[00:00:01]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on August 20, 2024.]
THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PANEL A.TODAY IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 20TH, 2024 WITH THE TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH IN-PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM OF FIVE OF OUR FIVE PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT.
WE HAVE ONE ONLINE WITH US AND FOUR HERE PRESENT AT CITY HALL.
AND SO THEREFORE, WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE, UH, UM, MEETING.
UH, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF THAT ARE WITH US TODAY.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER FOR TODAY'S HEARING.
PANEL A TO MY LEFT IS NICK BROOKS, RACHEL HAYDEN, AND MICHAEL OVITZ.
ONLINE WITH US IS JAY, JAY MARY, OUR STAFF PRESIDENT.
TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS MATT SAP, WHO'S OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BRYANT THOMPSON, WHO'S THE SENIOR PLANNER AND ACTING BOARD ADMINISTRATOR TODAY.
UH, UM, CAMBRIA JORDAN, SENIOR PLANNER, DIANA BARUM, DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST PROJECT COORDINATOR.
UM, SARAH AND TE BERRY, I APOLOGIZE.
SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER AND NORA HASA, SENIOR PLANNERS EXAMINER.
UM, IN ADDITION, OUR BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS. MARY, COULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND FOR A SECOND, UH, BOARD SECRETARY MEETING.
MODERATOR WITH US ALSO IS, UH, PHIL IRWIN, OUR ARBORIST, UM, AND, UH, SUBSEQUENTLY JASON POOLE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
UM, EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
THAT WAS THIS MORNING AT 10:00 AM AND I'VE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON THESE CASES THAT WE'LL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN, MS. MARY MARY WILLIAMS, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRE 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE THAT ANY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL MAKES ON A CASE REQUIRE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
WE HAVE FOUR MEMBERS HERE AND ONE MEMBER ONLINE.
SO FOUR OF THE FIVE HAVE TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO REVERSE A BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION OR TO GRANT A VARIANCE OR TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
ALL THEIR MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
SO A REQUEST TO HOLD THE CASE OVER JUST REQUIRES MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.
UM, LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
IF YOU'RE HERE IN THE ROOM AT CITY HALL, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION, OR YOU WANNA SPEAK DURING A SPECIFIC CASE.
SO IF ANYONE IN THE ROOM WANTS TO SPEAK EITHER DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WHICH WILL HANDLE NEXT OR DURING A SPECIFIC CASE, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT ONE OF THESE BLUE SHEETS OF PAPER.
OTHERWISE YOU WON'T BE CALLED.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES, OR WHEN THE CASE IS CALLED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX ALL COM.
ALL COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
THAT'S MYSELF, WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
THOSE ARE THE BASICS OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURE FOR TODAY AND ALL OF OUR HEARINGS.
UM, THE NEXT ITEM FOR OUR AGENDA, WELL, I'D LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL PREVIEW THE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD TODAY.
UH, WE HAVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UM, AND THEN WE HAVE THE MEETING MINUTES, AND THEN WE HAVE SIX CASES ON OUR DOCKET TODAY.
UM, TWO THAT WE'RE ON THE UNCONTESTED, ONE THAT'S GONNA BE KEPT UNCONTESTED.
ONE, UH, TWO HOLDOVERS AND THEN THREE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, SIX CASES ON OUR DOCKET.
[00:05:01]
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGENDA? OKAY.THE NEXT ITEM, THE AGENDA IS OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MR. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS? MR. CHAIR, MAY I HAVE JUST ONE MOMENT? I NEED TO FIND OUT THE, UM, TRANSLATOR FOR ONE OF THE CASES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS TIME ALL WE'RE DOING IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
I NEED SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MARY.
WHAT'S THAT? I NEED SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE YOU NEED.
OKAY, ONE SECOND, THEN WE'LL WAIT.
SO, UM, MS. WILLIAMS, UH, MR. HAVI NEEDS SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GET HIM ONLINE OR WHAT? OH, TO, TO, OKAY.
THANK YOU MR. THOMPSON FOR NUDGING ME ON THAT.
CERTAINLY I WHAT'S THAT? SO WE'RE GONNA HOLD FOR ONE SECOND FOR TECHNOLOGY.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'VE FINISHED OUR INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS.
UM, WE ARE AT, UH, PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
NOW THE BOARD ENCOURAGES TE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BUT YOU HAVE TO SIGN UP IN ADVANCE.
SO, OR SIGN UP ON THE DAY OF IF YOU'RE HERE, PRESENT THIS BOARD.
SECRETARY, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? WOULD YOU LIKE IN PERSON FIRST OR LET'S DO IN PERSON FIRST.
SO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS THREE MINUTES AND YOU MAY SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD TODAY, BUT YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND YOU CAN SPEAK ALSO DURING A CASE.
BUT FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, IT'S THREE MINUTES.
SO IF YOU JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU CAN PROCEED.
MR. CHAIR HERE? YEAH, WE CANNOT HEAR HIM LINE.
IF HE COULD MOVE A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC.
IS YOUR MICROPHONE LIGHT ON? NO, IT'S NOT.
SO, SO NOW YOU MAY START OVER.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN, THEN YOUR THREE MINUTES, WE'LL START.
MY NAME'S CLAY STAPP, 44 42 BONHAM, DALLAS, TEXAS.
HEY, WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY? I'M HERE HERE TO PROTECT MR. MAGNI AND HIS INTERESTS, UM, IN BEING ABLE TO BUILD A DUPLEX THAT HE WAS PERMITTED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.
YOU GUYS ARE HERE TO HOPEFULLY MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
UM, THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE CITY HAS GOT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
THEY DID THE WRONG THING BY PUTTING A STOP WORK ORDER OUT AND STOP AND, UH, CONSTRUCTION.
NOW YOU GUYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND MAKE THINGS RIGHT FOR MR. ANI.
IF HE'S REQUIRED TO STOP, THAT'S A CATASTROPHIC, UM, IMPACT ON HIS BUSINESS AND WE WILL END HIS BUSINESS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M HOPING YOU GUYS WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE WORKING.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT A STOP WORK ORDER OUT THERE.
AND WHILE THAT MAY BE RIGHT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL ARE HERE TO DO TO HELP HIM OUT ON THAT.
LOOK, THE PUNISHMENT THAT HE'S RECEIVING FOR A CRIME HE DIDN'T COMMIT DOESN'T EVEN MATCH.
IF YOU'RE GONNA ASK HIM TO TEAR DOWN A BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED FOR BEING ONE FOOT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
[00:10:01]
OR HAVING 45% LOT COVERAGE INSTEAD OF 40% LOT COVERAGE, UM, HOW DOES THAT PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 300 SQUARE FOOT ON A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.SO YOU'RE GONNA PUT A MAN OUT OF BUSINESS, UM, BECAUSE THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE, IT JUST DOESN'T MATCH UP.
SO I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND REVOKE THE C'S DECISION TO PUT A STOP WORK ORDER ON 68 0 1 TYREE.
MS. WILLIAMS. ANY OTHERS HERE IN PERSON? MR. ZACH THOMPSON? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
ZACH THOMPSON, 47 15 WEST UNIVERSITY, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9 ELM TICKET NORTH PARK.
FIRST OF ALL, THE CITY OF DALLAS DID THE RIGHT THING BY THE STOP ORDER ON TYREE STREET, 68 0 1 TYREE STREET.
LET'S BE VERY CLEAR, WHAT WAS DONE RIGHT WAS THE REZONING OF PD 67.
SO, AS A LIFELONG RESIDENT BORN AND RAISED IN EL NORTHPORT, I SUPPORT THE CITY OF DALLAS ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT THIS STRUCTURE SHOULD BE REDONE AS A BUILDER IN ANOTHER CITY, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ON RESPONSIBILITY.
THE CITY OF DALLAS TAKES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUING THE PERMIT WRONGLY.
THE BUILDER NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN.
WE HAVE FOUGHT LONG AND HARD IN ELM DICK NORTH PARK TO MAINTAIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I WAS VERY FORTUNATE TO BE LIVING IN THE LOVE FIELD AREA WHEN WE WERE MOVED FROM THAT LOVE FIELD PROPERTY INTO ELM DICK NORTH PART.
AND I REFUSE TO ACCEPT IN 2024 THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS STILL OPPRESSING US IN DIG AT NORTH PARK BY ALLOWING, UH, THIS BUILDING TO GO ON.
SO WE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
THE RIGHT DECISION WAS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT WAS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE RESIDENTS OF NORTH PARK ELM THICKETT, HISTORICALLY AFRICAN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT THAT THIS BUILDER, HE WON'T GO BANKRUPT, HE JUST HAVE TO GO AND START OVER FROM THIS CRACK.
NEXT SPEAKER, MS. WILLIAMS. MR. RAMLEE.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
I'M THE OWNER OF, UH, 67 14 TYREE STREET.
UM, JUST A FEW, FEW HOUSES DOWN FROM THIS GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE.
UM, SO THE SITUATION, A MINUTES THAT, UH, I I WENT THROUGH WHAT HE WENT THROUGH, UH, I SUBMITTED THE PLANS AND THEN, UH, I WAS BEING ASKED TO CUT DOWN ON MY ROOF.
UH, LUCKILY I WAS ONLY DEALING WITH A SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, SO THAT'S THE SITUATION I'M IN.
AND I UNDERSTAND HIS SITUATION WHERE, UH, SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPACT, A NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
UH, I ALSO HAVE A FRIEND WHO'S IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THE GENTLEMAN HERE AND HE BOUGHT IT.
HE BOUGHT THE PIECE OF LAND PERMITTED, UM, IT WAS APPROVED AND HE WENT ON AND PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION, WENT THROUGH BUILDING, UH, INSPECTOR CAME OUT, ZONING INSPECTOR CAME OUT.
THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT, UH, SETTING REBARS AND ET CETERA.
SO HE PULLED HIS FORM AND THEN HE WENT ON AND STARTED FRAMING, UH, ABOUT 80% OF THE FRAMING STATUS.
NOW THIS GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE IS TRYING TO BUILD A HOME FOR HIS FAMILY TO MOVE DOWN HERE.
WE'RE BOTH FROM BOSTON, WE'RE FRIENDS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION HE'S IN.
UM, EVERY MONTH THAT HE'S SITTING ON THIS PROJECT, THE BANK IS, HE'S, HE HAS TO PAY INTEREST ON THIS LOAN THAT HE, HE'S TAKING.
I'M, I'M CONSIDERING THAT HE'S TAKING ON A LOAN.
SO REALLY I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE SEE, YOU KNOW, THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIM AND MY OTHER PARTNER OR SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDERS IN THE AREA.
IT'S, THEY ALL CAN GO BANKRUPT IN THIS SITUATION.
SO I WOULD HOPE THE, THE BOARD WOULD TRY TO UNDERSTAND FOR THEM WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE HE CAN'T SLEEP AT NIGHT.
WOULD YOU GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN PLEASE? UH, 67 14 TYREE STREET.
WERE YOU IN THE BUT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE 200.
UH, I MEAN, WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE.
ANYONE COULD IS, IS CAN SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
I'M JUST LOOKING ON THE, ON THE MAP HERE.
6 7 1 4 IS OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FEET.
SO YOU DIDN'T GET A NOTIFICATION LETTER? NO, I DIDN'T GET A NOTIFICATION LETTER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, OUR NEXT SPEAKER HERE, MR.
[00:15:01]
GA PARIS.I ALSO HAVE SOME HANDOUTS TO THE PROVIDE.
SO LET ME DO BOTH THE
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN PROVIDED WITH THE MICROPHONE THAT WE COULD HEAR HIM WITH NO
WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THE MICROPHONE'S AVAILABLE TO YOU, SIR, SO THAT IT'S EASY.
OR MARY, COULD YOU DO THAT OR JASON? WELL, NO, WE CAN'T SEE HIM FROM THERE 'CAUSE IT'S BLOCKED BY THAT AND I DON'T WANT THE, HIS SIGHT LINE, WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANNA TO DO IT TO PROPERLY ACCOMMODATE.
