOMMEND PRESENTLY, THE MOTION, UH, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.
PRESENTLY THE MOTION READS THAT, UH, THIS IS TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ONTO SCHREIBER DRIVE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THIS WAS THE ALLEY THAT GOES INTO SCHREIBER DRIVE AND THAT IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT WAS IN QUESTION, BUT FROM THEIR TESTIMONY, THAT SEEMS TO NOT BE THE CASE.
AND THAT IT IS THE DRIVEWAY GOING ONTO THE ALLEY DRIVEWAY GOING ON THE SCHREIBER.
YOU OKAY? THEN, THEN, THEN THIS LANGUAGE WILL SUFFICE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 0 1 4 LOCATED AT 44 68 TWIN POST ROAD ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT THE REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ONTO SCHREIBER DRIVE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION REGULATION CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IN THE CASE OF 2 3 4 0 1 4, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MS. HAYDEN HAS SECONDED THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I THINK WITH ANY VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS NEW FENCE IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE SAFER THAN YOUR PREVIOUS FENCE BECAUSE YOU'RE BRINGING IT IN A LITTLE BIT.
SO I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE PART OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WHICH IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN? UM, I AGREE I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M A STICKLER FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU GUYS DID A A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
IT MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT SCHREIBER DRIVE IS A VERY SHORT STREET, WHICH PROBABLY HAS VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC AS MENTIONED.
AND THEN THE FACT THAT THE DISTANCE YOU HAVE 12 FEET FROM THE, UH, EDGE OF THE, THE FENCE TO THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT OF SHRI, THAT'S HELPFUL INFORMATION AS WELL.
UM, SO IN THAT CASE, UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC ATTORNEY.
UM, MY COMMENTS IS, I AM GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT IS PROPOSED.
UM, I WANNA REMIND THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC THAT WHEN WE APPROVE SOMETHING, WE APPROVE IT TO THE PROPERTY, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOT TO THE RENTER, NOT TO THE VISITOR.
WE APPROVE, UH, WE'RE GIVING A RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY.
SO ALTHOUGH YOU ARE ONLY TWO DRIVERS NOW AND YOUR SON'S PLAYING BASKETBALL, AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS A PROPERTY, RIGHT? WE'RE VESTING.
AND SO PART OF OUR, UH, AND THIS IS THE SAME THING IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LOOK LONG TERM INTO SEEING WHAT PROPERTY, RIGHT? WE'RE BASICALLY VESTING HERE.
AND WHAT WE'RE VESTING IS, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE SAYING BY JUDGMENT, WE DON'T HAVE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
[00:50:01]
AND, UH, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A PERMANENT THING THAT WE'RE VESTING, UH, TO A PROPERTY.SO, UM, THAT'S NOT PUSHING BACK ON YOU, SIR, OR YOUR SPOUSE OR YOUR SON.
IT'S JUST, I ALWAYS THINK IN TERMS OF, OKAY, NO MATTER WHAT, WHAT IF FOUR CARS OR THREE CARS OR WHATEVER, I HAVE TO THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT THE, THE PROPERTY RIGHT? THAT WE ARE ESSENCE GRANTING.
SO I'LL, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UH, WELL PRESENTED AND ARTICULATED.
SIR, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND YOUR PATIENCE.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTION, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION TO GRANT? MR. HOP IS, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT, UM, THE ONE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IMPAIRMENT THAT'S GOING TO REMAIN COMING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, UM, THE FACT THAT WE'RE GRANTING PERMISSION TO, UH, TO WAIVE THAT AT THIS TIME DOESN'T ABSOLVE ANY LIABILITY TO BE CAUTIOUS WHEN YOU'RE PULLING IN AND OUTTA THE DRIVEWAY.
HENCE THE COMMENT BY MS. HAYDEN THAT SHE'S A STICKLER.
ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF SERVING AS A VOLUNTEER AND A BOARD LIKE THIS IS THAT THE, THROUGH THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPOINTING PEOPLE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU DRAW PEOPLE FROM ALL PARTS OF THE CITY, ALL PARTS OF LIFE EXPERIENCES, ALL PARTS OF PERSPECTIVE.
AND IN SEEING EACH OF THE PANELS OPERATE, YOU SEE EXPERTISE COME FORWARD.
UH, AND SHE, MS. HAYDEN JOKED ABOUT HOW SHE'S A STICKLER FOR THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE AND THAT'S BECAUSE WOW, SHE HAS LIFE EXPERIENCES THAT HELPS HER HELP US UNDERSTAND THAT AND EACH ONE OF US BRING THAT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
UM, SO IT'S VERY MUCH APPRECIATED THAT YOU'RE YOU BEING A STICKLER IN EACH ONE OF US IN OUR PARTICULAR THING.
AND THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF BEING APPOINTED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FROM ACROSS THE CITY, NOT ONE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN 2 3 4 0 1 4 IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
MR. HAWLEY? YES, MR. MARY? AYE.
MOTION PASSES 5 2 0 IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3, 4 4, THE BOARD GRANTS BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO SIX BDA 2 3 4 0 16.
THIS IS AT 2 5 1 1 JORDAN VALLEY ROAD.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
UM, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, UH, FIRST OF ALL, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE? JUST ONE SPEAKER, JUST THE APPLICANT.
SO SIR, IF YOU WOULD BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND THEN, UM, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES, UH, TO ADDRESS THE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
AND UH, MY ADDRESS IS 25 11 JORDAN VALLEY ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
SO, UM, BASICALLY, UM, ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AGO, UM, WE HAD, UH, SEVERAL ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AT OUR DRIVEWAY, UH, ON THE STREET AND, UH, EVENTUALLY HIT OUR DRIVEWAY, UM, TO WHERE IT CAUSED, UH, DAMAGE TO OUR CONCRETE AND ALL THAT.
SO WE DECIDED, MY WIFE AND I, WE DECIDED TO BUILD A WAVE, A FENCE.
WE HAD A CHAIN IN LINK FENCE, UH, AT THAT POINT.
SO WE DECIDED TO BUILD A, YOU KNOW, STRONGER, UH, MORE DURABLE, UH, FENCE AND GATE.
UM, SO WE DID, UH, WE DID AN IRON.
UH, SO WHEN WE, UH, WHEN WE PLANNED FOR IT, UM, SINCE WE LIVE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I HAD TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE FENCE OR FOR THE GATE.
SO WE WENT ON AND STARTED BUILDING IT.
UM, SO THEN THE CITY, THE CITY, UH, TOLD US THAT WE NEEDED, YOU KNOW, PERMIT FOR THAT SINCE IT WAS GONNA BE TALLER THAN FOUR FOOT.
SO THE FENCE RIGHT NOW IT'S AT FIVE FOOT AND THEN THE, THE, THE GATE IT'S AT SIX, SIX FEET, THE TALLEST POINT.
SO, UM, AND ANOTHER REASON WHY WE WE DECIDED TO DO A TALLER FENCE OR GATE
[00:55:01]
WAS BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF CRIMES, YOU KNOW, HAPPENING IN OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.UM, A LOT OF, UH, UH, I HAVE SEVERAL PICTURES HERE ON MY PHONE.
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT, BUT, UM, WE JUST FEEL, YOU KNOW, NOT SO SAFE.
IT DIDN'T FEEL AS SAFE WHEN WE HAD THE PREVIOUS, UH, FENCE.
SO, UH, AND ALSO WE HAVE A DOG, UM, AND HE WAS, HE KEPT JUMPING OVER THE FENCE AND ALL THAT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO BUILD A, A TALLER FENCE.
BUT LIKE I SAID, WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE, THAT WE HAD TO GET LIKE A SPECIAL PERMIT, NOT ONLY A PERMIT, BUT A, YOU KNOW, A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR, UH, UM, FOR THE HEIGHT.
SO, UM, I'M REQUESTING IF YOU GUYS COULD HELP US OUT WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, TO PROVING THE, THE, UH, DEFENSE HEIGHT.
UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? I'VE GOT MS. HAYDEN, THEN MS. DAVIS.
MS. HAYDEN, UM, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY YOU WERE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS OF DALLAS, THAT YOU'RE NOT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
YEAH, SO BASICALLY THAT'S, THAT'S THE THING THAT KIND OF THREW US OFF BECAUSE SINCE WE'RE WE'RE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS, UM, IT SAID NO RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO BUILD THE DEFENSE.
SO WHY IS THE CITY, UH, I MEAN, IS THE CITY ENFORCING SOMETHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? MS. FORD? I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
UH, MS. FORD ADMINISTRATOR, WHAT IS YOUR, WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS, YOUR OFFICIAL ADDRESS IN FULL 25 11 JORDAN VALLEY ROAD, DALLAS, SEVEN, FIVE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO TRAP YOU, I'M JUST SAYING RIGHT, NO, I UNDERSTAND.
AND I ALSO, BEFORE WE STARTED BUILDING ANYTHING, WE CALLED THE, THE UNDERSTOOD THE, THE BUILDING IN PLACE AND THEY SAID NO RESTRICTIONS SO WELL, BUT, YOU KNOW, SO DEPENDS ON WHO, DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK THE QUESTION TO AS TO WHO'S GONNA ANSWER NO RESTRICTIONS.
MS. HAYDEN STILL HAS THE FLOOR.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS WITHIN THE STATE LIMITS OF DALLAS.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT QUESTION? MS. HAYDEN? MS. DAVIS, HOW TALL WAS YOUR PREVIOUS FENCE? IT WAS FOUR FOOT.
AND DO YOU HAVE A FENCE IN YOUR BACKYARD? UH, YES.
IS THAT TALLER THAN THE ONE THAT'S IN YOUR FRONT YARD? UH, YES, IT'S A SIX FOOTER.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOUR DOG WAS JUMPING OVER THE, THE FENCE AT FOUR FEET.
HAD YOU CONSIDERED KEEPING YOUR DOG IN THE BACKYARD SO THAT HE COULDN'T GET OUT? NO.
SO BASICALLY, UM, IT'S JUST, UH, AROUND THE PERIMETER.
IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S NOTHING THAT DIVIDES THE FRONT YARD AND THE BACKYARD.
SO THE DOG, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, IT'S NOT SO MUCH LAND, BUT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DOG LIKES TO BE, YOU KNOW, GOING AROUND.
I THINK ONE OF THE, UH, UM, PEOPLE SAW HIM AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BIG GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG, SO I CAN'T KEEP HIM IN A, IN A VERY LITTLE SPACE, YOU KNOW, SO, UM, SO YEAH, HE KEPT ON JUMPING OVER THE, OVER THE FOUR FOOT FENCE.
SO THAT'S WHY THAT, AND THEN THE, WE KNOW, WE, WE FELT VERY INSECURE WITH THE AREA.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, I HAVE, LIKE I SAID, I HAVE SOME PICTURES HERE ON MY PHONE.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, I'M, I'M GONNA STOP YOU 'CAUSE THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
AM I UNABLE TO DO THAT? SORRY.
UM, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE TWO COMMENTS TO YOUR ANSWER NUMBER ONE, YOU COULD RESTRICT THE DOG'S, UH, PROGRESS TO THE FRONT YARD AND STILL GIVE YOUR DOG PLENTY OF ROOM IN THE BACK.
NUMBER TWO, YOU COULD GET AN INVISIBLE FRONT IN THE FRONT IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT HIM JUMPING OVER THE FENCE.
UM, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, I, I GUESS IT'S A CONCERN.
THE SIGN, UH, THE, THE SIGN THAT YOU HAD POSTED, I KNOW THAT THAT SIGN IS SUPPOSED TO BE POSTED IN AN AREA THAT'S VERY VISIBLE AND BASED ON THE PHOTOS THAT WE SAW YOU CHOSE, INSTEAD OF PUTTING YOUR SIGN ON YOUR FENCE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT, YOU PUT IT AGAINST THE HOUSE.
SO, UH, I, I KNOW THAT IF, IF I WERE A NEIGHBOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD'VE SEEN THAT.
AND I, I KNOW THAT I THINK WE AS A BOARD NEED TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT WAS SUFFICIENTLY POSTED.
BUT CAN YOU COMMENT TO THAT, PLEASE? AND, AND WHY YOU CHOSE TO PUSH IT BACK ON THE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT ON THE FENCE? THE SIGN, UH, REFERRING TO THE, THE, THE SIGN BASICALLY OF YOUR APPEAL SIGN OKAY.
SAYING THAT YOU WERE COMING HERE IN FRONT OF US.
SO, I MEAN, THERE'S NO PARTICULAR REASON.
I JUST THOUGHT THAT WOULD, I JUST, I THOUGHT I JUST HAD TO PUT IT UP.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I HAD TO PUT IT IN THE, UH, IN NEXT TO THE GATE OR THE FENCE, OR AT A CERTAIN DIS DISTANCE FROM THE HOUSE OR FROM THE STREET.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT I HAD TO DO THAT.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, I'M SORRY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? RIGHT THEN I, I'M, YEAH, YOU CAN MAKE A COMMENT AS LONG AS IT'S KIND OF A QUESTION.
[01:00:01]
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, UH, ONLINE.THEN I'LL KIND OF BRING YOU A LITTLE BIT UP TO SPEED.
UH, THE BOARD IS VERY CONCERNED ON EVERY CASE AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.
WE SEND LETTERS OUT 10 DAYS, AT LEAST PRIOR TO EVERY CASE, TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE THAT A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE IS PENDING WITHIN YOUR, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN 200 FEET.
THE BOARD AND THROUGH THE FORM THAT YOU SIGNED, SAID, UH, WANTS TO REQUIRE, UH, FOUR WITHIN 14 DAYS OF APPLICATION, YOU POSTING A SIGN AND HAVE IT CONTINUOUSLY THERE UNTIL THE HEARING'S OVER WITH AND LANGUAGE ON THE FORM THAT YOU SIGN, AND THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US.
THE SIGN MUST BE POSTED AT A PROMINENT LOCATION ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC STREET, EVENLY SPACED ALONG EACH FRONTAGE, AND EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY POST THE SIGN MAY RESULT IN EITHER A POSTPONEMENT OR DENIAL.
I, I, I'M TRYING TO BE GENTLE.
THIS IS THE ACTUAL FORM THAT YOU SIGNED, THAT EVERYONE THAT GOES THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND THE REASON WHY IS WE DON'T WANT ANY GOTCHAS.
WE DON'T WANT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET OR WITH WITHIN THE 200 FEET NOTIFICATION AREA, WHICH IS STATE LAW.
WE DON'T WANT ANYONE TO BE SURPRISED.
NOW, IF PEOPLE SEE IT AND CHOOSE NOT TO RESPOND, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS.
BUT WHAT CONCERNED US IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, AND WE PULLED LANGUAGE FROM THE CODE, IS THIS VERY LOCATION OF THE SIGN, WHETHER IT WAS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND WHETHER IT WAS POSTED THERE THIS ENTIRE TIME.
IS IT THEY POSTED THERE RIGHT NOW? I DON'T KNOW.
I, I'M, UH, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS PART AND PARCEL TO OUR PROCESS OF BEING PUBLIC.
UM, HENCE MS. DAVIS'S COMMENTS AS IT RELATES TO THAT.
AND EACH AND EVERY APPLICANT SIGNS THIS, AND YOU, UNFORTUNATELY, WE ALL SIGN A LOT OF THINGS AND DON'T READ.
UM, SO THAT'S, I'M NOT SAYING YOU DIDN'T READ IT.
I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A, A BIG DEAL OR ANYTHING, SO YOU'D POST IT.
SO IT IS A CONCERN TO OUR, IT'S A CONCERN.
IT'S A CONCERN TO THIS ONE MEMBER.
AND, UM, WE'RE NOT AT THE STAGE OF VOTING, BUT IT'S A CONCERN TO THIS ONE MEMBER.
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. KERMAN, COULD YOU, UH, YOU INDICATED IN YOUR SUBMISSION THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS WITH DRUNK DRIVERS.
COULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT HOW THOSE RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR PROPERTY? YEAH, SO THAT I CAN REMEMBER.
WE'VE HAD AT LEAST FIVE INCIDENTS, YOU KNOW, UM, THE LAST ONE WAS PROBABLY ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AGO.
SO THIS GUY, UH, YOU KNOW, HE, HE, UH, WE, WE ALSO HAVE A DITCH IN THE, IN THE FRONT.
SO THIS GUY, HE, YOU KNOW, FELL IN THERE.
HE BUSTED OUR CONCRETE AND EVERYTHING.
UM, I HAVE A 6-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, AND, UM, SHE LIKES TO BE PLAYING, YOU KNOW, NOW PLAYING OUTSIDE.
BUT I, I DON'T FEEL SAFE LETTING HER OUTSIDE KNOWING THAT THESE KIND OF DRIVERS, YOU KNOW, ARE OUT THERE.
AND, UH, I MEAN, WE BUILT AN IRON FENCE.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT SAFER, IN MY OPINION.
DID, DID ANYONE ACTUALLY, YOUR PRIOR FENCE, DID ANYONE ACTUALLY RUN O OVER THAT FENCE? UH, THANK GOD, NO.
AND ALSO MY DAUGHTER'S ROOM IS, RIGHT, IT'S THE FIRST ROOM, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK OF, THINK OF IT AS IN, LET'S SAY THE CAR WOULD'VE PASSED THE FENCE.
HE, YOU KNOW, CRASH INTO MY DAUGHTER.
SO IT'S MORE OF A CONCERN, A SAFETY CONCERN.
AND THE CRITERIA WE HAVE IS THAT IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, ACCORDING TO THE STATE, ACCORDING TO THE CITY CODE, AND THE, THE BOARD HERE, IS TO SAY, OKAY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU PRESENT US AS THE APPLICANT, BASED ON THE INFORMATION OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF GIVES US, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? WERE THEY, WAS EVERYONE PROPERLY INFORMED THAT A CHANGE WAS COMING? WAS THERE A PERMIT ORIGINALLY GO, AN ISSUED ON IT, BUT, AND HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY ZEROING IN ON.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN? I GUESS ALONG WITH THAT, UM, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT YOUR FENCE HEIGHT? AND DID THEY OFFER ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION? UH, I DID.
I SPOKE TO ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, THE OTHER ONE, HE HAS A, HE HAS A FENCE, SO THERE'S NO ACCESS.
