Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:01]

OKAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

WELCOME TO

[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on May 22, 2024.]

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

WE'RE NOT QUITE READY.

OKAY.

WELL, IT'S ONE O'CLOCK.

ALL RIGHT.

GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

I'M SHERRY GABO.

I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF, UM, PANEL B.

TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, MAY 22ND, 2024 AT THE TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PANEL B TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND IN HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.

YOU HAVE BEEN, YEAH.

YEAH.

UM, A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR.

WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE WITH AUDIO ON.

IF YOU'RE ONLINE AND YOU HAVE YOUR AUDIO ON, PLEASE TURN IT OFF.

THANK YOU.

UM, WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING.

UM, OUR VOTING, UH, MEMBERS TODAY ARE MYSELF, MICHAEL KOWSKI, DR.

EMMANUEL GLOVER, JOE CANNON, AND PHIL SA SAHU.

OUR STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INCLUDE MATTHEW SAPP, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT, UM, CITY ATTORNEY, DR.

KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, DIANE BARKUM, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST AND PROJECT COORDINATOR, CAMBRIA JOHNSON, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, BRIAN THOMPSON, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, NORA NDA, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, SARAH GII, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, JASON POOLE, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY MODERATOR.

WE ALSO HAVE AN ATTENDANCE, DAVID NAVARRES, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

UM, BEFORE I BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.

OH, OH, I'M SORRY.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE TANISHA LESTER HERE, OUR CHIEF PLANNER IN ZONING.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.

WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND THESE ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.

NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.

EACH CASE IS DECIDED BUT DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.

EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.

ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THESE CASES THAT WE'LL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.

THE EVIDENCE WILL BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.

APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR THE REVERSAL OF A BUILDING OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REQUIRES A 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FIVE MEMBER PANEL.

ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.

LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.

ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.

EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

UM, I BELIEVE WE ARE FOR A MAXIMUM OF ONE MINUTE OR WHEN THIS, UM, OR WHEN THE SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.

DEPENDING ON THE CASE, WE MAY MAKE SOME CHANGES AS WE MOVE ALONG TODAY.

ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

THERE'S NO TELECONFERENCING, UM, ALLOWED ON WEBEX.

ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.

UH, WE WILL START WITH OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UM, AND I'LL LET, UM, OUR SECRETARY, BOARD SECRETARY CALL THOSE NAMES AND YOU'LL EACH HAVE ONE MINUTE TO SPEAK.

I HAVE THREE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

OKAY, MR. JASON LEBAR? YES.

UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO JUST MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT DURING THE BROOKSHIRE AO APPEAL THAT THERE WILL BE NO SPEAKERS, UM, ALLOWED TO SPEAK DURING THAT UNLESS CALLED BY THE, UM, AO OFFICIAL OR THE APPLICANT.

UM, SO IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM, YOUR ONLY TIME TO SPEAK IS DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT IN TIME RIGHT NOW.

AND SO, UH, WE ARE GONNA START CALLING THOSE SPEAKERS RIGHT NOW.

MS. IAN LAVA,

[00:05:04]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE, UM, ONE MINUTE TO SPEAK.

UH, LEANNE LA BARBA.

MY ADDRESS IS 71 21 BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE.

OKAY.

HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

I'VE SEEN MANY OF YOU BEFORE.

I'M HERE ONCE AGAIN TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST WHAT IS GOING ON ON OUR STREET.

ALL OF YOU HAVE EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL AND LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE, AND YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS ARE WRONG.

IT'S HAPPENING TO US.

WE HAVE FOUGHT, WE HAVE WRITTEN, WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SPEAK OUT THAT WE DO NOT WANT THIS CHANGE.

IT IS TIME TO HONOR THAT.

UH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THIS WHOLE SPEECH THAT WOULD TAKE THREE MINUTES.

I KNOW NOW I HAVE ONE OR YOU KNOW, JUST ONE.

BUT PLEASE HEAR THAT THIS ISN'T RIGHT.

EVERYTHING FROM HIRING AN ATTORNEY WHO HAS A COLLEAGUE ON THE SITTING CITY OF DALLAS PLANNING COMMISSION.

THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE HERE, AND I JUST HOPE THAT YOU LOOK AT THEM AND YOU REALIZE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO UPHOLD THE LAWS AND THE REGULATIONS OF THIS CITY, WHEREAS THE PETITIONERS ARE TRYING TO MANIPULATE 'EM.

YOUR TIME IS UP.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, MS. JOE JAGODA, , 7 1 3 9 BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE.

CAN YOU SPEAK? YEAH, IF WE COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, THAT'D BE GREAT.

THANK YOU.

MY ADDRESS IS 7 1 3 9 BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE HERE IN DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY.

AND, UM, I AGREE 100% WITH MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE WHO JUST SPOKE TO YOU.

THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE CITY.

WE'VE HAD NOTHING BUT TROUBLE SINCE THEY MOVED THERE.

THEY WANT TO REZONE, THEY WANT TO REPL.

UM, I'M HERE TO COMPLAIN.

I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1969 AND I THINK PEOPLE WHO MOVE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD AND JUST CAUSE TROUBLE ARE OUT OF LINE AND I HOPE THE CITY WILL RECOGNIZE THAT.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER? MR. JASON? LAVAR.

ALL RIGHT.

NO OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTER.

OKAY.

UM, ALRIGHT, WELL THEN WE WILL MOVE ON WITH OUR AGENDA.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, THE APPROVAL OF OUR PANEL B MINUTES FROM APRIL 17TH, 2024.

DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR THAT? I, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR APRIL SESSION.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

THANK YOU MR. KOWSKI.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL OTHER VOTES WILL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE FROM HERE ON OUT.

UM, AND WE WILL MOVE TO OUR, UM, UNCONTESTED DOCKET, UM, WHICH INCLUDES, UM, BDA CASE 2 3 4, UH, 2 3 4 DASH 0 6 2 AND 2 3 4 DASH 0 6 4.

UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, GRANT THE FALLING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATIONS SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WITT EDA 2 3 4 DASH SIX TWO APPLICATION OF CORINA A AVILA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FALLING CONDITION COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

BDA 2 34 DASH 0 6 2 APPLICATION OF CORINA A VILLA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE OPACITY REGULATIONS AND THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FALLING CONDITIONS.

COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

DDA 2 34 DASH 0 6 4 APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW CONDITION.

COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

AYE.

SECOND,

[00:10:01]

UH, MR. KOWSKI MOTION, HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. CANON AYE.

MR. KOWSKI? AYE.

MS. WEISS CHAIR AYE.

MOTION PASSES TO GRAND FIVE TO ZERO.

OKAY.

WE'LL START WITH OUR FIRST, UM, INDIVIDUAL CASE, WHICH IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 6 0 23 23 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE.

IF THE APPLICANT CAN PLEASE STEP FORWARD, UM, WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN.

UM, AND, UH, YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

MAAM, DO YOU MADAM SWEAR MADAM? EXCUSE ME.

UM, MADAM CHAIR, UM, BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE, UM, JUST FOR YES, I'M SO SORRY.

UH, AND MR. CANNON, IF YOU COULD RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THIS CASE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU.

I'LL BE OUTSIDE.

SO FOR THIS CASE, WE'LL ONLY HAVE A FOUR MEMBER PANEL, WHICH MEANS THAT IN ORDER FOR THE MOTION TO BE APPROVED, ALL FOUR PANEL MEMBERS WILL HAVE TO, UM, SAY YES.

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

I DO.

I DO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

UH, MY NAME IS NICK BEATTY, UH, 7 3 0 6 CLEMSON DRIVE.

THANK YOU.

YOU MAY START.

YES.

UH, I'M HOPING THE PRESENTATION WILL COME UP, BUT, UH, I'M HERE TO, UH, EXPLAIN OUR SITUATION.

A 2323 NORTH CARROLL.

UH, WE HAVE PLANS, UH, ON BUILDING A, UH, LUXURY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT THAT ADDRESS, AND WE ARE REQUESTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT, FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS, AND TO OF THE VISIBILITY REGULATIONS.

WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE? SO, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, FOUR HEIGHT, UH, FOUR FOOT HEIGHT REGULATION IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD, UH, WE ARE, WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY SMALL LOTT HERE.

IT'S SMALLER, UH, LESS THAN HALF OF THE STANDARD SIZE LOT, WHICH BRINGS SOME, UH, DESIGN CHALLENGES.

UH, SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE, UH, 50% OPACITY, UH, WHICH WILL, UH, ENABLE A LITTLE BIT MORE PRIVACY, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE OWNERS.

UH, WE HAVE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, SUCH EVENTS OR, OR VEGETATION SERVING SUCH, UH, PURPOSE.

WE DON'T SEE ANY, UH, EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, UH, OR CONSTITUTED TRAFFIC HAZARD.

YOU CAN HIT PLAY.

NOPE.

NOPE, THAT'S IT.

HOPEFULLY THIS PLAYS, IT'S JUST A SHORT, UH, SHORT VIDEO OF, OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

OKAY.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO JUST LIVE WITH A PICTURE, I GUESS.

NO, NOW USUALLY THERE'S A LINK BELOW IT.

YEAH, RIGHT THERE.

THERE WE GO.

SO THE SPECIAL, UH, SECOND SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WE ARE, UH, APPLYING FOR, UH, THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY OF OBSTRUCTION AND REGULATIONS ON A DRIVEWAY.

UH, THE PROPOSED DESIGN THAT WE HAVE HAS RELOCATED THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY FROM NORTH CARROLL, WHICH IS A MUCH BUSIER STREET THAN THE, UH, RUSK AVENUE, WHICH WE PROPOSED TO PUT IT ON.

WE FEEL THAT THIS GREATLY IN, IN OF ITSELF GREATLY REDUCES POTENTIAL, UH, TRAFFIC HAZARDS.

UH, THE PROPOSED FENCE IS MORE THAN 50% OPEN, UH, MAIN MAINTAINING VISIBILITY, UH, TO THE MINIMAL ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

UH, THE RUS AVENUE IS A NO OUTLET STREET, SO THE,

[00:15:01]

THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IS VERY, VERY LIMITED.

SO WE FEEL THIS SOLUTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR CONSTITUTED TRAFFIC HAZARD.

AND THE THIRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION WE'RE REQUESTING, UH, AGAIN, TO A VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE, BUT THIS ONE IS FOR THE 45 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UH, AT THE INTERSECTION OF RUSK AND CARROLL.

UH, WITH THIS BEING SUCH A SMALL LOT, A 45 FOOT, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UH, CUTS THE LOT ALMOST IN HALF.

AN ALREADY SMALL LOT WOULDN'T LEAVE MUCH FOR US TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON, UH, LET ALONE HAVE A, HAVE A FENCE IN A YARD.

UH, LUCKILY THE, UH, POST FENCE LOCATION IS SET 13 FEET BACK FROM THE, FROM THE CARROLL AVENUE, UH, PER THE DALLAS TRAFFIC MANUAL.

UH, THE POINT OF VIEW, THE DRIVER'S EYE POINT OF VIEW IS 11 FEET BACK FROM THE INTERSECTION.

UH, WITH CAR BEING A VERY STRAIGHT ROAD, NO HILLS, NO BROWS, UH, THEY WILL HAVE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED DISTANCE WHEN THEY COME TO AN INTERSECTION, THERE'LL BE NO OBSTRUCTION BY THE FENCE.

WE FEEL, UH, WE FEEL THIS SOLUTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

YEAH, PLEASE.

HERE'S JUST A SMALL ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE LINE ON CARROLL AVENUE, UH, AND WHERE THE DRIVER'S EYE WILL BE.

UH, AGAIN, STRAIGHT ROAD, NO OBSTRUCTIONS IN EITHER DIRECTION.

THERE SHOULD BE NO, NO POTENTIAL TRAFFIC HAZARDS THERE WHATSOEVER.

AND FINALLY, JUST A SHORT VIDEO TO SHOW THE APPROACH, UH, THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION COMING FROM CAROL, TURNING ONTO RUST, WHICH SHOULD BE EVEN LESS OF A POTENTIAL PROBLEM.

AGAIN, RUSK IS A NO OUTLET STREET, SO VERY, VERY MINIMAL TRAVEL AND I BELIEVE THAT IS IT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

ANY QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I, I GUESS MY, MY MAIN QUESTION IS IT, IN BOTH OF YOUR, UM, OF YOUR DIAGRAM SHOWING THE EYE OF THE DRIVER, IT LOOKED LIKE YOU WOULD, YOU'RE REQUIRING THE DRIVER TO PULL INTO THE AREA WHERE PEDESTRIANS WOULD CROSS THE STREET.

AND TO ME, I THINK IT'S NOT, MY CONCERN IS NOT WITH ONCOMING TRAFFIC, IT'S WITH ONCOMING PEDESTRIANS.

AND THEN BOTH, BOTH, BOTH OF YOUR DIAGRAMS DON'T TAKE PEDESTRIAN INTO THAT ACCOUNT AT ALL.

I MEAN, IT LITERALLY SHOWED THE EYE POINT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK.

SO HOW DO YOU PLAN TO, WITH THIS PROPOSAL ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN CONCERNS? BECAUSE THAT IN AN AREA LIKE THIS, THIS IS THE HIGHLY PEDESTRIANIZED AREA AND I THINK THAT IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN, NOT TRAFFIC CONCERNS.

OKAY.

CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AND, UH, YES.

I MEAN, IN REVIEWING THE DA, UH, THE DESIGN MANUAL, UH, I DID NOT COME ACROSS THAT.

UM, I JUST NOTICED THE EYE OF THE DRIVE AS, UH, POINT OF VIEW.

UM, I, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.

UM, AGAIN, THERE IS GREAT VIS, STILL GREAT VISIBILITY ON EITHER SIDE TO SEE PEDESTRIANS COMING.

UM, WE, WE COULD ANALYZE, UH, WHAT THE ANGLE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF, IF THE EYE OF THE DRIVER WAS SET BACK FURTHER.

UH, I JUST DIDN'T PURSUE THAT AS IT SEEMED IT VERY CLEAR.

UM, DURING OUR BRIEFING, UM, MR. NAVARRA, A TRAFFIC ENGINEER SHARED THAT, UM, IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT IT'S OFTEN MORE OF A 35, UH, INSTEAD OF GOING 25, IT'S 35.

IS THAT, UM, FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WHY DID WHAT? 30 30? UM, AND YOU WERE GOING TO 25, WHY DID YOU NOT GO WITH THE MORE STANDARD 30? I DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A, A STANDARD EXCEPTION THAT IS CERTAIN SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT.

UM, WHY, UM, WHAT'S THE, UH, REASONING BEHIND AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE VERSUS, UM, THE CURRENT STANDARD OR EVEN A SIX FOOT? UH, SIMPLY, UM, UM, EXTRA PRIVACY.

UH, WE'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING A LUXURY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME HERE.

IT'S GONNA COST A LOT OF MONEY.

UH, THE LOT, THE LOT SIZE DOES NOT ALLOW MUCH, UH, IN THE WAY OF A YARD.

UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE CUTTING OFF A PORTION OF THAT.

UH, SO THE BEST DESIGN WE'VE COME UP WITH IS TO HAVE, UH,

[00:20:01]

THE LIMITED YARD AREA IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH FACES CARROLL AVENUE.

UM, SO ANY ADDITIONAL PRIVACY WE CAN GAIN THERE I THINK WOULD BE A HUGE BENEFIT TO SOMEONE SPENDING THAT KIND OF MONEY.

SO WITH 50% CAPACITY, HOW IS TWO OF THE, YOU KNOW, GOING UP EIGHT FEET GOING TO, YOU KNOW, ADD ANY MORE PRIVACY? UM, I, I GUESS JUST ALL THE PEOPLE , I DUNNO.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS, UM, CASE WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.

OKAY.

WE'LL, UM, YOU CAN STEP BACK AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION SPEAKER, MS. CHRISTINA CASAS, DO YOU, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? PLEASE ANSWER.

I DO.

I DO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN PROCEED.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINA CASAS.

I LIVE AT 44 19 RUSS AVENUE.