WELL TRY THIS
WE WANNA, WE WANNA BE ABLE TO SEE AND SEE AND HEAR YOU, SIR.
SO WHY DON'T YOU HOLD OFF ONE SECOND OKAY.
UNTIL SHE DISTRIBUTES THE ITEMS FOR US.
THERE SHOULD BE TWO, THERE SHOULD BE TWO SEPARATE HANDOUTS.
JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE GOT ALL THE COPIES TO EVERYBODY.
OKAY SIR, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO, UH, SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
UH, WHENEVER YOU GUYS ARE READY, GO AHEAD SIR.
UH, MY NAME IS GUS PEREZ AND I LIVE AT 78 11 MORTON STREET AND HAVE LIVED IN THE ELM PICKET NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS.
I LOVE THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT, HIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THIS APPEAL.
MR. MAGNEY IS WILLFULLY TRYING TO SUBVERT THE CITY'S ZONING LAWS THROUGH DISHONEST ACTIONS IN THE HANDOUTS.
I PROVIDED MR. MAGNEY PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO A NEWS REPORTER THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE UPDATED ZONING REGULATIONS BEFORE HE FILED HIS NON-CONFORMING PLANS, WHICH VIOLATED EVERY TENANT OF THE ZONING REGARDING LAND USE, HEIGHT, ROOF TYPE, AND LOT COVERAGE.
AND IN SOME, UH, 2021 EMAILS FROM MY TIME ON THE ELM THICKET AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE, MR. MUGABE WAS COPIED IN.
SO YES, HE KNEW ABOUT THE PROCESS AND THE UPDATED ZONING CHANGES.
FINALLY, I LOOKED UP THE BALLOTS SUBMITTED BY MR. OTTI TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
HE VOTED AGAINST THE NEW ZONING CHANGES ON TWO PER OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HE OWNED IN ELM THICKET.
WHAT MORE PROOF DO WE NEED OF HIS ATTEMPT TO SNEAK A FAST ONE BY US? ALL? IT IS CLEAR, THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE BY HIS OWN ADMISSION AND THE PROOF PROVIDED, MR. MAGNI CHOSE TO WILLFULLY DISREGARD THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS.
THIS IS A SELF, UH, INFLICTED HARDSHIP MR. MAGNI, UH, CAUSED ON HIMSELF BY BEING DISHONEST WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
WAS MR. MAGNI TRYING TO ROLL THE DICE AND HOPE THE CITY MADE A MISTAKE OR NEIGHBORS WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION SO WE CAN MAKE A FEW EXTRA BUCKS ON THE SALE? THAT QUESTION BEGS AN ANSWER.
I ALSO WANNA CALL OUT THE REPORT FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JUSTIN H. ROY, THAT SAID THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY FACTS TO WARRANT FAVORABLE ACTION OF THE BOARD.
MR. MAGNEY HAS STATED THE MAIN REASON FOR HIS APPEAL IS THAT HE ALREADY STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND HAS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY DOING SO.
THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED THAT STARTING CONSTRUCTION AND IGNORANCE OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS ARE, QUOTE, NOT PERMISSIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF NON-COMPLIANT STRUCTURES TO BE COMPLETED.
THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ALSO POINTS TO A TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT, THAT IN A SIMILAR CASE LIKE THIS ONE, HE STATES THAT WITHOUT THE THAT KIND OF DECISION, THE CITY WOULD BE UNABLE TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
HE CONCLUDED SAYING ACCORDINGLY, APPLICANT CANNOT MEET HIS BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS NECESSARY TO OVERTURN THE DECISION TO REVOKE THE BURN BUILDING PERMITS.
SO I'M ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DENY THE APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS A STATED MISSION OF THIS BOARD, THIS BODY TO QUOTE, UPHOLD THE MEANING AND SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS ENACTED BY LEGISLATION.
[00:20:01]
BY DENYING THIS APPEAL ON MORAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS, YOU WILL SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO ALL BUILDERS WHO ARE TRYING TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM.WE CANNOT REWARD BAD BUILDER BEHAVIOR AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHO DID EVERYTHING RIGHT TO GET THIS OWNER PASSED.
AND AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF ALL MY NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE VOICED OPPOSITION TO THIS APPEAL, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
AND AS SOMEONE WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE ELM THICKET AUTHORIZED HEARING STEERING COMMITTEE FROM 2019 TO 2022, I'M OPEN TO COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE FOR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY TESTIMONY YOU MAY HAVE.
WOULD YOU TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN? GUS PETTUS.
I AND YOUR ADDRESS WAS 7 8 1 1 WHARTON STREET.
AND THAT IS WITHIN ELM THICKET NEWARK PARK.
AND THAT WAS WITHIN THE PD 67 THAT WAS PASSED.
AND YOUR ZIP CODE? 7 5 2 2 0 9 0 9.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, UM, NEXT SPEAKER THAT WE HAVE PRESENT.
UM, I HAVE, UH, SPEAKERS ONLINE.
SO THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM, INDIVIDUALS IN THE ROOM THAT WANNA SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
SO MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY? MS. RENEE ZER.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
LAST NAME SPELLED Z-E-R-F-A-S.
I LIVE AT 6 8 1 5 TYREE STREET.
SO I'M FOUR HOUSES DOWN FROM THIS PROPERTY, SO I AM WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS.
I ALSO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR POSSIBLE MISCOMMUNICATION ON THE BLUE SHEET.
I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS APPEAL, SO I FIND THOSE FORMS VERY TRICKY.
I'M JUST GOING TO OUR PACKET THAT HAS PROPERTY OWNERS IN A GEOGRAPHY.
SO GIVE ME THAT ADDRESS ONE MORE TIME.
SO RENEE, ROS IS THERE FIVE SURFACE SURFACE, SIR? SURFACE? I'VE GOTCHA.
YOU YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
YEAH, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS TWO SPEAKERS.
UM, I DO AGREE THAT THE STOP ORDER WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I HAVE ONLY LIVED IN THIS, UM, HOME FOR THREE YEARS, BUT I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MEETING SO MANY WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS AND UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT THAT THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS DO HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITIES.
FROM THE MOMENT I MOVED IN, I WAS REACHED OUT TO PEOPLE ABOUT VOTE FOR THIS, VOTE FOR THAT CHANGES HERE, CHANGES THERE.
AND FROM THE MOMENT I'VE BEEN HERE PERSONALLY, IT HAS FELT THAT THESE BUILDERS HAVE THE UPPER HAND WITH NOT ONLY THEIR RESOURCES, BUT THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THEIR SOCIAL PLATFORMS TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST OTHERS.
UM, THE MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT MIGHT NOT BE AWARE, THAT MIGHT NOT BE FULLY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY.
UM, THESE BUILDERS IN MY OPINION, MAKE INCREMENTAL CHANGES THAT OVER TIME BECOME ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE, WELL, THE LAST PERSON DIDN'T, SO LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN.
AND IN THE PAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS, WE'VE SEEN HUGE CHANGES IN THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THESE BUILDERS HAVE GONE IN AND MADE THESE INCREMENTAL CHANGES WITHOUT NECESSARY FULL APPROVAL.
UM, AND SO IT, IT HAS REALLY CHANGED THE IMPACT OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT ONLY WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD IT, BUT SPECIFICALLY THESE DUPLEX LOTS HAVE A HUGE IMPACT TO THOSE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 30 YEARS OR THEIR WHOLE LIVES.
UM, THESE, UM, BUILDERS PREDOMINANTLY ARE NOT IMPACTED FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS AND MANY OTHERS, AS YOU'VE LISTED HERE TODAY, UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SOFTWARE WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.
UH, I WILL, I'LL MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT.
UM, AND I'LL, I'LL I'LL LOOK TO MY BOARD ATTORNEY TO VERIFY THIS.
THE NATURE OF A, AN APPEAL OF A BUILDING OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS CONTROLLED BY OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT STATES THAT THE APPLICANT APPEALING PLUS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE CERTAIN TIMES TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND HAVE REBUTTAL AND CALL WITNESSES.
THERE IS NO PROVISION DURING THAT HEARING FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
SO IF THE TIME FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, JUST LIKE NOW, BUT DURING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION, UH, APPEAL HEARING, THERE'S NO PUBLIC TEST TESTIMONY UNLESS ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER CALL A PERSON AS A WITNESS TO SPEAK.
'CAUSE THERE'S CONTROLLED TIME.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO I'M SAYING THAT ONLY FOR THIS CASE OR ANY CASE THAT COMES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
[00:25:01]
THAT UH, WE HAVE RULES IN PLACE THAT, THAT GUIDE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WE WELCOME IT.UM, BUT IT WOULD BE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING PROCESS.
THAT'S WHY QUITE HONESTLY, I'VE WRITTEN DOWN THE NAMES AND THE LOCATIONS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPOKEN SO THAT IT'S PART OF AT LEAST MY RECORD FOR THE BOARD.
MR. BROOKS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BOARD ATTORNEY, BUT I YES, GO AHEAD.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE ON THE RECORD.
WHAT'S THAT? I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE ON THE RECORD.
SO YOU, WE'LL SIDEBAR THAT LATER.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M SORRY, BUT THE ANSWER, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS.
NOW, IF IT'S A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, I CAN HAVE THAT WITH YOU AND THEN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED BEFORE THE BOARD, I CAN OKAY.
SO I I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
MR. BROOKS, IF THERE'S A QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE, YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD AT THIS STAGE IN THE PUBLIC SETTING, IT NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC, SO OTHERWISE IT THAT'S FINE.
I, IT GENERALLY I'VE BEEN ADVISED TO AT LEAST TRY TO MAKE OKAY.
IS THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PART OF THE RECORD FOR THE HEARING WE ARE GOING TO HAVE REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS DECISION? UH, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT THE BOARD ADDRESS HEARS AT EACH ONE OF THEIR HEARINGS IS PART OF THE OVERALL HEARING FOR THE DAY.
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS BASED ON THE HEARING AND THE FACTS PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING.
WE HEAR THINGS, WE REACT TO THINGS.
UH, BUT THE CODE AS CON CONFINE, AS CONFERRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IS THAT WE CONDUCT A HEARING.
ONE SIDE PRESENTS, ONE SIDE PRESENTS ONE CROSS EXAMINEES.
WE, WE AS A BOARD ARE ALLOWED TO QUESTION BOTH SIDES, EVEN QUESTION WITNESSES.
AND THAT IS THE, THAT ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE FACTS THAT COME INTO THE CASE.
SO DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES.
SO THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.
UM, SO THIS IS CONDUCTED IN A PUBLIC SETTING, SO ALL INFORMATION'S VALUABLE.
HOW WE WEIGH ON IT IS A FUNCTION OF US USING OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS BASED ON THE RULES WE HAVE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS HERE WITH US TODAY THAT WANTED TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO, THOSE SPEAKERS REGISTER.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE ONLINE SPEAKERS, MS. WILLIAMS? THAT IS CORRECT.
HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE THREE.
YOU CAN, CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL ONE MS. KIMBERLY SIMS. CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO? KIMBERLY SIMS? YES.
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE AND HEAR ME? UH, THERE WE GO.
IF YOU, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
AFTER YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.
MY NAME IS KIMBERLY SIMS. I LIVE AT 72 19 MORTON STREET IN DALLAS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR NEWMAN AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS KIMBERLY SIMS. AGAIN, I AM A THIRD GENERATION RESIDENT OF THE ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ALSO SERVE AS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ELM THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO, TO
THE CITY IS STILL DOING ITS DUE DILIGENCE TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THIS ISSUE AND I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THIS TIME.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS AN EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION.
HOWEVER, MR. MAGNEY THUMPED HIS NOSE AT CHANGES THAT HE WAS WELL AWARE OF.
IN A RECENT INTERVIEW THAT AIRED AUGUST 15TH ON FOX FOUR NEWS.
MR. MAGNEY ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW THE ZONING GUIDELINES FOR OUR COMMUNITY HAD CHANGED AND HE READILY ADMITTED THAT HE HAD TAKEN PART IN A DEVELOPER'S FIGHT AGAINST THE THEN PROPOSED CHANGES.