[01:05:01]
I CAN'T, I DON'T, I RARELY SEE HIM, SO I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T WANT TO GO IN HIS YARD, YOU KNOW.UM, SO I SPOKE TO THE ONE ON THE RIGHT.
SO IN FRONT WE, THERE ISN'T ANY HOUSES.
I JUST HAVE ONE ON THE RIGHT AND ONE ON THE LEFT.
SO, UM, THAT WAS THE ONLY NEIGHBOR THAT I SPOKE TO, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.
UM, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
UH, BUT BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, UH, I'M ASKING A QUESTION OF STAFF.
UH, IF THE BOARD, UH, OUR CHOICES OBVIOUSLY ARE TO APPROVE, TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENY WITH PREJUDICE, OR HOLD OVER.
IF THE BOARD HOLDS OVER, WHAT NOTIFICATION OCCURS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS? I DON'T BELIEVE IT GETS RE NOTIFIED.
DOES NOT GET RE NOTIFIED, BUT THEY DO NEED TO KEEP THAT SIGN IN THE FRONT YARD UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT HEARING.
WELL, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT MEANT, MR. POOLE, IT'S NOT MEANT AS A, I ALL OF A SUDDEN REALIZE YOU AND I HAVE HAD A SEPARATE QUESTION, CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
AND I'M, UH, THAT'S A POLICY REQUEST THAT I REQUESTED, AND THAT'S A PROCESS DECISION OF THE MANAGER I'M TRYING TO GO THROUGH WHETHER I'M GOING, WHICH MOTION I'M GONNA MAKE BASED ON HOW THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL BE NOTIFIED OR NOT.
SO IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO HOLD OVER WHAT NOTIFICATION PROCESS ONE, AS MS. BARKUM SAID, THAT SIGN NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY POSTED.
TWO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GONNA GO, YOU'RE GONNA RE NOTIFY VIA LETTERS.
I NEED YOU TO SAY THAT ON THE RECORD, SIR.
DID YOU, THE BOARD ATTORNEY WANTED WHAT? TELL ME WHAT YOU WANTED.
SO, UM, UH, I HAD A, IN THE, IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE VISIBILITY AND THE VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN.
AND I PROVIDED, I A REQUESTED FROM THE ATTORNEY WHAT THE CODE SPEAKS TO AS FAR AS VISIBILITY.
UM, AND SO I'M, MY MOTION IS I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 6.
I HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 19TH, 2024, WHICH IS FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW.
BECAUSE WE HAVE DETERMINED THE APPLICANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION SIGNED POSTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 51 A DASH ONE DASH 1 0 6 OF THE DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED IN THE CASE OF 2 3 4 0 1 6 TO HOLD THE ITEM OVER TO MARCH 19TH.
UM, THE BASIS BY WHICH MY, I'M MAKING THIS MOTION IS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE CODE SAYS THAT THE SIGN BE.
IT SAYS, FOR TRACKS WITH STREET FRONTAGE SIGNS MUST BE EVENING SPACE AND THE LENGTH IN EVERY STREET FRONTAGE POSTED AT A PROMINENT LOCATION ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC STREET, AND BE EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
THAT'S WHAT OUR CODE SAYS FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY.
AND THAT BEING THE CRITERIA, IT STOPS ME AS ONE MEMBER FROM EVEN GETTING TO THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST.
SO BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THERE IS LACK OF POSTING, THEN WE ARE STOPPED FROM MAKING A DECISION ON THE CASE.
WE COULD HAVE JUST, I COULD JUST ASK THE BOARD TO DENY IT, BUT I'M NOT GONNA DO THAT BECAUSE OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UM, UH, ADMINISTRATORS AGREED TO, TO RE NOTIFY AND PRESUMABLY USE THE APPLICANT WILL PROMINENTLY DISPLAY THE SIGN EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET PROMINENT LOCATION ADJACENT TO PUBLIC STREET.
UM, SO THAT IS THE BASIS BY WHICH I'M MAKING OUR MOTION.
UH, YES, MR. HOPKIN, OH, SECOND GO, UH, DISCUSSION GOES TO MR. MARY FIRST, THEN I'LL COME TO YOU, MR. HOP.
UM, AS THIS BOARD MEMBER FEELS LIKE THE, UM, THE APPEAL SIGN SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED MORE PROMINENTLY ON THE PROPERTY, CLOSER TO THE STREET AND THE CURB OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE AREA RATHER THAN INSIDE.
UM, BUT I FIRMLY CONCUR WITH THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS ON THIS.
THANK YOU, MR. VE UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'VE VALIDATED THAT NOTICES WILL BE RE NOTICE LETTERS TO THE NEIGHBORS WILL BE RESENT OUT.
WILL THERE BE ANOTHER SITE VISIT
[01:10:01]
TO AS ASCERTAIN THAT THE SIGNS ARE PROPERLY POSTED? YEAH, WE COULD DEFINITELY GO BACK OUT TO THE SITE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SIGN RANDOMLY YES.RANDOMLY, RANDOMLY THAT, UM, THE SIGN IS PROPERLY POSTED AND GET ANOTHER PICTURE.
THANK YOU, MR. HKA, MS. HAYDEN, UM, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT IF, IF THIS BOARD DOES VOTE TO HOLD THIS OVER AND GIVE YOU ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY.
YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER ONE CRITERIA WE LOOK AT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FENCE REGULATION IS, UH, THAT IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO IT'S ALWAYS MUCH, MUCH EASIER FOR US TO MAKE THAT DECISION WHEN WE HAVE SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS, AND IF WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF, OF OTHER FENCES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE SIMILAR TO YOURS, THAT THAT SHOW THAT YOUR, YOUR FENCE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
OTHER COMMENTS, MS. DAVIS? UM, JUST A COMMENT.
I, I AGREE WITH, UM, WITH WHAT MS. HAYDEN JUST SAID, AND I ALSO JUST WANNA STATE, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S JUST BEEN A LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF NOT GETTING A PERMIT FOR THE FENCE, UM, NOT READING WHERE THAT SIGN NEEDED TO GO, AND JUST CHOOSING AN AREA TO PLACE IT WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GOT FROM THE CITY AND FOLLOWING THAT DIRECTION.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO MISS HAYDEN'S POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MUCH MORE PROACTIVENESS NEXT TIME WHEN YOU COME.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE ANOTHER SOLUTION FOR YOUR DOG AS WELL, BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A HOMEOWNER AND A PET OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR DOG ISN'T JUMPING OVER THE FENCE AND SCARING PEOPLE WHO ARE WALKING BY.
SO I'D BE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION FOR THAT AS WELL.
WOULD YOU COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE? UH, MR. MUNOZ, WE'RE GIVING YOU A POTENTIAL SECOND BITE OF THE APPLE FOR YOUR REQUEST.
UH, THE BOARD HASN'T ACTED YET, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED.
UH, YOU'VE HEARD FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, THEY WILL RANDOMLY AND INDEPENDENTLY GO OUT AND INSPECT AND TAKE PICTURES.
YOU'VE HEARD FROM MYSELF AND OTHERS AS TO THE LOCATION, PROPER LOCATION OF SIGN FOR VISIBILITY, YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE BOARD AS IT RELATES TO SOLICITING FEEDBACK AND HOPEFULLY SUPPORT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, WE DON'T WANNA WASTE OUR TIME OR YOURS IS, ARE THESE THINGS THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER? YES, SIR.
BECAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN IT'S A WASTE OF OUR TIME.
I DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME EITHER.
'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK HERE NEXT MONTH, MARCH 19TH.
AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING AGAIN AND YOU'LL PROVE UP.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? VERY GOOD SUGGESTION FOR THE RANDOM
IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 16, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS TO HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 19TH, 2024 BECAUSE WE DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH A SIGNED NOTIFICATION.
POSTING REQUIREMENTS, THE COURT SECRETARY WILL CALL THE MOTION MR. N AYE, MS. HAYDEN AYE.
MOTION PASSES 5 2 0 IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO 16.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY FIVE TO ZERO MOVE TO HELD THE ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 19TH, 2024.
NEXT ITEM, UH, ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 2 0 2 5 BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 25.
THIS IS AT 4 6 2 5 WALNUT HILL LANE.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES.
YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT MICROPHONE'S OUT? YOU'RE A TALL, TALL GENTLEMAN, SO AS BEST AS YOU CAN SPEAK TO THEM.
UH, SIR, UM, IF YOU WOULD, UM, BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND THEN, UH, YOU'LL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO PRESENT.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, 3 0 1 SILVER BOULEVARD, APARTMENT 5 3 4 5 FLOWER MOUNT TEXAS 7 5 0 2.
YEAH, BECAUSE WE WANT TO HEAR EVERYTHING YOU, YOU, YOU WANT TO TELL US.
[01:15:01]
UH, SURE.SO, UH, BASICALLY AS, UH, UH, DOING THE CONSTRUCTION, I DID MY, UH, WHAT I'M, YOU KNOW, UH, OBLIGATED TO DO, MAKING PLANS, SUBMITTING IT TO THE CITY AND GETTING THE PERMIT AND TO BUILD THE FENCE.
UH, I, UH, PROCEEDED TO, UH, BUILD THE FENCE AND COMPLETED PER, UH, THE PERMIT I RECEIVED FROM THE CITY, UH, AFTER THE FACT, UH, UH, THE, UH, AT THE CITY THAT THE, ONE OF THE INSPECTORS, UH, SAID THAT, NO, HE'S REVOKING THE PERMIT AND I HAVE TO COME TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO BASICALLY HAVE IT, UH, REISSUED.
UH, SO NUMBER ONE, I HAD THE PERMIT.
BESIDES THAT, I'VE ALREADY INCURRED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING, UH, UH, THE FENCE AND ANY CHANGES TO THE FENCE IS ADDITIONAL COST.
UH, SO, UH, THAT'S AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
UH, BESIDES THAT, UH, AS FAR AS, UH, THE NEIGHBORS AND, UH, THE HEIGHT OF THE, UH, FENCE, UH, I SUBMITTED.
I THINK YOU HAVE PICTURES OF ALL THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA JUST ADJACENT AND, UH, ACROSS THE STREET, ALL OF A MUCH TALLER, UH, UH, STRUCTURES.
AND, UH, SINCE I HEARD THAT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY, UH, ONE OF THE, UH, BOARD MEMBERS IS, YOU KNOW, UH, DISCUSSING, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
EVEN IF I MOVED, UH, FENCE STILL BECAUSE OF THE FENCE OF THE NEIGHBOR, UH, UH, STILL THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WOULDN'T BE MET ANYWAYS BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBOR FENCE.
SO WHAT'S BEFORE US ARE THREE REQUESTS A REQUEST FOR THE HEIGHT.
I'M GONNA TRY TO BE AS SIMPLISTIC AS POSSIBLE.
REQUESTS FOR THE HEIGHT, THE CONTENTS OF THE MATERIALS OF THE FENCE, AND THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTIONS.
UM, SO WHAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED TODAY IS THAT YOU SUBMITTED PLANS TO THE CITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
THE PLANS WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH A, AN ENGINEER STAMP.
AND, YOU KNOW, THEY, THE CITY HAS AN OUT, IT SAYS SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTIONS, JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT IT'S ON THE LITTLE, LITTLE FINE PRINT SAYS SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTIONS.
UH, AND THEN YOU PROCEEDED TO CONSTRUCT.
UM, WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET APPROVALS, WERE THE APPROVALS FOR ALL THE DIMENSIONS OF YOUR PROP OF THE PROPERTY? IN OTHER WORDS, THE FENCE AND THE FRONT, THE FENCE IN THE BACK, WAS IT FOR THE ENTIRE ENTIRETY OF THE FENCE? UH, YES.
DID IT, DID AT ANY TIME ANYONE FROM THE CITY TALK TO YOU ABOUT THESE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES? UH, NO.
SO YOU'D HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE CONCEPT OF VISIBILITY TRIANGLES? UH, NO.
YOU CAN HEAR TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT A LOT.
THAT'S, AND THERE'S MORE COMING.
BUT YOU'D NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE? NO, NOBODY.
AGAIN, I HAD MY, UH, ARCHITECT TO DESIGN IT AND THEN I TOOK THE PLAN TO THE CITY.
DID ANYONE FROM THE CITY EVER TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE FENCE? UH, NO.
IT'S, UH, ON THE PLAN THAT'S GONNA BE, UM, METAL FENCE.
UM, UM, AND I DIDN'T WRITE IT.
MY MISTAKE, UM, IT SAYS, ACCORDING TO OUR REPORTS, THAT 11 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET WERE NOTIFIED.
AND CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY? 11 WERE NOTIFIED HOW MANY RESPONDED, YES OR NO? ZERO AND ZERO.
DID, SO DID YOU KNOW TO REACH OUT TO ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM? I DIDN'T REACH OUT TO ANYBODY.
I, I, I SAID, DID YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD HAVE? OH, NO.
HOW DID YOU, HOW WERE YOU NOTIFIED, BECCA? I APOLOGIZE.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLETION OF THE FENCE, THE DRIVEWAY AND THE CONTENT WHERE YOU FINISHED AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE TOLD TO STOP BY THE CITY? THE ONLY THING LEFT IS THE GATE, BUT THE FENCE AND THE DRIVEWAY IS DONE.
WHAT I, I I NEED A PERCENTAGE.
[01:20:01]
COMPLETION? 98.HOW WERE YOU NOTIFIED THAT YOU WERE TO STOP ON THE CONSTRUCTION? UH, ONE DAY THE INSPECTOR CAME TO THE, UH, WHICH IS TOTALLY ANOTHER ISSUE.
AND, UH, BASICALLY, AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA GET INTO THAT PART.
I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, UH, IMPORTANT FOR THE MATTERS OF THE BOARD.
BUT NO, YOU, I WOULD ONLY SPEAK TO THE THREE ISSUES SO THAT, THAT, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'LL CLOUD THE ISSUE.
I DON'T WANNA STAY AWAY, AWAY FROM ANYTHING ELSE.
IT WAS LIKE, OKAY, I'M GONNA LOOK FOR THINGS TO STOP THE PROGRESS.
BUT ANYWAYS, HE SAID THAT, UH, UH, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, HAS ISSUES.
AND THEN DID YOU GET SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THE CITY? UH, I AM NOT SURE, BUT, UH, HIS E ALSO EMAILED ME THE EMAIL IS IN WRITING.
AND I FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS, SUBMITTED THE YES.
WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FROM YOU NOTARIZED ON THE 21ST OF DECEMBER.
UH, I CAN'T SEE THE DATE HERE IN THE TOP, THAT DATE STAMP MR. POOL.
AND THEN WHEN WE NEED IT, YOU CAN'T READ IT.
SO IT'S, SO I DEFAULT TO THE, UH, I DEFAULT TO THE NOTARY DATE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE WAY.
AND THEN YOU AND I GET INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, MR. NEWMAN, THIS AND MR. POOLE, THAT I'D LOVE A CLEAR DATE STAMP YOU.
SO 21ST OF DECEMBER IS WHEN YOU MADE APPLICATION.
I ASK ALL THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE BOY, ARE YOU, AND WE IN A BOX.
YOU, WE IN THE CITY, THE CITY HAS THE STANDARDS BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT CONSISTENCY OF CONSTRUCTION IN NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS AND SAFETY.
THE VISIBILITY HAS TO DO WITH TRAFFIC.
THE FENCE COMPOSITION HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS IS ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL VERSUS NOT.
AND THE HEIGHT IS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS IS CONS, IS HEIGHT HEIGHTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN AREAS.
AND THOSE ARE CITY COUNCIL DRIVEN STANDARDS THAT WE'RE EMPOWERED TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO BRING THAT TOGETHER.
SO I'VE GOTTA, I'VE GOTTA DIGEST, UH, FOR A LITTLE BIT.
UM, AND THEN I'M GONNA LET MY COLLEAGUES PROCEED.
MS. HAYDEN, YOU'RE GOING NEXT.
I'M, I'M STILL DIGESTING ONE OTHER QUESTION, MS. WILLIAMS. ARE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKERS.
SO I'M, I THINK YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD ME MENTION BEFORE, THE CRITERIA THAT WE LOOK AT FOR THE FENCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ARE THAT IT WON'T A, UH, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND IT'S REALLY THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO, TO PROVE THAT IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
SO IT'S ALWAYS HELPFUL IF WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR SOME LETTERS FROM, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US THAT SHOW? I KNOW YOU TOOK THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE FENCES, BUT I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAD ANY, ANY INPUT FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS OR IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROOF THAT IT WON'T ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND SO, UH, UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE, THE MEASUREMENTS HAD TWO PICTURES.
ONE, TO SHOW THEM ACTUAL MEASUREMENT, ONE A LITTLE BIT, UH, FROM QUARTERBACK TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE, HOW THEY LOOK.
SO BASICALLY, MOST OF THE, NOT MOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND, UH, HAVE VERY, UH, VERY, VERY TALL, UH, UH, DIFFERENT KINDS, BUT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT MATERIALS.
UH, SO THAT, I GUESS IT'S JUST DIFFICULT 'CAUSE THE PICTURES DON'T HAVE ANY ADDRESSES ON 'EM.
SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE THESE WERE TAKEN OR EXACTLY THE PROXIMITY TO YOUR THERE IS ADDRESS, PROPERTY ADDRESS.
I KNOW THERE IS ADDRESS ON THE BOTTOM.
WE PUT THE ADDRESSES ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURES THAT THE ONE, THAT ONE SAYS NEXT DOOR, BUT THE OTHER ONES, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, WE PUT THE ADDRESSES.
BUT THIS IS, UH, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE THING WE HAVE TO LOOK, WELL, OUR CRITERIA IS THAT IT WILL NOT AVERSELY, UM, CAUSE A TRAFFIC OR WON'T CAUSE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT THAT EXIT ONTO, UH, WALNUT HILL LANE, WHICH IS SIX LANE DIVIDED IN THAT AREA, VERY HEAVILY TRAVELED.
SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, BLOW UP SHOWING EXACTLY IT JUST FROM THE, THE DIAGRAM THAT I SAW, LOOKS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, UM, ENCROACHMENT INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON WALNUT HILL LANE, RIGHT IN THOSE DRIVEWAYS.
SO, UH, UH, UH, TWO POINTS AS FAR AS THAT GOES.