UM, I'VE LIVED THERE 55 YEARS AND YES, THAT IS MY AGE.

UM, EVERYTHING HE SAID WAS INCORRECT.

UM, RUS UM, CAROL AVENUE IS A VERY BUSY STREET.

WE HAVE A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AT THE NEXT STREET OVER, WHICH IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC FOR PEDESTRIANS.

AND WE HAVE NOW, SINCE THE GENTRIFICATION PROCESSES HAS BEEN PROCESSED AND ALL THESE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS COME IS VERY, VERY HIGH FOOT TRAFFIC.

RUS AVENUE IS A DEAD END STREET, BUT HE DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT THAT THE END OF THE RUS STREET IS A APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHICH THEY PUT THEIR ENTRANCE TO THEIR PARKING LOT ON RUS STREET INSTEAD OF DEER STREET, WHICH IS THE STREET OVER.

SO ALL THE TRAFFIC GOES ON RUST TO ENTER THEIR APARTMENTS.

I LIVED JUST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY THAT WILL IMPACT ME, WHICH THE ISSUES ALREADY I HAVE WAS A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE TWO NEW COMPLEXES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME.

DIDN'T TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY OF PARKING OR ANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENCE OR VISITORS OR ANYTHING.

SO THAT WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM US IF THAT HAPPENS.

THE VIEW, IF YOU HAVE ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET IS PARKING SIDE ONLY.

ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE IS NO PARKING.

SO IF YOU HAVE A CAR PARKED WHERE IT LEGALLY IS SUPPOSED TO PARK, THEN YOU HAVE TO SCOOT UP TO SEE VISIBLE TO COMING FROM CARROLL.

IF A FENCE IS THERE, THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN SEE EVERYBODY DOES NOT ABIDE BY THEIR NO PARKING SIGNS.

SO THEY ALWAYS PARK PAST THE PARKING, THE NO PARKING SIGN.

AND WITH A CAR THERE YOU CANNOT SEE.

YOU HAVE TO GENTLY MOVE UP AND EASE YOUR WAY WITH YOUR NOSE STICKING OUT OF THE STREET TO BE ABLE TO SEE VISIBILITY.

I HAVE A GRANDCHILD AND THAT IS MY CONCERN WITH CHILDREN IN A CAR.

AND THAT IS GOING TO BE A VERY, VERY, VERY HIGH HAZARD IF A FENCE IS BLOCKED.

BEFORE THAT HOUSE, THAT LOT HAD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WAS A TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH.

SO THE EASEMENT ON THE FRONT YARD WAS A VERY HUGE YARD AND IT HAD A, A VERY SMALL LITTLE BACKYARD.

SO A SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY HEMP HOME CAN BE PUT THERE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LUXURY LIKE THEY'RE ASKING NOW IF THEY WANTED A LUXURY APARTMENT OR BUILDING.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE PUTTING SOMETHING THAT ELABORATE THERE IN THE CORNER WHEN THEY HAVE DALLAS HOUSING A BLOCK OVER.

SO THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

I ALSO HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM A NEIGHBOR WHO COULD NOT ATTEND AND COULD NOT, UM, SUBMIT HER PROPOSAL ONLINE IF YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT SHE ASKED ME TO BRING IT BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SUBMIT IT ONLINE.

I TALKED TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS OF THIS, PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY ON MY STREET, WHICH IS RUS IS A SMALL STREET, CORRECT, DEAD END STREET, A COM APARTMENT COMPLEX.

AT THE END, EVERYONE WHOSE HOMEOWNERS THERE, BECAUSE NOW MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS LEASING BECAUSE EVERY LOT THAT WAS ON THE AREA WHERE SINGLE FAMILY, NOW IT'S MULTI-FAMILY.

ONE HOUSE NOW HAS FIVE OR FOUR TO THREE HOMES ON A LOT.

SO THE DENSITY NOBODY TOOK IN CONSIDERATION THE PARKING THAT IS OVER PACKED IN THIS AREA, AND THEY'RE STILL COMPUTING EVERY SINGLE LOT THAT A HOUSE GETS TORN DOWN.

IT'S NOT ONE HOME THAT'S BEEN PUT IN THERE, IT'S

[00:25:01]

THREE AND FOUR.

SO WITH THIS NEW IDEA THAT'S COMING HERE, IT'S STILL GONNA IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S GONNA TAKE AWAY FROM ME AND IT'S GONNA CAUSE A PROBLEM FOR ME BECAUSE THIS, MY DRIVEWAY THERE IS ALREADY AN ISSUE WITH ME WHEN SOMEBODY PARKS RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY DRIVEWAY.

SO PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN, DRIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SEE WHAT IT'S LIKE.

JOE CANNON, WHO IS ACTUALLY ON YOUR BOARD, LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

THANKS.

UM, WE, WE CAN ACCEPT YOUR LETTER IF YOU'LL GIVE THAT TO, IT'S JUST ONE.

YES, IT IS JUST ONE PAGE, RIGHT? YES.

YEP.

IS IT MR UM, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO, UM, REBUT THE, UM, OPPOSITION YOU HAVE, UM, YOUR TIME TO DO THAT? UH, I UNDERSTAND, UH, WITH THE STATEMENTS, UH, I DON'T THINK WE CAN, UH, PLAN FOR PEOPLE NOT FOLLOWING THE PARKING SIGNS.

UH, THE DRIVEWAY IS TAKING AWAY TECHNICALLY A PARKING SPOT.

UH, THE SITE IS ALSO ZONED MULTI-PANEL.

UH, SO IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO BACK TO THE, UH, DESIGN TABLE, THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS UTILIZED THAT .

UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, THE APPLICANT? NOPE.

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION WE'RE GONNA ADDRESS THESE ONE, I GUESS ONE AT A TIME.

YES.

? UH, I, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT NOW THERE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

I MOVE, UH, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 34 DASH ZERO SIX ON APPLICATION OF NICK BEATTY DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE 45 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF RUS AVENUE AND NORTH CARROLL AVENUE, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, I CAN, UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I'M, I'M, I'M MOVING TO DENY THE 45 FOOT, WHICH IS THE ONE AT THE INTERSECTION JUST BECAUSE HAVING DRIVEN TO THIS AREA, IT'S THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS.

IT IS A BIG AREA.

THERE'S, I MEAN, THERE'S WILL BE MORE PEDESTRIANS.

I I DON'T THINK I WILL BE WILLING TO SUPPORT ANY REDUCTION IN THIS 45 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IN THIS AREA JUST BECAUSE OF THAT POTENTIAL HAZARD.

UM, BUT ESPECIALLY NOT MOVING FROM 45 TO 20.

WELL, TO ADD TO WHAT, UH, YOU HAVE SAID, I THINK THAT THE, A FOOD DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE, UH, IBLE OBSCURING, UH, OKAY.

OH YEAH, YOU'RE GOOD.

YOU'RE GOOD.

SORRY.

YEP.

FESTIVAL OBSCURING THE VIEW OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TURN AND ALSO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RATHER TO TURN OFF THE ROAD.

AND I FEEL IT CREATES A PUBLIC HEALTH, UH, PUBLIC ANCE AND, UH, OPENS THE CT F POLITIC.

YEAH, AND YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH, UH, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID.

AND IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THIS IS A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON A BUSY STREET WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN.

UM, I CAN'T SUPPORT A REDUCTION TO 25.

UM, COMPROMISE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN ORDER, UH, BUT CERTAINLY NOT DOWN TO 25.

CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE? DR. GLOVER? AYE.

MR. SAHU? AYE.

MR. KOWSKI? AYE.

MS. CHAIR, AYE.

MOTION PASSES TO DENY FOR TWO ZERO AND WE HAVE TWO MORE PIECES OF THIS CASE, SO IF WE CAN GET A, ANOTHER MOTION I'LL CONTINUE TO WORK FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT.

SO I MOVE, UH, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 6 0 ON APPLICATION OF NICK BEATTY GRANT THE

[00:30:01]

REQUEST TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN A 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IN THE DRIVEWAY AS, UH, 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 A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT CONSTITUTE TRAFFIC HAZARD, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED FURTHER.

FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS AND IN REGARDS TO THE PORTION IN VIOLATION OF THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TRIANGLE ARE REQUIRED.

I'LL SECOND YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? SO I MADE THIS MOTION HERE BECAUSE, UM, I THINK FROM BOTH, UH, INPUT OF THE STAFF AND I THINK THAT JUST PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, IT'S, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S LESS LIKELIHOOD TO BE A PEDESTRIAN VERSUS VEHICULAR, UM, ISSUE AT A DRIVEWAY THAT'S USED FAR LESS OFTEN THAN THE INTERSECTION OF, UH, PUBLIC ROADS.

AND, AND I AGREED WITH THAT, THAT, UH, IT'S LESS TRAFFIC AND, UM, THE 20 FOOT SETBACK IS ENOUGH FOR CAR TO SEE REALLY WHAT'S WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE STREET IN, IN THIS CASE.

UH, SO FOR THAT REASON I CAN SUPPORT, UM, THIS EXCEPTION, UH, BEING THAT IT'S TIED TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CAN WE CALL FOR A VOTE? WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.

MR. SAUD? AYE.

MR. KOWSKI? AYE.

DR.

BLOGGER? AYE.

MS. VICE-CHAIR AYE.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ZERO.

I MAY HAVE ONE LAST MOTION ON THIS CASE.

I'LL MAKE THIS ONE AS WELL.

UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO SIX ON APPLICATION OF NICK BABY GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.

BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PROPERTY FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

I BELIEVE THE MOTION, THE LANGUAGE IN THE EARLIER MOTION CAVEATS THAT IF YOU COULD HAND ME THAT, LET ME DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T, I WOULD ADD THAT TO YOU TO, TO YOUR AND YEAH, I MEAN, YES.

AND SO I'M GONNA, I'M, I WILL AMEND THAT TO SAY COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHTENED FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED, UM, EXCEPT FOR THE PORTION OF FENCE SHOWN WITHIN THE 45 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? I SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I'M INCLINED TO VOTE NO ON THIS ONE.

UH, BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT, UH, I THINK IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FOR THAT EXCEPTION.

I AM, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU MR. SAUK, WHEN THEY SHOWED THE VIDEO, UM, AND WE DROVE, THERE JUST WERE NOT ANY FENCES THAT WERE OF THAT EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT.

AND I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT ADVERSELY AFFECTS HIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO I CANNOT SUPPORT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.

WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON THIS.

UM, MR. GLOVER.

SO WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION.

UM, AND THEN WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER MOTION IF WE WOULD LIKE TO, BECAUSE IF WE, IF WE VOTE ON IT OR IT JUST FAILS, OKAY, PERFECT.

BUT DOES IT FAIL WITHOUT REGI? IS IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR WITH

[00:35:01]

THAT WAS IF IT FAILS, IT'S WITH, OKAY.

OKAY.

THAT'S WHY WE IF, IF, IF YOU ARE IN SO INCLINED, IF WE VOTE AND IT AND WE LET IT SET, IT'S WITH PREJUDICE IT, WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO MAKE IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.

IF WE CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. SAIK.

NO, MR. KOWSKI? AYE.

MR. GLOVER? AYE.

MS. VICE CHAIR, NO MOTION FAILS.

TWO TO TWO.

DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER MOTION ON THE FLOOR? I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 6 0 ON APPLICATION OF NICK BEATTY DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD AT FIRSTLY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.

OKAY.

HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.

MR. SAUK? AYE.

MR. KOWSKI? AYE.

DR. GLOVER? AYE.

MS. VICE CHAIR? AYE.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ZERO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU'LL RECEIVE, UM, FINAL CONFIRMATION OF THIS IN THE MAIL.

UM, WE'RE NOW GONNA MOVE ON TO CASE BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 8, WHICH IS 72 17 BROOKSHIRE DRIVE.

THIS IS A, UM, JUST, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DENIAL.

SO THIS CASE WILL BE RUN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY THAN, UM, THAN THE OTHER, THAN THE OTHER CASES WE'VE HEARD SO FAR.

SO I'M GOING TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF, UM, WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

DO WE WANNA SWEAR REFERENCE THAT? OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

SO, UM, THE APPLICANT'S CASE WILL LAST FOR 20 MINUTES.

THE APPLICANT MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES AND THEY MAY OFFER EVIDENCE.

HOWEVER, IF THE ACA APPLICANT CALLS A WITNESS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINEE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES AND THIS WILL NOT ACCOUNT COUNT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL 20 MINUTE TIME LIMIT.

SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICANT MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THEIR WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.

IT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THAT TIME LIMIT.

THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS.

OH YEAH, GO GET JOE.

I'M READING THIS.

YEAH, THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES SET FORTH IN THE BOARD'S RULES AND PROCEDURES.

THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.

HOWEVER, WE WILL PROBABLY WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR 20 MINUTE, UM, PRESENTATION.

ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE DO ASK WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS THAT TIME LIMIT.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS CASE WILL LAST FOR 20 MINUTES.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, CALL WI CALL WITNESSES AND OFFER EVIDENCE.

HOWEVER, IF THE AO AO OFFICIAL CALLS A WITNESS, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.

IT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT.

SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY CONDUCT A REDIRECTING EXAMINATION OF THEIR WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES AND THAT WILL NOT ACCOUNT AGAINST TIME LIMIT.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAY SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD'S SECRETARY SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES SET FORTH IN THE BOARD'S RULES OF PROCEDURES.

THE BOARD MAY ASK QUESTIONS AGAIN WE'LL, UM, AT ANY TIME, BUT WE'LL PROBABLY WAIT UNTIL THE 20 MINUTE PRESENTATION IS OVER.

ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK.

AND THE PRESENTATION WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS YOUR TIME LIMIT.

THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND IT THE, UM, AND ADDITIONALLY THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT AS WELL.

A MOTION IS REQUIRED TO EITHER AFFIRM OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.

AND, UM, I BELIEVE THAT IS IT.

UM, CORRECT.

OKAY.

SO WE WILL HAVE, UM, THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND WE WILL, UM, BUT BEFORE WE BEGIN, WE'LL SWEAR IN ALL PERSONS WHO WILL BE TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE.

RIGHT.

SHOULD WE SWEAR? AND I'M GONNA ASK MR. SAP JUST, UM, SINCE THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CASE TO GO OVER THE, UM, STANDARD FOR, UM, EVERYBODY HERE AGAIN.

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR ANGELO.

SO THE STANDARD BEFORE US WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AIRED IN THEIR DUTY.

OKAY.

DO YOU ALL SWEAR

[00:40:01]

OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE COURT OF ADJUSTMENT? WE DO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.

UH, MY NAME IS PETER KOPI AT 7 2 1 7 BROOKSHIRE DRIVE.

I JENNIFER HIROTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY DALLAS 7 5 2 3 8.

IS IT ALL RIGHT IF I, IS IT ALL RIGHT IF I USE THIS MICROPHONE? I GUESS YOU CAN HEAR ME.

SO MY NAME IS MELISSA MILES.

I'M AT 1 7 3 0 4 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 300 DALLAS, TEXAS.

OKAY.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS, BUT YOU GET 20 MINUTES IN AGGREGATE FOR ALL THREE OF THE SPEAKERS.

THANK YOU.

YEAH.

AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I REALIZE YOU'RE NOT SPEAKERS, YOU'RE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPLICANT JUST TO THAT YES, THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO I INTRODUCED MYSELF, I'VE INTRODUCED MYSELF A COUPLE OF TIMES.

I I KNOW THAT WE'RE BACK HERE HAVING HELD THIS CASE OVER, UM, A COUPLE OF TIMES AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, THE BOARD'S PATIENCE WITH THAT.

WE WERE TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT THE BACKGROUND OF THIS, OF THIS CASE IS.

AND I'M GONNA START MY LITTLE TIMER HERE TO, TO TRACK MYSELF.

UM, SO I REPRESENT KIRSTY AND PETER COED PETER'S HERE TODAY.

UM, THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL.

UH, PETER AND KIRSTY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AFTER A TORNADO WENT THROUGH.