HOWEVER, HE NEVER UPDATED HIS PLANS AND CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD AS IF NOTHING HAD CHANGED.
SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS INCLUDE THE DUPLEXES BEING BUILT ON A SITE MEANT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE.
THE DUPLEX HAS A FLAT ROOF DESIGN.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE DUPLEX EXCEEDS 30 FEET AND THE DUPLEX LOT COVERAGE EXCEEDS 40%.
DEVELOPERS LIKE MR. MAGNEY OPENLY IGNORE CITY GUIDELINES AND LOOK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SIDE WITH THEM.
HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR DILIGENT NEIGHBORS CONSTANTLY, CONSISTENTLY RAISING THEIR HANDS ABOUT THESE ISSUES, NOTHING WOULD'VE HAPPENED FOR SEVEN YEARS.
ELM THICK AT NORTH PARK FOUGHT TO HAVE ITS VOICES HEARD IN A BATTLE THAT DAMAGED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPLIT IT ALONG RACIAL LINES.
IT IS MY HOPE TODAY THAT YOU WILL ALL DO THE RIGHT THING AND DENY THIS APPEAL UNTIL THE CITY HAS A CHANCE TO COME TO SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION ABOUT HOW WE MOVE FORWARD.
[00:30:01]
OTHER SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? MS. AMELIA PER, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, VERY MUCH.IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
UH, MY NAME IS AMELIA, A-M-E-L-I-A, MIDDLE INITIAL S PEREZ, P-E-R-E-Z.
UH, MY FAMILY AND I HAVE LIVED IN THE HISTORIC EL THICK AT NORTH PARK FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS BECAUSE I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESPECT MY NEIGHBORS WHO FOUGHT FOR THESE ZONING CHANGES IN PD 67 NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO.
I'M HERE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO CASE 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1.
THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS SAID MR. MAG'S APPEAL HAS NOT MET THE FACTS NEEDED TO OVERTURN THE REVOCATION OF HIS BUILDING PERMITS.
THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION IN QUESTION NOT ONLY VIOLATES THE NEW LOCK COVERAGE OF 40%, BUT ALSO THE OLD LOCK COVERAGE OF 45%.
THE CONSTRUCTION IN QUESTION STANDS AT 45.7% LOCK COVERAGE.
THERE ARE AN ADDITIONAL THREE OTHER VIOLATIONS ON THIS BUILD AS MS. SIMS, UH SAID, THE HISTORIC ELM PICKET NORTH PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE BUILDERS WHO NEITHER RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THEY BUILD AND WILLFULLY SUBMIT BUILDING PLANS THEY KNOW DO NOT CONFORM TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS.
MR. MAGNEY KNEW THE BUILDING PLANS HE SUBMITTED VIOLATED THE NEW PD 67.
LAST THURSDAY, MR. MAGNEY TOLD A FOX FOUR NEWS REPORTER THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE ZONING CHANGES YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED.
EMAILS WHERE MR. MAGNEY WAS INCLUDED IN THE TEXT CHAIN AND ALSO THE BALLOTS DURING FOR THIS ZONING FIGHT.
OKAY, MR. MA'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS SAID THAT ASKING MR. MAGNEY TO BUILD A NOT TO BUILD A CONFORMING STRUCTURE WOULD BE A SEVERE DOSE OF MEDICINE TO THAT ELLEN THICK AT NORTH PARK SAYS PERHAPS THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED WHEN A BUILDER ADMITS HE KNEW THE ZONING CHANGES, PARTICIPATED IN THAT ZONING FIGHT, AND THEN STILL FILED BUILDING PLANS THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING.
YES, THE CITY AIRED, BUT MR. MAGNI INFLICTED THIS HARM ON HIMSELF WHEN HE SUBMITTED BUILDING PLANS THAT HE KNEW WERE NON-CONFORMING.
YOU KNOW, WHO ELSE HAS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND DOES NOT DESERVE A SEVERE DOSE OF MEDICINE? MYSELF AND MY A THICKET NEIGHBORS, SOME OF WHOM HAVE LIVED THEIR ENTIRE LIVES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FORM OF PROPERTY TAXES THAT ELLEN THICKETT NORTH PARK NEIGHBORS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT IN THIS MATTER.
WE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, SET, FORTIFY THE CITY, AND WHEN THEY TOLD US WE NEEDED TO POLICE THE NEW BUILDS, WE DID IT BECAUSE IT'S UP TO US TO SAVE ELM THICKET.
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO PLEASE DENY MR. MCGEE'S APPEAL.
THIS IS A SELF-INFLICTED HARM AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ON THE BACKS OF THIS HISTORIC FRIEDMAN'S COMMUNITY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER WHO TRIED TO GET ONE PAST THE CITY.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE, MR. JONATHAN MAPLES, PLEASE.
MR. MAPLES, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU HAVE YOU.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
WELL, THANK YOU, UH, AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
YOU KNOW, WELL, WELL YOU NEED TO TURN ONE OF YOUR, ONE OF YOUR AUDIOS OFF.
IS THAT BETTER? CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES.
OKAY, WELL, WELL, WELL, WE ARE, IF YOU GIVE US, SIR, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND SPEAK CLOSE TO YOUR MIC SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.
JONATHAN MAPLES 65 25 OREO DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9.
IN DISTRICT TWO, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE ELM THINK AT NOR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND LEGACY RESIDENT OF ALMOST 60 YEARS.
THIS IS MY THIRD TIME COMING BEFORE THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE WE KNEW IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG.
THE LAST TWO TIMES I SPOKE TO THIS BOARD, I EXPLAINED TO THIS BODY THAT I WILL BE RETURNING.
BUT NOW I CAN REPORT THAT THE COMMUNITY OF M**K AND NORTH PARK WAS RIGHT IN OUR ASSESSMENT.
THAT SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY WAS WRONG TO THE TONE OF 29 TIMES.
WE, THE COMMUNITY OF M THICK AND NORTH PARK WORKED VERY HARD TO SAY, TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKED LIKE.
IT TOOK ALMOST A DECADE TO GET TO THE Z TO CPC WHERE WE WON UNANIMOUSLY CITY COUNCIL,
[00:35:01]
WHERE WE WON UNANIMOUSLY ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE WORK WAS NOT COMPLETED BY THE CITY.AND EVEN THOUGH THE COMMUNITY WAS SCREAMING FROM THE MOUNTAINTOP THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG, OUR VOICES WENT UNHEARD.
AND BUILDERS NOT ONLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE CITY, BUT ALSO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS BOARD AND THIS HISTORICAL COMMUNITY.
YOU SEE, THE BUILDERS KNEW THAT THE ZONING WAS NOT BEING ENFORCED AND THEY TOOK FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT.
AS MENTIONED IN A FOX FOUR NEWS INTERVIEW BY THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, HE KNEW THE ZONING WAS WRONG.
SO THIS PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR BREAKING THE LAW.
THIS HOUSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING, BUT THE BUILDERS HAD THE PERCEPTION THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BELIEVES IN FORGIVENESS OVER PERMISSION IF THEY BILL 50% OR BETTER.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TODAY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
THE, I'M THINKING NOR PARK ZONING IMPLEMENTATION WAS MISHANDLED AND WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, AND WHY THIS HAPPENED.
AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE KNOW YET.
SO WE'RE ASKING THAT THIS BUILDER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND FOR A PAUSE OR ANY OTHER JUDGEMENTS COMING FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHILE THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF COMPLETE THEIR INVESTIGATION AS IT RELATES TO ELM THICK AND NORTH PARK.
AND LASTLY, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
THANK FOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR.
UH, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMPONENT OF THE, OF THE HEARING TODAY.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS MIS LATEST ITEMS, UH, THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES.
BOARD MEMBERS THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING I MENTIONED, UM, THE JULY 16TH, 2024 PANEL, A MEETING MINUTES, AND THAT THERE WAS TWO TYPOS ON PAGE 17 RELATING TO, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 0.
UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, SUBJECT TO THOSE TWO ITEMS. ONE BEING THE WORD MOTION TO GRANT BEING PUT IN AND SUPPOSED TO MOTION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
AND SECOND, THE, TO STRIKE THE WORDS AGAINST ONE KATHLEEN DAVIS.
AGAIN, THIS IS FOR BDA 2 3 4 0 9 0.
MOTION NUMBER ONE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JULY 16TH, 2024 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL, A SUBJECT TO THOSE AMENDMENTS.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 16TH.
SUBJECT TO THOSE TWO NOTATIONS.
SECOND BY MR. BROOKS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 16TH AS AMENDED.
UH, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR, OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
LEMME SHUFFLE MY PAPERS THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING, THE BOARD PULLED ONE OR KEPT ONE ITEM ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET THAT IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE FIVE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
IF THE BOARD DURING THE BRIEFING SEES THAT THERE IS, UM, THAT THERE IS A CONSENSUS TO NOT HAVE A FULL-BLOWN HEARING, UH, AS IT RELATES TO A REQUEST, IT CAN BE APPROVED.
UM, SUMMARILY DURING THE AFTERNOON BRIEFING WITHOUT TESTIMONY, UH, THERE IS ONE ITEM ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
THIS IS AT 6 1 3 0 ROYALTON ROAD, THE CHAIR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE 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 WIT BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE FIVE APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN FOR VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT, RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS IS REQUIRED.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE FIVE APPLICATION OF ROB BALDWIN FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS IS REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN TO APPROVE 2 3 4 0 9 5 FOR THE TWO REQUESTS THAT ARE PENDING.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. HA HAKO.
[00:40:02]
BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY HAS ESSENTIALLY TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS, UM, AND THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS GOING IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE EXISTING GARAGE, THERE SEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT ROOM FOR OFF STREET PARKING.UM, I VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS MR. HAITZ DISCUSSION.
THE, THE AREA INVOLVED, UH, THE HOME INVOLVED, THE REBUILD WILL NOT MATERIALLY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE PRIOR SITUATION AND, UM, IT'S REALLY, UH, UH, NOT ANY REALLY CHANGE TO THE CURRENT SITUATION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD REGARDING 2 3 4 0 9 5? THIS IS AT 6 1 3 0 ROYALTON ROAD.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY CALL VOTE.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO TO GRANT IN THE MATTER OF 2 3 4 0 9 5.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO APPROVES THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE PARKING REGULATIONS.
UH, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY MOMENT OR WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 2 3 4 0 9 3 2 3 4 0 9 3.
THIS IS AT 3 2 5 NORTH MOORE STREET.
UM, MAKE SURE YOU'RE RIGHT CLOSE TO THAT MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.
YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME? VERY GOOD.
UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE? ONLY THE APPLICANT, SIR.
ALRIGHT SIR, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS.
I'LL BE, I'LL BE GENEROUS WITH TIME.
UM, TO BE ABLE TO, UM, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS AND TELL US WHY YOU'RE REQUESTING, UM, THIS VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
MS. WILLIAMS, PLEASE SWEAR IN THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING ALII.
I'M AT 24 40, UH, PORT, UH, WOODWARD AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 1.
SO IF YOU WOULD TELL ME TO PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME ONE MORE TIME 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA BUTCHER IT.
ALI IMI, UH, ELMI EL I APOLOGIZE.
YEAH, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME HERE.
UM, UH, I WAS IN THE HEARING THIS MORNING AND BRIEFING THIS MORNING AND, UH, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AND, UH, I THOUGHT I KNOW A SMALL POSITION A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
UH, BRIEF PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING ALL THOSE, UH, ITEMS RELATED TO THE BLOOD SITE.
AND ALSO, UM, ANOTHER ITEM ABOUT THE MYSTERY HOUSE REALLY IN THIS, UH, UH, PROPERTY, PLEASE.
SO, UH, THIS ONE, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THE SIDE LOCATION IS IN THE BOTTOM OF THE STREET.
SO THAT'S BASICALLY THE QUITE BIT OF INVESTMENT BY THE CITY OF DALLAS IN THIS AREA WITH THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S A QUITE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, UH, EMPTY, UH, OR VACANT LOTS HERE, THIS AREA.