[01:25:01]
UH, SO THIS DOESN'T AFFECT ANY OTHER, UH, NEIGHBORS.THE ONLY, UH, ENTRANCE AND, YOU KNOW, UH, TO THE, UH, OR EXIT IS TOWARDS THE WALNUT HILL.
SO, UH, IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANY OTHER PEOPLE EXCEPT FOR THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOUSE.
AS FAR AS THE, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UH, AS I, UH, TOOK THE PICTURES OF THE SIZE OF THE, UH, HOUSE, THE, UH, NEIGHBORING PRO, UH, PROPERTIES, UH, BOTH HAVE TALLER, UH, UH, SIDE, UH, UH, FENCES.
SO, UH, BASICALLY EVEN IF I MOVE MY, UH, FENCE BACKWARDS, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THE PROBLEM OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORING, UH, UH, SO I, I GUESS MY, MY COMMENT TO THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO LOOK AT YOUR PROPERTY, BUT NOT AT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, YOUR PROPERTY IS THE ONE IN QUESTION.
I JUST WAS MENTIONING THAT IT STILL WILL BE THERE.
THE, THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT, MS. DAVIS AND MR. HA, MS. DAVIS, COULD I ASK MR. NAVAREZ JUST TO, UH, JUST TO, AGAIN, KIND OF WALK US THROUGH THIS AND HOW MUCH, BECAUSE IT'S SO SMALL, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH OF THAT VISIT, HOW MUCH VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UH, ADJUSTMENTS DO THEY NEED TO MAKE IN ORDER TO BE COMPLIANT? BECAUSE I'M HAVING TROUBLE SEEING HOW MUCH THE FENCE IS ENCROACHING IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BY THAT PHOTO, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
YOUR QUESTION, MA'AM? REGARDING THE ENCROACHMENT, UH, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS A RED TRIANGLE, WHICH WOULD BE THE EFFECTIVE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE, NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CITY STANDARD OF A 20 BY 20.
UH, THERE'S NOTHING GOLDEN ABOUT 20 BY 20.
20 BY 20 IS A NUMBER THAT MANY MUNICIPALITIES USE AS A STANDARD FOR HAVING ADEQUATE SIDE DISTANCE.
UH, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A MAJOR DIFFERENCE ON, UH, ENCROACHING A SITE DISTANCE ON A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET TO A ROAD WHERE SOMEONE'S DRIVING AT 40 MILES AN HOUR.
UM, SO, UM, HOW, HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT IS JUST DRIVING DOWN ON WALNUT HILL? WELL, A VEHICLE COULD COME OUT AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
AND GRANTED, I DO WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT WE, WE TAKE THIS REVIEWS VERY SERIOUSLY.
OUR, SOMEONE SAID EARLIER, WE RARELY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ENCROACHMENTS.
I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S ALL BASED CASE BY CASE, AND SOMETIMES WE'RE ABLE TO FIX SOME ISSUES BEFORE THEY GET TO YOU.
BUT IN THIS CASE, UM, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LAND USE, YOU KNOW, UH, IF THIS WAS A A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, I WOULD BE USING STRONGER WORDS.
UH, IT BEING A A, A RESIDENTIAL.
I DO WANNA ANSWER YOUR QUESTION STRAIGHTFORWARD.
NOW, UH, THE ENCROACHMENT IS ABOUT 10 FEET INTO THE 20 BY 20.
UH, THE ACTUAL VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT WE SHOULD BE LAYING OUT HERE ON THE SCREEN IS ACTUALLY SHOWN IN BLACK.
UH, SO IF YOU CAN SEE IT, UH, SHOWN IN BLACK, IT'S A 20 BY 20 LOCATED ON THE WESTERN EASTERN SIDE.
WHERE, WHERE I DON'T SEE, THANK YOU.
SO, SO THE, THE EASTERN DRIVEWAY SHOWS THAT SHOWS THAT 20 BY 20 MM-HMM,
AND, AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS TO DEVIATE FROM THAT 20 BY 20 AND BRING IT DOWN TO THE PROPOSED TRIANGLE SHOWN IN RED.
WELL, WHAT COULD HAPPEN, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING SHOULD OR WOULD, IS THAT YOU MOVE THE FENCE AT THAT LOCATION.
YOU COULD, YOU'D MOVE A PORTION OF THAT FENCE TO CREATE THE TOP OF THAT TRIANGLE.
I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE.
I'M SORRY, MS. DAVIS, WHICH IS WHAT OTHER, OTHER CONSTRUCTION HAVE DONE IN THE AREA.
NOT NECESSARILY MOVING THE WHOLE FENCE LINE, BUT, AND RACHEL MISSED, HAYDEN COULD MAYBE INTERPRET THAT MORE.
BUT ANYWAY, I'M SORRY, MS. DAVIS.
SO, SO AS, AS I'M FACING THIS, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MOVED.
THE, THE FENCE WOULD NEED TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MOVED BACK.
I WOULD LET YOU USE THE WORD SIGNIFICANTLY.
SO, AND THE, THE ONE ON THE LEFT, IS THAT THE SAME, IS IT THE SAME CHANNEL? IT, IT'D BE THE, THE EXACT SAME.
A MIRROR OF THE, OF THE SAME CONDITIONS.
UH, UH, JUST AS A GENERAL QUESTION, UM, NOT NECESSARILY RELATED
[01:30:01]
TO WHAT'S BEEN DONE HERE, BUT I'VE NOTICED IN SOME PLACES, PEOPLE AT THEIR DRIVEWAYS USE MIRRORS ON THEIR FENCES TO GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL VISIBILITY.AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE CITY'S, I, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CITY'S POSITION ON THAT.
IS THAT A MITIGATION TO VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE? UH, UH, HAS THIS COME UP, HAS THAT COME UP BEFORE THIS BOARD? MR. NAVAREZ? IS, DOES THE CODE PROVIDE THE STAFF OR THE HOMEOWNER PROPERTY OWNER TO UTILIZE THAT IN LIEU OF MIRRORS AND THAT SORT OF THING? OR IS THAT COSMETIC? NO, SIR.
UH, THE CODE DOESN'T SPEAK ON THE MIRRORS.
AND, AND THE CITY WOULD NOT REGULATE THEM AS LONG AS THEY'RE WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY.
SO THOSE MIRRORS WE SEE AT THE END OF VALLEYS COMING IN AND OUT IS COSMETIC.
THEY'RE NOT CODIFIED AND THE CITY HAS NO ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THEM.
I'M WITH DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES.
UM, ON ANOTHER MATTER, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, I, IF THIS CAME UP, I'M, I HAVEN'T, I HAVEN'T YET HEARD IT.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE INCONSISTENT MATERIALS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN NO, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
SO, UM, IS THAT, CAN I ASK STAFF THAT QUESTION FIRST AND THEN LET THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO THAT? SO THE MATERIALS THAT IS PROPOSED, TELL ME WHY THE STAFF TELL ME WHAT THE, YOU, THE STAFF INTERPRETS THE MATERIALS AND WHY IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH CODE.
IT'S, IT'S ON THE PROHIBITED MATERIAL LIST AS A SHEET METAL.
WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE,
SO IT'S ONE BIG PIECE OF, OF SHEET METAL.
AND THAT IS, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.
SIR, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THAT MATERIAL FOR YOUR FENCE COMPOSITION WAS PROHIBITED? UH, NO.
IN THE, UH, IN THE PERMIT THAT I GOT, IT SAYS, UH, WE ARE GONNA PLACE, UH, METAL, UH, UH, METAL FENCING.
AND ALSO IT IS, UH, IT IS PERFORATED.
SO THERE IS VISIBILITY THROUGH IT.
BUT MAY I ADD SOMETHING? ONE SECOND.
SO WHAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING TO IS THAT, UM, NO ONE FROM THE CITY HAD UNTIL THE PER PERMIT WAS REVOKED.
NO ONE FROM THE CITY HAD SAID THAT THAT SHEET METAL FENCE COMPOSITION WAS PROHIBITED? CORRECT.
WHEN THE APP, WHEN THE APPLICANT GOES TO THE CITY FOR A FENCE, THIS IS TO STAFF, I, I'LL DIRECT YOU THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND YOU CAN SEND IT TO WHO YOU WANT TO.
WHEN THE, WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES TO THE CITY TO GET SOME PERMIT FOR FENCE AND SO FORTH, IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE FENCE PART OF THE APPLICATION? IT SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE, UM, NOTATED ON THE APPLICATION AND THE SITE PLAN, WHAT TYPE OF MATERIALS BEING PROPOSED? SO IT'S PRESUMED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT.
IS IT A NORMAL PART OF YOUR, THE STAFF'S CHECKLIST? CORRECT.
DID YOU WANNA MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT? UH, SURE.
UH, SO AS PART OF THE, WHAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN A BOX AND EVERYTHING, I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT BEFORE COMING HERE.
IF IT, UH, UH, WILL, UH, HELP, YOU KNOW, JUST TO MAKE THIS MOVE FASTER, I, I AM WILLING TO MOVE THAT FENCE, NOT EVEN 10, 15 FEET TOWARDS NORTH, SO THAT WAY IT ALSO GOES BEHIND THE TREES.
SO EVEN THE MET SHIELD WOULD BECOME IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE HIDDEN BEHIND THE TREES ANYWAYS, BECAUSE I PLANTED SO MANY TREES FRONT.
YOU KNOW, KIND OF A, MAYBE A HAPPY REGION.
UH, I, I AM ONE OF FIVE VOTES, BUT I THINK THAT WAS A STRATEGIC DECISION OR, UH, UH, FOR STRATEGIC PROPOSAL ON YOUR PART.
UM, BECAUSE WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE ISSUE.
UM, WE HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE FENCE, BUT MAYBE NOT AS MUCH.
WE HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT, BUT MAYBE NOT AS MUCH THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE.
UM, WE'RE NOT AT THE STAGE OF A MOTION.
UH, SO I, I, I HAVE TO PUT THIS IN A QUESTION 'CAUSE I ALWAYS, ALWAYS TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
SO I SUPPOSE ONE WAY AROUND THIS, THIS IS A QUESTION ONE WAY AROUND THIS IS TO POSTPONE IT A MONTH TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY MONTH OR TWO, THE APPLICANT OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US REVISED SIDE PLANS THAT SHOW THAT THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE ISSUE IS DEALT WITH AND GET FEEDBACK FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS ON HEIGHT AND OR COMPOSITION.
UM, I'M TRYING TO, SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE HOW WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION TO THE BOX THAT WE'RE IN THAT I SPOKE OF RICHMOND.
THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT.
I, I PUT EVEN THE, UH, THE, IN THE PICTURES, THE, UH, MATERIAL OF THE FENCES
[01:35:01]
OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE ADDRESSES AND THE HEIGHT OF IT.I, I THINK AS MS. DAVIS HAD SPOKEN TO YOU, UH, OR I DON'T KNOW, OR MS. HAYDEN, ABOUT THE ADDRESSES AND THAT SORT OF THING, IT'S PUTTING AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON YOU.
BUT, UH, AS MS. HAYDEN SPOKE TO OUR CRITERIA IN THAT PROCESS, UH, AND I'VE SAID THIS A ZILLION TIMES, I, THE BOARD DOESN'T VOTE BASED ON WHAT THE NEIGHBOR SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.
OR MANY TIMES WE SAY WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE THINK THIS, BUT IT'S VERY IMPACTFUL BECAUSE OUR CRITERIA GOES THROUGH NOT, AND I UNDERLINE IT, I ALWAYS UNDERLINE MY CRITERIA BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M ZEROING IN ON IT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
HOW DO WE KNOW? WE KNOW ONLY BY VIRTUE WHAT THE STAFF PRESENTS AND WE SEE AND WHAT THE APPLICANT AND WHAT NEIGHBORS SAY.
SO THESE ARE ALL BUILDING BLOCKS BY WHICH WE CAN SAY, OKAY, CITY COUNCIL, YOU SET THIS STANDARD.
WE'RE GRANTING RELIEF FROM THAT STANDARD BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE'RE GIVEN AND THE WILLINGNESS OF THE APPLICANT.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO ALLS ONE LAST ONE.
SO WHAT YOU'VE CONVEYED TODAY IS A WILLINGNESS ON YOUR PART TO, TO ALLEVIATE OR, AND OR ELIMINATE AND OR MINIMIZE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUES.
AND TO GET FEEDBACK AND HOPEFULLY SUPPORT FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS ON HEIGHT AND OR COMPOSITION.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS.
HEIGHT MEANS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPOSITION IS THE SHEET METAL THAT MS. BARUM SAID IS PROHIBITED.
NO, I 'CAUSE IF SHE SAYS IT'S PROHIBITED, IT'S PROHIBITED.
BUT SHE, WE, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE ABOUT THE PRIED LIST.
NO, NO, WHAT I MEANT, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I NEED TO PROVIDE.
SO, UM, I WILL LEAN TO MY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, OOPS.
UM, OR MR. POOL OR MS. BARKUM ABOUT THAT PROCESS BY WHICH HE WOULD REENGAGE THE STAFF.
'CAUSE THAT'S ONE STEP REMOVED FROM US.
SO I, WELL, I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA LET THEM SAY THAT.
SO MR. POOLE, OR DO YOU WANT IT TO COME BACK TO CAMIKA? SO IF YOU WANT TO ENGAGE YOUR NEIGHBORS AND HAVE THEM EMAIL THE, UH, WAS IT VDA REPLY@DALLAS.GOV.
AND THAT IS WHAT I REALLY, UM, RELUCTANT BECAUSE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT I HAD TO GET THE PERMISSION FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT, IT BECAME A NIGHTMARE TO FIND A NEIGHBOR AND TALKING TO THEM.
IT IS JUST, JUST, SO I'M GONNA SHORT, I'M GONNA SHORT CIRCUIT MY REQUEST.
SO I'M GONNA SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO.
IF THE BOARD DELAYS A DECISION ON THIS, THE BOARD HAS THE CHANCE TO APPROVE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA TO DENY WITHOUT PRE WITH PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T COME BACK AND FOR TWO YEARS WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT.
OR TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE, WE COULD DO THAT, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE HERE.
I'M GONNA TRY TO CONVINCE MY BOARD MEMBERS TO HOLD THIS OVER, UM, AND GIVE YOU TIME TO RESUBMIT, MAYBE REVISE PLANS.
AND YOU'D WORK WITH THE INTERIM BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND THE STAFF TO SAY, OKAY, HOW IS IT THAT THEY CAN GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU ON HOW TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO US WHERE WE COULD CONSIDER REVISED REQUESTS.
YOU CAN'T INTERACT WITH US BECAUSE WE'RE THE JUDGES, BUT YOU CAN INTERACT WITH THE STAFF AND THEY CAN SAY, THEY'VE HEARD OUR CONCERNS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY RECOMMEND.
YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY SAY, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK.
THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CHANGED COMPOSITION OF THE SHEET METAL OR NOT, THAT'S NOT AS BIG A DEAL.
BUT WHAT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN IS WHAT ARE THE NEIGHBORS SAYING SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS? AND THEN THE HEIGHT ISSUE.
AM I COMMUNICATING, OKAY, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I CANNOT FORCE A NEIGHBOR.
SO THAT, THAT IS MY, MY MY THING THAT THERE'S ANOTHER HUMAN BEING INVOLVED.
YOU KNOW? WELL, YOU HAVE 11, THE REST OF IT I CO COMPLETELY, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE 11 NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA BY STATE STATUTE.
THE STAFF WILL SURVEY THOSE NEIGHBORS AGAIN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT HEARING.
AND THEY'LL SAY THERE'S A CASE INVOLVED.
THIS IS, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? WHAT HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE IS THE HOMEOWNER GOES OUT AND TALKS TO THOSE NEIGHBORS EITHER BY PHONE CALL OR KNOCKING ON THE DOOR AND SAYING, HERE'S THE PREDICAMENTS AND HERE'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.
UM, AND SEE IF THEY, THEY'RE BE SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE IN OUR NOTIFICATION HERE, THERE'S 11 PROPERTIES THAT ARE, THAT WE WILL LOOK AT TO SEE WHAT THEIR OPINION IS.
THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS, QUITE HONESTLY, SIR, MR. CARR, THE ALTERNATIVE IS
[01:40:01]
YOU, YOU JUST SAY IT WAS THE CITY'S MISTAKE AND HERE'S WHAT IT IS.AND THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE A TOUGH DECISION.
AND I KNOW ONE BOARD MEMBER AND MANY OTHERS ARE NOT GONNA APPROVE THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
NOT A CHANCE, ESPECIALLY MS. HAYDEN.
NO, I ALSO, I ALREADY SAID, OKAY, I CAN NOT ONLY 10, I WILL MOVE IT 15 FEET, YOU KNOW, SO THAT, OKAY.
AND, AND WHAT, WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS CREATE PRECEDENT WHERE WE NEGOTIATE AT THE PODIUM.
THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS WHERE WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE THE PODIUM.
WE SOLICIT FACTS, FEEDBACK, AND THEN MAKE A JUDGMENT BASED ON CRITERIA.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU FEEDBACK.
I'M GONNA ASK MS. UH, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR TO ENGAGE IN THE APPLICANT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE, THE BOARD DECIDES AND BASED THE FEEDBACK YOU'VE HEARD.
AND THEN YOU GIVE ADVICE OR, OR GIVE FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO POTENTIALLY RESHAPE THIS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU WANT, MS. HAYDEN, TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.
I MEAN, I THINK AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IF WE WERE TO VOTE, UM, YAY OR NAY FOR THIS, I, I COULDN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THE, UM, UH, TO APPROVE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EXCEPTION.
AND THE OTHER TWO, I'M, I'M NOT SURE THAT I COULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF EITHER TO APPROVE THOSE.
SO I THINK YOU'RE, I THINK WE'RE DOING YOU A FAVOR,
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU'RE IN THIS BOX, BUT WE ARE IN IT WITH YOU.
SO, MR. VIS AND MS. DAVIS, UH, MR. CARR, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET TO THE FRONT DOOR, AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE PHONE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, BUT, UM, EVERYBODY GETS MAIL.
SO YOU CAN ALWAYS SEND YOUR NEIGHBORS LETTERS ASKING FOR THEIR INPUT AND ASSISTANCE.