UH, IF WE ALL REMEMBER WHEN, UH, WHEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS REALLY TORN UP, UH, BY A TORNADO.

DOESN'T HAPPEN TOO OFTEN, BUT IT HAPPENED.

AND, UH, AND IT, AND IT MADE A TOTAL LOSS OUT OF, UH, OUT OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS FORMERLY OWNED, HIS PROPERTY.

UM, AND PETER CY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND THEN BUILT A NEW, THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT A HALF AN ACRE.

IT ADJOINS A SECOND PROPERTY THAT'S APPROXIMATELY SAME, THE SAME SIZE.

AND THESE TWO PROPERTIES FORM AN ENTIRE BLOCK.

THEY'RE LIKE A LITTLE ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE.

IN, IN, IN ONE PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

TWO JUST LARGE HALF ACRE LOTS.

PETER AND KIRSTY, I'M JUST GONNA REFER TO THEM AS THE COEDS.

THE COEDS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, UH, BOTH OF WHOM BOUGHT THE PROPERTIES AND THEIR AND THE ORIGINAL HOMES WERE, UH, HAD TO BE RAISED.

SO THE LOTS WERE SCRAPED.

BOTH OF THE, BOTH OF THESE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS WERE BUILDING ANEW.

AND THEY BOTH DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO FLIP THE ORIENTATION OF THEIR, OF THE HOMES AS, AS THEY PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.

THEY JUST FLIPPED THEM 180 DEGREES, WHICH WAS PERFECTLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO SO.

I KNOW WHEN THE, WHEN THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THEIR LAWYER GETS UP AND THEY'RE GONNA SPEAK ABOUT IT, YOU MAY SEE A PHOTOGRAPH, UM, WHERE YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S KIND A STRAIGHT STREET THAT'S BROOKSHIRE DRIVE, AND THEN IT GOES OFF ONTO A BIG SORT OF QUARTER ARC ACROSS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S BERKSHIRE CIRCLE.

SO THE HOMES ORIGINALLY FACED BERKSHIRE CIRCLE AND THEY FLIPPED THEM.

ACTUALLY, IT MAKES MORE SENSE.

THE, THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FACED BERKSHIRE DRIVE.

NOW AGAIN, THAT WAS PERFECTLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY, THEY LITERALLY DIDN'T NEED ANYONE'S PERMISSION.

NO DEED RESTRICTIONS SPOKE TO IT.

NO, IT, IT, IT WAS, UH, PERFECTLY WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCES.

PERFECTLY WITHIN THE CO-PRO PROVISIONS.

THEY APPLIED AND RECEIVED ALL OF THEIR BUILDING PERMITS.

UM, AND I, WHEN I SAY THEY, I AM SPEAKING ABOUT THE COEDS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS.

THEY DID THE SAME THING.

AND THEY BUILT BRAND NEW BEAUTIFUL HOMES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS.

AND IT'S, IF, IF ANYONE HAS EVER LIVED NEXT DOOR TO CONSTRUCTION LIKE I HAVE, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN I SAY IT IS DISRUPTIVE TO HAVE CONSTRUCTION NEXT TO YOU, NEAR YOU IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT CAN CAUSE HARD FEELINGS EVEN WHEN IT SHOULDN'T.

BECAUSE THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT'S LOUD AND IT'S DIRTY.

[00:45:01]

AND AT ONE POINT THE CITY, I THINK HAD TO MOVE SOME UTILITIES.

AND IN THE DIGGING, IN THE CITY'S DIGGING OF THE UTILITIES, THEY CUT ENOUGH ROOTS TO A, A TREE IN THE PARKWAY OF SOME IN THE PARKWAY IN FRONT OF A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.

AND THE TREE DIED.

AND NOBODY, NOBODY LIKES THAT.

BUT IT, IT WAS HURTFUL TO THE PERSON IN FRONT OF WHO, WHO'S HOME THIS NICE TREE HAD BEEN.

UM, PEOPLE WERE, THERE WERE, THERE WERE NEIGHBORS WHO WERE UPSET BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEHOW CONSULTED ON FLIPPING THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOMES FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.

EVEN THOUGH FRANKLY, THE COEDS PROBABLY NEVER SAW THAT HOUSE AS IT WAS ORIENTED IN THE OTHER WAY OR THEIR, OR THEIR NEIGHBORS.

UM, THERE WERE, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE UPSET THAT THE COVID DIDN'T COME AND ASK FOR PERMISSION, THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED TO FLIP THE HOUSE.

THE GOSSIP MILL CREATED RUMORS THAT THIS WAS ALL IN CONTRAVENTION OF CITY CODE, THAT THE COEDS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS WEREN'T ALLOWED TO FLIP THEIR HOUSE.

AND THIS CREATED MORE AND MORE CONTENTION.

WASN'T EVEN TRUE.

WASN'T TRUE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT IN FRONT OF YOU ON ANY OF THOSE ISSUES BECAUSE NONE OF THAT WAS TRUE.

THE COEDS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS DID WHAT THEY WERE TOLD THEY COULD DO.

THEY DID IT WELL, THEY DID IT NICELY.

I'D LIKE TO LIVE IN THEIR HOUSE.

I'D LOVE TO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'D REALLY LOVE TO LIVE IN THE COP'S HOUSE.

IT'S BEAUTIFUL.

I'D LOVE TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO IT.

I MIGHT NOT HAVE ENJOYED LIVING NEXT.

I MIGHT NOT HAVE LIVED, ENJOYED LIVING ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT WHILE IT WAS BEING BUILT.

'CAUSE THAT'S JUST A PAIN.

RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE WHEN AN ISSUE DID COME UP.

NOW, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT DID COME UP.

THE COVID HAS GOT THEIR HOUSE BUILT AND THEN THEY HAD THEIR ARCHITECTS AND THEIR ENGINEER, THEIR PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE BEEN HELPING THEM ACQUIRE THE CITY PERMITS THAT WERE NECESSARY TO BUILD THIS BE BEAUTIFUL NEW HOME.

AND THEY HAVE THEM SUBMIT PLANS TO THE CITY TO BUILD A, A BEAUTIFUL POOL IN THEIR WELL BY YOU AND I WOULD CALL IT OUR BACKYARD.

AND THEY SUBMITTED THOSE PLANS.

I MEAN, NICE POOL, THE KIND OF POOL THAT GOES WITH A MILLION PLUS DOLLAR HOUSE, RIGHT? A POOL THAT COSTS OVER $200,000 TO BUILD.

THEY SUBMITTED THOSE PLANS TO THE CITY AND THEY, AND THEIR ARCHETYPE, THEIR ARCHETYPES SUGGESTED THE PLACE TO PUT THE POOL.

IT WAS OFF.

THEY SAID, WE'LL BUILD A, A BEAUTIFUL, WE'LL PULL, BUILD A PATIO OFF WHAT LOOKS, WHAT WE'RE CALLING, WHAT IS NOW, WHAT WE NOW UNDERSTAND IS THE SIDE YARD PUT A NICE PATIO ON, WE CAN PUT THE POOL HERE.

NOW THEY HAD ROOM TO PUT IT ELSEWHERE.

THE ARCHITECT SAID THIS, THIS IS WHAT, WHAT WE RECOMMEND.

THIS IS JUST NICE AESTHETICALLY, AND IF THE ROOM AND COPAY IS LIKE THAT, THAT LOOKS GOOD.

AND SO THEY TURN THOSE PLANS IN FOR REVIEW TO THE CITY DOWN AT BILLING INSPECTION DOWN AT MONT.

AND, AND THEY PAID A REVIEW FEE.

I I JUST ALWAYS THINK THAT'S, THAT'S IRONIC.

IN THIS CASE, THEY PAID A FEE FOR THE CITY TO LOOK AT THOSE PLANS AND TELL THEM, TELL THE CO-EDS, IS THIS OKAY? AND THE CITY SAID, YES, THESE LOOK GOOD.

YOU CAN BUILD THE POOL THERE.

GO AHEAD, SPEND YOUR 200, $250,000, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT, FINISH OFF YOUR HOUSE.

AND SO THEY GOT THAT PERMIT AND THE CONTRACTOR HIRED THE PEOPLE TO BUILD THE BEAUTIFUL POOL WHERE THE ARCHITECT DREW IT AND SAID, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE AESTHETICALLY FOR IT.

AND THEY FINISHED IT.

BUT BEFORE THEY FINISHED IT, THEY CALLED THE CITY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES CITY KNOWS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES SOMEBODY FROM BUILDING INSPECTION CAME OUT AND SAID, DOES THIS LOOK OKAY? YES, THIS LOOKS OKAY.

HOW'S IT GOING? IS IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE? IS IT USING THE RIGHT MATERIALS? IS IT, IS THE AS BILL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SHOWED THE CITY DOWN IN OMO THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO? YES, IT IS GOOD TO GO.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES INSPECTORS BUILDING INSPECTION CAME OUT.

AND ONE OF THOSE DUTIES, YOU CAN, YOU CERTAINLY BE YOUR QUESTION IS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT BUILDING IT INTO THE WHATEVER, INTO THE THOROUGHFARE OR INTO THE CITY'S EASEMENT OR, OR SOMEPLACE IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

THEY HAVE THOSE PLANS, THEY SEE THEM, THEY HAVE TAPE MEASURES, THERE ARE NO FENCES.

[00:50:01]

IT'S EASY TO DO.

EVERY INSPECTION COMES OUT BY THE CITY AND SAYS RIGHT ON TRACK, GOOD TO GO UNTIL FINALLY IN AUGUST OF 2023, THEY COME OUT FOR THE FINAL, THE FINAL ON THE PERMIT.

NOW THEY'VE GOT THE POOL EQUIPMENT IN AND THEY'VE GOT THE, EVERYTHING'S DONE.

EVERYTHING'S DONE.

THIS IS THAT LAST FINAL STAMP OF APPROVAL THAT YES, EVERYTHING IS GOOD, IT'S TO CODE AND IT IS EXACTLY AS YOU TOLD US YOU WOULD BUILD IT.

AND THAT'S GOOD 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE APPROVED.

AND THEY FINAL THAT PERMIT AND THAT PERMIT CLOSED.

WELL, A FEW MONTHS LATER, THE, THE CODES WANTED TO BUILD, NOW THEY'VE GOT THIS BEAUTIFUL POOL RIGHT IN THEIR NEW HOUSE.

AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, WE'D LIKE A SIX FOOT FENCE SO THAT, YOU KNOW, NOBODY NEEDS TO SEE ME IN A BATH SUIT.

I I WOULD HAVE A, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A SIX FOOT FENCE.

BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, MOST PEOPLE WANT A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY WITH THEIR POOL.

AND SO THEY GO TO POOL PERMIT AND THEY'RE TOLD, OH, THAT'S A FRONT YARD.

THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT'S A, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE.

AND THE COS WERE LIKE, WHAT? YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE AROUND OUR SWIM, AROUND OUR, TO OUR ON FRONT SWIMMING POOL.

REALLY? THEY SAID, YES, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GET A VARIANT, GET AN ACCEPTANCE TO THE FENCE HEIGHT, GO GET PERMISSION TO BUILD A TALLER YOUR SIX FOOT FENCE.

AND THEY COME DOWN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A DIFFERENT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS A DIFFERENT PANEL.

AND THEY'RE JUST ASKING, THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A TALLER FENCE THAN FOUR FEET.

BUT FRANKLY, TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE A SAFETY ISSUE.

I WOULDN'T WANT A FOUR FOOT FENCE AROUND MY POOL.

I WOULDN'T WANT EVERY KID THAT CAN CLIMB OVER A FOUR FOOT FENCE IN MY POOL.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, NOT THIS PANEL HEARD FROM A BUNCH OF NEIGHBORS WHO WERE ALMOST SIMILAR IN THEIR EMOTION THAT YOU HEARD EARLIER AND SAID, WHAT YOU CAN'T DO, DON'T DO ANYTHING, DON'T DO ANYTHING.

THEY'RE JUST TERRIBLE PEOPLE.

THEY'RE TERRIBLE PEOPLE.

THEY KILL THE TREE.

AND THEY, AND THEY, AND THEY SWITCHED THEIR VIEW AND WE HATE THEM.

DIDN'T GET THEIR FENCE.

AND DURING THAT HEARING, SOMEONE SAID, I DON'T THINK THE POLE SHOULD BE THERE.

SOMEONE ON STAFF.

I DON'T THINK THE POOL'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

AND THAT SENT, THAT JUST SORT OF ERUPTED, THAT GAVE ALL THIS NEGATIVITY LIKE A PLATFORM.

AND THEY, AND THAT GOT TRACKED DOWN.

AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS, GOES BACK AND WITH AN EYE TOWARDS TRYING TO, I DON'T KNOW, STRONG ARM, SOMEHOW THE, THE CO-EDS STAFF WROTE A LETTER THAT MS. TIER MOTO BEHIND ME IS GONNA TALK ABOUT AS OUR WITNESS, FORMER CHIEF PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, WRITE A LE WROTE A LETTER AND SAID, OOPS, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ISSUED THAT FULL PERMIT.

OOPS.

WE'RE HERE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY THAT THAT POOL PERMIT WAS ABSOLUTELY VALID.

IT WAS ABSOLUTELY ISSUED CORRECTLY.

IT IS VALID.

IT WAS VALID UNTIL THE MOMENT IT WAS FINALED AND CLOSED.

AND WE'RE GONNA TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHY I CAN'T EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THERE'S BECOME SUCH THIS BUREAU ABOUT FI TRYING TO FIND SOME HOOK TO VILIFY SOME FOLKS WHO JUST DID WHAT ANY OF US WOULD WANNA DO.

AND I SUBMIT TO YOU THIS BOARD, IT IS THE LAST STOP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS.

YOU ARE HEARING A CASE TODAY, AND I SUBMIT IT WON'T BE THE LAST ONE YOU EVER HEAR WHERE THE CITY'S BUREAUCRACY HAS RUN A MONTH.

WE HAVE BOARDS LIKE THIS.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A STOP GAPP MEASURE, RIGHT? YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO AND YOU CAN'T GO DIRECTLY TO LIKE THIS COURT, BUT YOU'RE THE LAST STOP FOR LISTENING TO PROBLEMS THAT CITIZENS ARE HAVING SOMETIMES WITH THE CODE, SOMETIMES WITH THE BUREAUCRACY.

I BEG YOUR ATTENTION TODAY, LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO WHAT MS. PITO IS GOING TO TELL YOU BECAUSE SHE SETS OUT VERY CLEARLY WHY THE PERMIT FOR THE POOL WAS ABSOLUTELY VALID.

UM, AND WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, BECAUSE IRONICALLY, IF I CAN SAY THIS, IF I, THERE'S NO WAY OF GETTING OUTTA THE DOUBLE NEGATIVE.

THE CITY IS WRONG WHEN THE CITY SAYS IT WAS WRONG, WASN'T WRONG.

PLANNER WHO REVIEWED THOSE PLANS CORRECTLY ISSUED THE PERMIT.

I'D LIKE MR. OTTO TO TALK ABOUT WHY.

AND SO I'D LIKE TO CALL HER AS MY FIRST WITNESS.

[00:55:02]

YEAH, WHAT IS SHE, GO AHEAD.

NO, I SAID .

OKAY.

GO.

WE'LL, WE'LL GO ONE AT A TIME.

SO MS. HERTO, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE BOARD BY JUST TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE AND TELL ME YOUR HISTORY WITH THE, UH, CITY OF DALLAS, YOUR POSITION.

HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.

UM, I AM A ZONING CONSULTANT CURRENTLY, UM, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS.

PRIOR TO THAT I WAS A CITY STAFF PERSON FOR NINE YEARS, UM, IN BOTH CURRENT PLANNING AND A CHIEF PLANNER AND BUILDING INSPECTION.

SO, SO YOU WERE THE CHIEF PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS OVER THE ZONING SECTION? YES.

OVER ZONING.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST GONNA, WE'RE JUST GONNA TUCK IT HERE WITH, WITH THEM ON LEAVE IT ON, LEAVE THEM.

YEAH.

