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