AND, UM, THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, IF WE HOLD THIS MATTER OVER TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DO SOME MITIGATION ON YOUR FENCE, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD REQUIRE TO DO THAT? I MEAN, IF YOU ALLOW ME, I'M GONNA START TAKING THAT FENCE BACK TODAY.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT TODAY.
I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, WOULD YOU NEED 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS? HOW LONG WOULD YOU NEED? I, I, I, I NEED TO GET THAT DONE AS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE THAT YOU CAN GIVE ME.
AND, AND YOUR QUESTION IS VERY VALID.
AND THEY CAN GIVE YOU, UH, THE, THE REPORT THAT SHOWS THE 11 PROPERTIES WITH ADDRESSES.
AND WHO'S THE D AD? DALLAS CENTRAL PLACE DISTRICT OWNER.
SO THERE'S NAMES AND ADDRESSES.
UH, I WORRY ABOUT 30 DAYS BECAUSE THE DOCKET HAS TO BE OUT SEVEN DAYS BEFORE AND THAT, THAT, THAT'S QUICK.
UH, MS. RACHEL, YOU'RE OUR ENGINEER IN, IN SEMI-RETIREMENT.
I MEAN, IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET DOCS TOGETHER AND SO FORTH.
SO I WORRY 30 DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PUSH IT OFF, BUT, BUT YOU REALIZE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS FINISHED.
SO STAFF PROFESSIONALLY, DO YOU THINK IF WE'RE GONNA HOLD THIS OVER, IT SHOULD BE FOR 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS AND WE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCKET POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR, WHICH GIVES, THAT'S ONLY THREE WEEKS AWAY.
SO YOU HEARD THAT, UH, I THINK WE KIND OF YES, MS. DAVIS FOR, FOR YOU MR. CHAIR.
SO DO WE, DO, DO ALL OF US VOTE AND DO, DO FOUR OF US NEED TO APPROVE BILLING THIS? NO.
THE, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE CALL FOR, UH, APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES REQUIRE 75% OR FOUR VOTES.
A SIMPLE HOLDOVER REQUIRES THREE.
UH, UM, JUST, JUST FYII I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF HOLDING IT OVER UNLESS, UNLESS I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS, UH, GOING TO DO THE WORK.
YOU'RE GOING TO REACH OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS TO GET THEIR SUPPORT AND SUBMIT REVISE SIGHT LINES THAT DON'T, UM, QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE TRIANGLES, THOSE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
SO ARE YOU ABLE TO COMMIT TO THAT? NOT ONLY I WANT TO BRING THE PLANS.
I SAID I CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN LITERALLY ON THE, ON SITE, BECAUSE THAT WAY I CAN ALSO PROVIDE PICTURES THAT DEFENSE PRACTICALLY BECOMES INVISIBLE BEHIND THE TREES.
I AM WILLING TO DO THAT AND I CAN DO THAT IN 10 DAYS.
YOU KNOW, THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT I HAD, AND I HAD THIS, UH, DISCUSSION THAT, UH, WITH MR. CHAIRMAN IS THAT I GOING TO SOMEONE'S DOOR AND I, THEY, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES, MOST OF THE TIME THEY ARE POLITE AND SAY, OKAY, AND THEY DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION.
THAT IS WHAT AGAIN, I, HOW CAN I DOCUMENT THAT? I SPOKE WITH THE PERSON, I TOOK MY ACTION PER YOUR THING.
I CAN PROVE IT TO THE BOARD NEXT TIME
[01:45:01]
I COME IN HERE THAT, HEY, I WENT AND KNOCK IT ON THE DOOR, RAN THE BILL.UH, WHAT YOU COULD DO IS YOU CAN BRING DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU DID VISIT THOSE PEOPLE.
I MEAN, WE, WE'VE HAD MANY MULTIPLE, I MEAN, MANY, MANY CASES THAT WE'VE HEARD.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER HAD SOMEBODY COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, I TRIED, BUT NOBODY, YOU KNOW THAT NOBODY ANSWERED THEIR DOOR.
SO IT, IT WILL MAKE AN IMPACT IF YOU CAN GET THAT SUPPORT.
IF NOT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A, A PANEL OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT AREN'T VERY, UM, LIKELY TO APPROVE.
SO THAT I AM LOOKING FOR YOU AGREEING TO BE PROACTIVE.
GO OUT TO YOUR COMMUNITY, GO OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, DOCUMENT THAT, SO THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK IN, YOU'RE PREPARED.
AND WE HAVE A VERY GOOD FEEL WHETHER OR NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS SUPPORT THIS OR NOT.
BECAUSE IF THEY SUPPORT IT, THAT WOULD BOW COULD BOW WELL FOR YOU.
IF THEY DON'T, THEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THEN WE NEED TO KEEP TALKING.
UH, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WHAT IS THE NORMAL CUTOFF FOR SUBMISSIONS FOR THE MARCH HEARINGS OR LIKE DOCUMENTS HEARING? YEAH, SO OUR MARCH, WHAT'S OUR MARCH? WHAT'S OUR MARCH DATE? MARCH 19TH.
SO MARCH 19TH IS THE PANEL A'S NEXT HEARING.
IF WE WERE, IF YOU WERE IN COZY, COZY, UM, KAMIKAZE MODE AND YOU WERE TRYING FOR THAT DATE, WHEN WOULD HE HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING INTO YOU FOR MARCH OR
I DON'T THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, AND I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE CHANCE TO MAKE THE REQUEST OF US.
WE'RE WILLING TO, I'M HOPEFUL I CAN CONVINCE THE BOARD TO POSTPONE A DECISION ON THIS EITHER TO MARCH 19TH OR APRIL 16TH, UH, MARCH 19TH.
AND I BRING EVERYTHING, WHATEVER'S NEEDED.
BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT ALL SUBMITTED.
BY THE 8TH OF MARCH, I, I, AS I HAVE A CHECKLIST, I'M GONNA ASK THEM CHECKLIST.
I'M GONNA DO IT IN THREE DAYS.
SO, UM, WHEN I'M HEARING IS YOU'RE REQUESTING US TO HOLD THIS OVER AND YOU'VE HEARD OUR, OUR CONCERNS, AND I'M GIVING YOU TWO DATES.
MARCH 19TH IS THE HEARING DATE, WHICH OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SAYING IS YOUR SUBMISSION IS MARCH 8TH.
SO THAT'S FOR TYPICAL CASE FOR MARCH? YES.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BUT IN HIS CASE, WE WOULD NEED REVISED PLANS YES.
AS WELL AS A REVISED APPLICATION.
AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT PROBABLY DURING OUR SRT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE, YES.
WE'LL PROBABLY NEED THAT AS EARLY AS NEXT FRIDAY BECAUSE WE WE'RE PREPARING FOR OUR SRT.
SO THAT INFORMATION WOULD NEED TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE, THAT'S, THAT'S MARCH 1ST, NOW IS NEXT FRIDAY.
AGAIN, I HAVE, IF I HAVE THE CHECKLIST PLANS, EVERYTHING, I HAVE MY ARCHETYPE WORK ON IT OVERNIGHT.
I OKAY, I I, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF HE HAS SUBMITS THAT MARCH 1ST IS HIS SUBMITTAL DEADLINE? YES.
BY NO, PREFERABLY AND, UM, AHEAD OF OUR, UM, JUST IF I GET A EMAIL OR RIGHT NOW, I CAN HAVE A CHECKLIST AND I'LL WORK ON IT.
UH, SO MR. NEN, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I JUST HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR YOU, MR. CARR.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THE SUPPORT OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, UH, WHAT OTHER APPLICANTS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
AND WHAT YOU MAY WANNA CONSIDER IS JUST TYPING UP A LETTER FOR ALL OF YOUR NEIGHBORS TO SIGN, HAVE MULTIPLE COPIES, TAKE 'EM AROUND WITH YOU TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU VISIT WITH THEM, AND HAVE THEM JUST SIGN THAT LETTER THAT YOU CAN BRING BACK BEFORE THE BOARD.
THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE EXPECTATION AS TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
IF WE'RE HOLDING THIS OVER TILL MARCH, THE EXPECTATION IS NOT THAT THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE ACTUALLY MOVED BY THEN.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU HAVE A STOP WORK ORDER AND IF I HAVEN'T WORKED ON DEFENSE SINCE THAT DAY.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS A STOP WORK ORDER STAFF, HELP ME ON THIS.
IF HE HAS A STOP WORK ORDER, NO ONE OTHER THAN THE CITY CAN GIVE HIM AN AUTHORIZATION TO DO ANY CHANGE.
SO ALL, ALL HE'S BEING ASKED TO DO, ALL HE'S BEING ASKED TO DO IS GIVE US REVISED PLANS.
REVISED PLANS, NO ACTUAL WORK ON THE SITE.
NO ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE SITE.
UNTIL YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL PERMIT.
SO WE HAD, WE HAD GIVEN YOU TWO OPTIONS.
[01:50:01]
HERE, WONDERFUL THAT SHE IS, SHE SAID, WOW, WE'RE REALLY GOING OVERBOARD.SHOULD WE BE GIVING THIS APPLICANT OR ANY APPLICANT, ALL THIS SORT OF COACHING? AND I SAID, WELL, IN THIS CASE, WE'RE IN THE BOX.
THE PLANS WERE APPROVED IN ERROR.
SO I'M TRYING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND ON THE RECORD TO SAY WE'RE TRYING TO NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, BUT SAY, BASED ON THE, WHAT WE'RE HEARING, THESE ARE THE STEPS IN ORDER TO GET US TO A PLACE WHERE WE COULD, CAN CONSIDER IT.
'CAUSE TODAY WE CAN'T CONSIDER IT.
TODAY, WE WOULD DENY ALL THREE, WE'D BE DENIED.
EVEN THOUGH THE YOU WERE GIVEN APPROVAL.
YOU I CAN'T BECAUSE AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, WHEN WE GIVE APPROVAL TO A PROPERTY, IT'S VESTED IN THE PROPERTY.
AND SO WE'RE GIVING SOMETHING FOREVER.
OKAY? SO, UH, I'M BEING REDUNDANT.
MY WIFE SAYS I ALWAYS REPEAT MYSELF.
SO YOUR REQUEST IS MARCH 19TH OR APRIL 16TH AND MARCH 19TH.
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
UH, WELL THIS IS IN REGARDS TO MOTION ONE.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL NUMBER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH OH TWO FIVE HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 19TH, 2024, 2024.
IF YOU WANNA, IF YOU'RE GONNA HOLD OVER THE THING, YOU'RE GONNA BE HOLDING OVER ALL THREE CASES, CORRECT? ALL THREE MATTERS.
SO RATHER THAN MAKING A STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO I, UH, REQUEST NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD JUST BE FOR THE ENTIRE CASE.
SO WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? YEAH.
SO AS TO MOTION ONE, TWO, AND THREE IN THIS CASE, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH OH 25 HOLD THESE MATTERS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 19TH, 2024.
MR. HAITZ HAS ON THE ITEM OF B 2 3 4 0 2 5, MOVE TO HOLD ALL THREE REQUESTS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 19TH, 2024.
SECONDED BY MR. NRI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. KOVIC, I, UM, I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR YOUR SITUATION WITH THE CITY GIVING YOU THAT ADVICE OR COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD.
UM, THE SAME TIME, NOT FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PROPERTY, BUT I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WALNUT HILL.
IT'S AN EXTREMELY BUSY STREET AND, UM, IT'S REALLY JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE TO NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE GOOD VISIBILITY COMING OUT OF ANY PROPERTY ALONG THAT ENTIRE STREET.
IT'S A DEFINITE TRAFFIC HAZARD.
UM, OUR, I THINK, AND NOT JUST ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, BUT I THINK THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS THAT THE, THOSE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ARE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE.
UM, BUT ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPORT YOU CAN GET FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS REGARDING THE FENCE HEIGHT AS WELL AS THE FENCE MATERIAL WOULD BE GREATLY, UH, TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 3 4 0 2 5 IS TO MOVE ALL, TO HOLD.
ALL THREE ITEM REQUESTS WHOLE HELD OVER, UM, FOR CONSIDERATION TILL THE, OUR MARCH 19TH, 2024 MEETING, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BD 2 3 4 DASH 0 2 5.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUSLY BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO, UM, IS HOLDING ALL THREE OF THESE REQUESTS UNDER ADVISEMENT TO MARCH 19TH, 2024.
UH, WE WILL SEE YOU ON THE 19TH OF MARCH, UH, EXPEDITIOUSLY WORK WITH STAFF.
THEY'RE VERY CAPABLE PEOPLE AND, UM, YOU'VE HEARD ALL OUR FEEDBACK AND, UM, WE'LL SEE YOU THEN.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE, UM, IT'S 2 55.
WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL 3:00 PM UH, WE HAVE, UM, THREE REMAINING CASES TO BE HEARD.
UM, SO AT 2:55 PM ON THE 20TH OF FEBRUARY, WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL 3:00 PM THANK YOU.
WE HAVE, UH, IT IS 3:00 PM ON THE 20TH OF FEBRUARY.
UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS COMES BACK TO, IT'S CALLED BACK TO SESSION AT 3:00 PM UH, WE HAVE THREE REMAINING CASES TODAY TO BE HEARD.
UH, 2 2 3 0 9 7, WHICH IS A HOLDOVER.
AND 2 2 2 3 4 0 0 9, 3 CASES LEFT.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, UH, MR. NE'S ON HIS WAY BACK, BUT WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH FOUR MEMBERS.
[01:55:01]
SO, UH, IF WE TURN ON OUR SCREENS, WE DO.UM, THE NEXT CASE TO BE, UH, HEARD IS BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 7.
THIS IS AT 2 7 6 4 CATHERINE STREET, 2 7 6 4.
CATHERINE STREET IS THE APPLICANT.
SIR, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, UM, BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
UM, AND THEN YOU'LL BE GIVEN, UH, TIME TO PRESENT BEFORE THAT.
UM, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANTS? UM, YES, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AND, UM, WE HAVE ANOTHER PERSON IN SUPPORT.
SO THE APPLICANT PLUS ONE OTHER PERSON IN SUPPORT.
NO ONE'S HERE IN OPPOSITION? NO, SIR.
ALRIGHT, SIR, THE, OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MY ADDRESS IS 3000 IRWINDALE BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 1.
SIR, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES SAY THAT YOUR, UH, THE APPLICANT IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES AS WELL AS EACH PERSON SPEAKING.
UM, I WILL BE GENEROUS INTO YOUR TIME SINCE THIS CASE HAS GONE ON FOR A COUPLE MONTHS AND, UM, SO PROCEED.
UM, HOPEFULLY I KNOW WHERE TO START.
I MEAN, UH, WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE AND, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE APPROACH TRIANGLE AND THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND HOPEFULLY WITH WHAT, UH, WITH PRESENTED TO THE, UH, CITY OF DALLAS THAT WE ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS AS NECESSARY AND CLEARLY, UH, I'LL ADDRESS IT WITH A HEIGHT OF THE FENCE BEING SIX FEET TALL VERSUS FOUR WEEK FEET TALL.
AND THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AT THE APPROACHES WHICH, UH, HAVE GOT A, A, UH, FAVORABLE, UH, RESPONSE FROM, UH, LEMME LOOK, MY NOTES.
ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT FROM, FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEER RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON THE APPROACH DRIVEWAY AND DENIAL AT THE ALLEY.
UH, AS FAR AS THE ALLEY'S CONCERNED, UH, BY LEAVING IT AS IT IS OR GIVING THE ELIZABETH TRIANGLE, THE ISSUE WITH THAT BEING IS THAT IT WOULD BE OBSOLETE BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO PULL FORWARD TO SEE THE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORING FENCE AND BEING SOUTHBOUND, YOU COULD, YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY FORWARD.
AND, UH, THAT'S THE DISCUSSION OF THE DISABILITY TRIANGLE.
UM, I HAVE A SPEAKER CIVIL ENGINEER HERE WHO HELPED ME, UH, DIAGRAM THIS.
IF, UH, HE COULD SPEAK, IT'D BE GREAT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, HE WOULD BE MORE ARTICULATE TO ANSWERING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT, SIR.
UM, WHAT I'M GONNA DO, THERE'S ONE OTHER SPEAKER THAT'S HERE IN SUPPORT OKAY.
WOULD YOU CALL THE OTHER PERSON IN SUPPORT AND THEN WE WILL, UM, UM, ASK QUESTIONS OF ONE OR BOTH.
UH, I KNOW THIS GUY, BUT NOT I, I'M A GOOD ACCOUNT.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, LUIS ELLO, UM, A CIVIL ENGINEER OFFICE
[02:00:01]
AT 4 0 1 COLLEGE STREET IN GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS.SO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, I KNOW MR. SATO, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
I'VE SEEN KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS, BUT THE, I, HE AND I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE.
UM, AND, UM, DIRECTLY AND DIRECTLY OR OTHERWISE, UM, MS. HAYDEN JUST SAID TO ME, UM, THAT SHE KNOWS OF HIM AS WELL.
DO YOU WANNA SAY THAT ON THE RECORD? HELLO? AND THEN MAKE SURE YOU COMMUNICATE AS WHETHER YOU'VE HAD ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CASE.
I KNOW MR. CETO, BUT HE AND I HAVE HAD NO CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS CASE.
THAT, THAT JUST PUTS IT ON THE RECORD SO IT'S VERY CLEAR.
SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SO SIR, YOU, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD REGARDING THIS PENDING CASE.
UM, MR. SMITH CAME TO MY OFFICE ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO ASKING ME IF WE COULD PREPARE AN EXHIBIT TO SCALE TO SUPPORT HIS, UH, STANCE ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SIDE EASEMENT.
IN PARTICULAR, THE ALLEY ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF HIS PROPERTY HAS A, UH, EXISTING FENCE OPPOSITE HIS PROPERTY, WHICH EXTENDS TO THE PROPERTY CORNER.
AND SO I DID PRODUCE THAT, UH, SCALED DRAWING WITH A, UH, INDICATION THAT A VEHICLE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE PAST THAT CORNER AND WELL INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ENCROACHMENT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC COMING FROM HIS LEFT SIDE.
SO AT THAT POINT, THE DRIVER WOULD BE WELL PAST MR. SMITH'S FENCE AND WOULD BE ABLE, ABLE TO SEE THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC FROM HIS RIGHT SIDE, THE, UH, OTHER TRAFFIC.