SO, SO TELL THE, TELL THE BOARD, UM, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE LETTER THAT THE CITY SENT INVAL THAT PURPORTED TO INVALIDATE THE POOL PERMIT ISSUED ON THE COPED PROPERTY? YES.

AND DID THE CITY GIVE, UM, TWO REASONS FOR WHY THEY FELT LIKE THE PERMIT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ISSUED? CORRECT.

OKAY.

TELL THE BOARD WHAT THE TWO REASONS WERE, JUST FIVE MINUTE WARNING.

UM, THE POOL WAS LOCATED IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE AND, UM, THAT IT CROSSED THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE.

OKAY.

SO THERE WAS A PLATTED BUILDING LINE AND THEN THEY SPOKE ABOUT, UM, IT BEING IN THE FRONT YARD, CORRECT? YES.

OKAY.

AND SINCE THAT TIME, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE CITY HAS FINALLY ADMITTED THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE REASONS IS, IS NO GOOD? CORRECT? YES.

THAT HAPPENED ON MAY 2ND THE DAY THE PLAN COMMISSION HEARING.

OKAY.

AND THE CITY FINALLY ADMITTED THAT IN FACT THIS IS NOT THE, THE POOL WAS NOT BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD.

TRUE.

CORRECT.

IT'S IN A SIDE YARD.

ALRIGHT.

AND DOES THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE, IN YOUR OPINION, PREVENT, SHOULD IT HAVE PREVENTED THE CITY FROM ISSUING THE POOL PERMIT TO BUILD THE POOL IN THE SIDE YARD? NO, THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE IS MERELY A SETBACK LINE.

UM, AND THE LETTER I PROVIDED TO THE BOARD, THERE'S CODE CITATIONS THAT SHOWS THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS ARE MIRROR OF EACH OTHER.

SO THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE MERELY ACTS AS THE SETBACK LINE, AND IN THIS CASE, BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE'S A SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE.

OKAY.

AND ISN'T THERE, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC CODE PROVISION, THE DALLAS CITY CODE THAT ALLOWS SWIMMING POOLS? IT'S A, IT'S A, THAT ALLOWS SWIMMING POOLS IN A SIDE YARD? YES.

IT'S IN 51, A 4.2 17 UNDER ACCESSORY USES.

IT'S CALLED SWIMMING POOL PRIVATES.

IT STATES THAT SWIMMING POOLS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD, BUT IT CLEARLY STATES THAT POOLS ARE ALLOWED IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD.

AND IS THAT PROVISION CONSIDERED A ZONING DISTRICT PROVISION OR IS THAT A USE PROVISION? IT'S A USE PROVISION THAT'S 4.2 HUNDRED.

SO THAT'S A USE PROVISION.

AND IS THERE INSTRUCTION, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU GENERALLY, IS THERE A CONVENTION IN THE INTERPRETATION OF, UH, BUILDING AND ZONING CODES THAT WOULD HAVE YOU, UH, THAT WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIC CONTROL OVER A GENERAL PROVISION? ABSOLUTELY.

WHEN THERE'S A CONFLICT AND THERE'S A GENERAL AND A SPECIFIC, UH, REGULATIONS, THE SPECIFIC REGULATION IS MORE APPLICABLE AND CONTROLS OVER THE GENERAL.

AND ISN'T THERE A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE IN A DALLAS CITY CODE THAT SAYS CODE THAT A USED PROVISION CONTROLS OVER A ZONING DISTRICT PROVISION? CORRECT.

THAT'S IN ARTICLE TWO IN THE INTERPRETATION SECTION.

AND THAT SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO HOW TO INTERPRET THE CODES, CORRECT? YES.

AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CITY STAFF TO VIEW THE USE OF, UH, THE USE PROVISION THAT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS SWIMMING POOLS IN SIDE YARDS OVER, OVER ANY OTHER DISTRICT ORDINANCE? TRUE? YES.

CORRECT.

AND, AND YOU, YOU, AND YOU HAVE BRIEFED THIS FOR THE BOARD, TRUE? UH, YES.

IN MY LETTER, UM, I ADDRESSED THIS, THAT, UM, THE SWIMMING POOL IS THE SPECIFIC REGULATION AND THAT THAT CONTROLS OVER THE SIDE YARD PROVISION THAT THE CITY IS LEANING ON IN REGARDS TO REDUCED SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

I'LL PASS A WITNESS.

DOES THAT, YEAH.

SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UH, CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS?

[01:00:02]

YEAH, I RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO IF YOU WOULD, YOU CAN, IF YOU'D LIKE, IF YOU HAVE ANY LEFT ON YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT AND YOU CAN FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION OR YOU CAN TURN IT OVER TO THE, UM, UH, APPEAL PEOPLE AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK AND CROSS, CROSS EXAMINE HER FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES.

SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE YOUR MINUTE AND A HALF OR DO YOU WANNA TURN IT OVER TO HIM NOW? UH, I'M, I CAN, I'M, I'M CROSSING THE WITNESS NOW.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

SURE.

UM, .

THANK YOU MR. ROY AND MS. HARIMOTO, WOULD IT BE EASIER IF YOU WERE SITTING AT THE TABLE IN FRONT OF YOU BOTH SITTING DOWN? I KNOW IT'S ONLY FIVE MINUTES, BUT I, THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

FINE.

I THINK IT WOULD HELP FACILITATE THE PROCEDURE.

SO, HI, SO YOUR, YOUR NAME IS, UM, YOUR LAST NAME IS HIROHITO, AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY? HIRO MOTO.

HIRO MOTO, YES, SIR.

I'M SORRY.

AND I HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR LETTER, SO I APOLOGIZE.

SO I'M GONNA CATCH UP WITH YOU, UM, ON, ON YOUR INTERPRETATIONS, BUT MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS RELATED TO 51 A FOUR.

OKAY.

AND THAT, SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT BROOKS SHIRE CIRCLE, WHICH USED TO BE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT IS A FRONT YARD OF THAT LOT, CORRECT? BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE BROOK BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE BROOKSHIRE.

SO THE DEFINITION OF A FRONT YARD SAYS IT'S THOSE YARDS WITH FRONTAGE.

SO IN THAT REGARD, BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE AND BROOKSHIRE DRIVE ARE BOTH FRONT YARDS.

OKAY.

THE CODE THAT YOU'RE CITING SAYS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TWO FRONTAGES OF UNEQUAL DISTANCE, THE SHORTER DISTANCE IS THE FRONT YARD AND THE LONGER DISTANCE AS GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

SO THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTS BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE, IS A FRONT YARD BEING REGULATED AS A SIDE YARD? YES, SIR.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOT, CORRECT? UH, YES.

IT HAS TWO STREET FRONTAGES, YES, SIR.

OKAY.

AND I, QUITE FRANKLY, I'M, I'M, I GOT LOST WHEN YOU WERE CITING CERTAIN ORDINANCES, BUT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, YOU'VE SEEN MY POWERPOINT SLIDES CORRECT? THAT I SENT OUT YESTERDAY? YES, SIR.

YOU HAVEN'T, OKAY.

SO LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT 51 A DASH 4.402 B THREE.

AND THIS, THIS IS A PROVISION THAT REGULATES ACCESSORY USES IN SIDE YARDS, CORRECT? YES.

OKAY.

SO A POOL IS AN ACCESSORY USE, CORRECT? YES.

AND THAT PROVISION IN SIDE YARDS ALLOWS POOL, CORRECT? YES.

AND THEN THERE'S A NOTE IN THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS IN 51 A DASH 4.402, CORRECT? YES.

SO THE WAY CITY STAFF INTERPRETS IT IS THE POOL IS IN A FRONT YARD THAT'S REGULATED AS A SIDE YARD, BUT BECAUSE IT'S THAT THOSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES

[01:05:01]

IN THAT SUBSECTION ARE NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THAT NOTE, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ELIMINATE THEIR SIDE YARD SETBACK.

OKAY.

AND THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INCLUDES GARAGES, SHEDS, UH, VARIOUS THINGS.

IT'S A, IT'S A GENERAL PROVISION.

YES, SIR.

OKAY.

THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

YOU MAY CROSS EXAM OR UH, RE REDIRECT FOR FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU.

SO MR. OTTO, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ROY WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE, ABOUT A PROVISION THAT RELATED TO ACCESSORY USES IN SIDE YARDS, CORRECT? YES.

DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? YES.

IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS? YES.

IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

AND DOES THAT SPEAK, DOES THAT ORDINANCE SPEAK TO, UH, SWIMMING POOL SPECIFICALLY AT ALL? NO.

OKAY.

AND ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT, THAT THAT PROVISION MR. ROY WAS SPEAKING FROM, IS DIRECTED AT THE SETBACK AND IS DIRECTED AT THE SETBACK? TRUE? YES.

OKAY.

THE ELIMINATION OF SETBACKS? YES.

THE, THE MINIMIZING AND ELIMINATION OF SETBACKS? YES.

YES.

BUT IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO SWIMMING POOLS? CORRECT.

AND IN, IN FACT, THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE CITY CODE THAT SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO SWIMMING POOLS AND SIDE YARDS.

TRUE? YES.

OKAY.

AND THAT IS A USE REGULATION, TRUE? YES.

BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED IN ACCESSORIES, USES 4.2 17.

AND SO ISN'T IT, I, IS IT TRUE THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION, AND WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN THE SAME WHEN YOU WERE THE CHIEF PLANNER, THIS INTERPRETATION THAT YOUR, THE GENERAL, UM, PROVISIONS ARE, SORRY, SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, CONTROL OVER GENERAL PROVISIONS? YES.

OKAY.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT AT THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES.

OKAY.

AND YOU HAVE, ISN'T IT TRUE YOU HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE? YES.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? A MASTER'S DEGREE IN PUBLIC POLICY.

AND THEN YOU WORKED IN, UH, BUILDING INSPECTION FOR NUMEROUS YEARS? TWO YEARS? YES.

AND DID YOU WORK FOR FORMER BUILDING, UH, OFFICIAL PHIL SYKES? YES.

AND DID PHIL SYKES TEACH YOU THIS CONVENTION OF INTERPRETING THE CODE? YES.

AND THE SPECIFIC, SO I WANT YOU TO READ ALOUD, SPOKE ABOUT IT.

IT'S ONE NINE.

IT'S READ THE, THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO INTERPRETATION.

TRUE? YES.

SPEAK, READ, READ WHAT YOU WERE, HOW YOU WERE ANSWERING MR. ROY.

READ THAT PROVISION THAT INSTRUCTS YOU TO PUT USE CODES AS THE PRIORITY.

UM, SECTION 51 A UH, DASH 2.01 INTERPRETATIONS, UNLESS THE CONTEXT CLEARLY INDICATES OTHERWISE, THE FOLLOWING RULES APPLY INTERPRETING THIS CHAPTER.

UH, THE LAST PARAGRAPH SIX SAYS IF THERE'S A CONFLICT, UH, PARAGRAPH B, THE USE REGULATIONS DIVISION 51, A DASH 4.2 HUNDRED, CONTROL OVER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A DASH 4.1 HUNDRED.

UH, GOOGLE SAYS THAT MEANS, AND THE REST, UH, IN THIS CHAPTER.

SO THE SETBACK REGULATIONS ARE PART OF THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS? YES.

AND 4.4 HUNDRED.

SO THE, THE DISTRICT, THE SETBACK REGULATION THAT MR. ROYCE SAYS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS RELYING ON IS A DISTRICT REGULATION, CORRECT? YES.

IT'S A ZONING DISTRICT REGULATION.

YES.

IT'S IN THE YARD LOT SPACE REGULATIONS.

YES.

AND THE CITY'S OWN CODE SAYS THAT THE USE REGULATIONS CONTROL OVER THE DISTRICT REG REGULATIONS.

DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YES.

I PASS WITNESS.

I, NO FURTHER QUESTION.

YEAH.

ALL.

SO, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

SO WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO, OH, I'M SORRY.

UH, MY QUESTION IS THIS AS A POOL ACCESSORY UNIT, YES OR NO? A SWIMMING POOL PRIVATE IS AN ACCESSORY USE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, WE'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO THE, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS CASE AND THEY WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES.

UM,

[01:10:01]

BUT TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, I HAVE A SHORT OPENING, UM, CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD.

I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO EVA TO INVALIDATE THE A APPLICANT'S POOL PERMIT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THE INVALIDATION GROUNDED IN THE ZONING RULES OF THE CITY.

INITIALLY, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANTS TODAY.

ALSO, THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF, OF AN APPEAL FROM AN APPLICANT SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION.

THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS CORRECT WHEN HE INVALIDATED THE PERMIT.

THIS IS ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN THEIR DUTY.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THE INVALIDATION ITSELF, UM, BECAUSE WE DID ISSUE A PERMIT AND THEN WE DID INVALIDATE IT.

THE DECISION TO INVALIDATE THE PERMIT IS IN, IS ADDRESSED IN CHAPTER 52.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CODES, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 3 0 2 0.4, THE SECTION TITLED VALIDITY OF PERMIT.

THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THIS SECTION STATES, AND I QUOTE, ANY PERMIT PRESUMING TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL ANY PROVISION OF THE CODES OR ANY OTHER CITY ORDINANCE SHALL BE, SHALL NOT BE VALID BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE POOL ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY VIOLATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 51 A.

SO THERE WAS A DETERMINATION.

UM, BACK IN NOVEMBER, WE ISSUED A LETTER THAT INVALIDATED THE PERMIT THAT WE HAD ISSUED.

IT WAS AN ALREADY BUILT POOL, AND THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY WE, WE INVALIDATED THE POOL.

FIRST THERE'S A 40 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE AND THE PORS, THERE'S A, AT LEAST HALF OF THE POOL OR APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE POOL IS WITHIN THAT 40 FOOT SETBACK LINE.

NEXT, THE APPLICANT'S LOT IS A CORNER LOT WITH TWO UNEQUAL STREET FRONTAGES AND BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE FRONTAGE IS REGULATED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, AS WAS JUST DISCUSSED.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 51 A DASH FOUR DASH 4.402 B THREE.

THERE'S AN EXCEPTION THAT TYPICALLY ALLOWS ACCESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LIKE THIS POOL IN SIDE YARDS.

BUT APPLICANT'S PROPERTY ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE IS A FRONT YARD THAT IS REGULATED AS A SIDE YARD.

SO THE EXCEPTION IN 51 A DASH 4.4 2D THREE DOES NOT APPLY.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THE PERMIT FOR THE POOL IS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK LINE AND BECAUSE OF 51 A DASH, BASICALLY THE SETBACK REGULATIONS.

AND FOR THESE REASONS, I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD TO SUPPORT BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION TO INVALIDATE THE POOL PERMIT.

AND I'M GONNA, AT THIS TIME CALL, UM, TANISHA LESTER.

TANISHA, I, I HAVE A POWERPOINT, BUT I THINK WE'LL, UM, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? MY NAME IS TAMISHA LESTER.

AND WHAT'S YOUR POSITION WITH THE CITY? I'M THE CHIEF PLANNER FOR ZONING, THE CITY OF DALLAS.

OKAY.

AND YOU HEARD A LITTLE BIT FROM, YOU HEARD SOME TESTIMONY FROM, UM, AN, AN EX PLANNER FOR DECISION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY, WELL FIRST EXPLAIN GETTING PERMIT THE POOL PERMIT WAS INVALIDATED BECAUSE UPON REVIEW OF A FENCE PERMIT, I REALIZED THAT THE POOL WAS IN, IN THE SETBACK, WAS IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK.

AND UPON FURTHER REVIEW, I REALIZED THAT IT WAS IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH ONE COULD BE GOVERNED BY A SIDE YARD REGULATION.

IF IT WAS THE LONGER FRONTAGE AND THE SHORTER BY THE FRONT YARD REGULATIONS, BUT THERE'S A 40 FOOT BUILDING LINE THERE.

IF THERE'S

[01:15:01]

A 40 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE THERE, IT HAS TO BE, THE BUILDING LINE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT, UH, POOL IN THE SETBACK.

OKAY.

AND SO IF IT'S GOVERNED BY A, UH, OKAY, I, LET ME START OVER.