AND, UH, THERE'S A QUITE BIT OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT'S HAPPENING.
SO THERE'S A NEW PD THAT WAS, UH, SIGNED IN 2021 FOR THIS AREA THAT I'M GONNA JUST KNOW, UH, REFER TO THAT.
SO, UH, THIS IS THE AREA THAT, UH, BASICALLY THE SITE IS LOCATED NEXT, NEXT SITE.
UH, SO, UH, BASICALLY THIS ONE ISN'T, UH, PD 10 52 SUBDISTRICT ONE.
SO THERE ARE TWO SUBDISTRICTS HERE.
SO THERE ARE, UH, ALMOST NO, UH, TWO OR THREE STREETS ON SUBDISTRICT ONE.
AND THEN THE REMAINING OF THE BOTTOM DISTRICTS ARE IN SUBDISTRICT, UH, TWO.
UH, SO THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE LOT SIZE.
SO BASED ON THE PD 10 52, ACTUALLY THE, THE, UH, THE LOT SIZE, THE MINIMUM BLOOD SIZE, UH, FOR SUBDISTRICT ONE IS 2000 SQUARE FOOT.
UH, AND FOR SUB-DISTRICT TWO, THE MINIMUM BLOOD SIZE IS, UH, 2,500 SQUARE FOOT, UM, FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
UM, AND, UH, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THAT'S A, UH, THE PRESENTATION ACTUALLY BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, WEBSITE THAT I, UH, SELECTED HERE TO KIND OF NOT SHOW THAT THIS AREA IN GENERAL, THERE ARE, UH, QUITE A BIT OF THE LOTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, MUCH SMALLER LOTS.
THERE ARE, THEY CALL NARROW LOTS.
THEY ARE 25 FOOT WIDE TO 35, 40 FOOT LOT.
I THINK MOST OF THIS AR AREA, THE LOTS ARE, YOU KNOW, SMALLER THAN 40 FOOT LOT, UH, 40 FOOT WIDE.
SO, UH, TYPICALLY THE LENGTH OF THESE LOTS ARE ABOUT A HUNDRED FOOT.
SO IT WOULD PUT THESE LOTS IN THE RANGE OF 2000 SQUARE FOOT TWO CLOSE TO 4,000 SQUARE FOOT, UM, FOR, FOR MAJORITY OF THE LOTS
[00:45:01]
FACING IN THE SUBDISTRICT ONE AND SUBDISTRICT TWO.SO, AND THAT'S WHY IN THE PD 10 52, THERE'S A, THERE WAS A, UH, KIND OF PUT A MINIMUM, UH, LOT SIZE OF, UH, 2000 FOR THE SUBDISTRICT ONE AND THEN 2,500, UH, SQUARE FOOT FOR SUBDISTRICT TWO.
SO THIS, UH, SITE IS, UH, UH, UH, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS SITE IS 4,300 SQUARE FEET, ABOUT 3,300 SQUARE FOOT.
SO THIS IS THE, UM, AREA VIEW OF NORTHMORE.
SO THAT'S A MYSTERY HOUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS MORNING TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION NEXT DOOR, NEXT SLIDE.
UH, SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT USED TO BE THERE.
SO IT WAS DEMOLISHED KNOW AS A PART OF KNOW THAT DEMOLISHING PERMIT.
SO IT WAS A, A SMALL HOUSE, UH, SMALL, BASICALLY A, A HOUSE THAT WAS A STRUCTURE.
IT WASN'T STRUCTURALLY SOUND, SO WE DECIDED TO, TO DEMOLISH IT.
SO PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA.
UM, AND, UM, HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THIS SOLVED THE, THE QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT BUILDING WAS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED THAT BUILDING.
SO THAT BASICALLY HAPPENED DURING THE, UH, UH, UH, PLANNING BASICALLY FOR THIS, UH, FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
UH, SO THIS IS BASICALLY A VIEW OF THE MOORE STREET AND HUTCHINSON.
SO THE, THE LOT, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS GONNA BE AT THE CORNER OF, UH, MOORE AND HUTCHINSON STREET NEXT.
SO THIS IS BASICALLY, UM, HOW THE LOT KNOW WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DISCUSSING THAT THIS IS A SMALL LOT.
THIS IS A 4,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
IT'S A TRIANGLE SHAPE, BUT, UH, WHEN I GAVE IT TO THE, THE ARCHITECTS, SO THEY LOVE IT BECAUSE THAT WAS A CHALLENGE.
SO THEY, THEY COME UP, YOU KNOW, WITH SOMETHING THAT WE BE ABLE TO PUT IT THERE.
AND I WAS ACTUALLY IMPRESSED, YOU KNOW, WITH THEM, BUT THEY DID.
BUT THE MAIN THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE PUT THE TWO DOUBLE SETBACK, YOU KNOW, THIS LAW, SO IF WE WOULD END UP, YOU KNOW, WITH ALMOST, YOU KNOW, PUTTING ONE GARAGE READY THERE, SO IT'S NOTHING REALLY OUTSET, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, CAN BUILD THIS PROPERTY.
UM, SO THE, THE REQUEST THAT I HAVE HERE IS THAT NEXUS SLIDE TO CHANGE ONE OF THE SETBACK, YOU KNOW, FROM, UH, THE REQUEST FOR SETBACK ON ALONG HUTCHINS AVENUE FROM 20 FOOT TO TO FIVE FOOT, UH, TODO, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THIS, UH, SUBJECT SIDE.
THAT'S, UH, THAT'S MY PRESENTATION THEN.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
AND, AND TAKE THAT, LEAVE THAT LAST PHOTO BACK UP.
I DON'T KNOW WHO'S RUNNING THE, THE POWERPOINT 'CAUSE THAT I THINK THAT'S IMPACTFUL FOR THE DISCUSSION THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE.
SO MY COMP, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND, AND SPEAKING, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
MR. VEZ, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
I JUST, UM, I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR IN MY OWN MIND.
WERE YOU HERE FOR OUR DISCUSSION THIS MORNING? I WAS ACTUALLY, IT WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR THANK YOU.
THE, UH, THE GREENHOUSE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT,
THAT'S A BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK HE WANTED THAT ON THE RECORD AND, AND IT'S NOW ON THE RECORD.
I THINK THAT'S, NO, THAT'S THE PURPOSE AND VERY GOOD.
AND BOARD MEMBERS, I'M PASSING THE, UH, ANY FEEDBACK ON EACH CASE DOWN THE RUN HERE? WELL, UH, THERE WAS ONE, ONE EMAIL IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST.
SO WE SHARE THE, THE, AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
SO, UM, YOU, UH, YOU HEARD THIS MORNING MY, THIS ONE MEMBER'S HESITATION, GIVEN THAT IT LOOKED LIKE A AWFULLY SMALL LOT ONE, UH, IF YOU'RE ALLOWED, A FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS NOT AS SMALL A LOT.
AND AS YOU HAD SAID IN, I'M LOOKING BACK ON MY ZONING MAP HERE.
THIS IS PD 10 52 SUBDISTRICT ONE, WHICH, WHAT WOULD, WHAT DID YOU SAY? THE SQUARE FOOTAGE RANGE IS FROM THE, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS A 2000 SQUARE FOOT 2000.
AND THE, IS THERE A MAXIMUM? UH, THERE'S NO MAXIMUM, THERE'S, BUT A MINIMUM 2000.
I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE ANYONE CAN BUILD ON 2000 SQUARE FEET, BUT I'M NOT A BUILDER SO I JUST, I JUST LOOK AT MAPS AND TRY TO MAKE A FAIR AND REASONABLE DECISION, BUT OKAY.
ALRIGHT, UM, YOU'RE, FOR THE RECORD, YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR A, UH, VARIANCE ALONG HUTCHINS.
YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR A A BLOCK FACE VARIANCE FOR, UH, MOORE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THE MOORE WILL, MOORE'S CONTINUITY WILL MAINTAINED IS JUST HUTCHINS.
UM, THIS IMAGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IS THIS YOUR SITE PLAN? THIS IS BASICALLY, YES.
SO IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'RE PLANNING TO BUILD A THREE STORY HOME THERE? YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT A THREE STORY HOME IS ALLOWABLE IN THAT AREA.
[00:50:01]
RIGHT.SO YEAH, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT ONCE.
SO THAT'S A SUBDISTRICT ONE, BASICALLY HOUR 36 FOOT, UH, WE SEE A HEIGHT FOR THAT AREA AND YEAH, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT
SO I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO REPEAT THAT AGAIN.
SO IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT PD 10 52 SUBDISTRICT ONE HAS A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 36 FEET, 36 FEET, AS YOU CAN HEAR FROM OUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY THAT, UM, THESE ARE, THESE ARE RELEVANT FACTS.
NO, THAT, THAT WAS ACTUALLY THESE ARE RELEVANT FACTS.
IT'S NOW ON THE RECORD ABOUT THAT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 9 4 ON APPLICATION OF ALI IBRAHAM IBRAHIMI GRANT, THE 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CO CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS AS REQUIRED IN THE MANNER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE THREE, MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR THE 15 FOOT VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG HUTCHINS.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
SECOND, UH, MR. BROOKS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO GRANT MS. HAYDEN, UM, NOT ONLY IS THIS LOT RESTRICTIVE IN SHAPE WITH THAT TRIANGULAR SHAPE, BUT IT'S ALSO RESTRICTED BY THE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
AND THE, THE, UH, IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER HOMES ALONG HUTCHINS.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IS THE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, ENCROACHING ON THAT BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY.
BUT THERE WERE NO OTHER, UM, HOMES ALONG HUTCHINS THAT I COULD SEE THAT FRONTED HUTCHINS, UM, THAT THIS WOULD AFFECT.
SO I'M VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
MR. BROOKS, I'M ALSO GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR FOR, FOR THE SAME REASONS.
UM, AND THEN JUST FOR THE RECORD, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS.
I, I THINK WE MIGHT'VE SAID OH NINE FOUR INSTEAD OF OH NINE THREE WHEN THE MOTION WAS READ.
UM, IT, IT IT'S OH NINE THREE.
I'M, I'M, I'M ALMOST POSITIVE I HEARD YOU SAY OH NINE FOUR.
SO I GUESS THIS IS A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT OH NINE FOUR.
NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OH NINE THREE.
I, I'M, I'M REVERSING MYSELF HERE.
I THINK WHEN MS. HAYDEN READ THE MOTION, SHE SAID OH NINE FOUR IT SAYS OH NINE THREE.
UH, IT, THE CHAIR WILL INTERPRET IT AS OH NINE THREE.
YES, I, I'LL, I'LL AGREE WITH THAT.
THAT 2 3 4 0 9 3 WHENEVER I READ IN THE BEGINNING, I'M MEANT TO READ
OKAY, SO, UH, THE, THE CHAIR APPRECIATES THAT.
THE MOTION IN FRONT OF THE BOARD IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE AT, UH, AT 3 2 5 NORTH MOORE STREET, WHICH IS OUR CASE NUMBER 2 3 4 0 9 3.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, MS. BOARD SECRETARY? CALL THE VOTE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH NINE THREE.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK.
UH, YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
OKAY, UH, THE NEXT CASE BEFORE THE BOARD.
THE NEXT CASE BEFORE THE BOARD IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 1 BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 1.
THIS IS A HOLDOVER CASE FROM, UH, LET'S LOOK HERE A SECOND.
FROM, FROM JUNE 18TH, UM, AT 6 0 7 WEST DAVIS STREET.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
JUST ONE SECOND, JEFF ON MY PAPER.
FOR THE PUBLIC'S, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT EMAILS THAT HAD COME TO US.
THERE WERE NO EMAILS THAT HAD COME TO US FOR, FOR INFORMATION FOR
[00:55:01]
THE BOARD.UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS TO BE ABLE TO, UH, PRESENT YOUR CASE TO THE BOARD.
UM, UH, BUT FIRST SHE'S OUR BOARD SECRETARY'S GONNA SWEAR YOU IN AND, AND THEN YOU CAN PROCEED.
MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
MY ADDRESS IS 2121 NORTH JOSE LANE, SUITE 200.