THE, UH, THE INDICATION WAS THAT IT SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE TO EX EXIT THE ALLEY FAR ENOUGH TO SEE PAST THE NEIGHBOR FENCE, THEREBY NEGATING THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UH, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION, MR. SDO.
UM, IF THAT'S THE CASE, ISN'T THAT PUTTING THE CAR INTO THE STREET BEFORE MAKING THE TURN TO THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT? NO, THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF MY DIAGRAM.
UH, YEAH, I THOUGHT I, I PROVIDED IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
I I THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY HAS THAT WE HAVE ANYWAY, THE, HE ALSO TOOK, I HAD A SCALED, UH, DRAWING WITH A VEHICLE AND IT INDICATED THE DRIVER WOULD NOT ENTER THE ASPHALT.
IT WOULD STILL BE WITHIN THE DRIVE APPROACH.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ALLEY DRIVE, RIGHT? NOT THE ASPHALT OF THE STREETS.
BUT MR. SMITH ALSO TOOK PICTURES TO SUPPORT THAT ARGUMENT.
YOU NEED TO SAY IT ON THE MICROPHONE.
I WILL TELL YOU THE FIRST, THE SECOND.
AND THIS THIRD TIME, YOU'VE GIVEN US A ZILLION PICTURES.
UM, FIRST QUESTION IS, DID THE STAFF, CAN THE STAFF OBTAIN MR. SALCEDO, UM, GRAPHIC? GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IT IN HIS, IN THE PACKET HERE.
THERE'S A PICTURE OF HIS FENCE LINE TO THE, TO THE SIDEWALK IT LOOKS LIKE.
AND ALSO TO THE NEIGHBOR, BECAUSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT THAT OTHER FENCE I'M TALKING ABOUT.
YES, I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE.
SO WHAT PAGE IS THAT? IT'S DOWN AT THE BOTTOM CENTER.
[02:05:01]
THANK YOU.AND IT'S FROM THAT, FROM MR. SDO UPDATED.
IT'S IN THE SECTION I TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING.
UM, SO WE HAVE THREE REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US, AND, UM, WE HAVE THREE REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US.
ONE REQUEST, ONE REQUEST IS THE FENCE HEIGHT.
THE SECOND REQUEST IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE OBSTRUCTION, WHICH IS THE DRIVEWAY.
THE SECOND IS THE VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION, WHICH IS THE ALLEY.
UM, WHEN WE WERE, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE FIRST HEARING ON THIS, WE HAD A CITY STAFFER.
I'M COMING TO YOU, MS. STEELE.
SO I'M GONNA TRY TO PICK THIS OFF ONE AT A TIME HERE, AND THEN I'M COMING BACK TO YOU, MS. HAYDEN.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
OKAY? SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO WITH THIS.
ALRIGHT? AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CORNER, UM, OF THE FENCE LINE AND THE CORNER LOT IN THIS PARTICULAR CD.
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME.
HE TOLD US THAT WE HAD TO SPACE PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WAY THAT, AND MAYBE IT'S THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE OF THE CORNER LOT.
UM, ON, ON YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SHAPE OF THIS LOT? THIS IS A YES.
THE SHAPE OF IT, IT'S A LARGE TRI.
SO IF, IF THEY, IF SHE DOESN'T MIND, IF THEY CAN GO BACK TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN, YOU WILL SEE THAT ON, UH, IN THE PRESENTATION HERE.
WELL, MR. SALCEDO ON PAGE 2 48 HAS A FULL TRIANGLE, AND IT LOOKS AT THREE, THE FOUR INTERSECTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE WE'RE GOING TO HERE.
UM, I, BUT BASICALLY IT'S, UH, I CAN TRY TO SUM THIS UP THIS WAY FOR YOU THEN IN THAT REGARD.
SO IN THE REAR PORTION, IN THE REAR WHERE THE ALLEY IS, YES, HE'S ALLOWED TO COME UP TO NINE FEET.
AND AS FAR AS HEIGHT WISE, THE ONLY ISSUE HE HAD BACK THERE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BACK OF HIS LOTS.
AND THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAD THERE, OF COURSE, WAS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THAT WITH MS. HAYDEN IN A MINUTE.
SO, SO THE, WELL, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT ISSUES.
SO HE WAS ALLOWED TO COME IN AT, AT THE ALLEY AREA.
HE WAS ALLOWED TO COME UP TO NINE FEET.
DOES THAT INCLUDE THE FOOTERS, THAT CONCRETE FOOTER THAT HE HAS? YES, IT DOES.
WHAT'S THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE GROUND? GROUND? YES.
AND WHAT IS HE AT VERSUS WHAT HE'S ALLOWED? HE'S ALLOWED NINE FEET.
'CAUSE IT'S IN THE REAR? CORRECT.
AND IS HE VIOLATING IT THERE? THE HEIGHT? NO.
SO WHERE IS HE VIOLATING THE HEIGHT AS IT MOVES FORWARD, AS IT MOVES FORWARD? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND AGAIN, IT'S FROM THE GRADE, NOT FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE, HIS CONCRETE, WHATEVER YOU CALL THAT.
CORRECT IT IN REGARDS TO DOING IT.
SO I, IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT REFERS TO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY PUT IN THERE, IN THEIR PRESENTATION WHEN WE GO, WHEN A FENCE IS MEASURED, IT'S, THAT'S IN 51 A UH, 0.4 0.602.
AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE MEASUREMENT OF A FENCE.
I CAN JUST READ THAT TO YOU LIKE PLEASE.
UH, IT'S ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, FENCE HEIGHTS.
FENCE HEIGHTS SHALL BE MEASURED FROM IN SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DISTRICTS.
THE TOP OF THE FENCE TO THE LEVEL OF THE GROUND ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF ANY FENCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD.
THE HEIGHT SHALL BE THE GREATER OF THESE TWO MEASUREMENTS.
IF THE FENCE IS CONSTRUCTED ON FIELD MATERIAL THAT ALTERS GRADE AS DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THE HEIGHT OF THE ARTIFICIALLY ALTERED GRADE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION, AL ALTERED ARTIFICIALLY ALTERED GRADE MEANS THE PLACEMENT OF FIELD MATERIAL ON PROPERTY THAT EXCEEDS A SLOPE OF ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT FOR THREE FEET OF, YOU'RE STARTING TO LOSE THIS OH, THREE FEET OF DISTANCE.
SO BASICALLY WHAT HE HAS DONE HERE, HE, WHAT HE DID IS PUT A CONCRETE I CALL RUNNER OR RETAINING WALL.
IT'S, AND THEN PUT A FENCE ON TOP OF IT.
AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IN HIS ELEVATIONS.
AND, UH, BASICALLY YEAH, I, I'M LOOKING AT, I'M LOOKING AT HIS LAYOUT DATED, CORRECT.
AND IT SAYS SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE ON TWO FOOT CONCRETE FOOTING.
AND THE CODE SAYS FOUR, CORRECT? PER THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCES? YES.
DON'T WORRY, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE GUYS.
[02:10:01]
WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THE FENCE FIRST, RIGHT? SO YES.AS YOU MOVE FORWARD, WHICH IS NORTH YES.
COMING ALONG THE PIER SIDE, THE HEIGHT OF HIS FENCE HAS TO GO DOWN.
THE WHOLE DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEASURE, IN REGARDS TO WHAT YOU'RE VISIBLY SEEING, CORRECT? YES.
YOU HAVE THE RETAINING WALL, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FENCE ON TOP.
AND I, I BEG TO DO, WELL, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, COME BACK, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR PLAN, SIR.
YOUR PLANS SAY TWO FOOT FOOTING, SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE, TAKE FOOTING, TAKE DOWN.
UNFORTUNATELY THE BOX WE'RE IN IS YOU BUILT A FENCE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THAT I, I HATE TO BE DISMISSIVE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT WAS BUILT AND THEN IT CREATED ALL THESE OTHERS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
BUT I WILL HELP HIM OUT IN THAT REGARD.
OF COURSE, THE FOOT, HE DOES COME DOWN AS YOU COME, AS YOU MOVE FORWARD ON PIERCE TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, HE DOES TRY TO LOWER THE, THE RETAINING WALL OF THE CONCRETE FOOTER AT THE BOTTOM.
AND YOU, THERE SHOULD BE PHOTOS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL OF THAT SHOWING THAT, SHOWING ALL OF THOSE PICTURES.
THE DIFFERENT HEIGHT OF THE FOOTING.
YES, I SEE THAT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
AND THEN THE DRIVEWAY, THE FOOTER KIND OF ENDS, AND THEN IT'S ALL FLUSH.
BUT IT'S PLANS, PLANS SHOW THE WHOLE WAY, THE WHOLE WAY.
IT SAYS NEW SIX FOOT FENCE ON TWO FOOT CONCRETE FOOTING THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF THE ALLEY IN PIERCE AND AT THE OPPOSITE CORNER, FARTHER DOWN TOWARDS, TOWARDS CATHERINE, BUT NOT AT CATHERINE SAYS NEW SIX FOOT FENCE ON TWO FOOT CONCRETE FOOTING.
BUT THAT WAS, THEY WERE, THEY WERE, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WERE REVISED OR NOT.
IN, IN THIS PLAN HERE, IS THAT THE RE UH, TO THE BOARD STAFF? IS THAT THE REVISED PLAN OR DID WE STAYED WITH HIS ORIGINAL SET OF PLANS? THERE WERE, THERE WERE NEW PLANS, UM, PROVIDED AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
BUT IT DOES SHOW THE SIX FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT PART WHERE HE'S REQUESTING THE HEIGHT, VARIANCE, AND OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AND THEN AT THE REAR, WHERE THE 50% OF THE LAW IS, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEIGHT THAT IS STRICTLY FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A NEW SET OF PLANS.
WELL, UNFORTUNATELY WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE RECEIVED MULTIPLE OF MULTIPLE.
WELL I CAN, IF I CAN HELP YOU OUT SOME MORE ON THAT.
NO, I BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, THE PRESENTATION'S GONNA HELP YOU IF, IF WE COULD, TAMIKA WOULD LIKE TO I THE PRESENTATION AND THOSE WOULD HAVE THE NEW SETS OF DESCRIBES EVERYTHING MS. SO TAKE IT UP.
SO BETTER FROM HERE, FROM THE ALLEY TO THE FIRST DARKENED BLACK LINE, MAX HEIGHT MAY BE UP TO NINE FEET WITHIN THE, UM, REAR 50% OF THE SIDE YARD.
SO, WHICH, YES, HERE, SO THIS, THIS PORTION IS NOT IN QUESTION.
THIS PORTION HERE, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY BUILT IS WHAT'S IN QUESTION.
UM, WHERE THE ALLOW, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS UP TO FOUR FEET.
AND FROM HERE TO CATHERINE STREET, HOLD ON ONE MOMENT.
THE, THE SECTION IN BETWEEN THE TWO THICK BLACK LINES IS THE, THE SECTION OF FENCE THAT'S IN QUESTION.
THAT HAS NOT FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
AND RIGHT NOW THE MOTION IS DRAFTED TO BE FOR A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH FENCE.
OKAY, GO BACK A NO, I WAS GOING TO SAY, UM, FROM THE LAST DARKEN LINE UP TO CATHERINE STREET, UM, THE MAX HEIGHT IS UP TO THREE FEET, WHICH IS ALSO NOT IN QUESTION AT THE MOMENT.
THE ONLY PORTION OF THE FENCE THAT'S IN QUESTION IS THIS AREA HERE, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY BUILT.
AND I HAVE A PICTURE, UM, HERE.
AND WHEN, WHEN DOES THE UM, CB EIGHT SUB AREA ONE RULES COME INTO EFFECT ALONG THAT SLOPE? WHEN IS, WHEN IS THE PROPERTY OWNER TOO HIGH VERSUS WHAT THE, BECAUSE THAT'S ALONG THAT STREET.
GO BACK TWO CLICKS OR BACK THERE.
SO AT WHAT POINT IN TIME IS THE FENCE IN NONCOMPLIANCE FROM THE CORNER THAT THE ALLEY TO THAT FIRST BLACK LINE, THAT WHOLE SECTION IS BASICALLY IS COMPLIANT OR NOT COMPLIANT? REGARDING THE HEIGHT THOUGH? REGARDING THE HEIGHT, THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
SO BUT PAST THAT BLACK LINE, IT CAN ONLY BE FOUR FEES IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES.
RIGHT HERE IN THIS CENTER, YES.
RIGHT WHERE I'M START MOVING THE ARROW.
SO WHY IS IT THERE? 'CAUSE IT'S DEAD CENTER OF THE
[02:15:01]
PROPERTY LINE.I MEAN, WHAT MAGICALLY SWITCHES FROM NINE TO FOUR? BECAUSE WE MEASURE, OH, I'M SORRY.
SO WHAT MAGICALLY CHANGES IS THE, OR THE VERBIAGE AND THE ORDINANCE AND THE CONSERVATION EIGHT ORDINANCE YES.
IT SAYS WHAT SOMETHING IT SAYS, DON'T GIVE US ALL THE, OKAY.
ONE FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD MAY NOT EXCEED THREE FEET IN HEIGHT.
FENCES MAY NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD.
I'M TRYING NOT TO GIVE YOU ALL 50% OF THE SIDE YARD.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS RIGHT THERE.
SO THAT FIRST BLACK LINE IS BASICALLY THE 50% MARK.
THIS IS THE SECTION HERE BETWEEN THE TWO BLACK LINES.
AND THAT SECTION ONE SECOND, THAT SECTION THERE CANNOT BE MORE THAN WHAT, FOUR FEET? CORRECT.
MR HOP, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION SPECIFIC TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE? IF NOT, I HAVE TO KEEP GOING HERE.
WELL, IT'S RELATED TO THE FENCE HEIGHT.
UM, I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THIS TWO FOOT FOOTER, CONCRETE BALL FOOTER.
IS THAT, IS IF, IF, IS THAT A RETAINING, AN ACTUAL RETAINING WALL? IN OTHER WORDS, ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE PROPERTY, WHERE IS THE GROUND AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT CONCRETE FOOTER OR AT THE TOP OF THAT CONCRETE FOOTER? MR. STEEL.
SO WHEN YOU, WHEN I DID THE MEASUREMENT, UH, THERE ARE PHOTOS OF ME ON THE OUTSIDE, ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE, ON THE OUTSIDE YOU SEE THE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS OF THE CONCRETE RUNNER.
AND THEN ON THE, THERE ARE PHOTOS ON THE INSIDE TOO, UH, OF WHERE YOU JUST SEE A, A SMALLER PORTION OF THE CONCRETE RUNNER ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE WHEN YOU GO INTO THE ACTUAL YARD.
SO THE MEASUREMENTS ON THE, SO ACCORDING TO THE CODE, WHERE ARE THE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON THE INSIDE OR THE OUTSIDE? BOTH THE, IT'S THE GRADE OF THE TWO, CORRECT? I DID MEASUREMENTS ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.
AGAIN, DEPENDING ON WHAT PORTION OF THE FENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SO AGAIN, TOWARD THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY OF THE REAR, IF YOU REMEMBER THE SITE PLAN, THE, FROM THE ALLEY TO THE FIRST DARK BLACK LINE.
THE FENCE HEIGHT IS NOT IN QUESTION.
THE ONLY ISSUE HE HAS, THERE ARE THE VISIBILITY ISSUES.
THEN WHEN YOU COME INTO THE, BETWEEN THE TWO BLACK LINES, THE, THE HEIGHT HE CAN ONLY BUILD UP TO IS FOUR FEET.
FOUR FEET MEASURED FROM WHERE? FROM THE GRADE UP.
BUT SINCE THAT THE, THE KICKER HERE IS THAT HE HAS NOT BUILT THAT PORTION.
HE WAS ABOUT TO BUILD A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE.
BUT AGAIN, HE, HE DID NOT COMPLETE THE FENCE.
SO HE CAN ONLY BE UP AT, UH, CAN ONLY DO FOUR FEET.
THAT'S WHY SHE'S SAYING IT'S NOT IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT THERE YET.
SO, BUT IF HE WANTS TO BUILD IT, THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE.
'CAUSE HE WANTS TO BUILD A SIX FOOT FENCE RIGHT THERE.
AND IT'S GONNA BE FROM THE GRADE UP.
I DON'T GET INTO THE DESIGN PIECE OF THE FENCE.
IF HE GONNA PUT A RUNNER THERE, NO RUNNER THERE, IT FROM THE GROUND UP.
WE DON'T THAT'S HIS DECISION IN DOING IT.
WELL THE THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE IF IT'S A RE, IF IT'S ACTUALLY A RETAINING WALL, THEN THE GROUND IS WHERE THE GROUND IS.
I MEAN, IT MAY BE LOWER ON ONE SIDE OF THE FENCE.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A RETAINING WALL, THOUGH.
THERE IS NOT GONNA BE ANY RETAINING WALL.
IT, IT, IT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS PROFESSIONAL STAFF HAS SAID, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE FROM THE ALLEY CORNER UP PIERCE STREET TO THAT BLACK LINE IS NINE FEET OR LESS.
CD EIGHT, UM, SUB ONE, SUBARY ONE.
SO WE'RE NOT GONNA CONCERN OURSELVES TO THAT AS FAR AS HIS HEIGHT.
BUT WE'RE CONCERNING ABOUT, IS HIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HE CAN OR CANNOT BUILD BETWEEN THE BLACK LINES, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND IF HE DARED TO GO PAST THE BLACK LINE TO THE CORNER, NOTHING TO THE CORNER.
AND THEN I THINK HE HAS AN ISSUE WITH WHAT HE, OUR MEASUREMENTS AS WELL TOO.
WELL THAT HE HAS TO TAKE UP WITH YOU GUYS.
WE'RE NOT GONNA ADJUDICATE THAT UNLESS THEY'RE BLANKETY BLANK.
[02:20:01]
SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT FIELD INSPECTORS.UH, UNLESS THEY USE, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT THEY USE INCORRECT JUDGMENT AND THEN, THEN MAYBE WE WOULD INSERT OUR JUDGMENT.
WE'D REALLY RATHER NOT DO THAT.
WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER.
SO HIS ONE REQUEST IS TO GO TO SIX FEET BETWEEN THE BLACK LINES.
HE'S NOT GONNA, HE'S HIS REQUEST, IF WE INTERPRET THIS IS NOT TO GO THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT BLACK LINE.