IF THE SETBACK IS GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATION, THERE IS A NOTE IN FOUR POINT 404 0 2 B THAT STATES THAT THAT PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO A SIDE, A FRONT YARD BEING GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

THEREFORE, A POOL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO INTO THE SIDE YARD.

IN ACTUALITY, POOLS CAN GO INTO THE SETBACK SIDE AND REAR, BUT THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO SWIMMING POOLS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

AND EARLIER THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT NEEDS, THERE WAS ABUSE REGULATION THAT IS MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT GENERAL DISTRICT CLAIM.

WHY BOTH OF THESE REGULATIONS DIVIDE STEP OUT? YES, BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THE USE REGULATIONS FROM 4.2 17, WHICH, WHICH, UM, IS WHERE YOUR SWIMMING POOL USE COMES FROM IN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

AND UNDER THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, IT STATES THAT A, UM, PRI A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD, MAY NOT BE CONSTRUCTED IN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD, HOWEVER, IT MAY BE CON LOCATED WITHIN A SIDE OR REAR IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 51 A 4.22 17 A.

AND WHEN YOU GO BACK TO 51, A 4.2 17 A, THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF YOUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

AND IT, AND IT SPEAKS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAIN USE.

SO LET'S, UM, WHEN I GO BACK TO 4.2 17, TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.

SO FOR THE RECORD, EVERYBODY BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

IT SAYS, UM, 51 A 4 2 17.

A GENERAL PROVISIONS UNDER NUMBER THREE.

IT STATES THAT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE THERE, IT'S OKAY.

IT STATES THAT, UM, THE USES CONDUCT OUTSIDE, I'M SORRY, THE CODE CODE, UM, I DO APOLOGIZE.

OKAY.

I'M SORRY.

NUMBER ONE, AN ACCESSORY USE MUST BE A USE CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL TO A MAIN USE.

A USE LISTED IN 51, A 4.201 THROUGH 51 A 4.2 16 MAY BE AN ACCESSORY USE.

IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THIS USE IS CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL TO A MAIN USE AND OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS SECTION EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, AN ACCESSORY USE MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MAIN USE.

THEREFORE, SINCE A SWIMMING POOL IS ACCESSORY TO A SINGLE FAMILY, THAT IS YOUR MAIN USE.

AND UNDER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS WHERE IT GIVES YOU A SETBACKS WHERE, UM, AND, AND YOU HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE YARD LINE SPACE REGULATIONS, IT SPEAKS OF RESIDENTIAL USES.

SO THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR RE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE, UM, SWIMMING POOL BEING, UM, THE SWIMMING POOL MAY, MAY GO INTO A SIDE OR REAR YARD IF IT MEETS THE, UH, LESS THAN 15 FEET IN HEIGHT AND LESS THAN 30%.

BUT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CORNER LOTS BEING FRONT YARDS BEING, UH, GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, WHICH MEANS, UM, AND THIS AFFECTS CORNER LOTS.

SO THEREFORE THE, THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS THE SINGLE FAMILY.

THE USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH PER THE ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS.

AND SO IF YOU'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THOSE REGULATIONS, THEN THAT ACCESSORY USE CANNOT, WILL NOT BE, THAT POOL AS AN ACCESSORY USE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO INTO TO THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE IT IS AN ACCESSORY AND YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE MAIN USE, WHICH IS THE SINGLE FAMILY.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, NO MATTER WHAT FRONTAGE ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE IS SCHOOL AND FRONT.

IT'S ALL, IT'S A FRONT YARD BY DEFINITION, BUT PER 4 51, A 4.401 FRONT YARD REGULATIONS, MINIMUM FRONT YARDS, THERE'S A, A PROVISION FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

AND IT STATES THAT IT, THE SHORTER FRONTAGE CAN BE GOVERNED BY THE SIDE, BY THE FRONT YARD.

AND THE LONGER STREET FRONTAGE CAN BE GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

AND AGAIN, NOTE, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO COURT, TO FRONT YARDS BEING TREATED AS SIDE YARDS.

WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT CAN GO INTO THOSE YARDS UNDER YOUR SIDE YARD REGULATION.

SO YOU GET YOUR, YOU, YOU GET YOUR INITIAL

[01:20:01]

SIDE YARD FROM THE FRONT YARD REGULATION, THAT PROVISION, THAT'S HOW WE'RE ABLE TO GOVERN THOSE REGULATIONS UNDER A SIDE YARD.

IT'S STILL A FRONT YARD, BUT IT CAN BE GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS PER 51 84 0.401.

BUT WHEN YOU GO TO YOUR SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, IT STATES THAT THOSE RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO IN, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GO INTO THE REAR SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

IF THEY'RE LESS THAN 1559 AND IN THE REAR 30%, NO, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO CORNER LOTS BEING TREATED, FRONT YARDS BEING TREATED AS A, UH, GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATION.

SO A SWIMMING POOL IS AN ACCESSORY USE THAT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO INTO THAT FRONT YARD THAT'S BEING GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATION.

PASS THE WITNESS.

HI.

UM, I JUST WANTED YOU, YOU HAVE A FULL 20 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES LEFT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, MS. LESTER.

UM, AND, AND YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THAT UNDER HOW, I MEAN, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND USE THAT 10 MINUTES.

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE YOUR WITNESS AFTER SHE OR, UH, I'M NOT USING THE RIGHT LANGUAGE.

I HAVE TO REDIRECT.

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO REDIRECT FOR FIVE MINUTES.

YES.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

HI, MS. LESTER.

UM, MS. LESTER, WHAT DOES GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS MEAN? GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS MEANS THAT YOU CAN APPLY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS TO THE SECTION PER, PER 51 A 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 0 1.

FRONT YARD REGULATIONS CAN BE GOVERNED.

YOU CAN APPLY THOSE REGULATIONS BESIDE YARDS TO THAT FRONT YARD DIVISION.

SO IF IT'S A, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, IN THIS, THIS LOT THAT HAS FOUR SIDES BUT IS ON A CORNER, DOESN'T HAVE A HOUSE IN FRONT OF IT, HAS A STREET IN FRONT OF IT, RIGHT? YES.

DOESN'T HAVE A HOUSE BEHIND IT HAS A STREET BEHIND IT.

TRUE? CORRECT.

OKAY.

DOESN'T HAVE A HOUSE TO ONE SIDE OF IT HAS A STREET TO THE ONE SIDE OF IT.

TRUE, YES.

OKAY.

AND THEN ONLY HAS A NEIGHBOR TO ONE OF THE FOUR SIDES.

TRUE? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND SO UNDER THE CITY'S, AS YOU TRY TO LOOK AT THE CODE AND MAKE SENSE OF IT, YOU GUYS WIND UP CALLING EVERY SINGLE SPEC OF YARD IN THIS HALF ACRE LOT A FRONT YARD, RIGHT? NO.

OH, IS THERE A BACKYARD? NO, WE DON'T GO BY BACK OR FRONT YARD.

IS THERE A SIDE YARD? THERE IS A SIDE YARD.

OH, THERE IS AN ACTUAL SIDE YARD? YES.

IT'S NOT A, A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS? NO.

WHAT'S THE SIDE, WHAT'S THE SIDE YARD? THE INTERIOR LOT, THE INTERIOR BETWEEN THE TWO NEIGHBORS? BETWEEN THE TWO NEIGHBORS.

THAT'S YOUR SIDE YARD.

THAT'S ONE SIDE YARD.

A TRUE SIDE YARD.

THAT'S A TRUE SIDE YARD.

MM-HMM, .

AND THE, AND SO THE, THE LAND THAT'S BETWEEN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THE, AND THE STREET, THAT'S THE, WHAT YOU'RE CALLING A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE, DOES THAT MAKE IT A, A SIDE, EFFECTIVELY A SIDE YARD? IT MAKES, IT'S A FRONT YARD BEING GOVERNED BY THE REGULATIONS UNDER OUR SIDE YARD PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 51 8 4.

4 0 2.

OKAY.

BUT IT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHERE, I MEAN, YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS? NO, I KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT IT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET.

IT BUTTS THE STREET AND ALL OF THE PROPERTY ON THIS HALF ACRE LOT THAT'S BEHIND THE HOUSE, YOU CALL THAT A FRONT YARD TOO, CORRECT? YES.

OKAY.

THAT'S BEHIND HER.

THAT'S ON BROOKSHIRE DRIVE, BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE.

IT'S STILL A FRONT, IT'S A FRONT YARD.

YEAH.

SO THE CITY THINKS THAT'S A FRONT CALLS THAT A FRONT YARD TOO? YES.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE DEFINITION OF A FRONT YARD.

SO LET ME, YEAH, I UNDER, I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY.

YOU, YOU GO TO DEFINITIONS FOR THINGS THAT MAKE NO SENSE, BUT YOU GO TO THE DEFINITIONS FOR THEM, RIGHT? YES.

YES.

OKAY.

AND WHO IT WAS A PLANNER.

THE WHO APPROVED, WHO REVIEWED THE PLANS, CORRECT? FOR THE POOL? IT WAS A SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER, A SENIOR PLANS A SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER EXAMINED THE PLANS FOR THE POOL.

TRUE? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND THE SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER WHO EXAMINED THE POOLS FOR THE PLAN FOR THE EXAMINED THE PLANS FOR THE POOL APPROVED THE PERMIT.

TRUE? THAT'S CORRECT.

WERE YOU AWARE THAT I ASKED FOR THE PERSON

[01:25:01]

WHO REVIEWED THESE PLANS AND APPROVED THAT PERMIT TO BE AT THIS HEARING? DID YOU KNOW THAT? NO, MA'AM.

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID NOT PRODUCE AND HAS AT EVERY HEARING HAS FAILED AND REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE PERSON WHO APPROVED AND KNOWS WHY THEY APPROVED THAT PERMIT? WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? NO.

WAS NOT READY.

AND DO YOU AGREE THAT WITH MS. RITO, THAT THE CITY CODE PROVISION THAT SAYS SWIMMING POOLS ARE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED INSIDE YARDS, IS A USE PROVISION? SAY THAT AGAIN.

I'M SORRY.

DO YOU AGREE WITH MS. RITO THAT THE CODE PROVISION THAT SHE READ FROM THAT SAYS THAT SWIMMING POOLS, THE USE SWIMMING POOL IS A, IS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL SIDE YARDS, IS A USE PROVISION? I AGREE.

AND DID YOU HEAR MS. HI MOTO? DID YOU, DID YOU HEAR MS. HI MOTO READ FROM THE CITY CODE SECTION TITLED INTERPRETATIONS? DID YOU HEAR HER READ FROM THE CODE THAT INFORMS HOW THE COACH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE USE REGULATIONS, AND THIS IS 51 A 2.101, SUBSECTION SIX, SUBSECTION B, THE USE REGULATIONS CONTROL OVER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT PROVISION? I AM AWARE OF THE CAMERA VISION IS OUR PAST WITNESS.

YOU, YOU'RE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK FOR THE BILL INDIVIDUAL, CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND UM, THE DECISION TO INVALIDATE THE POOL PERMIT IS BASED OFF OF TWO THINGS.

FIRST, THERE'S A PLATTED 40 FOOT BUILDING LINE, CORRECT? THAT, THAT THE FRONT EDGE ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE IS SUB TO CORRECT.

AND THE POOL, A PORTION OF THE POOL IS IN THAT 40 FOOT SET DOWN? IT IS IN.

OKAY.

AND THE LOT IS A CORNER LOT.

CORRECT.

AND THAT IS, THAT MEANS THAT THE PORTION ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE, BECAUSE IT IS THE LONGER PORTION, UM, IS REGULATED AS A SIDE LETTER MAYBE IS REGULATED AS A SIDE.

OKAY.

AND THE PROVISION THAT WE ARE RELYING ON TO INVALIDATE THE PERMIT THAT'S IS REGULATES ACCESSORY USES AND THE POOLS AND ACCESSORY USE THE PASS THE, I I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I HEARD MR. ROY SAY THAT THERE WERE TWO REASONS THAT THE CITY DECIDED THAT THEY COULD INVALIDATE THIS, THIS PERMIT, BUT THERE IT REALLY ONLY TURNS OUT TO BE ONE, CORRECT? MM-HMM, .

SO I HEARD MR. ROY ASK YOU, YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE THERE WERE TWO REASONS THE CITY DECIDED IT COULD INVALIDATE THIS PERMIT.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

IS IT, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, ARE THERE TWO REASONS OR JUST ONE'S TWO REASONS.

OKAY.

WELL, SO LET ME JUST RE REMIND YOU THAT THE LETTER THE CITY SENT OUT, SENT OUT IN VALIDATING THE PERMIT SAID YOU CAN'T HAVE A POOL WHERE WE SAID YOU COULD HAVE A POOL AND WHERE YOU BUILT A POOL AND WHERE IT'S BEEN FOR A YEAR BECAUSE IT'S A FRONT YARD.

TRUE.

'CAUSE IT'S A FRONT YARD.

YES.

AND AS IT TURNS OUT, THE POOL WASN'T, THE POOL WAS BUILT IN.

AND THE LETTER DOESN'T MAKE THIS DISTINCTION.

THE POOL WAS BUILT IN A, WHAT YOU CALL A FRONT YARD REGULATED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

TRUE? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND IT WAS ONLY THE FIRST TIME WHEN THE CITY FINALLY ADMITTED THAT THE SIDE YARD BEING A QUOTE FRONT YARD, IN FACT WASN'T A REASON TO INVALIDATE THE PERMIT.

THEY DID THAT RIGHT BEFORE THE CPC HEARING.

TRUE? I, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT IT.

WELL, YOU CAN'T BUILD A SWIMMING POOL IN A FRONT YARD, RIGHT? CORRECT THE CODE.

BUT LET ME JUST, LET ME ASK YOU THE NEXT QUESTION, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND THE CODE STATES THAT YOU CANNOT, POOL CANNOT BE DIRECTED IN A FRONT YARD.

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT

[01:30:01]

WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE, WHAT THE CITY GAVE IN ITS LETTER REVOKING THE OR CANCELING VOIDING INVALIDATING THE PERMIT.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE CITY'S REASONS.

TRUE.

IT SAID, TURNS OUT YOU'RE IN A FRONT YARD, YOU CAN'T BUILD A POOL IN THE FRONT YARD.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE INVAL THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE INVALIDATING.

TRUE.

AND IT TURNS OUT TODAY THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

TRUE.

STILL A FRONT YARD BEING GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

SO IT IS A FRONT YARD AND BEING GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS MEANS YOU COULD BE ABLE A POOL THERE, RIGHT? RIGHT.

NO, BECAUSE THERE'S A, A PROVISION THAT SAYS THIS DOES NOT, BUT THAT PROVISION IS ABOUT A SETBACK.

WHERE AM I TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK? NO, IT'S ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

IT'S ABOUT THE SETBACK.

IT'S ABOUT MINIMIZING THE SETBACK.

NO, NO, NO.

LET'S GO BACK TO THE, IT'S ABOUT REDUCING THE SETBACK.

TRUE? NO, THERE, THERE'S THE PROVISION.

THE SETBACK EXPECT THAT STRUCTURES ACCESSORY TO A RESIDENCE YOU USE MADE YOU DO THE SIDE OF YOUR YARD.

YARD.

BUT THIS DOES NOT APPLY FOR CORN PLOTS BEING GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

FRONT YARDS BEING GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

A PERSON MAY REC AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, A PERSON NOT, UH, NEED NOT PROVIDED SIDE YARD SET THAT FOR A STRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, INCLUDING A GENERATOR.

BUT THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT EXCEED IT, INCLUDING HEIGHT AND IS LOCATED IN THE REAR 30% OF THE LOT NOTES.

THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATION IN SECTION 51 A, WHERE NOT GOING TO, SUCH AS A FRONT YARD TREATED AT A SIDE YARD ON THE CORNER LOT.

AND IT, EVEN IF IT WAS TREATED AS A SIDE, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO RISK STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE.

BUT THIS PROVISION SPEAKS TO THE SETBACK.