I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT AND ALSO I HAVE PROVIDED THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THE SITE.
I WAS OUT OF TOWN DURING THE LAST BOARD MEETINGS, SO I DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, PRESENT MY, UH, PROJECT, BUT, UH, I HEARD THAT THE LAST, UH, MEETING THEY HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE EXISTING, UH, OAK TREE THAT THE PLAN CHOSE TO BE REMOVED.
AND AFTER I HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH, UH, MR. EVANS, UH, UH, WE DECIDED TO KEEP THAT TREE AND REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
AND ALSO WITH SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE DECIDE TO ADD AS MUCH SHRUBS AND, UH, SMALL TREES AS POSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS.
AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE DONE IT.
THERE IS SOME, UH, ISSUES REGARDING THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS THAT DURING THE PLA UH, PROCESS, THE CITY HAS REQUESTED ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF OF FOOT OF, UH, RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS ALONG A FOUR ACRE.
AND, UH, BUT THAT ONE IS FOR THE FUTURE.
THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE IS RIGHT AT THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE, WHICH IS INSIDE OF THE PROPOSED FIVE AND FIVE HALF FOOT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
WHEN I DISCUSS IT WITH THE CITY, THEY SAID THIS IS FOR THE FUTURE.
WE ARE NOT GONNA ASK YOU TO, UH, DEMOLISH THE BUILDINGS, ANYTHING.
THE CITY IS TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE FUTURE.
RIGHT NOW THERE ARE LOTS OF BUILDINGS PROBABLY ARE INSIDE OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS, BUT, UH, WE PROVIDING THE LANDSCAPE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, UH, INSIDE OF THAT, UH, RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION OF FIVE AND A HALF FOOT.
UH, IN THE FUTURE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, IF THE BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED FOR SOME REASONS, THEY TRY TO, UH, PUT A NEW BUILDING, THEN AT THAT TIME WE WILL COMPLY AND WE PROBABLY, AND MOST LIKELY WE ARE GONNA REVISE THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS GONNA BE INSIDE THE PROPERTY.
BUT AT THIS POINT, THIS RIDE OF DEDICATION IS FOR THE FUTURE PURPOSES, BUT WE TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
AND AS I SAID, I TRY TO MR. EVIDENCE AND WE TRY TO, UH, PROVIDE THE TREES AND SHOP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HAITZ, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS THIS MORNING.
YOU, YOU DIDN'T WANNA FOLLOW UP ANY FURTHER? AND THEN I HAVE MR. BROOKS, SO DID YOU HEAR THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING? YES, I WAS.
SO, UM, YOU'RE AWARE THAT WE HAVE THE, UH, ABILITY TO PLACE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON YES.
THE LANDSCAPING IN THE FUTURE? YES.
UM, AND THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH YOU WITH THAT? WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT.
IF THEY NEED TREES DIES OR IS NOT IN GOOD CONDITION, WE WILL REPLACE HIM.
AND MY CLIENT IS PLANNING TO KEEP ALL THE TREES AND MAINTAIN THEM.
YOUR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO MODIFY YOUR PLANS OF THE BUILDING IS I'M SURE VERY APPRECIATED.
UM, AND, AND VERY GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON YOUR PART TO THANK, MEET THE BOARD'S CONCERNS.
I HAVE A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE, I THINK THEY'RE ELM TREES THAT ARE IN THE LITTLE, UH, KIND OF JUD OUTS INTO THE STREET THAT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN.
AND YOU DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THOSE? NO.
IIII ONLY ASK THAT FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION BECAUSE ONE OF THE STANDARDS WE, WE CONSIDER HERE IS IF THERE'S LANDSCAPING THAT EXISTS FOR WHICH NO CREDIT IS GIVEN UNDER THE ARTICLE.
SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE THREE MORE TREES THAT TO THE UNTRAINED EYE WOULD LOOK AS THOUGH THEY'RE PART OF YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN, BUT THEY'RE REALLY THE CITY'S TREES AND THE THEY ARE CITY'S TREES.
SO THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
SO, MR. IRWIN, HOLD, HOLD TIGHT THERE.
SO MR. IRWIN, IF OWL, THAT'S TRUE.
WHO TAKES CARE OF THOSE TREES IF THEY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TAKES
[01:00:01]
CARE OF THOSE TREES.SO HE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? YES.
MEANING HE DOESN'T HAVE TO REPLACE 'EM IF THEY DIE? WELL, GENERALLY IF A TREE
WELL, IF, IF A TREE DIES, YES, BASICALLY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING THAT TREE.
UH, AND THEN ALSO IF THERE IS TO BE A REPLACEMENT TO HANDLE THE REPLACEMENT OF THAT TREE.
YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT, SIR? YES.
THE TREES ENHANCES THE PROPERTY, SO I WE WOULD AGREE.
BUT WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S ALL OUT.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THIS APPLICANT? WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS THE BOARD HAVE ON THIS CASE? IF NOT, I'M GONNA GO TO YOU, MR. HAITZ FOR A MOTION, PLEASE.
MR. THIS IS GD 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 1.
I'M SORRY, DO WE HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS? I APOLOGIZE.
WHAT OTHER SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE? I HAVE UH, ONE OPPOSITION.
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MISSING THAT MS. WILLIAMS. MS. PAM CONLEY.
AND MS. CONNELLEY, I APOLOGIZE FOR MISSING.
CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANNA OVERLOOK ANYONE, LET ALONE YOU APPRECIATE THAT.
OF COURSE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN, AND YOU'D BE SWORN IN BY MS. UH WILLIAMS. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
PAM CONLEY OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA AT 9 0 1 NORTH MADISON.
JUST BECAUSE I'M OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T CARE.
DOESN'T MEAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T CARE THE NOTE.
AND YOU DID NOTE LAST TIME THAT AND THIS TIME AS WELL, THAT NO ONE IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA RESPONDED.
FRANKLY, THE NOTICES THAT ARE SENT OUT ARE A LITTLE BIT VAGUE AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM.
AND YOU KNOW, I MESS WITH THIS STUFF AN AWFUL LOT AND I STARTED DIGGING INTO IT AND WE APPRECIATE IT.
DID ANYBODY NOTICE HOW HOT IT IS OUTSIDE? DO NOT APPRECIATE THAT TREES BRING THIS DOWN.
WE NEED MORE TREES, NOT FEWER TREES, AND WE NEED THEM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
TREES ARE EXPENSIVE TO PUT IN, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN.
IT'S HARD FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO MAINTAIN THEIR TREES, SO WE CERTAINLY WANT EVER HELP THAT WE CAN GET ON PUTTING IN TREES TO SAY THAT THE BACK OF THOSE HOUSES DON'T DESERVE ANY TREES ON THAT FOUR ACRE SIDE IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM TO ME.
NOW, MOST OF US HAVE, IF WE HAVE A HOUSE, WE'VE GOT A FRONT YARD, A BACKYARD, AND AN ALLEY AS A BUFFER BETWEEN WHATEVER IS BEHIND US.
WELL, THE PEOPLE ON NEELY STREET HAD A BUFFER.
AND AT SOME POINT, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT POINT IS, THE ALLEY WAS CONVERTED TO A STREET.
NOW I'M DOING THE RESEARCH ON THIS RIGHT OF WAY.
I, I WENT TO BUILDING, I WENT TO PUBLIC WORKS AND SPOKE WITH MR. WHITE AND HE SAID, NO, THERE'S NOT ANY PLANS FOR THAT.
YES, IT'S ON THE MAPS, YOU KNOW, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE NEAR FUTURE OR THE DISTANT FUTURE.
SO THEN I WAS REFERRED TO THE VAULT AND IF Y'ALL HAVE EVER WORKED WITH TOMMY UP THERE, YOU KNOW THAT MAN KNOWS HIS STUFF.
THAT RIGHT AWAY SAID 20 FEET FOR A SIDEWALK.
AND PARKING THE MAPS SHOW IN 1913 THAT THAT WAS PUT IN THERE.
SO IT'S NOT REAL LIKELY THAT THE CITY'S GONNA COME ALONG ANYTIME SOON AND SUDDENLY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THERE.
THE WIDTH SHOWS 45 FEET TOTAL, 20 OF THAT RESERVED FOR SIDEWALK AND PARKING.
THAT WOULD LEAVE US WHAT WITH A 25 FOOT MASS? NOT MY STRONG POINT STREET.
I DON'T THINK WE DO STREETS THAT WIDTH ANYMORE.
IF YOU NOTICE A VIDEO THAT WAS SHOWN THIS MORNING, THAT'S A NARROW, NARROW STREET.
[01:05:02]
TOMMY COULDN'T FIND WHERE THAT ACTUALLY BECAME A STREET.NOW MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN, BUT AS FAR AS HIS RECORDS SHOW, AND I'VE GOT THE MAPS HERE FROM 19 13, 19 25 AND 1996, AND NONE OF THEM SHOW IT AS STREET.
SO I'M HOPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND MAYBE MAKE THIS WALKABLE WALK.
IT ALSO SHOWED WALKWAYS GOING THROUGH FROM DAVIS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STRIVING FOR IS WALKABILITY.
BUT THOSE PEOPLE ON NEELY NOW, THEY NEED SOME MORE GREENERY THERE.
THEY DON'T HAVE AN ALLEY ANYMORE.
THEY JUST A TRAFFIC OF STREET.
AND I NOTICED IN 1921, UH, SIX 19 WEST DAVIS PUT IN A DRIVE APPROACH ON THE FOUR ACRE SIDE.
NOW NONE OF THOSE OTHER PLACES HAVE ACCESS TO THAT STREET.
SO MAYBE SOMEWHERE, SOMETHING HAPPENED ALONG THERE, BUT WE CAN'T FIND IT.
ON THE FOUR ACRE SIDE, THE CITY SPENT MONEY ON PUTTING SOME TREES ON THE DAVIS STREET SIDE.
LET'S SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU KNOW, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAD ROUGH TIME WITH THE ZONING AND IT DESERVES SOME GOOD TREATMENT.
NOW, THE BUILDING, WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE BUILDING SLIGHTLY SMALLER TO FIT IN SOME GREENERY.
LET'S MOVE IT TOWARDS DAVIS AND GIVE US MORE SPACE BACK THERE FOR SOME CANOPY TREES, BECAUSE THE TREES ARE RECOMMENDED VITEX, WHICH ARE NICE TREES.
YOU, I NEED YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT I WANT YOU TO GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
PLEASE GIVE THIS SOME MORE THOUGHT, PUT SOME MORE RESTRICTIONS, GIVE US SOME GREENERY ON FOUR ACRE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR.
UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN ONE ON APPLICATION OF CHEANG GIOVANNI.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE-SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
AND IN THE EVENT OF THE LOSS OF A LARGE TREE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS DEFINED BY ARTICLE 10 SAID, TREE MUST BE REPLACED ON THE LOT WITH A SMALL TREE FROM THE DALLAS CITY OF DALLAS APPROVED TREE LIST WITHIN 30 DAYS OF REMOVAL.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. KOVI IN BDA 2 3 4 0 7 1 TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND.
MR. BROOKS IS SECONDED THE MOTION.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. HOVE, UH, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE BUILDING, UH, ITSELF AS WELL AS TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONCERNS OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY.
UH, WE'RE PLACING AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION ON OUR APPROVAL AND REQUIRING THE REPLACEMENT OF THAT LARGE TREE THAT IS BEING SAVED AT THE MOMENT.
IN THE EVENT THAT THAT TREE SUFFERS, UH, UH, ANY ISSUES CAUSES IT TO NO LONGER BE THERE, UH, TO CAUSE IT TO BE REMOVED WITH ANOTHER TREE, UH, THAT WILL GROW INTO A BIG TREE.
BUT, UH, THE INSTALLATION OF A LARGE TREE IN A VERY COMPLICATED AND EXPENSIVE PROJECT THAT, UH, PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ACCOMMODATED BY WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO WE ARE ASKING THAT IT BE REPLA, UH, REPLACED WITH A SMALL TREE, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY GROW INTO A LARGE ONE.