CORRECT? BECAUSE THAT'S IN THAT THERE'S A TRIANGLE UP THERE AND ALSO THREE FOOT.
'CAUSE THERE ARE NO PLANS TO BUILD TO THAT PORTION, RIGHT? CORRECT.
EVERYONE HOLD A SECOND QUESTIONS ON THAT DISCUSSION, MS. DAVIS? SO WHEN IT COMES TO FENCE HEIGHT, THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE VOTING ON BETWEEN THE BLACK LINES.
WHAT? NO, I THOUGHT THE, I THOUGHT IT'S SIX FEET.
DOESN'T, OH, HE'S WANTING SIX FEET, SIX INCHES OR NO.
WHERE HE'S SAYING SIX NOW HE'S, HE'S, HE'S NOT MEASURING IT TO GRADE, HE'S MEASURING IT TO THE TOP.
WELL, HOW SHOULD IT BE MEASURED? SO TO GRADE, SO IT'S SIX FEET, SIX INCHES.
AND WE DISCUSSED AGAIN, DOES THIS APPLICATION STATE THAT? YES.
IS THAT THE WAY WE POSTED THIS? YES.
SO WE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT TO SIX FEET, SIX INCHES, SIX FEET, SIX INCHES.
JUST IF WE DIDN'T ADVERTISE IT THAT WAY.
WE'RE GONNA DIVIDE AND CONQUER HERE GUYS.
ALL WE'RE TALKING, I, I FRANKLY AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF A, OF A REQUIREMENT ALONG A SINGLE STREET OF THE SINGLE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT CHANGES ALL THE, THAT CHANGES THE SIGN.
THAT IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE.
OUR JOB IS TO TAKE WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE IS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE LISTENING TO, AND DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AND DESIRE TO MAKE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION BASED ON THE FACTS THAT WE HEAR.
AND BASED ON THE CRITERIA WE HAVE.
THAT IS WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S OUR SCOPE.
I'M GONNA KEEP THIS IN THAT LANE.
SO WE CAN MOVE, WE CAN APPROVE SIX FEET, SIX INCHES, OR FIVE FEET OR SIX INCH, SIX FEET, OR WE CAN JUST DENY IT AND IT REVERTS TO FOUR FEET.
AND THAT'S ALL THE STAFF WILL BE ABLE BE ABLE TO PERMIT.
RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A STOCK, STOCK WORK ORDER, CORRECT? I DIDN'T BUILD THAT PORTION OF IT.
AND THE SIGNS ARE POSTED? THEY ARE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I'M NOT TRYING TO BE BLANKETY BLANK, I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP US REALLY FOCUSED.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE FENCE DEAL? WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT WIN IN IF WE WANNA VOTE.
MS. HAYDEN, VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
SO ON THE, UM, THE DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THE CAR COMING OUT OF THE ALLEY, I KNOW THERE WAS A, I KNOW THERE, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT, WELL, THE, THE OTHER FENCE ACROSS THE ALLEY STICKS OUT AS FAR AS THIS ONE DOES.
SO, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE OUR DECISION BASED ON THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT OTHER FENCE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY TAKE DOWN THAT OTHER FENCE.
SO ALL WE CAN FOCUS ON IS THIS PROPERTY.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, I GUESS, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IF THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNER WERE TO TAKE DOWN THAT OTHER FENCE, THEN THIS PARTICULAR FENCE IN QUESTION IS THE ONE THAT IS REALLY CAUSING THE PROBLEM.
AND ESPECIALLY I THINK THE FACT THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, A SIX FOOT FENCE ON TOP OF A TWO FOOT CONCRETE FOOTER, YOU KNOW, COMING OUT OF AN ALLEY, THAT, THAT GIVES ME A LITTLE CONCERN THAT IT IS COMING OUT OF AN ALLEY.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE TRASH TRUCKS OR, OR WHATEVER.
JUST BEING ABLE TO SEE TO THE RIGHT, AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE FENCE BUTTS UP RIGHT AGAINST THE, THE SIDEWALK.
TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS NO TRASH TRUCKS.
THERE IS NO REAR, UH, GARAGES.
IT, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WALK UP AND DOWN THAT ALLEY ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE READING THE, UH, METERS.
YEAH, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, UH, BUT I GUESS THE PURPOSE OF AN ALLEY IS, OR FOR THOSE TYPES OF USES AND IN THE FUTURE WE CAN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY HAVE SOMEBODY WITH, YOU KNOW, ALLIAN THREE OR IT'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER.
AND, UH, WE SPEAK TO MS CO ENFORCEMENT.
SHE TRAVELED THE AREA THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE VERY WELL SEEKING THE TEST TO ALL THAT.
AND IS THERE ANY ON, ON THE, UM, PIER STREET WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS
[02:25:01]
WHERE WE HAVE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUES, UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S A TWO LANE RESIDENTIAL.HOW MANY LANES IS IT? IT'S TWO LANE AND IT'S ALSO NOT HEAVILY TRACKED.
AND ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THE, UM, ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES FROM THE ALLEY, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ENCROACHMENT IS, DO YOU HAVE A MEASUREMENT ON HOW FAR THAT FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED BACK AT THAT CORNER? APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET.
OR THAT LITTLE CORNER WOULD'VE TO BE MOVED BACK 10 FEET? UH, YES.
I I THINK THAT, I DON'T THINK HE HAS TO GO BACK THAT FAR, MA'AM.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF REDESIGNING THAT PART OF THE FENCE.
UM, I CAN'T, I DON'T, I COULDN'T GIVE YOU AN EXACT MEASUREMENT 'CAUSE I DIDN'T, NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.
BUT I, I DON'T THINK HE HAS TO BE THAT 10 FEET, FEET.
IT'S NOT, AND THEN SAME QUESTION, MS. PARK ROOM SAID SEVEN FEET.
AND THEN THE SAME QUESTION FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE AT THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO BUILD FENCES LIKE THIS, WHERE THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH VISIBILITY, THEY'LL JUST ANGLE THE FENCE IN.
SO I THINK IF THIS HAD COME TO US, YOU KNOW, UM, IF YOU'D RIGHT, IF YOU'D, IF YOU APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, UM, THAT WOULD BE OUR, OUR, UM, PROBABLY BE OUR, UM, UM, ADVICE TO YOU IS TO PULL THAT FENCE BACK AT AN ANGLE SO THAT YOU'RE OUT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WHERE THE GATE IS, IT WOULD ACTUALLY CLIP THE, THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE, OF THE LOT.
AND WHEN I APPLIED FOR MY PERMIT, I GUESS MY, MY CONCERN, AND AGAIN, IS THAT THE PROXIMITY OF THIS UP AGAINST THE BACK OF THAT SIDEWALK, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE CARS BACKING OUT OF THIS AND YOU HAVE PEDESTRIANS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY COULD SEE, YOU KNOW, ANYONE COMING BY.
NOT TO MENTION THE TRAFFIC, BUT, AND FROM THE DIAGRAM THAT I'M LOOKING AT WITH THE, WITH THE CAR, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE HOUSE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MAYBE SIX FEET BACK.
IF YOU, IF YOU ZOOM INTO THAT, THE, DO YOU GUYS HAVE THE DRAWING THAT MR. CETO DID A FOUR? IT'S THE ONE THAT SHOWS THE CAR.
I DON'T KNOW WHO HAS THE YEAH, IT'S DRIVEWAY.
AND YOU DO, OKAY, I SEE RED LINE COME WITH THAT RED ON.
SO I THINK THE RED LINE IS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND THE FENCE RIGHT NOW IS WHERE THAT PROPERTY LINE IS SHOWN WITH THE TWO DASHES AND THE LONG LINE, THE DARK LINE.
UM, SO THE FENCE ORDINARILY WOULD BE TURNED BACK ALONG THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
AND I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING THAT IT WOULD CLIP THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, BUT I'M NOT SEEING THAT BASED ON THIS PICTURE.
UH, IF YOU COME TO THE CORNER ALL THE WAY TO THE, BUT YOU, YOU'D HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY FOR THE GATE TO GO IN.
I MEAN, YOU'D BE THAT, I'M JUST SEEING WHERE THE RED LINE IS.
THE RED LINE IS, AND, AND YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, NORTH SIDE, YOU'RE RIGHT THERE AT THE MAYBE TWO FEET OR ONE FOOT FROM THE CORNER OF THAT, UM, THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE.
AND, UH, THERE'S NO WAY TO, TO DO, TO CUT IN THERE.
I MEAN, I HAD EVEN SUGGEST TO THE, THE STAFF THAT I WOULD JUST BLOCK IT OFF AND NOT USE THAT DRIVEWAY.
BUT THEY SAID THAT WE HAD TO HAVE A CAR PARKED INSIDE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE WAS GONNA USE STREET PARKING AND SAID IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE STREET PARKING.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AS IT RELATES TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE AT THE DRIVEWAY? THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE AT THE ALLEY? WE HAVE RECEIVED THE UPDATED SITE PLAN THAT MR. SALCEDO PREPARED.
YOU HEARD THE FEEDBACK FROM ONE OF THE PANEL MEMBERS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT RELY ON AS IT RELATES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S FENCE LINE.
UM, WE'VE, YOU'VE HEARD, WE'VE DISCUSSED THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE AS IT RELATES
[02:30:01]
TO THE DRIVEWAY.UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT, MR. KOVI? OH, NEVER TO THE APPLICANT.
DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? UH, YOU AS THE A NO, I'M, I'M FINE.
THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE 12, UH, NEIGHBORS IN FAVOR GRANTING AND TWO OPPOSED, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
WE HAVE THREE REQUESTS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF ROBERT SMITH, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
MS. DAVIS, IN THE MATTER OF, OH, EXCUSE ME.
IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 9 7, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR A SIX FOOT 6 5, 6 FOOT, SIX FOOT, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS? UM, QUITE HONESTLY, I, I WASN'T CONVINCED OF THE NEED TO ADD ANOTHER, UM, TWO AND A HALF FEET ESSENTIALLY TO THE FENCE.
SO I, I WASN'T CONVINCED WHY YOU NEEDED SUCH A HUGE EXCEPTION.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT ADDS TO THE PROPERTY VALUE.
AND, UM, AGAIN, I WASN'T CONVINCED.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHY, UM, WHY YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT AT THAT HEIGHT WHEN I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY.
THANK WE'RE WE'RE DONE WITH THE HERE.
I, I ASKED YOU, SIR, RESPECTFULLY, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, I SECONDED THE MOTION BECAUSE, UH, IN THE CONVERSATION AND THE BACK AND FORTH QUE QUESTION AND ANSWER WITH BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF TO TRY TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE CODE IN THAT AREA ZONED CD EIGHT SUB AREA ONE CALLS FOR.
AND IT SAID 50% ALONG THE PIERCE STREET.
UH, IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT IT'S SEPARATE, BUT IT'S TRYING TO PROTECT THE, BASICALLY THE FRONT YARD COMPONENT THEREOF.
UM, MY GUT INSTINCT PANEL MEMBERS IS WE HAVE A CASE IN FRONT OF US WHERE SOMEONE IS PUTTING MORE INTO A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEN THE PROPERTY CAN HIT WITH, WITH, UH, CAN, CAN SUSTAIN WHETHER IT BE FENCE, WHETHER IT BE CORNERS, WHETHER IT BE DRIVEWAYS.
AND REMEMBER, AS I'VE SAID EARLIER TODAY, AND SAID BEFORE, WHEN WE GRANT AN EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE ON A PROPERTY, IT'S NOT TO THE OCCUPANT, IT'S NOT TO THE CURRENT OWNER, IT'S TO THE PROPERTY.
AND SO WE HAVE TO, THAT PART, PART OF OUR CARE AND CUSTODY IS DELEGATED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON WHAT THEY SET THE ORDINANCE IS AND WHY A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN A ZONING DISTRICT, A PROPERTY PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MERITS A SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ORDINANCE.
UM, I THINK YOU RESPECTFULLY ARE TRYING TO PUT TOO MUCH INTO TOO SMALL AN AREA.
OUR CRITERIA AS IT RELATES TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REQUESTS GOES TO IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND I JUST, I AM NOT SOLD ON IT.
AND IT'S THE APPLICANT'S BURDEN.
UM, THE MOTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS YOU COULD REFILE BASED ON NEW, DIFFERENT PLANS, OR YOU COULD SIMPLY BILL BY RIGHT ACCORDING TO STAFF UP TO FOUR FEET.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR COMPONENT.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING, NO DISCUSSION.
WILL THE BOARD SECRETARY, UH, WILL CALL FOR A VOTE THIS MATTER.
THE PENDING DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SIX FOOT, SIX INCH HEIGHT FENCE, UH, EXCEPTION MR. HKA.
MOTION PASSES TO DENY FIVE ZERO IN THE MATTER OF 2 2 3 0 9 7.
THE REQUEST, UM, BY THE APPLICANT FOR A SIX FOOT SIX SIX FOOT SIX INCH HIGH FENCE,
[02:35:01]
UM, WAS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE BY A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.I APOLOGIZE WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT IT WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND A FIVE ZERO VOTE.
UM, MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 DASH NINE SEVEN ON APPLICATION OF ROBERT SMITH, DENIED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 9 7 A MOTION BY MS. DAVIS, UH, HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE, ON THE TABLE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIAL INSPECTION VISIBLY TRIANGLED THE DRIVER APPROACH WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN, MS. DAVIS.
UM, THE REASON I MADE THIS MOTION AND WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION IS BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY.
I NOTICED ON ONE OF THE PAGES IN YOUR PROPOSAL THAT THE OWNER PROPOSES AN AUDIBLE ALARM FOR WARNING PEDESTRIANS THAT THE GATE IS OPENING.
THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT.
I MEAN, UH, YOU READ ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING HIT BY CARS ALL OF THE TIME.
THIS IS A, A, A BIG SAFETY HAZARD AND THAT IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS IF IT'S SOMEBODY COMING IN FOR AN, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT HASN'T ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ANYTHING.
AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, IF I, IF I PUT MY, UM, IF, IF I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, YOU WOULD COME BEFORE FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR, UM, VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, I WOULDN'T HAVE VOTED FOR IT BECAUSE I FELT LIKE, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A WAY THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACCOMMODATED AND, AND MODIFIED THE DESIGN OF YOUR FENCE TO MEET THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M VOTING TO DENY THIS AS WELL.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FOR THE BOARD, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY OUR CRITERIA IS VERY CLEAR.
THE ITEM, THE BOARD CAN ONLY APPROVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION, UH, VISUAL OBSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD, IN MY OPINION.
CLEARLY THE DRIVER APPROACH CONSTITUTES A VISUAL, A TRAFFIC HAZARD EVIDENCE, UM, EVIDENCED BY THE APPLICANT SAYING WE'RE GONNA PUT AN ALARM IN PLACE, MEANING THAT THE, THE, THE HAZARD IS THERE.
UM, YOU'VE HEARD TODAY EACH CASE THAT WE HANDLE IS SEP HANDLED SEPARATELY WITHOUT PRECEDENT, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE APPLYING, UM, A STANDARD, AN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST TRAFFIC HAZARDS.
SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WE WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 7 IS TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO, UH, MAINTAIN, UM, UH, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE DRIVER APPROACH WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DENY IS THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSES TO, UM, MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 2 3 0 9 7.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO, VOTED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE TRIANGLE AT THE DRIVE APPROACH.
WE HAVE ONE MORE MOTION FOR THE BOARD.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 23 DASH 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF ROBERT SMITH DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT PP STREET AND THE ALLEYWAY WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, UH, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 9 7.
A MOTION TO BE MADE BY MS. DAVIS TO DENY THIS REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL QUESTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR MAINTAINING THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
UM, AT THE, IT SAYS DRIVE APPROACH.
[02:40:01]
THE ALLEY APPROACH.THE, THE PIERCE STREET ALLEYWAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. HAYDEN.
MS. DAVIS? UH, ONCE AGAIN, I, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD A PRETTY THOROUGH DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, AND I'M LOOKING AT THAT OTHER FENCE THAT'S ACROSS FROM THE ALLEYWAY, BUT THIS REALLY STILL CONSTITUTES A TRAFFIC HAZARD AND THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN, UM, SAME COMMENTS AS I HAD ON MOTION.
YOU, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M NOT PERSUADED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS, THIS ONE, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY I DON'T, I'M, I'M, I'M, I CAN BE, I COULD BE CONVINCED THAT THE ALLEY DOESN'T HAVE THE TRAFFIC THAT THEREFORE MERITS THE PROTECTION FROM, UM, A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
CLEARLY, IN MY OPINION, THAT DECISION WAS SOUND AND I WAS, I I WAS NOT CONVINCED AT ALL.
BUT THE ALLEY, I'M NOT, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, I THINK THE COMMENT THAT MS. HAYDEN MADE ABOUT THE FENCE AND THE, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE CORRECT.
AT ANY MOMENT THEY CAN MOVE IT.
AND THAT, AND THAT'S, AND, AND WE, WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THAT IS.
UM, WHETHER THAT FENCE IS LEGAL THERE OR NOT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THIS CASE IN FRONT OF US.
SO WE CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
BUT, UM, I, I KIND OF HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH THAT.
THAT BEING SAID, MS. HAYDEN ALSO SAID THAT IF YOU WERE PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THIS AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND CAME IN WITH PLANS, I HOPE AND PRAY THE STAFF WOULD'VE SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, DON'T BUILD ON THAT CORNER.
'CAUSE IT'S A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE COMING OUTTA THE ALLEY.
AND THEY WOULD'VE SAID, I HOPE AND PRAY THE STAFF WOULD'VE SAID, NO, NO, NO.
I, I HOPE AND PRAY WE HAD ANOTHER CASE TODAY WHERE THAT, THAT UNFORTUNATELY THAT PROCESS DIDN'T WORK.
BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THAT'S WHY THE STATE AND THE CITY COUNCIL EMPOWERS US TO MAKE THESE DECEPTIONS.
SO I LOOK AT TOTALITY OF THIS AND MY CRITERIA, AGAIN, GOES TO ISSUE OF THAT THE ITEM WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
'CAUSE I DON'T HEAR BECAUSE OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES TODAY.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GONNA LAND AT IT, BUT SIR, AS I SAID BEFORE, REQUIRES FOUR VOTES AT, AT THE, THE HEARING'S OVER.