A PERSON NEED NOT PROVIDE A SIDE YARD SETBACK.

THAT'S WHAT THAT PROVISION SPEAKS TO.

IT'S THE SETBACK, NOT THE POOL SPECIFICALLY.

AND IT NEVER SPEAKS TO POOLS, DOES IT? NEVER USES THE WORD SWIMMING POOL DOES IT? AND THIS NUMBER THREE.

OKAY.

WE HAVE REACHED TIME AND WE HAVE A TIME FOR A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT BY THE APPLICANT AND A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.

THANK YOU.

SO BOARD CLEAR AS MUD.

SO I DON'T THINK, UM, I DON'T THINK IT TAKES MUCH.

UH, I I I WON'T SPEND ANY TIME TELLING YOU HOW CONFUSING, UH, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, FOR US TO EVEN TRY TO SPEAK TO THE CITY ABOUT IT.

UH, CHANGE OF POSITIONS.

UH, ONE PERSON SAYS ONE THING, SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS ANOTHER.

UH, YOU'VE LISTENED TO, UH, A VERY, UH, ESTEEMED FORMER, NOT A PLANNER, MR. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ROY CALLED HER A CITY PLANNER.

SHE WAS NOT A CITY PLANNER.

SHE WAS THE CITY'S CHIEF ZONING PLANNER.

THE SAME PERSON THAT THE CITY BROUGHT AS THEIR OWN EXPERT WITNESS, HER ONE OF MS. LESTER'S PREDECESSORS, ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES WHO TOLD YOU HOW SHE WOULD HAVE VIEWED IT, TOLD YOU HOW THE CITY GETS TO YES.

AND GOT TO YES.

AND I SAY TO YOU AGAIN, THIS BOARD IS THE LAST STOP FOR PROBLEMS AND FOR OCCASIONALLY A BUREAUCRACY RUN AMOK.

THIS POLL WAS BUILT, IT WAS FINALED, IT WAS APPROVED, IT WAS INSPECTED, IT WAS FILLED, IT WAS USED FOR A YEAR.

AND THE COEDS SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON IT.

SO I SUBMIT TO YOU, WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO? WHAT SHOULD THEY DO? BECAUSE IF THIS INVALIDATION ISN'T INCORRECT, JUST ASK YOU, ASK YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, SOMEBODY WILL.

WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO? WHAT WOULD YOU WANT THE TELL? WHAT WOULD YOU WANT THE CITY TO TELL YOU YOU WOULD NEED TO DO AFTER YOU SPENT $200,000 ON YOUR HOME?

[01:35:02]

THIS IS THE LAST STOP FOR A RATIONAL MIND TO PREVAIL.

THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY.

AND IT IS LITERALLY, I THINK, PART OF THIS BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY, NOPE, WE NEED TO FIX THIS.

AND THERE'S A WAY MR. EMOTO HAS TOLD YOU THE WAY THE CITY DIDN'T EVER BRING.

AND I'VE ASKED REPEATEDLY IN WRITING, BRING THE SENIOR, NOT NEW, NOT JUNIOR, NOT AN ASSISTANT, NOT SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

BRING THE SENIOR PLANNER WHO APPROVED THIS PERMIT AND LET THEM EXPLAIN WHY THEY THOUGHT IT WAS CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S YOUR THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

I'M, I'M HERE TO ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO INVALIDATE THE POOL PERMIT.

IT.

THE REASON IS, IS REALLY SIMPLE.

THE, THE COVID IDS HAVE A CORNER LOT AND THE PORTION ALONG BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE IS REGULATED AS A SIDE YARD, BUT IT'S STILL A FRONT YARD.

AND ACCESSORY USES PURSUANT TO THE CODE PROVISION FOUR POINT 51 A DASH 4.402, UM, SUB SEC, UM, B THREE.

THAT SECTION DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO PUT AN ACCESSORY USE IN A FRONT YARD BEING REGULATED AS A SIDE YARD.

AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

SO I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION.

THANKS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS, UH, MR. CANNON? OH YES.

ALRIGHT.

UM, LET'S SEE.

I BELIEVE SO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING IS GONNA BE TOWARDS, UH, OUR BUILDING OFFICIALS, CITY OF DALLAS HERE.

SO I'M JUST KIND OF HEARING BOTH SIDES.

CAN YOU, AND ALSO JUST ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, NOT ONLY AS A BOARD MEMBER, BUT A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AS WELL.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM WHEN THE COAL, UM, THE APPLICANTS, EXCUSE ME, THE APPLICANTS, UH, SUBMITTED THESE PLANS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS FURTHER.

CAN YOU JUST WALK ME THROUGH, 'CAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING TO GATHER HERE IS HOW DID WE GO FROM THE APPROVE WAS ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, WHAT IS THE REVIEW PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO, TO INITIALLY, UM, START, YOU KNOW, APPROVE A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN WHEN A PERMIT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL THE, UM, CUSTOMER SERVICE PLANS.

EXAMINERS THAT TAKE ALL THE PLANS.

ONCE THAT PLAN IS SUBMITTED, THAT PLANS EXAMINER WILL EITHER, IF THEY, IF IT'S REVIEWED OVER THE COUNTER, WHICH SWIMMING POOLS THEY NORMALLY DO.

IT DEPENDS ON IF IT'S IN A PD OR IF IT'S, UM, IN A, UM, IT'S BASED ZONING DISTRICT.

THAT PERSON IS, IS NORMALLY SUPPOSED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THAT DISTRICT.

AND IF THEY'RE GONNA SIGN OFF ON THAT PLAN, THEY WOULD KNOW THE ZONING BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING CODE PLANS.

EXAMINERS, THEY'RE NOT ZONING PLANS EXAMINERS WHEN, WHEN THEY DO THE INTAKE, BUT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH, WITH THE, UM, DISTRICT REGULATION.

SO IF THEY DID NOT LOOK AT THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO SEE THAT THERE, THE, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OR IF THERE WAS A FRONT YARD BEING TREATED AS A SIDE YARD, HE APPROVED THAT SWIMMING POOL AND ERROR.

IT WOULD GO TO, IF NOT, IT WOULD GO TO ZONING REVIEW THE ZONING PLANS.

EXAMINERS KNOW THE 51 A, THEY ARE, THAT IS THEIR ONLY JOB TO DO ZONING, BUILDING CODE.

THEY REVIEW IBC, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT, UH, ZONING OR 51 A IN THAT CODE.

SO IF HE LOOKED AT IT AND APPROVED IT WITHOUT KNOWING THE ZONING, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT DISTRICT AND ABOUT SWIMMING POOLS AND USE REGULATIONS, THEN THERE WAS POSS THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT HE COULD HAVE REVIEWED, REVIEWED IT, AND APPROVED IT IN ERROR.

AND TO ME THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HE DID.

THAT'S WHAT WAS DONE.

SO YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ONE AVENUE, WHICH WAS THE OVER OVER THE DESK, UH, REVIEW.

IS THERE, UM, EXPLAIN, IS THERE ANOTHER, UH, ROUTE THAT ONE COULD GET THEIR DRAWINGS REVIEWED BY THE CITY? IT THERE, SO THEY MAY GO THROUGH, UM, PLAN REVIEW, WHICH IS, IF IT'S, UM, A MINOR, UM, A MAJOR JOB OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER OTHER REVIEWS AND OTHER TRADES, THEN IT WOULD GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THAT WOULD BE A, UM, A 15 DAY OR, YOU KNOW, A 20 DAY PROCESS.

IT JUST DEPENDS BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO THROUGH OTHER, OTHER TRADES.

SO THAT'S WHEN WE WERE PAPER.

AND SO THIS PLAN WAS OBVIOUSLY PAPER SO THAT THAT PROCESS TAKES LONGER.

NOW THAT WE'RE ELECTRONIC, IT DOESN'T TAKE AS LONG.

BUT YES, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE TRADES

[01:40:01]

ONE BY ONE.

OKAY.

SO THE NEXT QUESTION, SO OUT OF THOSE TWO WHICH THIS APPLICATION THAT WE'RE REVIEWING HERE TODAY, WHICH ROUTE DID THAT GO? IT WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE CUSTOMER SERVICE PLANS EXAM AND BUILDING CODE PLANS EXAM.

OKAY.

SO WITH WHAT YOU SHARED ABOUT THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE A SILO OF ONE, WHICH IS IBC INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE, WELL NOT THE OTHER ONE, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER DEPARTMENT THAT'S STRICTLY LOOKING AT ZONING THAT THIS, THIS APPLICATION, ONCE IT WAS APPROVED, THIS, THIS IS WHY THERE WAS THIS LONG, UM, I GUESS FROM THE INITIAL, UM, APPROVAL TO WHEN IT WAS THEN INVALIDATED.

'CAUSE THERE WAS NO, NO REVIEW BY THE CITY WHATSOEVER TO SEE, OH, THIS MIGHT HAVE A CONFLICT WITH THE WAY THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED, THE ZONING WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE POOL WAS BEING UN PROPOSED.

CORRECT.

UM, THAT IS, CAN I ASK THE QUESTION FOR THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL? OKAY.

SO THAT'S MY END OF QUESTIONING FOR, UM, THE CITY NOW FOR THE APPLICANT.

HAVE, UM, JUST STARTING OFF HERE, I'M LOOKING AT, FIRST OF ALL, I'M REFERENCING, UH, IN OUR DOC DOCKET PAGE 98.

SO THIS IS SHOWING WHAT, UM, THIS IS THE EXHIBIT THAT AT LEAST WE HAVE OF WHAT THE PROPERTY IS, WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE.

AND I'M LOOKING HERE AT THE, WHAT IS THE POOL IN A LIGHTLY SHADED RECTANGLE HERE.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THERE WERE VARIANCES THAT, UM, ALLOW THIS POOL TO, CAN YOU, SORRY, I GUESS, UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO, I GUESS THIS PROCESS OF, NOT REHASH THE CASE HERE, BUT WHAT, I GUESS MORE CLARIFICATION, THIS IS FOR THE GUESS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WITNESS ABOUT THE, UM, GOING BACK TO THE SETBACK REGULATIONS BEING THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND THE USE REGULATIONS, JUST KIND OF CLARIFY.

IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A FEW LAYERS THERE THAT WE'RE HAVING TO WORK THROUGH.

UM, I BELIEVE THE EXHIBIT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WAS PROVIDED BY, UM, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE COLORED THAT EXHIBIT UP, THE RED AND YELLOW ONE.

BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, UM, YOUR QUESTION WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE USE AND THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND KIND OF HOW WE, WE GOT HERE.

UM, THE, SO THE, TRYING TO THINK HOW TO ANSWER THIS.

UM, THE, UM, THE, THE SWIMMING POOL IS A SPECIFIC ACCESSORY USE, RIGHT IN 4.2 17 LISTS, SEVERAL DIFFERENT ACCESSORY USES SUCH AS, UM, UM, UH, PEDESTRIAN SKYBRIDGE I THINK IS THE LAST ONE.

UM, SO THERE'S THESE, THESE ONE-OFFS SORT OF ACCESSORY USES THAT MAY HAVE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS THAT MAKE THEM OKAY IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS, THEY MAY NOT BE ALLOWED IN OTHER DISTRICTS.

AND, UM, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ACCESSORY USE SECTION.

UM, SO THE SWIMMING POOL PRIVATE SAYS THAT IT IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD.

I THINK YOU'VE SEEN VARIOUS CASES WHERE, UM, THERE'S A CORNER LOT WITH TWO FRONT YARDS AND THEY'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE OR YOU KNOW, THIS OR THAT.

UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

UM, MOST OF THOSE CASES ARE FROM A CONTINUITY REQUIREMENTS, NOT THIS GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS SITUATION THAT THESE PARTICULAR LOTS HAVE.

UM, THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS CONTAIN.

SO THE R 16 DISTRICT, IT ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, IT HAS A LIST OF PERMITTED USES.

IT HAS YOUR YARD LOT SPACE REGULATIONS, WHICH IS YOUR BULK STANDARDS.

RIGHT.

UM, AND THEN THERE'S UM, SOME ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, UH, TYPICALLY, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE YARD BLOCK SPACE PROVISIONS, THERE'S MORE DETAIL IN 4.4 HUNDRED.

UM, THAT IS THE SECTION THAT THE CITY'S RELYING ON THAT SAYS THAT THIS ACCESSORY USES IN GENERAL CAN HAVE A REDUCED SETBACK UNLESS YOU'RE THIS FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, YOU DON'T GET THIS BENEFIT.

SO THOSE ARE KIND OF HOW I SEE THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS, UM, BEING CATEGORIZED THAT YOU'VE GOT YOUR USE, UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR SINGLE FAMILY, YOUR ACCESSORY USES, AND THEN YOUR DISTRICT REGULATIONS CONTAIN, USES THE BASE AND ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, IT DOES.

OH, AND THEN THE, THE CONFLICT IS WHAT I HAD TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE INTERPRETATIONS SECTION IN ARTICLE TWO THAT SAYS THAT WHEN THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE USE AND THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS USE REGULATIONS CONTROL.

GOT IT.

[01:45:01]

UM, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

UH, MY QUESTION IS THIS, WHAT'S THE, AS A POOL BIGGER THAN 10% OF THE MAIN, IS THE POOL SIZE BIGGER THAN 10? MORE THAN 10% OF THE MAIN VIEWS? SAY THAT AGAIN? 10%.

YOU'RE SURE? 10%.

OKAY.

LEFT, LEFT.

DO YOU HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER? LESS, LESS THAN FIVE.

DO YOU HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER? IF, IF I CAN ADD, UM, IN THE SWINGING POOL PROVISIONS IN TWO 4.2 17, THE LAST ONE SAYS THAT THE AREA RESTRICTIONS IN SUBSECTION A THREE DO NOT APPLY TO THIS USE.

SO TYPICALLY IF YOU'VE GOT, UM, UM, MULTIPLE USES WITHIN A BUILDING, LIKE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS OF, TYPICALLY IT'S 5% MORE THAN 5%, THEN THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE MAIN USES, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH OF THOSE MAIN USES.

BUT FOR A SWIMMING POOL, IT SAYS THAT THOSE AREA RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY.

DOES THAT HELP YOU? I DON'T THINK THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT 51 84 2 1 7 3, YOU CAN REFERENCE AND IT SAYS THAT, UM, IT MAY NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 5% OF THE AREA OF THE LOT CONTAINING THE MAIN VIEW ELSE IT BECOMES, IT TRIBUTES OR BREACHES THE USE.

WHAT, YEAH, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT'S NOT THE POSITION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GENERAL USE.

OH, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL.

YEAH, I HAVE A, I HAVE A COURT OR YES.

RIGHT.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ABOUT THE, UM, PERMIT BEING INVALIDATED.

UM, WHAT, UH, AND, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT KNOWING THIS.

IS THERE A LIMIT TO WHEN A PER, HOW, HOW LONG THE CITY HAS TO INVALIDATE A PERMIT IF YOU COME BACK IN SEVEN, FIVE YEARS AND INVALIDATE A PERMIT IF YOU FOUND THAT IT WAS INCORRECTLY ISSUED OR, OR NOT? I CAN'T ATTEST TO THAT.

DID THE CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST TO THAT? I MEAN, IS THERE A, THAT FORBID THAT HE DOES NOT? I CAN LOOK AT THE PROVISION, BUT I, IT THE, I DON'T THINK THE PROCEED FEE SO THAT IT IS NOT DEFINED, THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE CITY HAS TO DETERMINE THAT A, A PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN INCORRECTLY AND THEN GO BACK AND RESCIND THAT PERMIT.

RIGHT.

I MEAN, BUT IF SOMETHING'S INVAL.

OKAY.

UM, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO IF THE, I'M, I'M STILL, I'M ALSO TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE USE VERSUS DISTRICT, THE USE TRUMPING THE DISTRICT, IF THE USE, UM, TRUMPS THE DISTRICT, ARE YOU SAYING THEN THAT THAT NOTE, THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY CYBER REGULATION WOULD NEVER BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE I CAN'T, I'M TRYING TO THINK AND SURE.