UH, DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION MR. BROOKS? NOTHING FURTHER.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, UH, IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 1
[01:10:01]
FOR 6 0 7 WEST DAVIS STREET.THE MOTION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS SPOKEN IN THE MOTION.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MR. MARY AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 1.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES GRANTS YOUR REQUEST FIVE TO ZERO FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED.
THANK YOU, SIR, YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN SEVEN BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN SEVEN.
THIS IS AT 3 2 1 6 PEORIA STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE.
YOU'LL ONLY TURN THE BLUE SHEET TO, UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
OKAY, SO, SO I DON'T MAKE THIS MISTAKE AGAIN
SO, UM, IS THE TRANSLATOR SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE? FOR THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVE? OH, FOR BOTH OF THEM.
SO WE HAVE TWO REALLY HAVE TWO SPEAKERS.
I I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I AM SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE IS THE CONTRACTOR WHO SPEAKS FLUENT ENGLISH.
SO I AM STANDING NEXT TO THE OWNER FOR ANY CLARIFICATION NEEDED.
OKAY, SO WHO, ALRIGHT, SO THE TRANSLATOR IS SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE? APPLICANT, OKAY.
SO WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS, CORRECT? DO WE HAVE ANY IN OPPOSITION? NO OPPOSITION.
CONSISTENT ARE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
UM, UH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT, UH, YOUR, YOUR REQUEST AND THEN ANY OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
IF THERE IS A RE A TRANSLATOR REQUESTED, IT'S DOUBLE THAT TIME FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT WHO IS HAVING A TRANSLATOR TO ALLOW FOR INTERPRETATION OR TRANSLATION.
SO, UM, GENTLEMEN, ALL THREE OF YOU, IF YOU'D RAISE YOUR HAND, YOU'LL BE SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, SIR.
SO STATE YOUR NAME AND, AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
SO WE'RE GONNA START, YOU WANNA START WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE? APPLICANT.
YOU'RE THE APPLICANT? YES, CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO IF YOU, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
MY NAME IS, UH, BLA GARZA AND THE ADDRESS FOR THIS PROJECT IS, UH, 3 2 1 6 PEORIA AVENUE.
YES, WE ARE HERE, UH, AS, UH, PREVIOUS UH, MEETINGS THAT YOU ARE, UH, REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPT TO THE FENCE HATE, UH, REGULATIONS FOR A HOME DWELLING AND, UH, WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, TO TRANSPORT, UH, A CONSTRUCTION OR TO MAINTAIN A SIX FEET AND SIX INCHES, UH, FRONT UH, FOOT.
SPECIAL RECEPTION TO THE FENCE, UH, REGULATIONS.
WE ALREADY SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN SHOWING ALL THE FRONTS, UH, DISTANCE WITH, UH, ZONING IN DEPARTMENT OF, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND THEY ALREADY GOT, UH, ALL THE INFORMATION, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR THE FRONT.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, YOU CAN, IS IS THAT IT FOR WHAT YOU WANNA SPEAK FOR NOW? YES.
ALRIGHT, IS, AND IS THERE OTHER SPEAKERS THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
WHEN STARTERS, PEORIA STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I AM THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE ON 32 16 PEORIA AVENUE, AVENUE, DALLAS,
[01:15:01]
TEXAS 7 5 2 1 2.I AM HERE TO ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION ON THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE THAT WE ALREADY DID THAT IS LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE YARD.
THE MAIN REASON WHY FOR THAT HEIGHT IS FOR PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS MY FAMILY.
THAT IS ALL, WHICH IS GRACIAS.
QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS OF THE APPLICANT, MS. HAYDEN, UM, I KNOW WE'VE SEEN THIS CASE BEFORE, BUT JUST REFRESH MY MEMORY, WAS THIS, WAS THIS FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITH A PERMIT OR WITHOUT A PERMIT? WITHOUT THE PERMIT.
WE GOT PERMIT FOR, UH, TO BUILD A HOME, BUT WE DIDN'T APPLY FOR, UH, TO BUILD A FENCE.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK THE QUESTION.
WHO WAS THE PLANNER ON THIS, MS. JORDAN? DO, DO OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT THE HOME BUILT AT THIS LOCATION WAS PERMITTED BUT NOT THE FENCE? IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION? YES, THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.
RONALD REAGAN, HE SAYS TRUST BUT VERIFY.
SO I TRUST, BUT I VERIFY MR. BROOKS QUESTIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANY, DO DO YOU THINK THIS FENCE IS GONNA ADVERSELY AFFECT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? I DON'T THINK SO.
THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
DO YOU THINK IT MAKES THE NEIGHBORHOOD NICER? OBJECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN.
UH, THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS, MS. WILLIAMS, NO OTHER SPEAKERS ARE.
THIS ONE OTHER COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE TO YOU, THEN I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AND THAT IS, UH, THIS HAS GONE ON FOR QUITE A WHILE AND, UH, WE HEARD THIS CASE BACK IN APRIL.
THE BOARD DENIED IT BECAUSE WE WERE CONFUSED ON WHAT THE PLANS WERE, WERE NOT THE MEASUREMENTS.
UM, WE HEARD THE CASE IN A MINI VERSION IN JUNE AND WE HELD IT OVER TILL TO NOW.
BUT THAT SAID, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST.
MR. BROOKE'S QUESTION, UH, AS IT RELATES TO NOT ADVERS AFFECTING NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL.
I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT, YOU BUILT IT WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF, UM, I MOVED THE BOARD OF JUDGMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 7 ON APPLICATION OF JOEL PERALES.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO, TO MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT SIX INCH HEIGHT FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
ISO MOVE IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. BROOKS.
UH, THE REASON BOARD MEMBERS I RECOMMEND APPROVING THIS, UH, IS I'M GONNA L THIS IN THIS CASE, I'M GONNA LOOK BEYOND THE PERMITTING ISSUE BECAUSE OUR CRITERIA, AND IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL, IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPERTY, I DO BELIEVE THIS FENCE, I DO BELIEVE THIS HEIGHT, UH, ADDS VALUE AS OPPOSED TO NEUTRAL, AS OPPOSED TO NEGATIVE.
AND THAT'S THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT IT.
IS IT, IS IT A PLUS? IS IT A NEUTRAL OR IS IT A NEGATIVE? IF IT WAS A NEUTRAL OR A NEGATIVE, I'D VOTE NO
[01:20:02]
BUT BECAUSE IT'S A PLUS AND NOT A NEUTRAL OR A NEGATIVE.SO, UH, I'M ENCOURAGING THE BOARD TO LOOK BEYOND THE, THE PERMIT, THE, THE ISSUE HERE ON THE A NO PERMIT, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
SO I'M, I'M ENCOURAGING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER APPRO THIS.
I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE DRAWINGS THAT WE THINK WE CAN BELIEVE IN WITH MEASUREMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
I'M GLAD THERE'S NOT AN OPACITY ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE MEASUREMENTS.
I'M GLAD THERE'S NOT A VISIBLY TRIANGLE ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE CORRECT DI BUT IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS WHEN YOU BRING IN INFORMATION THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS DEAL WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GIVEN.
SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION, MR. KOVI.
UM, I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD THIS CASE, YOU'VE BEEN HERE A NUMBER OF TIMES AND THE FENCE IS STILL THE FENCE.
IT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU CAME HERE.
AND FOR ME, THE REASON WE DIDN'T APPROVE IT THE FIRST TIME, UH, ARE DON'T BECOME IRRELEVANT BY REPEATEDLY COMING BACK TO US WITH THE SAME FENCE.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
THANK YOU MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. BROOKS? I, I SECONDED THE MOTION AND I'M REMAINING SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
UM, I, I WASN'T HERE FOR THE EARLIER HEARINGS.
I, I TRY NOT TO PUT TOO MUCH STOCK INTO WHETHER OR NOT A BUILDING PERMIT WAS, WAS APPLIED FOR.
'CAUSE IT'S SORT OF OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.
UM, BUT THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD AND I'M HERE TO EVALUATE IT.
ONLY IF THIS IS GONNA ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
AND WHILE THERE IS ONE LETTER OF CONCERN, WE CAN CALL IT A LETTER OF OPPOSITION, IF THAT'S THE TECHNICAL TERM.
UM, I, I'M PERSUADED BY THE EVIDENCE WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH TODAY.
DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL.
UM, A LITTLE, UM, UH, HESITATED A BIT ON THIS ONE BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS A JUDGMENT CALL WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL AFFECT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, BUT THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT, UM, IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND IT IS OPAQUE, UM, UM, I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL AND I FEEL THAT IT, IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, I I BASICALLY AGREE, UH, THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO, UH, REAL OPPOSITION TO THIS.
UM, I THINK THE VIDEO AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SEEN, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING BEYOND THE PERMITTING ISSUE, IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE FENCE.
AND I'M ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION BEFORE THE BOARD IN 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 7 IS A MOTION TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT.
THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE.
FIVE TO ZERO, I MEAN 5, 2, 4 TO ONE, I'M SORRY, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH SEVEN SEVEN.
THE BOARD VOTED FOUR TO ONE TO APPROVE YOUR REQUEST TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY.
PERMIT PERMIT IS ALL I WOULD SAY TO YOU.
APPRECIATE DID YOU TRANSLATE THAT PERMIT FOUR TIMES.
DODGE A BULLET IS WHAT YOU SHOULD ALSO BE SAYING.
UH, WE HAVE ONE LAST, UH, ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY, AND THAT IS BDA TWO BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE.
ACTUALLY THERE'S TWO ITEMS. ONE IS, UH, A AN APPEAL OF, OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
THE OTHER IS A FEE REQUEST, UH, REIMBURSEMENT.
UH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, HOWEVER, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, UH, 15 MINUTE, UH, RECESS TILL, UH, 15 MINUTES IS WHAT'S THAT? CAN, IT'S TWO 40.
[01:25:01]
SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A ON AUGUST 20TH, 2024 IS GONNA BE RECESSED AT 2 25.WE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER AT 2:40 PM THANK YOU.
MR. NARY, ARE YOU THERE? JAY NARY.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO SESSION HERE IN 30 SECONDS.
PANEL A IS HEREBY CALLED BACK TO ORDER.
IT IS 2:40 PM ON THE 20TH OF AUGUST, TUESDAY 2024.
WE HAVE TWO CASES, UH, A APPEAL OF A DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND THEN ALSO A REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
SO WE HAVE TWO CASES ON OUR AGENDAS.
SO FOR EVERYONE'S, UM, EDIFICATION, UM, THE CASE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HEARING NOW IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1, AND THIS IS AT 6 8 0 1 TYREE STREET.
UM, FOR APPEALS TO THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR BUILDING OFFICIAL, THERE IS A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES AND THOSE RULES ARE IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THEY'RE ON OUR WEBSITE.
AND THOSE RULES, UM, ARE VERY, VERY, IN SUMMARY FORM THIS WAY, THE APPELLANT, THAT'S THE PERSON APPEALING THE DECISION IS GIVEN 20 MINUTES.
WITHIN THAT 20 MINUTES, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES AND CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE WITNESSES.
UH, THERE'S ALLOWED A FIVE MINUTE REDIRECT FOR THOSE WITNESSES.
THEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IS ALLOWED 20 MINUTES AND FIVE MINUTES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
THEN THERE'S A REDIRECT ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES.
THEN THE APPEAL, THE PERSON FILING THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL AND A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT FOLLOWED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
OUR THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENTS, UM, THOSE ARE THE, THE BASIC GIST OF THE PROCESS.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT, UM, IN THE BUILDING, IN THE APPEALS THAT I HAVE HANDLED IN THE PAST FOR THE MANY YEARS, UH, IT'S AN INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCE.
WE ARE BOARD MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO QUESTION THE, THE BOTH SIDES.
THAT TIME OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER IS NOT HELD AGAINST YOU.
I WILL BE GENEROUS WITH THE TIME BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE AFTER IS FOR BOTH SIDES TO BE HEARD.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN SPEAK TODAY ARE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS.