SO, CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, IT REQUIRES THREE VOTES SINCE THIS IS THE DENIAL.
UH, NO, IT REQUIRES FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE.
FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE THEM OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
AM I CORRECT? REQUIRES FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
ALL VARIANCES, ALL SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WERE CORE VOTES TO OVERTURN A BUILDING OFFICIAL FOUR VOTES.
SO IT REQUIRES THREE VOTES TO DENY, TO AFFIRM, TO APPROVE.
I I JUST DON'T, I I DON'T KNOW WHERE I CAN BE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN, I DON'T, I'M WAFFLING.
I DON'T THINK I CAN VOTE FOR APPROVAL, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GONNA VOTE FOR DENIAL, SO THEREFORE I'LL END UP DENYING 'CAUSE I CAN'T VOTE FOR APPROVAL.
ALRIGHT, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, SIR.
I ASKED YOU SEVERAL TIMES IF YOU WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE, MR. HAVI AND THEN MR. N AND THEN MS. DAVIS.
I, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING DENYING THIS MOTION.
UM, MY VIEW OF THE, OF THE UPDATED PLAN AND THE DRAWINGS THEREIN, UM, TO ME THE ALLEY IS ALREADY COMPARED IN ITS VISIBILITY AND THAT IMPAIRMENT, IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, IS BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE A VIEW.
SO THE FE IN QUESTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT ALLEY IS NOT RESTRICTING VISIBILITY OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND THE DIRECTION THE TRAFFIC WILL BE GOING ON THAT STREET.
UM, GIVEN THAT IT'S ALREADY IMPAIRED, I DON'T SEE WHERE THIS ADDS ANY FURTHER IMPAIRMENT TO ALL WHAT'S ALREADY A VISIBILITY PROBLEM THERE.
THANK YOU MR. N AND THEN MS. DAVIS.
UH, I I'M GONNA GO BACK TO YOUR COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT WE'RE MAKING A DECISION FOR THE PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED YOU WERE WAFFLING BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THE ALLEY.
THERE COULD BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THE ALLEY THAT COULD CHANGE AT ANY TIME.
SO THAT'S WHY I, YOU KNOW, I'M WITH MS. HAYDEN.
I, I THINK VISIBILITY TRIANGLES I'M VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT.
IT'S A VERY, VERY HIGH FENCE AND I THINK
[02:45:01]
IT CONSTITUTES A TRAFFIC HAZARD AND A PEDESTRIAN HAZARD.UM, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S RESPONSIBLE OF US TO, TO NOT DENY THIS REQUEST.
SO WE AS A BOARD, SO WHAT'S ON THE, WHAT'S WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION IS A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY APLEY POINTED OUT, THE CRITERIA FOR THE CRITERIA IS TRAFFIC HAZARD WILL NOT CONSTANT TRAFFIC HAZARD.
UM, TO APPROVE A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT REQUIRES THREE VOTES.
ON THE OTHER HAND, TO APPROVE REQUIRES FOUR VOTES.
SO MR. HLA BASED, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD, YOU KNOW, THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT THIS IS WE GET TO DEBATE THIS ALL IN PUBLIC.
UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NEW TO THIS BOARD.
I'M THE NEWEST PERSON I THINK ON PANELS A, D AND CI THINK I'M THE NEW, THE NEWBIE.
UH, I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WITH ANY PARTICULAR PROPERTY OF BEING, UH, A, A FACTOR IN MAKING A DECISION.
WE HAVE TO TAKE IT AS IT IS TODAY.
UM, I MEAN YOU COULD COME TO ANY CONCLUSION IF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE BECOMES A FACTOR AND THERE ARE THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.
I REALLY, I HAVE A, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ASPECT.
BUT WHEN WE GRANT, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION AND OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANTS A ZONING, THIS, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
IT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, IT GOES WITH THE LAND, NOT THE OWNER
SO IT IS PART OF, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LEARN OVER TIME IS AS NICE AS THIS APPLICANT HERE IS AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING, WE HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND THE APPLICANT AND STAY FOCUSED ON LAND USE.
OUR CHARGE IS LAND USE ZONING IS HIGHEST BEST USE LAND USE.
MS. DAVIS, JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT.
UM, I, I MEAN I, I BELIEVE IT IS OUR ROLE TO LOOK AT LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS FOR THIS, FOR THIS CITY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE TODAY ARE GOING TO AFFECT HOME BUILDERS AND OFFICE OWNERS YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
AND AGAIN, IT IS A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
WHETHER IT GETS MORE TRAFFIC IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT STAYS THE SAME NOW, I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE BY LOOKING AT THAT ALLEY, YOU'VE GOT A VERY, VERY TALL FENCE, A QUITE BUSY ROAD RIGHT IN FRONT.
THAT IS SOMETHING I DON'T WANT ON MY CONSCIOUS.
SO THAT IS WHY I AM DENYING THIS REQUEST, MS. HAYDEN.
SO TO YOUR POINT, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT, UM, WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC HAZARDS.
WE ALL KNOW THAT TRAFFIC IS NOT GETTING LIGHTER, PEDESTRIANS ARE NOT GETTING LIGHTER.
I MEAN PEDE, MORE AND MORE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE TRAFFIC, MORE AND MORE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
UM, ALL OF THOSE CHANGES ARE, AND THE REASON WE HAVE, THE REASON WE HAVE THIS REGULATION OF A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS TO TRY TO KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO TRY TO MITIGATE ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.
YOU SEE PLACES ALL, ALL OVER DALLAS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE IGNORED THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND IT'S A, IT'S A PROBLEM.
AND, UM, I THINK FOR ME, I I'M, I'M MORE INCLINED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOK FOR THE FU LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND TRY TO TRY TO THINK ABOUT, OKAY, WILL THIS, EVEN IF TODAY IT'S NOT A TRAFFIC HAZARD, THIS GOES WITH THAT PROPERTY AND PERPETUITY.
SO WILL IT IN THE FUTURE BECOME A TRAFFIC HAZARD? QUITE POSSIBLY.
AND THIS DEBATE IS HEALTHY AND IT'S IN ORDER AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
SO, AND WE CAN CONTINUE DEBATING AND WE COULD EVEN HOLD THE ITEM OVER IF THIS MOTION DOESN'T PASS.
SO THIS IS, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THE ABOVE, I'M JUST REINFORCING THIS DEBATING PROCESS IS NORMAL AND HEALTHY AND IT'S ALL VIDEOTAPED TOO
UM, I MADE THE COMMENT, I, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING SQUARE DOWN AT THE CRITERIA AND THE CRITERIA SAYS SECTION FIVE ONE A 4 6 0 2 D THREE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF DALLAS
SO I'M LASER FOCUSED, I'M LASER FOCUSED ON THAT.
UM, UM, I SAID BEFORE, I'LL SAY AGAIN, I FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE WENT AHEAD AND BUILT A FENCE AND CREATED VISIBLY TRIANGLES ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS TOO SMALL TO HANDLE THE FENCE.
AND THOSE, THOSE ARE THE ACTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT THAT THE CITY DID.
[02:50:01]
IF ON A PROSPECTIVE BASIS WE WOULDN'T BE DEBATING ABOUT A TRAFFIC HAZARD IF THE FENCE WAS RIGHT SIZED FOR THE PROPERTY AND FOR THE ALLEY AND FOR THE STREET AND FOR THE DRIVEWAY.BUT IT, IF IT NOT FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT PROSPECTIVELY HE CREATED, THE APPLICANT CREATED THE TRAFFIC HAZARD.
IT'S NOT THAT THE RULES DID THE APPLICANT DID.
AND EACH CASE WE SETTLE, EACH CASE WE HEAR IS, IS ON ITS OWN DOES NOT CREATE A PRECEDENT.
BUT WE HEAR HUNDREDS OF CASES A YEAR AND THESE SIMILAR COMPONENTS COME UP AND WE HAVE TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE HIGHEST BEST USE OF LAND USE.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS CREATING THE TRAFFIC HAZARD IF THERE IS ONE.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO ASK TOO.
WHAT'S CREATING IT? IS IT SOME OBTUSE RULE THAT WE CAN'T BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED? OR IS IT BECAUSE OF A PROPERTY OWNER AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING UNIQUE TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY? SO YOU CAN SEE NOW I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION 'CAUSE I JUST TALKED MYSELF INTO CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ADD A, A COMMENT IN AT THE RISK OF ADDING A ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY, PLEASE.
UM, SO THE MOTION BEFORE US IS TO DENY THIS REQUEST.
IT REQUIRES THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES TO DO THAT.
CORRECT? THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD TAKE US TO LEVEL WHERE, UM, HE'S NOT GETTING RIGHT.
SO IF THERE'S A MOTION, SUBSEQUENT MOTION MADE, NO WAIT, THAT WOULD BE IT.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS IF THAT MOTION FAILS, I, I APOLOGIZE, I GOT CONFUSED.
IN MY OWN, MY OWN BRAIN, IF THAT MOTION FAILS AND THEN NO SUBSEQUENT MOTION IS MADE AFTERWARDS IT'S WITH PREJUDICE, THEN IT WILL BE THAT, AND PRECISELY THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT.
THEN IT WOULD, UM, IT WOULD DEFAULT.
THANK YOU, UM, TO A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
RIGHT NOW IT'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD WAS SO FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
IF THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS TO APPROVE AND IT FAILED AND A, A FAILURE OF A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT ANOTHER MOTION BECOMES DENIAL WITHOUT, WITH PREJUDICE.
SO THAT'S WHY GENERALLY WHEN A MOTION TO APPROVE IS DONE IN OUR HISTORY, IT FAILS.
USUALLY NOT ALWAYS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE GUARANTEED TO GENERALLY DENY IT THEN WITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND AGAIN, THE CRITERIA WITH AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH PREJUDICE MEANS THE APPLICANT CANNOT REFILE FOR TWO YEARS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD.
AND THAT'S OPINION OF THE BOARD.
USUALLY THAT WITH PREJUDICE IS A FUNCTION OF THE BOARD'S OPINION THAT THERE'S BEEN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS, UH, BY THE APPLICANT AND OR THE BOARD WANTS FINALITY, BUT THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ONE LAST THING? I'M, I'M VENDING THE RULES HERE.
'CAUSE REALISTICALLY I'M, I AM, BUT I'M RUNNING THE MEETING SO I GET TO BEND.
WELL, WHEN I GOT MY PLAN APPROVED, I DID HAVE DEFENSE POST AND THE RETAINING WALLS UP THERE FOR THE HEIGHTS WHEN I SUBMITTED MY PLAN THE CITY FOR, FOR, FOR REDOING THIS PRODUCT.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE MOTION, CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 2 3 DASH 0 9 7 IS A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE VISIBLY TRI TRIANGLE APPROACH AT THE ALLEY ON PIERCE STREET.
THE, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY MR. MARY.
MR. OVITZ NAY, MR. CHAIR? AYE.
MOTION PASSES TO DENY FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 3 0 9 7.
THE BOARD VOTED TO DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY IN PIER STREET BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE.
[02:55:13]
UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS LEFT.UH, 2 2 2 3 4 0 0 3 AND 2 3 4 0 0 9.
WOULD YOU TELL ME HOW MANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE OR IN PERSON WE HAVE FOR THOSE TWO REMAINING CA REMAINING CASES? IT WE HAVE UH, ONE FOR EACH CASE, UH, ONE FOR EACH CASE.
IS IT THE APPLICANT FOR EACH CASE? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
AND IS THAT BOTH PRESENT OR ONLINE? THEY'RE BOTH PRESENT.
SO I'M BEING TOLD BY OUR BOARD ATTORNEY THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE ONLINE.
IS THAT, SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS? IS THAT JUST SOMEONE WATCHING OR IS THAT A, SOMEONE RECORDING? IS THAT, IS THIS AMY LANGSTER LANGSTER REGISTER? YEAH, SHE UM, I'M NOT OBJECTING.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT SHE IS FOR BD 2 3 4 0 1 9.
WELL, UM, WHICH WAS ALREADY APPROVED.
OH, WELL I GUESS I JUST GOT TO EXPERIENCE IT ALL THEN.
GIVE US A GOOD REVIEW ON, ON UH, YELP.
YEAH,
WELL IT WAS GREAT TO WATCH EVERYTHING
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR CATCHING IT MR. BOARD ATTORNEY.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE TWO REMAINING ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.
THE, THIS, THE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 3.
THIS WAS NOT BRIEF THIS MORNING.
SO, UH, MS. BOARD, UH, ADMINISTRATOR, I'D LIKE TO GIVE US, UH, GIVE US A MINI BRIEFING, UH, AS IT RELATE.
UH, CHAIRMAN, I SPOKE WITH, UM, MS. KU AND SINCE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE, UM, BRIEFING, SO TO SPEAK, REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO BE BRIEFED IS THE PROPER, UH, STANDARD FOR E WAIVER REIMBURSEMENT AS THE BOARD COUNCIL.
I'D BE HAPPY TO GO WITH, UH, WITH THE BOARD, UM, SECTION.
OH, YOU'RE GONNA DO THE BRIEF BEFORE WE DO THE APPLICANT? YES, GO AHEAD.
SO SECTION 51 A 1.105 B6, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFIES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY WAIVE THE FILING FEE IF THE BOARD, UH, FINDS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
SO THAT'S THE RELEVANT STANDARD IS THAT IT WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT'S IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
UM, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 3 IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
WOULD YOU PLEASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD? WHAT A PATIENT PERSON YOU ARE, BUT IT'S ONLY SINCE ONE O'CLOCK.
I'M, I'LL DO ANYTHING FOR MY MOM.
UM, YOU'VE HEARD FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE TO UTILIZE IN DETERMINING A FEE WAIVER.
UH, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.
UM, AND THEN YOU, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS WE HAVE AND THEN WE WILL APPLY THE CRITERIA AND MAKE A DECISION.
DO I NEED BE SWORN? YES, YOU'LL BE SWORN IN.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
16 10 10 MILE LANE, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS 7 5 1 3 7.
UM, I AM HERE TO REPRESENT MY MOM, LETICIA DORSEY.
UM, SHE'S A RETIRED TEACHER AND SHE HAD SOME CRAZY DREAM TO EXTEND HER HOME AND MAKE MORE SPACE FOR THE FAMILY FOR WHEN WE COME TO VISIT.
UM, SHE WENT THROUGH NOT ONLY ONE, BUT TWO CONTRACTORS AS THE FIRST ONE DISAPPEARED ON HER AND LEFT WITH ALL HER MONEY.
SO SHE WAS THEN PUT IN CHARGE OF FILING FOR THE, UM, FOR THE PERMITS AND THE SURVEYS HERSELF WHEN SHE HAD ALREADY PAID A CONTRACTOR TO DO IT.
AND SHE FOUND OUT AFTER THE FACT THAT THEY HAD STARTED THE WORK THAT HE DIDN'T DO WHAT HE TOLD HER HE HAD DONE.
SO I'M HERE TO REQUEST A FEE WAIVER ON HER BEHALF.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO THE APPLICANT.
YOU HEARD THE CRITERIA FROM THE BOARD ATTORNEY.
WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE AS IT RELATES TO THE REQUEST AND OUR CRITERIA? MS. MS. DAVIS? YES, GO AHEAD.
SO, UH, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE WE APPROVED THIS, WE PASSED THIS CASE LAST MONTH.
[03:00:01]
WHEN WE'RE, UM, SEPARATE ISSUE.SO, BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A FEE, UM, REIMBURSEMENT, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WAS DENIED OR PASSED, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WHAT QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. N THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
UM, CAN YOU, UM, ENUNCIATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AS TO YOUR MOTHER'S SITUATION? I KNOW YOU SAID THAT THE CONTRACTOR, UM, RAN OFF WITH SOME MONEY.
UM, JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HER FINANCIAL SITUATION AND THAT SORT OF THING AS TO WHAT, WHAT JU JUSTIFIES US IN GRANTING THAT REIMBURSEMENT.
SO HER FIRST CONTRACTOR, I BELIEVE SHE PAID HIM ABOUT 60,000 TO DO THE WORK.
UM, AND THAT WAS ABOUT THREE FOURTHS OF THE AMOUNT THAT HE WAS CHARGING HER.
AND SHE, HE DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT.
HE BARELY EVEN DID HALF OF THE WORK AND LEFT A HOLE ON THE SIDE OF HER HOUSE.
SO THEN SHE HAD TO GO FIND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR TO TAKE ON THE WORK.
UM, AND THEN HAD TO CONTACT THE CITY HERSELF, UM, AND EVEN HAD TO PULL MORE MONEY AND BORROW MONEY TO GET THE JOB DONE.
SO THAT WAY THERE WASN'T, YOU KNOW, A HOLE IN HER HOUSE AND THEN GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF THE CITY WHAT SHE HAD PERMITS THAT WERE APPROVED AND THEN THEY WERE KICKED BACK AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
TYPICALLY, NOT ALWAYS, BUT TYPICALLY WHEN THE BOARD HEARS THIS SORT OF REQUEST, UH, THE BOARD LIKES TO SEE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
THE CRITERIA THAT OUR ATTORNEY GAVE US IS WE MAY, WE MAY WAIVE A FILING FEE.
AND HOW MUCH WAS THE FILING FEE THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR REIMBURSEMENT? UH, THE FEE WAIVER IS, UH, $610.
IF THE BOARD FINDS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE, $610 WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT THE APPLICANT SPENT 60 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THEN MORE, AND I THINK THAT'S HORRIBLE, BUT I'M SEARCHING FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF $610.
THAT WAS MORE MONEY THAT SHE HAD TO BORROW.
SHE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE SECOND CONTRACTOR.
SO IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP YOU CAN PROVIDE US? I MEAN, I HAVE ALL THE RECEIPTS OF EVERYTHING SHE PAID TO BUY, LIKE THE WINDOWS, THE WOOD, UM, FOR THE SURVEY, THE FLOORING AND ALL THAT.
IF I CAN SHARE, CAN, CAN YOU, UH, LET US KNOW IS SHE ON FIXED INCOME? WAS ALL ALL OF THE EXPENDITURES, THE 60,000 PLUS THAT SHE WAS OUT, UM, WAS THAT BORROWED MONEY OR DID SHE HAVE THAT MONEY ON HAND OR PART OF IT WAS BORROWED, BUT SHE'S A RETIRED NOW FULL-TIME SUBSTITUTE TEACHER.