AND OF A, OF A TIME WHEN THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE THAT IT DIDN'T, UH, WASN'T SEPARATE OR IT WASN'T, UH, IN CONFLICT WITH, YOU KNOW, UH, RIGHT.

SO, UM, THIS SECTION YOU TO REDUCE, TO REDUCE YOUR SIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BENEFIT, UM, YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE REAR 30% OF THE LOT AND UNDER 15 FEET IN HEIGHTS.

SO, UM, FOR IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD A GARAGE, IF YOU'RE IN THIS FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD SITUATION, YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THAT.

HOWEVER, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A FENCE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FENCE REGULATIONS, IT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT A FENCE IN A SIDE YARD, A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS CAN BE ALLOWED UP TO NINE FEET.

AND THAT'S BEEN THE WAY THAT I'VE ALWAYS KIND OF INTERPRETED, INTERPRETED THE GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT IT'S A SIDE YARD EXCEPT WHEN THERE'S AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT OTHERWISE, OR AN EXPLICIT,

[01:50:01]

EXPLICIT BENEFITS IN THE CASE OF FENCES.

ARE YOU SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? NOT .

SO, AND, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTO THE GENERAL VERSUS SPECIFIC.

SO IF THEY WERE ASKING FOR A GARAGE, THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE ABLE, THEY WOULDN'T BENEFIT FROM THE REDUCED SIDE YARD.

BUT BECAUSE SWIMMING POOL IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT CONTROLS OVER THIS OTHER GENERAL PROVISION JUST LIKE FENCES.

OKAY.

THANK UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UM, I'M JUST GONNA WRAP THIS, THIS SHOULD BE MY LAST QUESTION.

SO THIS FOR THE CITY, UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE ANCHOR.

WHAT WE WERE TOLD AT THE BEGINNING THAT OUR STANDARD FOR OUR RULINGS TODAY IS BASICALLY IF, UM, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE, UH, AIRED IN THEIR DUTIES.

SO QUESTION IS, WELL, I GUESS THIS IS TWO QUESTIONS.

SO IF THE, UH, APPLICANT HAD TO MADE AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION FOR THEIR FENCE HEIGHT VARIATION, WOULD THE CITY HAVE REVOKED OR INVALIDATED THE PERMIT FOR THE POOL? YES, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS COMPLAINING AND THEY CALLED IN A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE SWIMMING POOL BEING IN THE FRONT YARD AS WELL.

OKAY.

SO, BUT WAS IT, WAS IT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMP, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT TRIGGERED GOING ON RECORD THAT THE CITY SAID WERE INVALIDATE? WAS IT THE NEIGHBOR'S COMPLAINTS OR WAS IT THEIR CASE BEFORE? UM, FOR THE FENCE VARIANT, IT WAS THE NEIGHBOR'S COMPLAINT BECAUSE WHEN I SAW IT, WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR THE FENCE, THAT'S WHEN I REALIZED THE POOL HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD.

I SPOKE TO, UM, I THINK ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IT, BUT NOTHING WAS DONE AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, IN THE MEANTIME.

RIGHT AT THAT TIME, AT THAT MOMENT THAT I'M AWARE OF BECAUSE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL POOL, BUT THE NEIGHBORS WERE COMPLAINING, I THINK THIS WAS ALL AROUND THE SAME TIME.

AND THAT'S HOW IT TRIGGERED, UH, US TO LOOK INTO IT AND, AND FILE, THEY FILED A COMPLAINT AND THAT'S WHEN WE HAD TO GO BACK AND REALIZE THAT'S WHEN WE DID THE RESEARCH AND REALIZE THE POOL WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.

OKAY.

SO WHAT I'M GATHERING IS IF THE NEIGHBORS HAD SAID NOTHING AT ALL, THEN THIS, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY ON, UM, I THINK A FEW, JUST A FEW WEEKS PRIOR TO THAT.

THAT'S WHEN I TOLD THEM THAT THE POOL HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD AND SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE.

OKAY.

UM, SO IT ALL HA IT ALL KIND OF HAPPENED AROUND THE SAME TIME WITHIN A COUPLE WEEKS.

OKAY.

SO, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO, I GUESS, ISOLATE OUTSIDE OF THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S COMPLAINTS, WOULD THIS HAD, WOULD THIS, WOULD WE BE HERE TODAY BASED ON THIS POWERLY PERMIT AND VALIDATION, IF THE APPLICANTS WERE JUST COMING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALONE ON THE FENCE HEIGHT, VARIATION VARIANCE, WAS IT, SO WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE POOL WAS CONSTRUCTED, THERE WAS NO, I MEAN, UNTIL, WOULD YOU, HAD THEY NOT APPLIED FOR THE FENCE PERMIT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? CORRECT.

HAD THEY NOT APPLIED FOR THE FENCE, WOULD WE BE HERE TODAY? WOULD IT HAVE BEEN FLAGGED BY THE CITY SAYING, OH, WE MADE AN ERROR? NO, BECAUSE NOBODY, I I, I DIDN'T SEE IT UNTIL THE FENCE PERMIT CAME IN.

OKAY.

THAT'S OKAY.

THAT'S, AND THE, AND THE IRONY IS THAT THEY NEVER NEEDED A VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE.

THAT WAS YET ANOTHER MISTAKE.

THE CITY TOLD 'EM THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE.

THEY NEVER NEEDED A VARIANCE.

WELL, TO BUILD SOMETHING HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET, THEY WOULD, WELL, NO, BECAUSE, AND AGAIN, MS. LESSER JUST CALLED IT A FRONT YARD.

IT'S A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, WHICH ALLOWS THE FENCE.

THEY NEVER NEEDED A VARIANCE FOR THE FENCE TYPE FENCE.

NEVER NEEDED VARIANCE.

YEAH.

SO MY, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION FOR KIND OF JUST FOR THE CITY.

THIS IS, AGAIN, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AGAIN, WAS THERE AN ERROR MADE? WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT OKAY, WITHOUT THEM FILE THE APPLICANT FILING FOR ANOTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTMENT TO THEIR PROPERTY THAT CITY OF DALLAS WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING? UM, I'M JUST GONNA SAY FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, LIKE THERE'S REALLY NO CROSS BETWEEN, AT LEAST AS OF THE TIME WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS INITIALLY FILED, THAT THERE'S NO CROSS BETWEEN ZONING AND BUILDING CODE, THAT THEY COMPLETELY OPERATE IN SEPARATE SILOS.

AND IT WAS ONLY THE FACT THAT A RESIDENTS CHIMED IN FROM THEIR NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS.

BUT THEN ALSO THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION.

IS IT, SO I'M BASICALLY SAYING DO THEY OPERATE IN TWO SILOS? SO, 'CAUSE AGAIN, TRYING TO GO BACK TO, WAS THERE AN ERROR MADE?

[01:55:01]

ONE COULD ARGUE, WELL, NO, THERE WASN'T BECAUSE STRICTLY THAT THE BUILDING CO UH, CODE OFFICIAL WAS GOING LITERALLY BY THE BOOK, BUT THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A ZONING ISSUE AS WELL.

SO IF IT WEREN'T FOR, JUST SAY THIS, THIS INCIDENT, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WAY THE CITY COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS FROM HAPPENING? THE CASE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW? YES.

I MEAN, IF, IF HE WOULD ADHERE TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF THEY'RE GONNA DO THE REVIEW FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOLS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND BASED ON THE, ON THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED, THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS WHERE THIS POOL IS LOCATED BASED ON THE, UM, FRONT THE, THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE GOVERNED IN THE FRONT YARD AS A SIDE YARD, HE WOULD HAVE TO BE FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THAT IN ORDER TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO DESIGNATE THAT AS A SIDE YARD OR BE ABLE TO DESIGNATE IT AS A SIDE YARD.

SO ALL OF THAT COMES INTO PLAY.

IF YOU'RE APPROVING THAT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT REGULATION OR YOU NEED TO KNOW THOSE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

YOU NEED TO KNOW THE USES FOR THE SWIMMING POOL.

SO IF THAT'S NOT, IF HE DOESN'T, OR IF THAT PERSON DOESN'T, THEN THERE, THERE'S A CHANCE THAT IT COULD BE APPROVED IN, IN ERROR, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT WAS.

OKAY.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

YOU ARE WELCOME.

UM, OH, OH, CAN GO AHEAD.

SO, UM, I'M GONNA FIGURE WHERE TO START.

UM, WHERE WAS THE, THIS WOULD BE FOR THE, THE CITY PLANNER.

UM, WHERE WAS THE INITIAL MISTAKE MADE AT THE TIME THAT THE PLANS WERE AT THE INTAKE PERSON AT THE DESK WHO TOOK IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED THEM? I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE I SEE A 40 FOOT BILL LINE AND IT'S CLEARLY ON THE PLAN.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE QUE I MEAN HE DIDN'T, IF THEY DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION AS TO EVEN IF THE POOL WAS ENCROACHING INTO THE BILL LINE, WHICH IS THE SETBACK LINE, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I JUST SEE AN APPROVAL.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE KNOW TO ASK OR NOT TO ASK.

YOU CAN MOVE ON.

UM, YES SIR.

SO, UH, WHEN, WHEN WERE THE PLANS, WHEN WAS THAT VISIT MADE TO THE CITY? INITIALLY WITH THE PLANS WHERE WE'RE ASSUMING THE PLANS WERE APPROVED, WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC DATE? MONTH DATE YEAR, AUGUST.

GIMME A GIMME.

OKAY.

AND THEN WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, I WANNA KNOW SAME MONTH DATE YEAR ON WHEN THE PLANS WERE INVALIDATED.

OKAY, SO THE ISSUE DATE FOR THE PERMIT WAS THREE 11.

SO THE APPLICATION THREE 11, SO THE APPLICATION DATE WAS WHAT YEAR? OF 22? I'M SORRY.

OKAY.

THE APPLICATION DATE WAS THREE THIRD OF 22 AND IT WAS ISSUED ON THREE 11.

SO THAT'S ASSUMING THAT IT WAS PROCESSED.

AND SO 3 33 THIRD, 3 33 3 MM-HMM, BASED ON THIS PERMIT THAT I'M LOOKING AT.

OKAY.

AND THEN WHEN WAS IT INVALIDATED WHEN THE LETTER WAS SENT OUT? 11 27, 23 NOVEMBER.

ABOUT 18 MONTHS LATER I HAD A COPY OF IT IN AFTER IT WAS FINALED AND FILLED.

I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE LETTER HERE.

IS IT 11 27 23.

OKAY.

11 27 23.

OKAY.

AND THEN WHEN DID THE CALL START TO COME IN? I DON'T HAVE THAT CORRECT.

I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME.

DEAN, WHAT ESTIMATE HERE, WHAT ARE THE ADJUST HEARING WAS APRIL, 2023 ON DEFENSE SIDE? I'M NOT FOR CERTAIN BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE CALL STARTED COMING IN.

UM, IN WHICH, IN RESPECT TO THE, UH, COMPLAINTS FOR THE FENCE AND THE POOL AND THEN ISN'T OFFENSE REQUIRED AROUND THE POOL AND ISN'T THAT A PART OF THE PLANS? IT IS.

AND SO WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE PLAN ON 3 3 22? SO FENCES ARE, IT REQUIRES SEPARATE PERMIT.

SO THAT PLAN EXAMINER SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM OR PUT ON THIS PLAN THAT OFFENSE,

[02:00:01]

A SEPARATE DEFENSE PERMIT IS REQUIRED AREA.

ALRIGHT.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I'VE GOT.

WHAT WERE THE NEIGHBOR'S MAIN COMPLAINTS? THE NEIGHBOR'S MAIN COMPLAINT WAS THAT THE POOLS BEING IN, UM, WAS, WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN A FRONT YARD AND THAT THE FENCE THAT THEY WERE APPLYING FOR, THEY SHOULD NOT BE GETTING A SIX FOOT, I THINK A SIX FOOT OR EIGHT FOOT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY APPLIED FOR EIGHT INITIALLY OR A SIX, BUT THEY WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS A FRONT YARD, SO THEY WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO GET A FOUR FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD.

WAS THIS BEFORE OR AFTER THE POOL WAS BUILT? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WHEN I, WHEN I WAS AWARE OF IT, IT WAS AFTER THE POOL WAS BUILT BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT I'M AWARE OF IS WHEN THE POOL WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

THAT'S WHEN I, THAT'S WHEN I HAD NOT CHECKED IT.

SO HE MAY HAVE INFORMATION THAT I'M NOT PRIVY TO.

'CAUSE HE'S THE OWNER MAY WHAT WAS THAT COMPLETED DATE? JULY, 2023.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ANY STORY.

YEAH, WE SHOULD, UM, MY LAST QUESTION IS THIS.

WERE YOU ASKED AT ANY POINT TO STOP WORK WHILE YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE POOL PERMIT BE REVIEWED? NO.

NO.

IT, IT WAS WITH, IT WAS WITH IRONY THAT THE COMPLAINTS CAME WITH THE VARIANCE FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE BECAUSE THE CO-EDS BELIEVED THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE FOR A SIX FOOT FENCE AND THEY NEVER NEEDED A VARIANCE FOR SIX FOOT FENCE.

ALL ALL THE COMPLAINTS REALLY CENTERED AROUND VIS ALLEGED VISIBILITY.

I ISSUES WITH A FENCE THAT THEY NE NEVER NEEDED A VARIANCE FOR.

THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY, AND YOU CAN ASK THE CITY, YOU CAN ASK THE CITY PLANNER.

WE'VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS.

THEY NOW ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT'S A, THAT THAT'S A FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS AND THE DEFENSE IS EXPRESSLY ALLOWED.

THEY CAN HAVE A NINE FOOT FENCE.

THEY NEVER NEEDED A VARIANCE.

AND IT WAS THIS IDEA OF DEFENSE, WHICH THEY HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BUILD THE NEIGHBOR'S OPPOSITION TO A FENCE.

THEY HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BUILD THAT STARTED THE WHOLE THING.

I HAVE THREE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.

UM, ONE TO THAT FENCE PIECE IS, UH, IS, IS THAT TRUE THAT THEY DO, DID NOT NEED A PERMIT TO BUILD A SIX FOOT OR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THAT AREA? A VARIANCE, I'M DIRECTING THIS TO THE CITY.

THEY DO NEED A PERMIT TO BUILD.

I MEAN, DO THEY NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THAT YARD IN A FRONT YARD? MM-HMM, , THEY DO NEED A VARIANCE.

AND, BUT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A FRONT YARD, UH, REGULATED BY SIDE YARD.

VERY REGULATIONS.

SO IT WOULD, THEY NEED A, WOULD THEY NEED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO BUILD A FENCE, A A FENCE OVER FOUR FEET IN A FRONT YARD WHERE THE FENCE IS BUILT? RIGHT NOW, DID THEY NEED TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN ORDER TO ON THE CORNER LOT? THEY WOULD.

OKAY.

NOT SO FOUR FOUR, YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.

I UNDERSTAND.

YOU'VE, YOU'VE, YOU'VE A YOU'VE ANSWERED IT VERY DIRECTLY BEFORE AND NOW ARE ANSWERING IT DIFFERENTLY FOR THE CORNER LOT FOR THE FENCE BY THE POOL.

OKAY.

THE SIDE YARD, THE, THE FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, THE CODE IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE FENCE, THAT A FENCE CAN, THAT THEIR, THEIR FENCE CAN BE BUILT THERE.

FENCE CAN GO UP TO NINE FEET IN A SIDE YARD.

CORRECT.

AND THAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THEN.

NO OFFENSE CAN'T GO UP TO NINE FEET IN A SIDE YARD.

BUT IF WE'RE GONNA CALL A FENCE ACCESSORY LIKE MS. HI MOTO SAID, THEN IF IT'S ACCESSORY TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, THEN ON A CORNER LOT, IT DOES NOT APPLY.

YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

I'M ASKING A QUESTION TO THE CITY SO YOU CANNOT ANSWER.

SO LET ME, LET ME RE-ASK THE QUESTION.

THE WAY THAT LOT IS SET UP NOW WITH THE, WITH THE FENCE WHERE IT IS, AND I BELIEVE IT'S CURRENTLY A FOUR FOOT FENCE 'CAUSE THEY WERE DENIED, UM, THE, THE OTHER FENCE COULD, COULD THEY BUY RIGHT AT THIS POINT GO BACK AND PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THAT AREA? IN THAT RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW? OR WOULD THEY I MEAN IT, OKAY, SO BASED ON MS HI MOTO STATING THAT IT'S AN ACCESSORY, THE FENCE IS ACCESSORY.

IF WE'RE GONNA CALL IT ACCESSORY, IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE PROVISION OF THE SWIMMING POOL.

BUT FENCES TYPICALLY CAN GO TO ZERO LOT LINE.

AND WE DON'T LOOK AT FENCES LIKE WE LOOK AT, UH, SWIMMING POOLS AND, UH, GARAGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IF WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT IT AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST AS JUST A FENCE, THEN THEY COULD GO TO ZERO LOT LINE

[02:05:01]

AND THEY COULD GO UP TO THE NINE FEET.

IF IT'S A SIDE YARD, IT'S CONSIDERED A SIDE YARD OR IF THE FOUR FEET, IF IT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD.

SO, AND IS AND IS THAT IS WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED ON BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE, IS THAT CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD OR A SIDE YARD? IT'S CONSI.

IT CAN BE GOVERNED BY THE SIDE YARD REGULATION.

SO IF IT, SO IT COULD GO UP TO NINE, IT COULD GO UP TO NINE FEET.

SO THEY DID NOT NEED TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO PUT IN A TALLER FENCE.

THAT WAS THAT WHAT THEY ARE CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT.

THEY ARE CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE USE VERSUS THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND I GUESS THE OVERRIDING USE, UM, AND THAT IT'S, IT'S IN THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS, IT'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE POOL CAN BE LOCATED IN, IN THE, IN THE PIECE ABOUT THAT.

THE, THAT IT'S NOT THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GARNERED AS A SIDE YARD, IT CAN'T, IT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF IT'S A CORNER LOT.

BUT WOULD YOU GO TO THE USE, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD'VE DONE, GONE TO THE GENERAL USE AND SAID, OH NO, IT CAN ACTUALLY GO IN THAT SPACE? YOU HAVE TO START OFF WITH THE USE REGULATIONS BECAUSE WE'RE COMING IN FOR A SWIMMING POOL, BUT, AND THE USE REGULATIONS WOULD ALLOW A POOL AND A SIDE YARD, RIGHT? YES.

BUT THE USE, BUT UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS FOR A SWIMMING POOL IN THAT USE REGULATION, IT STATES THAT IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE MAIN USE UNDER THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

SO IT TAKES YOU BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS HAS TO SUPPLY WITH THE MAIN USE.

AND SO THE MAIN USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND IN ORDER TO GET YOUR REGULATIONS FOR YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME, YOU HAVE TO GO TO YOUR USE REGULATIONS FOR THAT.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO GO TO YOUR DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THAT SINGLE FAMILY.

SO ALL OF THESE IN THIS CASE PLAYS A FACTOR.

SO WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR REGULATIONS FROM IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO LOOK AT YOUR USE REGULATIONS AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS? SO IT'S ALL VERY CONFUSING TO ME, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET IT.

BUT IF I GO BACK TO THE CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT THE FENCE RIGHT BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT THE POOL, WE WENT THROUGH THAT THAT IS A SIDE YARD AND THAT THAT FENCE IS ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS A SIDE YARD, WHICH MEANS THE POOL IS ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS A SIDE YARD.

BUT IT ALSO SAYS FOR THESE RESIDE ACCESSORY USES TO RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS, NO, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO CORNER LOCKS GOVERNING UPSIDE DOWN FRONT.

THEN THAT WOULD'VE APPLIED TO THE FENCE AS WELL.

SO THEY DID HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND THAT THE POOL, I MEAN WE, I MEAN THOSE TWO THINGS TO ME GO HAND IN HAND.

SO IF THEY HAD TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE FENCE, THEN THAT IS A FRONT YARD AND THE POOL IS BUILT IN THE FRONT YARD.

BUT IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THE FENCE IS IN A SIDE YARD, THEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO COME FOR THE POOL EITHER.

AND I, AND I'M I'M GETTING VERY CONFUSED ON OVER THE, IT'S, IT'S THE INTERPRET INTERPRETATION ABOUT FENCES OVER THE YEARS.

FENCES THIS FENCES AREN'T YOUR, THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT LOOKED AT AS YOUR REG ORDINARY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

I MEAN, AND, AND IT, IT'S KIND OF, THEY'RE, BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO GO TO ZERO LOCK LINE.

RIGHT? SO FENCES ARE DEEMED THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO TO PROPERTY.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, IT GETS, IF YOU'RE OVER 15 FEET IN HEIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IF YOU'RE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE CODE THAT WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO GO WITHIN THE SETBACK.

SO IT, IT, IT, IT, IT'S A CONFUSING CODE SOMETIMES.

IT'S VERY, SO YOU HAVE TO READ ALL THE PARTS TOGETHER, THOUGH.

YOU DON'T JUST STOP.

YOU CAN'T JUST STOP HERE.

AND ALSO THAT ORDINANCE FROM THE SWIMMING POOL THAT WAS, UH, IMPLEMENTED WAY BEFORE THIS NEW REGULATION ABOUT THE REAR 30% AND THE, UH, SWIMMING POOLS, UH, BEING ALLOWED IN THE SIDE OF REAR YARD.

SO WHEN WE AMEND THE CODE, WE DIDN'T CHANGE THAT, THAT REGULATION.

SO THINGS YOU HAVE TO COMPLY, YOU HAVE TO APPLY ALL OF THE CODES NOW.

SO SINCE WE DIDN'T CHANGE THAT, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT SECTION.

AND THE NEW, UH, ORDINANCE THAT WAS AMENDED LATER TO ADD THAT PROVISION UNDER SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO RESIDENTIAL.

OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MRS. UH, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHEN WAS YOUR HOME BUILT? THIS HOME? UH, WE STARTED CONSTRUCTION IN 2021.

SORRY, WE STARTED CONSTRUCTION IN 2021 AND WERE ABLE TO MOVE INTO THE HOUSE IN MARCH OF 2020 3 23.

IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS BECAUSE OF COVID ACTUAL CONSTRUCT.

THE BUILDING PERMIT I THINK WAS APPLIED FOR IN JANUARY OF 20.

AND THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION STARTED I THINK IN MAY 20.

MAY OF 20, I'M SORRY.

UM,

[02:10:01]

MAY OF 21.

SO CHART BE MOVED.

YES.

BUT YOU DIDN'T MOVE IT UNTIL 23 AFTER THE POOL WAS CONSTRUCTED? THAT'S CORRECT.

NO, THE, THE POOL WAS NOT FINISHED WHEN YOU MOVED IN.

I'M SORRY.

THE POOL WAS NOT FINISHED WHEN YOU MOVED IN.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

DO WE HAVE AN EMOTION ON THE TABLE? YES.

UM, LET'S SEE.

HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO 18 ON APPLICATION OF PETER COVID, AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.

I SECOND.

OKAY.

UH, POINT OF DISCUSSION HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, LOTS OF FACTS AND INFORMATION FROM BOTH SIDES.

UM, WHY I AM PUTTING THE MOTION FORWARD TO, UH, REVERSE THE DECISION, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT THE STANDARD WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE THIS, UM, THIS, THIS DECISION ON IS IF THE ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ERRED IN THEIR DUTY, JUST BY THE TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE, THIS SITE IS COMPLEX.

UM, I'M LOOKING AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE US AND HEARING THE TESTIMONY, UM, THIS WASN'T A CLEAR, STRAIGHTFORWARD, OKAY, HERE'S THE BUILDING CODE, LET ME APPLY IT.

THIS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN AT LEAST A PHONE CALL TO ZONING TO CLARIFY WHAT ALL THE SITE ENTAILED, ALL THE INTRICACIES.

SO THAT'S WHERE I AM BASING MY DECISION ON TO, UM, REVERSE THE DECISION.

UM, I WOULD SAY THIS, THAT A LOT HAS GONE WRONG IN THE PROCESS OF ISSUING YOU, UH, A PERMIT AND THE CITY HAS REALIZED THAT THEY ADD OR DROP THE BALL.

UM, THEY HAVE JUST BEEN MANY THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HAD.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S GOING TO COST YOU MORE THAN IT'S GOING TO COST THE CITY.

AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT IN A PROBLEM OF PROBABILITY.

UM, FIRST I WANNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, OVERTURNING A CITY OFFICIAL IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I TAKE LIGHTLY NOR LIKE TO DO.

UM, I, YOU KNOW, FEEL THAT THE OWNER, UM, OF THE PROPERTY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.

THEY SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS.

A MISTAKE WAS CLEARLY MADE EARLY ON.

UH, AND AFTER SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF TIME LAPSING BY THEN, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S BEING, YOU KNOW, INVALIDATED.

AND, YOU KNOW, I FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THE FACT THAT AT ONE TIME THEY WERE STARING AT THE FRONT OF A HOUSE, NOW THEY'RE STARING AT A FENCE.

UM, AND I'LL I WILL SAY, JUST TO KIND OF EDITORIALIZE HERE, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL PARTIES LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER FOR TO AND WORK THIS OUT AND TO TRY AND COME TO SOME AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE PARTIES SO EVERYONE CAN LIVE IN CONCERT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE YOU LIVING IN THAT HOUSE WITH NEIGHBORS ANGRY AT ME.

AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE LIVING, YOU KNOW, A LONG-TERM NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, A RESIDENT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I FELT LIKE THERE WAS TENSION BETWEEN ME AND A NEIGHBOR.

THERE'S NOTHING WORSE THAN HAVING TENSION IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I SAY THAT HAVING BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD LEADER AND UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS AND THE TENSION AND THE FLOW THAT GOES ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT OUTSIDE OF THIS, YOU ALL TRY AND COME TO SOME PEACE AND AGREEMENT AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT VISUALLY APPEALING TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACROSS THE WAY.

UH, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE FLIPPING IT IS, I THINK OF OTHER PLACES AND YOU KNOW, IT'S, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES AND I EMPATHIZE WITH YOU ALL HAVING SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND, YOU KNOW, TO BE TOLD THAT, OOPS, WE MADE A MISTAKE AND I COULD NEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE COST IT'S, AND WHO IT'S GONNA COST WHAT AND HOW MUCH.

IT'S LIKE WHO ACTED IN GOOD FAITH? AND I FEEL THAT YOU DID ACT IN GOOD FAITH.

I MAYBE NOT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES AND REGULATION.

UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M, UH, GOING TO, UH, SUPPORT THE MOTION.

[02:15:02]

UM, WHILE I SYMPATHIZE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS, I, UH, WILL NOT SUPPORT, CANNOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THE CITY CODE IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THIS.

UH, CAN YOU, UM, ELABORATE ON THAT? WELL, I MEAN, I, I SEE NOTHING IN THE, UH, SECTION FIVE ONE A DASH 4 2 1 7 ACCESSORY USES SWIMMING POOLS THAT WOULD TRUMP THE SECTION OR FIVE ONE A DASH 4 2 1 7 ACCESSORY USES GENERAL PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THAT, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, IN ACCESSORY USE MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE MAIN USE.

AND TO ME, A MINIMUM SIDE YARD OR THE REGULATION APP POOL GIVEN USE OF, OF THE .

AND SO IN THAT CASE, THE NOTE PARAGRAPH APPLY TO FRONT YARD GOVERNED BY SIDE YARD REGULATIONS, UM, THAT ALLOWS AN ACCESSORY USE TO BE BUILT IN A SIDE YARD.

UM, UH, I TEND TO LEAN MORE MR. KOWS, HE'S WAY, UM, 'CAUSE IT, IT DOES FEEL THAT IT'S CLEAR, BUT IT ALSO FEELS VERY MUDDY.

UM, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INTERPRETATIONS THAT COULD BE THERE.

I'VE LOOKED AT THE PICTURES OF THAT YOU HAVE SHARED, I'VE SEEN WHAT THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE ON BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE ARE NOW LOOKING AT VERSUS WHAT THEY LOOKED AT BEFORE.

AND I FEEL SORRY FOR 'EM.

THEY'VE LIVED THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.

UM, IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THERE'S ANY VEGETATION BACK THERE.

THEY'RE STARING AT A FENCE.

UM, I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE UPSET AND I UNDERSTAND HOW THIS REACHED THE ELEVATED LEVEL THAT IT HAS REACHED.

UM, I'M NOW HEARING THAT YOU CAN GO BACK AND PUT A NINE FOOT FENCE IN, WHICH SCARES ME TO DEATH FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS.

UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE THING TO DO.

UM, IT, THIS IS JUST, I I THINK OUR CODE IS VERY COMPLICATED.

UM, I COULD PROBABLY, I CAN ALMOST BE CONVINCED EITHER WAY WITH, UM, BOTH SIDES AND I JUST, UM, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE TOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION.

ONE LAST THOUGHT HERE.

UM, AS COMPLICATED AS OUR CODES ARE, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO JUST PUT THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE STANDARD IS WASN'T ERROR MADE BY AN OFFICIAL, UM, BEING THAT THE CODE IS AS COMPLICATED AS IT CAN BE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SITE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

YES, THE CODE DOES SPEAK TO, WE'VE KIND OF HAD A NEW LESSON HERE ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT USES, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S RESPONSIBILITY IF THERE WASN'T A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING TO ASK THE QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WAS IN FACT ISSUING A PERMIT, UM, CORRECTLY OR NOT.

SO THAT'S AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE REASON AS TO WHY WE'RE ALL HERE AND BASED ON THIS DECISION, ARE THE CODES WRONG? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS, UM, CITY OF DALLAS HAS GREAT RESOURCES TO HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS CLARIFIED.

AND I THINK THAT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY THAT, UM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE ONSET OF THE WHOLE PERMITTING PROCESS.

LET ME JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THE DECISION IS THAT THE PLANS WERE APPROVED IN THE FIRST HALF OF MARCH IN 2022.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE QUESTION AT HAND IS.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE FENCE IS UGLY IF I CAN SAY THAT.

YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T WANNA STARE AT IT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHY I ENCOURAGED THE OWNERS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, PALATABLE.

BUT IN GOOD CONSCIOUS, HE WAS ISSUED A PERMIT BY THE CITY.

AND YOU KNOW, I, I HATE TO ADMIT WHEN THE, THAT THE CITY IS WRONG OR THE, YOU KNOW, OR TAKE ANY STAND AGAINST THE CITY.

I'M A CITY OF DALLAS PERSON, YOU KNOW, AT HEART.

BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE MAKE MISTAKES WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, ACCEPT THOSE MISTAKES AND LIVE WITH THEM.

AND THE CITY CLEARLY MADE A MISTAKE IN MY OPINION AND THAT'S WHY I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIOUS, YOU KNOW, YANK THE POOL FROM UNDERNEATH THEM.

YES.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO ADD ALSO IS THAT AS A BOARD WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCE TO, UM, THE APPLICANT.

IS THIS SELF-INFLICTED? NO.

UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME IS

[02:20:01]

FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO LEND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY THEY LIVE.

THIS, UM, HAS BEEN A, A VERY THOUGHT PROVOKING, UM, EXERCISE.

BUT YOU ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE FOR SOME TIME AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION OR THE COMMUNITY, YOU'RE ABLE TO END UP IN A VERY NICE AND ACCEPTABLE WAY.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU THAT FROM HERE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MANAGE RELATIONSHIP EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT STARTING ON A VERY GOOD, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

MR. KOWSKI? NO.

MR. SAHU? YES.

MR. CANNON? AYE.

MR. GLOVER? YES.

MS. VICE-CHAIR? YES.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

THANK YOU.

BOARD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I KNOW THAT YOU DEVOTED A LOT OF YOUR PERSONAL TIME TODAY AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

WE ARE GONNA TAKE JUST A SHORT RECESS.

UM, WE'LL RECONVENE AT UM, 3 25.