THE PERSON APPEALING THE DECISION AND ANY WITNESSES THAT PERSON CALLS OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT IS APPEAL THAT IS RESPONDING TO THIS AND ANY WITNESSES THAT PERSON CALLS THE PUBLIC IS NOT PART OF THIS APPEAL PROCESS.
EARLIER TODAY WE HAD PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BUT THAT'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
SO WHAT WE'RE NOW FOCUSING ON IS AN APPEAL PLUS WITNESSES APPEAL OR RESPONDING TO THE APPEAL, PRESENTING WITNESSES AND CLOSING STATEMENTS.
UM, I'M NOW GONNA ASK THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO, UM, READ OFF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE CODE THAT, UH, OFF THAT GIVES THE POWER TO THE BOARD AND THE CRITERIA OF THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
SO SECTION 51, A 4.703 OF THE CITY CODE ALLOWS THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE POWERS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL ON THE ACTION APPEALED FROM THE BOARD MATE IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL.
SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE.
AND FOR PARTIES INVOLVED, THIS SHOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE, I HOPE BECAUSE I'M HOPEFUL THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE A, UH, HAVE ALREADY, UH, LOOKED AT THE RULES IN PLACE AND NONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SPOKEN OF AS A SURPRISE THAT TO THE PUBLIC IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF SURPRISE THAT THEY NECESSARILY CAN'T COME SPEAK AT THIS VENUE.
BUT THESE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES.
SO WOULD YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE? FOR OUR BENEFIT AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ALSO FOR THE PUBLIC, THE BOARD SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND THE ACTION APPEALED FROM THE BOARD MAY IN WHOLE OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE OR AMEND THE DECISION OF THE OFFICIAL.
NOW THE CRITERIA, THE CRITERIA OF THAT IS WHAT IS THE QUE WHAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD? THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED, MADE AN ERROR IN THEIR, IN THE DECISION TO REVOKE.
SO I'M TRYING TO FRAME THIS UP SO WE ALL UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS.
UM, THE LAST THING I'M GONNA SAY BEFORE, UH, WE START THE HEARING IS THAT IT,
[01:30:01]
UH, THE STAFF IS IN RECEIPT AND THE BOARD IS IN RECEIPT OF A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT DATED AU 9TH OF AUGUST.UH, TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT TO OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING, UM, THE STAFF MADE THE DECISION TO DEFER THAT DECISION TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD THAT'S WITHIN THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE TODAY TO HOLD THE ITEM UNDER, UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOLD THE ITEM OVER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 17TH, OR TAKE ACTION TODAY.
OTHER THAN THAT EITHER TO AFFIRM, REVERSE AMEND IN WHOLE OR PART, BUT IT, WE ARE AWARE OF THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
ONE OTHER SIDE COMMENT, I JUST MAKE, AND AGAIN, THAT'S A FUNCTION OF THE MAJORITY VOTE.
UM, TYPICALLY WE DO HONOR OR REQUEST OF AN APPLICANT TO HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AT LEAST ONE TIME, BUT THAT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
THE OTHER THING I SHOULD SAY, THAT HOLDING UNDER ADVISEMENT REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT, FOUR MEMBERS HERE, AND ONE MEMBER ONLINE PRESENT.
SO THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS, UH, PRESENT.
UM, TO TAKE ACTION TO REVERSE THE BILLING OFFICIAL'S DECISION, THE CODE REQUIRES FOUR OF FIVE MEMBERS TO MAKE A DECISION TO, UH, REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION.
SO THOSE ARE THE RULES THAT ARE SET OUT BY THE CODE, UH, AND THAT ARE CODIFIED IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
MR. KOVI, WHEN IS THE DECISION TO, OF THE, OF THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST THAT WE HOLD THIS OVER, HAVE TO TAKE PLACE? UM, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
WHEN WHAT, AT, AT WHAT POINT IN OUR PROCEEDING TODAY DOES THE APPLICANT MAKE THAT REQUEST? HAVE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST TO HOLD IT OVER? THE APPLICANT ALREADY HAS IN OUR PACKET, UH, WE RECEIVED A LETTER, THE STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD DATED THE 9TH OF AUGUST, UM, FROM MASTER PLAN AND IT SAYS WE'VE ASKED THIS APPLICATION BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER MEETING THE CITY STAFF DEFERRED THAT TO THE BOARD'S ACTION.
SO AT ANY TIME TODAY, WE COULD, UM, HOLD THE ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER.
I WOULD ADVISE AGAINST DOING THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS BECAUSE I HAVE THE APPLICANT AND I HAVE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE READY TO HEAR THE CASE, BUT I'M JUST TELLING IN ADVANCE THAT A REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE DULY REQUEST RECEIVED BY THE STAFF AND THE BOARD TO OWNER ADVISEMENT.
SO THAT IS AN OPTION WE MAY UTILIZE.
SO JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT THEN, IF WE HEAR ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE TODAY YES, SIR.
AND MAKE A DECISION TO HOLD IT OVER, YES, WE WILL HEAR ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER MAYBE OR MAYBE NOT.
IT, IT, YEAH, SO I, I JUST WOULD, THIS ONE MEMBER AND I CAN ONLY VOTE ONCE, WOULD HESITATE HOLDING IT UNDER ADVISEMENT NOW UNLESS BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO THAT ON THE FRONT END, AND THEN I WOULD BE HAVE CLEAR CONSCIENCE ON THAT.
I JUST HATE THE IDEA OF CALLING THIS NOW AND THEN SUMMARILY HOLDING IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF MY BOARD ATTORNEY WOULD ALLOW US TO DO THAT.
UM, SO COULD WE, I SUPPOSE AT ANY TIME, AGAIN, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION BY A MAJORITY VOTE IF WE WANTED TO.
UH, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU ON RECORD.
SO THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.
THE BOARD CAN PROCEED WITH A HEARING ACCORDING TO THE RULES I SET OUT THAT ARE IN PLACE.
WE COULD ASK BOTH PARTIES IF THEY'RE WILLING TO UPFRONT CONSENT TO HOLDING OVER SEPTEMBER AND THEN ACT ON THAT OR NOT.
OR WE COULD GET INFORMATION ON BOTH SIDES AND THEN MAKE A DECISION WHETHER WE WANTED TO HOLD OVER OR NOT.
THAT IS SUBJECT TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT AT THIS TIME? I GUESS MY RECOMMENDATION OR MY REQUEST WOULD BE IS I, I COULD MAKE IT AS A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, I GUESS IS THAT WE ASK BOTH PARTIES TO, AT THIS TIME IF THEY WANNA, IF THEY AGREE TO HOLD IT OVER, AND IF THEY DON'T THEN LET'S HEAR IT.
BUT IF THEY BOTH AGREE, LET'S NOT GO THROUGH ALL OF THE MOTIONS IF WE'RE GONNA HOLD IT OVER ANYWAY.
I I THINK THAT'S, I, MY GUT INSTINCT SAYS THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I WOULD DO IT AT THE FRONT END HERE IS I WANNA BE FAIR ABOUT THIS.
SO MR. BOARD ATTORNEY BEFORE I HEAR FROM THE, THE OTHER SIDE ARE, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
THAT WOULD BE PROPER PROCEDURE IF BOTH PARTIES, UH, CONSENT TO HAVING HELP.
SO I WILL ASK FIRST FROM THE APPLICANT.
I BACK UP, I'LL FIRST GO TO THE RESPONDENT BACK UP.
I'M GONNA FIRST GO TO THE APPLICANT.
DOES THE APPLICANT STILL WANT TO HOLD REQUEST THAT THIS BE HELD TILL SEPTEMBER? CARL CROWLEY 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
ACTUALLY WE'D ASKED FOR IT TO BE HELD TO YOUR OCTOBER HEARING
[01:35:01]
BECAUSE CITY MANAGER HAS STARTED A TASK FORCE TO LOOK AT THIS WHOLE ISSUE AND THEIR DECISIONS THE END OF SEPTEMBER.I THOUGHT WE MIGHT AS WELL WAIT TILL WE HEAR SOMETHING FROM THAT SIDE THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME RELEVANCE IN THIS.
SO, AND, AND I THINK THE ATTORNEY WILL AGREE TO THAT.
THE OCTOBER 22ND IS YOUR OCTOBER, I BELIEVE I'M SUPPOSED TO NOW, IF, IF YOU DECIDE TO DO THAT, THERE IS A 60 DAY REQUIREMENT THAT Y'ALL MAKE A DECISION THAT I IT'S IN THERE.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS IN THERE EITHER, BELIEVE ME.
I, I I'M MY QUESTION THAT REQUIRE MR. CROWLEY MY QUESTION.
AND YOU'RE WITH MASTER PLAN? YES SIR.
REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT? YES SIR.
OKAY, SO MY QUESTION TO EACH PARTY WAS, IS THERE A REQUEST TO HOLD THIS ITEM OVER? THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
WELL, YOU MENTIONED SEPTEMBER AND THAT'S WHY I SAID OCTOBER.
ALRIGHT, WELL I'M DOING THIS IN PARTS.
IS THERE A REQUEST TO HOLD IT OVER? YES SIR.
WHEN IS IT THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IT TO HOLDING OVER TILL OCTOBER 22ND.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND WHO YOU'RE REPRESENTING, PLEASE.
JUSTIN ROY WITH THE DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I'M AT 1400, MARILLA 70 AND DALLAS, TEXAS 1500.
AND AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YES.
AND SIR, ARE YOU REQUESTING OR CONCURRING WITH A REQUEST TO HOLD THIS OVER TILL OCTOBER 22ND? YES.
THANK YOU GENTLEMEN, GIVE US A MOMENT TO CONSIDER THAT MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, ARE THERE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO CONSULT ON IN ORDER TO UNDER FOR, TO ADVISE US ON WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OCTOBER 22ND? I HEARD SOME ISSUE OF RELATING TO 60 DAYS.
I'LL LET YOU CHASE THAT AND THEN ADVISE US.
YES, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
UH, IT IS 2:52 PM ON THE 20TH OF AUGUST.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS IN RECESS UNTIL YOU WANT, HOW MANY MINUTES DO YOU WANT? LET'S MAKE IT 15
SO WE, WE RECESS, BUT YOU'RE GONNA MAKE THE MATH HARD NOW WE'RE GONNA RE WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL 3:10 PM 3:10 PM WE'RE NOW IN RECESS.
IT IS 3:10 PM ON THE 20TH OF AUGUST, 2024 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL, A COMEBACKS INTO SESSION.
UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT IN THE BUILDING AND ONE ONLINE LINE.
UH, WE WENT INTO RECESS IN ORDER TO GET CLARIFICATION, UH, FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY ON OPTIONS FOR, UH, HOLDING AN, UM, A BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEAL UNDER ADVISEMENT.
UM, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT AS RECEIVED ON THE EIGHTH OF LET MAY LOOK HERE, HOLD ON, IS RECEIVED ON THE EIGHTH NINTH.
CORRECTION ON THE 9TH OF AUGUST WAS TO HOLD THE I ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT OF OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN SEPTEMBER 17TH.
UH, SO I, THE BOARD HAS ASKED OUR BOARD ATTORNEY TO GIVE US, UM, OPTIONS AS IT RELATES FOR OPTIONS AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US TO HOLDING AN ADVISEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER OR FOR OCTOBER.
UM, THE BOARD COUNCIL WOULD ADVISE THAT WE NOT HOLD IT OVER UNTIL OCTOBER BECAUSE IT WAS PASSED THE 60 DAY REQUIREMENT THAT'S LISTED IN STATE LAW.
AND THAT SPECIFIC LAW IS OUTTA THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2 1 1 0.010 D, THAT, UH, STATES THAT THEY, ESSENTIALLY THE BOARD HAS 60 DAYS TO DECIDE THE CASE AFTER THE DATE OF THE APPEAL IS FILED.
AND SO WAITING UNTIL OCTOBER WOULD PUT US OUTSIDE THAT LIMIT AND WE WOULD MUCH RATHER RECOMMEND HOLDING IT OVER UNTIL A SEPTEMBER DATE.