SO SHE DID, SHE IS NOW WORKING AS WELL TO TRY TO PAY THIS AND OVERCOME WHAT SETBACK SHE HAD TO GO THROUGH.
SO CAN YOU TELL ME, DOES SHE RECEIVE A PENSION OR, UM, SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE OR A LITTLE BIT MORE AS TO HER INCOME SITUATION? JUST HER RETIREMENT FROM WHEN SHE WAS A TEACHER.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD, AGAIN, THE BOARD ATTORNEY SAID TO US THAT ACCORDING TO THE CODE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY WAIVE THE FILING FEE OR IN THIS CASE REIMBURSE.
IF THE BOARD FINDS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE, $610 IS THE REQUEST WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 3 FR ONE ON APPLICATION OF LETICIA DORSEY DENY THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE IN 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 3 FR ONE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEES WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
[03:05:01]
ON THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS.UM, FIRST I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU CAME AND YOU WAITED ALL DAY AND YOU'RE DOING THIS FOR YOUR MOTHER.
I REALLY, REALLY RESPECT THAT.
AND THE REASON I MADE THIS MOTION, I'M, I'M JUST NOT SEEING THE REQUIREMENT.
I'M NOT SEEING THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
I UNDERSTAND SHE MADE A LOT OF PAYMENTS OUT.
SHE BORROWED MONEY FOR RENOVATIONS, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, RETIRED TEACHER, SHE'S WORKING PART-TIME.
I'M NOT SEEING THAT FINANCIAL.
UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SEEING THAT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WITH $610, WHICH IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
MR. KOVA, UH, I ECHO THOSE COMMENTS.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THE CHAIR WILL CALL FOR A VOTE IN THE MATTER OF BBDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO THREE FFR ONE.
A MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PLEASE CALL THE VOTE MR. OVITZ.
MOTION PASSES TO DENY FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO THREE FR ONE.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO IS DENYING THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR REIMBURSING THE FILING FEES.
THE LAST CASE WE HAVE TODAY ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 34 DASH ZERO NINE FR ONE.
UH, UH, BOARD ATTORNEY WILL BRIEF US AS TO THE CRITERIA.
UH, CHAIRMAN, THE CRITERIA FOR THIS CASE IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS CASE IN THE, UH, CERTAIN, UH, AGAIN, SECTION 51 A 1.105 B SIX.
SO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFIES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY WAIVE THE FILING FEE IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
AGAIN, THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE? UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
OKAY, SIR, YOU'RE GONNA BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND THEN YOU'LL BE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PLEASE AS ANSWER? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING DEJUAN.
9 0 9 SOUTH KOREAN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, PLUS OR MINUS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE, WOULD YOU PLEASE GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, SIR? ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE PANEL.
UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS HEARING IS FOR HARDSHIP AND A REFUND, WHICH WILL BE REAPPLIED TO FILE AGAIN.
I TRULY BELIEVE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
EXCUSE ME, SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? I SAID I TRULY BELIEVE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE NOW.
DO YOU WANT ME TO START OVER? SIR? WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO START OVER? UH, NO, I, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
WELL, BASICALLY I WANNA APPLY FOR A REFUND.
I WILL REAPPLY IT AGAIN TO FILE AGAIN.
BECAUSE EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE FROM THE BOARD ADJUSTMENTS, EVERYONE ON THE HEARING.
SO HOLD ON A SECOND, MR. MARY.
JUST SO I, I WANT THE APPLICANT TO FINISH.
LET ME GO ON WITH THE NEXT, WITH THE QUESTIONS.
UM, I GOTTA, I SAY I APOLOGIZE.
I'VE BEEN UP SINCE 10 30 LAST NIGHT, SO I'M STILL UP.
I'VE BEEN UP SINCE 10 30 LAST NIGHT.
OKAY, SO I, I WANT TO, OUR PROCEDURE IS TO GIVE AN APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY SPEAK.
UH, ARE YOU'RE FINISHED WITH YOUR COMMENTS THEN? WE'LL, THE NEXT PHASE IS WE WILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS OR MAY NOT, DEPENDING ON, SO MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHAT'S THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO BE RE UH, ARE YOU ASKING TO BE REFUNDED OR TO BE WAIVED FOR A FUTURE CASE? I THINK THIS IS A REFUND.
THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHAT I PAID.
AND LIKE I SAID, THAT REFUND WOULD BE REAPPLIED TO FILE AGAIN.
DID, DID THE BOARD, THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CASE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
HOW DID THE BOARD RESPOND TO THIS CASE? I MEAN,
[03:10:01]
IT, IT WAS DENIED.IT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD LAST MONTH.
UM, HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE, BUT BY THE TIME HE WOULD, IT WAS TOO LATE.
UM, SO IT WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO NOW HE WANTS TO REFUND, REFUND OF THOSE MONIES THAT HE PAID SO HE COULD REAPPLY AGAIN AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR THE SAME REQUEST.
QUESTIONS FOR THE PANEL TO THE APPLICANT.
SO THE CRITERIA, HOLD ON A SECOND.
I, I WANNA SEE WHO ALL WANTS TO ASK QUESTION.
MS. HAYDEN, I'M LOOKING FOR A HEAD TO NOT, ALL RIGHT.
THUS FAR, I ONLY SEE ONE PERSON, MS. HAYDEN.
UM, SO THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON, UM, WHETHER WE GRANT THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FILING FEE, UM, IS, UM, YOU HAVE TO SHOW SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
SO I'M, I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING, ANY KIND OF DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US THAT SHOWS YOUR SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
WELL, I INVEST A LOT OF TIME FINANCING TO THIS PROJECT, TAKING TIME OFF FROM WORK, GOING TO HEARINGS, UM, GOING, COMING TO THESE TYPE OF HEARINGS, ALSO GOING DOWN TO THE BOARD BOARD ADJUSTMENT FOR MEETINGS.
UM, I SPENT OVER 20,000 PLUS REVOLVING MONTHLY FEES FOR THIS PROJECT, AND IT STILL HAS NOT OPENED UP FOR BUSINESS.
SO I'M CURRENT, I'M CURRENTLY JUST LOSING OUT ALL MONEY RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY JUST BEEN GOING ON SINCE AUGUST OF 2023.
SO IT'S LIKE, IT'S DRAINING ME RIGHT NOW.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THIS BUSINESS OPEN TO MOVE FORWARD.
THAT'S WHY I SAID IN THE BEGINNING, EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
NOW EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE TO MOVE FORWARD.
MS. HAYDEN, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UM, I, I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF DOCUMENTATION OR ANYTHING THAT SHOWS WHAT THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS? NO, NO DOCUMENTATION ON THAT.
UH, 1104 SEEMS A DIFFERENT, SEEMS A UNIQUE NUMBER.
IT'S USUALLY IN THE SIX HUNDREDS.
IS THIS FOR MULTIPLE? IS THAT, IS THAT THE REASON WHY PEOPLE, RIGHT.
HE ACTUALLY, UM, HE, HE WAS HERE FOR TWO REQUESTS, TWO SEPARATE REQUEST.
THAT'S WHY IT'S, THERE WERE TWO REQUESTS.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE AN INTERNAL PROCESS.
UM, SO ACTUALLY HE'S ACTUALLY ONLY GONNA BE REQUESTING THE $610.
THE OTHER, UH, MONEY IS GONNA BE RUN REFUNDED TO HIM REGARDLESS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT, SIR? UH, I HAVEN'T, THEY TOLD ME COME TO THE HEARING.
I DID, I DID RELAY THIS INFORMATION TO NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
HOW MUCH WILL WE COMING BACK? I JUST COMING BACK.
HE TOLD ME IT'S COMING HERE AND JUST REFUND FOR THE RIGHT.
IT'S AN INTERNAL PROCESS BECAUSE IT WAS NOTIFIED AND ALL OF THAT.
SO THERE'S GONNA BE MONEY TAKEN OUT.
SO, UM, THE REFUND THAT HE'S REQUESTING TODAY IS $610.
SO OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF IS ADVISING US ON THE RECORD THAT THE REQUEST THAT IS PENDING TODAY IS $610.
THEY'RE ADVISING THAT THE DIFFERENCE, OR I CAN'T ADD OR SUBTRACT WHAT'S, WHICH IS, UM, IS 1104 MINUS SIX 10.
SO MS. BARKUM, YOU'RE SAYING $494 IS PENDING REFUND TO HIM? I'M SORRY, LET ME GO BACK TO THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S 2 75.
SO HE HAS A REFUND OF 2 75 RIGHT NOW.
UM, MEANING PENDING, PENDING 2 75 REGARDLESS, UM, HE, HE PAID, LET'S SEE, WE DO NOT REFUND THE SIGNS.
SO $1,200 MINUS THE 2 75 IS WHAT HE'S GONNA BE REQUESTING TODAY.
SO, SO HIS RE SO THE ACTION BEFORE US BEFORE US IS 9 25.
AND HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THAT AGAIN IF HE WANTS TO REAPPLY, SO, CORRECT.
WELL, WE CAN'T CONTROL IF, IF YES, THAT THAT'S A SEPARATE DEAL ENTIRELY.
UM, AND, AND 9 25, 2 75 IS 1200.
SO WE'RE NOT, THAT DOESN'T GET TO 1104, CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 1104 IS COMING FROM.
SO FROM THE BEST THAT YOU KNOW,
[03:15:01]
THERE'S A $275 REFUND PENDING TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE REQUEST TODAY IS BASIC 9 25.WHAT ABOUT THIS? THAT YOU DON'T REFUND THE SIGN THING.
SO THEREFORE IS THAT $30 SUBTRACTED FROM THE 9 25? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, SO, SO SIR, WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF IS THAT THERE'S A $275 REFUND COMING PENDING TO YOU, OKAY? AND THAT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS $925.
WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE AS AN APPLICANT DOES WITH THAT.
THAT WAS PART OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO US.
WE HEAR THAT, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BASED ON HIS REQUEST.
I WHAT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FROM 1104? THAT'S, SO IT'D BE 1104 MINUS 2 75, OR I MEAN, WHAT'S I PAID 1104.
YOU PAID TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR PAID FOR YOUR PERMIT? THEY HAVE BEEN NO, UH, LADY SITTING NEXT TO YOU RIGHT THERE.
SO $30 IS FOR THE SIGNS AND THE $1,200 IS FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEES.
NOW ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THE, THE 9 25 THAT HE'S REQUESTING TODAY, HE IS ALSO GONNA BE, UM, CHART SUBTRACTED EITHER 20 OR 25%.
AGAIN, THAT'S AN INTERNAL PROCESS, BUT HE'S GONNA BE REQUESTING THAT FROM YOU TODAY.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL I UNDERSTAND ACCOUNT.
WELL, WHAT'S RELEVANT TO US, QUITE HONESTLY WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE OR DENY A REQUEST.
I JUST FOR STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS AND HONESTY, WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT THE NUMBER IS.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THE STAFF CLARIFYING THAT.
$30 IS NON-REFUNDABLE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNS THAT YOU HAD, WHICH LEAVES $1,200.
MS. BARKUM, SORRY, I WAS LOOKING ON RECORD.
SO I'M, THAT 1,230 WAS PAID LESS $30 A SIGN THAT'S NON-REFUNDABLE.
NOW WHAT ABOUT THE 2 75? THE 2 75 WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS, UH, AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST THAT HE DID NOT NEED.
BUT THEN ON TOP OF THAT, UM, IT WAS ENTERED INCORRECTLY.
SO THAT, SO IT'S 1200 MINUS 2 75, WHICH JUST TAKES US BACK TO THE 9 25.
SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TODAY IS 9 25.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT FOR YOUR BENEFIT AS WELL AS THE BOARD.
AND UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA FOR US IS, UH, THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU ANOTHER ONE.
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PROCEED LAST MONTH IN YOUR CASE? AT THAT CURRENT TIME? I DIDN'T HAVE THE TAXES, THE UPDATED, UH, TAX FOR THE PROPERTY TAXES.
AND I HAVE A CLEAR BALANCE OF THAT DUE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS PAY HIS TAXES AT THE END OF THE MONTH.
SO WHEN I LEFT THE MEETING, LEFT THE HEARING, UH, LAST MONTH, I WENT BY THIS OFFICE AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND HE, HE PROVIDED ME THE DOCUMENTATION, SAID HE PAID THE, THE TAXES.
I SEE NOW THAT ON THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT YES, SIR.
THAT YOU HAD EMAILED THIS, THAT YES, SIR.
UM, SO ANOTHER OPTION WOULD'VE BEEN TO HOLD OVER THE CASE TO KEEP IT LIVE.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? JUST TO ASK THE BOARD.
NO, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS WAS, SO THIS WAS BE, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, HE INITIALLY, UM, REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW, CORRECT.
AND HE REQUESTED A WITHDRAWAL OR POSTPONEMENT, BUT I THINK IT ALL WITH, WITH ALL OF IT AND ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE, UM, GOING TOWARDS HIM, HE WAS LIKE WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES.
SO AT THAT POINT, UM, WE DIDN'T EVEN BRIEF THE CASE.
IT WAS JUST A MOMENT OF LET'S JUST DENY IT.
BUT HE DID ACTUALLY REQUEST FOR A POSTPONEMENT OR A WITHDRAWAL.
I KNOW MY BOARD ATTORNEY IS ITCHING RIGHT NOW SAYING, LET'S KEEP FOCUSED ON THE CRITERIA.
[03:20:01]
I JUST KNOW HE, WHEN HE GETS TRIGGER HAPPY TO THE BUTTON HE'S TRYING TO TELL ME AND TELL US, STAY FOCUSED ON THE CRITERIA.MS. DAVIS, WAS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION? PRESIDING OFFICER DAVIS? I THINK EVERYBODY AGREED ON THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO.
I IT WAS NO, FOR HIM, IT WAS FOR HIM WITH HIM REQUESTING A WITHDRAWAL OR POSTPONING.
THE BOARD DECIDES WHAT, WHICHEVER IT IS HIS FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, HE DIDN'T KNOW THE EXACT, I GUESS, TERMINOLOGY OR WHICH WAY TO GO.
SO HE WAS LEAVING IT UP TO THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE A DECISION.
BUT HIS INITIAL REQUEST WAS WITHDRAW OR POSTPONE IT.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL, BDA 2 3 4 0 9 F APPLICATION TO JOHN SESSION GRANT, THE REQUEST, THE FEE WAIVER, THE FILING FEES TO BE PAID AND ASSOCIATED WITH REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF DEFENSE HEIGHT, RE REGULATIONS, VISIBLY TRYING AND REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OF OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. KOVICH.
I'M MAKING THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT FROM WHEN I PIECED TOGETHER, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING ABSENT LAST MONTH, BUT FOR THE, THE, FROM MY UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT AND WHAT I'VE READ IN OUR MINUTES IS THAT HE HAD, HE HAD THE INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD.
HE DID NOT HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS.
MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE SAID, PLEASE JUST GIVE ME A HOLDOVER.
UM, AND I I, I CAN'T HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE THAT HE'LL BE BACK WITH THE MONEY THAT WE REIMBURSE IF WE DO.
BUT I THINK THAT'S HIS INTENT AND THEREFORE I THINK IT'S, IT FALLS WITHIN MY CRITERIA OF SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GIVEN HIS INTENT.
MR. HOP, UH, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. NARY.
I THE APPLICANT EARLIER MENTIONED, I THINK THAT YOU'RE AN, AN INTERN OR SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO START A BUSINESS.
IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S, IT'S A HOT DOG STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY.
WELL, SO YEAH, I, I'M GOOD, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ANY, ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? YEAH, I'M, I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THAT.
I MEAN, OUR CRITERIA IS TO, UH, THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
AND IF YOU'RE TRYING TO START A BUSINESS AND YOU'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS SINCE AUGUST, IT'S QUITE A LEARNING CURVE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS? UM, MY ONLY COMMENT WAS I WAS GOING TO DENY THE MOTION, BUT AFTER HEARING THE RATIONALE BEHIND APPROVING IT, I BELIEVE THAT DOES MAKE SENSE.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, UH, BEFORE I CALL FOR THE VOTE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT BOUND BY YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU PLAN TO REAPPLY.
I HOPE THAT YOU'RE HONORABLE AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
'CAUSE THAT IS WHAT BENDS ME TO, TO FIND FINANCIAL STA FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
UM, SO THAT'S PART OF MY AND, UH, DE DISCERNING YOUR INTENT THEN.
AND NOW CALL FOR THE VOTE IN BDA 2 3 4 0 0 9 FFR ONE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR, UH, REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES WE'RE ESTIMATING AT $925, CORRECT? I, YES.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 0 0 9 FFR ONE, THE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO GRANTS THE REQUEST TO, UH, REQUEST REIMBURSE THE FILING FEES ASSOCIATED WITH HIS, HIS APPLICATION.
YOU'LL BE HEARING BACK FROM THE CITY.
UH, JUST IN REGARDS TO BOARD ADJUST, UM, WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME ON THAT REFUND?
HE'S A BRAVE SOUL GOING RIGHT TO THE BANK.
NO, I, THE, THE REASON I'M ASKING IS I CAN COME BACK TOMORROW AND TAKE CARE OF THE PAYMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
IF YOU'RE GONNA REAPPLY THEN WE MAY BE ABLE TO JUST TRANSFER THE FUNDS AND THEN GIVE YOU THE REMAINING BALANCE.
DEPENDS ON HOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD.
AND I WILL, I WILL TELL YOU THAT CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, THAT THIS CASE IS NOW CLOSED CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
UM, GIVEN THAT THIS HAS BDA HISTORY, YOU WILL BECOME, IF THERE'S A REQUEST, IT'LL COME BACK TO THIS PANEL.
THAT THAT'S PART OF OUR RULES.
UM, BOARD MEMBERS, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA.
UM, OUR NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR PANEL A IS TWO MARCH 19TH,
[03:25:03]
TUESDAY, MARCH 19TH.UM, SO WE HAVE TWO HOLDOVERS FROM TODAY AND FIVE ADDITIONAL CASES ASSIGNED TO US IN MARCH.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
IT IS 4:31 PM ON THE T THE 20TH OF FEBRUARY.