SO BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, UM, BOARD MEMBERS, IT'S STILL WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION OF HOW WE WANNA HANDLE IT.
UH, WE GOT ADVICE FROM THE BOARD ATTORNEY ABOUT, UH, THE ISSUE OF 60 DAYS, UH, VERSUS MOVE FOR SEPTEMBER 17TH VERSUS IN OCTOBER.
UM, DO THE, DOES THE APPLICANT WANNA RESPOND TO THE WHAT? THE NEW INFORMATION YOU JUST HEARD? ALTHOUGH MR. CROWLEY, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT OPENED IT UP.
SO, AND THEN THE, THEN THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE AFTER THAT.
MR. CROWLEY? UM, CARL CROWLEY.
MAKE SURE THAT MICROPHONE'S ON.
I THINK IT'S THE FIRST TIME ANYONE'S THAT'S OKAY.
UH, UH, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE SEPTEMBER 17TH.
MR, MR. UH, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? I NO OBJECTION TO.
[01:40:01]
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE AFTER, AFTER HEARING FROM BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER AND, AND THEIR CONCURRENCE TO HOLD IT OVER.BOTH CONCURRENCE, UH, HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2002, 2024.
UH, WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC, THE APPELLANT, THE APPLICANT WHO'S APPEALING AND THE CITY WHO'S RESPONDING TO THE BUILDING DEFENDING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TODAY.
OR IF NOT HEARD TODAY, TO AGREE TO POSTPONE OR A DATE CERTAIN.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I WON'T WANT, I AM, I I WILL BE ADAMANTLY AGAINST POSTPONING AGAIN.
UM, BECAUSE THAT DELAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHEN IS THAT THEY CAN EXPRESS THEMSELVES VERSUS NOT.
AND I WOULD SAY FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, THE PUBLIC'S TESTIMONY, THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO SPEAK IS EITHER IN WRITING WITH EMAILS, UM, OR BY SPEAKING AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION WHEN THEY CAN SPEAK ON ANY ISSUE RELATING TO THAT DAY'S AGENDA.
BUT THEY CANNOT, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, BE SPEAKERS DURING THE HEARING UNLESS THEY'RE CALLED FOR BY THE A, THE APPLICANT OR THE RESPONDENT.
AND I KNOW I'M BEING REDUNDANT, MY WIFE SAYS I'M THAT WAY ALL THE TIME.
I JUST WANNA MAKE IT VERY CLEAR 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO SAY I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK THAT.
THOSE ARE THE CONSISTENT RULES.
SO, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, I'M RECOMMENDING IT BECAUSE I THINK IT MEETS ALL THE FAIRNESS CRITERIA AND IT ALLOWS US TO BE INFORMED ONE TIME AS OPPOSED TO MULTIPLE VERSUS NOT.
THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY FEEDBACK TO THE, TO THE BOARD.
MR. HAITZ, I CONCUR, UH, FOR, UH, AGREEABLE TO THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES FOR DELAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. BROOKS? I'M, I'M UNDECIDED ON IF I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
UM, I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO PREPARING TO BE HERE.
UM, NOTABLY MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE'VE TAKEN, I DUNNO, FOUR OR FIVE HOURS OUT OF THEIR DAY AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO ASK THEM TO DO THAT AGAIN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT'S GONNA BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NEXT MONTH, UH, WHAT LIKELIHOOD THERE IS IN THE CITY RESOLVING THIS ISSUE TO EVERYONE'S, UM, SATISFACTION.
SO I, I JUST, I HAVE A LOT OF HEARTBURN ABOUT ASKING THESE FOLKS TO COME BACK AGAIN.
NOW IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING EVERYONE'S IN THE MINUTES AND YOU'RE IN FRONT OF THE SAME PANEL AND HOPEFULLY A LOT OF THE SAME MEMBERS, BUT A LOT OF TIME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THIS.
UM, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, AND I'M JUST PUN PUNTING FOR 20, 30 DAYS.
I'M, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT SITS WITH ME.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? MS. HAYDEN? I'LL BE THE, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, I, I AGREE WITH MR. BROOKS THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY TO BE HERE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED ALL THE FACTS THAT WE CAN GET AND WE NEED PEOPLE TO BE AS PREPARED AS POSSIBLE.
AND IF BOTH, BOTH PARTIES, UM, WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE IT FOR 30 DAYS, THEN I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT.
MR. NRI, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR NOT? UM, NO.
WELL, I CON I CONCUR, UH, BECAUSE BOTH SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THE POSTPONEMENT, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, OTHERWISE I WOULD PROBABLY BE OPPOSED.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I, THE ONE COMMENT OR ONE OF MANY COMMENTS, THE COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS, I WOULD HOPE THERE WOULD BE A RESOLUTION OTHER THAN HAVING TO COME TO THE BOARD TO ADJUDICATE THIS.
BUT I CAN'T FORCE THAT, UH, THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY MANAGER, AND THIS PROPERTY OWNER.
ALL I CAN SAY IS PUBLICLY I WOULD, AS MS. HAYDEN SPOKE TO, I WOULD HOPE THERE WOULD BE A RESOLUTION.
BUT SHORT OF THAT RESOLUTION, THE STATE STATUTE CREATES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN MUNICIPALITIES.
THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE CITY DALLAS, HAS CREATED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WITH A PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO HANDLE THINGS.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT.
UM, SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE AND,
[01:45:01]
UM, I ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO DO SO.WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE, MS. WILLIAMS. AND, UH, THIS, THIS ALSO APPLIES TO THE FEE WAIVER FEE WAIVER REQUEST.
CORRECT? THERE WOULD BE, NEED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL MOTION.
ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS STRICTLY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL A DECISION.
MS. WILLIAMS, THIS IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2024 PANEL A, I'M SORRY, SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024.
PANEL A, MS. WILLIAMS. MS. HAYDEN AYE.
MR. NER? MR. NER CAN'T HEAR YOU, JAY.
I, I CLICKED THE WRONG BUTTON.
AYE, MOTION PASSES TO HOLD IT OVER FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1 AT 6 8 0 1 TYREE STREET.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024.
IS THAT, ARE YOU SURE THAT'S THE DATE GUYS, BY THE WAY? WE'RE SURE.
UH, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1 FR ONE, AN APPLICATION OF ACBAR HANNEY GRANT CORRECTION, HOLD THIS ITEM OVER FOR UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. KOVI.
ANY DISCUSSION THIS SIMPLY FOLLOWS THE OTHER CASE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO DECIDE THE FEE WAIVER REQUEST AND THE, THE OTHER CASE THAT'S AN INDEPENDENT DECISION.
I'M JUST, I'M RECOMMENDING POSTPONING BOTH ISSUES TILL SEPTEMBER 17TH.
DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION, SEEING NO DISCUSSION, CALL THE VOTE PLEASE.
FOUR TO ONE THE BOARD, UH, A APPROVES HOLDING OVER FOR THE BDA.
2 3 4 DASH 1 0 1 FR ONE, UM, FEE WAIVER UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024.
THOSE, BOTH, THOSE, BOTH THOSE ITEMS ARE HELD OVER, UM, FOR UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER, SEPTEMBER 17TH BOARD MEETING.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY.
OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, EXCUSE ME, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FROM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOT A, ALL THESE TITLES KEEP CHANGING.
UH, WANTED TO MAKE A, A COMMENT AT THE CO CLOSE OF TODAY'S SESSION, MR. POOLE.
UM, AS A COMMUNITY AND INTEREST ANNOUNCEMENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AN OPTION THAT MAY HELP ENSURE FAIRNESS AND CONSISTENCY IN THE RESOLUTION OF CASES ARISING FROM PREVIOUS CITY OVERSIGHTS IN THE ELM THICKET NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 67.
UH, THE CITY HAS RECENTLY IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF OVERSIGHTS IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR PD 67 ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2022.
THESE OVERSIGHTS HAVE LED TO CASES BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND MAY RESULT IN FUTURE CASES ALL RELATED TO THE SAME UNDERLYING ISSUE OF OUTDATED ZONING INFORMATION BEING USED DURING PERMIT EVALUATIONS.
THE BOARD MAY WISH TO CONSIDER TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING ITS CURRENT RULES ON CASE ASSIGNMENT FOR THESE RELATED CASES.
DOING SO COULD PROVIDE SEVERAL KEY BENEFITS.
THREE IN, OR EXCUSE ME, FOUR IN PARTICULAR.
UH, THE FIRST BEING CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL CASES.
GIVEN THAT THESE CASES ALL STEM FROM THE SAME UNDERLYING ISSUE, IT'S IMPORTANT THEY BE TREATED CONSISTENTLY.
ASSIGNING THESE CASES TO A SINGLE PANEL OR SUSPENDING THE USUAL CASE ASSIGNMENT RULES WILL HELP ENSURE THAT ALL AFFECTED PARTIES RECEIVE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION.
NUMBER TWO, FAIRNESS TO EFFECTIVE PARTIES.
THE HOMEOWNERS, DEVELOPERS, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IMPACTED BY THESE OVERSIGHTS DESERVE A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT PROCESS FOR RESOLVING THEIR CASES.
A UNIFORM APPROACH BY THE BOARD WILL HELP PREVENT DISCREPANCIES IN HOW SIMILAR CASES ARE HANDLED.
NUMBER THREE, EFFICIENCY IN CASE MANAGEMENT.
CENTRALIZING THE HANDLING OF THESE RELATED CASES COULD STREAMLINE THE BOARD'S WORKLOAD, REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFLICTING DECISIONS AND PREVENT UNNECESSARY DELAYS.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS APPROACH WOULD MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS IN NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NEED TO ATTEND.
MAKING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND FOCUSED.
AND FINALLY, RESTORING PUBLIC COMPETENCE.
[01:50:01]
COMMITTED TO BEST SERVING OUR COMMUNITY AND THE ERRORS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ELM THICKET NORTH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.BY SUSPENDING THE USUAL RULES ON CASE ASSIGNMENT AND ADOPTING A CONSISTENT APPROACH TO THESE CASES, THE BOARD WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO RESTORING PUBLIC TRUST IN THE CITY'S ZONING AND PERMITTING PROCESS.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS OPTION MAY PROVIDE A FAIR AND EFFECTIVE PATHWAY FOR RESOLVING THE CASES ARISING FROM THE CITY'S OVERSIGHTS IN PD 67.
SHOULD THE BOARD FIND THIS OPTION BE VIABLE, IT COULD PAY A, PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN ENSURING A CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE RESOLUTION FOR ALL AFFECTED PARTIES.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND PERSPECTIVE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, HEARING NO OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE BOARD TODAY.
UH, BOARD OF, UH, WE, OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH.
I DON'T KNOW, QUITE HONESTLY, IT'LL, IF IT'LL BE 10:00 AM OR 10:30 AM IT'LL DEPEND ON OUR CASELOAD WHEN I GET A CONFIRMATION OF THE, THE CASES ASSIGNED TO US.
UM, BUT, UH, IT'LL BE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17TH.
UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I DON'T HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I IS THE APP IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO CONSIDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES NOW BECAUSE THESE CASES WILL BE MATRICULATING THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND COULD BE.
THE, THE, WE'VE BEEN ADVISED BY OUR BOARD ATTORNEY THAT SUSPENSION OF THE RULES WOULD BE WITHIN THAT DAY'S PROCEEDINGS, NOT SUBSEQUENT OR PRE PRECEDING, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO HOW AND IF THAT WOULD HAPPEN? UH, I DON'T KNOW YET.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING I WILL GET BRIEFED BY THE BOARD ATTORNEY AS FAR AS WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE.
UM, OUR ROLE, OUR ROLE HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FAIR AND, UH, JUST AND I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT YET.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I I CORRECT, UN UNDERSTOOD THE COMMENTS.
I I COULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT, BUT I, I'M BEING ADVISED NOW THAT, THAT THERE MAY HAVE TO BE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT.
SO, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE FAIR AND, AND FAIR TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.
THE CITY, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, ALRIGHT, SO THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
A MR. KOVIC ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS ADJOURNED ON AUGUST 20TH, 2024 AT 3:25 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH.